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?

Preferably, net gains should be delivered on-site for the benefit of those in the local are, but must be provided off-site if this is not possible. Ignoring net gains is not an option.

I'm confused by the notion that this is an 'either/or' situation.

Each development we have its own challenges and some smaller sites, that are additions to existing urban areas, may be suitable for contributions to improvements to existing shared open spaces however my opinion is the best way to deliver net gains for biodiversity are be keeping them at the forefront of each development through on-site delivery.

We should not be removing natural animal habitats and replacing it for bat bricks on site.

Ridiculous and unorthodox

onsite. what is the point of displacement of natural habitat/wildlife? Areas should try to sustain part of the habit that they are destroying.

On-site

Stop building houses on green belt land - that would be a lot of gains.

I agree Rayleigh Mount

Best delivered off-site. Support should be provided to enhance existing wildlife sites, lands of local geological interest and parks. This will avoid developers treating biodiversity as a tick box exercise and empower and support owners and patrons of existing sites. This will also give more control of biodiversity net gains to the Council and local communities.

Any consideration for development on the western area of promoted site CFS057, which lays south of the Star Lane Pits wildlife site should consider the net gains of Star Lane Pits wildlife site. Especially taking into consideration the detrimental impact that the Water’s Edge development to the north of the wildlife site has had. In particular, the inadequate drainage strategy has resulted in the lake being drained of a significant amount of water and site sediment has been discharged into the lake. This has resulted in significant algae blooms and killed many fish that are over 40 years

Of course net gains for biodiversity should be provided at the site which causes the detriment. An area that is a heavy contributor to poor air quality/challenge to the environment is an area that NEEDS more biodiversity provision. It is no good putting it somewhere else that doesn’t have an issue.

Biodiverity is best supported by maintaining farming and rural lands alongside hedgerows ditches and streams.

We would like to see the plan ask for 20% biodiversity net gain, rather than the 10% likely to be required when the Environment Bill becomes law. At a time of biodiversity and climate emergency, we believe ambition is needed to ensure that significant gains in biodiversity are delivered as part of new development. We also believe that trees and woods have a crucial role to play in tackling both emergencies and delivering a wide range of benefits in addition to biodiversity enhancement. Ideally we would like to see biodiversity net gain delivered on site or, if this is genuinely not possible, then as near as possible to the development site.

New developments should be required to create green corridors for wildlife to maintain or improve connectivity in expanding urban landscapes, in line with Strategic Objective 9, and the NPPF requirement to secure a measurable net gain in biodiversity. Without such corridors, new or existing green open spaces would be isolated, reducing their value for wildlife and people.

I think its a combination of both. Off site can provide larger spaces that can support a wider range of diverse wildlife and also be enjoyed by the community. On site needs to be included in all new developments and be more comprehensive than just a few 'bat boxes'.
Minimum sized gardens, encourage (insist) owners maintain a wild section, stop cutting verges and turn to wild flower verges, have small community patches within the development that are wildflower and/or pond based. Include a minimum number of trees in each development, don't allow tall solid fences but have traditional hedges instead to enable the movement of wildlife through developments to create wildlife corridors linking to the bigger open spaces.
This will require education of the general public/new homeowners and some enforcement to ensure they don't make wholesale changes.

Guidance confirms that net gains should normally be delivered on site. However, where achieving biodiversity net gain is not possible on site whilst still delivering a viable project; developers have the option to contribute at a local or regional scale to off-site Offsetting or Compensation. This approach can often successfully result in greater gains for biodiversity than could be provided within a constrained development site. It supports delivery of Local Nature Recovery Strategies and is consistent with the central conclusion of the 2010 report ‘Making space for nature’, that we need more, bigger, better and joined up habitats.

Referring back to the Spatial Strategy Options, the medium and higher levels of growth options are much more likely to be able to deliver the biodiversity and green infrastructure improvements and contributions required, than on existing brownfield sites, as confirmed within the Integrated Impact Assessment:

“The medium and higher growth options are also noted for their potential to support the delivery of strategic green infrastructure provisions and associated biodiversity net gain. This includes improvements being explored in the green infrastructure network across the sub-region through the South Essex Green and Blue Infrastructure Study (2020), such as the Regional Parkland. The Regional Parkland has the potential to act as alternative greenspace targeted at reducing recreational pressures at designated biodiversity sites. These options thus provide a greater contribution to the principles of the Essex Coast Recreational disturbance Avoidance & Mitigation Strategy (RAMS).

The lower level of growth will mainly result in the delivery of new homes on urban and brownfield sites so has greater potential to avoid designated sites and support urban greening to some extent. The urban focus however is less likely to bring forward strategic mitigation, such as the Regional Parkland to mitigate the recreational pressures on designated biodiversity resulting from a growing population. As a result, the medium and higher growth options are considered more likely to perform better overall in relation to this IIA theme; however, the potential for a significant effect is uncertain as will be dependent on the location of growth.”

It continues:

“…the potential for larger-scale development under Options 2a and 2b is recognised for the potential for greater net gains in biodiversity.”

A mixed approach for increasing net biodiversity onsite and offsite is best and most practical. The development proposed at CFS100 is capable of achieving a 10% biodiversity net gain, so should be considered as a preferred option.

A mixed approach for increasing net biodiversity onsite and offsite is best and most practical. The development proposed at CFS 015 is capable of achieving a 10% biodiversity net gain, so should be considered as a preferred option.

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.

Dear Sir / Madam,

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

Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter.

Kind Regards,
Jane

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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

Q5. Do you agree with the settlement hierarchy presented?


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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Spatial Themes

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

Housing for All

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


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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

Employment and Jobs

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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


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

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

Biodiversity

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


YES

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

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

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


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

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

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

Green and Blue Infrastructure

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


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

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


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


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

Community Infrastructure

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

Heritage

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


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

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


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


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

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


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

Town Centres and Retail

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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


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

Transport and Connectivity

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


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

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


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

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

Green Belt and Rural Issues

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


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

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

Planning for Complete Communities

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


N/A


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


N/A


Q56d. Are there areas that require protecting from development?


N/A


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


N/A

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



N/A

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


N/A


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


N/A


Q57d. Are there areas that require protecting from development?


N/A



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

N/A

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

N/A

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

N/A

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


N/A

Q58d. Are there areas that require protecting from development?


N/A



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


N/A


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

N/A

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


N/A




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


N/A





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


N/A


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


N/A


Q60a. Do you agree with our vision for Hullbridge?


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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


N/A


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


N/A


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


N/A


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

N/A

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

N/A



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


N/A


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


N/A


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

N/A



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

N/A



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


N/A





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


N/A


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


N/A


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


N/A


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


N/A


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


N/A


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


N/A


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


N/A

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


N/A


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


N/A


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


N/A


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


N/A


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


N/A


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


N/A






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


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

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


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

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


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

Create a Country Park to the west of Hullbridge.

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

1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 These representations have been prepared by Pegasus Group on behalf of Penland Estates Limited in respect of their land interests in Rochford District Council (RDC).
1.2 These representations are submitted in response to the current Rochford Local Plan Regulation 18 ‘Spatial Options' consultation, which sets out the different growth
strategy options that could be pursued by the Council in the emerging Local Plan. The evidence base accompanying the Spatial Options document includes a Site Appraisal Paper which identifies the suitability of potential sites for allocation, including Penland Estate Limited's interests at:
• Site Reference CFS190: Land South of Pooles Lane, Hullbridge
1.3 The purpose of these representations is primarily to respond to the questions raised by the consultation to ensure there is a sound basis for emerging policies, as well as to support the most sustainable growth options of those set out in the consultation. These representations also confirm the deliverability of the above site and the exceptional circumstances in support of a minor revision to the Green Belt alongside the provision of a site-specific policy that allocates Land South of Pooles Lane, Hullbridge, for residential development in the emerging Local Plan. The representations are supported by high-level technical assessments and an indicative Framework Plan.
1.4 These representations should be read in conjunction with the enclosed high-level technical assessments and an Illustrative Framework Plan, which explain further
the opportunities available to create a high-quality and sustainable residential development with the ability to contribute positively towards the District’s significant housing needs.

