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

Local Plan Spatial Options Consultation
Please find below the comments from Hockley parish Council regarding the Spatial Options consultation.
The need for housing is understood but many of the proposals in the Local Plan Consultation and the impact of over-development in Hockley are a major cause for concern, especially without evidence of supporting infrastructure. This initial consultation informs residents of landowners who have put forward sites for future development so there is a personal gain aspect here. Rochford District Council has a duty to actively support residents needs in all communities and influence
Government policies.
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 Themes not included - Cultural and Accessibility.
Vibrant Town Centres: Work actively with premises owners to assist in the re-letting of any empty shops. Maybe offer a reduced rent to new businesses as a start-up scheme for “local” business only – allowing the entrepreneurs in the Rochford District a chance to showcase their businesses. Discuss with 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.
Employment – District is lacking in Environmental services - woodland conservation and management. 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/apprenticeships to train all ages get back into work or upskill (with jobs at the end of training.) Developers should be encouraged to use local labour. 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 to future-proof our residents’ opportunities Improve Long-term Economic growth - Better road networks, gigabit broadband and Wi-Fi. The council should stop developing existing commercial land into housing.
Planned Forms of Housing: Young people/couples do indeed find it difficult to purchase property in Hockley. It is hoped that the new developments proposed will cater for their needs with more semi-detached properties than is now the case. The growing elderly population requiring
specialist/suitable accommodation need assistance. Many elderly single people are living in familysized homes when they would prefer more suitable accommodation such as bungalows or purpose-built flats. Mix of housing for “affordable“ properties with higher standards for gardens and recreational space. Consideration should be given to the provision of house for life, Adapted homes for the disabled, bungalows and other potential buildings for downsizing families. Housing
for the hidden homeless – those “sofa surfing” & Emergency housing. The plan makes no reference
to social housing quotas which should be included in all new developments. By working closely with planners and developers, as well as different charities and communities, residents, and businesses. You will then get a better understanding as to what you need and what will be achievable.
From 1st August it was announced that empty buildings and brownfield sites should be converted rather than build new. This alternative should be evaluated first.
Many development proposals would also mean a further reduction in air quality, light pollution and the loss of trees, farming, and arable land at a time when food production and supply is becoming a cause for concern.
Care needs to be taken to maintain the integrity of the existing settlements with respect to green boundary between Hockley and its neighbours. Essential green belt is being allowed to erode further (suggested land at north of Merryfields Avenue, Turret Farm, Church Road, land north east of Folly Lane, a number of sites on Greensward Lane, Lower Road and High Road) which will be impossible to replace.
Enforcement on unauthorised development is not adequately managed.
Local generation of low-carbon and renewable energy – It is encouraging to learn of Rochford
District Council’s intention to provide housing to meet the needs of both young and old that are
carbon neutral and energy efficient. New developments should be able to source some or all 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 to ascertain whether it is viable. Retrofitting existing housing and commercial buildings.
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 was intended. The volume of traffic has increased to an unacceptable level on the B1013
causing noise, air pollution and disturbance; Is the traffic survey up to date?. The main access to Hockley and on to Southend is via the B1013; one of the busiest ‘B’ roads in the country. It is difficult to understand how this already congested road could cope with the vehicles from another 1,000 houses in Hockley, let alone those from adjacent villages and towns. Rochford District is on
a peninsular: traffic can go no further than Southend especially with limited access to the north of the county via Battlesbridge. It is suggested the Council undertake a road traffic survey before continuing with the District Plan.
Good public transport links are crucial for our villages, neighbourhoods, and town centres. Hockley
benefits from being on the main Southend Victoria/Liverpool Street train line. Unfortunately its bus
service is not so efficient with the nos 7 and 8 services passing through the village from Southend to Rayleigh and vice versa twice an hour. Services to other parts of the district/county have to be accessed from these two termini. 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. Cycling infrastructure and other sustainable transport methods should be prioritised over a car-centric highway use.
Balancing access against increased congestion will be the issue for a lot of the promoted sites in Hockley. If RDC keep adding small developments to the boundaries of the town, it will overcrowd existing houses and add to urban sprawl.
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.
Community infrastructure - Community infrastructure should be preserved and extended.
Access to town centres and secondary shopping by bicycle and foot should be made easier and safer. Hockley 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. Hockley is served by two GP practices, as has been the case for 50 years or more. Hockley’s health clinic closed in the last few years and
young mothers and the elderly have to travel to Rayleigh for medical attention. What are the plans for additional health services in line with the vastly increased population should the plan be enforced?. 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 current recycling site at Castle Road, Rayleigh 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.
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. Unfortunately for the youth of Hockley, there is no sports field they can use in the village. The District Plan does mention the use of the Greensward Playfield and it is to be hoped this will be progressed. The District Plan places great emphasis on health and wellbeing. Fortunately Hockley is well served with a network of footpaths. It is important that they
are maintained and not encroached upon by development All green spaces, no matter how small, hold some significance, especially to those who use them
for recreation. They are of 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. RDC must protect all recreational spaces
and improve them, where necessary.
Conservation areas, Green Belt & 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.
RDC to focus on concerns and consideration to wildlife, birds, animals, and insects. Alongside plants and endangered species. Surrounded by Green Belt, Hockley is lucky in having access to a number of open spaces. It is noted that the Marylands Nature Reserve is included in The District Plan but not Plumberow Mount Open Space or St Peter’s Road Open Space – all maintained by the Parish Council. Marylands Woods, Plumberow Woods, Crabtree Woods, Hockley Hall Woods and nearby
Beckney Woods are all ancient woodland but in private hands. It would be of great benefit to the community if they were included in the Local Plan and protected for the future. Betts Wood and, of course, Hockley Woods are in the care of the RDC. With so much development, it is obvious that flora and fauna will suffer. Consideration should be given to identifying further green spaces (not just play areas) for public use. Efforts should be
made to ensure wild-life corridors are incorporated into developments near to woods and open countryside.
Heritage
The District Plan contains a list of conservation areas. It is disappointing to note that St Peter and Pauls’ Church, Church Road and adjacent buildings (the old school house, Hockley Hall, Mill House and the former rectory) does not appear. In the surrounding green belt, it is constantly under threat and it would be a tremendous loss to the community should this historic part of the
village be developed.
Plumberow Mount (a Romano/British tumulus) does not appear in the document as an ancient monument.
Promoted Sites (Hockley)
The plan proposes around 1000 additional houses in Hockley with other developments on land bordering the parish. This density will have a major detrimental impact on the quality of life for the settlements.
• 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.
• The Merryfields Avenue (green belt) proposal has been previously rejected by residents due to access issues as the land borders on the Nature Reserve and footpath 13. Consideration should be given to incorporating it into the Reserve rather than releasing it for development. The owner of the tract of land has made a few unsuccessful planning applications in the past on account of the threat to local wildlife, impact on ancient woodland, lack of access, the danger of flooding from the nearby stream and run off from the road. The cost effectiveness of providing access and services could prove to be exorbitant along with any damage incurred on the nearby
Nature Reserve, better that the land become part of the Reserve.
• Proposals for Folly Chase and Church Road will increase density and give further traffic problems on a busy county access road which has light industry and equestrian centres but does not have footways for pedestrian safety; vehicles are also subject to dangerous line of sight restrictions. The Folly Chase proposal was previously rejected by residents and supposedly dismissed by RDC but still appears in the Local Plan for development. The land to the north east of Folly Chase is adjacent to ancient woodland with protected trees (Betts Wood).
To the west of the site there is a green lane bordered with ancient trees which should be protected if development takes place. There is no public access to the site and there is concern that the adjacent community centre could be sacrificed for this purpose. What are the plans for the Community Centre and public footpaths which must be retained?
• Sheltered accommodation is in danger of being lost at Lime Court and Poplar Court.
• The proposal for development on land at Belchamps is particularly contentious due to the lack of open space for activities available to youngsters and community groups in the Rochford District. Any considered development would be a detrimental impact to the Historical
woodlands. This site has been a very valuable well used resource and it is important this is retained for our future generations.
• As 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.
These comments will be publicised on the Parish Council website, I would be grateful if you could do the same on the Rochford District Council website.

RDC have launched their Spatial Options Consultation to the residents of Rochford District for comment on proposed sites to be brought forward for housing development to meet proposed numbers of new housing to be built .


The question must be asked WHY this is happening prior to ECC Highways Study being commenced and a report compiled. Is this not against Government guidelines? Highways are a major consideration and huge concern to most residents in the district. RDC should not or cannot make any kind of plan or recommendation to its officers until capacity of the local road network has been reviewed. Any possible proposed extension or changes to the network must have guaranteed Central Government Funding in place before any further consideration for further building is planned.

Local infrastructure is not fit for use.

The current road network is already under severe strain with current car movements. Recently RDC made a decision to refuse the proposed Bloor development in Ashingdon. “In the absence of a definition of severe it is for the local authority to determine whether a severe impact would result and in this case it considered that the development would result in severe impact on the local highway network”

By definition RDC has acknowledged that the road network throughout the area does not have capacity to take on increased capacity through mass development.

Of particular concern to us is site Field CFS064. This site is constrained by existing housing. The only possible access being through woodland in Manor Road or Folly Chase, a private road which is a public footpath. The site is also boarded by a public footpath. Loss of amenity to the local community would be catastrophic. The site would feed out on the B1013 already running at well over capacity.

Rochford district is constrained by its location. Located on a peninsula it is bordered by the River Crouch, areas of SSI, ancient woodland, Green belt and the proximity of the coast. Railway bridges built up to 120 years ago constrain movement on roads in at least five locations on the network. All, but one, have height restrictions. None allow easy movement of two opposing cars passing, one is one way only.

The road system running through the district is ancient in many places. Indeed the Ashingdon Road having been laid out and originally built by The Romans. Maps dating from the 18th century show most major roads, e.g. the B1013, having a layout which still exists in 2021. Housing, shops and businesses have been built along their borders allowing
no capacity for expansion. We no longer see the stagecoach bound for Southend, two donkeys, a haycart and the odd child on a bicycle moving along these roads each day compared to the number of vehicle movements now seen.

Lower Road and Watery Lane are used as major or main routes in and out of the district into and out of Southend, Chelmsford and beyond.

The following areas are also of significant concern to me as a resident all being at or close to saturation point with demand from the current population.

An aging and vulnerable services system. Water, drains, sewage, (one recent development was actually completed without sewage systems being in place) gas, electricity and communication networks. E.g., Recent catastrophic water main collapse in The Hullbridge Road due to aged pipes.

Roads which are no longer fit for purpose. Many and multiply needs for repair, maintenance upgrade and extension causing broken surfaces and most significantly constant road closure or restrictions. County Highways seems to deem the district way down on its list for repairs and maintenance.

The severe risk to life and property should any major, or minor, emergence occur necessitating
the need for multiple emergency services, fire, ambulance, police to attend at peak times where roads are blocked or at capacity. On street parking is also a huge issue in many areas. Grid lock throughout the district ensues almost immediately any accident occurs or road work(s) are in place.

Existing Schools are at capacity with most being in locations where it would be difficult or impossible to increase their footprint. E.g. Rochford Primary. None of the proposed developments come with any plan for new schools, or any room to build them. Current approved development has necessitated the movement of children to school in adjoining villages due to lack of planning or capacity locally, resulting in increased car movements at peak times and pollution issues.

Doctors’ surgeries are at capacity and placed under further strain by the difficulty of recruiting GP’s

Local Hospital capacity is at breaking point

Environmental issues are not mentioned or considered. Building on flood plain, lost green belt areas, loss of habitat. Existing roads or areas already exceeding approved pollution levels. This I believe must also be the case for most main roads in the area, if not all, especially during rush hours due to standing traffic.

For ALL the above reasons no additional housing should be considered until a full and comprehensive environmental study is carried out and analysed.

RDC have launched their Spatial Options Consultation to the residents of Rochford District for comment on proposed sites to be brought forward for housing development to meet proposed numbers of new housing to be built .


The question must be asked WHY this is happening prior to ECC Highways Study being commenced and a report compiled. Is this not against Government guidelines? Highways are a major consideration and huge concern to most residents in the district. RDC should not or cannot make any kind of plan or recommendation to its officers until capacity of the local road network has been reviewed. Any possible proposed extension or changes to the network must have guaranteed Central Government Funding in place before any further consideration for further building is planned.

Local infrastructure is not fit for use.

The current road network is already under severe strain with current car movements. Recently RDC made a decision to refuse the proposed Bloor development in Ashingdon. “In the absence of a definition of severe it is for the local authority to determine whether a severe impact would result and in this case it considered that the development would result in severe impact on the local highway network”

By definition RDC has acknowledged that the road network throughout the area does not have capacity to take on increased capacity through mass development.

Of particular concern to us is site Field CFS064. This site is constrained by existing housing. The only possible access being through woodland in Manor Road or Folly Chase, a private road which is a public footpath. The site is also boarded by a public footpath. Loss of amenity to the local community would be catastrophic. The site would feed out on the B1013 already running at well over capacity.

Rochford district is constrained by its location. Located on a peninsula it is bordered by the River Crouch, areas of SSI, ancient woodland, Green belt and the proximity of the coast. Railway bridges built up to 120 years ago constrain movement on roads in at least five locations on the network. All, but one, have height restrictions. None allow easy movement of two opposing cars passing, one is one way only.

The road system running through the district is ancient in many places. Indeed the Ashingdon Road having been laid out and originally built by The Romans. Maps dating from the 18th century show most major roads, e.g. the B1013, having a layout which still exists in 2021. Housing, shops and businesses have been built along their borders allowing
no capacity for expansion. We no longer see the stagecoach bound for Southend, two donkeys, a haycart and the odd child on a bicycle moving along these roads each day compared to the number of vehicle movements now seen.

Lower Road and Watery Lane are used as major or main routes in and out of the district into and out of Southend, Chelmsford and beyond.

The following areas are also of significant concern to me as a resident all being at or close to saturation point with demand from the current population.

An aging and vulnerable services system. Water, drains, sewage, (one recent development was actually completed without sewage systems being in place) gas, electricity and communication networks. E.g. Recent catastrophic water main collapse in The Hullbridge Road due to aged pipes.

Roads which are no longer fit for purpose. Many and multiply needs for repair, maintenance upgrade and extension causing broken surfaces and most significantly constant road closure or restrictions. County Highways seems to deem the district way down on its list for repairs and maintenance.

The severe risk to life and property should any major, or minor, emergence occur necessitating
the need for multiple emergency services, fire, ambulance, police to attend at peak times where roads are blocked or at capacity. On street parking is also a huge issue in many areas. Grid lock throughout the district ensues almost immediately any accident occurs or road work(s) are in place.

Existing Schools are at capacity with most being in locations where it would be difficult or impossible to increase their footprint. E.g. Rochford Primary. None of the proposed developments come with any plan for new schools, or any room to build them. Current approved development has necessitated the movement of children to school in adjoining villages due to lack of planning or capacity locally, resulting in increased car movements at peak times and pollution issues.

Doctors surgeries are at capacity and placed under further strain by the difficulty of recruiting GP’s

Local Hospital capacity is at breaking point

Environmental issues are not mentioned or considered. Building on flood plain, lost green belt areas, loss of habitat. Existing roads or areas already exceeding approved pollution levels. This I believe must also be the case for most main roads in the area, if not all, especially during rush hours due to standing traffic.

For ALL the above reasons no additional housing should be considered until a full and comprehensive environmental study is carried out and analysed.

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

[CFS027, CFS098, CFS086, CFS029, CFS053]

I am writing to strongly oppose the developments proposed by Rochford District Council (reference numbers above)

Firstly, I would like to comment on the completely unsuitable, archaic and alienating online 'comment' system you have created that is supposedly 'straightforward'. You claim it is the 'quick[est] and [most] efficient method for submitting comments'. I have never encountered such an inefficient online form (there are over 100 questions!! What part of that is quick and efficient?!!), and think it poses a huge barrier to those who are perhaps less computer literate or to be honest, anyone who has ever used an online portal for anything - ever. This is hugely problematic, as the details of a project that will affect so many, will be reviewed by only the very few who have hours to navigate your suggested ‘streamlined’ portal. Not inclusive or accessible at all.

Secondly, and perhaps my most pressing reason for objection is the complete 'tone deaf' attitude Rochford Council appear to have for the environment and climate change. The weighting given to climate related issues in this proposal is not aligned anywhere near to what is expected as we experience a global climate crisis. Housing currently accounts for around 15% of the UKs green house has emissions. Building more homes will only exacerbate this. This doesn’t account for any of the devastating impacts incurred through the loss of biodiversity and natural habitats, increased land, water and air pollution - and no these issues aren’t mitigated by ‘carefully mapping’ areas not to build on, or by creating new ‘wildlife spaces’ in the development plans. The issues are ‘mitigated’ by not developing at all.

More developments in Rayleigh/Rochdord will also result in more cars on the road. This will in turn result in greater levels of congestion, noise pollution and increase the level of carbon emissions entering the atmosphere. I’m not entirely sure how this project aligns with the governments net zero ambitions or the global aims of keeping global heating below 1.5 degrees…

The extreme proposal will see Rayleigh transformed to a traffic ridden, polluted and over crowded town, where current infrastructure simply will not support this vast expansion into green spaces!

Strongly oppose this proposal and hope it does not go ahead.

Introduction

The purpose of this letter is to provide my feedback to your current public consultation .

I appreciate the hard work that you have put in at the time of the pandemic in putting this together.

I also appreciate the difficulties that the District Planners face, given the current hiatus in the governments new approach to planning, plus given the difficulties in predicting what our economic future will be post-pandemic.


Comments on the Consultation itself

For a public consultation it seemed very technical and full of planning jargon, rather than being written in plain English.

In my view there were far too many questions. At times these read more like a set of examination questions about Spatial Planning rather than a public consultation.

Questions written by experts for experts to answer, with lots of references to “showing your reasoning”. This gave them an off-putting rather than engaging appearance.

Please note therefore that in providing this response I have followed specific Section / Chapter headings rather than reply to each individual question asked.


District Profile

Population Statistics = a strange change of approach.

Population growth statistics are probably the most important single metric in the whole planning document, yet you have chosen to abandon the parish based method shown in the current plan (2011) and the previous options paper (2018), replacing instead with the vaguely defined Settlements table.

Presenting a confusing and contradictory picture

I found your approach here very confusing.

You have rolled parishes up and/or split them into different units making comparison difficult, compromising the consistency of the information provided, thereby making understanding the figures significantly more difficult.

For example your 2018 paper showed the population of Great Wakering as 5587 and Barling Magna as 1740, giving an total of 7327.

Yet your current stats show a rolled up total of 6225. These imply that the population has shrunk by over 1000 people, which is definitely not the case. Such shifting sands provide no firm basis for robust and rigorous analysis or decision making.

Use proper hard credible metrics

The current table is confusing and not based on a solid administrative foundation = the Civil Parishes.

I suggest you return to using a standard consistent basis for showing population change by using the current administrative parishes for these figures, splitting them below Parish as you think necessary to show specific locations (Stonebridge/Sutton, Little Wakering)

By all means use this in addition to Parish statistics but not instead of the Parish ones, because they are the unit of financial disbursement of Council tax precepts.

And here as a starting point instead of using estimated growth, you should have solid figures for every year up to the current one, based on the disbursement of precept year-on-year from the District to each Civil Parish which I understand is based on the population for each Parich.

A suggested alternative

I would produce a table as suggested below showing figures for each Civil Parish within the District

2011 census figures 2018 Precept figures estimated precept figures, , for 2023*
* to reflect position as at 2023 = the start of the new plan.

Figures should include known and agreed developments already taking place and likely to be completed by that date, for example in Great Wakering = Star Lane Brickworks (100+ dwellings), land South of High Street / West of Little Wakering Road = 250 dwellings =

= an overall village population increase of some 500+ residents.


Presenting your figures in this way should give you, your council members, and the residents a much clearer, more rigorous, more robust, less abstract, more understandable and more justifiable and defensible basis for this particular round of the new District Plan, than using only the table as currently shown.


Spatial Strategy Options

Option 3a = the best strategic solution

Option 3a based to west of Rayleigh is the only sensible place to put the bulk of the new dwellings, based on its proximity to the A127 / A130 corridor, the ONLY major road links into / out of the District.

This option assumes that ECC can actually start doing something about improving the Fairglen interchange rather than just talking about it.

Here it can be noted that since the date of the last local plan in 2011, Southend Unitary Authority has done 3 significant changes to the A127 junctions (Cuckoo Corner, Kent Elms and currently The Bell ), while the County seems to have done little for the road users in the District at all. Certainly nothing of note to the roads between Rochford and GW.

Unless a major new road is built into the District to relive the increasing pressure on East / West travel in / out of the District, and this is a highly unlikely development in the next 20 years at least, then approving new developments away from the two major arterial routes referred to above, to elsewhere in the District, just places further burdens on the already over-stretched and over-stressed largely minor road network in the rest of the District, and the further east you go the worse it gets.

Such poor travel links as well as being a burden on residents also compromises the ability to attract into and keep business in the area.

Option 2 is tactical not strategic

Option 2 of just “bolting-on” more and more developments at the tactical level on the side of existing locations is not the answer because this approach delivers none of the benefits that a strategic solution, with planned-in transport, digital, education, health and other essential infrastructure, would bring.


Spatial Themes - suggested additions

Waste and Recycling

I didn’t see many specific references to this subject.

It is strange because the District has much to be proud of in promoting recycling through the weekly bin collection.

In comparison the County provision is poor. For GW residents with items to recycle, a 20mile+ round trip to the Rayleigh tip is the only option. The monthly "in village" collection only covers non-recyclables.

If districts are to deliver on their agendas it is time the County did it’s bit to improve and extend such facilities. Make it easy to recycle and people will recycle, as the District has successfully proved, time and again


Digital Infrastructure

Given its importance to every aspect of modern life, I would add a specific subject here i.e. the need to upgrade digital facilities and telecommunications capability across the district, especially for existing remoter areas.

For example, you will only be able to deliver the digital health facilities you mention, if there is sufficient connectivity and bandwidth to do so. Yet much of GW’s telecoms infrastructure is still through copper wire carried by telegraph poles.

Integrating this infrastructure is much easier for new developments, but plans need also to be put in place to modernize the existing infrastructure throughout the District as well.



Green Belt Policy

Worryingly your paper talks about “less valuable Green Belt”. I’m not sure what this is or who decides which bits are more or less valuable.

Given that in West Great Wakering, the two major developments approved under the current plan, plus the proposed new business park, have already eroded this green belt buffer.

If you are serious about maintaining the character of the village, to ensure that GW remains “vibrant and distinctive’, to deliver on your excellently worded “Draft Vision", will require you to vigorously and robustly defend the village from further developmental incursions into the village’s surrounding Green Belt land. In particular, to ensure it is not subsumed into other neighbouring areas, especially North Shoebury, by avoiding the threat of such coalescence.


Bio-Diversity

Wildlife / natural environment pretty much goes hand in hand with a strong adherence to Green Belt policy. Your recognition of the valuable role played by Star Lane LWS / local Geological site is welcomed but it will be placed under considerable stress if what remains of the Green Belt in WGW is further eroded.


Spatial Themes - Flood Risk

Most of the flood prevention measures refers to maritime flooding, but recent climate events have shown increasing vulnerability to extreme pluvial flooding events as well.

Paving over more Green Belt especially in those areas where significant new building has already taken / is currently taking place, further increases this risk. This is especially so in low-lying areas, as precious soak-aways have been lost and it becomes a vicious circle = more building = less natural ground = more risk of flooding as previously robust and resilient locations lose that capability and become unable to cope with heavy rainfall.

