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 characte

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would like to add my comments to the Spatial Options Consultation. The survey raises enormous questions and few individuals are likely to have knowledge of the whole district, so I am limiting my comments to those sites I am most familiar with.

CFS 074, scheduled for a possible 498 houses, would involve the destruction of valuable green belt and agricultural land. It is unsustainable in that it has a poor bus service, is not within easy walking distance of (or on a safe cycling route to) the railway station, to and would result in hundreds of extra cars feeding onto the already frequently congested B1013.

CFS 045, Belchamps, though rather smaller has the same issues of unsustainability. Furthermore, being so close to Hockley Woods, its development would inevitably be detrimental to the Woods. I believe it has also ancient woodland within the site so should be protected from any housing development.

CFS191 and CFS 251 are also so close to Hockley Woods that development would inevitably have a negative impact on the woods and local wildlife. Though relatively small, my comments above on unsustainability applies also to both these sites. An additional point is that these areas get very wet and boggy in winter, often causing water to flow down Mount Bovers, so that drainage and potential flooding would be problems .

CFS 262 and CFS 049 seem to me to have less potential impact on Green Belt and landscape, but there remain the same issues of sustainability (poor bus service, distance from station, lack of safe cycling routes). Moreover, as a resident of Highwell Gardens, I am well aware of the difficulty drivers face when joining the B1030 in this part of Hawkwell. A right turn is particularly dangerous, because traffic coming round the bend, often at speed, is invisible until the last moment. Exit from the proposed developments would be equally dangerous

CFS 118: Exiting to the main road from any houses constructed on the strip of land by the junction of Rectory Road and Clements Hall Road cannot be done safely, whether access is to be off Rectory Road, Clements Hall Way or through Clements Gate.

CFS 083 and CFS 078 – Damage to green belt, destruction of agricultural land, lack of good public transport, resulting in more traffic on inadequate roads, so unsustainable.

CFS 135 – Damage to green belt and landscape, far from town centre and local services, therefore unsustainable. Also adjacent to Cherry Orchard Country Park, a valuable and much-loved public open area, which will be harmed as a result.

CFS 160 – In addition to the damage to the green belt and destruction of agricultural land, this site is immediately adjacent to Hockley Woods so that building there will cause damage to the woodland, and to wildlife.

Most of the sites I have listed are entirely or partially within the Upper Roach Valley Special Landscape Area which the District Council’s vision statement for Hawkwell and Hockley rightly recognises is a ‘green lung’ with its accessible ancient woodland and nature reserves. If, however, building takes place in this area it will lose its valuable character and distinctive quality, thus making the vision statement meaningless. That in itself should be a good enough reason not to build within the SLA.

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.

To whom it may concern,

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

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

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

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

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.

We would like to preface everything we are about to say with the following. Our district cannot take anymore housing. We do not have the infrastructure. Government targets, or no government targets, what you are allowing to happen to our communities is permanently destroying what has made this area such a beautiful place to live for many, many generations. Council officers and councillors need to have much more integrity when carrying out these consultations and making planning decisions. There needs to be more determination to stop this endless destruction. There are many stories from around the country of councils and councillors that are being creative and taking a few more risks in order to save and preserve their communities and their heritage. We expect to see more of this from Rochford District council in the years ahead - be more tenacious - we are counting on you. The residents in Ashingdon have shown us this can be done with their successful campaign against SER8 - now it's time for the Council to step up to the plate. It's time to start representing your residents and the people that pay your wages!

We strongly object to any development on green belt land. We are in the middle of an environmental crisis - the evidence of which is all around us. The council must immediately cease to approve any further development on green belt sites and only brown belt sites must be considered moving forwards. With this in mind, all proposed green belt sites must be removed from the local plan in order to make green belt development as difficult as possible.

Furthermore, we would add that the local infrastructure simply cannot cope. Medical facilities are all vastly over-subscribed. There is a lack of doctors and NHS dental places, not enough school places and already over-sized classes. The County Council have proved how utterly inept they are at even attending to the most basic repairs on some of our most seriously damaged roads. We simply cannot allow more traffic to go through the district's roads until all outstanding repairs have been addressed and a proper strategy has been drafted, presented and agreed with the residents of our district for how the roads will be managed and maintained proactively going forwards. The county council have clearly demonstrated they cannot be trusted to get on with this and now need to be put under pressure by the district councils and their residents.

Road capacity is another serious issue. This can be evidenced if you try and travel anywhere by car on a Monday to Friday during rush hour or on a Saturday (if, heaven forbid, you try and go anywhere to possibly try and enjoy your spare time away from your home). This view is clearly widespread among many residents and councillors based on the reasoning for the recent rejection of SER8.

Any further development that is approved (for example, on brown belt sites) must have ample infrastructure included within the proposals. This must also factor-in the infrastructure deficit we are already running due to existing developments having been allowed to go ahead without adequate controls and safeguards being in place to ensure that supporting infrastructure is also delivered. Therefore, any new developments must deliver not only their own infrastructure needs but also help 'pay down' some of the deficit that has been built up. The council must (we repeat - MUST) make sure the infrastructure is secured and committed to. Furthermore, the infrastructure must (we repeat - MUST) be delivered before any housing is allowed to be developed. This must be a prerequisite. The council must not allow another Hall Road situation to materialise. It is actually beyond a joke that Hall Road still does not have a school, with no sign of one appearing anytime soon. The word incompetence just doesn't do the situation justice.

In addition to the above, we would like to add the following specific objections to the following sites:

CFS074 - Land south of Mount Bovers Lane, Hockley
This land must be removed from the Local Plan. The house building would ruin the landscape and views that are available from Hawkwell Chase, Hawkwell Common and from Main Road Hawkwell (looking towards Gusted Hall). This land should be kept out of the local plan and (when the opportunity allows) used to extend the natural areas around Cherry Orchard and Gusted Hall.

CFS045 - Belchamps Scout Site, Holyoak Lane, Hawkwell
CFS251 - Land at Peartree Cottage, Holyoak Lane, Hockley
CFS191 - Land at Mount Bovers Lane, Hawkwell
CFS074 - Land south of Mount Bovers Lane, Hockley
CFS160 - Northlands Farm, 65 High Road, Hockley
CFS161 - 57 High Road, Hockley, Essex, SS5 4SZ
CFS083 - Land south of Hall Road and west of Ark Lane, Rochford
CFS078 - Land west of Cherry Orchard Way and south of Cherry Orchard Lane, Rochford
CFS079 - Land west of Cherry Orchard Way and east of Cherry Orchard Lane, Rochford
CFS135 - Land at Flemings Farm Road, Eastwood
CFS059 - Land at Sandhill Road, Eastwood
CFS037 - The Ramblers & Dahlia Lodge, Eastwood Rise, Leigh
CFS134 - Land between Eastwood Rise and Rayleigh Avenue, Eastwood
CFS027 - Land north of Bull Lane, Rayleigh
CFS029 - Land at Turrett Farm, Napier Road, Rayleigh
CFS098 - Land north of Napier Road, Rayleigh
CFS053 - Land south of 38 and 39 Wellington Road, Rayleigh
We would like to request that this land is removed from the Local Plan. The location falls within, or very close to, the Upper Roach Valley Special Landscape Area. This area has been afforded a special status for good reason and therefore these sites must be removed from the Local Plan. We would also request for the Special Landscape Area to be extended to encompass the land in the above sites. Losing any land within, or close to, the Special Landscape Area would result in a permanent loss or deterioration of very special green spaces - these must be protected for environmental and wildlife reasons as well as to be enjoyed by future generations.

CFS064 - Land north and east of Folly Chase, Hockley
This land must be removed from the Local Plan. This field offers a unique home for wildlife and is one of the few remaining rural landscapes and walks for residents living on Betts Farm. Hockley Primary school would also not stand any chance of catering for the number of places a development of this size would require. Even with a possible extension, the school, surrounding roads and facilities were simply not built/designed to cater for the number of additional residents a development would bring. There are also significant issues with road access from Folly Lane which is already an extremely hazardous road.

CFS264 - Land at Greenacres Nursery, Hockley
CFS040 - Eastview House and Haslemere, Church Road, Hockley
These sites must be removed from the local plan due to the damage to wildlife, the environment and the effect on the landscape within the area. There are also already significant road safety issues with Church Road, Folly Lane and Fountain Lane. All these roads are very dangerous to navigate based on current traffic levels and this would be made significantly worse with any/all of these developments taking place. There are also regular flooding issues on Church Road which would only get worse with further building on surrounding land.

CFS082 - Land between Ironwell Lane and Hall Road, Hawkwell
CFS081 - Land at Stroud Green, north of Hall Road, Rochford
CFS002 - Land at Nursery Corner, between Rectory Road and Hall Road, Hawkwell
These sites must be removed from the local plan due to the total number of new dwellings that they could represent (in particular CFS082 and CFS081). The area is already unable to cope with traffic and infrastructure demand. The views from Ironwell Lane out onto these sites have been enjoyed for hundreds of years. They have already been permanently compromised by the Hall Road development and no further destruction of the area can be allowed to take place.

CFS132 - Ivanhoe Nursery, Ironwell Lane, Hawkwell
CFS219 - Ivanhoe, Ironwell Lane, Hockley, Essex, SS5 4JY
CFS240 - Old Parsonage, Ironwell Lane, Hawkwell, Essex, SS5
CFS118 - The Paddock by Clements Hall Way, Rectory Road, Hawkwell
CFS140 - Old Nursery, Ironwell Lane, Hawkwell
CFS018 - Land between The Grange and Red Roof in Ironwell Lane SS5 4JY
CFS036 - Land adjacent to Rectory Terrace off Rectory Road, Hawkwell
These sites must all be removed from the local plan due to the surrounding roads already being significantly oversubscribed thanks to the Clements Gate development. They are nowhere near any schools (resulting in yet more traffic) and will also detract from the otherwise beautiful countryside that can be enjoyed when walking up Ironwell Lane.

CFS194 - Land North of Rectory Road, Hawkwell
CFS169 - Meadowlands, Victor Gardens, Hockley, SS5 4DY
CFS020 - Land rear of St Marys Church, Rectory Road, Hawkwell
These sites must be removed from the local plan due to their proximity to St Mary's church. The surrounding landscape has always been farmers fields and countryside and it must stay this way. The area is already unable to cope with traffic and infrastructure demand. The views from St Mary's and the public footpaths out onto these sites have been enjoyed for hundreds of years. They must continue to be left as green belt countryside.

CFS093 - Greenacres and adjacent land, Victor Gardens, Hawkwell
CFS017 - Greenacres, Victor Gardens, Hawkwell
CFS093 - Greenacres and adjacent land, Victor Gardens, Hawkwell
These sites must be removed from the local plan in order to protect the amount of green space around a densely populated area. The surrounding landscape has always been farmers fields and countryside and it must stay this way. The area is already unable to cope with today's traffic and infrastructure demands. The views from Clements Hall and the public footpaths out onto these sites have been enjoyed for hundreds of years. They must continue to be left as green belt countryside.

CFS216 - Land at Fambridge Road, Ashingdon
This site must be removed from the local plan due to the potential number of houses (which the surrounding roads and local infrastructure cannot support) and the fact the land is within the Coastal Protection Belt Special Landscape Area. The Coastal Protection Belt Special Landscape Area must be protected and enlarged.

CFS121 - Land north of A127, Rayleigh
CFS261 - Land east of Oxford Road, Rochford
CFS222 - Land at Dollymans Farm, Doublegate Lane, Rawreth
CFS163 - Land at Lubards Lodge Farm, Hullbridge Road, Rayleigh, SS6 9QG
CFS164 - Land at Lubards Lodge Farm, Hullbridge Road, Rayleigh, SS6 9QG
CFS148 - Land north of Rawreth Lane, Rawreth
CFS171 - Land to the North of Rawreth Lane, Rawreth
CFS146 - Land at Rawreth Hall Farm, Rawreth Lane, Rawreth
CFS147 - Land north of London Road, Rayleigh
CFS099 - Land to the west of Hullbridge
CFS149 - Lane Field and Hullbridge Hill, Watery Lane, Hullbridge
CFS172 - Land At Cracknells Farm, Hullbridge
CFS265
CFS067 - Three Ashes, land to the south of Tinkers Lane, Rochford
These sites must be removed from the local plan due to the potential number of houses - which the surrounding roads and local infrastructure cannot support.

COL27 - Freight House Car Park, Rochford
COL13 - The Freight House, Bradley Way, Rochford
These sites must be removed from the local plan and retained in their current form. They should continue to be made available to the residents of the district as community facilities.

COL07 - The Mill, Bellingham Lane, Rayleigh
This site must be removed from the local plan and retained in its current form. It should continue to be made available to the residents of the district as a community facility.