2. SPATIAL OPTIONS DOCUMENT
2.1 This section responds to questions posed by the Spatial Options consultation that are relevant to Penland Estate Limited's interests in Rochford.
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?
2.2 The technical evidence that has been prepared and is yet to be prepared by the Council is supported as being required to inform the production of a sound Local
Plan in accordance with the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF 2021).
Q2. Do you agree with our draft vision for Rochford District?
2.3 Penland Estates Limited considers that the Draft Vision for Rochford District Council provides a sound basis for preparing a spatial strategy. Land to South of Pooles Lane, Hullbridge, will deliver upon the draft vision of Rochford District by providing a high-quality, well-designed development in a sustainable location with good
access to services and facilities which will foster vibrant and healthy communities.
Q3. Do you agree that we should develop a range of separate visions for each of our settlements to help guide decision-making?
2.4 Penland Estates Limited broadly agree with the importance of adopting a range of separate visions for each of the District's settlements to help apply the district-wide vision and objectives at more localised settings. Nevertheless, there is likely to be considerable cross-over between the specific visions for individual settlement, and
as such, the benefits of this approach might not be fully realised.
2.5 Furthermore, this is likely to be quite a time-consuming exercise for the Council's Planning Policy Team to create separate visions for each of the District's
settlements. The Draft Local Development Scheme (2021-23) anticipates that the Local Plan could be submitted to the Secretary of State for independent
examination by Spring 2023, thus providing a short timescale to prepare and submit the emerging Local Plan. Therefore, it is considered that the resource of the
Planning Policy team is likely to be better deployed in other more pressing aspects of the emerging Local Plan process.
Q4. Do you agree with the strategic priorities and objectives we have identified? Is there anything missing from the strategic priorities or objectives that you feel needs to be included?
2.6 The Spatial Options document identifies five ‘Strategic Priorities.' Strategic Priorities one (meeting the need for homes and jobs in the area) and five (making suitable and sufficient provision for climate change mitigation and adaptation, conservation, and enhancement of the natural and historic environment, including landscape) are of particular interest to our client's site.
2.7 Our client is promoting Land South of Pooles Lane, Hullbridge, for the allocation of residential development through the emerging Rochford District Council Local Plan (RDCLP). It is estimated that the site is capable of delivering up to 226 new homes towards meeting the housing need target for the RDCLP. In addition to delivering much-needed market and affordable housing, the site will deliver upon the draft strategic priorities of the RDCLP as follows:
2.8 Meeting the need for homes (Strategic Priority 1 and 2) – Penland Estates Limited prides itself on working with developers that deliver well-designed, highquality, and sustainable homes for all to enjoy. Any scheme delivered on the site would provide a range of housing types and tenures to meet local needs and the needs of the wider District. This would include affordable housing provision which would be tenure blind in terms of design and well-integrated into the scheme to enhance social cohesion and generate community spirit. It is agreed that the
delivery of new homes sufficient to meet local housing need should be assigned great importance.
2.9 Climate change (Strategic Priority 5) – Any scheme would provide modern high-quality living with housing that meets the latest Building Regulation requirements in respect of energy and water consumption. In addition, the site is located in a highly sustainable settlement, within walking distance of a range of shops, services and pre and primary schools. The site’s location and proximity to
the local service provision in Hullbridge would assist in reducing travel by car and thus assist in reducing carbon emissions.
2.10 Natural environment (Strategic Priority 5) – Any scheme brought forward would aim to achieve a net gain in biodiversity through the retention, protection and enhancement of any on-site habitats, provision of extensive new public open space and high-quality landscaped areas. Existing vegetation at the site would be retained and enhanced through new planting to enhance the potential for habitat creation. In addition, drainage attenuation basins, required as part of the surface water drainage strategy, offer further potential to boost on-site biodiversity.
2.11 Furthermore, whilst the site is currently located in the Green Belt, the evidence provided in our representations and accompanying Green Belt Appraisal demonstrate that the site performs poorly against the five purposes of Green Belt as set out in the NPPF and is capable of coming forward for development without unduly damaging the integrity of the Green Belt. The evidence gathered by the Council clearly illustrates that the District's housing need cannot be sufficiently met
through urban and previously developed land only. Some release of Green Belt land in appropriate locations should be recognised as being necessary where 70% of the
District is designated as Green Belt. The release of Green Belt sites such as Land South of Pooles Lane, Hullbridge, will allow the continued sustainable growth of existing settlements, and would be consistent with the NPPF.
2.12 Historic environment (Strategic Priority 5) – The evidence provided in our representations, the accompanying Heritage Appraisal (see attached at Appendix A) and the Council's Initial Heritage Assessment of Submitted Sites (October 2020)
demonstrates that the site does not adversely impact any nearby heritage assets either directly or indirectly.
Q5. Do you agree with the settlement hierarchy presented? If not, what changes do you think are required?
2.13 The Options Spatial Paper includes a draft settlement hierarchy based on the 2021'Settlement Role and Hierarchy Study,' which uses various factors (including population size, availability and range of services and transport accessibility) to assess the relative sustainability of the District's multiple settlements.
2.14 The Adopted Core Strategy (2011) categorises Hullbridge (and Great Wakering) as a second-tier (out of four) settlement, where there is considered to be a more
limited range of services and access to public transport is judged to be relatively poor. The Spatial Options paper shifts Hullbridge into tier three (out of four) of its
draft settlement hierarchy. This appears to be due to the sub-division of Tier 1 of the Adopted Core Strategy into Tier 1 and 2 of the draft settlement hierarchy, with
Rayleigh remaining in Tier 1 and Rochford (including Ashingdon) and Hockley (including Hawkwell) shifting down into Tier 2 2.15 In addition to Hullbridge, the new proposed Tier 3 includes Great Wakering and
Canewdon. Penland Estates Limited, as outlined below, considers that Hullbridge is better related to the Tier 2 settlement of Hockley in terms of access to services,
population, geographical size, and transport accessibility, compared to the Tier 3 village Canewdon:
2.16 Population – according to the Parish Council website, Hullbridge's population is approximately 7,300, which is markedly greater than that of Canewdon (Tier 3) at circa 1,100. The other Tier 3 settlement of Great Wakering (including Little Wakering and Barling) has a similar population to Hullbridge at circa 7,200.
However, it is recognised that Hullbridge has a growing population, particularly through strategic allocations, such as the 500 unit Lower Road development in southwest Hullbridge (adopted Policy SER6 – South West Hullbridge). It is also anticipated that Hullbridge's population will continue to grow through strategic
allocations in the emerging Local Plan, given the sustainability of the settlement and its ability to support continued growth. This means that the population of
Hullbridge is anticipated to move closer to the suggested Tier 2 population threshold of 10,000.
2.17 Access to public transport – Hullbridge is serviced by the frequent no. 20 bus route operated by Frist Group (every 30 minutes between 7.00 to 21.00 Monday
to Saturday) to Southend via Rayleigh, where wider connectivity into London via the Greater Anglia train service is available. Great Wakering is similarly wellconnected as Hullbridge to public transport links; however, Canewdon is only serviced every two hours by the 60 bus route to Southend via Rochford. It is
recognised that neither Hullbridge nor Great Wakering includes rail links, as available in the Tier 2 settlements. Nevertheless, the frequent bus journeys to these rail station destinations from Hullbridge (and Great Wakering) provide accessible sustainable transport options for residents of these settlements.
2.18 Range of services and facilities – the village of Hullbridge has a good range of services and community facilities capable of meeting the everyday needs of
residents. These include three convenience stores, a dentist, GP surgery, library, pharmacy, a pre-school and primary school and public houses, fast food outlets
and restaurants. In comparison, Canewdon does not possess any such range of services facilities, with only a primary school, a convenience store, and a public
house. Great Wakering has a few more facilities, including a primary school, medical centre, and pharmacy and two public houses, albeit not to the extent found
in Hullbridge.
2.19 It is recognised that Hullbridge does not include a secondary school. Nevertheless, the no. 20 bus route provides a regular service (every 30 minutes) to the
settlements of Rayleigh and Hockley, which contain secondary schools as well as higher order retail services.
2.20 Access to jobs – several small-scale businesses are positioned around Hullbridge and at the various facilities and services mentioned above, which could
accommodate some local employment opportunities. It is considered that such employment opportunities would not be available at the Tier 3 settlement of Canewdon.
2.21 On the above basis, it is considered that the range of existing services and facilities available in Hullbridge mean that the village is better related to Tier 2 of the
settlement hierarchy than Tier 3. It is important that the Council has due consideration of the sustainability of Hullbridge when determining what level of growth is appropriate. The designation of Hullbridge as a Tier 3 settlement should not in itself be taken as a reason for allocating a certain level of growth. This is especially important as the Spatial Options document recognises that Hullbridge (and Great Wakering) are larger settlements than Canewdon; the scale of new
growth that would be appropriate for the settlements would therefore differ.
Q6. Which of the identified strategy options do you consider should be taken forward in the Plan?
2.22 Penland Estates Limited strongly agree with the identification of a housing requirement of 7,200 homes based on the standard method, which is in accordance
with paragraph 61 of the NPPF. The acknowledgement that this housing requirement forms the minimum housing needs for the District is also strongly agreed with; the Council must explore all opportunities available to accommodate additional growth above the minimum requirement and take on unmet need from neighbouring authorities that are constrained in the level of housing growth they are able to deliver.
2.23 The Spatial Options Document recognises that there is potential for Rochford District to accommodate unmet need from neighbouring authorities. The District's
neighbours are burdened with constraints to identifying sufficient land for housing, such as significant areas of Green Belt land which envelops existing urban areas
and areas of high flood risk. The authorities located within the same housing market area as Rochford have also struggled with maintaining sufficient levels of housing
delivery, further highlighting the importance of this matter. We therefore consider it to be highly likely that there will be unmet need arising from neighbouring authorities. In particular, early evidence issued for the Southend-on-Sea Local Plan preparation has indicated that Southend will require some of their housing requirement to be delivered in Rochford District (Issues and Options consultation,
