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

Yes – Developments should be located away from land within flood risk zones, for example only permit development in Flood Zones 1 and 2.

I agree with this but at the same time wonder why houses are planned as possible for both the Bloor homes site and further towards the sea wall from the bloor site and along from south Fambridge. Here there is both poetntial risk with sea level rise and also flood plain/soak away from the houses currently in situ as well as the streams running through the area.
We need greater data on possible climate change/sea levels and require enhanced sea walls and available soak aways.

Yes – Developments should be located away from land within flood risk zones, for example only permit development in Flood Zones 1 and 2.

Absolutely, essential to build away from these areas

Developments should not be build with drainage & pumps for these eventualities - that is not good enough

We should not build on land at risk of flooding as sea levels rise in the future so why are houses being built near Watery Lane near Hullbridge

Q1.
Are there any other technical evidence studies that you feel the Council needs to prepare to inform its new Local Plan, other than those listed in this section?
I would expect to see reference to:
• The Infrastructure Delivery and Funding Plan
• Level 2 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment
• Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan
These plans are needed to assess the long-term sustainability of any proposed sites. Without these I find it difficult to make any comments.
Evaluation of the impact of current development on Hullbridge
I cannot comment on the suitability of the sites in the plan without the Infrastructure Delivery and Funding Plan which I have been told is being undertaken at present. In my opinion it is premature to consult without these.
I would expect it to see reference to
i) the main Roads and the principal junctions and exit points to Hullbridge on Lower Road, Watery Lane and Hullbridge Road as well as the junction with Rawreth Lane.
ii) Consultation with the schools in Hullbridge, Hockley and Rayleigh to accurately asses capacity, too often there are no places in specific school.
iii) Consultation with Doctors and Pharmacies as well the local Healthcare Trust, currently the Riverside Medical Centre are not moving forward with expansion proposals due to high costs.
iv) Air Quality Management - too many parts of the District have poor CO2/CO readings
Any such Plan would need agreement with Rochford District Council, Essex County Council, and Southend Borough Council as they are all affected.
Q2.
Do you agree with our draft vision for Rochford District? Is there anything missing from the vision that you feel needs to be included? [Please state reasoning]
Mostly. Although you have not included enough information on how you might achieve housing for the hidden homeless (sofa surfers) or those on low incomes, schemes to allow the elderly in large houses to be able to downsize or how you plan to provide suitable commercial units of varying sizes, to allow businesses to up or downsize into a suitably sized premises without them needing to relocate into another area. No provision for emergency housing.
Q3.
Do you agree that we should develop a range of separate visions for each of our settlements to help guide decision-making? [Please state reasoning]
Yes, as each settlement has its own characteristics and needs.
Q4.
Do you agree with the strategic priorities and objectives we have identified? Is there anything missing from the strategic priorities or objectives that you feel needs to be included? [Please state reasoning]
No comments.
Q5.
Do you agree with the settlement hierarchy presented? If not, what changes do you think are required? [Please state reasoning]
Broadly yes. But it is important that the hierarchy is not changed through developments and cross boundary development must be carefully planned.
Q6.
Which of the identified strategy options do you consider should be taken forward in the Plan? [Please state reasoning]
Creating a new town would enable all the infrastructure to be put in place, allowing more scope for cycling routes and pedestrianised areas. This will stop the urban sprawl which is currently happening in the larger town (and proposed in option 1), creating traffic havoc and pollution. A single large urban development, possibly shared with Wickford could allow a more environmentally friendly development. A development that allows the infrastructure to be developed in advance of the housing.
Q7.
Are there any reasonable alternatives to these options that should be considered instead? [Please state reasoning]
Small development and windfall developments should be included in housing count.
Q8.
Are there any key spatial themes that you feel we have missed or that require greater emphasis? [Please state reasoning]
Yes: Cultural and Accessibility.
Q9.
Do you agree we should take a sequential approach to flood risk and coastal change in our plan, locating development away from areas at risk of flooding and coastal change wherever possible? How can we best protect current and future communities from flood risk and coastal change? [Please state reasoning]
Yes. You must ensure the district has a suitable plan to protect not only the towns and village communities, houses, and businesses but also natural areas as well. The district needs good defences to limit flooding in all areas, protecting people and wildlife. Maybe these could be incorporated in the “natural” landscape theming. New developments not only need to address their carbon footprint but also the design of the housing they build so that they limit flood damage; raised floors, bunded gardens etc. All building should be carbon neutral.
Q10.
Do you agree that the Coastal Protection Belt and Upper Roach Valley should be protected from development that would be harmful to their landscape character? Are there other areas that you feel should be protected for their special landscape character? [Please state reasoning]
Yes. All coastal areas and areas of special interest, especially where there is a risk of flooding and harm to the environment need careful consideration.
The Ancient woodlands such as Kingley Woods, Hockley Woods and Rayleigh Grove Woods and all natural parks, not just the actual woodlands but also the surrounding areas and the proposed Regional Park to the West of Hullbridge.
Q11.
Do you agree we should require development to source a percentage of their energy from low-carbon and renewable sources? Are there other opportunities in the district to supply low-carbon or renewable energy?
Yes.
New developments should be able to produce all energy requirements from zero carbon sources.
Q12.
Do you agree we should require new development to achieve energy efficiency standards higher than building regulations? What level should these be set at? [Please state reasoning].
Yes. The World is suffering a climate crisis, without higher standards we will not be able to reduce carbon sufficiently to avoid the crisis.
Q13.
How do you feel the plan can help to support the local generation of low-carbon and renewable energy? Are there locations where you feel energy generation should be supported? [Please state reasoning]
Solar and heat pumps in all new development as standard.
Incentives to encourage existing developments to install solar onto their properties as well as any commercial buildings to be fitted with solar to their roofs; there are many flat roofed buildings all over the district that could accommodate solar panels without damaging the landscape. Explore tidal energy and seek out suitable locations in order to ascertain whether it is viable. Retrofitting existing housing and commercial buildings.
Q14.
Do you consider that the plan should include a place-making charter that informs relevant policies? Should the same principles apply everywhere in the district, or should different principles apply to different areas? [Please state reasoning]
The district has some very distinct areas and a “one shoe fits all” would be detrimental to some smaller communities. The place-making charter should be bespoke, with each area being considered in its own right. The rules on building should be strict so as to enhance the areas of development and needs to consider the wider picture in respect of amenities, open spaces, retail, schools, services, pollution, character and accessibility (to name but a few). There should not be deviation of plans unless there are exceptional circumstances. Time and again, SPD2 documents are ignored and ugly extensions and dormers are built to the detriment of the area.
Q15.
Are the principles set out in the draft place-making charter the right ones? Are there other principles that should be included? [Please state reasoning]
Yes, but they must be kept to.
Q16.
a.
Do you consider that new design guides, codes or masterplans should be created alongside the new Local Plan?
Yes.
b.
If yes, do you think it is more appropriate to have a single design guide/code for the whole District, or to have design guides/codes/masterplans for individual settlements or growth areas? [Please state reasoning]
You need different design guides as this district is both unique and diverse and the “one shoe fits all" would be detrimental to its character and charm.
c.
What do you think should be included in design guides/codes/masterplans at the scale you are suggesting? [Please state reasoning].
You need to ensure that the character and heritage of the settlements are adhered to whilst allowing for some growth, in order to rejuvenate the smaller settlements if needed.
Q17.
With reference to the options listed above, or your own options, how do you feel we can best plan to meet our need for different types, sizes and tenures of housing? [Please state reasoning]
By working closely with planners and developers, as well as different charities and communities, residents and businesses. You will then get a better understanding as to what you need and what will be achievable.
Q18.
With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there areas or sites in Rochford that you feel require a specific approach to housing types, size and tenure? What is required to meet housing needs in these areas? [Please state reasoning]
The district has a large number of houses, existing and approved that have four or five bedrooms. The number of homes available with two or three bedrooms is small, which increases their price and availability. The smaller properties are the ones that need to be affordable for families. You must ensure that the “affordable“ properties are not all flats and that minimum or higher standards are met for gardens and recreational space. There are sure to be single, elderly residents that would like to downsize from their large family homes, into a smaller, more manageable one but do not wish to go into an assisted living, residential or retirement homes. They may want a one or two bedroomed property, maybe one storey, or low-rise apartment that they own freehold.
We should safeguard the number of smaller bungalows available and make sure that the existing stock is preserved and a suitable number are provided in the housing mix. You need to consider that some residents may need residential care and you should be looking at ways to cope with the rising number of elderly and provide accommodation for them also.
Consideration should be given to the provision of house for life, bungalows and other potential buildings for downsizing families .
The plan makes no reference to social housing quotas.
The district desperately needs to meet the needs of the hidden homeless. People like the adult children on low wages who have no hope of starting a life of their own away from their parents. By living in these conditions, even if the family unit is tight and loving, it will cause mental health issues, stress and anxiety. You also need accessible properties for the disabled members of our community, where they are assisted in order to fulfil a normal as possible life. All these issues, and perhaps many more, need be addressed.
Q19.
Are there any other forms of housing that you feel we should be planning for? How can we best plan to meet the need for that form of housing? [Please state reasoning]
