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?

Showing comments and forms 1 to 30 of 84

Support

New Local Plan: Spatial Options Document 2021

Representation ID: 37716

Received: 06/08/2021

Respondent: Peter Deakin

Representation Summary:

Totally agree for protecting the wildlife and countryside sites.
Probably need more identified and protected, and needs to be monitored to rubbish clear up to further protect wildlife and countryside.

Full text:

Totally agree for protecting the wildlife and countryside sites.
Probably need more identified and protected, and needs to be monitored to rubbish clear up to further protect wildlife and countryside.

Support

New Local Plan: Spatial Options Document 2021

Representation ID: 37769

Received: 08/08/2021

Respondent: Miss Alice Page

Representation Summary:

As someone who walks around Doggetts pond daily I see a multitude of wildlife such as deer, water voles, hares, cormorants, herons. I am unsure why you would not consider this worthy of protection. Loss of this habitat and yet another green space would be atrocious for both the wildlife and the residents

Full text:

As someone who walks around Doggetts pond daily I see a multitude of wildlife such as deer, water voles, hares, cormorants, herons. I am unsure why you would not consider this worthy of protection. Loss of this habitat and yet another green space would be atrocious for both the wildlife and the residents

Support

New Local Plan: Spatial Options Document 2021

Representation ID: 37812

Received: 09/08/2021

Respondent: Mrs Shirley Page

Representation Summary:

With the increase in house and business/industry building and road building, the need to identify and protect the diminishing wildlife areas is vital. Blounts Wood is also an area that should be protected - although small, it is an amazing bluebell wood and is home to much wildlife, including weasels. The land alongside the railway that leads to the wood, with some management, would also be an excellent wildlife area.

Full text:

With the increase in house and business/industry building and road building, the need to identify and protect the diminishing wildlife areas is vital. Blounts Wood is also an area that should be protected - although small, it is an amazing bluebell wood and is home to much wildlife, including weasels. The land alongside the railway that leads to the wood, with some management, would also be an excellent wildlife area.

Object

New Local Plan: Spatial Options Document 2021

Representation ID: 37856

Received: 11/08/2021

Respondent: Mr David Flack

Representation Summary:

Hockley woods does not seem to be included here. I would have thought that this ancient woodland and its important wildlife habitat should be included as it provides for a number of rare species including Lesser spotted woodpeckers and haw finches.

Full text:

Hockley woods does not seem to be included here. I would have thought that this ancient woodland and its important wildlife habitat should be included as it provides for a number of rare species including Lesser spotted woodpeckers and haw finches.

Support

New Local Plan: Spatial Options Document 2021

Representation ID: 38120

Received: 24/08/2021

Respondent: Craig Cannell

Representation Summary:

Whilst no expert, I'm sure an argument can be made for all 8 sites to be designated and that's before significant consideration is given to the fact the an assessment has been made that recommends them be such.

Faced with real prospects of losing some green belt land to housing and employment developments we should look to protect our wildlife sites.

Full text:

Whilst no expert, I'm sure an argument can be made for all 8 sites to be designated and that's before significant consideration is given to the fact the an assessment has been made that recommends them be such.

Faced with real prospects of losing some green belt land to housing and employment developments we should look to protect our wildlife sites.

Support

New Local Plan: Spatial Options Document 2021

Representation ID: 38185

Received: 25/08/2021

Respondent: Miss Jessica Clarke

Representation Summary:

Yes, ultimately we need wildlife and plants to keep our planet moving. If not we will not need any new development.

I think the whole of the sea wall should be taken into consideration as it has a range of animals including rare red kite birds and sparrow hawks.

Full text:

Yes, ultimately we need wildlife and plants to keep our planet moving. If not we will not need any new development.

I think the whole of the sea wall should be taken into consideration as it has a range of animals including rare red kite birds and sparrow hawks.

Support

New Local Plan: Spatial Options Document 2021

Representation ID: 38444

Received: 03/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Tracy Wilkinson

Representation Summary:

I strongly believe in the protection of wildlife sites, but do not feel it goes far enough, for example some areas are being considered for future development in this plan,[land along Disraeli Rd and land behind Hillside rd and adjacent to Eastwood Rise] these areas at present are green belt and act as protection to both woodland and ancient woodland. There is already massive over development in the area with very poor access. These areas as said act as a buffer and preserve the wildlife that has developed in this area. Moreover for walkers etc gives a lovely rural scene.