April 2019). It is therefore vitally important that Rochford District pursues a growth strategy that includes a buffer in excess of the minimum housing required to meet local needs.
2.24 On the basis of the above, Growth Option 1 should be discounted as the strategy would not secure the level of housing required to meet the identified minimum
housing requirement. A sound Local Plan could not therefore be produced following this strategy.
2.25 Of the remaining options which would deliver sufficient housing growth, Penland Estates Limited is strongly supportive of Option 2 (Urban Extensions), particularly Option 2b 'Urban extensions dispersed to settlements based on hierarchy.'
2.26 Firstly, it is recognised that Rochford District Council have had a historic record of housing under-delivery, which in 2020 resulted in the Council having to publish a
Housing Delivery Test Action Plan as their 2019 Housing Delivery Test (HDT) was calculated at 77%. The 2020 Action Plan noted that the delayed delivery of several
strategic sites was a key factor. In particular, this was due to prolonged landowner and developer negotiations, delays at the planning application stage, and the time
taken to discharge pre-commencement conditions. The growth strategy for the Local Plan should therefore limit any over-reliance on large-scale strategic urban
extensions for delivering the required amount of housing.
2.27 Consequently, our client considers that the Council should identify available and deliverable small and medium-sized sites (10 and 1,500 homes) dispersed to
settlements based on hierarchy. This approach would be consistent with Paragraph 69 of the NPPF (2021), which states that "small and medium sized sites can make
an important contribution to meeting the housing requirement of an area, and are often built-out relatively quickly." The delivery of sites at this scale also helps to
ensure sustainable growth can take place across the District in a dispersed manner that allows all settlements to grow organically. 2.28 The NPPF allows for revisions to be made to the Green Belt boundary through the
Local Plan process where there are exceptional circumstances. As explained earlier, release of Green Belt land is required if the Local Plan is to deliver sufficient housing to meet the local housing needs for the District. This forms the exceptional circumstances required for the release of land from the Green Belt in appropriate locations. The delivery of small and medium-scale sites released from the Green Belt, such as Land South of Pooles Lane, will also play an important role in the Council meeting their five-year housing land supply as required by paragraph 68 of the NPPF.
2.29 Land South of Pooles Lane, Hullbridge, is available and deliverable within the Local
Plan period and should be considered further by the Council. Secondly, Option 2b will support existing services by directing further growth to villages like Hullbridge to support the vitality of local services. This approach is consistent with NPPF 79 of the NPPF (2021), which outlines that "planning policies should identify opportunities for villages to grow and thrive, especially where this will support local services."
Consequently, sites in sustainable locations with good access to a range of services and facilities (generally Tier 2 and 3 settlements) should be selected to ensure the
sustainable and effective growth of settlements across the District.
2.30 The Council's Settlement Role and Hierarchy Study assesses the relative sustainability of individual settlements by considering its 'completeness'. The
theory is that the more services a place has, and the easier to access those services are, the more complete that place is. The 'completeness' assessment is shown in
the form of a heatmap, and for Hullbridge, this is shown on Page 82 of the Spatial Options Paper. Land to the South of Pooles Lane adjoins the north-eastern
settlement boundary of Hullbridge, which benefits from a 'walking completeness score' of between 11 and 13, which is the highest score in Hullbridge and is in the
second-highest category overall.
2.31 This is because the north-eastern section of Hullbridge includes Hullbridge preschool and Riverside Primary School, Hullbridge Community Centre, and a bus stop providing a frequent bus service to Southend and Rayleigh (one bus every 30 minutes). These services and facilities are less than a five-minute walk from Land
to the South of Pooles Lane. Additional services and facilities, including convenience stores, a dentist, GP surgery, library, pharmacy, and other fast food outlets and
restaurants, are within a 10-minute walk from the site. By affording sustainable levels of growth to sites such as these, it will assist in safeguarding existing services, public transport links and infrastructure which local people currently rely upon and support vibrant rural communities.
2.32 For the reasons set out above, Penland Estates Limited strongly supports the pursuance of Growth Option 2b, with concentrated growth dispersed to settlements based on hierarchy. This includes allocating growth in high performing and sustainable Tier 3 settlements, such as 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?
2.33 Penland Estates Limited supports the Council's ambition of ensuring future growth takes place in a manner that is aligned with the national objective of transitioning towards a zero-carbon economy. Penland Estates Limited intends to work with developers that will create high-quality, energy-efficient buildings, which could
incorporate energy generation and conservation technologies, in line with the Council's strategy to reduce carbon emissions.
2.34 Notwithstanding this, there needs to be a balancing act in order to meet this target against the need to deliver a viable scheme. It is clear that further consideration is
required regarding the expected capital uplifts in the emerging Local Plan to ensure that energy efficiency is considered alongside viability. In doing so, the guidance
should consider the Government's figures in their Draft Future Homes Standard which will be in place by the time homes allocated by the new Local Plan are likely to be built. Any policy brought forward on this matter should therefore be supported by appropriate evidence that has investigated potential impacts on viability. The policy itself should include wording to reflect the importance of considering the overall viability of a scheme when determining the application of energy efficiency
initiatives over and above that required by Building Regulations
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?
2.35 The Council should be consistent with the Government's Draft Future Homes Standard that proposes to remove the ability of local planning authorities to set higher energy efficiency standards than those in the Building Regulations. This is because the Government considers the situation confusing, particularly as the application of energy efficiency standards across local authority boundary lines often means that homes need to be built to different technical specifications. This inconsistency creates inefficiencies in supply chains, labour and potentially the quality of outcomes.
2.36 Nevertheless, Future Homes Standard outlines that changes to the Building Regulations are expected to mean that between 75- 80% fewer carbon emissions
are released into the atmosphere from new development compared to ones built to the 2013 Part L requirement. Requiring new developments to achieve energy
standards higher than the proposed changes to the Building Regulations would need robust evidence identifying the need for such a requirement.
13. How do you feel the plan can help to support the local generation of lowcarbon and renewable energy? Are there locations where you feel energy generation should be supported?
2.37 The Council should promote the idea of the Local Plan supporting renewable energy developments by designating appropriate locations within the District for lowcarbon and renewable energy generation projects. The Council could consider a
'call for sites' process for potential low carbon and renewable sites submitted by landowners, site promoters or developers. The Council could then assess the suitability of submitted sites using relevant criteria.
Q15. Are the principles set out in the draft place-making charter the right ones? Are there other principles that should be included?
2.38 Penland Estates Limited broadly supports the principles contained in the draft place-making charter, which sets out a number of key principles for how new
development is expected to be delivered in a way that contributes positively to their setting and wider environment. In taking this charter forward however, it should be made clear what weight will apply to the principles contained in the charter at the development management stage, as well as how the charter will interface with development management policies.
2.39 Penland Estates Limited prides itself on working with developers that deliver welldesigned, high-quality and liveable schemes for all to enjoy. Place-making and
creating a sense of identity is at the heart of the scheme design shown on the enclosed Development Framework Plan (see attached at Appendix B), with a
consideration of the opportunities and constraints of the site (see plan attached at Appendix C). New dwellings would be modern but sensitively designed to complement the character of the local area, and public open space would be delivered to a high standard to stimulate on-site recreation and interaction between residents. The development would be a positive and environmentally friendly place to live, work and play.
Q16a. Do you consider that new design guides, codes or masterplans should be created alongside the new Local Plan?
2.40 The production of new design guides, codes or masterplans alongside the new Local Plan could provide applicants with clarity about design expectations at an early stage. However, there are two important considerations to take into account.
Firstly, site-specific design guidance is likely to be useful only in cases where the development proposed is at a strategic scale or there are unique constraints which
design guidance would help to overcome. For the majority of small and mediumscale development, development management policies relevant to urban design and placemaking are sufficient in securing a high-quality design.
2.41 Additionally, the production of design guidance requires time and staffing resources. The Council should consider the level of detail required in a design code
and the possible impacts of delays due to detailed discussions and negotiations between applicants regarding a scheme's compliance with a design code. Given the Council's historic under-delivery of strategic housing sites, which has in part been attributed to delays at the planning application stage, it is considered that with the preparation of design guides and masterplans is likely to slow housing delivery rates further if required for all sites.
2.42 The suggestion that design guidance is produced alongside the Local Plan preparation would also potentially delay the Local Plan process; which would mean further delaying the delivery of much-needed homes, given the delays experienced in the Local Plan process thus far. It would also require developers to invest in upfront work with no certainty that their particular site would be allocated in due course.
2.43 As such, Penland Estates Limited considers the preparation of design codes, guides or masterplans should be limited to large-scale strategic sites or sites with particularly complex delivery strategies only. All other developments can be brought forward appropriately without specific design guidance, as development
management policies related to design will ensure the correct design principles are followed.
4 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?
2.45 Penland Estates Limited recognises the importance of providing a mix of homes to meet the identified local housing needs. Option 2 is supported as providing a logical and flexible approach to ensuring that each new development provides a mix of housing that is appropriate to its location, taking into account all relevant sitespecific factors. This would ensure schemes can provide a range of housing types and tenures to meet local needs and the needs of the wider District. This would include an element of affordable housing provision which would be tenure blind in terms of design and be well integrated into the scheme to enhance social cohesion and generate community spirit.