Building more new homes on flood risk areas will just leave new residents unable to get flood insurance and puts existing residents at increased risk as well, as existing mains drainage of varying age and vintage is found to be inadequate.


Transport and Connectivity

Public Transport

A lot of fine words with virtually no chance of being delivered.

The inverted pyramid is fine in theory but fails in practice because the public transport links from/to GW are so poor.

Since the previous plan the foreign-owned Arriva Bus Company has got rid of the main service 4/4A, pretty much a dedicated service to and from the village to Southend, and replaced it by the much poorer extended 7 /8 service. This change seriously compromised its convenience, punctuality, reliability so much so that people have left the village because of it. I used to use the old service a lot, the replacement has sent me back to my car.

Put the 4 / 4A (or an equivalent) back on and see if it persuades private car drivers to get back on the bus, because although Stephenson’s 14 service is much better than Arriva's, = more reliable / punctual, it runs less frequently, So using a car is so much more convenient, comfortable and reliable than current public transport options.

And as for Sundays, the service has been cut it back to only a 2 hourly service = 4 buses for the whole day in each direction. This is no way to incentivise anyone to move from car to bus, unless you have absolutely no other means of transport at all.

Walking

Walking within the village is OK but to go beyond it, forget it, until significant upgrade to pavements and road crossings in the area are made.

For example, the Star Lane / Poynters Lane junction is a horror-show. To encourage more people to walk, they need to feel safe doing so. A significant upgrade to current pavements out of the village would be required to deliver on this agenda, but in the last 10 years under the current plan nothing has happened to improve this aspect at all.

This paper is full of fine words and aspirations. But as was the current plan, sadly it is just all words and no action, in spite of the fact that developments in the area which might have been expected to bring such improvements, but have so far not delivered them.


Conclusion

I trust this is satisfactory and you find these comments of use.

Thank you for providing residents with the opportunity to comment on the future of the District.

I look forward to receiving details of the future development of the plans for the District'


The following occurred to me at lunchtime today, for possible inclusion under the Spatial Themes heading.

Electronic Car Charging

The government has stated its intention to promote the adoption of electronic car use, by phasing out the building of new petrol and diesel based vehicles.

This initiative is due to come into effect during the lifetime of the new District plan.

To be succesful it will require the installation of potentially significant amounts of charging facilities and supporting infrastructure.

This will present the District with significant Planning challenges:

1. to ensure that ALL new developments have sufficient car charging facilities and capability, built-in from the very start of the Planning process for such developments

2 this will include ensuring that the requisite electrical supply and delivery capability exists for individual dwellings, shared dwellings, other types of premises e.g. garages, retail, business premises.

additional electrical supply infrastructure might also be needed to be planned in here.

3 consideration of the impact of these rerquirerments on the existing installed base of all types of residential, business, retail, community premises.

this will be easier in some places which have their own private driveways, parking facilities, etc.

but it will present a considerable challenge for older properties, especially residential premises with on-street parking in narrow car-crowded streets, where parking outside ones own property might be difficult.

4. this would argue for the development, location and installation of community charging facilities, all of which will need to be planned for.

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.

pages on your website I feel I have to respond. Whilst I have wider concerns than those regarding just the two sites above I think it is to be accepted that due to Government policy significant development has to happen somewhere within the boundaries of RDC. My purpose in writing this response , however, is to advise the council of specific issues affecting the two specific sites identified in the header and to request their removal from the Plan and any subsequent consultation stages. Indeed not only should site CFS064 be removed from the development pan, it should be earmarked for protection in accordance with RDCs own objectives detailed within the plan.

My concerns are as detailed below

Material Planning Concern regarding Access-re sites CFS064 and CFS264
The only apparent access to both sites appears to be via Folly Chase, a small unadopted road off of the already congested and unsuitable Folly Lane. Folly Lane itself has seen an unreasonable increase in traffic as it is used to access the recent new housing developments in Pond Chase and Church Road as well as the previously existing housing estate. It is now seeing additional increases in traffic flow caused by the significant housing development in Hullbridge as it is the only direct two way road access from Hullbridge to Hockley. The road is frequently difficult to get through with parked cars along both sides and heavier traffic flows in both directions. This is not helped by it’s layout with three 90 degree bends and one c 45 degree bend along its relatively short length. These bends are difficult for larger traffic, especially the type of traffic used in construction, and a drain cover on one bend is broken several times a year by lorries having to ride up on to the kerb in order to get around the bend. Generally the speed of the ‘through’ traffic is too high and I have witnessed many near misses on the bends as vehicles either cut the corners or are forced to breach the centre of the road due to parked cars. A serious head on accident is now inevitable down this road, and the prospect of further development off of it will make matters even worse as the scale of the housing for the two sites identified in the plan would equate to approximately another 500 cars using Folly Lane just to access the developed sites. This would likely equate to an average of approximately 1000 to 2000 extra car movements a day on a road that is already inadequate.

A far as Folly Chase is concerned it is so limited in its capacity that it simply cannot be deemed suitable for access for either construction traffic or the eventual increase in residential access traffic. The Chase is not a through road, terminating at a footpath leading into designated Ancient Woodland, carrying HC1 Wildlife Site designation. Folly Chase has no significant base as it was unmade until the 1980s. The current road has been constructed and maintained by the Folly Chase Road Frontagers Committee on behalf of residents. A layer of bitumen and gravel was utilised over a thin layer of type 1 hardcore that is sufficient for the low traffic flow associated with 25 houses and no through access, but will simply not support construction traffic or the flows commensurate with the potential development. The road itself has no surface drainage features, gullies, gutters or drains so all water runs over the surface to the bottom of the road. There are no footpaths, nor is there space to construct footpaths and is approximately only 9 feet wide at its narrowest point and cannot support two way traffic. The existing housing water, and gas supplies are very shallow beneath the surface and any increase in heavy traffic will almost certainly cause collapse of these and there are numerous points where the existing sewage pipes cross the road, again, at a very shallow depth and would be extremely vulnerable to increased traffic flows.

The recent adjacent Pond Chase development has well known problems with regards to access to sewerage, and whilst this is now complete and running it should be noted that the bored line of drains that traverse the bottom of Folly Chase from Pond Chase, across to the field that is site CFS064 to the Hockley Community centre have already caused significant sinking of our road surface. The nearby development in Church Road has also had significant sewage and surface water issues and any further development adding onto the existing surface water and sewage infrastructure will only increase the pressure on existing infrastructure, potentially to the point of failure, with significant public health concerns.

Folly Chase is Private Road with an undefined Public Footpath running down it. Ownership of the road isn’t registered and absent any contrary evidence each land owner owns up to the mid- point of the road. There are some private rights of way that have been established by usage and by deed, but it is apparent that the ownership issue is complex and fragmented and that my discussions with many residents shows the large majority would be unwilling to enter into any negotiation to depart from current use and access.


Green Belt- ref site CFS064
The land in question forms part of the Metropolitan Green belt. Such land can only be developed for ‘Exceptional circumstances’ as detailed in the Planning Policy Guidance Note 2 (PPG2), and states in para 143 that Inappropriate development is by definition harmful to Green Belt’’ and in Para 145 that ‘’A local planning authority should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in the Green Belt. Exceptions to this are’’ ;


a. Agriculture and Forestry.
The outline proposal is for residential development thus condition is not satisfied. Indeed any development would actually be in direct opposition to this as the land is already prime agricultural arable land and is actively farmed.

b. Essential facilities for outdoor sport and recreation.
The site already includes a football pitches at the Community Centre, the Community Centre itself and is widely used for walking, dog walking, running and cycling. The outline proposals would diminish the provision of outdoor sport and recreation and this condition cannot therefore be satisfied by any housing development.

c. and d. Limited extension and/or alteration of existing buildings.
Other than the Community Centre there are no existing buildings within the site. The Community Centre itself still has a long unexpired lease and development of it fails the test above in any case. This condition cannot be fulfilled

e . Limited Infilling.
The Local Plan allocation site reference 179 states that the land could be used for up to 265 dwellings. This is anything but ‘limited’ and this condition cannot be fulfilled

f. Limited affordable Housing
Again the size of the potential development is anything but limited. Condition cannot be met.

g. Limited infilling or redevelopment of previously developed land.
This land has not been previously developed and condition cannot be met.


Paragraph 136 of the National Planning Policy Framework lays out that ‘exceptional circumstances’ must be met for any consideration of changing existing Green Belt boundaries. Paragraph 137 specifically states that ‘’the…authority should be able to demonstrate that it has examined all other reasonable options for meeting its identified need for development. …..and whether the strategy…. Makes as much use as possible of suitable brownfield sites and underutilized land’’

From the above it is clear that the site cannot be considered any further for housing development as to do so contravenes existing Metropolitan Green Belt legislation. The site should be removed from the development plan.


Local Wildlife Sites and Incorrect identification of their proximity to the site CFS064.
An additional contravention of Policy to the Green belt restrictions is that the site is in ‘close proximity’ to 3 Local Wildlife Sites (LoWs) namely, Betts Wood, Folly Wood and Hockley Hall-South Wood. These are all designated a minimum of HC1 (ancient Woodland) and have further designations. Folly Wood occupies most of the southern boundary of the site, Betts Wood most of the eastern boundary and Hockley Hall-South Wood circa half of the northern boundary. It should be noted that there is a strip of woodland joining Folly Wood and Hockley Hall-South Wood along the entire western perimeter and this may mean that these two LoWs are in fact one larger site. It is important to point out that the Site Allocation Assessment Criteria fails to mention the ‘close proximity’ of the LoWs and that it is vital that this is noted by RDC. This omission must render the Site Allocation Assessment as invalid, and that the site should not have passed the first stage consultation as a consequence.

The ’Buffer Zones’ that would be required at the perimeter of the LOWs and around the mature veteran Oak trees within the site would reduce the available land suitable for development significantly and render the site uneconomic.

The LoWs mentioned above, and the immediate surrounding environment, including the field detailed in site CFS 064 support a rich and varied population , indeed such woodland is recognized as providing the most diverse and important habitats in the UK and is already limited to just 550,000 Hectares across the entire UK.
The LoWs assessments do not detail many resident species but the following can/have been found in and around these sites and the site in question; Grass snakes, Adders, Slow Worms and Common Lizards , Common Frogs, Toads, Smooth Newts, Great Crested Newts, Badgers, Foxes, Muntjac Deer, Buzzards, Sparrow Hawks, Merlin, Tawny Owls, Little Owls, Nightjar, Blue Tits, Great Tits, Long Tail Tits, Coal Tits, Willow Warblers, Chiff Chaff, Blackcap, Blackbirds, Song Thrush, Goldfinch, Greenfinch, Chaffinch, Yellowhammer, Nuthatch, Swallow, Swift, House Martin, Crow, Jackdaw, Magpie, Jay, Rook, Coot, Moorhen, Cuckoo, Dunnock, Wren, Fieldfare, Lapwing, Redwing, Goldcrest, Great Spotted Woodpecker, Green Woodpecker, Lesser Spotted Woodpecker, Grey Heron, Pied Wagtail, Grey Wagtail, House Sparrow, Kestrel, Linnet, Nightingale, Meadow Pipit, Robin, Skylark, Starling and significant numbers of unidentified bats over the field and in the gardens of Folly Chase at night suggest a colony within Folly and/or Betts Woods. Rich flora, especially Bluebells and significant insect species including Wood Ant colonies.

This incredibly diverse range of species rely on the tree and plant species found in Ancient Woodland and on arable farmland. They require free movement between sites and the field, and the large mature Oaks within it, provide essential movement corridors between the three identified LoWs sites. Any development in the field in the center of these three LoWs can only have a massive detrimental effect on the population, and the existing richness and diversity proves this is a site that should be preserved, not destroyed. Consideration for development must cease forthwith.

The ’standing advice’ of the Government in this regard is found within Natural England and Forestry Commission guidance ( https://www.gov.uk/guidance/ancient-woodland-and-veteran-trees-protection-surveys-licences). Standing Advice is a ’Material planning consideration’. Ancient Woodllands have equal protection in the National planning Policy Framework.


We draw attention to the RDC’s own statements regarding potential development within the Local Plan document. The plan clearly states that one of it’s key objectives is ‘’for meeting future needs (including housing….). It will also identify areas for protection, such as sites that are important for wildlife and open space.’’ The RDC have failed in their policy objective and in following correct process that there is a failure to even identify the proximity of the LoWs detailed above in the Site Allocation Assessment Criteria.
Rather than the site be considered for development, we have shown that it should be identified for protection in accordance with the Local Plan objectives and that it should be removed from the development plan and placed in a protection plan.

Infrastructure- both sites
I have detailed my concerns above regarding the inadequate infrastructure in respect of local roads, access and drainage and sewerage. In addition it is quite clear that other local services are already struggling and would simply be unable to cope with an increase in the local population of approximately 1000 people based on the estimated development potential of the two sites. Local schools, GP surgeries and wider health care have been under significant pressure for many years. Limited local car parking inhibits local trade ( it should be noted that there are several sites used for car parking included in the site allocation potentially limiting it further) and the main Southend/Hockley/Rayleigh Road is far too frequently jammed back to Hawkwell and Hambro Hill. There is no room for dedicated bus lanes or cycle lanes along this main corridor so whatever thoughts there may be regarding increasing public transport usage or cycling are simply pie in the sky and not feasible. The main road simply cannot cope with any more traffic arising from increased housing.

Reduction of Quality Arable farming land-CFS064
I am concerned the Plan may well reduce the acreage available for arable farming. What measures have the council made to ensure we have sufficient acreage available for farming use to enable us to keep feeding ourselves?

Impact on the landscape and community
It is clear that any development at site CFS064 would have a significantly detrimental effect on the environment, biodiversity and the visible appearance of the site. The visual impact will destroy the character of the site and it’s surroundings and the increase in population and traffic would destroy the culture of the existing community within Folly Chase.

Spatial Options Document 2021
Whilst I agree with the Vision Statement for Hockley as detailed in the SOD I cannot see how the proposed development sites would achieve the stated vision. Surely any further development would conflict with the entire Vision Statement, other than the one regarding affordable housing, but as we have seen on numerous occasions building more houses does not link directly to improved affordable housing allocations as builders charge increasingly higher prices. Surely a Central Government led policy on house pricing/profits is the answer?

Q58e asks re the significance of the ‘local green spaces’ but makes no mention of the Local Wildlife Sites. These should be equally regarded and are very significant. I have heard that CFS064 could be considered for re wilding. If so, with it’s close proximity to LoWs it could become an education centre or Country park, accessible to many by foot and cycle. It therefore does need protecting form development as it would help increase the land locally t comply with the Vision Statement and improve the environment and bio diversity for the benefit of the local community.

More Suitable Sites
My introduction acknowledged the need for some developments to comply with Government policy. There is a consensus that Hockley itself cannot cope with more development in the immediate vicinity but the Plan includes sites on the western fringes of the district that are clearly more suitable . The following sites CFS146,147,167,144,168,145,137,055,121 all have far easier access, room to provide additional social infrastructure as well as housing, better transport and potential for more transport hubs, and would keep the majority of traffic away from the existing congested community of Hockley and Hawkwell, and prevent a commensurate increase in pollution, noise and general inconvenience.

Conclusion
As can be seen form my concerns detailed above , sites CFS064 and CFS264 should be removed form the next stage. They are simply not suitable when there are many more sites which would ‘score’ much better under a wide range of development considerations.

Thank you for your time in reading our response

Re: Rochford District Council, New Local Plan: Spatial Options Consultation Paper 2021
Consultation regarding the proposed Spatial Options identified by Rochford District Council identifying the
range of challenges and opportunities relating the proposed growth within the Rochford District over the
next 20 years.
Essex Police welcome the opportunity from a designing out crime and crime suppression perspective to comment on the Rochford District Councils – New Local Plan: Spatial Options Consultation Paper 2021.
After review of the documentation, the ‘Essex Police – Designing out Crime Office’ (DOCO) would wish to raise the below for further consideration and would welcome further consultation regarding the below observations.
Please note that it wouldn’t be appropriate for Essex Police to make comment on questions that are commercially sensitive or where the question relates to a specialism outside of the Designing out Crime remit.

Q2. Do you agree with our draft vision for Rochford District?
Essex Police value the importance of addressing the natural environment and health and wellbeing within communities and would request embedding within the vision statement, a focus on promoting and designing a safer community. Implementing designing out crime measures will ensure a sustainable community, where crime is designed out, promoting a feeling of safety.
Appreciative of the holistic vision, Essex Police would welcome the embodiment of ‘safe and secure’ concepts within the vision for Rochford and embedded within such Strategic Documentation. Such an inclusion will ensure that safety has been considered within new proposed allocations.

Q4. Do you agree with the strategic priorities and objectives we have identified?
With regard to the specific strategic priorities and objectives, Essex Police have the following comments and observations:
Strategic Objection No. 5:
Consideration of adopting the principles and accreditation to SBD Schools.
Strategic Objection No. 6:
We would recommend seeking accreditation to SBD Homes and application of CPTED principles throughout the design lifecycle.
Strategic Objection No. 9: Please see the response to Question 51 regarding embedding sustainable transport links
Strategic Objection No. 10:
Essex Police would advocate adopting the ‘Safe Roads Approach’ when designing road infrastructure to ensure the safety of all road users.
Strategic Objection No. 11
Consideration is required to ensure the design embeds the appropriate level of permeability with connectivity
Strategic Objection No. 14
We would recommend the completion of a Health Impact
Assessment, (further information can be found within Q8)
Strategic Objection No. 17
The Essex Police DOCOwelcome the inclusion within this Strategic Objection of engaging with the ‘designing out crime’ team to ensure that all ‘new developments and the public realm are well designing and safe environments’.
Strategic Objection No. 18
Consideration of adopting the principles and accreditation to SBD Schools.
Strategic Objection No. 22 Please see the response to Question 43 regarding heritage and the built environment.
The Essex Police DOCO would welcome when designing safe and secure environments adopting Secured by Design (SBD)principles. As the preferred enabler to mitigate crime, Essex Police advocate both applying ‘Crime Prevention through Environmental Design’ (CPTED) principles and seeking the various accreditations incorporated within the applicable SBD schemes.

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

Constructing well designed places, buildings and communities that promote both sustainable
communities and health and wellbeing is an objective that the Essex Police DOCO widely supports; however, it is imperative that they must also be safe, secure, and accessible. This can similarly be evidenced within the Health Impact Assessment, as mitigating the opportunities for crime is not only about reducing and preventing injury and crime, but it is also about building strong, cohesive, vibrant, and participatory communities.

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?

Secured by Design (SBD) seeks to achieve sustainable reductions in crime through design and other approaches to help communities live in a safer society. Achieving SBD Homes Gold Accreditation will satisfy the security needs assessment requirements within BREEAM, but also address many of the associated security risks.
Academic research has proven that the application of crime prevention and SBD can see up to 75%
reductions in burglary and 25% for Vehicle crime and ASB. There are substantial Carbon cost savings
associated with building new communities to SBD standards, i.e. replacing not only poor-quality doors and windows, but also the stolen property as a result of criminal acts. This will ensure that designing out crime and crime reduction is considered throughout, be that residential, businesses and commercial space.
When considering the lifecycle and increasing the lifespan of building materials and security hardware, (such as doors and windows), Essex Police would recommend utilising companies that have achieved Secured by Design (SBD)Police Preferred Specification.
There are substantial Carbon cost savings associated with building new communities to SBD and SBD
Preferred product standards, i.e. replacing not only poor-quality doors and windows, but also the stolen property as a result of future criminal acts.

Q16a. Do you consider that new design guides, codes or masterplans should be created alongside the new Local Plan?
Essex Police DOCO would welcome the potential inclusion for consultation on all proposed Design
Guides / Codes and or Masterplans to embed designing out crime concepts from the initial stages. To supplement this consultation, Essex Police DOCO would strongly recommend local authorities engage with the DOCO to embed designing out crime and CPTED principles throughout.

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?
Essex Police DOCO would advocate that across the various Design Guides / Codes and Masterplan’s a
consistent approached is garnered when approaching designing out crime and mitigating any potential security risk. The perception of crime and the fear of crime can be an influential factor in determining the synergy and ongoing sustainability of the wider community. Essex Police would recommend the developer considers the foreseeability of crime and maximise on the opportunity to embed CPTED principles, as these crime types can potentially be ‘designed out’ and minimised with due consideration. This will in turn prevent the need for bespoke situational crime prevention measures in the future and promote a sustainable community.

Q16c. What do you think should be included in design guides/codes/masterplans at the scale you are suggesting?
When designing new homes and community amenities, it is imperative to consider crime as a material consideration. The perception of crime and the fear of crime can be an influential factor in determining the synergy and ongoing sustainability of the wider community. Essex Police would recommend developers consider the foreseeability of crime and maximise on the opportunity to design such issues out, as to prevent the need for bespoke situational crime prevention measures in the future.
It is imperative that design specifications of buildings and the surrounding community are risk commensurate (i.e. correlate to the Security Needs Assessment) and it is important that an effective and realistic level of physical security is commensurate with the risk.
Encouraging residents and users of places to feel a sense of ownership and responsibility for their
surroundings can make an important contribution to the safety of a community. This can be facilitated by clarity in where public space ends and where communal, semi-private or private space begins (intermediate space). Uncertainty of ownership can increase the likelihood of crime and ASB going unchallenged. Inclusive of the above, Essex Police actively encourage the following generalised considerations:
• Access and movement – places with well-defined routes, spaces and entrances that provide for convenient movement without compromising security.
• Structure – places that are structured so that different uses do not cause conflict.
• Surveillance – places where all publicly accessible spaces are overlooked.
• Ownership – places that promote a sense of ownership, respect, territorial responsibility, and community.
• Physical Protection – places that include necessary, well-designed security features.
• Management and maintenance – places that are designed with management and maintenance in mind, to discourage crime in the present and future.
Essex Police would recommend all developments seek accreditation to the various Secured by Design (SBD) Guide or at a minimum the SBD principles.

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?
With regard to future proposals for the design of Gypsy and Traveller Sites, we would recommend
consideration of the following:
• Careful consideration appertaining to the road infrastructure into the proposed sites, as this will not only promote a safe haven for occupants but may also discourage criminal activity.
Appropriate Emergency Service Access (including necessary turning circles) is required to ensure appropriate access onto the sites.
• Road access to the site and the ongoing farm raises concerns over access and egress onto the site for emergency services and safety of the staff. Along that stretch of road what traffic calming measures will be in place, will this be replicated across the development?
• Necessity for detailed border treatments for the site as judicious planting may not be of a robust nature.
• Boundaries delineation between the public and public realm space needs to be clearly defined, with any open spaces displaying features which mitigate any potential unauthorised access.
• Consideration of the ‘Communities and Local Government, Designing Gypsy and Traveller Sites, Good Practice Guide’ when fine tuning the detail across the site.
• Early liaison with the Designing out Crime Team at the appropriate state of the design to ensure ‘CPTED principles’ are embedded within the design.

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?
Heritage indirectly features within designing out crime in many respects to ensure that any developments within the conservation areas, (containing listed buildings or other features of value), are protected from crime and ASB within those early planning considerations.
Sometimes heritage becomes an afterthought and measures put into place within a building development that may be to the detriment of a heritage asset, for instance an asset that once had good natural surveillance and passage of the public, becomes within an isolated location with little natural surveillance.

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?