Housing for the hidden homeless – those “sofa surfing”, or adult children living at home with parents as they are on low wages or wages that would not allow them to move out to rent or buy somewhere on their own. Adapted homes for the disabled. Smaller, freehold properties for the older generation to enable them to downsize from large family homes. Emergency housing.
Q20.
With reference to the options listed, or your own options, what do you think is the most appropriate way of meeting our permanent Gypsy and Traveller accommodation needs? [Please state reasoning]
You need to find a permanent site that has a little room to expand but not exponentially. The “Traveller” life has changed over the years and you should revisit the criteria for the traveller community to meet the legal requirements. Strong controls are needed to prevent illegal building work and to ensure the site populations do not exceed capacity.
Q21.
With reference to the options listed, or your own options, what do you think is the most appropriate way of meeting our temporary Gypsy and Traveller accommodation needs? [Please state reasoning]
See answer to Q20
Q22.
What do you consider would need to be included in a criteria-based policy for assessing potential locations for new Gypsy and Traveller sites? [Please state reasoning]
See answer to Q20.
Q23.
With reference to the options listed above, or your own options, how do you feel we can best ensure that we meet our employment and skills needs through the plan? [Please state reasoning]
The council should stop developing existing commercial land into housing. Too many sites have already been lost and many more are planned to go. Consider how the plan can help those businesses wanting to expand. Work with local schools and colleges, as well as businesses and the job centre, to see what sustainable employment is needed in the district. Incorporate ways to assist in schemes to train all ages get back into work or upskill. Developers should be encouraged to use local labour.
Q24.
With reference to Figure 30, do you consider the current employment site allocations to provide enough space to meet the District’s employment needs through to 2040? Should we seek to formally protect any informal employment sites for commercial uses, including those in the Green Belt? [Please state reasoning]
No. The current employment site allocations on Figure 30 do not provide enough space to meet the district’s employment needs through to 2040. There are eighty-seven thousand people in the district. There is no data on the form to suggest how many of these are in employment and how many are looking for work but the council need to reassess its future needs in order to future-proof our residents’ opportunities. The plan should only formally protect sites the that have a future and a potential to expand or continue effectively.
Q25.
With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to deliver new employment facilities or improvements to existing employment facilities?
Option 3 could deliver new opportunities for employment as it would be a new site completely. Industrial units of various sizes, with room for expansion plus retail, hospitality and other employment could be included in the criteria for the development.
Q26.
Are there any particular types of employment site or business accommodation that you consider Rochford District is lacking, or would benefit from?
Environmental services - woodland conservation and management. Improve manufacturing base and revisit the JAAP to make the airport Business Park a technological park.
Q27.
Are there other measures we can take through the plan to lay the foundations for long-term economic growth, e.g., skills or connectivity?
Other forms of sustainable transport (Tram), gigabit broadband and Wi-Fi. Apprenticeships or training for all ages with jobs at the end of training. No new roads.
Q28.
With reference to the options listed above, or your own options, how do you feel we can best manage the Airport’s adaptations and growth through the planning system? [Please state reasoning]
The airport brings little to the economy, It could be better used as an expanded technological park or for housing.
Q29.
Do you agree that the plan should designate and protect areas of land of locally important wildlife value as a local wildlife site, having regard to the Local Wildlife Sites review? Are there any other sites that you feel are worthy of protection? [Please state reasoning]
Yes. You should conform to and improve existing policies for protecting wildlife areas. Everyone should be doing all in their power to protect wildlife sites. All wildlife is important and has been neglected, sites have been slowly lost over the years. Wildlife now enters suburban areas as their own habitats have diminished and they can no longer fend for themselves adequately from nature. Badgers and hedgehogs as well as rabbits, frogs, newts, voles and shrews are declining and are seldom seen apart from dead at the roadside. Bat numbers are declining as their habitats are lost. Designating initial sites is a step in the right direction but more must be done. It is proven that mental health issues can be relieved by nature and keeping the sites sacred is more important now than it ever was.
Keeping a biodiverse environment, with wildlife and the environment in which it relies is paramount. You mention that Doggett Pond no longer meets the standard but are there no steps to improve its status instead of dismissing it? It is obviously an important site for the wildlife in that area. To lose it would be to our detriment. You should be looking at creating new sites with every large housing development, and protecting them to improve our district and our own wellbeing. Private households should not be allowed to take over grass areas and verges or worse, concreting the verges over for parking and cost savings.
These areas, although small are still areas for wildlife. Bees and butterflies are also in decline, as are the bugs which feed our birds. The plan should create new wildlife meadows to encourage the pollinators in order to future proof our own existence. You should be exploring smaller sites that could be enhanced, managed and protected to give future generations a legacy to be proud of.
Q30.
Do you agree that the plan should designate and protect areas of land of locally important geological value as a local geological site, having regard to the Local Wildlife Sites review? Are there any other sites that you feel are worthy of protection? [Please state reasoning]
Yes. The plan must protect them for future generations and teach our children their history and importance so that they can continue to keep them safe.
Q31.
Do you consider net gains for biodiversity are best delivered on-site or off-site? Are there specific locations or projects where net gain projects could be delivered?
On site. You can then assess in real time and sort out any issues you would not have known about off site.
Q32.
With reference to the options above, or your own options, how do you feel we can best deliver a quality green and blue infrastructure network through the plan? [Please state reasoning]
You need to retain what we already have by ensuring the necessary links are in place to join as many as possible, and ensuring that public rights of way are not blocked by land owners and are kept free from debris. You also need to assess some paths to make them accessible to the disabled so that all is inclusive. There are some green areas that do not have public facilities and it would be advantageous to look into offering this in the larger spaces. For example, a small toilet block and hand washing facilities in the car park. Obtaining funding from new developments that can enhance existing areas as well as providing new spaces and facilities. The sites should be well-maintained.
Q33.
Do you agree that the central woodlands arc and island wetlands, shown on Figure 32 are the most appropriate areas for new regional parklands? Are there any other areas that should be considered or preferred? [Please state reasoning]
They are a step in the right direction, but you need to assess periodically in order to be able to add further links to any new parkland that may be created in the future. The map is unclear as it does not show exact routes.
Q34.
With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to help deliver new strategic green and blue infrastructure? [Please state reasoning]
Enhancing existing areas and ensuring developers include green space and recreational facilities within their developments. A new, separate development would be able to deliver this within their plan layout. Ensuring there are suitable links, access and footpaths. Making sure some of these footpaths are maintained and accessible for the disabled.
Q35.
With reference to the options above, or your own options, how can we address the need for sufficient and accessible community infrastructure through the plan? [Please state reasoning]
Assess the shortfall of facilities and networks before plans are approved so that adequate planning and funding can be secured before any building takes place.
Q36.
With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to deliver new or improved community infrastructure? [Please state reasoning]
A new town would have this infrastructure built into its plans. Funding for improvements must otherwise come from developers if an area is already overpopulated.
Q37.
Are there areas in the District that you feel have particularly severe capacity or access issues relating to community infrastructure, including schools, healthcare facilities or community facilities? How can we best address these? [Please state reasoning]
Most of the District feels overcrowded; the road network is no longer fit for purpose, some schools are near to capacity, it is difficult to obtain a GP or dental appointment. There is little to no disabled play areas or play equipment. There are often issues with waste collections, drain and road cleaning and verge trimming. The District Council does not have the staff to deal with all these issues. The council should either build another waste recycling site, or develop a better waste collection program which allows extra waste to be collected next to the bin. The current recycling site at Castle Road is no longer capable of expanding to meet the needs of an ever-growing population. The plan should also identify a site to accommodate commercial waste facilities to stop fly tipping.
Q38.
With reference to the options above, or your own options, how do you feel we can best meet our open space and sport facility needs through the plan? [Please state reasoning]
Improve what we already have. The tennis courts on Fairview Park needs improvement. Safeguard our open spaces to protect wildlife and recreation. Develop different types of sporting facilities. We need to offer free recreation.
Q39.
Are the potential locations for 3G pitch investment the right ones? Are there other locations that we should be considering? [Please state reasoning]
All-weather facilities should be considered.
Q40.
Are the listed potential hub sites and key centres the right ones? Are there other locations that we should be considering? [Please state reasoning]
They look suitable. They will probably need funding.
Q41.
With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to help deliver improvements to open space or sport facility accessibility or provision?
A new development would be able to deliver this in their plans or fund improvements for existing facilities in line with national strategy and requirements.
Q42.
Are there particular open spaces that we should be protecting or improving? [Please note, you will have an opportunity to make specific comments on open spaces and local green spaces in the settlement profiles set out later in this report]
The sites will be specific in each parish. You must protect all of these recreational spaces and improve them, if necessary. Once lost to development, they can never come back. There are too few areas of accessible open space.
Q43.
With reference to the options listed in this section, or your own options, how do you feel we can best address heritage issues through the plan? [Please state reasoning]
You should reassess the planning policies regarding alterations made to the buildings on the heritage list, especially those in conservation areas. There have been a few occasions where buildings of “interest” (or other) have been altered, and that places in conservation areas have been allowed canopies, shutters and internal illumination of signage without challenge. Any building work should be sympathetic to the area and you should require corrections to unauthorised changes, even if they have been in place for some time. Shop fronts are huge areas of uninteresting glass with garish colours. No objections are raised to signage and advertising that is out of character with a conservation area in a heritage town. Ensure statutory bodies are consulted and heeded.