CFS063 - Land south of Watts Lane, Rochford
CFS067 - Three Ashes, land to the south of Tinkers Lane, Rochford
Sector D (All references)
These sites must be removed from the local plan due to the inadequate roads in the area. Even with new or enlarged roads the existing roads already struggle with the volumes of traffic that they need to cater for today.

We respectfully ask you to make sure our views and those of our family (including our two sons - Arthur and Henry Watson) are fully and robustly represented in this process and during the subsequent stages of the local plan being written and implemented.

CFS216/CFS133 promoted sites
I’ve found the website/links a bit tricky to navigate so I’m hoping that I can e mail my objections to the above promoted sites?

I thought the first site was on Coastal Protection Belt and shouldn’t be built on? As agricultural land it has been successfully farmed since anyone can remember.
Building on this land would ruin the visual amenity of the area. The school has always been semi-rural and this proposed development site would ruin that.

It would also cause issues with traffic at an already busy and dangerous junction that is subject to discussion already.

The second site is opposite the school (CFS133) has again been successfully farmed for years, and regularly floods at the bottom. This again is an inappropriate location, again ruining the visual amenity of the area, would again compromise the planning framework for urban sprawl.

For both sites, in terms of transport, there is an overloaded Roman Road with a dangerous junction, speeding drivers with a previous serious accident site too. Adding another road junction in there is unsafe. There are no cycle paths or means to incorporate one. The pavements remain to be overgrown and have been for the last 40+ years, narrowing to a ridiculous point which remains dangerous for the children walking to school. Today I witnessed a lady with a pushchair having to cut back over growing brambles etc to be able to walk past safely.

Please find detailed below our comments in relation to the published Rochford Council Spatial Options Paper 2021. Our specific comments relate to Q56 (d), with the following specific land references:-

• CFS027: 114 Proposed Houses (Land North of Bull Lane, Rayleigh)
• CFS029: 29 Proposed Houses (Land at Turrett Farm, Napier Road, Rayleigh)
We strongly reject the proposed housing plans for areas CFS027 & CFS029 based on the following rationale:-
1) Inadequate Surface Water Drainage/Flooding Risk
a. You only need to search for ‘Rayleigh Flooding 2013’ to see the images of disruption and despair that were felt by the many house owners in Blower Close and the immediate area on that day (24/08/2013), when the local infrastructure was not able to cope with the amount of rain water that fell, flowing off the surrounding farmers fields into peoples homes. The outcome of this situation was for the local council to pay for and build a significant drainage ditch on the bottom boundary of CFS027, emphasising the fragility of water drainage and flooding in the immediate area. This significant ditch stabilised the drainage and flooding in an area that had also seen houses flooded in 2009 and 2011 due to excessive rain water.
b. Climate scientists all agree that we will see an increase in extreme weather and if these proposals were to be granted, these areas would be concreted over with housing and thus remove any natural slow down and saturation areas for the water to traverse through.
c. Your own initial assessment of CFS029 & CFS027 identifies real concerns over the drainage risk (rated: 2) to the immediate area. Both of these areas experience a natural flow of surface water from the fields that bridge the gap between Rayleigh and Hockley. The fields and ditches act as part of a natural slow down and saturation that helps to minimise any impact to the surrounding areas, this will of course be removed if the housing development proceeds and the 143 houses are built.
d. Clearly your initial ‘flood’ assessments (rated: 5) for CFS029 & CFS027 does not taken into account any of the flooding events from 2013 in the immediate area and those that happened several years earlier in 2009. If you allow these houses to be built, then you will have effectively approved other houses to flood more regularly on the basis of commercial profit and greed!!!

2) Green Belt Destruction
a. The ancient Hockley Woodland and the surrounding Green Belt providing a crucial habitat for wildlife and a demarcation between Rayleigh and Hockley. Both these proposed developments bring the linking of Rayleigh to Hockley (Bullwood Hall development) ever closer, whilst further damaging wildlife at a time when now more than ever, we need to protect spaces that is shared between humans and nature. It also removes a ‘Green’ space that is enjoyed by people who prefer the cleaner quality of air and quality of life for recreational use that is provided.

3) Traffic Management
a. Typically 143 houses will have on average of two cars each, which will mean 286 cars having to navigate in and out of Rayleigh. When added to the ‘rat runs’ that are likely to be created as cars from Hockley try and avoid Rayleigh town centre, it will undoubtedly create speeding cars and further congestions that will both increase pollution in the area and the danger to children walking to school. The speed ramps in Helena Road and Louise Road have now been removed, having been introduced many years ago to slow traffic (to protect school children) due to both roads being used historically as ‘rat run’ for traffic to avoid Rayleigh town centre, so clearly child safety is of little concern to the council either regardless of the problems these new houses would create!!!
Kind regards,

Peter & Linda Vile

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

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

Background

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strategy Options

Q5: Do you agree with the settlement hierarchy presented?

No.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spatial Themes

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

No.

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

Yes.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please see our response to Q16 and Q59.

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

Please see our response to Q14.

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

Yes.

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

Please see our detailed response to Q16b. and Q16c.

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

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

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

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

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

Please see also our response to Q16b.

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

Housing For All

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Biodiversity

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

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

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

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

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

Community Infrastructure

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

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

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

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

Yes.

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

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

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

Yes – see our response to Q.36.

Open Spaces and Recreation

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

BDW support Option 4.

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

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

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

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

Yes.

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

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

No.

Transport and Connectivity

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

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

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

Please also see our response to Q51.

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

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

Please see our response to Q52 / Q53.

Planning for Complete Communities

Wakerings and Barling

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Next Steps

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

Yours faithfully
David Churchill
Partner

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strategy Options

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yours faithfully

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

I write in response to the above.

Firstly, with regard to the Vision Statement for Hullbridge - There was no consultation with our community before this vision was prepared - why was this not done? The vision I have is for Hullbridge to remain a village with an improved public transport system keeping the coastline as it is for residents and visitors to walk along and enjoy the unspoilt views.

I believe the most appropriate option of the 4 options RDC have suggested for the new local plan is to build all housing in one location whereby the infrastructure can be built to meet the requirements needed for these new developments. Looking at the map it would seem North of Southend appears to have far more land. This would be far more sensible than to start adding bits onto existing towns/villages and then having to add appropriate infrastructure with all the disruption, noise and pollution this would cause.

The infrastructure in Hullbridge is not adequate now, let alone when the new development of, I believe, 500 properties are finally completed from the previous Local Plan! This has caused significant strain on public services, roads etc. Yet the Council have failed to complete transport and sustainable infrastructure assessments prior to this consultation.

Hullbridge is already noticing the effects that increased housing has caused and the development is not even complete! The strain to our primary school (we have no secondary school) and to our medical centre.

The road infrastructure in Hullbridge cannot be improved upon. We have one road that runs through Hullbridge from Rayleigh to Hockley and one road that leads from Lower Road to the river (Ferry Road). These roads cannot be improved upon. It doesn’t take much for the whole village to be gridlocked or cut off if there is a problem. The sinkhole in Hullbridge Road this year is a good example where you could only get out of the village via Hockley causing significant problems not only in Hullbridge but in Hockley and beyond. Similarly, only yesterday, a road accident on Lower Road caused the road to be blocked and when vehicles tried to go through back roads all those roads became totally gridlocked. When the current development is finished we will have a lot more traffic on our one road in and out of the village so more chance of this sort of thing happening more often. Let alone having even more developments in future Local Plans.

A lot of Hullbridge is Green Belt and Coastal Protection Belt. Any further developments would harm these areas and impact on natural habitats.

With regard Critical Flood and drainage risks - Hullbridge will have a significant proportion of the village below sea level by 2040.

Public transport in Hullbridge is not adequate. There is no public transport whatsoever that runs down Lower Road towards Hockley. There is now no school bus that runs in Hullbridge.

On the South side of the village there are no recreation areas and a lack of pavement and crossings, which with the increase in vehicles due to the current development and lack of speed restrictions has made it more dangerous for pedestrians than it was before.

So you can see that Hullbridge hasn’t got adequate infrastructure now so will certainly not be able to cope with any more development and serious consideration must be made to look at alternative options.

RDC/Spatial Consultation 2021 Questions

Q1. Are there any other technical evidence studies that you feel the Council needs to prepare to inform its new Local Plan, other than those listed in this section?
A: Evaluate the impact of the current developments, especially in Rayleigh and Hullbridge.
Q2. Do you agree with our draft vision for Rochford District? Is there anything missing from the vision that you feel needs to be included? [Please state reasoning]
A: Mostly, although I do not feel you have included enough information on how you might achieve housing for the hidden homeless or those on low incomes, emergency housing provision, schemes to allow the elderly in large houses to be able to downsize or how you plan to provide suitable commercial units of varying sizes, to allow businesses to up or downsize into a suitably sized premises without them needing to relocate into another area.
Q3. Do you agree that we should develop a range of separate visions for each of our settlements to help guide decision-making? [Please state reasoning]
A: Yes, as each settlement has its own characteristics and needs.
Q4. Do you agree with the strategic priorities and objectives we have identified? Is there anything missing from the strategic priorities or objectives that you feel needs to be included? [Please state reasoning]
A: Don’t know.
Q5. Do you agree with the settlement hierarchy presented? If not, what changes do you think are required? [Please state reasoning]
A: Yes. Rayleigh is the largest town in the district but you need to maintain the green boundaries between the surrounding areas.
Q6. Which of the identified strategy options do you consider should be taken forward in the Plan? [Please state reasoning]
A: A combination of 3 and 4.
Creating a new town would enable all the infrastructure to be put in place, allowing more scope for cycling routes and pedestrianised areas. This will stop the urban sprawl which is currently happening in the larger town (and proposed in option 1), creating traffic havoc and pollution. Combining this with option 4 could help with spreading the balance of housing needs, traffic, etc. across the whole of the district and not just in one place.
Q7. Are there any reasonable alternatives to these options that should be considered instead? [Please state reasoning]
A: Windfalls should be included in the housing quota.
Q8. Are there any key spatial themes that you feel we have missed or that require greater emphasis? [Please state reasoning]
A: Yes: Cultural and Accessibility.
Q9. Do you agree we should take a sequential approach to flood risk and coastal change in our plan, locating development away from areas at risk of flooding and coastal change wherever possible? How can we best protect current and future communities from flood risk and coastal change? [Please state reasoning]
A: Yes. We need to ensure we have a suitable plan to protect not only our towns and village communities (houses/businesses) but also the natural areas as well. We need adequate defences to limit flooding in all areas, protecting people and wildlife. Maybe these could be incorporated in the “natural” landscape theming so as to deflect any water away from these areas. New developments not only need to address their carbon footprint but also the design of the housing they build so that they limit flood damage.
Q10. Do you agree that the Coastal Protection Belt and Upper Roach Valley should be protected from development that would be harmful to their landscape character? Are there other areas that you feel should be protected for their special landscape character? [Please state reasoning]
A: Yes. I feel all of our coastal areas and areas of special interest, where there is a significant risk of flooding and harm to the environment needs careful consideration. Our ancient woodlands also need to be protected and well managed.
Q11. Do you agree we should require development to source a percentage of their energy from low-carbon and renewable sources? Are there other opportunities in the District to supply low-carbon or renewable energy?
A: Vast swathes of land being used for solar panels or unsightly wind farms should not be allowed. I do not feel we have used the potential of tidal renewable energy themes. We have potential in some areas to explore this without defacing our district. All new homes should be fitted with solar, either on their roof or windows and commercial properties could be encouraged to fit solar panels to their roof.
Q12. Do you agree we should require new development to achieve energy efficiency standards higher than building regulations? What level should these be set at? [Please state reasoning].
A: I believe that we should aim to achieve a higher standard if possible and encourage developers to put forward new ways of achieving this. We are planning for future generations and should not be stuck in the past. Why go for minimum standards? Always aim higher!
Q13. How do you feel the plan can help to support the local generation of low-carbon and renewable energy? Are there locations where you feel energy generation should be supported? [Please state reasoning]
A: Solar in all new development as standard. Incentives to encourage existing developments to install solar onto their properties as well as any commercial buildings to be fitted with solar to their roofs (there are many flat roofed buildings all over the district that could accommodate solar panels without damaging the landscape). Explore tidal energy and seek out suitable locations in order to ascertain whether it is viable. No wind turbines! They would ruin the landscape.
Q14. Do you consider that the plan should include a place-making charter that informs relevant policies? Should the same principles apply everywhere in the District, or should different principles apply to different areas? [Please state reasoning]
A: The district has some very distinct areas and a “one shoe fits all” would be detrimental to some smaller communities. The place-making charter should be bespoke, with each area being considered in its own right. The rules on building should be strict so as to enhance the areas of development and needs to consider the wider picture in respect of amenities, open spaces, retail, schools, services, pollution, character and accessibility (to name but a few). There should not be deviation of plans unless there are exceptional circumstances. Time and time again out SPD2 documents are ignored and ugly extensions and dormers are built to the detriment of the area.
Q15. Are the principles set out in the draft place-making charter the right ones? Are there other principles that should be included? [Please state reasoning]
A: They are, as long as they are adhered to.
Q16a. Do you consider that new design guides, codes or masterplans should be created alongside the new Local Plan?
A: Yes.
➔ Q16b. If yes, do you think it is more appropriate to have a single design guide/code for the whole District, or to have design guides/codes/masterplans for individual settlements or growth areas? [Please state reasoning]
A: You need different design guides/etc as our district is unique and diverse and the “one shoe fits all" would be detrimental to its character and charm.
➔ Q16c. What do you think should be included in design guides/codes/masterplans at the scale you are suggesting? [Please state reasoning].
A: You need to ensure that the character and heritage of our settlements are adhered to whilst allowing for some growth, in order to rejuvenate the smaller settlements if needed.
Q17. With reference to the options listed above, or your own options, how do you feel we can best plan to meet our need for different types, sizes and tenures of housing? [Please state reasoning]
A: By working closely with planners and developers, as well as different charities and communities, residents and businesses. You will then get a better understanding as to what you need and what will be achievable.
Q18. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there areas or sites in Rochford that you feel require a specific approach to housing types, size and tenure? What is required to meet housing needs in these areas? [Please state reasoning]
A: The district has a large number of houses, existing and approved that have 4 or 5 bedrooms. The number of homes available with 2 or 3 bedrooms is minimal, which increases their price and availability. The smaller properties are the ones that need to be affordable for families. We should ensure that our “affordable“ properties are not all flats and that the minimum (or higher) standards are met for gardens/recreational space. There are sure to be single, elderly residents that would like to downsize from their large family homes, into a smaller, more manageable one but do not wish to go into an assisted living/residential /retirement home. They may want a 1 or 2 bedroomed property, maybe one storey, or low rise apartment that they own freehold. We also need to consider that some of our residents may need residential care and we should be looking at ways to cope with the rising number of elderly and provide accommodation for them also. We desperately need to meet the needs of the hidden homeless. The adult children on low wages that have no hope of starting a life of their own away from their parents. By living in these conditions, even if the family unit is tight and loving, it will cause mental health issues, stress and anxiety. We also need accessible properties for our disabled members of our community, where they are assisted in order to fulfil a normal as possible life. Emergency and social housing also need to be addressed.