To create environments that are healthy, accessible, and well-designed, there will be a need to reimagine the way that developers and landscapers deliver key service functions that are effective, and positively influence the design of public realm space. It is important to ensure that the design is such, that any community spaces and broader public realm, do not become a central point for ASB, thus having an adverse effect on those communities. Careful consideration is required around
desired levels of permeability and access and egress (i.e. wayfinding) to ensure that crime is not generated as a result.
Consideration is requested by developers and designers to adopt the “Safe system approach” when designing local roads, access road and transport links across proposed development. This will take into consideration the various road user groups who wish to access these roads.
We appreciate that it is important to create a sense of place and build communities with the provision of accessible services and facilities that encourage walking and cycling etc. It is also important to ensure that the design is such, that any community spaces and broader public realm, do not become a central point for ASB or generate a fear of crime when using that space, thus having an adverse effect on those communities.
With a focus on sustainable travel across the site, consideration needs to be given to the secure external storage facilities and bicycle security, be this within the home environment or within communal bicycle stores.

To whom it may concern,

Please stop building huge housing estates in Rayleigh!

(I prefer the garden village option).

Our towns infrastructure CANNOT support these additional homes:
I can never get a doctors appointment because they have too many patients.
The roads are always busy.
Our roads are a state.
The water mains have been bursting all over town under the strain.
Our secondary schools have been disrupted with building work to accommodate the additional places needed, on top of COVID these kids have not had a fair school life experience.
If you allow housing to be developed between Wellington Road and Albert road I am concerned that we will be affected by flooding, without the fields and trees to drain the rain water.
Stop building on farm land, a growing population needs food, if you build on all of the arable land we are not going to have enough food to support ourselves.
I am totally opposed to the plans for the Mill Hall site. A town that has grown so much needs a large space to host events, it also needs to be fit for purpose; your plan’s aren’t.
Before COVID the trains were always busy, with many commuters having to stand for their journey. As people start to return to work are they even going to be able to get on a train; with everywhere along the line having increased their populations by hundreds of people?
Please do something about the recycling centre on Castle Road, it is ridiculous the amount of traffic jams it causes with people waiting to use it.

I am responding to the new Local Plan for the area and am making the following objections for the proposed developments in Hullbridge:

* The previous Local Plan/Core Strategy has resulted in significant strain on public services, roads etc despite repeated requests to both County and District for proper infra structure. As a result, the latter councils did not complete transport or sustainable
infrastructure assessments prior to this consultation. This needs
be addressed urgently in light of the new Local Plan.

* Vision statement: this was written by Rochford Council without any consultation of our local community in Hullbridge. There is a lack of understanding of our local community and its future. For instance, some of the 'promoted sites' have been put forward without the landowner's consent and are therefore inappropriate. An example of this is land that was agricultural and which has now been developed into a very successful vineyard.
Hullbridge has a 'village' community feel but with any additional building it is in severe danger of losing this and just becoming urban sprawl.

* Negative impact would be made to the precious Green Belt and Coastal Protection Belt if further building were allowed to go ahead.

* There would be critical flood and drainage risks. For instance, Watery Lane still floods although this was disregarded in the previous Local Plan. By 2040, Hullbridge will have a significant proportion of the village below sea level, hence making it unsuitable for building.

* Negative impact on local habitats: animals, birds and insects are being squeezed into smaller and smaller green spaces and this is detrimental to both them and us. As a direct result of the recent house building in Hullbridge, the number of dead animals killed by increased traffic has risen significantly.

*Proximity to local transport: the number 20 bus runs along Ferry Road which is a significant distance from any proposed new builds.
This puts pressure on people to use cars which adds to further pollution. RDC say that there are 4 -7 buses an hour on Ferry Road but this is a huge inflation of the truth!

* Lack of accessible open spaces and amenities: there is a distinct lack of these in Hullbridge and an assessment needs to take place in advance of any further development.

* Loss of footpaths and/or bridleways: there has already been a loss of these owing to the building of the roundabout at Rawreth Lane and further loss would be extremely detrimental to people and those on horseback.

* Impact on agricultural land: we need agricultural land to provide food for us and for animals and brownfield sites should be considered before any greenbelt land is considered for building.

* Existing community infrastructure: there are poor road links, few sustainable transport options and huge pressure already on local education/schools, medical services, youth services, leisure facilities etc. Roads cannot cope with cope with increased traffic; it is very difficult to get a GP appointment; there are long waiting lists at our local hospital in Southend.

* Here in Hullbridge, we are keen to protect our rural coastal village outlook and vehemently object to unnecessary building which will spoil the nature of our village.

* I am not in favour of any further building but if I had to choose one spatial option it would be 3 as these are considered priority options and would keep any new housing on one area.

To whom it may concern,

After studying the proposed local plan and given it consideration, I have to conclude that implementing such a plan would be detrimental to the environment and the local and wider population.
Firstly, I must refer back to the second world war when it was realized that we only produced 30% of the food required. We are now, because of Brexit, an island nation again which has reduced our supplies or made it difficult to obtain supplies from the EU, forcing us to rely on the wider world market.
Taking good agricultural land out of production will once again put us in a difficult and precarious position that we cannot afford to be in.

The Crouch valley is rich in wildlife and is extremely important to the well-being of us all, reducing the green spaces within this valley will have dire consequences, greenbelt designation was not given to this area for nothing and should not be taken away lightly.

It appears from the plan that no real thought has been given to the infrastructure to support the thousands of new homes, roads are woefully inadequate and in very poor repair, there are insufficient schools, doctors, hospitals, and local services, the list goes on, to support the population that already exists!

Yes I agree we need more homes but, 7,200 homes in our small corner of our county are not only unrealistic but, if implemented, will be detrimental not only to the area but the population as a whole, our local authorities should be taking the government to task instead of bending to its will. To conclude, we hopefully still live in a democratic society, not a dictatorship.

Objections to Spatial Options Paper
Areas in Hullbridge to the East and West of current Residential Streets.
To the East CF5099, CF5149, CF5006
To the West CF5003, CF5193, CF5190, CF5172, CF5265, CF5151, CF5128.
These plans are totally premature, as the impact on the infrastructure of the 4 developments within the district are mostly unfinished, therefore no accurate assessment can be made.
None of these sites comply with Government Guidelines N.P.P.F July 21.
Which include the following guidelines and statements.
Infrastructure first. Until all developments are completed, no new assessments can be made on Health, schools, public transport, road capacity. Therefore no accurate data can be reached. The A127 has clearly reached it’s capacity, taking 1 ½ Hrs to do a 30 min journey in rush hour. Many road users taking the alternative route via Hullbridge. Deliveries have been aborted due to traffic chaos affecting residents and businesses.
Green Belt/ Farmland. should only be used as a last resort.
Flooding. Land with the potential to flood now or in the future should not be considered unless mitigation measures can prevent flooding. This would prove impossible to secure all the riverbank and hold back the tide. Climate change has this area prone to flooding within 20 years. Additional building on this land would impact on current housing.
Many of the roads adjoining these sites are without surface water drainage.
Carbon emissions in the Rayleigh area are the highest in Essex, with the county having the most cars in the UK. This is a health risk. Builders have already removed trees and hedge rows which need to be replaced, to help address this. No further decline should be permitted.
Housing development should only be permitted to provide for the requirements of existing residents, and then should be within villages and towns avoiding expanding boundaries close to other parishes, villages and towns, to avoid urban sprawl.
These developments should be withdrawn immediately.

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

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

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

Rochford Local Plan Regulation 18 Spatial Options Consultation
Representations on behalf of Rydon Homes
Responses to Questions
Q2. Do you agree with our draft vision for Rochford District? Is there anything missing from the vision that you feel needs to be included?
A : The draft ‘Vision’ for Rochford contains many appropriate and supportable elements, but it should contain a commitment to delivering sufficient high quality homes to meet need.
Q3. Do you agree that we should develop a range of separate visions for each of our settlements to help guide decision-making?
A : Yes, there should be separate ‘Visions’ for each of the main settlements. This will help capture their diversity and distinctiveness. It may be necessary to have a a generic ‘villages / hamlets’ Vision for the smallest communities.
Q4. Do you agree with the strategic priorities and objectives we have identified? Is there anything missing from the strategic priorities or objectives that you feel needs to be included?
A : The strategic objectives are generally supported. However, the number should be expanded to cover cross-cutting themes. An example would be to make the link between the objective for zero carbon and the concentration of new development in sustainable locations (ie. the larger towns) explicit.
Q5. Do you agree with the settlement hierarchy presented? If not, what changes do you think are required?
A : Yes, the settlement hierarchy is sound. It correctly identifies Rayleigh as the Tier 1 primary settlement in the District.

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

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

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

Q9. Do you agree we should take a sequential approach to flood risk and coastal change in our plan, locating development away from areas at risk of flooding and coastal change wherever possible? How can we best protect current and future communities from flood
risk and coastal change?
A : A sequential approach to flood risk is both logical and in accordance with the guidance in the NPPF.

Q10. Do you agree that the Coastal Protection Belt and Upper Roach Valley should be protected from development that would be harmful to their landscape character?
A : The Coastal Protection Belt and Upper Roach Valley should have continued protection.

Q11. Do you agree we should require development to source a percentage of their energy from low-carbon and renewable sources? Are there other opportunities in the District to supply low-carbon or renewable energy?
A : Agree in principle, the difficult question is what is the appropriate percentage which is both viable and deliverable.

Q12. Do you agree we should require new development to achieve energy efficiency standards higher than building regulations? What level should these be set at?
A : This may not be necessary since the Government is already proposing to strengthen Building Regulations to deliver high energy efficient standards. If the Local Plan was to propose even higher standards, this would need to be rigorously tested in terms of the impacts on both viability and delivery.

Q14. Do you consider that the plan should include a place-making charter that informs relevant policies? Should the same principles apply everywhere in the District, or should different principles apply to different areas?
A : Yes, a high level ‘place making charter’ would be useful, in principle to provide guidance whilst not being inflexible.

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

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

Q16b. If yes, do you think it is more appropriate to have a single design guide/code for the whole District, or to have design guides/codes/masterplans for individual settlements or growth areas?
A : A single Design Guide for the whole District would become too generic and fail to identify what makes each settlement unique. Settlement specific design guides would be most effective, as long as they do not stifle innovation and can allow alternatives approaches,
where fully justified.

Q16c. What do you think should be included in design guides/codes/masterplans at the scale you are suggesting?
A : It is important that any documents are not too prescriptive and allow a degree of flexibility. All documents should include a date by which they will be reviewed.
Q17. With reference to the options listed above, or your own options, how do you feel we can best plan to meet our need for different types, sizes and tenures of housing?
A : The appropriate response is to negotiate a site specific mix which is appropriate to the settlement and the characteristics of the site itself (Option 2). National Space Standards are appropriate. The approach to Part M4 of the Building Regulations could reflect that adopted in the London Plan.

Q38. With reference to the options above, or your own options, how do you feel we can best meet our open space and sport facility needs through the plan?
A : Option 4A is the most appropriate solution to meeting open space needs if they can all be met on site. Any needs which cannot be met on site should be met by off site contributions.

Q46. With reference to the options listed above, or your own options, how do you think we can best plan for vibrant town centres in Rochford, Rayleigh and Hockley? How can we also ensure our village and neighbourhood centres remain vibrant?
A : Option 2 (incorporating Town Centre policies in the Local Plan) is the most appropriate approach.

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

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

Q56b. With reference to Figure 44 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the promoted sites should be made available for any of the following uses? How could that improve the completeness of Rayleigh?
1. Housing [market, affordable, specialist, traveller, other]
2. Commercial [offices, industrial, retail, other]
3. Community infrastructure [open space, education, healthcare, allotments, other]
4. Other
A : Rydon is promoting the residential allocation of sites CFS053 and 086 south of Wellington Road, Rayleigh for around 110 homes. The justification for this allocation is set out in the attached Sellwood Planning covering letter plus
- The Green Belt Review by Liz lake Associates
- The Landscape Assessment by Liz Lake Associates
- The Sustainable Transport Assessment of the Promotion Site by Vectos
- Drainage report by SLR
- Design Assessment by Omega.
In summary, the land being promoted by Rydon accords with the emerging spatial strategy of the Local Plan in that it is located in Rayleigh which is the most sustainable settlement in the District with the greatest range of services, facilities, jobs and public transport. Within Rayleigh, the site is within easy walking / cycling distance of a wide range of facilities and can assist in the achievement of the ‘completeness’ objective of the Local Plan. The development of the site will cause no material harm to the wider Green Belt and countryside since it represents an indent in the built form on the eastern side of Rayleigh, with development on three sides. The eastern boundary of the site is strongly vegetated and when combined with the topography would represent a strong and defensible long term boundary to
the Green Belt in this location.

Q56c. Are there areas in Rayleigh that development should generally be presumed appropriate? Why these areas?
A : Yes, sites CFS053 and 086 south of Wellington Road.
Q56e. Do you agree that the local green spaces shown on Figure 44 hold local significance? Are there any other open spaces that hold particular local significance?
A : The green spaces shown are of local significance and should be identified as such. No additional green spaces should be identified as having local significance.

I am concerned about the sites which have been suggested for potential development around Hullbridge. With 500 houses already being built the village, which has an existing population of less than 7000, Hullbridge will be overwhelmed if these developments are allowed to go ahead. In addition to concerns about the loss of character which will be suffered there are also practical objections:

Many of the sites which have been proposed are currently agricultural land. We are being encouraged to use local produce yet the land it comes from is being lost to development.

Poor infrastructure. Hullbridge Road/Lower Road is the main access road to Hullbridge (Watery Lane is too narrow and prone to flooding). The road network cannot cope with current levels of road usage and the addition of a large number of extra vehicles will make the situation intolerable. When Hullbridge Road or Lower Road are blocked (which unfortunately seems to happen frequently) the whole area comes to a standstill in a very short time.

No plans are included for the provision of new schools, medical facilities, leisure facilities or public transport. The existing infrastructure does not have the capacity to absorb large numbers of new residents.

Risk of flooding. We are told that water levels will rise significantly over the next few years. This will put the low lying areas of Hullbridge at a high risk of flooding. Many of the existing roads have no surface water drainage and at times of heavy rainfall the high levels of surface water cause a problem.

Whilst a small amount of development around the village seems inevitable I believe that in order to accommodate the volume of development required in the district it would be better to choose strategy 3 and build all the housing in one location. This would mean that suitable infrastructure could be incorporated into the development and a sustainable community could be developed rather than just large numbers of new homes tacked on to existing communities.

Comments on RDC Local Plan Consultation for Hockley Sept 2021
The need for housing is understood but many of the proposals in the Local Plan Consultation and the impact of over-development in Hockley are a major cause for concern, especially without evidence of supporting
infrastructure. This initial consultation informs residents of landowners who have put forward sites for future
development so there is a personal gain aspect here. Rochford District Council has a duty to actively support
residents needs in all communities and influence Government policies.

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.

Infrastructure - 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.

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. Many 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. Sites of Special Scientific Interest will also be affected.
The Merryfields Avenue proposal has been previously rejected by residents due to access issues as the land borders on the Nature Reserve. Consideration should be given to incorporating it into the Reserve rather than releasing it for development.

• The plan proposes around 1000 additional houses in Hockley with other developments on land bordering
the parish. This density will have a major detrimental impact on the quality of life for the settlements;
• 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;
• Essential green belt is being allowed to erode further which will be impossible to replace;
• Enforcement on unauthorised development is not adequately managed.
• The volume of traffic has increased to an unacceptable level on the B1013 causing noise, smells and
disturbance; Is the traffic survey up to date;
• Proposals for Folly Chase and Church Road will increase density and give further traffic problems on a
busy county access road which has light industry and equestrian centres but does not have footways for
pedestrian safety; vehicles are also subject to dangerous line of sight restrictions. The Folly Chase proposal was previously rejected by residents and supposedly dismissed by RDC but still appears in the Local Plan for development. What are the plans for the Community Centre and public footpaths which must be retained?
• Sheltered accommodation is in danger of being lost at Lime Court and Poplar Court;
• The proposal for development on land at Belchamps is particularly contentious due to the lack of open space for activities available to youngsters and community groups in the Rochford District. The site has been a very valuable well used resource and it is important this is retained for our future generations.
We have to consider some growth in Hockley and surrounding areas but a more measured approach must
be taken on the sites put forward by landowners. The views of our residents on the Consultation should be
acted upon by RDC and unsuitable and overdeveloped areas withdrawn from the Plan.

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

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

Background

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strategy Options

Q5: Do you agree with the settlement hierarchy presented?

No.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spatial Themes

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

No.

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

Yes.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please see our response to Q16 and Q59.

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

Please see our response to Q14.

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

Yes.

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

Please see our detailed response to Q16b. and Q16c.

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

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

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

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

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

Please see also our response to Q16b.

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

Housing For All

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q19. Are there any other forms of housing that you feel we should be planning for? How can we best
plan to meet the need for that form of housing?
No.

Biodiversity

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

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

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

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

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

Community Infrastructure

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

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

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

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

Yes.

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

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

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

Yes – see our response to Q.36.

Open Spaces and Recreation

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

BDW support Option 4.

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

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

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

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

Yes.

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

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

No.

Transport and Connectivity

Q51: With reference to the options above, or your own options, how do you feel we can best address our transport and connectivity needs through the plan?
BDW support a combination of all Options identified by the Council in addressing the need for sufficient and
accessible community infrastructure through the plan.

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

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

Please also see our response to Q51.

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

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

Please see our response to Q52 / Q53.

Planning for Complete Communities

Wakerings and Barling

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Next Steps

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

Yours faithfully
David Churchill
Partner

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strategy Options

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spatial Themes
Q8: Are there any key spatial themes that you feel we have missed or that require greater emphasis?
No.
Q9: Do you agree we should take a sequential approach to flood risk and coastal change in our plan, locating development away from areas at risk of flooding and coastal change wherever possible? How can we best protect current and future communities from flood risk and coastal change?
Yes.

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

Q10: Do you agree that the Coastal Protection Belt and Upper Roach Valley should be protected from
development that would be harmful to their landscape character? Are there other areas that you feel should be protected for their special landscape character?
BDW would expect these designations to be afforded the necessary weight in the emerging Local Plan and/or
at the planning application stage. Subject to the Council selecting either Option 2b or 4 as set out in the
response to Q.6 above, BDW also suggests that sites which are unconstrained from such designations should
be the focus of allocations in the emerging Local Plan.
Q11: Do you agree we should require development to source a percentage of their energy from low carbon and renewable sources? Are there other opportunities in the District to supply low-carbon or renewable energy?
Whilst BDW support the principle of requiring a percentage of energy in developments to be from low-carbon and renewable sources, this should be subject to consideration of viability.

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

Q12: Do you agree we should require new development to achieve energy efficiency standards higher than building regulations? What level should these be set at?
Whilst BDW support the principle of requiring energy efficiency standards of developments to be higher than
the building regulations, this should not be a requirement for all developments. The ability to achieve this will be subject to the viability of a scheme.
Therefore, to be acceptable in planning terms, developments should meet the energy efficiency standard set out in the building regulations. If a scheme were to exceed building regulations, this should be recognised as a bespoke merit / positive of the scheme, that should weigh favourably in the planning balance.
Q14: Do you consider that the plan should include a place-making charter that informs relevant policies? Should the same principles apply everywhere in the District, or should different principles apply to different areas?
BDW support the inclusion of a place-making charter and the listed standards, in principle.
Whilst broad objectives (e.g. aiming for carbon-neutrality; tackling air quality; promoting active travel) may help
achieve a collective Vision for the area, sufficient account and flexibility must be given for settlement / site-specific circumstances.
Please see our response to Q16 and Q57.

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

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

Q16b: If yes, do you think it is more appropriate to have a single design guide/code for the whole District, or to have design guides/codes/masterplans for individual settlements or growth areas?
BDW oppose the imposition of a single, broad design guide/code for the District. As the Council recognise,
this would fail to account for and preserve the mix of historic, natural, and urban environments that help to
create distinctive local vernacular and character. Conversely, BDW would also oppose the production of
specific, prescriptive design codes on a site-by-site basis which would not provide sufficient flexibility, restrict the use of innovative methods and technologies, and frustrate artistic interpretation – all of which may impact
a development’s viability and contribution to “beauty”.
BDW support the imposition of broad strategic objectives (as set out in the place-making charter, as well as
the National Design Guide and National Model Design Code) with sufficient flexibility for design to be responsive to circumstances of a site as they evolve. This might include more specific, but still broad objectives are settlement/area level.
Indeed, Paragraph 129 of the NPPF advises that developers may also choose to prepare design codes in
support of planning application for sites they wish to develop. This option would give the freedom to provide
interpretation and sufficient resourcing from the private sector to develop appropriate design codes, in
accordance with the National Design Guide and National Model Design Code.

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

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

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

Q18. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there areas or sites in Rochford that you feel require a specific approach to housing types, size and tenure? What is required to meet housing needs in these areas?
As set out in Figure 28 of the consultation document (taken from the South Essex SHMA) the overwhelming
need for dwellings in Rochford District are houses (85%), rather than flatted development (15%). BDW observe
the allocation of smaller, urban/previously developed sites will not satisfy the prevailing demand for
dwellinghouses, which typically require a greater extent of land.

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

A more dispersed growth strategy also provides opportunities to balance housing trajectory across the District and the wider South Essex HMA – as greenfield sites typically have quicker lead-in times / build out rates
compared to those often associated with complex brownfield sites.
Q19. Are there any other forms of housing that you feel we should be planning for? How can we best plan to meet the need for that form of housing?
No

Biodiversity
Q31: Do you consider net gains for biodiversity are best delivered on-site or off-site? Are there specific locations or projects where net gain projects could be delivered?
Whilst the Environmental Bill is still to receive Royal Assent, the intention of the policy to achieve biodiversity
net gains is clear and supported in principle by BDW.
This does not mean the Council should not seek to encourage developments to secure biodiversity net gain in excess of the 10% set in the draft Environmental Bill – which of course is a legal minimum. However, any
requirement to demonstrate a net gain in excess of 10% should be subject to a viability assessment and should
not be considered a requirement to make the development acceptable in planning terms (i.e. any provision in excess of the 10% figure should be considered an additional benefit of a proposed scheme).
PPG Paragraph 022 (Reference ID: 8-022-20190721) advises that biodiversity net gain can be achieved on-site, off-site or through a combination of both on-site and off-site measures. National guidance does not explicitly state the percentage split between such provision, but Paragraph 023 (Reference ID: 8-023-20190721) confirms such gain can be delivered entirely on-site or by using off-site gains where necessary.
Therefore, BDW would expect the Council to reflect the ambitions of the Environmental Bill and incorporate
the necessary level of flexibility in any allocation requirement and/or policy, providing opportunities to create networks to not just support biodiversity enhancement on-site, but also to encourage residents to have access to the natural environment on other sites (off-site) across the District. This would ensure improvements are both beneficial and viable.
BDWs site at Hall Road, Rochford is located on the River Roach and therefore offer substantial opportunities to improve the biodiversity of the site and deliver BNG.

Community Infrastructure
Q35: With reference to the options above, or your own options, how can we address the need for
sufficient and accessible community infrastructure through the plan?
BDW support a combination of all listed Options identified by the Council in addressing the need for sufficient
and accessible community infrastructure through the plan.
Whilst the Council should seek to invest and protect existing community infrastructure, it should seek to first
locate development in areas with adequate proximity to existing infrastructure (such as Land South of Hall
Road, Rochford) before seeking to promote sites that are capable of facilitating the delivery of much needed
community infrastructure in other areas.