Q31. Do you consider net gains for biodiversity are best delivered on-site or offsite? Are there specific locations or projects where net gain projects could be delivered?
2.46 National guidance outlines that biodiversity net gain can be achieved on-site, offsite or through a combination of on-site and off-site measures. Schemes should come forward with the aim of achieving a net gain in biodiversity through the retention, protection and enhancement of any on-site habitats, provision of extensive new public open space and high-quality landscaped areas wherever
possible. However, the option of achieving net gain through off-site contributions or habitat creation should not be discounted, as there may be site constraints such
as viability which limit a site's ability to provide net gain on-site.
2.47 Existing vegetation at Land South of Pooles Lane site would be retained and enhanced through woodland belt planting to enhance the potential for habitat creation, as shown on the illustrative Development Framework Plan (Appendix B). In addition, surface water detention basins, required as part of the surface water drainage strategy, offer further potential to boost on-site biodiversity. All opportunities will therefore be taken to enhance the biodiversity of the 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?
2.48 National policy outlines that strategic plans should take a strategic approach to green and blue infrastructure to help promote active and healthy lifestyles, combat climate change and alleviate air quality issues. Well-designed green infrastructure can provide a sustainable alternative to car use through a connected network of
public rights of way and greenways. Proposed option 3 is supported, as the delivery of new and enhanced green infrastructure on new development sites will assist in
creating an improved network of green infrastructure throughout the District.
2.49 In reference to Option 2b ('Urban extensions dispersed to settlements based on hierarchy'), the Council should select sites that are in close proximity to the existing and proposed green and blue infrastructure networks to ensure that future residents have a sustainable alternative to car use. Land to the South of Pooles Lane is located within the Option 2b strategic area, and there is an existing 'secondary greenway' (ref PROW 287_6) approximately 300m to the east of the
site, running in a north-south direction as indicated on Figure 32 of the Spatial Options Document. To the north, this greenway connects to a network of existing and proposed coast paths along the River Crouch, which is less than a 5-minute walk from the site. To the south, this 'secondary greenway' connects to a network of primary greenways circulating Hockley.
2.50 The Land South of Pooles Lane, Hullbridge, promoted by our client Penland Estates Limited, is well placed to encourage a shift away from the private car. As shown by the submitted Framework Plan, any development at the Pooles Lane site will integrate into the existing highway network by providing vehicular, pedestrian and cycle access points. The Council's Site Appraisal (2021) recognises the accessibility of the site to existing walking and cycling infrastructure, as Land South of Pooles Lane (ref CFS03) is scored at level 5 (highest category), as the site is within 400m of an existing cycle or footway.
2.51 In contrast however, the Site Appraisal (2021) scores the site at level 2 for accessibility to public rights of way (the second-lowest category), as there are
adjudged to be no PROWs with 400m. However, a PRoW (ref 287_12) does indeed run along part of the site's eastern boundary, as indicated on the submitted Framework Plan and connects to the 'secondary greenway' (ref PROW 287_6), further to the south. Future residents of the site will significantly benefit from the existing and proposed green and blue infrastructure, which is directly connectable from the site. This inaccuracy within the Council's site assessment should be rectified to correctly reflect the sites accessibility in all ways, including to the PRoW network.
Q36. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to deliver new or improved community infrastructure?
2.52 There is the potential for new development to contribute towards the upgrade and maintenance of existing facilities. Penland Estates Limited would welcome the opportunity to engage with the Council and local stakeholders in Hullbridge to understand local community needs.
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?
2.53 In reference to Strategy Option 2b ('Urban extensions dispersed to settlements based on hierarchy'), the Council should support sites that can help improve open space or sports facility accessibility or provision. This would be in line with proposed option 4 for meeting open space needs through the Local Plan, which proposes requiring new developments to provide on-site open space or contribute towards improving existing recreational facilities.
2.54 Land South of Pooles Lane is located in the Option 2b settlement of Hullbridge. As identified in the 2009 Rochford District Council Open Space Study, Hullbridge has deficits against the local minimum standards of natural and semi-natural greenspaces (-2.05ha), amenity green space (-0.11ha) and children's play space (-0.01ha). Incidentally, Hullbridge has the second-highest deficit in the District for the provision of natural and semi-natural greenspaces. The provision of sports facilities is 0.53ha above the local minimum standards. It is recognised that the Open Space Study informing the evidence base is slightly dated. Nevertheless, it is
expected that the settlement's deficits (or low provision levels) of semi-natural greenspace and amenity green space, and children's play space are likely to still
exist in the village.
2.55 Taking this information into account, Land South of Pooles Lane has the potential to provide around 3ha of open space throughout the site, serving a range of
different purposes. Open space will be landscaped with a variety of natural and semi-natural areas, such as new woodland belt planting and mixed grassland areas
to promote biodiversity. Circular walking routes are provided, integrated into the wider network of public rights of way in the area. A centrally located locally equipped area for play (LEAPS) can also be provided. The open space would be delivered to a high standard to stimulate on-site recreation and interaction between residents. The development would be a positive and environmentally friendly place to live, work and play.
2.56 Land South of Pooles Lane achieves the highest score for access to public open space in the Council's Site Appraisal (2021) paper, given that Hullbridge Playing
Field is located directly opposite the site. Hullbridge Playing Field contains various existing sports facilities, including a BMX track, skate park, basketball court, sports pitch, as well as play equipment. Furthermore, Hullbridge Yacht Club, located on the River Crouch, is less than a five-minute walk, providing future residents with a wider range of sports and leisure facilities. The Council should consider allocating sites, such as Land South of Pooles Lane, in the emerging Local Plan that are well placed to provide accessible open space and sports facilities, either on-site or within
close walking distances.
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?
2.57 Paragraph 104 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) identifies that transport issues should be considered from the earliest stages of plan-making,
which includes opportunities to promote walking, cycling and public transport. The importance of encouraging a shift towards more sustainable modes of transport is
recognised as this will assist in reducing climate change and congestion levels on roads.
2.58 The four options set out in the Spatial Option document are considered to be logical approaches to take in addressing transport and connectivity issues. The Rochford Local Plan should also promote sustainable forms of transport by allocating housing sites in sustainable locations in established settlements which possesses good quality public transport links, including; bus services, footways and cycleways. The preparation of an Infrastructure Delivery Plan or Cycling Delivery Plan would provide clear evidence of the infrastructure improvements that may be required to further support and achieve sustainable development.
2.59 The Land South of Pooles Lane, Hullbridge, is exceptionally well placed to encourage the shift away from the private car. As shown by the submitted
Framework Plan (Appendix B), any development at the Land South of Pooles Lane site will integrate into the existing highway and pedestrian infrastructure by
providing vehicular, pedestrian and cycle access points in appropriate locations. 2.60 By utilising the proposed access points, residents of the scheme will have
convenient and sustainable access (via walking or cycling) to education, a range of shops, and services capable of serving their day-to-day needs. The public transport links available to residents of a scheme at Land South of Pooles Lane are summarised in the schedule below. Access to these services could be further
improved through new development resulting in an increased level of users.
Public Transport Links
Bus stops outside Riverside School, Ferry Road:
No 20 bus service from Hullbridge to Southendon-Sea via Rayleigh:
Monday to Saturday- every 30 minutes
between 7.00 to 21.00, and hourly between
22.15 and 23.15
Sundays- every 30 minutes between 9.00 to
21.30
(0.3km – to bus stop, 3-10 minute walk)
Hockley train station,
Station Approach Hockley SS5 4BG
(6.2 km, 19 minute cycle, 10 minute car)
Rayleigh train station, 1 Castle Dr, Rayleigh, SS6 7HT
5.1 km
(18 minute cycle, 9 minute car,15 minute bus)
Q60a. Do you agree with our vision for Hullbridge?
2.61 Penland Estates Limited broadly support the draft vision of Hullbridge becoming self-sufficient and accessible by sustainable means and to make the most of its location by opening up its coastline as a more attractive and usable space for both residents and visitors. Any development should respond to meeting the housing needs of local residents, and it should be acknowledged that the aims of meeting housing needs and Hullbridge becoming self-sufficient are interlinked. The growth of service provision would be supported by new housing and new customers, which would encourage new businesses as well as support the vitality of existing
businesses.
2.62 The vision currently references the need to provide suitable housing for the elderly, which our client supports. However, the vision should be expanded to incorporate
the needs of young families and parishioners seeking local and affordable housing to ensure a diverse and sustainable settlement can be maintained.
2.63 Land South of Pooles Lane would seek to provide a range of housing types and tenures to meet local needs and the needs of the wider District. This would include
a provision of affordable housing which would be tenure blind in terms of design and be well integrated into the scheme to enhance social cohesion and generate
community spirit.
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?
Housing [market, affordable, specialist, traveller, other]
Commercial [offices, industrial, retail, other]
Community infrastructure [open space, education, healthcare, allotments, other]
Other
2.64 As mentioned in answer to question 6 above, Penland Estates Limited supports Growth Strategy Option 2b. This strategy would provide new development in
sustainable locations across the settlement hierarchy, of a scale that is suitable to the services provision in the relevant settlement. Land South of Pooles Lane (ref
CFS190), promoted by Penland Estates Limited to provide a medium-sized housing scheme, is exceptionally well placed in this regard. It would adjoin the north-western boundary of Hullbridge and lead to the natural extension of this sustainable settlement. The site is incredibly well related to existing services as illustrated on
the walking completeness score replicated below. Development of the site offers the potential to increase permeability within this part of the village, improving