Full text:

I strongly believe in the protection of wildlife sites, but do not feel it goes far enough, for example some areas are being considered for future development in this plan,[land along Disraeli Rd and land behind Hillside rd and adjacent to Eastwood Rise] these areas at present are green belt and act as protection to both woodland and ancient woodland. There is already massive over development in the area with very poor access. These areas as said act as a buffer and preserve the wildlife that has developed in this area. Moreover for walkers etc gives a lovely rural scene.

Support

New Local Plan: Spatial Options Document 2021

Representation ID: 38497

Received: 04/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Marilyn Hopper

Representation Summary:

All green belt land

Full text:

All green belt land

Comment

New Local Plan: Spatial Options Document 2021

Representation ID: 38595

Received: 07/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Wendy Davies

Representation Summary:

The local areas of land where there are parks and green spaces are extremely important for biodiversity, the protection of species and wildlife. They are also vital for the exercise, physical and mental health of residents. The site behind and surrounding Clements Hall playing fields and the adjoining farmland provides a wide area for exercise, human, canine and equine. It’s also gives a green corridor for wildlife,

Full text:

The local areas of land where there are parks and green spaces are extremely important for biodiversity, the protection of species and wildlife. They are also vital for the exercise, physical and mental health of residents. The site behind and surrounding Clements Hall playing fields and the adjoining farmland provides a wide area for exercise, human, canine and equine. It’s also gives a green corridor for wildlife,

Comment

New Local Plan: Spatial Options Document 2021

Representation ID: 38617

Received: 07/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Kelvin White

Representation Summary:

The plan does not go far enough in recognising that the area needs to at the very least sustain its current green spaces. The proposed developments on green belt land and Belchamps are not acceptable. Significant wildlife will be lost and there is no proposal or details on what will happen to the lost habitat or wildlife.

Full text:

The plan does not go far enough in recognising that the area needs to at the very least sustain its current green spaces. The proposed developments on green belt land and Belchamps are not acceptable. Significant wildlife will be lost and there is no proposal or details on what will happen to the lost habitat or wildlife.

Comment

New Local Plan: Spatial Options Document 2021

Representation ID: 38712

Received: 11/09/2021

Respondent: John Gamage

Representation Summary:

The land in Rayleigh, adjoining Poyntens and to the rear of part of Spring Gardens and High Mead, is unspoilt green belt land which is not used for agriculture and consequently supports wildlife in the form of badger setts, foxes, nesting birds, and butterflies etc.
This area has numerous trees and hedgerows, bordering part of Great Wheatley Farm, and should become a Local Wildlife Site, which would also serve to protect from development, the neighbouring farmland, and Grade 2 listed buildings at Great Wheatley farm, which are under threat from a comprehensive housing development proposal.

Full text:

The land in Rayleigh, adjoining Poyntens and to the rear of part of Spring Gardens and High Mead, is unspoilt green belt land which is not used for agriculture and consequently supports wildlife in the form of badger setts, foxes, nesting birds, and butterflies etc.
This area has numerous trees and hedgerows, bordering part of Great Wheatley Farm, and should become a Local Wildlife Site, which would also serve to protect from development, the neighbouring farmland, and Grade 2 listed buildings at Great Wheatley farm, which are under threat from a comprehensive housing development proposal.

Support

New Local Plan: Spatial Options Document 2021

Representation ID: 38781

Received: 13/09/2021

Respondent: Stuart Watson

Representation Summary:

The council should be more ambitious and try and protect more green belt land through this process/mechanism.

Full text:

The council should be more ambitious and try and protect more green belt land through this process/mechanism.

Support

New Local Plan: Spatial Options Document 2021

Representation ID: 38808

Received: 14/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Jeff Higgs

Representation Summary:

Yes, protect areas of local land having regard to the Local Wildlife
Loss of productive Green belt land that supports local agriculture and wildlife habitat.
All green belt areas should be protected, specifically to my knowledge Rayleigh Plot CFS077 is fully utilised every year to grow a variety of local crops. Plot CFS077 provides a buffer from human development that benefits a wide range of wildlife:
• Deer, Badgers, Foxes and squirrels are supported.
• Wide range of birdlife including Heron, Geese and variety of Carrion.
• Amphibians, Newts, Toads and frogs.