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

Q37: Are there areas in the District that you feel have particularly severe capacity or access issues relating to community infrastructure, including schools, healthcare facilities or community facilities?
How can we best address these?
Yes – see our response to Q.36

Open Spaces and Recreation
Q38: With reference to the options above, or your own options, how do you feel we can best meet our open space and sport facility needs through the plan?
BDW support Option 4.
Larger and strategic developments are capable of delivering areas for open space and recreation as part of a holistic redevelopment of a site. As set out in our Vision Document, Land South of Hall Road has incorporated
approximately 4.18 ha of public open space, including a local equipped area of play (LEAP) within the current
design.
Q40: Are the listed potential hub sites and key centres the right ones? Are there other locations that we should be considering?
Yes.
However, the Council should consider that larger and strategic development sites are capable of delivering
areas for open space and recreation as part of a holistic redevelopment of a site.

Q41: With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to help
deliver improvements to open space or sport facility accessibility or provision?
Yes.
Larger and strategic development sites are capable of delivering areas for open space and recreation as part
of a holistic redevelopment of a site.
Q42: Are there particular open spaces that we should be protecting or improving?
No.

Transport and Connectivity
Q51: With reference to the options above, or your own options, how do you feel we can best address our transport and connectivity needs through the plan?
BDW support a combination of all Options identified by the Council in addressing the need for sufficient and
accessible community infrastructure through the plan.
As set out in our response to Q5 and Q6, the Council should seek to incorporate a dispersed growth strategy.
A more dispersed growth strategy will provide a balance between utilising and optimising existing connections in the more sustainable settlements, whilst providing improvements to less sustainable locations. A more
dispersed growth strategy will also work to avoid overuse and unnecessary congestion on more densely
populated areas, which bring with them problems of air quality and noise pollution.

Q52: Are there areas where improvements to transport connections are needed?
Please see also our response to Q51.
As part of a more dispersed Growth Strategy, the Council should seek to ease congestion by locating
development in locations which can benefit from wider improvements. This should be combined and recognised with the delivery of such infrastructure through contribution and/or bespoke delivery in larger allocations.
Q53: With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to deliver new transport connections, such as link roads or rapid transit? What routes and modes should these take? [walking, cycling, rail, bus, road etc.]
Please see also our response to Q52 / Q53.

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

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

Yours faithfully

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

RDC/Spatial Consultation 2021 Questions

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?
A: Evaluate the impact of the current developments, especially in Rayleigh and Hullbridge.
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]
A: Mostly, although I do not feel you have included enough information on how you might achieve housing for the hidden homeless or those on low incomes, emergency housing provision, 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.
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]
A: 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]
A: Don’t know.
Q5. Do you agree with the settlement hierarchy presented? If not, what changes do you think are required? [Please state reasoning]
A: Yes. Rayleigh is the largest town in the district but you need to maintain the green boundaries between the surrounding areas.
Q6. Which of the identified strategy options do you consider should be taken forward in the Plan? [Please state reasoning]
A: A combination of 3 and 4.
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. Combining this with option 4 could help with spreading the balance of housing needs, traffic, etc. across the whole of the district and not just in one place.
Q7. Are there any reasonable alternatives to these options that should be considered instead? [Please state reasoning]
A: Windfalls should be included in the housing quota.
Q8. Are there any key spatial themes that you feel we have missed or that require greater emphasis? [Please state reasoning]
A: 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]
A: Yes. We need to ensure we have a suitable plan to protect not only our towns and village communities (houses/businesses) but also the natural areas as well. We need 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.
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]
A: Yes. I feel all of our coastal areas and areas of special interest, where there is a significant risk of flooding and harm to the environment needs careful consideration. Our ancient woodlands also need to be protected and well managed.
Q11. Do you agree we should require development to source a percentage of their energy from low-carbon and renewable sources? Are there other opportunities in the District to supply low-carbon or renewable energy?
A: Vast swathes of land being used for solar panels or unsightly wind farms should not be allowed. I do not feel we have used the potential of tidal renewable energy themes. We have potential in some areas to explore this without defacing our district. All new homes should be fitted with solar, either on their roof or windows and commercial properties could be encouraged to fit solar panels to their roof.
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].
A: I believe that we should aim to achieve a higher standard if possible and encourage developers to put forward new ways of achieving this. We are planning for future generations and should not be stuck in the past. Why go for minimum standards? Always aim higher!
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]
A: 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. No wind turbines! They would ruin the landscape.
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]
A: 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 time again out 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]
A: They are, as long as they are adhered to.
Q16a. Do you consider that new design guides, codes or masterplans should be created alongside the new Local Plan?
A: Yes.
➔ 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? [Please state reasoning]
A: You need different design guides/etc as our district is unique and diverse and the “one shoe fits all" would be detrimental to its character and charm.
➔ Q16c. What do you think should be included in design guides/codes/masterplans at the scale you are suggesting? [Please state reasoning].
A: You need to ensure that the character and heritage of our 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]
A: 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]
A: The district has a large number of houses, existing and approved that have 4 or 5 bedrooms. The number of homes available with 2 or 3 bedrooms is minimal, which increases their price and availability. The smaller properties are the ones that need to be affordable for families. We should ensure that our “affordable“ properties are not all flats and that the minimum (or higher) standards are met for gardens/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 /retirement home. They may want a 1 or 2 bedroomed property, maybe one storey, or low rise apartment that they own freehold. We also need to consider that some of our residents may need residential care and we should be looking at ways to cope with the rising number of elderly and provide accommodation for them also. We desperately need to meet the needs of the hidden homeless. The adult children on low wages that 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. We also need accessible properties for our disabled members of our community, where they are assisted in order to fulfil a normal as possible life. Emergency and social housing also need to 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]
A: 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 (physical, blind, etc.). Smaller, free hold properties for the older generation to enable them to downsize from large family homes. Social housing. 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]
A: 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 many will not fit into this category. We need to be integrating those not deemed into the classification into everyday life and housing. We also need it to be managed so that illegal building work and population do not exceed its capacity. This site will need good access and be somewhere where it does not impose or affect other residents.
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]
A: 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 many will not fit into this category. We need to be integrating those not deemed into the classification into everyday life and housing. We also need it to be managed so that illegal building work and population do not exceed its capacity. This site will need good access and be somewhere where it does not impose or affect other residents.

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]
A: Easy access re large vehicles to the site and main roads to ensure the residential roads are not blocked by the larger vehicles. Room for some expansion that would not encroach on the surrounding area. Away from residents to reduce disturbance of vehicle movements. Not in an area of interest or recreation where the landscape would be blighted by the appearance of many vehicles. Not all in one area – spread out our quota across the district in order to avoid another Crays Farm scenario.

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]
A: The council needs to stop developing existing commercial land into housing. Too many sites have already been lost and many more are planned to go. They can then concentrate on helping those businesses wanting to expand to be able to do so. They should look to working with local schools and colleges, as well as businesses and the job centre, to see what sustainable employment is needed in the district. They then need to assist in schemes to train all ages get back into work or upskill.
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]
A: No. The current employment site allocations on Figure 30 do not provide enough space to meet the District’s employment needs through to 2040. We have around 87,000 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. We only need to formally protect sites that have a future and a potential to expand or continue effectively. Green belt sites should be assessed separately and decisions made on merit.
Q25. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to deliver new employment facilities or improvements to existing employment facilities?
A: 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. Option 4 could assess existing sites across the district and the options to be able to expand, as well as areas for new sites.
Q26. Are there any particular types of employment site or business accommodation that you consider Rochford District is lacking, or would benefit from?
A: Environmental services - woodland conservation/management. (We need to find funding for this as it is important!) HGV training school.
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?
A: Better road networks and Wi-Fi. Apprenticeships or training for all ages with jobs at the end of training.
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]
A: Unsure, but I feel there is not enough room for too much expansion ie. add another run way. The council could consider a park and ride park, to divert some traffic away from the residential area, which could create jobs for security services, bus drivers, attendants, cleaners, etc. Expansion of the airport may affect the Grade 1 listed St Laurence and All Saints Church and this needs careful consideration.
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]
A: We all should be doing everything in our power to protect wildlife sites. All wildlife is important and we have been neglecting them, and slowly chipping away at them for years. Wildlife now enter suburban areas as their own habitats have diminished and they can no longer fend for themselves adequately from nature. We have a decline in Badgers and hedgehogs as well as rabbits, frogs, newts, voles and shrews. Ask yourselves: when did you last see a live hedgehog or badger? Most (especially badgers) are usually dead (along with foxes and deer) by the side of our roads. We have removed places that have housed bats and now we do not see them flying around the district in the numbers they did. Designating initial sites is a step in the right direction but we have to do more. It is proven that our 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. We should be looking at creating new sites with every large housing development, and adding them to our protected list in order to improve our district and our own wellbeing. We should no allow private households to take over grass areas and verges (or concreting the verges over for parking and cost savings). These areas, although small are still areas for wildlife (bees and butterflies - also in decline, as well as bugs which feed our birds). We should create new wildlife meadows to encourage the pollinators in order to future proof our own existence. We should be exploring smaller sites that we could enhance, manage and protect in order to give future generations something to look back on and feel proud that we have given them a legacy. Something that we can 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]
A: Yes. We need to 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?
A: 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]
A: You need to enhance and maintain what we already have by ensuring the necessary links are in place to link 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 (ie in the car park – a small toilet block and hand washing facilities). Obtaining funding from large (and medium) developments for enhancement of existing areas as well as providing new spaces and facilities is a step in the right direction.
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]
A: 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.
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]
A: Enhancing the areas we have and ensuring developers include green space/recreational facility areas 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 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]
A: Ensuring that funding for existing facilities comes from new developments and making sure that these facilities are built during the time of the development (not like the London Road/Rawreth Lane development where a site was “provided” for healthcare but has not been built). 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: 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]
A: Rayleigh is overcrowded. It has a road network no longer fit for purpose. The schools are almost full. It is difficult to obtain a GP or dental appointment. There is little to no disabled play areas/equipment. There is always issues with waste collections, drain & road cleaning and verge trimming. The council does not have the staff to deal with all these issues. The council needs to either build another waste recycling site (as the one in Castle road is no longer capable of expanding and meeting the needs of its ever growing population) or develop a better waste collection program which allows extra waste to be collected next to bins. It also needs to find a site to address/install 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]
A: Improve what we already have. The tennis courts on Fairview Park need improvement. Safeguard our open spaces to ensure we have wildlife and recreation. Develop different types of sporting facilities – not just football pitches. There is a need for a larger skateboard park and BMX track. We need to offer free recreation for our teenagers.
Q39. Are the potential locations for 3G pitch investment the right ones? Are there other locations that we should be considering? [Please state reasoning]
A: The development of 3G pitches seems to be the trendy thing to do but they are plastic grass at the end of the day and we should be looking at ways to reduce our plastic use. If there is an area that already exists that is in a poor start of repair then it may be an option – especially if the “grass” is made from recyclables, but we should be thinking outside the box and not covering our parks with it.
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]
A: 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: A new development would be able to deliver this in their plans or fund improvements for existing facilities.
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]
A: The sites will be specific in each parish. You need to protect all of these recreational spaces and improve if necessary as once lost to development, they can ever 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]
A: You need to reassess your policies on planning regarding alterations made to the buildings on your list, especially in our 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 (if any) needs to be sympathetic to the area and you should be able to request amendments to frontage, even if they have had it up for some time. Shop fronts are huge areas of uninteresting glass with garish colours. Signage and advertising (‘A’ board’s litter our pavements without challenge and large barriers are erected onto the pavements – totally out of character with a conservation area in a heritage town. Stick to your policies.
Q44. Are there areas of the District we should be considering for conservation area status beyond those listed in this section? [Please state reasoning]
A: Unsure although we need to stop taking areas of our 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]
A: Don’t know. Mill Hall? Over 50 years old. Cultural centre in a conservation area. Needs massive investment and management. A new survey needs to be taken to ascertain whether there are any other areas that should be considered. There are many buildings along the High Road into Rayleigh (but not in the conservation area) which should be considered.
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]
A: 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 business). 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 (ie. photos of the old towns or useful information) to make them more attractive.
You will need good access links with an excellent road and cycle network and reliable public transport that links effectively from all the villages to all the towns.
Q47. Do you agree with the local centre hierarchy set out in Figure 36? If not, what changes would you make? [Please state reasoning]
A: 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]
A: 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]
A: Yes. We do not want rows of hairdresser or rows of takeaways etc. as this would eventually kill off our high streets. We need to have a balance of outlets. You would lose the vibrancy you are hoping to achieve if you allowed this. You should also consider restricting use to giant chains as these tend to be the first to go in a crisis and make high streets lose their individuality by them all looking the same.
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]
A: Unfortunately, some of our smaller retail areas have been sold off and housing development has been allowed (eg. Rayleigh - rear of Marks & Spencer and Dairy Crest plus Lancaster Road [builders’ yard]). In a new development there would be scope to add a small/medium/large precinct of retail etc. depending on the development size.
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]
A: The council needs to address the “No development before infrastructure” mantra! Too many houses are being built without adequate road networks in place (including walking and cycling routes). A new road could be built from the A1245 to Hullbridge, limiting the traffic on Rawreth Lane. More work need to be done (and quickly) 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 need to be done ASAP as this is a bottleneck. Hockley needs another access although I am unsure how that can be achieved. New developments should put in cycle paths and walkways and they could be made to link up with existing paths (which 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?
A: More work need to be done (and quickly) 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 need to be done ASAP as this is a bottleneck. Hockley needs another access.

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.]
A: A new road from A1245 to Hullbridge is needed as Watery Lane is too narrow and winding, and is closed on a regular basis due to flooding. More (smaller) buses to link our towns and villages. Trams, although they seem a good idea, would cause congestion on our narrow roads and be unsustainable. Designated cycling paths (not on the roads or pavements) adjacent to our road networks would help improve traffic flow and these would need to be linked to be efficient.
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]
A: Yes, but if they are to be affordable only, then they should be offered to local residents first and not anyone from afar who wants a cheap house or for those with a buy to let mortgage.
Q55. Are there any other ways that you feel the plan should be planning for the needs of rural communities? [Please stare reasoning]
A: Improve public transport.
Q56a. Do you agree with our vision for Rayleigh? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]
A: Yes but you also need to include a reduced volume of traffic and air pollution. The High Street is usually grid locked and this causes dangerous pollution for our pedestrians/shoppers/residents. An active Police presence.
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?
i. Housing [market, affordable, specialist, traveller, other]
ii. Commercial [offices, industrial, retail, other]
iii. Community infrastructure [open space, education, healthcare, allotments, other]
iv. Other
A: Access and increased congestion is going to be an issue with a lot of the sites in Rayleigh. If you keep adding small developments to the boundaries of the town we will create an overcrowded impacting on the developments already there and an urban sprawl effect. CFS 121 has potential for a new woodland area which could soak up some of the carbon emissions from the A127 traffic.
Q56c. Are there areas in Rayleigh that development should generally be presumed appropriate? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
A: We should be restricting any further large developments in Rayleigh and need to assess the impact of the current developments first.
Q56d. Are there areas that require protecting from development? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
A: CSF027 – The access road (Bull Lane) is a known rat run and is extremely busy. Any further traffic, which will also compete with large agricultural vehicles, could be a danger to the residents already there. Bull Lane near this point has also been flooded several times recently. CFS023 – Access to this road is via Wellington Road. It can be extremely difficult, especially at peak times (non-pandemic) to access to and from Hockley Road. Adding a large development here will have an adverse impact on existing residents and car users alike. Also, if these 2 developments are linked to Albert Road, the installation of a through road to Bull Lane will cause issues in parking, access and wellbeing as the road would become another rat run!
Q56e. Do you agree that the local green spaces shown on Figure 44 hold local significance? Are there any other open spaces that hold particular local significance?
A: All green spaces hold significance, especially to those who use them for recreation, and have community value. They should be protected. Green belt borders should be protected from development in order to prevent urban sprawl.
The green space north of CFS121 could be linked by a new bridge over the railway and create a new habitat for wildlife, with meadows and woodlands, walks and a lake/pond. A car park with facilities could be created and a small retail space could be offered for snacks etc.
Q57a. Do you agree with our vision for Rochford and Ashingdon? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]
A: I feel CFS261 would cause great harm to the area, with a potential of over 4,000 houses on the site. The road network is not sufficient to cope with half that amount of dwellings and new schools would need to be built.
Q57b. With reference to Figure 45 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the promoted sites should be made available for any of the following uses? How could that improve the completeness of Rochford and Ashingdon?
i. Housing [market, affordable, specialist, traveller, other]
ii. Commercial [offices, industrial, retail, other]
iii. Community infrastructure [open space, education, healthcare, allotments, other]
iv. Other
A: Don’t know.
Q57c. Are there areas in Rochford and Ashingdon that development should generally be presumed appropriate? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
A: Don’t know.
Q57d. Are there areas that require protecting from development? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
A: All green spaces hold significance, especially to those who use them for recreation, and have community value. They should be protected. Green belt borders should be protected from development in order to prevent urban sprawl.
Q57e. Do you agree that the local green spaces shown on Figure 45 hold local significance? Are there any other open spaces that hold particular local significance? [Please state reasoning]
A: All green spaces hold some significance, especially to those who use them for recreation, and have community value. These should be protected.

Q58a. Do you agree with our vision for Hockley and Hawkwell? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]
A: Don’t know.
Q58b. With reference to Figure 46 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the promoted sites should be made available for any of the following uses? How could that improve the completeness of Hockley and Hawkwell?
i. Housing [market, affordable, specialist, traveller, other]
ii. Commercial [offices, industrial, retail, other]
iii. Community infrastructure [open space, education, healthcare, allotments, other]
iv. Other
A: Don’t know.
Q58c. Are there areas in Hockley and Hawkwell that development should generally be presumed appropriate? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
A: Don’t know
Q58d. Are there areas that require protecting from development? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
A: 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.
Q58e. 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? [Please state reasoning]
A: All green spaces hold significance, especially to those who use them for recreation, and have community value. They should be protected. Green belt borders should be protected from development in order to prevent urban sprawl.
Q59a. Do you agree with our vision for the Wakerings and Barling? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]
A: Don’t know.
Q59b. With reference to Figure 47 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the promoted sites should be made available for any of the following uses? How could that improve the completeness of the Wakerings and Barling?
i. Housing [market, affordable, specialist, traveller, other]
ii. Commercial [offices, industrial, retail, other]
iii. Community infrastructure [open space, education, healthcare, allotments, other]
iv. Other
A: Don’t know.
Q59c. Are there areas in the Wakerings and Barling that development should generally be presumed appropriate? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
A: Any development needs to be sympathetic of the area.
Q59d. Are there areas that require protecting from development? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
A: Don’t know.
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]
A: Don’t know.
Q60a. Do you agree with our vision for Hullbridge? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]
A: Yes, although you need to address the road networks as well as those you have suggested. A new link road from A1245 to Hullbridge, adjacent to Watery Lane would serve the increased population with an improved access route and divert traffic away from other areas.
Q60b. 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?
i. Housing [market, affordable, specialist, traveller, other]
ii. Commercial [offices, industrial, retail, other]
iii. Community infrastructure [open space, education, healthcare, allotments, other]
iv. Other
A: Some of the sites have potential to include a mix of shops, leisure, recreation, offices and housing but a study needs to be made to assess the impact of the current development
Q60c. Are there areas in Hullbridge that development should generally be presumed appropriate? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
A: Don’t know.
Q60d. Are there areas that require protecting from development? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
A: Anything too close to the river due to flood risk.
Q60e. 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]
A: All green spaces hold significance, especially to those who use them for recreation, and have community value. They should be protected. Green belt borders should be protected from development in order to prevent urban sprawl.
Q61a. Do you agree with our vision for Canewdon? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]
A: Yes. A small amount of housing can be sustainable there as long as the community feel it is needed.
Q61b. With reference to Figure 49 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 Canewdon?
i. Housing [market, affordable, specialist, traveller, other]
ii. Commercial [offices, industrial, retail, other]
iii. Community infrastructure [open space, education, healthcare, allotments, other]
iv. Other
A: Opportunities for mixed retail, commercial and housing could be achieved with some sympathetic development in this area.

Q61c. Are there areas in Canewdon that development should generally be presumed appropriate? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
A: Don’t know.
Q61d. Are there areas that require protecting from development? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
A: Don’t know.
Q61e. 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]
A: All green spaces hold significance, especially to those who use them for recreation, and have community value. They should be protected. Green belt borders should be protected from development in order to prevent urban sprawl.
Q62a. Do you agree with our vision for Great Stambridge? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]
A: Yes.
Q62b. With reference to Figure 50 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the promoted sites should be made available for any of the following uses? How could that improve the completeness of Great Stambridge?
i. Housing [market, affordable, specialist, traveller, other]
ii. Commercial [offices, industrial, retail, other]
iii. Community infrastructure [open space, education, healthcare, allotments, other]
iv. Other
A: Any development needs to be sensitive and sympathetic to this small village.
Q62c. Are there areas in Great Stambridge that development should generally be presumed appropriate? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
A: Don’t know.
Q62d. Are there areas that require protecting from development? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
A: Don’t know.
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]
A: All green spaces hold significance, especially to those who use them for recreation, and have community value. They should be protected. Green belt borders should be protected from development in order to prevent urban sprawl.
Q63a. Do you agree with our vision for Rawreth? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]
A: Don’t know.
Q63b. With reference to Figure 51 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the promoted sites should be made available for any of the following uses? How could that improve the completeness of Rawreth?
i. Housing [market, affordable, specialist, traveller, other]
ii. Commercial [offices, industrial, retail, other]
iii. Community infrastructure [open space, education, healthcare, allotments, other]
iv. Other
A: Don’t know.
Q63c. Are there areas in Rawreth that development should generally be presumed appropriate? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
A: Yes. Those that border the main roads as this makes easy access.
Q63d. Are there areas that require protecting from development? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
A: Those that change the dynamics of the village and those areas that border Wickford. There needs to be a significate amount of green belt land left to separate the 2 areas to prevent urban sprawl.
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]
A: All green spaces hold significance, especially to those who use them for recreation, and have community value. They should be protected. Green belt borders should be protected from development in order to prevent urban sprawl.
Q64a. Do you agree with our vision for Paglesham? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]
A: I think the 30 houses is the maximum you should build to keep this hamlet special. Maybe less. The community should be consulted for their requirements.
Q64b. With reference to Figure 52 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 Paglesham?
i. Housing [market, affordable, specialist, traveller, other]
ii. Commercial [offices, industrial, retail, other]
iii. Community infrastructure [open space, education, healthcare, allotments, other]
iv. Other
A: The 30 proposed houses should reflect the history of the area and should be modest in size and scale. These does not seem to be scope for any other building project with exception to open space. Any development should be sympathetic to the design and scale of the areas history.
Q64c. Are there areas in Paglesham that development should generally be presumed appropriate? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
A: Those proposed seem appropriate subject to local knowledge and support.
Q64d. Are there areas that require protecting from development? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
A: No building anywhere where it is liable to flood. No building near the waterfront in order to protect its charm and history.
Q64e. Do you agree that the local green spaces shown on Figure 52 hold local significance? Are there any other open spaces that hold particular local significance? [Please state reasoning]
A: All green spaces hold significance, especially to those who use them for recreation, and have community value. They should be protected. Green belt borders should be protected from development in order to prevent urban sprawl.
Q65a. Do you agree with our vision for Sutton and Stonebridge? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]
A: Yes. These areas should remain low key but have better access to services.
Q65b. With reference to Figure 53 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the promoted sites should be made available for any of the following uses? How could that improve the completeness of Sutton and Stonebridge?
i. Housing [market, affordable, specialist, traveller, other]
ii. Commercial [offices, industrial, retail, other]
iii. Community infrastructure [open space, education, healthcare, allotments, other]
iv. Other
A: Don’t know, but mass development should not go ahead. The potential of building thousands of houses, retail etc would be devastating. If any form of development was to go ahead then this should be in the way of a nature reserve/woodland etc.
Q65c. Are there areas in Sutton and Stonebridge that development should generally be presumed appropriate? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
A: Don’t know.
Q65d. Are there areas that require protecting from development? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
A: Most of the area unless it is the creation of new woodland, ponds, meadows, etc.
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]
A: All green spaces hold significance, especially to those who use them for recreation, and have community value. They should be protected. Green belt borders should be protected from development in order to prevent urban sprawl.
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]
A: At this time – yes, but I feel they should have some consideration in the future in order to protect them.
Q67. Do you agree with our vision for our rural communities? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]
A: Yes. Nothing missing I can think of.
Q68. Are there other courses of action the Council could take to improve the completeness of our rural communities?
A: Survey and listen to the residents to see where they would like to go next. See if they require anything specific (travel links, facilities, affordable housing, etc.)