Q19. Are there any other forms of housing that you feel we should be planning for? How can we best plan to meet the need for that form of housing? [Please state reasoning]
A: Housing for the hidden homeless – those “sofa surfing”, or adult children living at home with parents as they are on low wages or wages that would not allow them to move out to rent or buy somewhere on their own. Adapted homes for the disabled (physical, blind, etc.). Smaller, free hold properties for the older generation to enable them to downsize from large family homes. Social housing. Emergency housing.
Q20. With reference to the options listed, or your own options, what do you think is the most appropriate way of meeting our permanent Gypsy and Traveller accommodation needs? [Please state reasoning]
A: You need to find a permanent site that has a little room to expand but not exponentially. The “Traveller” life has changed over the years and many will not fit into this category. We need to be integrating those not deemed into the classification into everyday life and housing. We also need it to be managed so that illegal building work and population do not exceed its capacity. This site will need good access and be somewhere where it does not impose or affect other residents.
Q21. With reference to the options listed, or your own options, what do you think is the most appropriate way of meeting our temporary Gypsy and Traveller accommodation needs? [Please state reasoning]
A: You need to find a permanent site that has a little room to expand but not exponentially. The “Traveller” life has changed over the years and many will not fit into this category. We need to be integrating those not deemed into the classification into everyday life and housing. We also need it to be managed so that illegal building work and population do not exceed its capacity. This site will need good access and be somewhere where it does not impose or affect other residents.

Q22. What do you consider would need to be included in a criteria-based policy for assessing potential locations for new Gypsy and Traveller sites? [Please state reasoning]
A: Easy access re large vehicles to the site and main roads to ensure the residential roads are not blocked by the larger vehicles. Room for some expansion that would not encroach on the surrounding area. Away from residents to reduce disturbance of vehicle movements. Not in an area of interest or recreation where the landscape would be blighted by the appearance of many vehicles. Not all in one area – spread out our quota across the district in order to avoid another Crays Farm scenario.

Q23. With reference to the options listed above, or your own options, how do you feel we can best ensure that we meet our employment and skills needs through the plan? [Please state reasoning]
A: The council needs to stop developing existing commercial land into housing. Too many sites have already been lost and many more are planned to go. They can then concentrate on helping those businesses wanting to expand to be able to do so. They should look to working with local schools and colleges, as well as businesses and the job centre, to see what sustainable employment is needed in the district. They then need to assist in schemes to train all ages get back into work or upskill.
Q24. With reference to Figure 30, do you consider the current employment site allocations to provide enough space to meet the District’s employment needs through to 2040? Should we seek to formally protect any informal employment sites for commercial uses, including those in the Green Belt? [Please state reasoning]
A: No. The current employment site allocations on Figure 30 do not provide enough space to meet the District’s employment needs through to 2040. We have around 87,000 people in the district. There is no data on the form to suggest how many of these are in employment and how many are looking for work but the council need to reassess its future needs in order to future-proof our residents’ opportunities. We only need to formally protect sites that have a future and a potential to expand or continue effectively. Green belt sites should be assessed separately and decisions made on merit.
Q25. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to deliver new employment facilities or improvements to existing employment facilities?
A: Option 3 could deliver new opportunities for employment as it would be a new site completely. Industrial units of various sizes, with room for expansion plus retail, hospitality and other employment could be included in the criteria for the development. Option 4 could assess existing sites across the district and the options to be able to expand, as well as areas for new sites.
Q26. Are there any particular types of employment site or business accommodation that you consider Rochford District is lacking, or would benefit from?
A: Environmental services - woodland conservation/management. (We need to find funding for this as it is important!) HGV training school.
Q27. Are there other measures we can take through the plan to lay the foundations for long-term economic growth, e.g. skills or connectivity?
A: Better road networks and Wi-Fi. Apprenticeships or training for all ages with jobs at the end of training.
Q28. With reference to the options listed above, or your own options, how do you feel we can best manage the Airport’s adaptations and growth through the planning system? [Please state reasoning]
A: Unsure, but I feel there is not enough room for too much expansion ie. add another run way. The council could consider a park and ride park, to divert some traffic away from the residential area, which could create jobs for security services, bus drivers, attendants, cleaners, etc. Expansion of the airport may affect the Grade 1 listed St Laurence and All Saints Church and this needs careful consideration.
Q29. Do you agree that the plan should designate and protect areas of land of locally important wildlife value as a local wildlife site, having regard to the Local Wildlife Sites review? Are there any other sites that you feel are worthy of protection? [Please state reasoning]
A: We all should be doing everything in our power to protect wildlife sites. All wildlife is important and we have been neglecting them, and slowly chipping away at them for years. Wildlife now enter suburban areas as their own habitats have diminished and they can no longer fend for themselves adequately from nature. We have a decline in Badgers and hedgehogs as well as rabbits, frogs, newts, voles and shrews. Ask yourselves: when did you last see a live hedgehog or badger? Most (especially badgers) are usually dead (along with foxes and deer) by the side of our roads. We have removed places that have housed bats and now we do not see them flying around the district in the numbers they did. Designating initial sites is a step in the right direction but we have to do more. It is proven that our mental health issues can be relieved by nature and keeping the sites sacred is more important now than it ever was. Keeping a biodiverse environment, with wildlife and the environment in which it relies is paramount. You mention that Doggett Pond no longer meets the standard but are there no steps to improve its status instead of dismissing it? It is obviously an important site for the wildlife in that area. To lose it would be to our detriment. We should be looking at creating new sites with every large housing development, and adding them to our protected list in order to improve our district and our own wellbeing. We should no allow private households to take over grass areas and verges (or concreting the verges over for parking and cost savings). These areas, although small are still areas for wildlife (bees and butterflies - also in decline, as well as bugs which feed our birds). We should create new wildlife meadows to encourage the pollinators in order to future proof our own existence. We should be exploring smaller sites that we could enhance, manage and protect in order to give future generations something to look back on and feel proud that we have given them a legacy. Something that we can be proud of.
Q30. Do you agree that the plan should designate and protect areas of land of locally important geological value as a local geological site, having regard to the Local Wildlife Sites review? Are there any other sites that you feel are worthy of protection? [Please state reasoning]
A: Yes. We need to protect them for future generations and teach our children their history and importance so that they can continue to keep them safe.
Q31. Do you consider net gains for biodiversity are best delivered on-site or off-site? Are there specific locations or projects where net gain projects could be delivered?
A: On site. You can then assess in real time and sort out any issues you would not have known about off site.
Q32. With reference to the options above, or your own options, how do you feel we can best deliver a quality green and blue infrastructure network through the plan? [Please state reasoning]
A: You need to enhance and maintain what we already have by ensuring the necessary links are in place to link as many as possible, and ensuring that public rights of way are not blocked by land owners and are kept free from debris. You also need to assess some paths to make them accessible to the disabled so that all is inclusive. There are some green areas that do not have public facilities and it would be advantageous to look into offering this in the larger spaces (ie in the car park – a small toilet block and hand washing facilities). Obtaining funding from large (and medium) developments for enhancement of existing areas as well as providing new spaces and facilities is a step in the right direction.
Q33. Do you agree that the central woodlands arc and island wetlands, shown on Figure 32 are the most appropriate areas for new regional parklands? Are there any other areas that should be considered or preferred? [Please state reasoning]
A: They are a step in the right direction but you need to assess periodically in order to be able to add further links to any new parkland that may be created in the future. The map is unclear as it does not show exact routes. There is a large open space to the South West of Rayleigh (on the border), South of Bardfield Way and The Grange/Wheatley Wood, which could be enhanced.
Q34. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to help deliver new strategic green and blue infrastructure? [Please state reasoning]
A: Enhancing the areas we have and ensuring developers include green space/recreational facility areas within their developments. A new, separate development would be able to deliver this within their plan layout. Ensuring there are suitable links, access and footpaths. Making sure some of these footpaths are accessible for the disabled.