You should take effective actions to manage the footways, ‘A’ boards and barriers are obstructions to those with impaired sight or mobility.
Q44.
Are there areas of the District we should be considering for conservation area status beyond those listed in this section? [Please state reasoning]
You should not take areas of precious woodland to make way for housing.
Q45.
Are there any buildings, spaces or structures that should be protected for their historic, cultural or architectural significance? Should these be considered for inclusion on the Local List of non-designated assets? [Please state reasoning]
Yes there are many sites of historic importance which should be included.
Q46.
With reference to the options listed above, or your own options, how do you think we can best plan for vibrant town centres in Rochford, Rayleigh and Hockley? How can we also ensure our village and neighbourhood centres remain vibrant? [Please state reasoning]
You can only have a vibrant town centre if there are shops to go to. If these units are subsequently changed to residential then our town centres will be fractured and uninviting. The new Use Class E will mean it will be even more important for the council to protect our retail outlets. You need to work actively with premises owners in order to assist in the re-letting of any empty shops. Maybe offer a reduced rent to new businesses as a start-up scheme. You could contain this as a “local” business only – allowing the entrepreneurs in the Rochford District a chance to showcase their businesses. You also need to be able to negotiate with the owners of empty shops how they can best strive to fill these premises and if not, then have some visual displays in the windows, perhaps photos of the old towns or useful information, to make them more attractive. Explore business rates levies.
Any plan should be reviewed frequently; at least every 4 years
It is a well-documented fact that independent businesses have done better than large chains during Covid as they are able to diversify at short notice. RDC need to incentivise new small or micro businesses into our town centre, either through grant support or another mechanism. Occupied premises create employment, increase footfall and reduce vandalism. Landlords should be engaged with to ensure quick turn-arounds, or for more flexible lease agreements where for example a new business can take on a shorter lease to test the market.
Good public transport links are crucial for our villages, neighbourhoods and town centres.
Q47.
Do you agree with the local centre hierarchy set out in Figure 36? If not, what changes would you make? [Please state reasoning]
Yes.
Q48.
With reference to Figures 38-40, do you agree with existing town centre boundaries and extent of primary and secondary shopping frontages in Rayleigh, Rochford and Hockley? If not, what changes would you make? [Please state reasoning]
Yes.
Q49.
Should we continue to restrict appropriate uses within town centres, including primary and secondary shopping frontages within those centres? If yes, what uses should be restricted? [Please state reasoning]
Yes. A mix of retailers is essential as a lack of variety will eventually kill off the high streets. We need to have a balance of outlets that keep the area viable as you would lose the vibrancy you are hoping to achieve.
Q50.
With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to deliver improved retail and leisure services in the District? [Please state reasoning]
Unfortunately, there has been a tendency to switch from commercial outlets to residential, where smaller retail areas have been sold off and housing development has been allowed. In a new development there would be scope to add a small, medium or large retail precinct, depending on the development size.
Retail parks, leisure areas and outlets are proving in many cases, the preferred option for consumers, normally as a result of having everything in one place, free on-site parking and maximum choice. We feel that some of the sites, whilst not suitable for large housing developments, may be suitable for something of this type. It would create much needed employment, opportunity and tourism for the area. Retail parks, leisure areas and outlets are proving in many cases the preferred option for consumers, normally as a result of having everything in one place, free on-site parking and maximum choice. I feel that some of the sites out forward in Rayleigh, whilst not suitable for large housing developments, may be suitable for something of this type. It would create much needed employment, opportunity and tourism for the area.
Q51.
With reference to the options above, or your own options, how do you feel we can best address our transport and connectivity needs through the plan? [Please state reasoning]
The council needs to follow the rule “No development before infrastructure”. Houses are being built without adequate road, pedestrian and cycle networks in place. New developments should be planned with cycle paths and walkways that link up with existing paths. The existing paths need updating and attention.
Q52.
Are there areas where improvements to transport connections are needed? What could be done to help improve connectivity in these areas?
More work needs to be done on the A127 and The Carpenters Arms roundabout. The feeder lanes proposed some years ago to link the Fairglen interchange with The Rayleigh Weir in both directions is now essential as this is a bottleneck. Hockley needs another access. Connecting the cycle ways into a proper cycle network as part of the plan. A tram system. No new roads should be built.
Q53.
With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to deliver new transport connections, such as link roads or rapid transit? What routes and modes should these take? [Walking, cycling, rail, bus, road etc.]
Better links to the Chelmsford perhaps through a tram system, new roads must not be built. Designated cycling paths that are separated from existing roads and pavements, but adjacent to our road networks would help improve traffic flow. Ensure the cycle network links with public transport as part of a complete review of sustainable transport.
Q54.
Do you feel that the plan should identify rural exception sites? If so, where should these be located and what forms of housing or employment do you feel need to be provided? [Please note you may wish to comment on the use of specific areas of land in the next section]
This may be a suitable option for a retirement village that could be restricted to single storey dwellings only, and could include community facilities such as convenient store, community centre and so on.
Q55.
Are there any other ways that you feel the plan should be planning for the needs of rural communities? [Please stare reasoning]
Better public transport and sustainable transport links.
Q56.
a.
Do you agree with our vision for Rayleigh? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]
No Comment
b.
With reference to Figure 44 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the promoted sites should be made available for any of the following uses? How could that improve the completeness of Rayleigh?
No Comment
c.
Are there areas in Rayleigh that development should generally be presumed appropriate? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
No. Large scale residential development in Rayleigh should be resisted in the new Local Plan. So called windfall development should be incorporated in the overall development targets thereby reducing large scale development.
d.
Are there areas that require protecting from development? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
Conservation areas and green belt and sites subject to the exclusion criteria on the call for sites should be protected. Proposed sites within Rayleigh and on the Western side should not be considered for development. Only an infrastructure plan would provide evidence that the chosen sites are sustainable in the long term, and greenbelt and environmental policies should be adhered to in relation to open spaces on the edge or within the town.
e.
Do you agree that the local green spaces shown on Figure 44 hold local significance? Are there any other open spaces that hold particular local significance?
All green spaces, no matter how small, hold some significance, especially to those who use them for recreation. They are of particular community value and should not be developed. They must be seen as the vital green area not the next place along the line to be built on. It is reasonable for RDC to encourage the development of a garden village away from existing communities to accommodate the Governments home building targets.
Q57.
a.
Do you agree with our vision for Rochford and Ashingdon? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]
No Comment
b.
With reference to Figure 45 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the promoted sites should be made available for any of the following uses? How could that improve the completeness of Rochford and Ashingdon?
c.
Are there areas in Rochford and Ashingdon that development should generally be presumed appropriate? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
d.
Are there areas that require protecting from development? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
Hockley Woods
Rayleigh Town Council. Spatial Plan Response 17 V 2.0 Published 13th September 2021
Q60.
a.
Do you agree with our vision for Hullbridge? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]
No. This has been written by someone with no awareness of Hullbridge. I support the Parish Council Vision.
b.
With reference to Figure 48 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the promoted sites should be made available for any of the following uses? How could that improve the completeness of Hullbridge?
The biggest issue with further development in Hullbridge is the distinct lack of infrastructure – whether that be roads, schools, transport and other general services – and so, without even mentioning the fact that many sites lay within the projected 2040 flood plains, the suggestion that further development can take place on any considerable scale is untenable. Any consideration of commercial or community infrastructure, such as youth services, care facilities, or local businesses would equally need to be subject to the same discussion and scrutiny.
Housing [market, affordable, specialist, traveller, other]
c.
Are there areas in Hullbridge that development should generally be presumed appropriate? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
All of the areas lie within the green belt, and many will be within the projected 2040 flood plains, and so general appropriateness is not met with any; numerous promoted sites are outside walking distance of the majority of services and as such would increase residents using vehicles and increase reliance on our already stretched local infrastructure.
d.
Are there areas that require protecting from development? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
Significant portions of Hullbridge remain vital for local wildlife, its habitats, and the natural environment. As such, any and all developments along the River Crouch, the surrounding areas of Kendal Park and those that lie north of Lower Road should be protected from development.
e.
Do you agree that the local green spaces shown on Figure 48 hold local significance? Are there any other open spaces that hold particular local significance? [Please state reasoning]
All green spaces, no matter how small, hold some significance, especially to those who use them for recreation. They are of particular community value and should not be developed. They must be seen as the vital green area not the next place along the line to be built on. It is reasonable for RDC to encourage the development of a garden village away from existing communities to accommodate the Governments home building targets.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Following the many representations I've had regarding the Spatial Options Consultation, I would like the following issues included in the appraisal.