RDC/Spatial Consultation 2021 Questions. Hullbridge Parish Council official response/answers. 14th September 2021.

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?

Hullbridge Parish Council feels 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 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. Rochford District Council 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?

Hullbridge Parish Council believes 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?

Hullbridge Parish Council agrees that there should be separate visions for each settlement, however, these should be determined by each Parish Council working with 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 council’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.

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 Hullbridge Parish Council 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, and would 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.

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. Suggestions from councillors regarding other opportunities to supply renewable energy ranged from a solar farm in a place that will not impact its surroundings to solar panels 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?

Again, this is something that is a fantastic plan providing 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.

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.

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.

New homes should meet the standards set out in Parts M4(2) or M4(3) of Building Regulations.

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 selfemployed 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. 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.

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; additionally, Parish Councils could maintain coastal paths with funds from Section 106 agreements.

Q34. With reference 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. This section 106 money was instead given to RDC in respect of the existing Malyons Farm development. 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.

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.

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 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 reestablish 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.

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.

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.

Although I do not live in Rochford I am very concerned about any future developments because I believe that the climate emergency must be the overriding consideration and must be at the basis of all decisions. In your 20 year plan I would like you to consider:
-housing developments with only passive houses i.e. carbon neutral and with water saving features
-also to include social and family starter houses so young people can afford to live in Rochford
-more sustainable small businesses to provide employment
--cycle routes to schools
-charging points for electric cars
-commercial organic small holdings for fruit and vegetables (food resilience)
-an adventure playground
-more trees and open green spaces for the mental health and well being of residents
-green corridors for wildlife and biodiversity
-forest schools
-no concreting over front gardens and gardens and fields with hedges
As a nation we are hoping to become carbon neutral by 2050. This is vital for the wellbeing of us all. Please be innovative and courageous in your decisions.

Dear Strategic Planning Team

Rochford District Council New Local Plan Spatial Options document consultation

Thank you for your consultation on the above dated 28 July 2021 which was received by Natural England on the same date.

Natural England is a non-departmental public body. Our statutory purpose is to ensure that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced, and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development.

The following comments are principally focussed on the Integrated Impact Assessment that accompanies the Spatial Options document. They also reflect Natural England’s response to the previous consultation on the Draft Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report (our letter dated 31 January 2017, reference 204441).

IIA Theme – Health and Wellbeing

Natural England’s previous consultation response recommended the adjustment of the Appraisal
Question “Enhance multifunctional green infrastructure networks throughout the plan area?” by adding a reference to neighbouring authority areas. The amended wording would be:

“Enhance multifunctional green infrastructure networks throughout the plan area and neighbouring authority areas?”

This adjustment is still considered advisable as green infrastructure networks may well involve land that extends beyond the District boundary and restricting the provision to the District boundary could exclude the scope for landscape scale provision. This could be particularly important given the location of some of the growth options now being considered. It is of note that the recommended adjustment to the appraisal question was made in the Final Scoping report dated March 2017.

There is no longer an appraisal question which will consider whether an option promotes the use of
sustainable transport modes such as walking and cycling. Whilst a similar appraisal question features in the “Climate Change” theme, it would still be a relevant consideration in assessing the extent to which a proposal meets the Health and Wellbeing IIA Objective.

Lastly it may be worth reviewing the recently published Essex Green Infrastructure Strategy 2020 as this could provide a relevant addition to the evidence base for this aspect of the emerging Local Plan.

IIA Theme – Landscape

Natural England supports the inclusion of an appraisal question that considers the relationship and potential impact of any option/proposal on existing areas of tranquillity.

IIA Theme – Climate Change

As in its previous response, Natural England recommends the addition of an appraisal question
which will ensure that options are considered in terms of their compatibility with the Essex and Suffolk Shoreline Management Plan which is specifically referenced in the Spatial Options document. The following wording is suggested for the appraisal question:

“Support the priorities identified in the Essex and Suffolk Shoreline Management Plan?”

IIA Theme – Biodiversity

Paragraph 179 of the NPPF (Habitats and Biodiversity) is directly relevant to this particular theme and should be referenced and adjustments are recommended to the appraisal questions to better reflect the NPPF policy advice in that paragraph.
As indicated in our previous response, Natural England would advise that specific reference is made to nationally or locally protected sites. In addition, in light of the updated NPPF text, there will be an increased emphasis on the delivery of biodiversity net gain. The following wording is suggested for the first appraisal question:

“Avoid, or if not possible, minimise impacts on biodiversity, nationally or locally protected sites, and
pursue opportunities for securing net gains for biodiversity?”

We would be happy to comment further should the need arise but if in the meantime you have any queries please do not hesitate to contact us.

For any queries regarding this letter, for new consultations, or to provide further information on this
consultation please send your correspondences to consultations@naturalengland.org.uk.

Yours sincerely

Tessa Lambert
Lead Adviser – Land Use Planning
West Anglia Area Team

Hawkwell Parish Council - Official Response to RDC's Local Plan Spatial Options Consultation

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?

A full infrastructure assessment should be conducted,
to include a local highway study/up to date traffic
assessment. This study needs to be undertaken prior
to deciding the best option to deliver the new Local
Plan. The cumulative effect of the development of the
present District Plan on Hawkwell’s road system; the
Christmas Tree farm, Rectory Road, Hall Road and Brays
Lane sites, without the impact of Sapwoods site yet to
be developed.
It would also be important to obtain some
statistics/reports from schools & doctor surgery and
drainage capacity. All these areas appear to be at or
near capacity already.
Comprehensive air quality testing is a necessity, with
the increase in traffic volumes (34.5%) there must have
also been increased air pollution, which is dangerous to
the health of residents and must not be overlooked.
With reports of government already struggling to meet
their climate change targets and the extremely
worrying IPCC report it is essential that we start to
consider the consequences of the rising temperatures,
therefore a Flood Risk assessment should be provided.
There are many areas in our District that are predicted
to be under flood level by 2050 and the areas that
aren’t in the flood risk zone are already suffering from
surface flooding problems when we have torrential
downpours. (A very high proportion of
Hawkwell/Hockley sites are rated 2 for flood risk)
Perhaps a windfall report? It would be good to know
how many houses have already been built over the
course of the last Local Plan that couldn’t be included.
This could potentially be used for challenging
government for a reduction in the housing target,
which is something we would like to see.
We find it very difficult to respond to this consultation
without having the above technical evidence.

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]

No. The Council believes that Hawkwell Parish should
not be split with West Hawkwell joined with Hockley
and East Hawkwell joined with Rochford in this study.

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 explained above each settlement has its own
unique needs and characteristics and it is only by
working with Parish Councils and residents that their views can be reflected in the Plan to ensure the unique
character of each settlement is protected.

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]

Strategic Option 2 fails to address the problems of the
aging population within the District, partly due to the
failure to provide low rent social housing. The strategy
should provide council housing stock in small local
exception sites.

STRATEGY OPTIONS

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

No. Council does not agree in splitting Hawkwell Parish
into West and East and joining these areas with Hockley
and Rochford/Ashingdon respectively. Hawkwell is the
largest Parish in the Rochford District, except for
Rayleigh Town Council, yet doesn’t feature as a
complete settlement in the hierarchy.

Q6. Which of the identified strategy options do you consider should be taken forward in the Plan? [Please state reasoning]

Option 3a is Council’s preferred option. This seems the
least disruptive option and a new village to the west of
Rayleigh has the advantage of being close to exiting
road hubs (A127 and A130) which would enable good
transport links to Wickford, Basildon, Chelmsford,
Thurrock and Southend (the main employment routes).
Option 3a would attract Section 106 funding for
infrastructure, rather than adding to existing villages
and hoping for S106 funding afterwards towards
schools, community centres, medical centres and
shopping parades.
The Council promoted this option in the last Local Plan.
Option 3b would put even more pressure on existing
roads and erode the green belt and current separation
between Rochford District and Southend.
Option 3c would only lead to demands for a Southend
Bypass, promoted by developers which would lead to
further developments alongside the bypass.

Q7. Are there any reasonable alternatives to
these options that should be considered
instead? [Please state reasoning]

Yes. A combination of Option 1 and Option 3a after
utilising all available brownfield sites and infrastructure
improvements have been planned and/or completed.

SPATIAL THEMES

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

Council is concerned that the whole character of the
District will change with the urbanisation of the District.
Accessibility to some of the consultation documents
has been very problematic and Council has concerns
that residents, particularly those without access to a
computer, are not realistically able to view or respond
to the 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? [Please state
reasoning]

We agree that it is essential that both flood risk and
coastal change be considered when developing a suitable plan and development sites. A plan needs to
focus on limiting flooding, protecting people, wildlife
and properties.
According to the climate central coastal risk screening
tool, the land projected to be below annual flood level
in 2050 includes a large part of the district (areas
affected include Foulness, Wakering, Barling,
Paglesham, Stambridge, South Fambridge, Hullbridge,
Canewdon and Rochford).
The main route out of Rochford between the train
station and the airport is also affected, roads leading to
for example, Watery Lane, Lower Road etc and
including the A130 & A1245.
Large retail areas such as Purdeys Industrial Estate may
also be affected which would affect employment. As
would employment areas such Battlesbridge, Rawreth
& Shotgate.
As the sea levels rise further other complications may
include:
• People unable to get mortgages and insurance,
therefore they may not be able to live in those
areas.
• People wanting to migrate to areas of lower
flood risk.

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]

The Coastal Protection Belt only lasts to 2025 and
needs to be extended for many years. All development
in flood plains must be resisted as the danger of
flooding will increase. Hockley Woods and Cherry
Orchard Country Park must be protected from
development. The fields around St. Mary’s church in
Hawkwell and the network of footpaths around
Clements Hall and Glencroft Open Space need to be
protected for its contribution to wildlife habitat.

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?

The way forward is renewable energy, wind farms and
solar panel farms, provided they are not in places with
impact on sensitive areas.
The area does not have enough free land to support
wind or Solar P.V farms to create enough energy. These
farms have a massive impact on the community as
large trenches have to be dug over great distances to
lay the cables to Sub Stations, that have to be built.
Other sources of producing Zero Carbon energy should
be selected, before covering every piece of land with
P.V panels or Wind turbines.

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, providing the cost is not passed to the house buyer
making the cost prohibitive. Local building control
inspections should only be carried out by the Council’s
Inspectors.

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]

Foulness Island could be a good location for a Solar
Farm and wind turbines off the shore.
The plan cannot support local low carbon generation
and renewable energy. The only way this can be
achieved by all the Districts or Counties is if the grid is
de-centralised and smaller power stations are sited in
places like Foulness, where impact to the Community
would be kept to a minimum.

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]

Yes. They should be settlement specific to allow for
individual characteristic of each area, sufficiently
detailed to avoid confusion.

Q15. Are the principles set out in the draft placemaking charter the right ones? Are there other principles that should be included? [Please state reasoning]

Yes, provided that individual settlements are consulted,
and 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. Each individual settlement should be at the centre
of it and considered as their own entities, with their own individual characteristics identified.

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]

Design guides should be area specific under one single
guide covering the whole district.

c. What do you think should be included in design guides/codes/masterplans at the scale you are suggesting? [Please state reasoning].

The Design Guides must reflect the character of the
settlements while allowing for some growth.

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? [Please state reasoning]

Meet the needs for different types of tenures of
affordable, social, council and specialist housing by
requiring all types are provided on all new
developments.

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]

There is a need for more flats, bungalows, 2 bed
houses. These can be accommodated in Option 3a. In
addition, the Council has a long-held view that
bungalows should not be converted into houses as this
depletes the bungalow stock which are required for an
ageing population.

According to the strategy options/growth scenarios, the house price to local earning ratios, suggest our area is the least affordable in the country. It also states that our housing registers has grown by 20% in the last year.
With house prices going up it would mean that younger
generations are priced out of the area. If they leave the
area it would create more of a retirement settlement
than before, therefore requiring less employment & retail space etc.
Focus on building smaller properties (e.g. 1-3 bedrooms) and tailored towards singles/couples/first time buyers/young adults who are still living at home with parents.
Other priorities should be for ground level properties,
suitable for the aging and disabled residents, we should
be safeguarding existing bungalows which are rapidly
disappearing. Providing these options would ‘free up’
the larger properties within the district, meaning we
shouldn’t require so many larger (4/5 bedroom) homes.
It is important to note that first time buyers, buying a
property in the area will more than likely already live in
the district and own a vehicle. This means that no new
traffic is created, however for larger, more expensive
properties that attract buyers from outside the area
will also bring additional vehicles onto the already
congested roads.
Social housing and homes for homeless and vulnerable
residents also needs better consideration.

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]

Affordable housing for the disabled and starter homes
should be planned for.

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]

Possible need a permanent traveller site which could be
controlled in terms of site population exceeding 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]

Sites need to be away from residents but also close
enough to schools. Also needs to be near main roads to accommodate large vehicles and caravans.

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 Q21. In addition, sensitive green belt
areas should not be considered as potential locations.

EMPLOYMENT & 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? [Please state reasoning]

Ensure that Essex Education Authority provides evening
and afternoon classes to offer affordable, local adult
education to address skill shortages and allow
opportunities to support residents to get back into
work or upskill/retrain. Work with local colleges, as
well as businesses, job centres and Essex County
Council to assess what sustainable employment is
needed in the District.
Large retail areas such as Purdey’s Industrial Estate may
be affected by flooding in the future, which would
affect employment. Current businesses within the flood
risk area may possibly need to be relocated or they
could lose employment opportunities.

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]

Greenbelt sites must be controlled by regularisation of
informal sites. Brownfield sites should be used first and
protected from housing development if they have a
current or future potential to provide employment
opportunities. There is a need for employment in local
communities as this is a greener option as it reduces
transport use.

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

Council’s preferred option 3a provides many
employment opportunities to establish the new
infrastructure over many years. Various types of
employment facilities, i.e. industrial units, hospitality,
retail and other employment could be included in
option 3a. This option satisfies the ‘Employment
Option 4’ which states “meeting future needs by
prioritising employment space alongside any new
strategic housing developments.”

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

Yes, lacking in ‘green’ industries. Sites for ‘sustainable
living’ businesses e.g. refill stores, market type sites for
locally grown or manufactured foods or crafted items,
small holdings, upcycling or repair & restore facilities.

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 and public transport links to serve
new schools and colleges required as result of the
increase in population linked to development. Also
improve footpaths and cycle path access. Consider
higher or further education facilities and availability of
apprenticeships and training for all ages, to address the
current and future skills shortages.

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]

Careful consideration should be given to the growth of
the airport; it would bring additional jobs and business
opportunities, but it would also put more strain on the
existing transport network and would bring additional noise and air pollution. It would also require more land.
Improvements to the public transport system and road
network would be required to enable growth and jobs
linked to the airport industry. Airport linked transport
adjacent to both the existing airport industrial park and
Saxon Business Park should be included in the strategy.
Given the ongoing uncertainty surrounding the impact
of Climate Change on the aviation industry (e.g., urgent
carbon reduction), we should continue to make
decisions based on the existing JAAP for the time being,
but to consider developing a new Area Action Plan, or
masterplan, after the new Local Plan is adopted or
when the need arises.

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? [Please state reasoning]

Yes. Gusted Hall Wood, Hockley Woods (ancient
woodland). The upper Roach Valley, the lower Crouch
Valley. The rivers Roach and Crouch.
All local Nature Reserves and ancient woodland sites
must be protected at all costs. Magnolia Nature reserve
is home to protected Great Crested Newts.
We should avoid building on green belt, park land and
coastal locations, to protect wildlife and habitats.
Evidence suggests that society is losing its connection
to nature, we must not allow this to continue and must
ensure that future generations have a legacy. New
wildflower meadow creation would also be very
valuable as our insects and pollinators are in decline.

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. Many areas provide important wildlife habitats for
protected, endangered or rare wildlife and fauna. It is
important that these areas are protected for future
generations.

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.

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?
[Please state reasoning]

By retaining what is already in existence by ensuring
the links are in place to join as many locations as
possible. Additionally, ensuring that Public Rights of
Way (ProW) are free from land-owner obstructions and
that they are kept free from any debris. Also, paths
need to be made accessible to the disabled to ensure
all- inclusive facilities.

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]

By lobbying central government to allow revision of
RDC plans to support a quality green and blue
infrastructure; additionally, Parish Councils could
maintain paths such as costal paths with funds from
Section 106 agreements.

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]

Our choice of Option 3a, Council believes there should
be concentration on brownfield and town sites to
protect rural communities and the Green Belt.
Alternative options 3 or 4 mean less development in
rural areas and are therefore more accommodating to
the needs of smaller rural areas.

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? [Please state reasoning]

It is important to assess the shortfall of facilities and
networks before plans are approved to ensure
adequate planning and funding can be secured before
any building takes place.
Options could be considered to get people across the
road without the need to stop the traffic, such as a
walking bridge/flyover on Ashingdon Road where there
are 3 crossings within close proximity to each to other,
which is a significant cause of traffic and congestion.

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

Any section 106 monies should be legally
specified/described in the plans to state that it must be
allocated to the development area stated within the
plans and not used for other sites elsewhere.

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]

Ashingdon Road is gridlocked most days and has a
severe congestion problem. There should be public
transport links that allow residents to easily travel
between parishes within the district (for example:
Ashingdon to Hullbridge, or even travelling from East to
West Hawkwell would currently require 2 buses). Even
if Section 106 grants were made available, healthcare
facilities in Hawkwell are currently severely restricted,
especially since the pandemic due to doctor shortage;
those grants are unlikely to improve the situation.
Further development in Hawkwell would put further
burden on the healthcare provision.
A new site for the waste recycling site should be
located; the tip in Rayleigh seems to be insufficient
now.

OPEN SPACES & 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? [Please state reasoning]

Permanent all year-round bus services to our main
leisure sites.
Section 106 monies, if available, should help fund the
improvement of the football pitches at Clements Hall. It
is important to safeguard, improve and maintain
existing open spaces and recreational sites.

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 where
appropriate.

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]

The potential sites seem acceptable.

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?

There could be improvements made to Clements Hall,
including public transport links to and from the leisure
centre. Council’s preferred option 3a. would enable
delivery of new open space and sports facility provision
and S106 monies from larger developments could help
fund appropriate new facilities.

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]

Magnolia Nature Reserve and all other Reserves, green
spaces, parks, woodlands and the reservoir must be
protected.

HERITAGE

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

Villages and rural areas need to be protected from over
and/or inappropriate development through careful
planning considerations. A list of sites should be
composed with local consultation and those sites
maintained 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? [Please state reasoning]

Areas of precious woodland should not be taken 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]

The updated Local List needs to be made available for
an answer on this section.

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 reasoning]

People need to ‘want’ to visit towns. People’s habits
have changed and therefore entertainment and shop
offerings need to reflect this. If nightlife is going to be
improved then consideration needs to be given to
security; people need to feel safe, especially in areas
that are prone to Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) already.
Transport links to town shopping and amenities need to
be improved. For example, there are no easy transport
links from Hullbridge to Hockley, Hawkwell 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]

Rochford District Council (RDC) needs to encourage
business with free parking and reduced business rates.
Businesses should be encouraged to work together, or
a number of shops have extended opening hours to
encourage shoppers coming out in the early evening.

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]

N/A

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 selection of retailers is essential. There needs to
be a balance of outlets that keeps the area viable.
Consideration should also be given to the restriction of
chain stores as these tend to be the first to go in a
crisis.

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 option 3a will allow the most
opportunity to expand retail both in terms of including
retail space and bringing customers into the town
centres, nearest to new developments. Depending on
the development size, in a new development there
would be scope to add a small, medium, or large retail
precinct.

TRANSPORT & 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? [Please state reasoning]

Development should not be seen without seeing
infrastructure first. Prepare an Infrastructure Delivery
Plan to deliver meaningful improvement to transport
networks, including cycle routes, walking pathways,
public transport and roads. It is worth noting these
modes are currently completely stretched and
therefore modernisation and improvements
need to occur before future housing developments are
built. (An electric scooter scheme could also be
introduced.) RDC need to work with Government,
Highways England, Essex County Council etc to deliver
meaningful road improvements to both the main and
local road network. However, the Southend Bypass
scheme which will destroy a large green belt area
should be opposed.

Q52. Are there areas where improvements to transport connections are needed? What could be done to help improve connectivity in these areas?

There needs to be an extensive review of the area with
highways and transport revisions.

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.]

A bypass scheme that would only incorporate cycling,
walking and scooters etc around the outskirts would
help with congestion issues on the overcrowded roads.

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? [Please note you may wish to comment on the use of specific areas of land in the next section]

Green belt and farmland / agricultural sites must be
protected. Rural and village life must also be
safeguarded.

Q55. Are there any other ways that you feel the plan should be planning for the needs of rural communities? [Please stare reasoning]

There should be support for the requirement of
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

Q56.
a. Do you agree with our vision for Rayleigh? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]

N/A

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?

N/A

How could that improve the completeness of Rayleigh?

N/A

i. Housing [market, affordable, specialist, traveller, other]

N/A

ii. Commercial [offices, industrial, retail, other]

N/A

iii. Community infrastructure [open space, education, healthcare, allotments, other]

N/A

iv. Other

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

N/A

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

N/A

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?

N/A

Q57.
a. Do you agree with our vision for Rochford and Ashingdon? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]

Hawkwell Parish shares the Ashingdon Road with both
Ashingdon and Rochford Parish so any development
has an impact on East Hawkwell, which is not
mentioned in the consultation. Development not only
affects our Primary Schools and Doctors Surgeries but
also the road network. The proposed sites (some 5,000
properties) accessing onto Brays Lane leading onto the
Ashingdon Road and Rectory Road, onwards to Cherry
Orchard Way plus developments proposed in West
Hawkwell (some 1,280 properties) would lead to the
majority of the total development being concentrated
in this part of the District and would result in complete
urbanisation.

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?