Full text:

Yes, protect areas of local land having regard to the Local Wildlife
Loss of productive Green belt land that supports local agriculture and wildlife habitat.
All green belt areas should be protected, specifically to my knowledge Rayleigh Plot CFS077 is fully utilised every year to grow a variety of local crops. Plot CFS077 provides a buffer from human development that benefits a wide range of wildlife:
• Deer, Badgers, Foxes and squirrels are supported.
• Wide range of birdlife including Heron, Geese and variety of Carrion.
• Amphibians, Newts, Toads and frogs.

Support

New Local Plan: Spatial Options Document 2021

Representation ID: 38896

Received: 15/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs kathryn Gilbert

Representation Summary:

I agree but should include other areas including Rayleigh Mount

Full text:

I agree but should include other areas including Rayleigh Mount

Comment

New Local Plan: Spatial Options Document 2021

Representation ID: 38999

Received: 17/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Mark Naylor

Representation Summary:

Yes, however there also needs to be more protection from proposed development near wildlife sites. The TW development in Great Wakering that runs adjacent to a lake on Starlane Pits Wildlife Site has had a detrimental impact to the biodiversity on the Wildlife Site. In particular, the drainage works have resulted in the lake being drained of a significant amount of water. Site sediment has also been discharged into the lake. The low water levels and run-off have resulted in significant algae blooms and killed many fish that are over 40 years. Promoted site CFS057 is particularly concerning.

Full text:

Yes, however there also needs to be more protection from proposed development and planning permissions near wildlife sites. For example, the Water’s Edge development by Taylor Wimpey in Great Wakering that runs adjacent to a lake on the North boundary of Starlane Pits Wildlife Site has had a detrimental impact to the biodiversity on the Wildlife Site. In particular, the drainage works have resulted in the lake being drained of a significant amount of water. Site sediment has also been discharged into the lake. The low water levels and run-off have resulted in significant algae blooms and consequently a significant volume of fish have died. A number of these fish have enjoyed a healthy life in the lakes for over 40 years.
Promoted Site CFS057 Land east of Star Lane and north of Poynters Lane, Great Wakering - is of particular concern, any development on this site could be significantly detrimental to the Starlane Pits Wildlife Site. We should be protecting and supporting Wildlife sites, not approving planning permissions that put them at risk.

Comment

New Local Plan: Spatial Options Document 2021

Representation ID: 39035

Received: 19/09/2021

Respondent: Mark Ellis

Representation Summary:

I support this. The land behind the Royal Oak in Stambridge is used by migrating geese every year.

Full text:

I support this. The land behind the Royal Oak in Stambridge is used by migrating geese every year.

Support

New Local Plan: Spatial Options Document 2021

Representation ID: 39050

Received: 19/09/2021

Respondent: Sarah Ellis

Representation Summary:

It's important that the wildlife in rural areas is protected, by not building close to its habitats and causing unnecessary disruption. Wildlife corridors need to remain so that wildlife can move around freely and safely.

Amongst other wildlife, I regularly observe hares, birds of prey and dragonflies in my walks around Great Stambridge

Full text:

It's important that the wildlife in rural areas is protected, by not building close to its habitats and causing unnecessary disruption. Wildlife corridors need to remain so that wildlife can move around freely and safely.

Amongst other wildlife, I regularly observe hares, birds of prey and dragonflies in my walks around Great Stambridge

Support

New Local Plan: Spatial Options Document 2021

Representation ID: 39089

Received: 19/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Gill Hind

Representation Summary:

Counting areas that are prone to flooding as wildlife provision (just because you can’t build on them) is idiotic. Any area that has a flood risk should not allocated to anything (housing, wildlife, industrial, shopping etc etc) at all. The area that is up for spacial options should ONLY be areas that are not at risk of flooding. Now you will see how little you have to play with in this plan!

If/when that area floods where will the wildlife go? You need to provide sufficient wildlife areas in places that are not prone to flooding.