The Development Committee recently turned down the Bloor Homes planning application for over 660 homes to be built that would have directed traffic onto the Ashingdon Road and onwards to the B1013. The application was turned down on the grounds that traffic levels have become severe on the main roads through the Rochford District. I would therefore challenge any major site inclusion within any recommendations going forward for the New Area Plan that would direct traffic onto any of the roads noted above on the grounds that the roads are already at capacity (as documented in the case of the B1013 in the 1990's) and therefore not difficult to class the traffic levels as severe. I fail to see any improvements that can be made to the existing roads that would increase the capacity to cope with the increase. Sites marked as deliverable in the document, do not appear to have taken into account, this particular point.

I see very little within the proposed sites that will offer enhanced status for then areas that they are suggested to be in.

Many of the proposed areas for inclusion, note a flood risk. There is a strong chance of the 1 in 100 events, becoming much more regular with the advent of global warming. The natural conclusion therefore has to be to avoid recommending areas that are already noted as having a flood risk.

Many of the sites put forward are not within walking or public transport distance and therefore will inevitably encourage use of personal transport, which is not in line with the Councils aims for clean air quality.

As a representative for the Hockley Ward, I find sites marked CFS064, CFS160 and CFS161 particularly contentious and would ask that they be removed from consideration.

I trust these issues will be give due consideration in formulating the new area plan.

Dear Sir / Madam,

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

Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter.

Kind Regards,
Jane

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

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

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

To whom it may concern,

In response to the spatial options consultation concerning Barling, Great Wakering, Little Wakering, Rochford and the SS0 to SS9 Area.

There may well be a need to provide additional housing for local children and their children's children however, as already being demonstrated, by the rocketing House prices recently in this area, that it is more affluent Londoners that are moving into this (cheaper to them) area. Supposedly they are moving here because its ironically greener.

These are the reasons I oppose this proposal

I moved from Southend into Little Wakering as I was struggling to cope with the busy built up area. Now I have a field at my open back fence and around me where I can calm my mind and balance my busy work schedule at the local hospital. It is my saviour. Evidence suggests for mental peace and mindfulness spending time surrounded by nature releases the hormone oxytocin to help our brains soothing system and lower our stress hormone cortisol, which keeps us in the threat fight or flight centre in the brain. With the rising levels of anxiety and mental health conditions particularly amongst the young we need to preserve green space in this area.

Mental health is already putting great strain on the NHS and doesn't, even now, have sufficient funding to manage the situation, let alone in the future when we are so crammed in no one can get space or do the things they enjoy to balance life's stressor.

Alot of the population are introverts and they get their energy from time away from people. Not being able to live with space around them will be detrimental to local health.

The pandemic has illustrated how living in built up, close proximity, highly populated areas is detrimental to health and has allowed ease of transmission of the virus. This will only get worse and more prevalent if we continue to fill in the green gaps with more people.

It will impact on the NHS, even now, there is great difficulties in this area accessing and getting a doctors or hospital appointment. I have already lost two people I love dearly because they couldn't get in to see a doctor or timely investigations and became terminal. This issue will grow even more.

Only two main roads in and out. Building in this dead end is trapping us and reducing our quality of life. Already I and my family have made life changes. Things that we used to enjoy we no longer do because of how busy the area has become and how difficult it is to get out of the area. I don't visit family in other areas very frequently because of the time it takes to get out and back in and stress the traffic creates. Family members have stopped clubs they enjoyed in Basildon because of the time it now takes with the built up traffic. All ready I don't do days out because it takes so long getting out and back into the area. I don't visit my elderly parents in Rochford as frequently as I would like because of the traffic to get there and back in a reasonable time around my work hours and children. This concerns me when I will need to travel there daily to be able to care for them but getting along the Ashingdon road is already a nightmare. I avoid going to town or retail because of the traffic to get there, because of how busy the places are.

Also where we are trying to lower carbon emissions and pollution we are sitting in traffic with engines running. Already this is the case to get anywhere. The junction at shopland Road and Sutton Road. Passed purdeys industrial estate to try and get to Rochford. Trying to get along the Ashingdon road. Priory Park, progress Road, Rayleigh weir etc. The more houses you build in this area, the more cars, the more pollution with traffic sitting at a standstill and not being able to get anywhere.

The condition of the roads is not suitable for more traffic like Barrow Hall Road and shopland Road. The road is narrow and there are many near misse head on crashes. The edges of the road are in poor condition which does not allow for manoeuvre when the road is so narrow especially with the speed people drive along the roads.

Business not being able to travel with ease in and out of the area will impact on economy.

It will impact on my NHS community physio team. We are having to restrict patient appointment already because it takes much longer to travel between patients in this area. Building up this dead end area will massively impact on the health care available to our aging population. It is already an issue, I live it every day at work. It is escalating stress in the team, in families and patients. It is a growing problem.

No infrastructure improvements with the builds that are already happening. Doctors, schools, fire service, community teams. There is only one secondary school for RDC pupils and space is already full at the primary schools.

Building up the area is restricting access to activities people do in their down time, how people in this area look after their mental and physical health. How they unwind. Less walks across field footpaths. Busier roads less access and more danger to cyclist. This area is popular for cyclists. It will restrict an activity that a vast number of people do for their health. Keeping active in this way will reduce their ailments in later life and will therefore need to access health services less. The reason it is popular for cyclists is that there is space, there is peace and the roads are quiet and safer.

There is alot of wildlife that New builds are pushing out of this area. Our children have a right to live amongst nature, that is how they learn to appreciate and take care of it.