Council’s preferred Option 3a would alleviate the
pressure on the villages of Hockley, Hawkwell,
Ashingdon and Rochford.

i. Housing [market, affordable, specialist, traveller, other]

N/A

ii. Commercial [offices, industrial, retail, other]

N/A

iii. Community infrastructure [open space, education, healthcare, allotments, other]

N/A

iv. Other

N/A

c. Are there areas in Rochford and Ashingdon that development should generally be presumed appropriate? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]

N/A

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

N/A

e. Do you agree that the local green spaces shown on Figure 45 hold local significance? Are there any other open spaces that hold particular local significance? [Please state reasoning]

N/A

Q58.
a. Do you agree with our vision for Hockley and Hawkwell? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]

The vision “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.”
Firstly, it will not be a green lung if houses are built
within it. To be the ‘gateway to the green lung’, it
needs to be protected. Some of the proposed areas for
Hockley & Hawkwell contain ancient woodland. A
gateway also presumes by its nature that throughfare
of traffic is required, which could be interpreted as
traffic problems.
Also, Hockley has a village centre whereas Hawkwell is
mainly residential and comprised of green spaces
rather than leisure/social facilities, except for Clements
Hall, so the term vibrant would only be appropriate for
Hockley. As answered in Questions 2 and 5, Council
believe that there should be separate visions for
Hockley and Hawkwell as they are very different.
We agree that: “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.”

b. With reference to Figure 46 and your preferred strategy Option, do you think any of the promoted sites should be made available for any of the following uses? How could that improve the completeness of Hockley and Hawkwell?

i. Housing [market, affordable, specialist, traveller, other]
ii. Commercial [offices, industrial, retail, other]
iii. Community infrastructure [open space, education, healthcare, allotments, other]
iv. Other

Most of the sites listed for Hockley & Hawkwell are
marked as severe/mildly severe harm when it comes to
the green belt. There are also a number of sites that
contain ancient woodland.
Hawkwell & Hockley are already at capacity and
therefore would require infrastructure improvements
before even considering any further development. Any
sites that create traffic through Rochford, Hockley or
Hullbridge would be opposed, in particular those that
need to utilise Ashingdon Road, Spa Road & Lower
Road, and those that empty traffic onto the B1013, due
to already being over capacity.

c. Are there areas in Hockley and Hawkwell that
development should generally be presumed appropriate? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]

No, we feel it is not possible to comment on any sites
regarding their suitability without the full infrastructure
delivery plan being provided beforehand.
No green belt sites would be appropriate.
Development should be on brownfield sites only.
If the land would be of no use to agriculture and that
infrastructure had current capacity to absorb the extra
homes/residents. This would need to be evidenced.

c. Are there areas in Hockley and Hawkwell that
development should generally be presumed appropriate? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]

No, we feel it is not possible to comment on any sites
regarding their suitability without the full infrastructure
delivery plan being provided beforehand.
No green belt sites would be appropriate.
Development should be on brownfield sites only.
If the land would be of no use to agriculture and that
infrastructure had current capacity to absorb the extra
homes/residents. This would need to be evidenced.

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

Yes, green belt needs to be protected for biodiversity
reasons and agriculture sites must be protected, as one
of the consequences of climate change could mean we
would have to look at growing produce locally. Ancient
woodlands must not be touched as they are
irreplaceable. Any sites containing wildlife must also be
protected, even those that serve as a barrier from
human life to wildlife as this creates a safe zone and
habitat.

e. 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? [Please state reasoning]

They would hold local and national significance, as they
are green spaces and therefore hold significance,
especially in mitigating the effects of climate change.

Q59.
a. Do you agree with our vision for the Wakerings and Barling? Is there anything QUESTIONS you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]

N/A

b. With reference to Figure 47 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the promoted sites should be made available for any of the following uses? How could that improve the completeness of the
Wakerings and Barling?

i. Housing [market, affordable, specialist, traveller, other]
ii. Commercial [offices, industrial, retail, other]
iii. Community infrastructure [open space, education, healthcare, allotments, other]
iv. Other

N/A

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

N/A

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

Q60.
a. Do you agree with our vision for Hullbridge? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]

N/A

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?

i. Housing [market, affordable, specialist, traveller, other]
ii. Commercial [offices, industrial, retail, other]
iii. Community infrastructure [open space, education, healthcare, allotments, other]
iv. Other

N/A

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

N/A

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

N/A

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]

N/A

Q61.
a. Do you agree with our vision for Canewdon? Is there anything you feel is QUESTIONS missing? [Please state reasoning]

N/A

b. With reference to Figure 49 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 Canewdon?

i. Housing [market, affordable, specialist, traveller, other]
ii. Commercial [offices, industrial, retail, other]
iii. Community infrastructure [open space, education, healthcare, allotments, other]
iv. Other

N/A

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

N/A

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

N/A

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]

N/A

Q62.
a. Do you agree with our vision for Great Stambridge? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]

N/A

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

i. Housing [market, affordable, specialist, traveller, other]
ii. Commercial [offices, industrial, retail, other]
iii. Community infrastructure [open space, education, healthcare, allotments, other]
iv. Other

N/A

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

N/A

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

N/A

e. 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

Q63.
a. Do you agree with our vision for Rawreth? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]

N/A

b. With reference to Figure 51 and your
preferred Strategy Option, do you think any
of the promoted sites should be made
available for any of the following uses? How
could that improve the completeness of
Rawreth?

i. Housing [market, affordable, specialist, traveller, other]
ii. Commercial [offices, industrial, retail, other]
iii. Community infrastructure [open space, education, healthcare, allotments, other]
iv. Other

N/A

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]

N/A

e. 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

Q64.
a. Do you agree with our vision for Paglesham? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]

N/A

b. With reference to Figure 52 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 Paglesham?

i. Housing [market, affordable, specialist, traveller, other]
ii. Commercial [offices, industrial, retail, other]
iii. Community infrastructure [open space, education, healthcare, allotments, other]
iv. Other

N/A

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

N/A

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

N/A

e. Do you agree that the local green spaces
shown on Figure 52 hold local significance?
Are there any other open spaces that hold
particular local significance? [Please state
reasoning]

N/A

Q65.
a. Do you agree with our vision for Sutton and
Stonebridge? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]

N/A

b. With reference to Figure 53 and your
preferred Strategy Option, do you think any
of the promoted sites should be made
available for any of the following uses? How
could that improve the completeness of
Sutton and Stonebridge?

i. Housing [market, affordable, specialist, traveller, other]
ii. Commercial [offices, industrial, retail, other]
iii. Community infrastructure [open space,
education, healthcare, allotments, other]
iv. Other

N/A

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

N/A

e. 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]

N/A

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

N/A

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

N/A

Dear Sirs

We have looked at the proposed sites for development and are concerned that it seems as though Rayleigh will be at least a third bigger than it is presently, with, we guess if recent developments are anything to go by, few properties that first time buyers like our grandchildren would be able to afford.

Surely it would be better to build new developments away from existing towns and villages with new facilities purpose built for the amount of dwellings rather than stretching the resources which are already not coping with demand.

As there are constant traffic jams through the centre of Rayleigh particularly bad at peak times earning it the dubious reputation of having extremely bad air quality it makes us fearful of the health of Rayleigh residents if this development was to take place.

We understand that in the previous plans for development - Allocates DPD Reg. 25 it was stated that there would be public parkland providing a buffer between the built development and the A1245, but this proposal shows large areas, probably containing over 1000 dwellings right up to the A1245.

We fail to see how these proposals would enhance or conserve the natural and historic environment. Indeed, we feel that once dwellings are built near to them it would have the opposite effect of encroaching on them and eventually swallowing them up. Hence we do not support the demolition of The Mill, a recreational building, for more apartment blocks.

it would be very unlikely that the residents of these developments would bring new life to the High Street and other existing commercial properties as the queues of traffic to get into the town and parking fees would make the choice of shopping in out of town where parking is free would be much more attractive.

We both agree that Rayleigh is a lovely town but are becoming increasingly frustrated with the amount of traffic that runs through it (particularly if there is trouble on the A127 when it becomes a 'rat run'). Recent development has not enhanced the High Street apart from encouraging new eating places. Please don't let it be destroyed forever!

Dear Sir,
Re: Stakeholder: Reference CP15678E. Community Representative No. 29007.

New Local Plan 2021 Consultation. Issues and Options Documents & Statement of Community Involvement and the Spatial Options documents.

We request Rochford District Council to invite the Government Planning Inspector to find that the New Local Plan 2021 must be withdrawn for reasons mentioned below.
In our consideration the Map A, on the basis of the relevant Legislation Guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework is not:
Positively Prepared
Justified
Effective
Consistent with National Policy

There are sufficient clauses in the NPPF, LDF and Localism Act which stipulate that all issues must be considered including Infrastructure and in areas environmentally threatened as shown in the Environment Agency and the Insurance Company data (Flood maps). It is imperative proper assessments be made in accordance with the NPPF regulations such as Flood, Road Network, Proximity to rivers and all issues set out below. Our experience from the current Malyons Lane large development that our SCI will be ignored again unless we have support from our MP Mark Francois and all the Councillors who are continually proud to state they are Community minded.

The Hullbridge Residents Association have viewed the Local Development Framework Evidence Base and note that the contents are a repeat of the documents issued in 2015 as are the documents mentioned above
Along with the accompanying Integrated Impact Assessment.

Section 1. Introduction
1.1 States this is a review document of the original adoption in 2016, now presented in repetition but revised in 2015 and 2017 (for 2021).

We understand the need for additional homes, but we are concerned that ‘Infrastructure is not given priority as stated by our MP Mark Francois and indeed Government directives, particularly the existing infrastructure but continually being ignored.


Stakeholder Ref: CP15678E Community Representative Ref: 29007

Page 1. Clause 1.2

HRA produced and delivered to RDC a 45-page document on the Core Strategy, Land Development Framework (LDF), National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and Localism Act for a development in progress and submitted some 525 issues in the planning documents presented by RDC without a proper response.
The clauses about Community Consultation being important is just a paper exercise to convince the Planning Inspector that the community support all the data produced.

HRA 9 years of experience has shown RDC and Councillors lack of the understanding or interpretation of Community Involvement, proper consultation and transparency, and fear another regretful experience with all sites being put forward for possible development. Having spoken to some Councillors they state that these site will not necessarily be approved to allow planning applications, but past experience does not provide any confidence that the community issues will be taken into account..
We make a plea to the Government Planning Inspector to investigate reasons why the community are ignored in proper consultation.

36 Sites.
We demonstrate our reasons for our rejection of many sites (stated in our document marked “Exhibit B- Issues and Options”) until the subject of the infrastructure (in all aspects- including existing) are reviewed This is an important subject and we extend our Plea to the Planning Inspector to set this review in motion and allow full participation by the Community Representative.

We consider the following clauses of the NPPF and Core Strategy must be applied:

NPFF 3– Core Planning Principles. Pages 1, 5-6, Clauses 1-2, 6-17.
NPPF 4 – Promoting Sustainable Transport.
NPPF 5 – Supporting high quality communications infrastructure. With roads/transport a priority.
NPPF 6 – Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes.
NPPF 7- Requiring Good Design.
NPPF 8 – Promoting Healthy communities.
NPPF 9 - Protecting the Green Belt land.
NPPF 10- Meeting the Challenge of Climate Change, Flooding & Coastal change.
NPPF 11- Conserving and enhancing the future environment.
NPPF Plan Making – Local Plans (p. 37).
NPPF Using a Proportionate evidence base- (p. 38).
NPPF Ensuring Viability and Deliverability- ( p. 41).
NPPF Decision taking – Pre-application engagement & front loading, (p. 45).
Technical Guidance to the NPPF- Flood risk on page 2. Sequential and Exceptional Tests p. 3 to 7.
NPPF - Sequential and Exceptional Tests –

Drainage
Sustainable drainage systems;
We have submitted documents in respect of the existing drainage system needing substantial improvements prior to any links being provided to the new developments and should be part of the necessary required Infrastructure works we have continually highlighted that the present system is not ‘fit for purpose’, but this was ignored. RDC are duty bound to inform ECC (RDC state that this is not their responsibility.


Stakeholder Ref: CP15678E Community Representative Ref: 29007


Page 2.
Clause 1.7 Statement of Community Involvement.
Having been disappointed with the first Statement of Community Involvement document in 2013 and 2016 we take the clause 1.7 on page 2 seriously and look forward to proper ‘consultation’ by RDC, and not use our submission purely as a ‘tick-box’ exercise to prove to the Planning Inspector that the regulations are observed and, our views have been taken into account but we have not seen these issues progressed to amendments in the Local Plan. HRA represent the Hullbridge community and have the right for engagement as stated in the NPPF and the Localism Act.

Clauses 1.8 & 1.9.
A plan indicating 36 additional sites on Map A in Hullbridge along with a further 6 sites not identified on Map A. Please refer to our Exhibit A on pages 14 and 15.

Clause 1.10 is of special interest as it mentions “on-going consultation” at every stage. We did not have the opportunity to discuss ‘The Draft Scoping Report’ which was published on the RDC websites, and the residents, businesses and other ‘stakeholders’ on the RDC mailing list were not consulted (HRA is a Stakeholder and Representative)- continually ignored by RDC- indeed HRA have correspondence relating to this issue that “if we did not like it we should consider litigation’.

Clause 1.14 on page 4 is of special interest to us as we placed emphasis on the Localism Act (2011) with the Managing Director of RDC and were told that the Localism Act was irrelevant. Why is it now more relevant than before? We request this ‘Act’ to be included as it supports Human Rights.

Clause 1.16. Only one ‘drop-in session’ was set up at Hullbridge Community Centre on 24/8/21. The attendance was low, HRA committee had 9 committee members present who asked questions and had responses which do not reflect the issues put forward in this ‘Plea’. One answer took us by surprise, that the Essex Design Guide which we have referred to throughout has been replaced by Rochford own Design Guide. When we consider the reduced staff levels with some unqualified planning staff it leads us to believe that this design guide will be subject to much criticism. We hope the Government Inspector will take this into account.

Planning law requires that “Call for Sites” which falls part of the development plan in accordance with the Regulations Governing Neighbourhood Planning Laws- NPPF 6 - Plans and Strategies – Part 6, Chapter 1, clauses 109 to 113, allows for Neighbourhood Planning – Part 6, chapter 3, clauses 116 to 121., and gives the community the right to Consultation – Part 6, chapter 4, clause 122. We challenge RDC to approve our application for this Neighbourhood Planning Group and a Statutory Consultee status which will also be an asset to the Hullbridge Parish Council. No explanation is given for reasons why we are not allowed to have consultation to give us good reasons why the regulations are not being properly debated and a conclusion found. This attitude denies community skills and professions adequately proven over 9 years of hard work, not acknowledged.

The four principles that follow imply that the core strategy should be relevant, sustainable and ‘Fit for Purpose’ and become part of the NPPF and LDF:
• Positively prepared.
Our observation on the previous Local Plan that insufficient forward planning had been carried in accordance with the Core Strategy which should have been adhered to and we will not be surprised if the same ‘policy’ will prevail. We look forward to the Planning Inspector requesting a coordinated approach and consultation with the community representatives, as the present system is not fit for purpose.


Stakeholder Ref: CP15678E Community Representative Ref: 29007

• Justified.
In view of the aforesaid we do not believe there was any justification to allow more sites to be put forward without clear thinking on assessments being made in respect of the “existing Infrastructure”, and the use of Green Belt land being used instead of Brownfield land and the other issues stated in this document.
The Core Strategy, NPPF and LDF and Localism Act all express that Green Belt land should only be used as a last resort and only under exceptional circumstances, many issues which we have demonstrated have not been addressed sufficiently. Can RDC demonstrate why they are unable to adhere to the rules and regulations designed to safeguard the community.
According to the Localism Act 2011, we have demonstrated that transparency and consultation were lacking with the community. This has to be rectified and included within the proposed Local Plan.
• Effective
The conditions for the development of the 36 Hullbridge sites will not be satisfied for the reasons given above, therefore we consider a complete review of these possible proposed developments and the Core Strategy allows for the community to raise these issues and get into meaningful dialogue with RDC.
• Consistent with National Policy
National policy insists that all the policies stated should be transparent, proper consultation pursued in relations to all the development criteria. We do not believe that proper feasibility studies, risk analysis have been conducted in order to satisfy the requirements of the NPPF and LDF. Most subjects referred to in this presentation will imply reasons for withdrawal, in view of Government directives and regulations listed above.
The Localism Act 2011 Chapter 20. suggested meaningful dialogue with the HRA. Our residents asked what guarantees will be given to HRA that we will be listened to, not merely placing this document on RDC website to satisfy the Planning Inspector requirements. We require RDC Planning/Legal department to clarify.

Clauses 1.18 and 1.19 speaks of ‘community-led planning’ which is of interest to HRA but all our applications and requests for clarification are ignored. We have consistently placed great emphasis on ‘community cohesion’. Which makes for good public awareness. We can produce correspondence to the Parish Council for cohesion in respect to the whole community and help to remove the divisions which exist at present.
HRA have requested support from the Hullbridge Parish Council and indeed our rights should be upheld in accordance with the Localism Act..

Page 5.
Clauses 1.20 and 1.21
How can the RDC ensure that our proposals can be supported for the benefit of the community.
Clause 1.21 Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) and the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) will be prepared to set out the circumstances that the CIL will be applied and the key infrastructure that the CIL will seek to fund. The Council will seek to fund this through a ‘Community levy’. This implies that the RDC are not protecting the community. ECC financial planning administration needs reviewing on the subject of ‘contingencies’ which should apply to all categories of infrastructure and other important categories to allow for future planning, maintenance and improvement.

The Essex County Council document “Greater Essex Growth” states that Greater Essex Growth and Infrastructure Framework 2016 is not listed or discussed. The Executive Summary says that Section 106 and ‘Community Infrastructure Levy’ (CIL) will fall way short of expectations and other Government Funding will be in ‘shortfall’ to the tune of £ Billions (report produced by AECOM) who also produced the RDC “Sustainability Analysis”, please explain why they did not cite this issue.
Stakeholder Ref: CP15678E Community Representative Ref: 29007

HRA study of funding under section 106, particularly to fund the local Clinics (£164k recently) which was put to the NHS and RDC fell short of the required sum in view of the increased population. HRA requested consultation to allow co-ordinated conclusions. No surprise this was ignored by all concerned.
The normal LA practices are that a 10 year plan allowing the income to be divided into categories of funding allowing for contingencies for each element of Infrastructure to satisfy needs as they arise, so the question is what have you done with those budgets, as we keep being informed of shortage of funds, perhaps the auditors are allowed to explain how that money was spent. We ask, under ‘The Freedom of Information Act’ why the Hullbridge infrastructure was allowed to deteriorate over at least 50 years.
HRA object to the IDP and CIL because these should be RDC, ECC and Agency obligations to use the contingency funds and not produce more rules which allow the LA to cover up their own accountability inadequacies and should not be an ‘extra’ burden to the community.
If approved, this will set a precedent for other forms of funding from the communities. The community are concerned by this new statement lacking in the Core Strategy and the Land Development Framework. Can you blame the community for showing concern that LA mismanagement of funds fall to the communities having to make good the shortfall wherever they occur.

Page 9. Item 3.2. 36 Sites additional development Land.
The Land Mass measured and stated in this clause we find is out of date because several hectares have already been built on since 2012 which should have been taken into consideration, thus reducing the Land Mass area. Your review and consultation is necessary and we look forward to open discussions in
accordance with the Localism Act.

Section 3. Please refer to our Exhibit A- Development density comparison on pages 14/15.
The total measure of 36 sites = 124 hectares (approximately) which will provide a capacity of 3720 dwellings at minimum 30 dwellings per hectare. The minimum density of 30/60 dwellings per hectare can provide 3720 to 7440 dwellings.

Boundary Line.
Further examination of the same map A indicates that 30.5% of the land lies in the adjoining Rawreth Parish. Please refer to our Exhibits A and B on pages 14-15 and 16 – 20 consecutively.
The result provides the following information:
In our examination of the New Local Plan Document, we are unable to find any explanation for dealing with this ‘division’. Using our previous submission in relation to the Boundary Line indicated on the Ordnance Survey shown and confirmed by the Local Boundary Commission, our correspondence with Rochford District Council requesting clarification on the Parish Council division and the financial implications, they refused to accept the existence of this Boundary line. At a meeting with the developer, we were informed that RDC will allow Council Tax collected by Hullbridge on behalf of Rawreth Parish. Have RDC made the necessary application to LBC for the necessary changes to the Boundary Line and whether or not Rawreth will be amalgamated with Hullbridge at some future date.
The same principle applies with the Boundary Commission England and the National Planning Policy Framework regulations, again we ask for specific dialogue to satisfy the regulations. One of the Green Belt policy purpose is to prevent neighbouring towns/villages from merging into one, Can RDC explain why they seem to have abandoned this policy.

Page 10. Clauses 3.6 to 3.8, Figures 2 and 3. “Travel to work outflows and inflows”.
The travel patterns have changed since 2011 by about 18% with the increase of population. We request a review of the information being given, affecting transport congestion and lack of proper infrastructure.

Page 11. Clauses 3.9 to 3.12. Employment statistics.
We suggest a review is necessary. What guarantees will the prospective developers give to employ local skills.
Stakeholder Ref: CP15678E Community Representative Ref: 29007

Pages 12 and 13. Our Environment. Clause 3.13
Previous Statements made by the Environment Department, Highways & Water Agencies and the HSE suggesting assessments made in 2011 and 2014 were ‘insufficient’ and all future assessments will also fall short of efficiency with funding being used as an excuse to minimise costs giving rise to lack of obligations to this community and to blame Government pressure to satisfy the development quota being used as an excuse to limit the scale of assessments, thus breaching the clauses in the LDF, NPPF and Localism Act.
The same agencies gave evidence to the Planning Inspector that Hullbridge is a ‘sparsely populated’ area. This can be classified as a false statement knowing that Flood water has been a major concern for many years including surface and foul water discharges onto roads and gardens, due to lack of improved drainage facilities and gardens constantly under water. Further land being put forward for development will exacerbate the infrastructure issue. We are informed that RDC do not keep records of ‘Public health’ issues, any complaints are ignored. Foul sewers are grossly overloaded. A full upgrade of the drainage system has always been overdue. This issue should be investigated rigorously by the RDC and it is their responsibility to inform the ECC.

Page 14. Our Communities.
The Hullbridge population count for 2011 census states a population of 6858. HRA support from the community in 2017 suggests 7000 and in 2019 = 7400.
The current development of 500 homes proves an annual population increase from 2019 to 2023 = 9400 population. The growth in the previous 3 decades (census) indicated an average of 2.2% increase. This indicates an average annual increase of 2% per census. This is contrary to the Core Strategy, LDF and the NPPF and the Localism Act that any increase in population should follow the historical line. Hopes rise for a new climate of close Community Consultation.

Page 15 Table 1. Breakdown of 2011 Population Census.
These possible developments will increase the Hullbridge population (see Exhibit B- Population) to 35,900 which will be close to the present Rayleigh population within 15 to 20 years.

Hullbridge, presently with a ‘village status’ will become a Town with a population probably second only to Rayleigh. The Portfolio Holder (Councillor Ian Ward) stated that the Local Plans have changed and it was now paramount to ‘listen’ and closely ‘consult and engage’ with the community, but most people are sceptical that our voices will be heard, and the necessary amendments put forward by the HRA ‘professionals’ will not be heeded. Hullbridge presently consider all verbal utterances are not considered in favour of the community, and no changes are evident except for many of our issues on planning which HRA had to investigate without any RDC help to satisfy the community q & a meetings.

Clause 3.20 Using HRA figures given above we are unable to reconcile with your statement that “the proportion of residents in all demographic ranges will remain ‘stable’. We advise the RDC to review their information and observe the contents of our Exhibit A and B on pages 14/15 and 16-21 provides the necessary calculation, showing exceptional over-population.

Page 16
Clauses 3.21 to 3.25 needs to be reviewed in respect of the statements made being out of date, as the document is prepared using data prescribed in 2011 without fact-finding surveys being conducted to carry out ‘forward planning’ especially with the owner-occupation criteria becoming financially unreliable. With experience of the Public Finance Initiative (PFI) being suspect it will be necessary to return to Council House Building with participation between Local Government and Housing Associations being a prime ‘home provider’ but all motives are suspect.