access for existing residents located north of Pooles Lane. 2.65 This accessibility has been reflected in the Council's Site Appraisal Paper (2021), which aims to provide an indication of the relative sustainability and suitability of potential housing sites. For example, the site scores in the highest accessibility (category five) for access to a primary school (less than 400m), a bus (more than 10 bus services provided per hour within 400m), and walking and cycling infrastructure (less than 400m from existing footway and cycle paths). This assessment is strongly supported as reflecting the location of the site in relation to services and facilities, as illustrated in the summary table below.
[see document for table]
2.66 However, the site scores poorly in the following categories: green belt impact (level two), agricultural land classification (level one), access to a train station (level one), access to a secondary school (level one), town centre (level one) and employment site (level one). Additional information is outlined below to provide a more robust assessment of the site's credentials against its poorly performing categories from the Site Appraisal Paper and demonstrate the deliverability of the site.
Green Belt
2.67 Given the extent of the Green Belt across the District and drawn tightly around sustainable settlements such as Hullbridge, it is vital that specific parcels of Green
Belt land adjacent to settlement boundaries are subject to a detailed Green Belt review process. Notwithstanding its Green Belt designation, this land will often provide a sustainable location for growth by virtue of its proximity to the local service provision and public transport links. We consider that this is the case of Hullbridge, where our client is promoting Land South of Pooles Lane, Hullbridge.
Indeed, this is recognised in the Rochford District and Southend-on-Sea Borough Joint Green Belt Study (February 2020) undertaken by the Council, which at paragraph 3.9 states that the most sustainable sites for allocation may be located in areas that make a strong contribution to Green Belt purposes.
2.68 As explained earlier in these representations, the exceptional circumstances required to justify the release of land from the Green Belt are considered to exist
by virtue of the evidence base demonstrating there is insufficient non-Green Belt land available to accommodate the growth required during the Local Plan period. Paragraph 130 of the NPPF readily acknowledges that the plan making process can incorporate the review of existing Green Belt boundaries in exceptional
circumstances. Penland Estates Limited believe that exceptional circumstances exist to warrant such a review and consider that a modification is required in order
to deliver economic and housing growth which is recognised by the Government to be of national and potentially international importance.
2.69 Central to this review should be an assessment of specific parcels of land with development potential against the five purposes of Green Belt as set out in the
NPPF. Sustainable sites for housing growth which are found to not contribute to the five purposes of the Green Belt should be released and subsequently allocated for
development. It is strongly contested that this is the case for the Land South of Pooles Lane. The evidenced and justified release of this land from the Green Belt will allow development to come forward which will meet the objectives of achieving sustainable development as set out in paragraph 8 of the NPPF and assist in
delivering growth of regional and national importance.
2.70 In respect of Land South of Pooles Lane, an independent Green Belt Assessment of the site has been commissioned. The Assessment, produced by Pegasus Group, is appended to these representations (Appendix D). The Green Belt Assessment draws on the recently published Green Belt Study (February 2020) but applies a
finer-grain assessment in order to provide a comprehensive and robust, yet concise
assessment. The conclusions in respect of Land South of Pooles Lane contribution to the Green Belt purposes, is outlined below:
• Purpose 1: To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas. Site Contribution is assessed as Low/weak.
• Purpose 2: To prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another. Site Contribution is assessed as Low/Weak.
• Purpose 3: To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. Site Contribution is assessed as Moderate.
• Purpose 4: To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns. Site Contribution is assessed as Low/Weak.
• Purpose 5: To assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. Site Contribution is assessed as n/a.
2.71 The detail underpinning the above listed conclusions is evidenced in the Pegasus Group report. In light of the specific assessment against each Green Belt purpose,
the Green Belt Appraisal provides an overarching conclusion which confirms that Land South of Pooles Lane provides a low contribution to the NPPF Green Belt
purposes. In respect of bringing forward development at the site, the Appraisal concludes that:
2.72 “the Council agree that there are exceptional circumstances to justify the release of land from the Green Belt to accommodate development needs, then the Green Belt land immediately around Hullbridge – the site, would be suitable for such release.”
2.73 It is strongly recommended that the Council review the Green Belt Assessment alongside the other submitted evidence from their Site Appraisal Paper and Green
Belt Review study. The results of the Green Belt Assessment have strongly influenced the formulation
of the Framework Plan, in particular with regard to the incorporation of landscape mitigation measures. These take the form of a substantial landscape buffer along
the length of the eastern boundary, which will comprise new woodland planting and will integrate with and enhance existing vegetation. The landscaping strategy for
the site will aid in creating a strong defensible Green Belt boundary, as well as create a scheme that responds sensitively to the countryside character, with a soft
transition from built development to rural countryside.
Agricultural Land Classification
2.74 The Site Appraisal Paper (2021) scores Land South of Pooles Lane (ref CFS190) level one (the lowest category), as the majority of the site is adjudged to contain Grade 1-3 agricultural land (best most versatile or BMV). The other sites in Hullbridge also mostly score level 1, with a few scoring level 2 (i.e. any part of the site contains Grade 1-3 agricultural land). The assessment is based on Natural England Agricultural Land Classification mapping. However, the Natural England maps' scale is intended for strategic use and is not sufficiently accurate for the assessment of individual fields. Given that the site is currently used for arable grazing, it is unlikely that the land will be classified as BMV agricultural land.
Nevertheless, it is clear that the loss of some agricultural land will be necessary if Hullbridge is to continue growing in a sustainable manner. The sites available for
development in this area are of a similar agricultural value, and it is considered the benefits of sustainable development would be sufficient to outweigh the loss of
agricultural land.
Drainage
2.75 The site is located within Flood Zone 1 (lowest risk) as defined by the Environment Agency. The site is therefore considered sequentially preferable for residential development in flood risk terms.
2.76 The score of level two for 'critical drainage risk' appears to have been informed by a high-level review of the surface water flood risk for the site. Mapping on the
Environment Agency long term flood risk website illustrates that the majority of the site is in an area of low or very low surface water flood risk. There are small,
localised areas of medium and high surface water flood risk, associated with low spots within the site or near watercourses. 2.77 This is a matter that can be suitably addressed through any future planning application, which would be supported by a surface water drainage strategy
incorporating Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SuDS). The Framework Plan which has been produced has been informed by a high-level Flood Risk and
Drainage Constraints Plan (Appendix E) which illustrates how surface water flood risk can be appropriately mitigated through the inclusion of detention basins in
appropriate locations. The location and design of the basins will be subject to further detailed drainage assessment, however it is considered that a scheme can
be designed that effectively mitigates the risk of surface water flooding.
Access to a train station
2.78 The nearest train station to Land South of Pooles Lane (ref CFS190) is located in Rayleigh approximately 5.2km, which is just over the 5km threshold for a level one score. However, the assessment should take into account where opportunities exist for linked trips via other sustainable modes of transport such as by cycle or public
bus. Land South of Pooles Lane is located less than two minutes' walk from the nearest bus stop, where there is a frequent bus service (every 30 minutes) to Rayleigh railway station, with the journey taking approximately 15 minutes (including walking to the bus stop). This provides a very sustainable option for future residents of this site, and the Council should consider this factor when
assessing the site's sustainability.
Access to secondary school
2.79 It is recognised that Hullbridge does not include a secondary school, and as a result, the site scores level one in the Site Appraisal Paper. However, as mentioned above, the frequent no. 20 bus route (every 30 minutes between 7.00 to 21.00 Monday to Saturday) between Hullbridge and FitzWimarc School, in Rayleigh takes
approximately 15-20 minutes. This is considered to be an acceptable distance for secondary-aged pupils who often travel by bus, bike or even train to get to school.
The Council should therefore consider the accessibility of secondary schools by modes of public transport when assessing the relative sustainability of a site.
Access to a town centre
2.80 The nearest town centre of Rayleigh is around 6.2km from Land South of Pooles
Lane (ref CFS190), which is therefore within level one threshold, as the site is more than 2.3km from the town centre. However, it should be recognised that Hullbridge
contains a range of services, which could be found on a high street, with three convenience stores, medical centre, a pharmacy and other facilities. These services
are therefore capable of supporting the day-to-day needs of residents within Hullbridge, limiting the need to travel beyond the village on a frequent basis.
2.81 The site is also less than two minutes' walk from the nearest bus stop, where there are frequent bus services (every 30 minutes) to Rayleigh town centre, with the
journey taking approximately 15 minutes. This provides a very sustainable option for future residents of this site. Furthermore, due to the impacts of the COVID-19
pandemic, there has been a greater focus on online retail shopping; thus, it is considered that the 2.3km threshold is unjustified adopted by the Site Appraisal Paper, particularly where residents of Land South of Pooles Lane could either access retail facilities by public transport or online.
Employment site
2.82 The nearest designated employment (Imperial Park) area is 4km from Land South of Pooles Lane in Rayleigh, which is just over the level one threshold of 2.3km.
However, this employment site can be accessed by frequent bus service (every 30 minutes), with the journey taking approximately 20 minutes, providing a
sustainable option for future residents of this site. The Council should also consider the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic with increased levels of working from home
practices when considering the relevant proximity of employment sites.
Conclusion
2.83 Penland Estates Limited consider that Land South of Pooles Lane, is suitable, available and achievable for development, taking into account the evidence that it
has prepared to support the site’s promotion so far. The site should be allocated in order to achieve a sustainable and deliverable development strategy for Hullbridge,
consistent with the Local Plan strategy as a whole.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[CFS027, CFS098, CFS086, CFS029, CFS053]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Heritage