Q35. With reference to the options above, or your own options, how can we address the need for sufficient and accessible community infrastructure through the plan? [Please state reasoning]
A: Ensuring that funding for existing facilities comes from new developments and making sure that these facilities are built during the time of the development (not like the London Road/Rawreth Lane development where a site was “provided” for healthcare but has not been built). Assess the shortfall of facilities and networks before plans are approved so that adequate planning and funding can be secured before any building takes place.
Q36. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to deliver new or improved community infrastructure? [Please state reasoning]
A: A new town would have this infrastructure built into its plans. Funding for improvements must otherwise come from developers if an area is already overpopulated.
Q37. Are there areas in the District that you feel have particularly severe capacity or access issues relating to community infrastructure, including schools, healthcare facilities or community facilities? How can we best address these? [Please state reasoning]
A: Rayleigh is overcrowded. It has a road network no longer fit for purpose. The schools are almost full. It is difficult to obtain a GP or dental appointment. There is little to no disabled play areas/equipment. There is always issues with waste collections, drain & road cleaning and verge trimming. The council does not have the staff to deal with all these issues. The council needs to either build another waste recycling site (as the one in Castle road is no longer capable of expanding and meeting the needs of its ever growing population) or develop a better waste collection program which allows extra waste to be collected next to bins. It also needs to find a site to address/install commercial waste facilities to stop fly tipping.
Q38. With reference to the options above, or your own options, how do you feel we can best meet our open space and sport facility needs through the plan? [Please state reasoning]
A: Improve what we already have. The tennis courts on Fairview Park need improvement. Safeguard our open spaces to ensure we have wildlife and recreation. Develop different types of sporting facilities – not just football pitches. There is a need for a larger skateboard park and BMX track. We need to offer free recreation for our teenagers.
Q39. Are the potential locations for 3G pitch investment the right ones? Are there other locations that we should be considering? [Please state reasoning]
A: The development of 3G pitches seems to be the trendy thing to do but they are plastic grass at the end of the day and we should be looking at ways to reduce our plastic use. If there is an area that already exists that is in a poor start of repair then it may be an option – especially if the “grass” is made from recyclables, but we should be thinking outside the box and not covering our parks with it.
Q40. Are the listed potential hub sites and key centres the right ones? Are there other locations that we should be considering? [Please state reasoning]
A: They look suitable. They will probably need funding.
Q41. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to help deliver improvements to open space or sport facility accessibility or provision?
A: A new development would be able to deliver this in their plans or fund improvements for existing facilities.
Q42. Are there particular open spaces that we should be protecting or improving? [Please note, you will have an opportunity to make specific comments on open spaces and local green spaces in the settlement profiles set out later in this report]
A: The sites will be specific in each parish. You need to protect all of these recreational spaces and improve if necessary as once lost to development, they can ever come back.
Q43. With reference to the options listed in this section, or your own options, how do you feel we can best address heritage issues through the plan? [Please state reasoning]
A: You need to reassess your policies on planning regarding alterations made to the buildings on your list, especially in our conservation areas. There have been a few occasions where buildings of “interest” (or other) have been altered, and that places in conservation areas have been allowed canopies, shutters and internal illumination of signage without challenge. Any building work (if any) needs to be sympathetic to the area and you should be able to request amendments to frontage, even if they have had it up for some time. Shop fronts are huge areas of uninteresting glass with garish colours. Signage and advertising (‘A’ board’s litter our pavements without challenge and large barriers are erected onto the pavements – totally out of character with a conservation area in a heritage town. Stick to your policies.
Q44. Are there areas of the District we should be considering for conservation area status beyond those listed in this section? [Please state reasoning]
A: Unsure although we need to stop taking areas of our precious woodland to make way for housing.
Q45. Are there any buildings, spaces or structures that should be protected for their historic, cultural or architectural significance? Should these be considered for inclusion on the Local List of non-designated assets? [Please state reasoning]
A: Don’t know. Mill Hall? Over 50 years old. Cultural centre in a conservation area. Needs massive investment and management. A new survey needs to be taken to ascertain whether there are any other areas that should be considered. There are many buildings along the High Road into Rayleigh (but not in the conservation area) which should be considered.
Q46. With reference to the options listed above, or your own options, how do you think we can best plan for vibrant town centres in Rochford, Rayleigh and Hockley? How can we also ensure our village and neighbourhood centres remain vibrant? [Please state reasoning]
A: You can only have a vibrant town centre if there are shops to go to. If these units are subsequently changed to residential then our town centres will be fractured and uninviting. The new Use Class E will mean it will be even more important for the council to protect our retail outlets. You need to work actively with premises owners in order to assist in the re-letting of any empty shops. Maybe offer a reduced rent to new businesses as a start-up scheme (you could contain this as a “local” business only – allowing the entrepreneurs in the Rochford District a chance to showcase their business). You also need to be able to negotiate with the owners of empty shops how they can best strive to fill these premises and if not, then have some visual displays in the windows (ie. photos of the old towns or useful information) to make them more attractive.
You will need good access links with an excellent road and cycle network and reliable public transport that links effectively from all the villages to all the towns.
Q47. Do you agree with the local centre hierarchy set out in Figure 36? If not, what changes would you make? [Please state reasoning]
A: Yes.
Q48. With reference to Figures 38-40, do you agree with existing town centre boundaries and extent of primary and secondary shopping frontages in Rayleigh, Rochford and Hockley? If not, what changes would you make? [Please state reasoning]
A: Yes
Q49. Should we continue to restrict appropriate uses within town centres, including primary and secondary shopping frontages within those centres? If yes, what uses should be restricted? [Please state reasoning]
A: Yes. We do not want rows of hairdresser or rows of takeaways etc. as this would eventually kill off our high streets. We need to have a balance of outlets. You would lose the vibrancy you are hoping to achieve if you allowed this. You should also consider restricting use to giant chains as these tend to be the first to go in a crisis and make high streets lose their individuality by them all looking the same.
Q50. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to deliver improved retail and leisure services in the District? [Please state reasoning]
A: Unfortunately, some of our smaller retail areas have been sold off and housing development has been allowed (eg. Rayleigh - rear of Marks & Spencer and Dairy Crest plus Lancaster Road [builders’ yard]). In a new development there would be scope to add a small/medium/large precinct of retail etc. depending on the development size.
Q51. With reference to the options above, or your own options, how do you feel we can best address our transport and connectivity needs through the plan? [Please state reasoning]
A: The council needs to address the “No development before infrastructure” mantra! Too many houses are being built without adequate road networks in place (including walking and cycling routes). A new road could be built from the A1245 to Hullbridge, limiting the traffic on Rawreth Lane. More work need to be done (and quickly) on the A127 and The Carpenters Arms roundabout. The feeder lanes proposed some years ago to link the Fairglen interchange with The Rayleigh Weir in both directions need to be done ASAP as this is a bottleneck. Hockley needs another access although I am unsure how that can be achieved. New developments should put in cycle paths and walkways and they could be made to link up with existing paths (which need updating and attention).
Q52. Are there areas where improvements to transport connections are needed? What could be done to help improve connectivity in these areas?
A: More work need to be done (and quickly) on the A127 and The Carpenters Arms roundabout. The feeder lanes proposed some years ago to link the Fairglen interchange with The Rayleigh Weir in both directions need to be done ASAP as this is a bottleneck. Hockley needs another access.

Q53. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to deliver new transport connections, such as link roads or rapid transit? What routes and modes should these take? [Walking, cycling, rail, bus, road etc.]
A: A new road from A1245 to Hullbridge is needed as Watery Lane is too narrow and winding, and is closed on a regular basis due to flooding. More (smaller) buses to link our towns and villages. Trams, although they seem a good idea, would cause congestion on our narrow roads and be unsustainable. Designated cycling paths (not on the roads or pavements) adjacent to our road networks would help improve traffic flow and these would need to be linked to be efficient.
Q54. Do you feel that the plan should identify rural exception sites? If so, where should these be located and what forms of housing or employment do you feel need to be provided? [Please note you may wish to comment on the use of specific areas of land in the next section]
A: Yes, but if they are to be affordable only, then they should be offered to local residents first and not anyone from afar who wants a cheap house or for those with a buy to let mortgage.
Q55. Are there any other ways that you feel the plan should be planning for the needs of rural communities? [Please stare reasoning]
A: Improve public transport.
Q56a. Do you agree with our vision for Rayleigh? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]
A: Yes but you also need to include a reduced volume of traffic and air pollution. The High Street is usually grid locked and this causes dangerous pollution for our pedestrians/shoppers/residents. An active Police presence.
Q56b. With reference to Figure 44 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the promoted sites should be made available for any of the following uses? How could that improve the completeness of Rayleigh?
i. Housing [market, affordable, specialist, traveller, other]
ii. Commercial [offices, industrial, retail, other]
iii. Community infrastructure [open space, education, healthcare, allotments, other]
iv. Other
A: Access and increased congestion is going to be an issue with a lot of the sites in Rayleigh. If you keep adding small developments to the boundaries of the town we will create an overcrowded impacting on the developments already there and an urban sprawl effect. CFS 121 has potential for a new woodland area which could soak up some of the carbon emissions from the A127 traffic.
Q56c. Are there areas in Rayleigh that development should generally be presumed appropriate? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
A: We should be restricting any further large developments in Rayleigh and need to assess the impact of the current developments first.
Q56d. Are there areas that require protecting from development? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
A: CSF027 – The access road (Bull Lane) is a known rat run and is extremely busy. Any further traffic, which will also compete with large agricultural vehicles, could be a danger to the residents already there. Bull Lane near this point has also been flooded several times recently. CFS023 – Access to this road is via Wellington Road. It can be extremely difficult, especially at peak times (non-pandemic) to access to and from Hockley Road. Adding a large development here will have an adverse impact on existing residents and car users alike. Also, if these 2 developments are linked to Albert Road, the installation of a through road to Bull Lane will cause issues in parking, access and wellbeing as the road would become another rat run!
Q56e. Do you agree that the local green spaces shown on Figure 44 hold local significance? Are there any other open spaces that hold particular local significance?
A: All green spaces hold significance, especially to those who use them for recreation, and have community value. They should be protected. Green belt borders should be protected from development in order to prevent urban sprawl.
The green space north of CFS121 could be linked by a new bridge over the railway and create a new habitat for wildlife, with meadows and woodlands, walks and a lake/pond. A car park with facilities could be created and a small retail space could be offered for snacks etc.
Q57a. Do you agree with our vision for Rochford and Ashingdon? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]
A: I feel CFS261 would cause great harm to the area, with a potential of over 4,000 houses on the site. The road network is not sufficient to cope with half that amount of dwellings and new schools would need to be built.
Q57b. With reference to Figure 45 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the promoted sites should be made available for any of the following uses? How could that improve the completeness of Rochford and Ashingdon?
i. Housing [market, affordable, specialist, traveller, other]
ii. Commercial [offices, industrial, retail, other]
iii. Community infrastructure [open space, education, healthcare, allotments, other]
iv. Other
A: Don’t know.
Q57c. Are there areas in Rochford and Ashingdon that development should generally be presumed appropriate? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
A: Don’t know.
Q57d. Are there areas that require protecting from development? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
A: All green spaces hold significance, especially to those who use them for recreation, and have community value. They should be protected. Green belt borders should be protected from development in order to prevent urban sprawl.
Q57e. Do you agree that the local green spaces shown on Figure 45 hold local significance? Are there any other open spaces that hold particular local significance? [Please state reasoning]
A: All green spaces hold some significance, especially to those who use them for recreation, and have community value. These should be protected.

Q58a. Do you agree with our vision for Hockley and Hawkwell? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]
A: Don’t know.
Q58b. With reference to Figure 46 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the promoted sites should be made available for any of the following uses? How could that improve the completeness of Hockley and Hawkwell?
i. Housing [market, affordable, specialist, traveller, other]
ii. Commercial [offices, industrial, retail, other]
iii. Community infrastructure [open space, education, healthcare, allotments, other]
iv. Other
A: Don’t know.
Q58c. Are there areas in Hockley and Hawkwell that development should generally be presumed appropriate? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
A: Don’t know
Q58d. Are there areas that require protecting from development? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
A: As Hockley Woods is the largest remaining wild woodland in the country you should be doing EVERYTHING you can to save it from development, either adjacent to or close by. You should also actively be adding to it by planting more trees to future proof its existence and status.
Q58e. Do you agree that the local green spaces shown on Figure 46 hold local significance? Are there any other open spaces that hold particular local significance? [Please state reasoning]
A: All green spaces hold significance, especially to those who use them for recreation, and have community value. They should be protected. Green belt borders should be protected from development in order to prevent urban sprawl.
Q59a. Do you agree with our vision for the Wakerings and Barling? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]
A: Don’t know.
Q59b. With reference to Figure 47 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the promoted sites should be made available for any of the following uses? How could that improve the completeness of the Wakerings and Barling?
i. Housing [market, affordable, specialist, traveller, other]
ii. Commercial [offices, industrial, retail, other]
iii. Community infrastructure [open space, education, healthcare, allotments, other]
iv. Other
A: Don’t know.
Q59c. Are there areas in the Wakerings and Barling that development should generally be presumed appropriate? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
A: Any development needs to be sympathetic of the area.
Q59d. Are there areas that require protecting from development? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
A: Don’t know.
Q59e. Do you agree that the local green spaces shown on Figure 47 hold local significance? Are there any other open spaces that hold particular local significance? [Please state reasoning]
A: Don’t know.
Q60a. Do you agree with our vision for Hullbridge? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]
A: Yes, although you need to address the road networks as well as those you have suggested. A new link road from A1245 to Hullbridge, adjacent to Watery Lane would serve the increased population with an improved access route and divert traffic away from other areas.
Q60b. With reference to Figure 48 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the promoted sites should be made available for any of the following uses? How could that improve the completeness of Hullbridge?
i. Housing [market, affordable, specialist, traveller, other]
ii. Commercial [offices, industrial, retail, other]
iii. Community infrastructure [open space, education, healthcare, allotments, other]
iv. Other
A: Some of the sites have potential to include a mix of shops, leisure, recreation, offices and housing but a study needs to be made to assess the impact of the current development
Q60c. Are there areas in Hullbridge that development should generally be presumed appropriate? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
A: Don’t know.
Q60d. Are there areas that require protecting from development? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
A: Anything too close to the river due to flood risk.
Q60e. Do you agree that the local green spaces shown on Figure 48 hold local significance? Are there any other open spaces that hold particular local significance? [Please state reasoning]
A: All green spaces hold significance, especially to those who use them for recreation, and have community value. They should be protected. Green belt borders should be protected from development in order to prevent urban sprawl.
Q61a. Do you agree with our vision for Canewdon? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]
A: Yes. A small amount of housing can be sustainable there as long as the community feel it is needed.
Q61b. With reference to Figure 49 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the promoted sites should be made available for any of the following uses? How could that improve the completeness of Canewdon?
i. Housing [market, affordable, specialist, traveller, other]
ii. Commercial [offices, industrial, retail, other]
iii. Community infrastructure [open space, education, healthcare, allotments, other]
iv. Other
A: Opportunities for mixed retail, commercial and housing could be achieved with some sympathetic development in this area.