Full text:

Yes I agree locally important wildlife is important. I don’t think, however, this should be just limited to the areas that are flood risk only (which seems to be the case here). All the areas that flood are the ones you have allocated as important to wildlife. If the area floods then we have no wildlife space. You need to take the flooding areas out of the equation - you can’t build on them but they shouldn’t count towards anything else because they flood. In which case your provision for wildlife is basically not sufficient. There are important areas within towns that need to be protected for wildlife purposes. The area around the Motte and Bailey castle and Mill in Rayleigh, the wildlife field behind the houses in Crown Hill (south side), Hockley Woods, Wheatley woods alongside the A127. Wildlife live in these areas and they need to be protected.

Support

New Local Plan: Spatial Options Document 2021

Representation ID: 39096

Received: 19/09/2021

Respondent: N/A

Representation Summary:

The protection of these important sites can only take place if adjoining communities are not harmed. As a Stambridge resident I see the breadth of wildlife the region supports in nearby farming areas, allotments and paths. I've seen weasels at the bridge at the front south of the town, barn owls and bats at the front of my house as well as wildfowl from the Hampton Barn Lake and Crouch River area on the farming fields around the village.

Full text:

The protection of these important sites can only take place if adjoining communities are not harmed. As a Stambridge resident I see the breadth of wildlife the region supports in nearby farming areas, allotments and paths. I've seen weasels at the bridge at the front south of the town, barn owls and bats at the front of my house as well as wildfowl from the Hampton Barn Lake and Crouch River area on the farming fields around the village.

Support

New Local Plan: Spatial Options Document 2021

Representation ID: 39185

Received: 20/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Mike Webb

Representation Summary:

Yes this is very important, it should also include Magnolia Park

Full text:

Yes this is very important, it should also include Magnolia Park

Comment

New Local Plan: Spatial Options Document 2021

Representation ID: 39263

Received: 21/09/2021

Respondent: Woodland Trust

Representation Summary:

Give strong protection to ancient woodland and ancient/veteran trees in line with para 175c of the NPPF

Full text:

We agree that important habitats should be protected. We are happy with having a hierachy of levels of protection, so long as irreplaceable habitats such as ancient woodland and ancient/veteran trees are given the highest level of protection. The protection should be no less strong than that provided by paragraph 175c of the NPPF, which states that any development affecting these habitats should be "wholly exceptional". We would also like to see appropriate levels of buffering (which should be at least 50 metres) provided for development adjacent to ancient woodland, as set out in our Planners' Manual on ancient woodland and ancient trees. https://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/publications/2019/06/planners-manual-for-ancient-woodland/

We have looked at the site allocations within the plan and we have identified that a number of the allocations have adverse impacts on ancient woodland. We have listed these in an email to your consultation email address and we hope you will consider removing these allocations from the plan.

Comment

New Local Plan: Spatial Options Document 2021

Representation ID: 39291

Received: 21/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Carol Everitt

Representation Summary:

As much greenbelt as possible should be saved with other options before it is considered for housing. The animals and plants dont just live in protected wildlife sites we decide are more important.

Full text:

As much greenbelt as possible should be saved with other options before it is considered for housing. The animals and plants dont just live in protected wildlife sites we decide are more important.

Comment

New Local Plan: Spatial Options Document 2021

Representation ID: 39301

Received: 21/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Neil Hare

Representation Summary:

The open spaces around Stambridge are filled with wildlife, that should be protected. The fields that surround the treatment works are home to badgers, deer, buzzards , barn owls,hares,pheasants. To name but a few. Building any housing or infrastructure in these areas would destroy the local wildlife's habitat.

Full text:

The open spaces around Stambridge are filled with wildlife, that should be protected. The fields that surround the treatment works are home to badgers, deer, buzzards , barn owls,hares,pheasants. To name but a few. Building any housing or infrastructure in these areas would destroy the local wildlife's habitat.

Comment

New Local Plan: Spatial Options Document 2021

Representation ID: 39324

Received: 21/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Soo Coleman

Representation Summary:

Wildlife is on the decline, over development is a threat to animals, insects, plants and trees. Once gone, they will not return.

Full text:

Wildlife is on the decline, over development is a threat to animals, insects, plants and trees. Once gone, they will not return.

Support

New Local Plan: Spatial Options Document 2021

Representation ID: 39381

Received: 21/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Peter Johnson

Representation Summary:

The Turret House Open Space in Rayleigh includes an informal playing field area, but also an area of small hay meadows surrounded by old hedgerow and woodland strips. I believe this site, though small, deserves to be a Local Wildlife Site. The flower rich meadows attract a lot of insects, and various warblers nest in the hedgerows in the summer. Local badgers forage there.