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

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

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

Highways

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

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

Housing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am sending you a letter with our responses to the questions relevant to the Croudace development in Rochford. I have also attached a copy of the area Croudace propose to build on in relation to Question 57b. I hope you find these comments constructive and informative.

Spatial Options Consultation

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]
We agree with the draft vision for Rochford District, especially in relation to the delivery of high quality homes supported by accessible and responsive services and facilities, creating healthy and sustainable 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? [Please state reasoning]
We agree with Strategic Priority 1, Objective 1, facilitating the delivery of high quality and sustainable homes that meet your local community needs. Whilst we agree that previously developed land should be an important part of meeting needs for development, the council needs to be realistic about how much of the district’s need for development can be accommodated on previously developed land.
We agree with Strategic Objective 2 of Priority 1 which states that Rochford need to plan for a mix of homes to support current and future residents. It is important that the council take into account the types of dwellings required when allocating sites, considering the likely sizes and types of dwellings likely to be accommodated on any given site. Sites such as that at Hall Road, Rochford, being promoted by Croudace, offers an important opportunity to provide a diverse portfolio of housing, addressing the affordability issue that Rochford currently struggles with. From 2016-2019 Rochford only delivered 677 of the 876 new dwellings set out in the housing delivery test (2020). This rate of delivery also falls short of the South Essex Strategic Housing Market Assessment of May 2016 and June 2017 which stated that between 331 and 361 new dwellings should be delivered per annum up to 2037.
We agree with Strategic Objective 6 of Priority 1 which states that the council want to ensure that all new homes “are built to the highest attainable quality, design and sustainability standards”. Croudace prides themselves on the quality and design of the housing they build and we are certain we will meet the council’s standards for development.
We agree with Strategic Objective 11 of Priority 3 which wants to encourage sustainable travel within the district such as walking and cycling. Croudace’s two sites, CFS081 and CFS082 at Hall Road in Rochford, are within walking distance of Rochford town centre, encouraging residents to walk or cycle to the town centre. This factor should be given significant weight when appraising possible Greenfield and green belt releases.
Q5. Do you agree with the settlement hierarchy presented? If not, what changes do you think are required? [Please state reasoning]
We agree with the settlement hierarchy presented as we think it is reasonable to have Rayleigh, the largest town should be at the top of the hierarchy with Hockley and Rochford in tier 2 and the smaller settlements in the tiers below.
Q6. Which of the identified strategy options do you consider should be taken forward in the Plan? [Please state reasoning]
Of the identified strategy options we believe Option 2b should be taken forward by the Plan. Option 2b would see urban extensions dispersed to settlements based on hierarchy. We agree that spreading the housing supply across a number of builders is the correct and less risky strategy and means that more housing can be delivered sooner, relieving Rochford of its affordable housing supply shortage. We believe that some of the better sites for sustainable development are within the greenbelt so as Option 2b states, some Green Belt land will need to be released. Option 2 would deliver 3,000 – 5,000 more dwellings than Option 1, which already delivers 3,000 – 5,000 homes, with 1,000 – 2,000 of these new houses being affordable, giving a potential total of 10,000 new houses of which 4,000 are affordable houses. We believe this is the correct solution to solving the affordable housing issue in Rochford. As stated in the 2021 draft Local Plan for Rochford, for every 10 additional homes the local community sees the benefit of creating or sustaining 9 local jobs and bringing in £250,000 in additional local spend from new residents.
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]
For residential development, the Planning Practice Guidance (paragraph 012) is clear that any energy performance standard required by a local policy should not exceed the equivalent of Level 4 of the Code for Sustainable Homes. The building regulations remain the most straightforward way of the country as a whole meeting the challenge of climate change. The Government is working on its Future Home Standard for significantly reducing the carbon emissions of homes, with a challenging but achievable timetable for introduction over the period to 2025. Local policies on the subject can add value where there is a locally-specific justification or opportunity, but the council needs to be clear that the policies it proposes on this front are justified, will add value, and will be capable of implementation without creating substantial duplication of work for both council and applicant that is more simply administered through the building regulations system.
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 plan should include a place-making charter that informs relevant policies. However, the same principles should not apply everywhere in the district because some policies would not be relevant in a residential development for example.
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]
The principles set out in the draft place-making charter are commendable but it is important that the Council set out in policy what they require regarding place-making in the district. These policies will have to be financially budgeted for and may slow down development.
Q16a. Do you consider that new design guides, codes or masterplans should be created alongside the new Local Plan?
It would not be necessary to create new design guides, codes or masterplans alongside the new Local Plan as this would create an additional burden on the council and potentially delay the release of the new Local Plan. Any design guides, codes or masterplans could be created once the new Local Plan was published.
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]
The best method to ensure Rochford Council can deliver different types, sizes and tenures of housing is to allocate different types of sites to be available for builders to buy. Ranging from brownfield sites in urban areas to Green Belt land being released for new housing developments, making available different types of sites will ensure a mix of housing types, size and tenure are built. It is also important to take into account when creating policy regarding the development of housing that the demand for different type, size and tenure will fluctuate as the demographic and requirements in relation to services of the district change. For this reason, it is important that some flexibility be designed into the policy when determining what size, type and tenure of housing is to be built on a site and that this be determined when the application is received taking into account the current local housing context. With regard to affordable housing, we expect the council to calculate how many affordable houses they need for a given period so as to not slow down the application process with lengthy negotiations. We also want to raise the issue of all the other policy measures and building regulations that builders have to comply with when assessing the number of affordable houses that need to be built, and taking into account the financial feasibility of these requirements.
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]
For Sites CFS081 and CFS082 at Hall Road, Rochford, Strategy Option 2b would be suitable for the specific housing approach which would see a mix of 1 to 4 bedroom houses built on these parcels of land. The suitable housing tenure for these sites would be a mixture of owner occupation and affordable houses falling under affordable rented tenure and intermediate (shared ownership) homes. What is required to meet the housing needs in these areas are an increased land supply to provide more housing for Rochford. Rochford has become one of the most unaffordable district counties in the country, with house prices increasing by 70% in the past 15 years. The 2016 and 2017 South Essex SHMA calculated that Rochford district council needed to build at least 360 houses for the next 20 years, however, Rochford currently build on average 166 new houses per year, which falls below the government requirement set out in the SHMA. If Rochford continue to undersupply new dwellings, housing-related issues such homelessness and concealed homes, where young people are forced to stay or move back in with their parents longer than they would want to, will become an increasing issue within the district.
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]
By providing well designed, high quality and affordable housing Rochford will be able to attract more potential workers and businesses to the district and prevent young people moving away from the area in search of affordable housing. This will ensure a stable and able work force whilst also providing jobs to the local population during the construction period of the new dwellings.
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?
The foundations of long-term economic growth is through having affordable housing young people can afford. This will decrease the likelihood that they will move away, taking their skills with them, whilst also attracting potential businesses to the area to provide services. Providing this housing will also create new jobs during the construction phase which can up-skill workers over a prolonged period of time.
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?
We believe net gains for biodiversity are best delivered off-site. This ensures there are no unforeseen costs during a development and we believe it is more beneficial to the environment to have biodiversity in specific areas than have it spread through developments.
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]
We think the best plan to ensure Rochford’s town centre remains vibrant is through option 6, specifically providing sustainable connections from any large-scale new housing development to Rochford town centre. Building new housing developments within a 20 minute walk of the town centre is a method of providing sustainable connections to existing town centres, and sites CFS081 and CFS082 fall within these parameters. Additionally, providing accommodation for more residents will provide greater footfall to the businesses within the town centre, further sustaining the services and employment opportunities for Rochford district.
Q57a. Do you agree with our vision for Rochford and Ashingdon? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]
We agree with your vision for Rochford and Ashingdon, however, the allocation for housing has not been covered. Providing new housing will support Rochford and Ashingdon’s town centre business and provide more sustainability to services.
Q57b. With reference to Figure 45 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the promoted sites should be made available for any of the following uses? How could that improve the completeness of Rochford and Ashingdon?
1. Housing [market, affordable, specialist, traveller, other]
2. Commercial [offices, industrial, retail, other]
3. Community infrastructure [open space, education, healthcare, allotments, other]
4. Other
We believe that site CFS081 and the eastern part of CFS082 (as shown on the attached plan) should be made available for housing market falling under Strategy Option 2b. This could improve the completeness of Rochford and Ashingdon by providing the required ‘critical mass’ in terms of housing density for additional services such as a more frequent bus services or an additional bus stop on the proposed site. This will improve the site assessments access to a bus service from a 1 to a 5 and improve the access to bus services assessment. Site CFS082 is missing from Figure 45 when it is included on the Interactive Consultation Map. We propose to build on half of the total site, preventing Rochford and Hawkwell coalescing and retaining and protecting part of the metropolitan green belt. With these two sites combined, over 600 houses could be delivered for Rochford, which would provide three main benefits. The first benefit would be to local businesses, as an increasing population would bring additional income to the business, which would allow local businesses to grow. The second benefit is that with an increasing population, other firms would view the district as a viable location to establish themselves in, further increasing employment opportunities in the district and providing more services to the area. The third benefit would be Rochford and Southend Borough District would avoid housing-related shortage issues such as homelessness and concealed households. Building more housing would also prevent young people moving away in search of housing they can afford, preventing an ageing demographic which would present its own challenges to the district.
Q57c. Are there areas in Rochford and Ashingdon that development should generally be presumed appropriate? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
Sites CFS081 and the Eastern half of site CFS082 should be presumed appropriate for development as they are within sustainable walking distance to Rochford town centre, and therefore offer a highly sustainable way of accommodating the housing needs of the town, a factor which we believe has been given inadequate weight in the council’s published site assessments. As well as meeting housing needs, building these developments would provide jobs over the construction period and prevent homelessness and concealed households becoming an issue within the district. These developments would also increase footfall for local businesses, making local businesses more sustainable, and potential businesses seeing Rochford as a viable area to locate their business. These factors bring the added benefit of greater sustainability to the local businesses and employment opportunities to the wider community.
We acknowledge that sites CFS081 and the eastern half of CFS082 are currently in the green belt. As we are only proposing building on the eastern part of site CFS082, the green belt harm assessment should be re-examined for this site to ensure that it has been fairly appraised relative to all other sites being considered. Limiting development to the eastern part of CFS082 reduces the potential harm caused to green belt purposes, preventing Rochford and Hawkley merging into one another in line with paragraph 138 subsection b of the 2019 NPPF.
The recent development of 620 homes to the east of sites CFS081 and CFS082 has demonstrated that growth of Rochford town in this direction can be successfully accommodated. There is a strip of land along the western edge of that development which remains designated as green belt, providing public open space. We believe the council needs to assess sites CFS081 and CFS082 (east) in light of the fact that the open space there is now not countryside, but is meeting the open space needs of the urban area. If sites CFS081 and the eastern part of CFS082 were to be released from the green belt they would effectively continue the urban area around this open space.
We also question the impact on Built Heritage assessments for sites CFS081 and CFS082 labelled at 1 and 2 respectively. We can only conclude that this low score is due to the nearby Pelham’s Farmhouse, which is a grade II listed building. However, on a site the size of CFS081 there is scope to plan the open space on site so as to minimise direct impacts which may arise to that heritage asset.
We question the assessment for site CFS081 in regards to the access to bus stop being scored at 2. CFS082 assessment scored a 4 and we propose linking the two sites allowing site CFS081 better access to bus stop services, and the area is closer on foot to the town centre. CFS081 and the eastern part of CFS082 are also large enough that they would reasonably be expected to make contributions toward new bus stops and improving bus services. We would also like the access to bus services re-appraised if were given permission to develop on the two sites as the increase in population density may provide the ‘critical mass’ to make the sites viable for the Rochford SS4 1NL bus service to come more frequently then it currently does. This would improve the appraisal score and make the development more sustainable.
The access to secondary schools for site CFS081 is appraised at a level 4 whereas site CFS082 is appraised at the lowest level of 1. With these two sites side by side, with access to the same road network as each other, we question why site CFS082’s access to secondary schools was appraised so low. If needs be, we can provide a financial contribution to a local secondary school to improve the facilities and size of the local secondary school.
We would like the access to town centre for site CFS082 to be reappraised as it is only a level 1 whereas site CFS081 is appraised at a level 4. With the two sites being developed on, a pathway through site CFS081 could be created for site CFS082 allowing it better access to Rochford town centre. The two sites fall within a 20 minute walk of Rochford town centre which should mean the appraisal for site CFS082 is higher.
We also question the appraisal for the access to employment site for site CFS082 at level 2 when CFS081 is appraised at level 4. With both sites having access to the same road network, these appraisals should be the same. We also question if the town centre has been considered as an employment site as it often is a major source of employment within a town. The town centre is only a 15 minute, 1 mile walk away or a 3 minute drive so the access to employment site for site CFS082 should be appraised higher.
We question why both sites CFS081 and CFS082 are appraised at levels 3 and 2 respectively for distance to strategic road network when both have access to the A127 being only 6 minutes away and 2 miles in distance via Cherry Orchard Way.
We would also like the appraisal for access to train services for site CFS082 to be reappraised as site CFS081 is appraised at level 3 whereas the former is at level 2. Through the development, site CFS082 will have access to Rochford train station like site CFS081. Rochford station is only a 15 minute walk or 3 minute drive away from the sites, at a distance of 1 mile from both sites. We therefore argue that the appraisal for access to train services for both sites should be higher.
We would also like the appraisal for site CFS082 proximity to water apparatus to be reassessed as it is a level 1 whereas neighbouring site CFS081 is appraised at a level 5. The River Roach does flow south of both sites and there is Rochford Reservoir only 1 mile away.
The assessment for Critical Drainage Risk for site CFS082 can be improved from a level 2 with implemented drainage systems for the proposed development.
We also question the level two assessment of impact on Ancient Woodland for site CFS082 being at a level 2 when the site is currently used as an agricultural field with no Ancient Woodland currently existing on the site. Site CFS081 with no ancient woodland on it as well was assessed at level 5 for impact on Ancient Woodland.