With rising sea levels building on our limited open areas will increase flooding risk to those already living here.

This dead end area is not the area to build up. It is not fair to the existing population. Please stop trapping us here and negatively affecting our quality of life.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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

Q5. Do you agree with the settlement hierarchy presented?


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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Spatial Themes

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

Housing for All

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


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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

Employment and Jobs

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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


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

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

Biodiversity

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


YES

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

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

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


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

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

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

Green and Blue Infrastructure

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


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

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


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


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

Community Infrastructure

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

Heritage

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


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

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


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


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

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


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

Town Centres and Retail

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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


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

Transport and Connectivity

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


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

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


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

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

Green Belt and Rural Issues

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


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

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

Planning for Complete Communities

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


N/A


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


N/A


Q56d. Are there areas that require protecting from development?


N/A


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


N/A

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



N/A

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


N/A


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


N/A


Q57d. Are there areas that require protecting from development?


N/A



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

N/A

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

N/A

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

N/A

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


N/A

Q58d. Are there areas that require protecting from development?


N/A



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


N/A


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

N/A

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


N/A




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


N/A





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


N/A


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


N/A


Q60a. Do you agree with our vision for Hullbridge?


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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


N/A


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


N/A


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


N/A


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

N/A

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

N/A



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


N/A


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


N/A


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

N/A



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

N/A



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


N/A





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


N/A


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


N/A


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


N/A


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


N/A


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


N/A


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


N/A


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


N/A

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


N/A


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


N/A


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


N/A


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


N/A


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


N/A


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


N/A






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


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

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


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

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


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

Create a Country Park to the west of Hullbridge.

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

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

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

Dear Mr Stephenson,

Response to Rochford District Consultation on New Local Plan

I am writing to you regarding Rochford District Council (RDC) consultation on your emerging new Local Plan. Please regard this letter as my formal response to your consultation. I have set out my comments under what I hope are a number of relevant headings below. In the interests of transparency, I declare an interest as a local resident myself, having lived in Essex for half a century and now in Rayleigh for a little over twenty years.

General Points

We obviously need to build some new homes in Rochford District over the next two decades, as we cannot expect people to live at home with their parents into their 50's. Nevertheless, the whole thrust of this letter is that there should be no further major housebuilding in the Rochford District without significant infrastructure investment first. Any new Local Plan has to be both environmentally and economically sustainable and must safeguard the interests of existing residents, as well as new ones.

Background

RDC has initiated this consultation, as part of the process of updating its Local Plan, an overall process which is likely to take around a further two years to complete. Once the draft plan, which should then cover the period out to 2040 has been formulated, this process should then include an examination in public by an Inspector from the Planning Inspectorate, at which I would like to request an opportunity to give evidence as one of the local MPs, when the time comes.

However, in the meantime, before RDC begins to finalise its new plan, the Council has sought early feedback from local residents, and I hope that as many as possible will have taken the Council up on its suggestion and provided comments of their own.

In my response, I have sought to make some important general points about the need to ensure that any future housebuilding is accompanied by the necessary expansion of local infrastructure. If that cannot be guaranteed, then I believe that major house building in the District should be resisted until it can.

Geography

Much of the Rochford District is effectively contained in a peninsula, bounded by the Thames Estuary to the South (beyond the Borough of Castle Point); the North Sea to the East and the River Crouch to the North, which forms a border for much of its length with the neighbouring Maldon District.

As a result of this, there are only a limited number of major routes into and out of the District, which are a major consideration in formulating any new plan.

Transport Corridors and Constraints

Rochford District is connected to the capital via a direct rail route into London Liverpool Street. This has been upgraded in recent years, with major investment in new overhead wires, longer trains with increased capacity and the upgrade of some platforms, plus a new station at Southend airport.

Prior to the Covid-19 pandemic, trains in the morning and evening rush hour were bursting to capacity. Passenger numbers are now recovering as we finally emerge from Lockdown but the extent to which capacity problems on the line will re-emerge will partly be determined by how working patterns alter post-pandemic and the extent to which people are permitted/desire to work from home, as opposed to a return to regularly commuting into London, in the traditional manner.

Rail capacity should be expanded further, when the much-delayed Crossrail (now named the Elizabeth Line) eventually opens across London, hopefully now no later than 2023. The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) on which I now sit, recently took evidence on Crossrail and is now likely to publish its latest report on the project, within the next few weeks.

In terms of air travel, unfortunately due to the loss of traffic resulting from the pandemic, both EasyJet and Ryanair have recently withdrawn scheduled passenger services from Southend, leaving the airport largely dependent on freight traffic and aircraft maintenance work for its survival. Hopefully, regular passenger services, including to popular holiday destinations, might be resumed once the economy has fully recovered, although this is by no means guaranteed.

However, the major constraint in terms of transport links to and from the Rochford District is undoubtedly the road network, which in many cases is already seriously overstretched. The two main road arteries leading to/from Rochford District are the A127 and A13.

In spite of a number of junction improvements in recent years on the A13 and A127 and widening schemes on the A13, both of these major roads are already at or very close to full capacity at rush hour. An Essex County Council A127 Task Force meeting, held a little before the pandemic struck, examined the 'heat maps' for both roads (i.e. the busier the road, the darker the shade of red on the map). These showed that in both the morning and evening rush hour, both roads glowed very deep red, with both at between 98% to 100% capacity. As we have emerged from Lockdown (and indeed as many people have avoided public transport, because of the virus) traffic levels are now virtually back to pre-pandemic levels already.

Despite some limited opportunities for modal shift (both roads are highly sustainable for cycle lanes, which would be subject to heavy traffic pollution anyway) there is a strong culture of private car use in South Essex, which many residents see as part of living in a free society. This seems unlikely to be altered by entreaties to simply abandon private car use, however well-intentioned (especially as some of those making such calls use their own private cars frequently as well).

DEFRA has been concerned for some time about air quality issues, especially along the A127 and has effectively compelled neighbouring Basildon Borough Council to implement a number of air quality initiatives, in order to obviate the imposition of a formal air quality zone in the Basildon/Pitsea area, close to the RDC boundary. Over the lifetime of the proposed new plan, this problem may be partially alleviated by the increasing introduction of electric vehicles but, while this may well deliver environmental benefits, it still does not solve the issue of the sheer volume of traffic already using both roads in the early 2020s, let alone by the late 2030s.

Along with some others, I have been calling for several years for a straightening out of the old Fortune of War junction on the A127 at Laindon (which itself would be likely to deliver air quality benefits, not least by avoiding the need for literally thousands of vehicles to slow down and then accelerate, in both directions, every day). Nevertheless, bureaucratic indifference from Essex County Council has meant that this idea is unfortunately little further advanced, despite its obvious benefits, including speeding up traffic flows on what is already one of the busiest A roads in the country.

In short, it is an 'inconvenient truth' that these two major roads are already virtually maxed out at peak times and any further local house building plans clearly have to take this serious constraint very much into account.

Unless the Government is seriously prepared to finance a major upgrade of the A127, to a largely three-lane M127 standard, (which would likely require upwards of a billion pounds), then major house building in the Rochford District should be strongly constrained.

Our local roads are extremely busy too. The B1013, which runs from Rayleigh, through Hockley and down into Hawkwell, is already one of the busiest B roads in the country, especially during the morning and evening peak. Also, the Ashingdon Road, leading from Ashingdon down through parts of Hawkwell into Rochford, is also a very busy road, as anyone who has used it regularly during the rush hour can testify. This is one of the reasons why I spoke out so forcibly at Rochford District Council's Development Committee against the recent Bloor Homes application to build 662 properties just off the Ashingdon Road, which I am pleased to say that RDC resolved to oppose (and which may now go to appeal as a result).

In any future plans for more housing in the Rochford District, a vital question will be, where will the accompanying new roads be built/expanded - and, crucially, who will pay for them? For all the reasons outlined above, it is important to raise this absolutely key issue now, before any new Local Plan is formulated.

Pressure on NHS Services

I declare a potential interest in raising the topic of pressure on NHS services, as my partner works as a Radiographer at an NHS hospital. Indeed, she has worked for the NHS for nearly two decades now. Nevertheless, this has helped to provide me with some additional insight into the pressure our hospitals and the wider NHS has been under, especially as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic.