Stakeholder Ref: CP15678E Community Representative Ref: 29007

Section 4
Page 17 – Spatial Challenges.
Great emphasis is placed on the laws governing the National Planning Policy Framework. We highlight the following to allow you to respond to the Hullbridge Residents Association.
We request you uphold the clauses requiring Consultation with the community Representative such as the HRA with and allowing replies to issues of importance to the community, before finalising the New Local Plan.

Consultative Objections.
We submit our “Consultative Objections” and conform to the NPPF policy namely – that the Local Authority and the ‘Applicants’ must work closely with those directly affected by their proposals to evolve designs that take account of the views of the community.

Brownfield and Greenfield land.

The allocation DPD Document (Feb 2010)- Discussion & Consultative Document on page 1 states that the Council Statement of Community Involvement is committed to Regulations 25 Public Participation in the preparation of Planning for the District (revised 2017). We ask for the right to be properly consulted on this issue that the allocation document has no brownfield sites identified as given in our Exhibit B.

Section 5.
Page 24. Clause 5.1. Our Vision and Strategic Objectives.
HRA experience gained over 9 years of deliberations over the Hullbridge ‘developments’ and Local Plans, that this has not been a success as the majority of the 185 issues submitted in 2014, not being satisfied, and with alliances formed with other localities the same view is expressed. The fact that you did not respond indicates that we are right on all the issues submitted to you and hope the Planning Inspector will take this into account in respect of all future “Consultation”.
We hope that the Planning Inspector takes into account the atmosphere of distrust by the community.

Clause 5.4 Our current Vision
HRA disagree that what is being prescribed on the Hullbridge Plan will allow the community to have the best quality of life, when there is at least 20 years of disruption to look forward to, which will blight our lives. Whole sale development is taking place with major clauses in the NPPF being disregarded.
A “Considerate Contractor Scheme Notice must be a requirement for all contractors to observe the rules towards the community.

Page 26. Clause 5.10. Rochford District 2037. Our Society
We disagree with the statement made that’ the green infrastructure network across the district has been enhanced to support our population. Many hectares of Green Belt Land are being allowed to be developed disregarding all the clauses which are supposed to protect the Green Belt and Government directives. Articles written by the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) bear witness to the contrary and the community remain sceptical about the final outcome.
The community believe that the homes will be for the over- burgeoning populace of London, not of Essex. We fail to see how you can demonstrate the indigenous population expansion taking priority.

Page 28. Cl. 5.11. Strategic Objective 13. Flood.
Experience gained by the lack of proper assessments on flood, disregarding all the issues provided to you in 2013. Decisions are being made according to financial constraints.


Stakeholder Ref: CP15678E Community Representative Ref: 29007

RDC now have a recipe for disaster in an area naturally susceptible to surface water discharge from the ‘Rayleigh Heights’ about 65m above ground level and surrounding areas of vulnerable Watery Lane.


Page 29. Strategic Priority 5. Climate change.
The Hullbridge community are concerned that the information provided by various Agencies and Insurance Companies that the 1:100 flood incident is flawed and is more likely to be a maximum 1:25 due to Climate change. There is scepticism that the LA will help change the law and this will be detrimental to the community at large. Sea levels have officially been recorded as rising some 150mm above sea level from the beginning of this century and are forecast to rise by 500mm before the end of this century.

Section 6.
Pages 32 to 38. Clauses 6.8 to 6.29. Tables 2 to 4.
Advance notice. Property Insurance.
The potential Property Insurance costs against ‘flood risk’ and ‘subsidence in these areas, can range from £2500 to £5000. per household depending on the risk analysis.
An exercise on Post Codes SS5 reveals that using the ‘Hawkeye’ system determining the level of associated risks such as flood, subsidence etc., the combined results show that in both instances, subsidence is Red, meaning these are perils which will either be excluded or a large excess applied in respect of subsidence – usually £2,500.00 (£1000.00 being ‘Standard’) and for any areas susceptible to flood, without protection barriers or flood defences will increase the Cost Risk to £5,000.00 per property making ‘flood excess’ a priority and no claims accepted by the Insurance Companies if this is applied to development in flood areas.

Page 38 to 40. Clauses 6.29 to 6.33. Homes for purchase and Affordable Homes.
This document was obviously written before the changes which have taken place in the financial industry and Government policies. The change in ‘affordability’ has not been fully considered. We advise you to review and amend this statement accordingly.
How can you demonstrate the ‘affordability’ during this financial climate, which are likely to continue for the next 10 years, irrespective of the incentives given on stamp duty and directives to the lending institutions? Most younger adults will have great difficulty to purchase homes and maintain mortgage payments.

Table 5 Rochford District- Settlement Hierarchy.
We have always had an issue with the infringement of the Green Belt. Most of the present developments recently completed or under construction are being built on Green Belt land disregarding brownfield sites. We suspect that the new Land Development Framework document questions the need to build on the green belt land. Our Exhibit B presents you with our statements on your LDF

Page 45. Clause 6.48. Housing Density Options .
Earlier we provided calculations for the lowest density of development per hectare, It is evident that the option may be for up to 60 homes per hectare which will increase the incentive provided by the Government and risk the long term harmony in the community and will cause even greater strain and stress on the Hullbridge infrastructure and the community.
RDC must take advantage of requesting funds from the Government announcement of £866m funds from the Housing Infrastructure Fund (HIF) to enable the existing Hullbridge infrastructure be brought up to standard, on the grounds that the previous planning regime’s over the last 30 years have been negligent in dealing with the existing infrastructure as suggested on page 6. Clause 1.21.



Stakeholder Ref: CP15678E Community Representative Ref: 29007


Section 8.
Local Highways Capacity and Infrastructure. Clause 8.3 LDF Development Management Submission Document- Section 5- Transport page 73. Improvements to local road network
The only access points to get to Hullbridge is Lower Road and Hullbridge Road. Watery lane should not be considered as a main thoroughfare and we despair that the Essex County Council, Rochford District Council and the Agencies seem to ignore this fact. We want the Planning Inspector to review his statement in the ‘Planning approval’ given in 2014 that RDC consult with HRA on the feasibility for improvement of this Lane, as it is not ‘fit for purpose’.

Highways Risk Analysis.
HRA are concerned that a proper Highways Risk Analysis has not been carried out by the Core Strategy, NPPF and LDF documents. Further consideration must be given for ‘transparency’ as stated in The Localism Act (2011). Recent replacement of 50 years old Gas services emphasises the disruption which
will be caused by both existing and future construction work. County and Local Authorities please take note.

Watery Lane, is in urgent need of improvement and HRA have corresponded with RDC, ECC and all the Agencies showing Watery Lane and Hullbridge Road are identified as traffic congestion points, in clauses 8.13 to 8.15.
We request that RDC/ECC/Agencies contact the SAT NAV services to remove Watery Lane as a general thoroughfare and emphasise this is “weight restricted” and ‘width restrictive’ and speed limits reviewed with adequate signage..
This lane is too narrow for any vehicles over 30 cwt. The lane is without a public footpath making this lane a health and safety issue which needs urgent rectification. HRA suggest that this section of the document should be reviewed, particularly as the Planning Inspector acknowledged HRA argument that Watery Lane is not ‘fit for purpose’, we reject the statement that Watery Lane is NOT part of the “Strategic Highways Network” please review, amend and highlight for the Planning Inspector to view..

Accessibility to Services. Hullbridge has many un-adopted, single lane and unmade roads making access difficult for the Fire, Police, Refuse, Ambulance and general delivery services and will not be suitable for constant construction site traffic for next 20 years a covenant should be inserted to allow the ECC and their Agencies to make urgent contingencies before the matter gets worse as expansion proceeds..

Fire Hydrants. Hullbridge only has 8 Fire Hydrants to serve the whole village, which is considered inadequate for the fire services.


Page 85 - 90. Clause 8.22 to 8.37. Sustainable Travel.
The transport system is being overhauled to reduce the number of buses serving the communities and the frequency, if this carries on, there will be future major problems. Please refer to LDF Allocations Submission Document Page 60 Cl 3.177/178.

Page 87. Clause 8.31 Rayleigh Air Quality.
Reading this clause we are not confident that something will be done to provide good quality air. It was reported in the media, that dangerous levels of nitrous oxide caused by diesel fumes are being recorded in and around the Rayleigh area. Air quality is lacking in both depth and detail which means the RDC ‘evidence base’ on the subject of traffic, is lacking. Please explain your remedy? This pollution has been apparent for many years but ignored. The community now demand action to remedy this issue.

Stakeholder Ref: CP15678E Community Representative Ref: 29007


Page 92 to 96. Clause 8.45 to 8.58. Water and Flood Risk management.
Flood
At times of flood (frequent - 25 times in 5 years), in Watery Lane, has resulted in many accidents, causing ‘gridlock’ to the whole local traffic system in Hullbridge and surrounding areas. Drainage is unable to cope with excess flood water resulting in overflow of excrement and water into roads and gardens and cross-surging foul water and surface water services

Page 96- 98. Clause 8.59 – 8.66. Renewable Energy Generation.
We agree about the ‘renewable energy’ ‘dream’ from all sources and accept there is natural course of events to be taken for the sake of the concerns on Global Environment. It is the political challenges which become the difficult part to address. Perhaps Political will may help.

Page 98-100. Clause 8.67- 8.75. Planning Obligations and Standard Charges.
Local Authorities ignore the observations and pleas made to review and observe the standards laid down by the NPPF, Core Strategy and LDDF to allow ‘proper’ consultation with the community representatives.
The NPPF guidelines on all planning obligations suggest that the 3 tests as set out, must pass:
1 Necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms.
2 Directly related to the development.
3 Fairly and reasonable related in scale and kind to the development.
The community want an action plan to allow meaningful consultation with the community.

Section 9 Supporting Health, Community and Culture.
Page 101- 120. Clauses 9.1 – 9.61. Health Impact assessment- Cl 3.186
We (HRA) brought to the authorities’ attention various anomalies in the financial accountability in assessing the “Contributions” without giving considerations to contingency for increases in inflation and time related uplift. HRA are happy to be consulted in the future.
HRA investigated the Health Provision indicated in Section 106 ‘contributions and concentrated on the sum stated to be for the Riverside Medical Centre on Ferry Road and found the sum stated to be inadequate. We fear the same decisions may be made for the foreseeable future. As HRA have been active on this issue it would be in the interests of all parties to consult and agree a course of action.

Section 10 Protecting and Enhancing our Environment.
Page 121 - Clause 10.1 to 10.4
General planning policy of the NPPF suggests minimising vulnerability and provide resilience to climate change impacts. RDC and ECC must provide a course of actions.

Page 121 – 141. Clause 10.5 – 10.72 Green Belt
We agree the purposes of the NPPF clause 10.7-10.8 in that the 5 purposes of the Green Belt set out to:
1. Check the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas
2. Prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another.
3. Assist in safeguarding the countryside from ‘encroachment.
4. Preserve the setting and special character of historic towns.
5. Assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land ie Brownfield Sites. Inappropriate development. (Page 122. Clause 10.8) Specifically states that the construction of new buildings in the Green Belt is generally considered to be inappropriate development.
The Hullbridge Residents Association respectively request that Rochford District Council adhere to these policies and review the New Local Plan Document. It may be appropriate to classify this as “Special Measures” and allow the intervention of a Planning Inspector to adjudicate.

Stakeholder Ref: CP15678E Community Representative Ref: 29007

Section 11. Detailed Policy Considerations. Pages 142- 165
Page 142. Clause 11.2 Mix of Affordable Homes

In HRA discussions with a developer we were advised that the RDC stated that the Core Strategy and the Land Development Framework were ‘out of date’ therefore some clauses were not applicable.
The same situation applied to discussions when applied to the Localism Act. The Core Strategy and the NPPF are evident in many statements in this new Local Plan document, so, we consider there has been no change in the above main documents, action is necessary.

Page 155. Clause 11.45 Brownfield Sites. HRA have taken into account clauses 11.45/ 46 and taken into consideration that all Brownfield sites must have priority. NPPF paragraph 89 and Policy DM10 on brownfield development should be an over-riding factor when producing these documents. We refer you to the ‘ambitious’ clauses stipulated in the LDF Management Submission Document- Clause 3 page 33- The Green Belt and Countryside – Vision. Short term. The first paragraph stipulates the “openness and character” of the Rochford Green Belt continues to be protected. Constant reference by our MP Mark Francois has been ignored which places him in an awkward position.

Page 164. Contaminated land. Cl 11.77 to 11.81. Specific example of for
Nevendon Yard Breakers Yard, Lower Road, Hullbridge. Proposed 90 units.
This site is contaminated over a 70 year period and the costs of eradication will be high. The outline application plans are presently delayed for that reason while a historical document is being prepared.

LOCALISM ACT 2011 chapter 20. Item 2.1 (5th bullet point)
The ‘Localism Act’ was brought into force in 2011, the community did not have the opportunity to apply the clauses of this act. This act stipulates that the Local Community has: the ‘right to challenge’ (Part 5, Chapter 2, Clauses 81 to 86).


End of Appeal For Withdrawal.

Dear Sir,
Re: Stakeholder: Reference CP15678E. Community Representative No. 29007.

New Local Plan 2021 Consultation. Issues and Options Documents & Statement of Community Involvement and the Spatial Options documents.

We request Rochford District Council to invite the Government Planning Inspector to find that the New Local Plan 2021 must be withdrawn for reasons mentioned below.
In our consideration the Map A, on the basis of the relevant Legislation Guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework is not:
Positively Prepared
Justified
Effective
Consistent with National Policy

There are sufficient clauses in the NPPF, LDF and Localism Act which stipulate that all issues must be considered including Infrastructure and in areas environmentally threatened as shown in the Environment Agency and the Insurance Company data (Flood maps). It is imperative proper assessments be made in accordance with the NPPF regulations such as Flood, Road Network, Proximity to rivers and all issues set out below. Our experience from the current Malyons Lane large development that our SCI will be ignored again unless we have support from our MP Mark Francois and all the Councillors who are continually proud to state they are Community minded.

The Hullbridge Residents Association have viewed the Local Development Framework Evidence Base and note that the contents are a repeat of the documents issued in 2015 as are the documents mentioned above
Along with the accompanying Integrated Impact Assessment.

Section 1. Introduction
1.1 States this is a review document of the original adoption in 2016, now presented in repetition but revised in 2015 and 2017 (for 2021).

We understand the need for additional homes, but we are concerned that ‘Infrastructure is not given priority as stated by our MP Mark Francois and indeed Government directives, particularly the existing infrastructure but continually being ignored.


Stakeholder Ref: CP15678E Community Representative Ref: 29007

Page 1. Clause 1.2

HRA produced and delivered to RDC a 45-page document on the Core Strategy, Land Development Framework (LDF), National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and Localism Act for a development in progress and submitted some 525 issues in the planning documents presented by RDC without a proper response.
The clauses about Community Consultation being important is just a paper exercise to convince the Planning Inspector that the community support all the data produced.

HRA 9 years of experience has shown RDC and Councillors lack of the understanding or interpretation of Community Involvement, proper consultation and transparency, and fear another regretful experience with all sites being put forward for possible development. Having spoken to some Councillors they state that these site will not necessarily be approved to allow planning applications, but past experience does not provide any confidence that the community issues will be taken into account..
We make a plea to the Government Planning Inspector to investigate reasons why the community are ignored in proper consultation.

36 Sites.
We demonstrate our reasons for our rejection of many sites (stated in our document marked “Exhibit B- Issues and Options”) until the subject of the infrastructure (in all aspects- including existing) are reviewed This is an important subject and we extend our Plea to the Planning Inspector to set this review in motion and allow full participation by the Community Representative.

We consider the following clauses of the NPPF and Core Strategy must be applied:

NPFF 3– Core Planning Principles. Pages 1, 5-6, Clauses 1-2, 6-17.
NPPF 4 – Promoting Sustainable Transport.
NPPF 5 – Supporting high quality communications infrastructure. With roads/transport a priority.
NPPF 6 – Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes.
NPPF 7- Requiring Good Design.
NPPF 8 – Promoting Healthy communities.
NPPF 9 - Protecting the Green Belt land.
NPPF 10- Meeting the Challenge of Climate Change, Flooding & Coastal change.
NPPF 11- Conserving and enhancing the future environment.
NPPF Plan Making – Local Plans (p. 37).
NPPF Using a Proportionate evidence base- (p. 38).
NPPF Ensuring Viability and Deliverability- ( p. 41).
NPPF Decision taking – Pre-application engagement & front loading, (p. 45).
Technical Guidance to the NPPF- Flood risk on page 2. Sequential and Exceptional Tests p. 3 to 7.
NPPF - Sequential and Exceptional Tests –

Drainage
Sustainable drainage systems;
We have submitted documents in respect of the existing drainage system needing substantial improvements prior to any links being provided to the new developments and should be part of the necessary required Infrastructure works we have continually highlighted that the present system is not ‘fit for purpose’, but this was ignored. RDC are duty bound to inform ECC (RDC state that this is not their responsibility.


Stakeholder Ref: CP15678E Community Representative Ref: 29007


Page 2.
Clause 1.7 Statement of Community Involvement.
Having been disappointed with the first Statement of Community Involvement document in 2013 and 2016 we take the clause 1.7 on page 2 seriously and look forward to proper ‘consultation’ by RDC, and not use our submission purely as a ‘tick-box’ exercise to prove to the Planning Inspector that the regulations are observed and, our views have been taken into account but we have not seen these issues progressed to amendments in the Local Plan. HRA represent the Hullbridge community and have the right for engagement as stated in the NPPF and the Localism Act.

Clauses 1.8 & 1.9.
A plan indicating 36 additional sites on Map A in Hullbridge along with a further 6 sites not identified on Map A. Please refer to our Exhibit A on pages 14 and 15.

Clause 1.10 is of special interest as it mentions “on-going consultation” at every stage. We did not have the opportunity to discuss ‘The Draft Scoping Report’ which was published on the RDC websites, and the residents, businesses and other ‘stakeholders’ on the RDC mailing list were not consulted (HRA is a Stakeholder and Representative)- continually ignored by RDC- indeed HRA have correspondence relating to this issue that “if we did not like it we should consider litigation’.

Clause 1.14 on page 4 is of special interest to us as we placed emphasis on the Localism Act (2011) with the Managing Director of RDC and were told that the Localism Act was irrelevant. Why is it now more relevant than before? We request this ‘Act’ to be included as it supports Human Rights.

Clause 1.16. Only one ‘drop-in session’ was set up at Hullbridge Community Centre on 24/8/21. The attendance was low, HRA committee had 9 committee members present who asked questions and had responses which do not reflect the issues put forward in this ‘Plea’. One answer took us by surprise, that the Essex Design Guide which we have referred to throughout has been replaced by Rochford own Design Guide. When we consider the reduced staff levels with some unqualified planning staff it leads us to believe that this design guide will be subject to much criticism. We hope the Government Inspector will take this into account.

Planning law requires that “Call for Sites” which falls part of the development plan in accordance with the Regulations Governing Neighbourhood Planning Laws- NPPF 6 - Plans and Strategies – Part 6, Chapter 1, clauses 109 to 113, allows for Neighbourhood Planning – Part 6, chapter 3, clauses 116 to 121., and gives the community the right to Consultation – Part 6, chapter 4, clause 122. We challenge RDC to approve our application for this Neighbourhood Planning Group and a Statutory Consultee status which will also be an asset to the Hullbridge Parish Council. No explanation is given for reasons why we are not allowed to have consultation to give us good reasons why the regulations are not being properly debated and a conclusion found. This attitude denies community skills and professions adequately proven over 9 years of hard work, not acknowledged.

The four principles that follow imply that the core strategy should be relevant, sustainable and ‘Fit for Purpose’ and become part of the NPPF and LDF:
• Positively prepared.
Our observation on the previous Local Plan that insufficient forward planning had been carried in accordance with the Core Strategy which should have been adhered to and we will not be surprised if the same ‘policy’ will prevail. We look forward to the Planning Inspector requesting a coordinated approach and consultation with the community representatives, as the present system is not fit for purpose.


Stakeholder Ref: CP15678E Community Representative Ref: 29007

• Justified.
In view of the aforesaid we do not believe there was any justification to allow more sites to be put forward without clear thinking on assessments being made in respect of the “existing Infrastructure”, and the use of Green Belt land being used instead of Brownfield land and the other issues stated in this document.
The Core Strategy, NPPF and LDF and Localism Act all express that Green Belt land should only be used as a last resort and only under exceptional circumstances, many issues which we have demonstrated have not been addressed sufficiently. Can RDC demonstrate why they are unable to adhere to the rules and regulations designed to safeguard the community.
According to the Localism Act 2011, we have demonstrated that transparency and consultation were lacking with the community. This has to be rectified and included within the proposed Local Plan.
• Effective
The conditions for the development of the 36 Hullbridge sites will not be satisfied for the reasons given above, therefore we consider a complete review of these possible proposed developments and the Core Strategy allows for the community to raise these issues and get into meaningful dialogue with RDC.
• Consistent with National Policy
National policy insists that all the policies stated should be transparent, proper consultation pursued in relations to all the development criteria. We do not believe that proper feasibility studies, risk analysis have been conducted in order to satisfy the requirements of the NPPF and LDF. Most subjects referred to in this presentation will imply reasons for withdrawal, in view of Government directives and regulations listed above.
The Localism Act 2011 Chapter 20. suggested meaningful dialogue with the HRA. Our residents asked what guarantees will be given to HRA that we will be listened to, not merely placing this document on RDC website to satisfy the Planning Inspector requirements. We require RDC Planning/Legal department to clarify.

Clauses 1.18 and 1.19 speaks of ‘community-led planning’ which is of interest to HRA but all our applications and requests for clarification are ignored. We have consistently placed great emphasis on ‘community cohesion’. Which makes for good public awareness. We can produce correspondence to the Parish Council for cohesion in respect to the whole community and help to remove the divisions which exist at present.
HRA have requested support from the Hullbridge Parish Council and indeed our rights should be upheld in accordance with the Localism Act..

Page 5.
Clauses 1.20 and 1.21
How can the RDC ensure that our proposals can be supported for the benefit of the community.
Clause 1.21 Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) and the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) will be prepared to set out the circumstances that the CIL will be applied and the key infrastructure that the CIL will seek to fund. The Council will seek to fund this through a ‘Community levy’. This implies that the RDC are not protecting the community. ECC financial planning administration needs reviewing on the subject of ‘contingencies’ which should apply to all categories of infrastructure and other important categories to allow for future planning, maintenance and improvement.

The Essex County Council document “Greater Essex Growth” states that Greater Essex Growth and Infrastructure Framework 2016 is not listed or discussed. The Executive Summary says that Section 106 and ‘Community Infrastructure Levy’ (CIL) will fall way short of expectations and other Government Funding will be in ‘shortfall’ to the tune of £ Billions (report produced by AECOM) who also produced the RDC “Sustainability Analysis”, please explain why they did not cite this issue.
Stakeholder Ref: CP15678E Community Representative Ref: 29007

HRA study of funding under section 106, particularly to fund the local Clinics (£164k recently) which was put to the NHS and RDC fell short of the required sum in view of the increased population. HRA requested consultation to allow co-ordinated conclusions. No surprise this was ignored by all concerned.
The normal LA practices are that a 10 year plan allowing the income to be divided into categories of funding allowing for contingencies for each element of Infrastructure to satisfy needs as they arise, so the question is what have you done with those budgets, as we keep being informed of shortage of funds, perhaps the auditors are allowed to explain how that money was spent. We ask, under ‘The Freedom of Information Act’ why the Hullbridge infrastructure was allowed to deteriorate over at least 50 years.
HRA object to the IDP and CIL because these should be RDC, ECC and Agency obligations to use the contingency funds and not produce more rules which allow the LA to cover up their own accountability inadequacies and should not be an ‘extra’ burden to the community.
If approved, this will set a precedent for other forms of funding from the communities. The community are concerned by this new statement lacking in the Core Strategy and the Land Development Framework. Can you blame the community for showing concern that LA mismanagement of funds fall to the communities having to make good the shortfall wherever they occur.