Q61c. Are there areas in Canewdon that development should generally be presumed appropriate? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
A: Don’t know.
Q61d. Are there areas that require protecting from development? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
A: Don’t know.
Q61e. Do you agree that the local green spaces shown on Figure 48 hold local significance? Are there any other open spaces that hold particular local significance? [Please state reasoning]
A: All green spaces hold significance, especially to those who use them for recreation, and have community value. They should be protected. Green belt borders should be protected from development in order to prevent urban sprawl.
Q62a. Do you agree with our vision for Great Stambridge? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]
A: Yes.
Q62b. With reference to Figure 50 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the promoted sites should be made available for any of the following uses? How could that improve the completeness of Great Stambridge?
i. Housing [market, affordable, specialist, traveller, other]
ii. Commercial [offices, industrial, retail, other]
iii. Community infrastructure [open space, education, healthcare, allotments, other]
iv. Other
A: Any development needs to be sensitive and sympathetic to this small village.
Q62c. Are there areas in Great Stambridge that development should generally be presumed appropriate? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
A: Don’t know.
Q62d. Are there areas that require protecting from development? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
A: Don’t know.
Q62e. Do you agree that the local green spaces shown on Figure 50 hold local significance? Are there any other open spaces that hold particular local significance? [Please state reasoning]
A: All green spaces hold significance, especially to those who use them for recreation, and have community value. They should be protected. Green belt borders should be protected from development in order to prevent urban sprawl.
Q63a. Do you agree with our vision for Rawreth? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]
A: Don’t know.
Q63b. With reference to Figure 51 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the promoted sites should be made available for any of the following uses? How could that improve the completeness of Rawreth?
i. Housing [market, affordable, specialist, traveller, other]
ii. Commercial [offices, industrial, retail, other]
iii. Community infrastructure [open space, education, healthcare, allotments, other]
iv. Other
A: Don’t know.
Q63c. Are there areas in Rawreth that development should generally be presumed appropriate? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
A: Yes. Those that border the main roads as this makes easy access.
Q63d. Are there areas that require protecting from development? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
A: Those that change the dynamics of the village and those areas that border Wickford. There needs to be a significate amount of green belt land left to separate the 2 areas to prevent urban sprawl.
Q63e. Do you agree that the local green spaces shown on Figure 51 hold local significance? Are there any other open spaces that hold particular local significance? [Please state reasoning]
A: All green spaces hold significance, especially to those who use them for recreation, and have community value. They should be protected. Green belt borders should be protected from development in order to prevent urban sprawl.
Q64a. Do you agree with our vision for Paglesham? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]
A: I think the 30 houses is the maximum you should build to keep this hamlet special. Maybe less. The community should be consulted for their requirements.
Q64b. With reference to Figure 52 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the promoted sites should be made available for any of the following uses? How could that improve the completeness of Paglesham?
i. Housing [market, affordable, specialist, traveller, other]
ii. Commercial [offices, industrial, retail, other]
iii. Community infrastructure [open space, education, healthcare, allotments, other]
iv. Other
A: The 30 proposed houses should reflect the history of the area and should be modest in size and scale. These does not seem to be scope for any other building project with exception to open space. Any development should be sympathetic to the design and scale of the areas history.
Q64c. Are there areas in Paglesham that development should generally be presumed appropriate? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
A: Those proposed seem appropriate subject to local knowledge and support.
Q64d. Are there areas that require protecting from development? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
A: No building anywhere where it is liable to flood. No building near the waterfront in order to protect its charm and history.
Q64e. Do you agree that the local green spaces shown on Figure 52 hold local significance? Are there any other open spaces that hold particular local significance? [Please state reasoning]
A: All green spaces hold significance, especially to those who use them for recreation, and have community value. They should be protected. Green belt borders should be protected from development in order to prevent urban sprawl.
Q65a. Do you agree with our vision for Sutton and Stonebridge? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]
A: Yes. These areas should remain low key but have better access to services.
Q65b. With reference to Figure 53 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the promoted sites should be made available for any of the following uses? How could that improve the completeness of Sutton and Stonebridge?
i. Housing [market, affordable, specialist, traveller, other]
ii. Commercial [offices, industrial, retail, other]
iii. Community infrastructure [open space, education, healthcare, allotments, other]
iv. Other
A: Don’t know, but mass development should not go ahead. The potential of building thousands of houses, retail etc would be devastating. If any form of development was to go ahead then this should be in the way of a nature reserve/woodland etc.
Q65c. Are there areas in Sutton and Stonebridge that development should generally be presumed appropriate? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
A: Don’t know.
Q65d. Are there areas that require protecting from development? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
A: Most of the area unless it is the creation of new woodland, ponds, meadows, etc.
Q65e. Do you agree that the local green spaces shown on Figure 53 hold local significance? Are there any other open spaces that hold particular local significance? [Please state reasoning]
A: All green spaces hold significance, especially to those who use them for recreation, and have community value. They should be protected. Green belt borders should be protected from development in order to prevent urban sprawl.
Q66. Do you agree that our rural communities do not require individual vision statements? Are there communities that you feel should have their own vision? [Please state reasoning]
A: At this time – yes, but I feel they should have some consideration in the future in order to protect them.
Q67. Do you agree with our vision for our rural communities? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]
A: Yes. Nothing missing I can think of.
Q68. Are there other courses of action the Council could take to improve the completeness of our rural communities?
A: Survey and listen to the residents to see where they would like to go next. See if they require anything specific (travel links, facilities, affordable housing, etc.)

Spatial Options Consultation - Hullbridge
Firstly, with regard to the Vision Statement for Hullbridge - There was no consultation with our community before this vision was prepared - why was this not done? The vision I have is for Hullbridge to remain a village with an improved public transport system keeping the coastline as it is for residents and visitors to walk along and enjoy the unspoilt views.

I believe the most appropriate option of the 4 options RDC have suggested for the new local plan is to build all housing in one location whereby the infrastructure can be built to meet the requirements needed for these new developments. Looking at the map it would seem North of Southend appears to have far more land. This would be far more sensible than to start adding bits onto existing towns/villages and then having to add appropriate infrastructure with all the disruption, noise and pollution this would cause.

The infrastructure in Hullbridge is not adequate now, let alone when the new development of, I believe, 500 properties are finally completed from the previous Local Plan! This has caused significant strain on public services, roads etc. Yet the Council have failed to complete transport and sustainable infrastructure assessments prior to this consultation.

Hullbridge is already noticing the effects that increased housing has caused and the development is not even complete! The strain to our primary school (we have no secondary school) and to our medical centre.

The road infrastructure in Hullbridge cannot be improved upon. We have one road that runs through Hullbridge from Rayleigh to Hockley and one road that leads from Lower Road to the river (Ferry Road). These roads cannot be improved upon. It doesn’t take much for the whole village to be gridlocked or cut off if there is a problem. The sinkhole in Hullbridge Road this year is a good example where you could only get out of the village via Hockley causing significant problems not only in Hullbridge but in Hockley and beyond. Similarly, only yesterday, a road accident on Lower Road caused the road to be blocked and when vehicles tried to go through back roads all those roads became totally gridlocked. When the current development is finished we will have a lot more traffic on our one road in and out of the village so more chance of this sort of thing happening more often. Let alone having even more developments in future Local Plans.

A lot of Hullbridge is Green Belt and Coastal Protection Belt. Any further developments would harm these areas and impact on natural habitats.

With regard Critical Flood and drainage risks - Hullbridge will have a significant proportion of the village below sea level by 2040.

Public transport in Hullbridge is not adequate. There is no public transport whatsoever that runs down Lower Road towards Hockley. There is now no school bus that runs in Hullbridge.

On the South side of the village there are no recreation areas and a lack of pavement and crossings, which with the increase in vehicles due to the current development and lack of speed restrictions has made it more dangerous for pedestrians than it was before.

So you can see that Hullbridge hasn’t got adequate infrastructure now so will certainly not be able to cope with any more development and serious consideration must be made to look at alternative options.

This mail is in response to your vision statement for Hullbridge, in particular my objections to the proposed housing development sites around Hullbridge.

All land around Hullbridge is Green Belt, this land should be vigorously protected rather than being given up and lost to housing developers. Some land also forms part of the Coastal protection Belt and should be protected at all costs.

There is also an abundance of wildlife in the fields and hedgerows surrounding Hullbridge it is important to conserve their habitats rather than destroy them.

When we moved to Hullbridge our property survey confirmed that Hullbridge was in a critical flood risk area, we live backing onto Cracknell's farm ( one of your proposed development sites ) where over 800 houses are planned, take away open fields and replacing them with houses and roads will drastically reduce the lands ability to absorb surface water increasing the risk of flooding.

There would be a loss of public footpaths and bridleways, these routes are very well used for horse riders, dog walkers and for exercise, by residents and visitors alike. Would you rather take your exercise walking the footpaths through open countryside or pounding the pavements of a new housing development , I know what option I would choose.

Transport links to Hullbridge are poor, access is along small B roads or even smaller and narrower unclassified roads, congested at the best of times, the extra traffic any new developments would bring would only make our already congested roads worse. Our one school and medical centre would struggle to cope with the amount of people these proposed developments would bring.

Hullbridge is a unique rural coastal village made up of traditional housing, mobile home sites, council maintained roads and private roads and should be preserved as such.

I understand that new housing is needed just not at the expense of a unique village like Hullbridge, I would therefore suggest any new housing be built in your strategy option 3 ( west of Rayleigh, north of Southend or east of Rochford ).

>> I write in response to the above.
>>
>> Firstly, with regard to the Vision Statement for Hullbridge - There was no consultation with our community before this vision was prepared - why was this not done? The vision I have is for Hullbridge to remain a village with an improved public transport system keeping the coastline as it is for residents and visitors to walk along and enjoy the unspoilt views.
>>
>> I believe the most appropriate option of the 4 options RDC have suggested for the new local plan is to build all housing in one location whereby the infrastructure can be built to meet the requirements needed for these new developments. Looking at the map it would seem North of Southend appears to have far more land. This would be far more sensible than to start adding bits onto existing towns/villages and then having to add appropriate infrastructure with all the disruption, noise and pollution this would cause.
>>
>> The infrastructure in Hullbridge is not adequate now, let alone when the new development of, I believe, 500 properties are finally completed from the previous Local Plan! This has caused significant strain on public services, roads etc. Yet the Council have failed to complete transport and sustainable infrastructure assessments prior to this consultation.
>>
>> Hullbridge is already noticing the effects that increased housing has caused and the development is not even complete! The strain to our primary school (we have no secondary school) and to our medical centre.
>>
>> The road infrastructure in Hullbridge cannot be improved upon. We have one road that runs through Hullbridge from Rayleigh to Hockley and one road that leads from Lower Road to the river (Ferry Road). These roads cannot be improved upon. It doesn’t take much for the whole village to be gridlocked or cut off if there is a problem. The sinkhole in Hullbridge Road this year is a good example where you could only get out of the village via Hockley causing significant problems not only in Hullbridge but in Hockley and beyond. Similarly, only yesterday, a road accident on Lower Road caused the road to be blocked and when vehicles tried to go through back roads all those roads became totally gridlocked. When the current development is finished we will have a lot more traffic on our one road in and out of the village so more chance of this sort of thing happening more often. Let alone having even more developments in future Local Plans.
>>
>> A lot of Hullbridge is Green Belt and Coastal Protection Belt. Any further developments would harm these areas and impact on natural habitats.
>>
>> With regard Critical Flood and drainage risks - Hullbridge will have a significant proportion of the village below sea level by 2040.
>>
>> Public transport in Hullbridge is not adequate. There is no public transport whatsoever that runs down Lower Road towards Hockley. There is now no school bus that runs in Hullbridge.
>>
>> On the South side of the village there are no recreation areas and a lack of pavement and crossings, which with the increase in vehicles due to the current development and lack of speed restrictions has made it more dangerous for pedestrians than it was before.
>>
>> So you can see that Hullbridge hasn’t got adequate infrastructure now so will certainly not be able to cope with any more development and serious consideration must be made to look at alternative options.
>>

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

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

Hullbridge Parish Council feels strongly that a local highways study needs to take place. The document only refers to a study of the main roads in the south Essex infrastructure position statement. This states in 4.2.4 that much of the main road network which leads to our district is operating at, or near, capacity in peak periods.