Essex has five major District General Hospitals, arranged roughly in a star pattern, with Chelmsford (Broomfield) in the centre and the others in Harlow (North West); Colchester (North East); Basildon (South West) and Southend (South East). In 2020, Basildon, Broomfield and Southend came together to form the Mid Essex Hospitals NHS Trust. Even prior to the Covid-19 pandemic, all five hospitals were already under pressure and the pandemic has obviously exacerbated these problems further.

As far as I am aware, none of the forty hospitals earmarked for new construction and/or major rebuilds are currently earmarked for Essex and despite the best efforts of dedicated NHS staff, pressure on our hospitals in Essex and, in the case of RDC on Southend Hospital in particular, is only likely to be exacerbated by further major house building in South East Essex. NHS planners and the senior management of the Mid Essex Trust clearly need to take these additional pressures into account and a solution must be found or any major house building should be delayed until it is.

Access to primary care and GP appointments in particular is an increasing issue across the Rochford District as, again, the NHS seeks to rebalance in emerging from the pandemic. The reorganisation of Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs), which seek to co-ordinate primary care services and commission hospital care as well, from five CCGs to one across South Essex, is now being superseded by the creation of larger Integrated Care Systems (ICSs) which seek to more closely co-ordinate NHS and social care services.

A new Mid and South Essex ICS (which should mirror the area covered by Basildon, Broomfield and Southend Hospitals) is now scheduled to begin operating from April 2022 onwards. As well as these senior level organisations within our local NHS, any further expansion in the local population will need to be accompanied by a commensurate addition in the availability of primary care services, especially GPs. With the trend in recent years towards fewer but larger practices, there is a need to consider expanding the physical size of a number of practices (as, for instance, was achieved with the new extension to the Audley Mills practice in Rayleigh, several years ago). Similarly, just across the boundary in the Basildon Borough Council area, a major new surgery building was opened in Wickford town centre (also part of my Rayleigh and Wickford Constituency) just a few years ago.

However, the Riverside Surgery at Hullbridge secured planning permission several years ago to expand its first floor, to include extra consulting tooms and administration space, to cope with the expansion in the local population, including from the new Barratt David Wilson development of some 500 homes at nearby Malyons Farm. Nevertheless, several years on, mainly due to internal NHS bureaucracy, the work has still not commenced, despite the fact that houses on the new development are already being occupied in some numbers.

This complicated and highly bureaucratic process of 'passporting' developer contributions (which themselves often take years to come through), via local councils, to NHS organisations and then finally onto GP surgeries that need to expand to cater for more patients, clearly needs to be radically speeded up, a point which I intend to pursue with Government Ministers.

As well as physical buildings, an additional challenge is finding new GPs and other medical professionals to work in them. The establishment several years ago of a new Medical School at the Chelmsford campus of Anglia Ruskin University (ARU), an initiative which I strongly supported, may help in this respect. Within a couple of years, the first medical students should begin to graduate as Doctors from ARU (with around 100 or so then expected to do so each year). A number of these students are already working in Essex hospitals and GP practices and some of them will hopefully remain in Essex when they qualify. Via this route, we will hopefully be able to replenish or, over time. even increase the number of GPs working in Essex, as any increasing population will clearly require.

In fairness to the Government, it had already committed record amounts of additional spending to the NHS, even prior to the pandemic, with an increase of some £34 billion per year already programmed in by the end of this Parliament, under the NHS Long Term Plan. This significant extra investment will hopefully help boost NHS services in Essex, including in other vital areas, such as mental health too. However, it is also very important that extra resources being put into the NHS are focused on patient care and genuinely expanding NHS capacity, rather than merely multiplying NHS bureaucracy.

Nonetheless, in addition to additional Government resources, paid for out of general taxation, I believe that property developers, who are already making very comfortable profit margins from large scale housing developments, should be able to contribute considerably greater resources towards expansion of local NHS facilities than they do now, either via revised Section 101 agreements, the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL), or similar instruments. This should be an important component of any Local Plan.

Pressure on Education and school places

Educational standards across the Rochford District are generally high and across Essex as a whole, some 90% of schools are now rated as Good or Outstanding by OFSTED. Perhaps unsurprisingly, therefore, there is continued pressure on school places ,especially at the most popular schools.

The four secondary schools in the Rochford District, which are all now Academies, have either all benefited (or are now due to benefit) from upgrades and an expansion in capacity in recent years. In Rayleigh, both FitzWimarc and Sweyne Park schools now have their own sixth forms (I campaigned for and subsequently opened both of them) and FitzWimarc has recently opened a new block, paid for largely by a grant from the Department for Education (DfE). Sweyne Park has just completed construction of a new block of several additional classrooms, financed mainly in this instance by Section 106 contributions from major housing developments in the area.

Greensward Academy in Hockley also has a sixth form and benefited from a major £14 million rebuild several years ago, paid for by the DfE following it becoming one of the first Academies to be established outside of the inner cities.

King Edmund School (KES) in Ashingdon, which also has a sixth form, is also now due for a major rebuild, following the discovery of serious building defects in some parts of the school buildings last year. Having recently been awarded a multi-million pound grant from the DfE to help finance these new facilities, including a large new block of classrooms, it is now hoped that the new block will be open for KES pupils by the commencement of the 2023/24 academic year.

The sixth forms at all for schools have proved popular and have now begun to provide many pupils and their parents with a very viable alternative to the four grammar schools in nearby Southend. However, despite their significant expansions, it will still be important to ensure that any availability of places at these four major schools can keep pace with any increases in demand from additional house building, over the lifetime of the plan.

At primary school level, there has not been the same across the board expansion in capacity as at secondary level within the Rochford District. Essex County Council, as the Local Education Authority (LEA) uses a highly formulaic method of calculating the need for new school places at primary level, based largely on birth rate data from NHS Trusts, extrapolated forward to calculate the demand for school places several years on.

However, this method, which is updated on an annual basis, is not good at capturing additional demand created 'in year' by families moving into the District and rapidly requiring school places, before the commencement of the new academic year each September.

In fairness, Essex County Council has sometimes been willing to temporarily expand capacity at some primary schools (as for instance at Riverside Academy in Hullbridge, prior to the pandemic) but as an LEA, Essex is often slower to react to the need to expand places at primary rather than secondary level and popular schools, even when they have become Academies, are still often discouraged from further expansion by excessive, 'Soviet style' bureaucracy at County Hall.

As one example of this, the new Countryside development in Rayleigh has set aside a plot for a new primary school, or alternatively ECC could expand capacity 'offsite' at nearby primary schools instead - with the developer paying for either option, via already agreed Section 106 contributions. However, despite some four years of being asked to make a choice, of one or the other, ECC has still refused to take a decision. In my view, ECC's highly dirigiste system for expanding school capacity at primary level, should be completely reviewed, from top to bottom, in order to allow successful schools to expand and to cater for any additional school places which may be required over the lifetime of RDC's new Local Plan.

Flood Risk

The issue of flooding and building in areas liable to flooding has long been an emotive issue in Essex, reach back as far as the Great Flood of 1953, in which a number of Essex residents unfortunately lost their lives, including nearby on Canvey Island.

As well as the North Sea immediately to the East, there are a number of rivers in the Rochford District, including the Crouch and Roach, plus a number of smaller tributaries and streams/brooks which permeate parts of the District, as far across as Rayleigh and Rawreth.

Given the pressure to release land for house building, there may be a temptation to recommend building in areas at potential risk of flooding, be it tidal or as a result of surface water run-off and/or local drainage systems being overwhelmed, during period of exceptionally heavy rainfall (such as unfortunately happened in Rayleigh and some other parts of the District in 2014). Building major housing estates only increases these risks and adds to pressure on the already pressurised local drainage network.

Even allowing for more modern flood management technology, such as Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS) on modern housing developments, it seems sensible, not least from both an environmental and safety standpoint, to strictly constrain house building ambitions in any areas which may be liable to flooding, for whatever reason. Again, given the specific geography and topography pf the Rochford District, this is an important consideration in formulating any new Local Plan.

Summary

Clearly, there has to be some limited future house building in the Rochford District, as young people cannot be expected to live at home with their parents into their 50's. Nevertheless, any such development has to be sustainable, both environmentally and economically.