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

My concerns are as detailed below

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your time in reading our response

New Local Plan: Spatial Options Document 2021
Thank you for this opportunity to respond to the latest consultation. Our comments follow those made on previous
consultation documents, namely:
1 July 2015 – Draft Environmental Capacity Study
18 May 2016 – Draft Statement of Community Involvement
8 March 2018 – Issues and Options consultation.
Please find our responses to particular questions below.
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?
As mentioned in our letter responding to the draft Environmental Capacity Study, full consideration should be given
to the Environment Agency’s Essex and South Suffolk Shoreline Management Plan.
Q4: Do you agree with the strategic priorities and objectives we have identified?
Yes. We welcome and commend the Council’s clear priority in Strategy Priority 5 to conserve and enhance the natural
environment as well as a clear ambition to create habitat networks. This is consistent with national planning policy.
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?
Mandatory biodiversity gain (BNG) should go beyond mitigating and compensating the impacts of development by
enhancing natural capital, supporting the recovery of nature and meeting future environmental challenges. Done
correctly, it should help to deliver sustainable development, restore nature, and create and enhance places where
people live and work.
The council’s approach to BNG should be underpinned with clear targets for protecting and restoring biodiversity and
its effectiveness evaluated on a regular basis. BNG must be in addition to, and not instead of existing statutory
biodiversity protection and it should only apply to developments that do not have an impact on protected areas, e.g.
Special Protection Areas (SPAs), Special Areas of Conservation (SAC), Ramsar sites and Sites of Special Scientific
Interest (SSSIs).
A fundamental risk of BNG, is that it will be considered a licence to trash habitats as destruction of a habitat can be
offset by creation of another. To avoid this, the net gain approach must apply and enforce the mitigation hierarchy,
so all efforts are made to avoid and mitigate harm through appropriate location and design choices. Compensation (offsetting) of residual impacts on habitats and species should be a last resort. Re-creating or restoring complex
natural processes is inherently difficult and full of risk so in-situ conservation is always preferable. Once the mitigation
hierarchy has been strictly applied, the development should be achieving no net loss of biodiversity. Net gain
approaches can then be explored as additional
To answer the question specifically, where new habitat is created, it is normally preferable to do so on the
development site. If this is not possible or desirable due to unavoidable impacts, it should be in an area identified in
a local or strategic biodiversity enhancement plan (e.g. the evolving Local Nature Recovery Strategies [LNRS]).
Q32. With reference to the options above, or your own options, how do you feel that we can best deliver a quality
green and blue infrastructure network through the plan?
The RSPB would like to see a strategic approach adopted for the delivery of new and enhanced green and blue
infrastructure. We are currently working with a number of partners in Essex to establish a Local Nature Partnership
(LNP) as well as the evolving process of Local Nature Recovery Strategies (LNRS) which have recently been piloted
elsewhere in the UK.
Protecting and enhancing the established network of designated sites is the fundamental first step. It is widely
recognised that much of the land surrounding our coastal SPAs and SSSIs is functionally-linked to these sites (i.e. it is
unprotected land that supports numbers of birds such as dark-bellied brent geese in significant numbers). Identifying
and mapping these areas at a spatial-level would assist the council in maximising the benefits to the natural
environment
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?
The RSPB supports the recognition giving to the network of coastal sites in the “island wetlands” complex which are
reflected by their suite of national and internationally important nature conservation designations.
However, it is critical that the sensitivity of the internationally important species and habitats is accounted for
rigorously in the planning of any such proposals. A Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) of the plan should be
instigated at the earliest opportunity in order to achieve this. Responding to the Issues and Options consultation in
March 2018 in relation to HRA, we said:
“We recognise that a number of HRAs relating to previous development plans and strategies have been
provided as part of the evidence base. Whilst informative, these are not up to date. However, we note and
welcome your commitment to presenting a draft HRA at the next stage of the plan process (per paragraph
1.12) and we look forward to commenting on this document. If you require any assistance in its formation,
we would be happy to assist.”

Response by the Home Builders Federation to the consultation on Rochford Local Plan
1. Thank you for consulting the Home Builders Federation (HBF) on the spatial options for the Rochford Local Plan. The HBF is the principal representative body
of the housebuilding industry in England and Wales and our representations reflect the views of discussions with our membership of national and multinational corporations through to regional developers and small local housebuilders. Our members account for over 80% of all new housing built in England and Wales in any one year.

Spatial Strategy options
Q6. Which of the identified strategy options do you consider should be taken forward in the Plan?
2. Before considering what the most appropriate spatial strategy for Rochford might be it is necessary to consider the level of development that the Council will need to deliver over the plan period. The Council correctly note that the minimum number of homes they should be planning for over a 20-year period is the 7,200 homes arrived at using the standard method. However, this is the minimum number of homes that needs to be planned for and the Council will need to carefully consider whether a higher housing requirement is necessary to support economic growth, infrastructure improvements or address the needs elsewhere.
3. In particular it will be important for the Council to work closely with Southend Borough Council (SBC) which has a minimum housing requirement using the standard method of 1,180 new homes per annum. As the Council will be aware SBC set out in their latest consultation that even with Green Belt release, they are only able to deliver around 20,000 new homes to meet their total requirement over the plan period of 23,620 homes. It is clear that SBC will need support from Rochford and other neighbouring boroughs to meet their housing needs in full. The Council should therefore plan for a level of housing growth that meets both their own needs as well as the unmet needs of SBC.
4. The Council have considered this within the third scenario suggesting that a 50% buffer could be planned for in its local plan. Whist the HBF consider the inclusion of buffers within land supply as an essential requirement if needs are to be met in full the Council must distinguish between homes that it is required to deliver to meet the needs of neighbouring areas or support economic growth and a buffer between minimum needs and supply, which is included to provide greater certainty that housing needs will be met. Meeting the unmet needs of SBC will, in line with paragraph 60 of the NPPF, be added to the number of homes to be planned for in Rochford and as such be an increase in the housing requirement for this local plan rather than part of any buffer in supply over their own housing needs.
5. It is also essential that these are planned for now and not deferred to subsequent plan updates or the proposed South Essex Joint Spatial Plan. Deferring such decisions would be inconsistent with government guidance which states that on examining local plan inspectors will expect to see that strategic policy making authorities have addressed key strategic matters through joint working and not deferred to subsequent plan updates. Deferring decision making to a future local plan for those homes that are needed now is not acceptable as these will be
delivered too late to meet the pressing need for new homes over the next 15 years.
6. Given the likelihood that the Council will need to plan for the unmet needs of Southend alongside their own needs the spatial strategy must deliver the higher growth assumptions set out in this local plan and tested in the Integrated Impact Assessment. As such strategy option 1 must be ruled as it fails to meet the needs of Rochford let alone neighbouring areas. Of the three remaining options the HBF would consider the approach offered by option 4 would offer the most suitable approach to meeting not only the needs of Rochford but also any unmet needs
arising in neighbouring areas.
7. There are a number of reasons for supporting option 4. Firstly, a balanced approach allocating a variety of sites both in terms of size and location will have far greater potential to deliver a wide mix of housing types and style whilst also ensuring homes come forward consistently across the whole plan period. Too often local plans focus allocations on a small number of large strategic sites that inevitably come forward later in the plan period. Whilst such sites are an important part of housing supply their allocation should not be to the detriment of small and medium sized sites. Such sites are important for a number of reasons. Firstly, they come forward quickly helping the Council in securing a sufficient supply of homes in the first five years of its plan and preventing housing needs being unnecessarily
delayed. It is our experience that local plans which rely too heavily on strategic sites and push the majority of delivery toward the end of the plan period can result
in plans arriving at examination without a five-year land supply and being unable to meet its housing needs following revisions in the delivery trajectories of strategic
sites.
8. The second reason for supporting option 4 is that a wider variety of sites, both in terms of location and size, ensures that the plan increases the opportunities for small and medium sized housebuilders to deliver homes in the Borough. Up until the 1980s, small developers once accounted for the construction of half of all homes built in this country resulting in greater variety of product, more competition, and faster build-out rates. Since then, the number of small companies has fallen by 80% following the introduction of the plan-led system in 1990.
9. The HBF has undertaken extensive consultation with its small developer members. One of the chief obstacles for small developers is that funding is extremely difficult to secure with a full, detailed, and implementable planning permission. Securing an implementable planning permission is extremely difficult if small sites are not allocated. Without implementable consents lenders are uneasy about making finance available or else the repayment fees and interest rates they set will be very high. Small developers, consequently, need to invest a
lot of money and time up-front in the risky business of trying to secure an allocation and a planning permission, and this is money that many small developers do not
have.
10. If the Council are to ensure there is a wide variety of SME house builders operating in its administrative area, and the benefits it brings to the speed of delivery and
variety of homes, it must ensure that there is a variety of sites. This is why the Government, through the NPPF, now requires local authorities to allocate sites of varying sizes and why the HBF advocates for the allocation of more small sites in local plans.
11. Finally, there has been significant under delivery in Rochford over recent years. The 2016 and 2017 Strategic Housing Market Assessment assessed that
Rochford district needed to build between 331 and 361 dwellings per annum up to 2037. However, from April 2010 to March 2018 only 1,326 new homes were built
which averages out to 166 homes per year. With this continued under supply of housing Rochford has become the most unaffordable district out of; Basildon, Thurrock, Southend, and Castle Point. The Rochford Local Plan for 2021 goes as far as to say that the ratio between house prices and local earnings is amongst the least affordable in the country, as the average local house price has increased 70% in the past 15 years.
12. With this continuing divergence between house prices and earnings, housingrelated issues such as homelessness and concealed households, where young
people have to stay or return home to their parents for longer than they would like to, becomes an increasing problem within the district. It is therefore important for
the Council to recognise, and give significant weight to, the fact that the higher level of delivery as proposed in option 4 would have the scale and distribution of
growth to address these concerns.

Climate Change and Resilient Environments
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?
13. Whilst the Council can set targets as to the percentage of a home’s energy use that should be obtained from decentralised energy sources it is important that the Council recognises that this will place an additional financial burden on development and will therefore need to be considered in the viability study.