We cannot understand why Rochford District Council would base its planning upon the 2025 flood risk area when developments could reasonably be expected to be in place for more than 100+ years. All evidence from the IPCC and other scientific institutions demonstrate that global sea level rise is a real and presently accelerating threat. In addition, the British Geological survey shows that the Eurasian tectonic plate is tilting along an axis between the Wash and the Bristol Channel, this means
that Essex is sinking at a rate of 0.4 to 0.7mm per year (ref. research carried out at Durham University and published in the Journal ‘GSA Today’). These projections are not the worst-case scenario, and the sea level rise could be much worse if climate change continues raising
temperatures beyond 1.5 degrees centigrade.

The map generated by Coastal Climate Central for 2050 shows that all of the promoted sites to the west of Hullbridge will be in the flood risk area, and that those to the North East of Hullbridge are also in the flood risk area. Rochford District Council needs to ensure that no site at risk of flooding by 2050 is developed.

The Coastal Climate Central 2050 map shows large part of Rochford including Hullbridge below flood
levels:
https://coastal.climatecentral.org/map/15/0.6252/51.6246/?theme=sea_level_rise&map_ type=year&basemap=roadmap&contiguous=true&elevation_model=best_available&fo recast_year=2050&pathway=rcp45&percentile=p50&refresh=true&return_level=return_
level_1&slr_model=kopp_2014

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

Hullbridge Parish Council believes that the vison should take into consideration the differences in towns and villages; for example, Rayleigh or Rochford may have a more business focus, whereas Hullbridge may be more of a rural community with a greater need to cater for its older population who do not need employment but do need more health services. In principle, the results of this
consultation need to feed into it to make specific plans for each settlement.

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

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

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

Strategic Option 2 fails to address the problem of the aging population within the district. This is in large part due to the failure to provide adequate low rent social housing to enable young people to remain in the district and to develop stable family units. The failure of Housing Associations to meet this need is well documented nationally, and locally the largest Housing Association (Sanctuary) has a poor record of maintaining properties and honouring contractual promises made when the council’s housing stock transferred. The strategy should provide council housing (preferably directly managed) with genuinely affordable rents and secure tenancies in small local exception sites. There also needs to be provision within these sites for social housing accommodation for elderly residents.

With regard to objective 12 we are concerned that Rayleigh tip has been put forward for development.
If so there still needs to be a site for waste disposal close to Rayleigh. The restrictions on vans needs to be lifted to prevent fly tipping.

We believe that sufficient primary school places should be provided within local communities, and steps should be taken to minimise the use of cars to transport children to schools; we are concerned that this is currently not the case.

Q5. Do you agree with the settlement hierarchy presented?

Yes, the hierarchy seems logical. We feel the strategy should take into account that many more people are working from home, reducing the need to commute to employment centres.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Using option 3a as a starting point, other areas could be developed in future using option 1 when the
infrastructure is planned and/or in place.

Restrict overdevelopment in rural and village communities to protect the character of village life.

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

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

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

We agree that it is imperative that both flood risk and coastal change should be central to any development plans going forward; for us in Hullbridge, many of the proposed sites to the west of the existing settlement are projected to be deep within flooding territory by 2050, as are numerous ones in the east as well. With 2050 now less than three decades away, and no sign of any imminent alteration in the path of climate change, development in any of the areas identified to be in potential flood plains today and in the near future must not be considered.

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

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

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

Providing that the development is affordable and deliverable, and the cost is not lumped onto the buyer for many years to come then this is the right decision as the future rests in renewable energy. Suggestions from councillors regarding other opportunities to supply renewable energy ranged from a solar farm in a place that will not impact its surroundings to solar panels and/or wind turbines on Foulness Island.

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

Again, this is something that is a fantastic plan providing the brunt of the cost is not rested on the shoulders of the buyer and that these homes are affordable.

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

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

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

Yes, these should be settlement specific, to allow for the maintenance of the integrity and specific characteristics of each area, sufficiently detailed to avoid confusion, and widely distributed.

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

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

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

Yes, providing that each individual settlement is at the heart of it and considered as their own entities with their own individual characteristics. It is imperative that certain areas are protected completely, and that any future developers are aware of the identified characteristics of each area.

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

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

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

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

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

Meet the need for different types, sizes and tenures of housing (including Affordable, Social, Council and
Specialist Housing) by requiring a standard non-negotiable mix of housing to be provided on all housing
developments.

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

There is too much focus currently across the district on the provision of 4/5 bedroom properties. This focus needs to shift towards 2/3 bedroom properties which would benefit more local residents/families in search of their first home. "Affordable" homes should not only be flats/apartments but other property types also.

1/2 bed bungalows (or similar) should be a priority, as with an ageing population, there will be increasing
demand for such properties when elderly residents are looking to downsize. RDC should actively discourage bungalows being converted into larger properties. Additional provision for residential care is also a priority.
These can all be accommodated within Strategy Option 3a.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q22. What do you consider would need to be included in a criteria-based policy for assessing potential locations for new Gypsy and Traveller sites?

Locate sites close to main roads to enable easy access for large vehicles, so that residential roads are not congested and nearby residents are not disturbed. Allow a little room for expansion and limit the likelihood encroachment onto neighbouring land.
Locate away from spaces of national, regional, local or community interest or recreation, so as not to spoil the visual amenity of the landscape.
The sites should not be closed and available to the whole Traveller community.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Provide appropriate schools and colleges to serve the increase in population due to high development, but locate with public transport links and accessibility by walking or cycling in mind. Also work with neighbouring authorities to identify land for higher or further education facilities where this would address current and future skills shortages as stated in employment option 11.
Work with bus companies and Essex County Council to make our existing employment sites as accessible as possible. Improve footpaths and cycle tracks using government funding applied for by Rochford District Council. Move away from planning employment sites in places that are designed to be accessed by car use. Some employment is going to have to be close to settlements. This of course would have to be take into account paragraph 83 of the NPPF which requires policies and decisions to accommodate local business needs in a way which is sensitive to the surroundings and prioritises the reuse of existing sites and buildings.

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

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

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

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

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

The lower Crouch Valley, the River Crouch and its banks are important habitats for fauna including birds that are on the endangered species red list. This includes curlews, whimbrels, and other wading birds. The pasture land flanking the Crouch towards Battlesbridge is an important habitat for skylarks and other species; these areas should be protected.

Restrict development in all other green belt areas, in order to protect nature. Alongside this, provide protection for nature reserves, parkland and areas fronting rivers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q34. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to help deliver new strategic green and blue infrastructure?

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

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

Build property where there is existing infrastructure or where infrastructure can be expanded without
encroaching on green belt etc.

A survey needs to be carried out on local roads to determine what is needed to be upgraded to achieve
any sustainable way for traffic, both domestic and that which uses these as through roads.

With reference to Hullbridge much of it is unadopted roads and cannot support any development, let
alone be able to accommodate the use of these roads as through roads for both building access and ultimate through road access to any development. Provide schools for development areas and provide transport links to these schools. Local schools, both primary and secondary, are already struggling with the increase in pupil numbers coupled with limited capacity.

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

Funds were given via section 106 to expand Hullbridge Healthcare Centre and provide more school places - neither of these has happened. This section 106 money was instead given to RDC in respect of the existing Malyons Farm development. More development would make the situation untenable, particularly if further section 106 monies were withheld by RDC and not allocated to benefitting the local community where new developments are built.

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

Even with section 106 grants, if made available, healthcare facilities in Hullbridge are severely restricted, especially since the pandemic due to doctor shortage. Further development in Hullbridge would worsen healthcare provision and, even with section 106 grants if released by RDC, will not improve the situation.

Whilst this is outside the control of RDC, developments would cause serious issues particularly as Hullbridge traditionally has an ageing population - one which is obviously more reliant on healthcare, alongside the inevitability of new patients from current and any new developments.

There are currently inadequate or no existent bus and footpath links to areas east of Hullbridge, such as the Dome Area. Any development to the east of Hullbridge would have transport difficulty and also the impact on Lower Road would be unacceptable; this would be the case even bus links were improved.

The same approach needs to be taken with schools and highways and new residents could be short changed without easy access to schools, healthcare and employment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Protect village and rural areas from over or inappropriate development through careful planning considerations.
Compose a list of sites with local consultation. Then look maintain them with local residents and organisations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some existing ok but links to, e.g., Clements Hall from Hullbridge non-existent. Businesses cannot be forced into staying unless benefits outlined in Q47 are adhered to which may encourage some business opportunities and current business to remain.

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

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

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

Certainly, prepare an Infrastructure Delivery Plan that would deliver meaningful improvement to transport networks, including but not exclusively, cycle routes, walking pathways, public transport and roads. However, all these modes are currently completely stretched; modernisation and improvements to all need to happen before future housing developments are built. It should be noted that following the last developments in the Core Strategy, as far as Hullbridge is concerned (and almost certainly elsewhere also), the promised improvements have either not materialised, been completed or proven
to be inadequate.

The plan needs to deliver improvements to public transport by working with bus companies to reestablish bus routes to isolated communities that have been either been terminated or severely curtailed. For example, ‘The Dome’ has a bus service twice a week. Residents regularly complain that they are isolated from everywhere else. It is also claimed that Hullbridge has its own bus service that runs 4 - 7 times a day. This is not the experience of Hullbridge residents and it only needs the slightest issue along Hullbridge Road for the service to either be even further curtailed or suspended entirely.
RDC need to continue to work with Government, Highways England, Essex CC etc to deliver meaningful
road improvements to both the main road arteries and to the local road network. However, any large-scale bypass scheme such as the "Southend Outer Bypass" scheme needs to be opposed. Not only would it cut directly through the Green Belt but it would increase development along its course, which in turn would have enormous negative impact on the Green Belt itself, natural habitats and the environment generally.

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

Whilst some improvements are shortly to commence at the Fairglen Interchange and A130, further improvements are needed to the Junction of Rawreth Lane and the A1245. Perhaps also the A127 could be widened along its length from four lanes to six lanes.

Additionally, the bus service between Hullbridge and Rayleigh can be cut with the slightest issue along
Hullbridge Road and this needs to be addressed urgently. When this happens it consequently results
in more vehicles using Hullbridge road, which in turn exacerbates traffic congestion and leads to other
problems such as pollution.

A bus service between Rochford and Rayleigh via Hullbridge and Hockley and Rayleigh via Hullbridge
would serve to reduce traffic congestion along Lower Road, especially at "rush" hours. This would benefit residents of the Dome as well as properties along the length of Lower Road. It would also serve to provide access for Hullbridge students to access the Greensward Academy that does not exist currently.

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

Improvements to existing road networks. Large scale bypass schemes, such as the “Southend Outer”
bypass would be unacceptable because of the hugely detrimental impact on the Green Belt and its
physical and natural environment.

Small low top busses to link smaller communities with larger ones. Trams not a viable option for the more rural areas as roads are too narrow and winding; additionally, would increase congestion on existing roads.

Improvements to the cycle path network, extending and linking the network as and where appropriate and safe.

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

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

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

Support changes that would require developers of 10 units or less to pay something akin to s.106/CIL
monies, that would go towards infrastructure improvements, particularly those affecting rural communities.

Q60a. Do you agree with our vision for Hullbridge?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Strategic Planning Team

Rochford District Council New Local Plan Spatial Options document consultation

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

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

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

IIA Theme – Health and Wellbeing

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

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

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

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

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

IIA Theme – Landscape

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

IIA Theme – Climate Change

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

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

IIA Theme – Biodiversity

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

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

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

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

Yours sincerely

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

STRATEGY OPTIONS

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

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

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

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

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

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

SPATIAL THEMES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, provided that individual settlements are consulted,
and they are adhered to.

Q16.
a. Do you consider that new design guides, codes or masterplans should be created alongside the new Local Plan?

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

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

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

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

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

HOUSING FOR ALL


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EMPLOYMENT & JOBS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BIODIVERSITY

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

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

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

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

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

On-site.

GREEN AND BLUE INFRASTRUCTURE

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

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

Q33. Do you agree that the central woodlands arc and island wetlands, shown on Figure 32 are the most appropriate areas for new regional parklands? Are there any other areas that should be considered or preferred? [Please state reasoning]

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

Q34. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to help deliver new strategic green and blue infrastructure? [Please state reasoning]

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

COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE

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

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

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

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

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

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

OPEN SPACES & RECREATION

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

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

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

All-weather facilities should be considered where
appropriate.

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

The potential sites seem acceptable.

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

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

Q42. Are there particular open spaces that we should be protecting or improving? [Please note, you will have an opportunity to make specific comments on open spaces and local green spaces in the settlement profiles set
out later in this report]

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

HERITAGE

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

Villages and rural areas need to be protected from over
and/or inappropriate development through careful
planning considerations. A list of sites should be
composed with local consultation and those sites
maintained with local residents and organisations.

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

Areas of precious woodland should not be taken for
housing.