Given the physical geography of the Rochford District and the constraints on its existing infrastructure, especially its road infrastructure, there should be strict limits on any major house building without major new investment in supporting infrastructure, whether financial by central Government; regional bodies such as the South East Local Enterprise Partnership (SELEP), Essex County Council or property developers hoping to profit from future developments in the Rochford District, or a combination of all four.

In this response to RDC's consultation I have sought to flag up a number of key infrastructure issues, including transport constraints, growing pressures on local NHS services, competition for school places and the dangers of building in areas of potential flood risk, all of which will require significant investment, if future house building is to be achieved, without a detrimental effect on my constituents. I trust that these comments will be taken into account as RDC evolves its new Local Plan over the next two years or so.

In view of the repeated references to the need for infrastructure investment contained in this letter, I am copying this response to a number of potentially interested parties, in both central and local Government. These include the Rt Hon Michael Gove MP, the Secretary of State at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) and his Housing and Planning Minister, Christopher Pincher MP. I have also sent it to the Rt Hon Sajid Javid MP, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care; the Rt Hon Nadim Zahawi MP, the Secretary of State for Education and to the Rt Hon Grant Shapps, the Transport Secretary, as well as to Christian Brodie, the Chairman of the South East Local Enterprise Partnership (SELEP), which includes Essex within its remit.

I have also copied it to County Councillor Kevin Bentley, the Leader of Essex County Council; County Councillor Lee Scott, Cabinet Member for Highways and Sustainable Transport at County Hall and also to County Councillor Tony Ball, ECC's Cabinet Member for Education and Lifelong Learning.

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.

We understand the need for more housing. However, it is clear from the idea's presented that the those of whom who have created these plans clearly do not live in or around Hullbridge and we disagree with this vision.

Hullbridge is a village and it should remain so. We moved from Wickford due to over building and increased traffic. You can rarely get in or out of Wickford without getting stuck in traffic. The same is now happening in Hullbridge.

Funny how land is deemed as greenbelt unless the council want to use it or they are approached by developers with large cheque books. Green belt should remain green belt, we need these areas to do what mother nature intended: Keep the air clean, and to be used as a place to go for mental and physical health benefits. Area's marked for potential development should be used as green space or recreational use would contribute to a healthier way of living and mind set.

Upon moving to Hullbridge 2 years ago the construction of the new estate at the junction of watery lane caused chaos, over one hour at its best to do a 20 min journey to work.

The sink hole earlier this year brought Hullbridge, Hockley & Rayleigh and surrounding areas to a standstill for most of the day for the whole week the road was closed for, and the construction works of the new roundabout going on at the junction of Rawreth Lane and Hullbridge road did not help, and these works are still incomplete.

Watery Lane, Lower Road are used daily as a go through road to Rochford / Rayleigh and A130, Watery Lane is in much need of attention, with poor drainage, over grown hedgerows and lighting, is closed every month for minimum 1 day and yet no visible signs of any works being carried out, without the usual winter closures due to flooding. Hullbridge just doesn't have the scope or infrastructure to cope with any additional vehicles. How about making improvements to roads like this first, along with other roads in Hullbridge that are in desperate need of attention.

The new infrastructure, recently added to the area only just accommodates the local traffic as it is, without a further 7000 homes, potentially 14000 cars based on 2 car households.
You also need to consider the air quality and the impact on pollution these 14000 cars will create, with more traffic jams creating more pollution, and seeing as the pollution tests carried at the junction of Ferry Road to Lower Road & Hullbridge road that were conducted 3-4 years ago, with the results showing the highest pollution rate in the area due the basin like dip in the road.

Some will say Electric Cars would ease this issue, however as the land needs to be excavated to find the lithium in the first place, it is a false economy and will / does have diminishing consequences to already struggling natural wildlife habitats. Then there is the disposal of the batteries when they are at the end of their life, where will these go? along with other rubbish, that we all take to Rayleigh tip for disposal if it were to close as per the proposed closure to make way for more housing. Dispensing of Rayleigh tip will only encourage more fly tipping.


River development?? The River crouch can only be used during high tides, it is not like the Thames as it does not actually go anywhere only to a dead end, and a little stream. Therefore, any kind of "river ferry shuttle service" is restrictive and unreliable. It is likely that the houses along the river front won't even exist in 20-30 years' time, due to climate change, and rising water levels, as they are highlighted as being in the flood plain path / area. Essex is already sinking at a rate 0.4 > 0.7mm per year, so any further development on such highlighted areas would be an environmental disaster and is not to be considered. These should be protected.

There is also the problem of limited schooling & medical facilities, of which is barely adequate for the village residents as things stand, We need to improve these facilities now, for existing ageing residential population who do not need employment, but do need health services, and for the younger generation who need improvements in primary school places within the community to help alleviate / minimise the use of cars to transport their children to & from schools as this currently is not the case, in a bid to reduce air pollution and congestion, and making the area a cleaner & safer place to live.

Our services would certainly struggle with any extra demand. With Ferry Road being the main road in and out of the village, it will be impossible to increase the road infrastructure to accommodate the unreasonable proposition of this housing expansion and transport connectivity demand. Many are working from home now, but what about when all return to the office / place of work? I don't believe this has been taken in to consideration.

Our preferred site would be 3b Southend North.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Heritage

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

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

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

Highways

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

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

Housing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6. Town Centres and Retail
Q46. With reference to the options listed above, or your own options, how do you think we can best plan for vibrant town centres in Rochford, Rayleigh and Hockley?
How can we also ensure our village and neighbourhood centres remain vibrant?
6.1. Claremont Planning support the ambition of Options 5 and 10 in their recognition that delivering a suitable mix of uses including residential development is essential in
continuing to support the vitality and viability of town centres. It is considered important however, that the Council recognise the importance of allowing settlements to expand through new development outside of the existing settlement boundary, as this can allow the population of settlements to grow. This in turn can increase footfall to existing shops and services, and enhance the vitality and viability of these settlements, especially where good pedestrian connectivity to the town centre is present. Whilst it is recognised that the
consultation document identifies that town centres within the District have not suffered declines in footfall as acutely as national trends would indicate, further development and growth at a settlement could ensure that town centres remain sustainable in the future.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8. Planning for Complete Communities
Q57a. Do you agree with our vision for Rochford and Ashingdon? Is there anything you
feel is missing?
8.1. The proposed vision statement for Rochford and Ashingdon is generally supported by Claremont
Planning, where it proposes the further growth and development of the settlement. In particular, the vision statement’s recognition of the settlement’s strategic location close to key employment sites and London Southend Airport, and intention to bolster its regionally significant role is strongly supported. However, it is considered that the proposed vision statement places too great an emphasis on economic growth at the settlement. Instead, Claremont Planning recommend
that the proposed vision statement be amended to include a more balanced and holistic approach
to growth, where it is considered that the Council should recognise the role that residential development has in supporting both the vitality and viability of town centres, alongside a recognition that economic and jobs growth must be supported by sufficient housing provision to
support the local workforce. Moreover, as a ‘Tier 2’ settlement in the District, Rochford represents a highly sustainable location for residential development and should therefore represent a location for significant growth through the emerging Local Plan to assist in meeting the District’s housing needs. As such, it is advised that the vision statement be revised to recognise the role of residential, alongside economic development in realising the growth ambitions of the district.
Q57b. With reference to Figure 45 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the promoted sites should be made available for any of the following uses? How could that improve the completeness of Rochford and Ashingdon?
1. Housing [market, affordable, specialist, traveller, other]
2. Commercial [offices, industrial, retail, other]
3. Community Infrastructure [open space, education, healthcare, allotments, other]
4. Other
8.2. Promoted site CFS067 as identified on Figure 45: Map of Rochford and Ashingdon, should be made available for residential development. Through these representations to the Spatial Options consultation, Claremont Planning have sought to identify that the central location of the promoted land at Sutton Road within the Rochford settlement establishes the land as both a highly sustainable, and logical location for further residential development. This assertion is complemented by the 2021 Complete Communities Topic Paper prepared by the Authority within with the promoted land is located within an area identified as having a high walking completeness score of 11-13, meaning that there are a large number of services and facilities located within walking distance of the site. However, the Complete Communities Topic Paper also identifies that whilst the most complete areas in the settlement are located near the town centre, there are areas of low population density in and around the centre where future growth might optimise proximity to services. As established, the land off Sutton Road is entirely enclosed by the established Rochford settlement, and abuts existing residential development and employment
land at all elevations. Given the high walking completeness score of the land, the development
of the site represents an opportunity to both locate development at the most sustainable locations
within the settlement, whilst increasing the number of residents living in ‘complete’ areas.
8.3. The Complete Communities Topic Paper demonstrates that Rochford has good levels of
completeness in respect of access to education, health, civic, and sport and leisure facilities whilst only 8% of the settlement is located within the walking catchment of green infrastructure. It is considered that the release of the promoted land off Sutton Road for residential development represents an opportunity to address this shortfall. Within the south of the site at Sutton Road is
a small area of Flood Zone 3 which is promoted for use as public open space / access arrangements through any development proposal advanced. Moreover, the north-easternmost corner of the land is located within the Southend Airport Public Safety Zone within which
development potential is restricted. As such, this area is also promoted for and provides an opportunity to deliver public open space and ecological enhancement. Through careful scheme design it is therefore considered that any proposed development on site will deliver a connected series of public open spaces and green infrastructure, supporting both recreational activities and
delivering biodiversity gains. Given the relative enclosure of the site by established development, it is considered that both future occupants and residents of the wider site area will benefit from this enhanced green infrastructure provision.
Enclosed : Site Location Plan