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?
14. No. The housebuilding industry, through the HBF, recognises that there is a need to improve the environmental performance of new residential development. In order to achieve this, we established with a wide range of partners the Future Homes Task Force. This task force examined how the house building industry can work toward delivering net zero carbon homes in order to support the Government’s target of the country delivering net zero carbon emissions by 2050.
The initial outcomes of this work can be found at https://www.futurehomes.org.uk/ with a summary of the Delivery Plan resulting from this work attached to this
response.
15. The delivery plan published by the task force in July outlines the need to operate on a collective basis recognising the need for housebuilders, their supply network and the trades people building homes to successfully transition to the delivery of low carbon homes. In addition, it recognises the need for both national and local government alongside housebuilders to ensure those people buying new homes are confident in the technologies and systems being used.
16. As the Council are aware the proposed amendments to the building regulations will see development up to 2025 deliver a 31% improvement on C02 emissions
compared to current standards. The Future Homes Standard that will be introduced from 2025 will see new homes emit 75% fewer emissions than current standards. However, to deliver further reductions and achieve the national commitment of net zero emissions by 2050 will require the decarbonisation of energy supply at a national level rather than from the Council setting additional requirements for new homes above those set by Government.
17. Given the improvements that will be made through the amendments to building regulation the HBF do not consider it necessary for additional local standards to
be set with regard to energy efficiency and CO2 emissions. Only through a nationally consistent and phased approach to the introduction of the new
standards and technologies will the house building industry be able to maintain housing supply, ensure consumer confidence and deliver the required
improvements in emissions.
18. A national and standardised approach to improving the energy efficiency of buildings is the most effective approach to ensuring improvements in energy
efficiency whilst also ensuring the continued delivery of housing and infrastructure. The HBF considers a universal standard is necessary to allow the development of supply chains that focus upon responding to agreed national targets, and for training providers to plan their programmes to equip the labour force to meet these
new requirements. Importantly, a phased approach to delivering these improvements ensures those people buying new homes are fully aware of the new
technologies being used in their homes. It is vital that consumers are confident with the technology being used in their new homes and increase the wider appetite for similar standards to be adopted in the existing stock.
19. The HBF considers it important that Councils recognise that it will take time to ensure that the technology and supply chains required to achieve the significant reductions in emission from new homes required by the Future Homes Standard. There is still considerable work to do to ensure that supply chains are in place to meet demand from the housebuilding industry as well as having a workforce with the technical skills in place to deliver and maintain systems such as ground and air source heat pumps on a much larger scale. It is important that these systems when they are used work to ensure that the public are satisfied with the product and can rely on it to meet their needs.
20. Should the Council seek to go beyond what is required by building regulations then they will need to clearly set out in their viability study the additional costs this will place on development in the Borough. These costs can be significant and in combination with the other costs that are placed on development through the local
plan can lead to development becoming unviable.

Place-making and Design
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?
21. It is not clear what the charter is supposed to offer with regard to decision making process and whether these will be reflected in the policies set out in the Local
Plan. In order to provide an effective steer to applicants and decision makers the Council must set out its expectations in policy and ensure that these are consistent with the approach set out in nationally in the NPPF and its supporting guidance.

Q15. Are the principles set out in the draft place-making charter the right ones? Are there other principles that should be included?
22. The principles set out in the charter are laudable but, as set out above, it is more important that the Council clearly set out in policy any requirements regarding
place making in the Borough. These policies should be based on evidence, fully costed in the viability study and be consistent with national policy.

Q16a. Do you consider that new design guides, codes or masterplans should be created alongside the new Local Plan?
23. It is not necessary to create new design guides, codes or master plans alongside the new local plan. Seeking to develop these at the same time can place an
additional burden on the Council’s recourses taking away offer time best spent on preparing the local plan and extending the timescale for its production. Any required design codes or master plans can be developed subsequently.

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?

Housing type
24. As suggested earlier in order to ensure a variety of types of homes both in terms of type and tenue is to allocate a wide variety of sites in terms of size and location. Different sites will lend themselves to different types and density of development that will inevitably ensure a variety of homes will come forward. It is also important to remember that evidence on housing needs with regard to housing type is a snap shot in time for the whole of the Borough. It is important to recognise that the type of housing needed will change over time and will be vary between areas. As such it is also important to ensure that there is flexibility within any policy on the size of homes to be provided with the mix of housing to be determined at the point of application having regard to local evidence of needs, the nature of the site and the
types of home that have been provided.

Affordable housing
25. With regard to affordable housing tenures, we expect the Council will set out a requirement in policy for the number of affordable homes it requires. In determining this proportion, the Council will need to consider the viability of delivering affordable housing alongside all the other policy costs that are likely to be required in this local plan. In considering all these costs it is important, as set out in paragraph 58 of the NPPF that the Council are confident that decision makers can assume a development meeting all costs is viable given that the
Government are seeking to reduce the number of sites on which affordable housing contributions are negotiated. This may require a policy that varies such requirements on the basis of location or type of development reflecting the different costs and values that occur across the Borough. In order to assist local planning authorities in preparing their viability assessments the HBF have
prepared a briefing note setting out our members key concerns with regard to viability testing and the approach taken by Councils which is attached to this response. Whilst this note focuses on all aspects of the viability testing of the residential development and should be taken into account, we would like to highlight four particular issues with whole plan viability assessments.
26. The first issue is with regard to the approach taken to abnormal infrastructure costs. These are the costs above base construction and external costs that are required to ensure the site is deliverable. Prior to the 2019 NPPF viability assessments have taken the approach that these cannot be quantified and were addressed through the site-by-site negotiation. However, this option is now
significantly restricted by paragraph 57 of the 2019 NPPF. As such these abnormal costs must be factored into whole plan viability assessments. We recognise that
the very nature of an abnormal costs is difficult to quantify, but it is a fact that they are often substantial and can have a significant impact on viability. Where and how
these costs arise is also variable. They can occur in site preparation but can also arise with regard to the increasing costs of delivering infrastructure, such as
upgrades to increase the capacity of utilities. It is also the case that abnormal costs are higher on brownfield sites where there can be a higher degree of uncertainty as to the nature of the site and the work required to make it developable.
27. Whilst the HBF recognise that abnormal costs are expected to come off the land value, we are concerned that if abnormal costs are high then it will result in sites
not being developed as the land value will be insufficient to incentivise the landowner to sell. It is therefore important that a significant buffer is included within
the viability assessment to take account of these costs if the Council are to state with certainty that those sites allocated in the plan will come forward without negotiation.
28. Secondly, we would encourage the Council to use the upper end of any of the ranges suggested with regards to fees and profit margins. Again, these will vary from developer to developer but given that the Government want to minimise negotiation on planning obligations it would make sense to use the highest point of any range. The changing landscape with regard to viability assessment could lead to development slowing significantly if the correct variables are not taken into
account.
29. Thirdly, the council must ensure that all the policy costs associated with the local plan are included within the viability assessment. Whilst affordable housing and
infrastructure contributions from the majority of the additional costs that are placed on developers by the Council it is important that the cumulative impact of all
policies are tested. With regard to the local plan review the Council will need to consider the impact of its proposed policies on bio-diversity net gains, electric
vehicle charging, sustainable design and construction; and renewable energy. The viability assessment will also need consider the impact of future national policies on viability and whether there is sufficient headroom to ensure these standards can be addressed alongside the policies in the local plan.
30. Finally, the approach to land values needs to be a balanced approach and one that recognises that there will be a point at which land will just not come forward if
values are too low to take account of policy and infrastructure costs. There are a variety of reasons why a landowner is looking to sell their land and it cannot be
assumed that they will absorb significant reductions in land values to meet policy costs. Land is a long-term investment and the returns being offered must take
account of this.

Technical standards
31. If the Council wish to apply the optional technical standards for accessible and adaptable homes and the Nationally Described Space Standards, it will need to
ensure that it has the necessary evidence to support any proposed policy as required by current national policy and its supporting guidance. There must be robust evidence that these policies are needed and that the will not have an adverse impact on the viability of new development.

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?

32. No specific mention is made within this section in relation to housing for older people. The HBF consider it important that local plans look to allocate specific sites to meet the needs of older people. In particular the Council must look, in the first instance, to allocate those sites submitted for older people’s accommodation that are in the most sustainable locations close to key services. As well as allocating specific sites for older people’s housing we would suggest that the local plan sets out in policy:
• a target for the delivery of homes for older people and maintains a supply of land to meet that target. Whilst we recognise that there is not a requirement in national policy for the Council to maintain a specific supply of accommodation for older people identifying the level of need and monitoring supply would aid decision makers in the application of this policy and ensuring needs are met over the plan period. Such an approach would also ensure effective monitoring in relation meeting the needs of older people and encourage positive decision making if there is a deficiency in supply.
• support and encouragement for older persons accommodation on brownfield and other land in established urban and suburban environments and which is not allocated given the level of need and that older people are most likely to prefer to continue to reside in
established areas with which they are familiar.

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?

33. Whilst some sites might be abler to deliver net gains the Council must recognise that it will not be possible for some sites to meet the 10% legal requirement without
some form of off-site delivery. We would suggest that how a developer meets this legal requirement is best determined by the developer and not the local authority.

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?

34. The priority for the Council and its partners should be to protect and maximise existing facilities to deliver the necessary services and wherever possible maximising such services on site. Such an approach will be the most effective approach to meeting changing needs and ensure the long-term sustainability of existing facilities. In many areas’ community centres and halls, libraries and other facilities are often under used and to require additional provision from development is unnecessary and inconsistent with the principles set out in paragraph 57 of the NPPF and paragraph 122 of the CIL Regulations 2010. We would suggest that greater levels of co-location would be a more appropriate response than requiring new development to provide or contribute to additional facilities. Where a site is required to provide new infrastructure, this must be at a level to meet the additional needs created by that development. Development should not be required to address existing shortfalls in supply following under investment at the local or county level.

Conclusion
35. We hope these representations are of assistance in taking the plan forward.
Should you require any further clarification on the issues raised in this representation please contact me.

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

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

Background

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strategy Options

Q5: Do you agree with the settlement hierarchy presented?

No.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spatial Themes

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

No.

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

Yes.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please see our response to Q16 and Q59.

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

Please see our response to Q14.

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

Yes.

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

Please see our detailed response to Q16b. and Q16c.

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

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

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

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

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

Please see also our response to Q16b.

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

Housing For All

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Biodiversity

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

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

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

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

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

Community Infrastructure

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

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

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

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

Yes.

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

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

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

Yes – see our response to Q.36.

Open Spaces and Recreation

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

BDW support Option 4.

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

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

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

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

Yes.

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

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

No.

Transport and Connectivity

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

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

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

Please also see our response to Q51.

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

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

Please see our response to Q52 / Q53.

Planning for Complete Communities

Wakerings and Barling

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Next Steps

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

Yours faithfully
David Churchill
Partner

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strategy Options

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yours faithfully

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