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

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

TOWN CENTRES AND RETAIL


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

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

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

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

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

N/A

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

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

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

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

TRANSPORT & CONNECTIVITY

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

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

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

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

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

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

GREEN BELT AND RURAL ISSUES

Q54. Do you feel that the plan should identify rural
exception sites? If so, where should these be located and what forms of housing or employment do you feel need to be provided? [Please note you may wish to comment on the use of specific areas of land in the next section]

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

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

There should be support for the requirement of
developers of 10 units or less to pay something akin to
s.106/CIL monies. That would go towards infrastructure
improvements, particularly those affecting rural
communities.

PLANNING FOR COMPLETE COMMUNITIES

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

N/A

b. With reference to Figure 44 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the promoted sites should be made available for any of the following uses?

N/A

How could that improve the completeness of Rayleigh?

N/A

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

N/A

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

N/A

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

N/A

iv. Other

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

N/A

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

N/A

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

N/A

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

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

b. With reference to Figure 45 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the promoted sites should be made available for any of the following uses? How could that improve the completeness of Rochford and Ashingdon?

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

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

N/A

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

N/A

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

N/A

iv. Other

N/A

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

N/A

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

N/A

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

N/A

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

The vision “In 2050, Hockley and Hawkwell should be
the District's gateway to the green lung of the Upper
Roach Valley, making the most of its access to ancient
woodland and a network of nature reserves. Its town
and neighbourhood centres should be vibrant places
with an emphasis on independent businesses and
providing for a diverse range of jobs. Deprivation should
continue to be largely absent from Hockley and
Hawkwell however housing affordability should have
been addressed to ensure that local first-time buyers
can greater afford to live locally.”
Firstly, it will not be a green lung if houses are built
within it. To be the ‘gateway to the green lung’, it
needs to be protected. Some of the proposed areas for
Hockley & Hawkwell contain ancient woodland. A
gateway also presumes by its nature that throughfare
of traffic is required, which could be interpreted as
traffic problems.
Also, Hockley has a village centre whereas Hawkwell is
mainly residential and comprised of green spaces
rather than leisure/social facilities, except for Clements
Hall, so the term vibrant would only be appropriate for
Hockley. As answered in Questions 2 and 5, Council
believe that there should be separate visions for
Hockley and Hawkwell as they are very different.
We agree that: “deprivation should continue to be
largely absent from Hockley and Hawkwell however
housing affordability should have been addressed to
ensure that local first-time buyers can greater afford to
live locally.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

e. Do you agree that the local green spaces shown on Figure 46 hold local significance? Are there any other open spaces that hold particular local significance? [Please state reasoning]

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

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

N/A

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

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

N/A

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

N/A

d. Are there areas that require protecting from
development? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning] Q59e. Do you agree that the local green spaces shown on Figure 47 hold local significance? Are there any other open spaces that hold particular local significance? [Please state reasoning]

N/A

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

N/A

b. With reference to Figure 48 and your
preferred Strategy Option, do you think any
of the promoted sites should be made
available for any of the following uses? How
could that improve the completeness of
Hullbridge?

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

N/A

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

N/A

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

N/A

e. Do you agree that the local green spaces shown on Figure 48 hold local significance? Are there any other open spaces that hold particular local significance? [Please state reasoning]

N/A

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

N/A

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

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

N/A

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

N/A

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

N/A

e. Do you agree that the local green spaces shown on Figure 48 hold local significance? Are there any other open spaces that hold particular local significance? [Please state reasoning]

N/A

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

N/A

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

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

N/A

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

N/A

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

N/A

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

N/A

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

N/A

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

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

N/A

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

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

N/A

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

N/A

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

N/A

b. With reference to Figure 52 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the promoted sites should be made available for any of the following uses? How could that improve the completeness of Paglesham?

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

N/A

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

N/A

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

N/A

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

N/A

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

N/A

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

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

N/A

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

N/A

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

N/A

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

N/A

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

N/A

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

N/A

Re: Consultation on New Local Plan Spatial Options

I am writing to you to give my feedback on the new local plans for Hullbridge and the surrounding areas.

I have been a resident of Hullbridge for over twenty years and in this time have seen lots of change and development not only to Hullbridge but to the surrounding areas, but during this time have not seen many changes or upgrades to the local infrastructure.

I believe building more houses within Hullbridge would cause a negative impact to our village and our way of life, as follow:

• There will be more harm to the green belt land in our area, which should stay as green belt and be protected for future generations.
• More properties will be at risk of flooding and draining risks, and by 2040 Hullbridge will have a significant proportion of the village below sea level
• The impact on natural habitats of wild animals and birds being reduced or even lost
• The lack of accessible open spaces and amenities for people of all ages
• Loss of footpaths or bridleways which many people in Hullbridge and surrounding areas currently enjoy and use
• Only the First Bus group operates a bus service out of Hullbridge, which is the number 20 and only runs every 15 minutes. This was recently confirmed by a First Bus Group representative in an interview with the Echo Newspaper. If the bus is delayed or cancelled, which can happen and result in delays to people’s journeys. First Group have recently withdrawn the school bus service to Sweyne Park School. This has caused lots of problems and has had a detrimental impact to children/families that rely on this service and resulted in more traffic on the roads due to parents having to take their children to school. Surely this is not good for air pollutions within the area.
• The existing community infrastructure needs to be considered, with poor road links within the area and only one main road in and out of Hullbridge (Hullbridge Road/Lower Road). When these roads are restricted due to road works or quite recently where Hullbridge Road was partly closed completely due to a sink hole in the road and also Watery Lane being closed due to maintenance, the only way out of Hullbridge was via Hockley which caused chaos in both areas and resulted in long delays. People struggle to easily get doctor’s appointments at the local surgery. The school in Hullbridge has had to increase the yearly intake to accommodate new children moving into the area and local children are not always able to get a place within the school. Hullbridge only has one small play park for the children to use, whereas other areas have larger play areas and more leisure facilities.
• Due to the number of new houses already being built it now takes over 20 minutes to get out of Hullbridge either along The Hullbridge Road/Rawreth Lane or Watery Lane. The same applies in the evening when the traffic queues are just as long.
• The preservation of our rural coastal village outlook will be lost.

I believe by not building these houses in the Hullbridge, you will preserve our natural wildlife sites, local geological sites, and sites of specific scientific interest i.e., Hullbridge Meadows and Hullbridge Foreshores.

Over development of this area, has not only impacted residences of Hullbridge, but surroundings area as well. It is well known that roads such as London Road in Rayleigh and Crown Hill in Rayleigh are heavily congested at certain points during the day and at the weekend and trying to get through Rayleigh to Rayleigh Weir or back from the Rayleigh Weir to Rayleigh High Street at the weekend is awful and as my point above mentions is not good for air pollution within this area.

My suggestions would be that the council builds all new housing for this area within one location, possibly North of Southend where they could also consider including a school. Southend also has better transport links with two main railway lines going into the area and more bus routes available. This has been done at Beaulieu Park near Chelmsford which also now has a new school from preschool age up to secondary school and I believe will have a train station added in the future. This area is much larger than Hullbridge and can accommodate such development.

I look forward to hearing from you.

NEW LOCAL PLAN: SPATIAL OPTIONS CONSULTATION PAPER: 2021

Rochford in 2021- District Profile p.12
Our Social Characteristics

Rochford expected to shift to higher age groups. Housing affordability is an important issue. "..economically active individuals likely to decrease..fewer residents between ages 18-70..".

This is due to :-

Sale of Council houses, by Government dictat in 1980s. Said homes were for 2 classes: 1. Families who could never afford own homes; 2. Families unable to afford initially, but with cheap rent, could ultimately save deposit to buy own home.

Developers don't want to build "affordable", but have built eg luxury flats and "executive" mansions bought by "nouveau riches", usually middle aged, whose children long grown up and moved on. Thus unwealthy economic age groups with their children had to move to more affordable districts, hence current and possibly future age imbalance.

Many homes have been demolished to accommodate above expensive dwelling dwellings. Wealthy Londoners have sold up and moved to eg Rochford District to buy similar for less.

Cultural Characteristics

Most of them noted in Rayleigh and Rochford. But there are listed and heritage building in Hockley and Hawkwell and Ashingdon. There are the 3 mediaeval churches also. Many heritage items in said area have been demolished to accommodate flats and expensive homes. an example was at 1 Southens Road, formerly Blacks Farm, earliest from 17th century, on Local List. Developer planned replacement with flats: a former official at Planning Policy said Government now "frowned on" Local List. (Other councils claimed no knowledge of said Government dictat and didn't plan to abolish their Local List.) Plan for 13 flats was refused but no mention made of the house, demolition of which was included in application. Once house was demolished, said officer said Government now approved of Local Lists. New List omits several Hockley items on the earlier one. Many Hockley area heritage items have gone same way.

Environmental Characteristics

As you say 40% of Rochford area is at flood threat and the coastline also. This would preclude the area so designated as unsuitable for further development. It is known that insurance companies refuse to include cover against flood risk for homes in flood risk areas.

Economic Characteristics

The 2 main rail lines from Southend to London, one passing through Rochford District, are helpful for commuter traffic to London and for cargo purposes. It is risky that some airlines have withdrawn from Southend Airport. The nuclear station at Bradwell could be more of a risk than asset. Present road connections have served well in the past, but are getting inadequate now and won't support extensive future development.

Draft Strategic Priorities/Objectives for 2050 p.21

Strategic Priority 1: Meeting need for homes/jobs in the area

This states need to meet community need, working with South Essex neighbours, using already developed land first.

But increasingly, Londoners eg are selling for high prices and getting similar or bigger, for less, down here - eg new development in Hall Road (former agricultural land).

South Essex neighbours - be careful how much of their housing number needs aren't pushed into Rochford District.

Prioritising use of previously developed land first. Example - so-called "garden grab" - homes not in Green Belt have been called "land". Where two or three are adjacent - they are grabbed for "executive" houses (mansions), or luxury flats, others finally forced to move for price needing mortgage to move, when they don't want anyway. Others not moving are punished with 'executive' (big) development may be south of them - impacting them, so they become unviable.

Strategic Objective 2

"affordability" - as elsewhere, council houses were sold off in 1980s under "Right to Buy". Developers don't want to do affordable - one told me that at a meeting. Those builders with large estates to develop (requiring a percentage 'affordable') try to evade the rules, perhaps saying more than one firm involved.

"ageing population" - care homes are costly, the old don't want them. If pressured, their homes are sold off to pay for them.

Strategic objective 4

"accelerated growth" - avoid over-substantial Area Action Plans threatening retail centres - with jobs and businesses then lost. Southend Airport may struggle to survive from impact of Covid.

Strategy Options

Hierarchy of Settlements

Re Fig.14, Hockley is equivalent to Hawkwell and Ashingdon - village. Rochford is a market town.

Growth scenarios

Before any substantial growth can occur, a new motorway would be needed for Rochford District to overcome inevitable inadequacies of eg. Southend, Main, Greennward, Ashingdon and other B and C roads, which is doubtful unless a new large settlement occurs in Green Belt for most new housing-? behind Rpchford, to cross River Crouch somewhere near Hullbridge - unlikely and probably not tolerated by staff or residents.

Masterplan for towns etc centres - eg Hockley Area Action Plan more than a decade ago, involving replacement of some existing and erecting large supermarket and may be major store (? Unneeded with on-line shopping). Plan would have involved loss of businesses, jobs. It was unacceptable to traders and residents - a more limited HAAP was agreed.

Significant new community facilities - schools, primary care. These have been promised by developers of large estates, who then found excuses for not doing.

Re 'Important Note' - I'm relieved proposals aren't decided. Much gone already.

Planning for housing growth

HELLA 2020 identifies supply of 4,300 homes planned for, including sites with planning permission. Unfortunately some such have been overcome by huge mansion developments adjacently.

Planning for economic and retail growth

Completed Area Action Plans have provided enough retail space.

Levels of growth needed to deliver infrastructure

Section 106 doesn't always work. As earlier, huge new estate in hall Road (for which farming land sacrificed) developer promised new primary school, GP surgery, then found reasons not to do, causing pressure on existing.

Spatial Strategy Options

1. Urban intensification

There is no available space in any centres near stations. First issue of HAAP proposed building on parking area near Hockley Station, which would have been a mistake and didn't happen. Any intensification done already has often sacrificed existing dwellings, sometimes of heritage character. Others would be threatened. Blocks of flats have done likewise. Another proposal for latter is underway in Southend Road, Hockley, with potential disastrous results for many adjacent homes and would exacerbate a serious traffic problem.

2. Urban extension Would sacrifice Green Belt

Option 4

Your comments at CONS say it all.

Owners of house/garden, to protect themselves from building predators, obtained consent for 2 small homes additionally to their own - just resulted in massive adjacent demolition, replaced by huge dwellings, removing daylight and making light pollution.