Full text:

The Turret House Open Space in Rayleigh includes an informal playing field area, but also an area of small hay meadows surrounded by old hedgerow and woodland strips. I believe this site, though small, deserves to be a Local Wildlife Site. The flower rich meadows attract a lot of insects, and various warblers nest in the hedgerows in the summer. Local badgers forage there.

Support

New Local Plan: Spatial Options Document 2021

Representation ID: 39382

Received: 21/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Peter Johnson

Representation Summary:

The Turret House Open Space in Rayleigh includes an informal playing field area, but also an area of small hay meadows surrounded by old hedgerows and woodland strips. The flower rich meadows attract a lot of insects and various warblers nest in the hedgerows in summer. Local badgers forage there. I believe this area should be considerd as a possible Local Wildlife Site.

Full text:

The Turret House Open Space in Rayleigh includes an informal playing field area, but also an area of small hay meadows surrounded by old hedgerows and woodland strips. The flower rich meadows attract a lot of insects and various warblers nest in the hedgerows in summer. Local badgers forage there. I believe this area should be considerd as a possible Local Wildlife Site.

Comment

New Local Plan: Spatial Options Document 2021

Representation ID: 39391

Received: 21/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Elizabeth Archer

Representation Summary:

Yes of course. There is so much rare wildlife in Stambridge. There is the reservoir owned by the waterboard. Additional building near this area would increase the population visiting this area and causing potential damage.

Full text:

Yes of course. There is so much rare wildlife in Stambridge. There is the reservoir owned by the waterboard. Additional building near this area would increase the population visiting this area and causing potential damage.

Comment

New Local Plan: Spatial Options Document 2021

Representation ID: 39652

Received: 22/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Jon Stow

Representation Summary:

Betts Wood is an ancient hornbeam wood. I am concerned also for the wildlife living it in it including some very fine ants nests. The field beween Betts Wood and Folly Chase should not be developed but left for agriculture and a pleasant wald close to the existing built up area. Betts Farm estate etc.

Full text:

Betts Wood is an ancient hornbeam wood. I am concerned also for the wildlife living it in it including some very fine ants nests. The field beween Betts Wood and Folly Chase should not be developed but left for agriculture and a pleasant wald close to the existing built up area. Betts Farm estate etc.

Support

New Local Plan: Spatial Options Document 2021

Representation ID: 39663

Received: 22/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Jon Stow

Representation Summary:

Yes, protection of the rural aspects of Rochford District should be paramount.

Full text:

Yes, protection of the rural aspects of Rochford District should be paramount.

Support

New Local Plan: Spatial Options Document 2021

Representation ID: 39739

Received: 22/09/2021

Respondent: Cllr Michael Hoy

Representation Summary:

Yes. You should conform to and improve existing policies for protecting wildlife areas. Everyone should be doing all in their power to protect wildlife sites. All wildlife is important and has been neglected, sites have been slowly lost over the years. Wildlife now enters suburban areas as their own habitats have diminished and they can no longer fend for themselves adequately from nature. Badgers and hedgehogs as well as rabbits, frogs, newts, voles and shrews are declining and are seldom seen apart from dead at the roadside. Bat numbers are declining as their habitats are lost. Designating initial sites is a step in the right direction but more must be done. It is proven that mental health issues can be relieved by nature and keeping the sites sacred is more important now than it ever was.
Keeping a biodiverse environment, with wildlife and the environment in which it relies is paramount. You mention that Doggett Pond no longer meets the standard but are there no steps to improve its status instead of dismissing it? It is obviously an important site for the wildlife in that area. To lose it would be to our detriment. You should be looking at creating new sites with every large housing development, and protecting them to improve our district and our own wellbeing. Private households should not be allowed to take over grass areas and verges or worse, concreting the verges over for parking and cost savings.
These areas, although small are still areas for wildlife. Bees and butterflies are also in decline, as are the bugs which feed our birds. The plan should create new wildlife meadows to encourage the pollinators in order to future proof our own existence. You should be exploring smaller sites that could be enhanced, managed and protected to give future generations a legacy to be proud of.

Full text:

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