Dear Sir/Madam
SPATIAL OPTIONS DOCUMENT 2021 .NOTIFICATION OF CONSULTATION UNDER REGULATION 18 OF THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (LOCAL PLANNING) (ENGLAND) REGULATIONS 2012, AS AMENDED.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Spatial Options Document 2021. We have reviewed the document and have provided comments in regards to Water Resources, Flood Risk and Ecology. In our response we have commented on specific questions raised in the consultation, where we feel the plan can be
enhanced or strengthened.

Water Resources
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?
There needs to be consideration of the South Essex Joint Strategic Plan and the water cycle study. This can highlight where they may be restrictions on development.

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?

Strategic Priority 3 mentions providing ‘sufficient provision of infrastructure’. There needs to consideration of this for wastewater/foul water in a strategic objective. Strategic Objective 9 could be amended to cover this: ‘To ensure that all new homes and commercial premises are supported by appropriate, timely and necessary infrastructure to mitigate potential impact, including those relating to transport, utilities, telecommunications (including broadband), open spaces and greenways, flood risk, wastewater treatment capacity, education, health and other community facilities.
This is required in order to ensure development is phased in line with treatment capacity to protect the water environment. If sufficient capacity is not available this can affect the locations of development.
Strategic Objective 20 mentions protecting the ‘natural environment’. This could be strengthened by the addition of rivers and other freshwaters’. This is because the
Water Framework Directive (WFD) requires protection of all waters; rivers, lakes and coastal/estuarine waters.
Options - The options include possible development at several towns. These are served by Water recycling centres, the main ones being Rochford, Rayleigh East,
Rayleigh west. All have some capacity at the moment for development but we recommend early discussions with AWS and use of a water cycle study to ensure
that developments are located and phased with wastewater treatment capacity.

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?
Page 37 talks about protecting a natural environment and about protected areas. But all water environments are protected under the requirements of the WFD. Assessment of large developments need to consider the main requirements of this directive – that there will not be a deterioration in the water environment and that required improvements in quality are not compromised. The river roach and its tributaries are within the Rochford area, and tributaries of the River Crouch.

Flood Risk
Q2 Do you agree with the draft vision for Rochford?
It would be good to see something in here regarding flood risk, it could maybe fit under the Environment heading and state: We will aim to manage flood risk and
look to sequentially site development out of the flood zone to try to reduce flood risk both now and with the effects of climate change.

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 from flooding and coastal erosion where possible?
Yes we agree sequentially siting development out of flood zones. This in itself is the best way that they can best protect their communities from flood risk.
You should also note that since the previous consultation regarding the local plan climate change allowances have been updated, the latest guidance can be found
at: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/flood-risk-assessments-climate-change-allowances.

Ecology
We generally agree with the vision and proposals for biodiversity and blue / green infrastructure included in the plan. The following link could be added as a resource
regarding green infrastructure http://www.biogeomorph.org/greengrey/

We trust this information is useful.

Yours faithfully

Mr. Pat Abbott
Planning Advisor
Direct dial 0208 4748011
Direct e-mail pat.abbott@environment-agency.gov.u

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.

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.

Firstly I should like to say that I think the presentation of this to the local people is far too complicated and I feel many people will just “give up” trying to respond However, I will attempt to put my views to the best of my ability.
I feel strongly that there should be no further major development in Hullbridge as this would damage the environment, compromise and have a detrimental impact on existing wildlife and result in more pollution and flooding. With the current UK emphasis on planting trees and hedgerows to help reduce pollution and benefit our natural wildlife, any further major development would go completely against this philosophy.
With the information given to me, I feel that the best option would be to build all housing in one location west of Rayleigh where there are already good transport links via A127, A130 and A13 These roads would serve as good links for work and business in Basildon, Southend, Wickford, Chelmsford, Thames Gateway and Tilbury2.
This option would enable a “tailor-made” approach to good housing and infrastructure, schools, GP surgeries, open spaces and community facilities. This option would not put extra strain on the current villages whose roads, facilities and amenities are already stretched to breaking point. An example of this is the current through traffic on Lower Road in Hullbridge where there has been a vast increase in the volume of traffic and consequential increase in air pollution (due to recent developments in Rochford and Ashingdon). Lower Road has become a rat run for traffic from Southend and en route areas through to to Chelmsford. The increased volume and speed of traffic along Lower Road makes getting in and out of residential driveways on to Lower Road extremely hazardous; it can take anything up to ten minutes to pull off our driveway safely. The increase in Lower Road traffic has resulted in numerous accidents in recent times, one of which was sadly a fatality. The keep left sign on Lower Road near the junction with Long Lane has been completely demolished by a car on one occasion. On another occasion a car hit the lamp-post bringing it completely down. Numerous animals have been run over. A car ran into a van that was trying to exit his own driveway on to Lower Road. A man was knocked off his motorbike in Lower Road. The air ambulance has had to attend incidents in Lower Road twice within five days recently. It is virtually impossible to cross Lower Road safely on foot and one lady recently told me she has become virtually housebound in Central Avenue as, because of continuous stream of traffic, she cannot get across Lower Road on her mobility scooter and there is no pavement for her to travel along to get to Hullbridge village shops and GP.
In addition, heavy goods vehicles are continually using Lower Road and these are putting excessive strain on the underground utilities. This means we are constantly experiencing the road being dug up for water main repairs, gas leaks, etc. Even a major sinkhole appeared in Hullbridge Road in the summer 2021.
Hullbridge has limited school facilities and I understand that only last year an infant school child was allocated a place in a Harlow school as there were no other local options available at that time.
The only GP surgery in the village is at capacity and getting through on the telephone is extremely problematic because so many people are trying to get appointments. In addition there is a shortage of doctors.
In Lower Road Hullbridge, there is no regular bus service, which means children at the south end of Hullbridge have a thirty minutes’ walk to the local infants and junior schools. This is tiring for five year olds and difficult in the winter months when it is dark and often wet. As there is no regular bus service along Lower Road, senior school children have a long walk along a busy main road to catch the bus at Coventry Corner (the nearest bus stop for number 20 bus). When the bus arrives, it is often full up with children and commuters who have previously boarded in the village along Ferry Road.
At the south end of Hullbridge there are no public recreational facilities. There is a local sports club but this is not open to the general public to allow children to just play and run around. In addition there are no general community facilities for the older people at the south end of Hullbridge.
We do have a number of valued and well used footpaths and bridle ways but these would be lost if there were to be further development in Hullbridge.
I understand that according to a recent report, much of the proposed development area in Hullbridge will be below sea level by 2050 - it makes no sense to consider further development on such vulnerable sites.
It is for these reasons that I feel further major development in Hullbridge should not be permitted.

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.

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