Q6 and 7 I cannot agree to any of the 4. Only solution is small dwellings added to properties with large curtilages. This could still give problems re traffic access, neighbour resistance. problem is developers don't want "affordable", only mass demolition replaced by huge "executive" houses, block of luxury flats, making neighbours unviable. Mass sale of council houses -Right to Buy- 1980s was unfortunate.

Climate change and resilient environments

Development agreed in our district must be very limited due to flood risk and existing, expected coastal change.

Green Belt and heritage sites and homes/gardens need largely to be protected from Development. In fact, seeing your Diagram page 36, Rochford District can't accommodate substantial development/redevelopment even with need to provide co-operation needs of nearby districts. (one does realise big new buildings bring more council rates).

As earlier, companies won't five flood insurance in flood risk areas.

One agrees new development should provide energy from carbon neutral/renewable sources, but it's costly and in early stages. Those with gas heating feel threatened. Car reliance is unlikely to be reduced, but also electric cars instead of petrol driven will need plenty of energy-providing points in centres and elsewhere.

Place-making and design Q14-16

It would be very difficult, knowing developer wishes (and need for council rates to come from somewhere), but a design guide if possible, should now exclude further development of executive mansions, luxury flats, especially as Government now requires more affordable homes.

We need to exclude development involving further demolition of existing dwellings, replace by mansions, multi-storeyed units out of height/area with locale, causing daylight loss and night-time light pollution and outside incomes of most locale.

Housing for all

Lack of homes for locals. As before, developers erect executive houses, sometimes in big estates. Local families can't afford, but they are bought by eg Londoners who sell theirs for high prices and buy big ones here for less.

It could be said, in the past young adults lived with their parents, paying their "keep" towards household costs, because they couldn't afford to buy. They only left home on:- marriage, or getting a better paid job elsewhere.

Surely these problems need sorting as housing still "locally driven". Locals cannot afford and there is limited council housing, why they leave the district to find homes they can afford.

It's stated SHMA paper outline need for smaller dwellings, but recognises size is market driven. Developers build mansions for nouveau riches - normally middle-aged, their children grown up and have left. Difficult to change that.

Rented housing - "families with children who cannot afford to buy..ineligible for social housing" (?why). Reverts to social housing lost to Right to Buy of 1980s.

Need for affordable housing

Council housing (largely sold off as above). There are also homes acquired by housing associations charging social rent. it isn't true gardens are sold for inflated sums. Persons with home and garden are often pressured by developers to eave and get demolished for sums that they'd need mortgage in order to move. Developers charge inflated sums to erect outsized houses.

Employment and Jobs

Doubtful. Southend Council demolished much of Victoria avenue, replaced with office buildings c.1970s, may be in expectation of business chances arising from Britain joining European Union. Some firms, such as C E Heath, Norwich Union, opened up there. But it didn't last - both moved away, others likewise. Avenue is now largely re-residential.

Southend Airport was expected to thrive. But recent pandemic caused several airlines to move away.

Traditionally, office staff in S E Essex have commuted to the City and elsewhere in London to work. Arrival of new technology was expected to do away with most office and factory workers. Executive staff would work from home on computer, occasionally attending head office. But commuter trains to London continued to be packed since. Briefly pandemic led people to work from home, but this isn't lasting. Some are again commuting.

Employment land, Eldon way, Hockley was allocated by HAAP but results are limited apparently.

Future of Southend Airport

Probably restricted by loss of airlines, due to effects of pandemic. Further expansion in activity difficult to foresee, due to effect on local community of noise, night flights etc - the photo on p.50 in Spatial Options Local Plan issue shows how vast an area of housing is already affected, without further extension.

Biodiversity As side comment, Hockley isn't an "urban area" - on Wikkipedia it's a large village.

Qu.29-30 I agree in Local Plan wildlife Review. There are some protected species residing in some private gardens. These should be protected under the system. If some neighbours find them a nuisance, it could be explained to them how their boundaries can be safeguarded. However, while some resent eg their lawns dug into by creatures, some so-described objections arise from developer designs on other's properties, as transfer of protected species involves getting licence from DEFRA - complicated and expensive. They are determined to get the ground, regardless of owners' wishes, but don't want complications - they've been known to attack setts.

Green/Blue Infrastructure

Proposals are acceptable, but shouldn't be used as excuse for developers to grab existing/homes/gardens.

Q.35-37

Education As earlier, proof exists where developers of gigantic expensive estates have promised new school, surgery. When estate practically built, they said eg 2 builders involved, so failed to meet promises. result - school c.3 miles away has to take pupils from new estate. Developers of big 'executive' estates must be made in advance to provide, or be denied plan consent.

Healthcare Side comment - I'm concerned by your view of future GP clinics - no appointments, just on-line digital consultations. GP appointments are curtailed to eg phone ones during pandemic, just to avoid infection. This is ok sometimes, but other times impractical. Not all have computers by the way.

Early years/childcare There are plenty of nurseries, but private. I don't know how sate funding can be provided.

Secondary education Where shown this is already full locally, builders for big estates could combine to contribute additionally, if space can be found, or else contribute to extend existing, if area available.

Further education Locally provided by Southend branch of Essex University and other universities over UK. But may be builders of large estates could contribute to a national fund for this use.

Community, Open Spaces One can only suggest big developers contribute likewise and/or designate some of their land, if available.

Heritage

Q43-45 I fear heritage in Rochford has been somewhat selective. Several items in Hockley have been demolished, some in fact of widespread opposition. Your article in Spatial Options sets out straightaway with items presumably to be kept in Rayleigh/Rochford. Recent uproar over plan to remove Mill House has led to the matter going under review.

As earlier, plan to demolish 1 Southend Road for flats caused widespread rage (details earlier). Hockley councillor had flats refused, but nil said re the house, down for demolition on proposal.

It was on the Local List, so Plan Policy official said Government didn't approve that, so Rochford's was abolished. Once house demolished, officer said Government changed its mind. New Local List omitted some Hockley items on it earlier. spa pump house now on national list. May be St Peter & Paul church and Bull pub are listed. Others could be added to Local one, eg Hockley Cottage Southend Road, China Cottage Spa Road. Other items are demolished: Kent View Cottage, 2 Victorian Houses Southend Road, Manor at Plumberow, 17C house and forge opposite entry to Hockley woods.

Town centres and retail

Plan Objectives

"..retail - dominant town centre..struggling in light of on-going structural changes..in high streets/centres". On-line shopping has caused closure of eg clothing stores in towns, accelerated by pandemic. But, eg Hockley centre continues to provide basis needs successfully. Attempt to change it by original HAAP was unsuccessful.

If developers want to introduce residential in addition, it must not be at expense of businesses and be preferably 2 storey, not to threaten nearby low level dwellings.

[Figures 8, 25 and others eg 31-5 make clear Rochford District not suitable for drastic residential increase on grounds of flood risk particularly.]

Using Class E, allowing transfer from retail to residential without planning permission must not be allowed to threaten retail and not everyone has a car to do retail shopping elsewhere.

Q.46-50 Hockley Centre and its environs does not have space to provide additional facilities, residential (except as above) etc. You couldn't put a new supermarket in Eldon way, off the main road, and we have enough provision now. There are 1 or 2 stores in Southend Road, but remainder is residential, mostly 1 or 2 storey and basic needs shopping is adequate in the centre, food, hairdressing, ETC. Larger items, such as clothes, shoes, apart from on-line, people just bus to Southend. Hockley isn't big enough for more.

Transport and connectivity

"National Planning Policy states transport issues should be considered from the earliest stages of plan-making, so the impacts of development on transport networks can be addressed".

That is exactly the local problem. over-enthusiastic profiteering developers have been allowed forward, with often huge estates, without a major district motorway having been formulated and inserted first. Local main roads, particularly in Rochford District - an agricultural area - are former narrow, winding country lanes, later tarmacked over for motor traffic. I think Southend Council planned at one time for access from rear of Shoebury to reach the Crouch, traversing green belt area behind Rochford. Understandably I believe Rochford didn't agree.

Suggestion has been made for one huge development centre, served by one new motorway through green belt, but probably impractical in this rural, flood risk area and rising sea levels

Walking and cycling in preference to private car are excellent for leisure and short distance basic needs, but not eg commuting to work nor eg weekly shopping for families.

Bus services have suffered from increased private car use by middle classes, especially Nos. 7 and 8. Arrival of costly new estates are unlikely to change that.

Maps with your plan show how much of the district is flood threatened, including rising sea level. So I can't see answer to travel needs and extensive new development foreseen in plan.

Green Belt - Rural Issues

Q.54 Rural exception sites. Developers have said they don't want to do affordable. (One told me that at a meeting).

Planning for Complete Communities

Description of centres is accurate. But one must accept that provision for new motorways is largely out of the question. The main roads that have been suitable in the past cannot cope with endless new development and its attendant motor traffic - as earlier, main B C roads in district are former narrow winding country lanes, later tarmacked for motors. But motorway to any large new centre would contend with c.50% flood risk, rising sea levels and the district still has land in agricultural use.

Stonebridge and Sutton might possibly provide a substantial amount of new housing, judging only from the map, but provision of a new motorway (through where) seems doubtful.

Hockley and Hawkwell - housing availability and affordability "a key issue" - due to several problems.

Its services were adequate for its needs. But, as elsewhere in Rochford and UK, and as I wrote earlier, council houses designed for those of limited means were sold under Right to Buy (I believe this arrangement is now abolished). Also, as earlier, a new motorway would be needed, not possible.

Also, possibly attracted by convenience of rail line to London, this area has recently attracted wealthy residents from London and elsewhere. Modest homes/gardens have been demolished, replaces by mansions and blocks of flats. So, middle and low income families have been driven out to wherever they can afford, to be replaced by rich middle-aged. Elsewhere in the district large estates of expensive homes have been erected, presumably with the same results. Some driven out have been paid sums needing a mortgage in order to move. Developers don't expect to pay notable sums for "land" (including others' homes).

Mainly, only available land for building is Green Belt or "flood risk", not suitable.

CFS027, CFS029, CFS053, CFS098, CFS086

My comments refer to all five of the above proposed/promoted sites. My first comment should cover it all -

1. FLOOD!
In August 2013, that whole area (our home included) was flooded. This was not the first time this area had suffered flooding. I note from your grading criteria that 'critical drainage risk' is assessed as a 2. The flooding in this area is always from surface water, and is an ongoing and constant threat.

After the flood of 2013 we attended council meetings to discuss the issue. A very interesting comment was made, that houses should never have been built in Blower Close in the first place. We are at the bottom of a 'bowl', where all surface water, and water flooding from streams where the culvert has been allowed to become overgrown and blocked has contributed to the flooding issue.

My husband is in constant communication with Cllr Dave Sperring, who in turn has to badger the EA to once again clean the ditches/culvert. Cllr Sperring also visited our close after our flood and witnessed first hand the devastating effect it had.

2. LACK OF INFRASTRUCTURE
The access to these proposed sites is currently unmade tracks and single track minor roads. If these roads were to be upgraded to roads able to service new houses, it would quickly become a rat run to cut out having to travel through Rayleigh Town Centre, which is a nightmare at the best of times. The surrounding roads all suffer from double parking, making it impossible with the added traffic, and a danger for the emergency services. There only has to be a problem on the A127, the Weir, A130, and the whole of Rayleigh becomes gridlocked.

Our local schools are full and our doctors are completely overrun. Having to wait two weeks for a telephone appointment currently will only become longer and unacceptable. There is also no good links to bus services.

3. GREEN BELT AND OPEN SPACES
All of these proposed sites are either backing onto or in very close proximity to green belt (green belt harm - assessed as 1). Since lockdown, open spaces have become so important to people for exercise, health and mental health.

We are fortunate to have the Upper Roach Valley bordering where we live, providing a buffer between Rayleigh and Hockley. It is the lung of this area. Protected trees and ancient woodland form part of the Roach Valley (assessed as a 2).

In summary, the distance to strategic road network is poor (2), access to bus services is very poor (1). The damage to green belt (1), agricultural land (1), protected trees (2) is unacceptable. The increased rise of flooding due to poor drainage in this area and a record of flooding due to surface water, in my opinion, makes the sites I have commented on unviable (critical drainage risk 2).

I have attached some newspaper reports to remind those involved in making these decisions, the effect flooding has.

[see attached document for cuttings. Annotation on first cutting as follows:]

Blower Close - Rayleigh, August 2013 - flooded from fields (where housing is proposed) in two directions. Floodig to the other side of our close has occurred at least 3 times from the field behind (where houses are planned). A flood protection ditch was built behind 9-14 Blower Close. We have to keep a constant watch and review of the culvert in the nearby field which is often completely blocked - a major focus in our flooding too.