Page 9. Item 3.2. 36 Sites additional development Land.
The Land Mass measured and stated in this clause we find is out of date because several hectares have already been built on since 2012 which should have been taken into consideration, thus reducing the Land Mass area. Your review and consultation is necessary and we look forward to open discussions in
accordance with the Localism Act.

Section 3. Please refer to our Exhibit A- Development density comparison on pages 14/15.
The total measure of 36 sites = 124 hectares (approximately) which will provide a capacity of 3720 dwellings at minimum 30 dwellings per hectare. The minimum density of 30/60 dwellings per hectare can provide 3720 to 7440 dwellings.

Boundary Line.
Further examination of the same map A indicates that 30.5% of the land lies in the adjoining Rawreth Parish. Please refer to our Exhibits A and B on pages 14-15 and 16 – 20 consecutively.
The result provides the following information:
In our examination of the New Local Plan Document, we are unable to find any explanation for dealing with this ‘division’. Using our previous submission in relation to the Boundary Line indicated on the Ordnance Survey shown and confirmed by the Local Boundary Commission, our correspondence with Rochford District Council requesting clarification on the Parish Council division and the financial implications, they refused to accept the existence of this Boundary line. At a meeting with the developer, we were informed that RDC will allow Council Tax collected by Hullbridge on behalf of Rawreth Parish. Have RDC made the necessary application to LBC for the necessary changes to the Boundary Line and whether or not Rawreth will be amalgamated with Hullbridge at some future date.
The same principle applies with the Boundary Commission England and the National Planning Policy Framework regulations, again we ask for specific dialogue to satisfy the regulations. One of the Green Belt policy purpose is to prevent neighbouring towns/villages from merging into one, Can RDC explain why they seem to have abandoned this policy.

Page 10. Clauses 3.6 to 3.8, Figures 2 and 3. “Travel to work outflows and inflows”.
The travel patterns have changed since 2011 by about 18% with the increase of population. We request a review of the information being given, affecting transport congestion and lack of proper infrastructure.

Page 11. Clauses 3.9 to 3.12. Employment statistics.
We suggest a review is necessary. What guarantees will the prospective developers give to employ local skills.
Stakeholder Ref: CP15678E Community Representative Ref: 29007

Pages 12 and 13. Our Environment. Clause 3.13
Previous Statements made by the Environment Department, Highways & Water Agencies and the HSE suggesting assessments made in 2011 and 2014 were ‘insufficient’ and all future assessments will also fall short of efficiency with funding being used as an excuse to minimise costs giving rise to lack of obligations to this community and to blame Government pressure to satisfy the development quota being used as an excuse to limit the scale of assessments, thus breaching the clauses in the LDF, NPPF and Localism Act.
The same agencies gave evidence to the Planning Inspector that Hullbridge is a ‘sparsely populated’ area. This can be classified as a false statement knowing that Flood water has been a major concern for many years including surface and foul water discharges onto roads and gardens, due to lack of improved drainage facilities and gardens constantly under water. Further land being put forward for development will exacerbate the infrastructure issue. We are informed that RDC do not keep records of ‘Public health’ issues, any complaints are ignored. Foul sewers are grossly overloaded. A full upgrade of the drainage system has always been overdue. This issue should be investigated rigorously by the RDC and it is their responsibility to inform the ECC.

Page 14. Our Communities.
The Hullbridge population count for 2011 census states a population of 6858. HRA support from the community in 2017 suggests 7000 and in 2019 = 7400.
The current development of 500 homes proves an annual population increase from 2019 to 2023 = 9400 population. The growth in the previous 3 decades (census) indicated an average of 2.2% increase. This indicates an average annual increase of 2% per census. This is contrary to the Core Strategy, LDF and the NPPF and the Localism Act that any increase in population should follow the historical line. Hopes rise for a new climate of close Community Consultation.

Page 15 Table 1. Breakdown of 2011 Population Census.
These possible developments will increase the Hullbridge population (see Exhibit B- Population) to 35,900 which will be close to the present Rayleigh population within 15 to 20 years.

Hullbridge, presently with a ‘village status’ will become a Town with a population probably second only to Rayleigh. The Portfolio Holder (Councillor Ian Ward) stated that the Local Plans have changed and it was now paramount to ‘listen’ and closely ‘consult and engage’ with the community, but most people are sceptical that our voices will be heard, and the necessary amendments put forward by the HRA ‘professionals’ will not be heeded. Hullbridge presently consider all verbal utterances are not considered in favour of the community, and no changes are evident except for many of our issues on planning which HRA had to investigate without any RDC help to satisfy the community q & a meetings.

Clause 3.20 Using HRA figures given above we are unable to reconcile with your statement that “the proportion of residents in all demographic ranges will remain ‘stable’. We advise the RDC to review their information and observe the contents of our Exhibit A and B on pages 14/15 and 16-21 provides the necessary calculation, showing exceptional over-population.

Page 16
Clauses 3.21 to 3.25 needs to be reviewed in respect of the statements made being out of date, as the document is prepared using data prescribed in 2011 without fact-finding surveys being conducted to carry out ‘forward planning’ especially with the owner-occupation criteria becoming financially unreliable. With experience of the Public Finance Initiative (PFI) being suspect it will be necessary to return to Council House Building with participation between Local Government and Housing Associations being a prime ‘home provider’ but all motives are suspect.


Stakeholder Ref: CP15678E Community Representative Ref: 29007

Section 4
Page 17 – Spatial Challenges.
Great emphasis is placed on the laws governing the National Planning Policy Framework. We highlight the following to allow you to respond to the Hullbridge Residents Association.
We request you uphold the clauses requiring Consultation with the community Representative such as the HRA with and allowing replies to issues of importance to the community, before finalising the New Local Plan.

Consultative Objections.
We submit our “Consultative Objections” and conform to the NPPF policy namely – that the Local Authority and the ‘Applicants’ must work closely with those directly affected by their proposals to evolve designs that take account of the views of the community.

Brownfield and Greenfield land.

The allocation DPD Document (Feb 2010)- Discussion & Consultative Document on page 1 states that the Council Statement of Community Involvement is committed to Regulations 25 Public Participation in the preparation of Planning for the District (revised 2017). We ask for the right to be properly consulted on this issue that the allocation document has no brownfield sites identified as given in our Exhibit B.

Section 5.
Page 24. Clause 5.1. Our Vision and Strategic Objectives.
HRA experience gained over 9 years of deliberations over the Hullbridge ‘developments’ and Local Plans, that this has not been a success as the majority of the 185 issues submitted in 2014, not being satisfied, and with alliances formed with other localities the same view is expressed. The fact that you did not respond indicates that we are right on all the issues submitted to you and hope the Planning Inspector will take this into account in respect of all future “Consultation”.
We hope that the Planning Inspector takes into account the atmosphere of distrust by the community.

Clause 5.4 Our current Vision
HRA disagree that what is being prescribed on the Hullbridge Plan will allow the community to have the best quality of life, when there is at least 20 years of disruption to look forward to, which will blight our lives. Whole sale development is taking place with major clauses in the NPPF being disregarded.
A “Considerate Contractor Scheme Notice must be a requirement for all contractors to observe the rules towards the community.

Page 26. Clause 5.10. Rochford District 2037. Our Society
We disagree with the statement made that’ the green infrastructure network across the district has been enhanced to support our population. Many hectares of Green Belt Land are being allowed to be developed disregarding all the clauses which are supposed to protect the Green Belt and Government directives. Articles written by the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) bear witness to the contrary and the community remain sceptical about the final outcome.
The community believe that the homes will be for the over- burgeoning populace of London, not of Essex. We fail to see how you can demonstrate the indigenous population expansion taking priority.

Page 28. Cl. 5.11. Strategic Objective 13. Flood.
Experience gained by the lack of proper assessments on flood, disregarding all the issues provided to you in 2013. Decisions are being made according to financial constraints.


Stakeholder Ref: CP15678E Community Representative Ref: 29007

RDC now have a recipe for disaster in an area naturally susceptible to surface water discharge from the ‘Rayleigh Heights’ about 65m above ground level and surrounding areas of vulnerable Watery Lane.


Page 29. Strategic Priority 5. Climate change.
The Hullbridge community are concerned that the information provided by various Agencies and Insurance Companies that the 1:100 flood incident is flawed and is more likely to be a maximum 1:25 due to Climate change. There is scepticism that the LA will help change the law and this will be detrimental to the community at large. Sea levels have officially been recorded as rising some 150mm above sea level from the beginning of this century and are forecast to rise by 500mm before the end of this century.

Section 6.
Pages 32 to 38. Clauses 6.8 to 6.29. Tables 2 to 4.
Advance notice. Property Insurance.
The potential Property Insurance costs against ‘flood risk’ and ‘subsidence in these areas, can range from £2500 to £5000. per household depending on the risk analysis.
An exercise on Post Codes SS5 reveals that using the ‘Hawkeye’ system determining the level of associated risks such as flood, subsidence etc., the combined results show that in both instances, subsidence is Red, meaning these are perils which will either be excluded or a large excess applied in respect of subsidence – usually £2,500.00 (£1000.00 being ‘Standard’) and for any areas susceptible to flood, without protection barriers or flood defences will increase the Cost Risk to £5,000.00 per property making ‘flood excess’ a priority and no claims accepted by the Insurance Companies if this is applied to development in flood areas.

Page 38 to 40. Clauses 6.29 to 6.33. Homes for purchase and Affordable Homes.
This document was obviously written before the changes which have taken place in the financial industry and Government policies. The change in ‘affordability’ has not been fully considered. We advise you to review and amend this statement accordingly.
How can you demonstrate the ‘affordability’ during this financial climate, which are likely to continue for the next 10 years, irrespective of the incentives given on stamp duty and directives to the lending institutions? Most younger adults will have great difficulty to purchase homes and maintain mortgage payments.

Table 5 Rochford District- Settlement Hierarchy.
We have always had an issue with the infringement of the Green Belt. Most of the present developments recently completed or under construction are being built on Green Belt land disregarding brownfield sites. We suspect that the new Land Development Framework document questions the need to build on the green belt land. Our Exhibit B presents you with our statements on your LDF

Page 45. Clause 6.48. Housing Density Options .
Earlier we provided calculations for the lowest density of development per hectare, It is evident that the option may be for up to 60 homes per hectare which will increase the incentive provided by the Government and risk the long term harmony in the community and will cause even greater strain and stress on the Hullbridge infrastructure and the community.
RDC must take advantage of requesting funds from the Government announcement of £866m funds from the Housing Infrastructure Fund (HIF) to enable the existing Hullbridge infrastructure be brought up to standard, on the grounds that the previous planning regime’s over the last 30 years have been negligent in dealing with the existing infrastructure as suggested on page 6. Clause 1.21.



Stakeholder Ref: CP15678E Community Representative Ref: 29007


Section 8.
Local Highways Capacity and Infrastructure. Clause 8.3 LDF Development Management Submission Document- Section 5- Transport page 73. Improvements to local road network
The only access points to get to Hullbridge is Lower Road and Hullbridge Road. Watery lane should not be considered as a main thoroughfare and we despair that the Essex County Council, Rochford District Council and the Agencies seem to ignore this fact. We want the Planning Inspector to review his statement in the ‘Planning approval’ given in 2014 that RDC consult with HRA on the feasibility for improvement of this Lane, as it is not ‘fit for purpose’.

Highways Risk Analysis.
HRA are concerned that a proper Highways Risk Analysis has not been carried out by the Core Strategy, NPPF and LDF documents. Further consideration must be given for ‘transparency’ as stated in The Localism Act (2011). Recent replacement of 50 years old Gas services emphasises the disruption which
will be caused by both existing and future construction work. County and Local Authorities please take note.

Watery Lane, is in urgent need of improvement and HRA have corresponded with RDC, ECC and all the Agencies showing Watery Lane and Hullbridge Road are identified as traffic congestion points, in clauses 8.13 to 8.15.
We request that RDC/ECC/Agencies contact the SAT NAV services to remove Watery Lane as a general thoroughfare and emphasise this is “weight restricted” and ‘width restrictive’ and speed limits reviewed with adequate signage..
This lane is too narrow for any vehicles over 30 cwt. The lane is without a public footpath making this lane a health and safety issue which needs urgent rectification. HRA suggest that this section of the document should be reviewed, particularly as the Planning Inspector acknowledged HRA argument that Watery Lane is not ‘fit for purpose’, we reject the statement that Watery Lane is NOT part of the “Strategic Highways Network” please review, amend and highlight for the Planning Inspector to view..

Accessibility to Services. Hullbridge has many un-adopted, single lane and unmade roads making access difficult for the Fire, Police, Refuse, Ambulance and general delivery services and will not be suitable for constant construction site traffic for next 20 years a covenant should be inserted to allow the ECC and their Agencies to make urgent contingencies before the matter gets worse as expansion proceeds..

Fire Hydrants. Hullbridge only has 8 Fire Hydrants to serve the whole village, which is considered inadequate for the fire services.


Page 85 - 90. Clause 8.22 to 8.37. Sustainable Travel.
The transport system is being overhauled to reduce the number of buses serving the communities and the frequency, if this carries on, there will be future major problems. Please refer to LDF Allocations Submission Document Page 60 Cl 3.177/178.

Page 87. Clause 8.31 Rayleigh Air Quality.
Reading this clause we are not confident that something will be done to provide good quality air. It was reported in the media, that dangerous levels of nitrous oxide caused by diesel fumes are being recorded in and around the Rayleigh area. Air quality is lacking in both depth and detail which means the RDC ‘evidence base’ on the subject of traffic, is lacking. Please explain your remedy? This pollution has been apparent for many years but ignored. The community now demand action to remedy this issue.

Stakeholder Ref: CP15678E Community Representative Ref: 29007


Page 92 to 96. Clause 8.45 to 8.58. Water and Flood Risk management.
Flood
At times of flood (frequent - 25 times in 5 years), in Watery Lane, has resulted in many accidents, causing ‘gridlock’ to the whole local traffic system in Hullbridge and surrounding areas. Drainage is unable to cope with excess flood water resulting in overflow of excrement and water into roads and gardens and cross-surging foul water and surface water services

Page 96- 98. Clause 8.59 – 8.66. Renewable Energy Generation.
We agree about the ‘renewable energy’ ‘dream’ from all sources and accept there is natural course of events to be taken for the sake of the concerns on Global Environment. It is the political challenges which become the difficult part to address. Perhaps Political will may help.

Page 98-100. Clause 8.67- 8.75. Planning Obligations and Standard Charges.
Local Authorities ignore the observations and pleas made to review and observe the standards laid down by the NPPF, Core Strategy and LDDF to allow ‘proper’ consultation with the community representatives.
The NPPF guidelines on all planning obligations suggest that the 3 tests as set out, must pass:
1 Necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms.
2 Directly related to the development.
3 Fairly and reasonable related in scale and kind to the development.
The community want an action plan to allow meaningful consultation with the community.

Section 9 Supporting Health, Community and Culture.
Page 101- 120. Clauses 9.1 – 9.61. Health Impact assessment- Cl 3.186
We (HRA) brought to the authorities’ attention various anomalies in the financial accountability in assessing the “Contributions” without giving considerations to contingency for increases in inflation and time related uplift. HRA are happy to be consulted in the future.
HRA investigated the Health Provision indicated in Section 106 ‘contributions and concentrated on the sum stated to be for the Riverside Medical Centre on Ferry Road and found the sum stated to be inadequate. We fear the same decisions may be made for the foreseeable future. As HRA have been active on this issue it would be in the interests of all parties to consult and agree a course of action.

Section 10 Protecting and Enhancing our Environment.
Page 121 - Clause 10.1 to 10.4
General planning policy of the NPPF suggests minimising vulnerability and provide resilience to climate change impacts. RDC and ECC must provide a course of actions.

Page 121 – 141. Clause 10.5 – 10.72 Green Belt
We agree the purposes of the NPPF clause 10.7-10.8 in that the 5 purposes of the Green Belt set out to:
1. Check the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas
2. Prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another.
3. Assist in safeguarding the countryside from ‘encroachment.
4. Preserve the setting and special character of historic towns.
5. Assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land ie Brownfield Sites. Inappropriate development. (Page 122. Clause 10.8) Specifically states that the construction of new buildings in the Green Belt is generally considered to be inappropriate development.
The Hullbridge Residents Association respectively request that Rochford District Council adhere to these policies and review the New Local Plan Document. It may be appropriate to classify this as “Special Measures” and allow the intervention of a Planning Inspector to adjudicate.

Stakeholder Ref: CP15678E Community Representative Ref: 29007

Section 11. Detailed Policy Considerations. Pages 142- 165
Page 142. Clause 11.2 Mix of Affordable Homes

In HRA discussions with a developer we were advised that the RDC stated that the Core Strategy and the Land Development Framework were ‘out of date’ therefore some clauses were not applicable.
The same situation applied to discussions when applied to the Localism Act. The Core Strategy and the NPPF are evident in many statements in this new Local Plan document, so, we consider there has been no change in the above main documents, action is necessary.

Page 155. Clause 11.45 Brownfield Sites. HRA have taken into account clauses 11.45/ 46 and taken into consideration that all Brownfield sites must have priority. NPPF paragraph 89 and Policy DM10 on brownfield development should be an over-riding factor when producing these documents. We refer you to the ‘ambitious’ clauses stipulated in the LDF Management Submission Document- Clause 3 page 33- The Green Belt and Countryside – Vision. Short term. The first paragraph stipulates the “openness and character” of the Rochford Green Belt continues to be protected. Constant reference by our MP Mark Francois has been ignored which places him in an awkward position.

Page 164. Contaminated land. Cl 11.77 to 11.81. Specific example of for
Nevendon Yard Breakers Yard, Lower Road, Hullbridge. Proposed 90 units.
This site is contaminated over a 70 year period and the costs of eradication will be high. The outline application plans are presently delayed for that reason while a historical document is being prepared.

LOCALISM ACT 2011 chapter 20. Item 2.1 (5th bullet point)
The ‘Localism Act’ was brought into force in 2011, the community did not have the opportunity to apply the clauses of this act. This act stipulates that the Local Community has: the ‘right to challenge’ (Part 5, Chapter 2, Clauses 81 to 86).


End of Appeal For Withdrawal.

I would like to add my comments to the above consultation;

1. The number of sites that have been put forward for development across the District requires a clear strategy for maintaining a sustainable farming presence. In order to maintain Rockford District quintessential nature.

2. As a District which prides itself on being rural and is stated as a priority seems to lack substance for those at the eastern end of the District. The number and position of areas of land put through for development appear to miss the whole priority of Objective 21 ‘ in particular retaining the openness of the area, protecting valued landscapes………retaining the physical separation between our towns and villages, as well as those in neighbouring areas of South Essex and beyond.’ If these are going to be randomly added the Wakering area is going to subsumed into Shoeburyness very quickly.


3. There are objectives to enhance infrastructure to support an improvement where development takes place but little of this has occurred or been handed today’s in the Eastern side. Serviced essentially by roads in Southend that are already overcrowded and public transport that is entirely Southend based. Rural road that make commuting on a bicycle a hazard to both other road users and the rider, especially during poor weather and during peak times.

4. The developing nature of global warming is given little regard concerning those communities at risk of flooding. What is the strategy for supporting these communities in developing more imaginative solutions. Planning decisions have prevented more imaginative approaches and appeared to want to bury whole estates, literally under flood water in comments made. This plan needs to address this.

5. Education provision and access is again a growing issue in the Eastern end and whilst developments are enlarging the expectation of bussing children in ever larger numbers is completely at odds with the objectives to reduce travel.

I wish to object to using sites CFS160,CFS161, CFS074, CSF194, CFS169, CFS150 & CSF020 for further housing.

My comments , whilst are intentionally brief but I trust succinct in the message I am trying to convey:

1. Road traffic. Pushing more traffic onto the already overcrowded roads is a nightmare prospect. The current condition of the roads is hazardous with numerous potholes which have not been repaired. The impact additional traffic will present will only further damage the roads we have through the neighbourhood.
2. Public transport is not good so people will use their cars. We have limited bus services and following the impact of the pandemic the train service into Liverpool Street is not at the same level as it was prior to March 2020. It is unlikely that the existing service provided by Great Abellio will improve.
3. Air pollution is a real concern and more traffic will only make things worse. Whilst the Government is seeking to reduce carbon emissions the proposed additional housing, at the potential loss of valuable woodland and rural areas will only reduce the local air quality and place greater pressure on the NHS. Furthermore, how will you meet air pollution targets with more traffic if we don't start to address the issues more seriously at a local community level?
4. What about local infrastructure? We do not have the schools, doctors or dentists to cope with that many more people. Surely, we need to see extensive investment in providing the services needed to support the community based upon our current requirements.
5. I am also worried about the impact on our fragile countryside and our vanishing wildlife. Hockley Woods is a valuable area for many uncommon species of butterflies and is the home for many woodland species of fauna and flora. We are also seeing more red kites and other birds of prey in the area, birds which in the 1970s were almost eradicated owing to the use of poisonous insecticides. The proposed plans will turn back the clock on all the conservation work carried out by the RSPB, EWT and other charities who are devoted to supporting wildlife but educating us about the value of the creatures we live alongside. Extra housing will put more pressure on what is left of our wildlife.

Essex is one of the most densely populated counties in England and over the past 30 years there has been a considerable number of housing developments, most recently Rawreth Lane, Hullbridge, Hall Road, Hawkwell plus the building of small developments two to five houses on plots which were originally occupied by a single house, for example there such developments in White Hart Lane, Hockley alone. This area should not be pressured into building that many new houses. It is for the reasons set out above unsustainable. Our existing roads and infrastructure cannot currently cope, any additional houses will only be detrimental to the area and the existing population.

I object to any of your options until you do something about the infrastructure. I have lived in the same address for 41years and in that time you haven’t done anything to improve the infrastructure other than a few dustbin roundabouts.

The roads cannot take any more traffic than it already does.
The Doctors Surgery cannot cope
The Hospital has an abnormal waiting list and this was even before Covid.
There is no substantial super market for the population, they have to travel by car to the nearest one. This is bad planning from the start.
The list goes on, as you probably and hopefully must realise.
As daft at it seems we desperately need another water reservoir for the area. Had a meeting a few months ago and we will soon be running out of drinking water. Desalination processing units around the country were not an option as the whole pipework network is not capable in its present state. At present we are getting new Building Regulations passed through the Government that would help to, reduce the amount of water wastage at present.

As for filling your form in many people have given up as its to complicated. So how will you state it is a fair Consultation and you have reached every resident any way possible.

I have seen the maps and papers online and find that variety very confusing and difficult to comment on. I do not think that this District can take and needs any more people or houses/cars.

I attended the meeting at Hawkwell Baptist Church and saw the map there which was clearer than any of the others, and was concerned with the huge areas of 'potential development'. I hope this will not attract too many more developers. Most of this land was farmland and should not be just covered in houses. We still need farmland, especially this Rochford soil.

I hope Rochford Council will not allow more development until the road system is improved radically.