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?

Protecting or increasing these areas is great.
I have noticed comments made around people walking with out without dogs and cyclists. Provision needs to be made for both in these areas.
As we have a great shoreline, making this area work for us providing recreational activities would be of great benefit to the local area, and bring more visitors while promoting the area.

Setting a strategy for the delivery of new and enhanced green and blue infrastructure, by requiring certain new developments to provide local green and blue infrastructure on-site, including to mitigate the specific local impacts of the development and contributing to the achievement of environmental net gains.

Ability to easily navigate a community on foot or cycle in order to take advantage of the districts various areas of interest is vital to achieving the council's health and wellbeing goals. Its therefore vital to ensure each new site is easy to navigate, and well connected our green and blue infrastructure.

Give correct signage, good footpaths and informative signs to encourage visitors and keep children engaged

Protect the green belt from new housing and repair sea walls.

In practice, the delivery of a quality green and blue infrastructure network is likely to involve a combination of the options that have been outlined. Option 3 is particularly supported as this offers the most potential to deliver the infrastructure due to developments being specifically required to make on and/or off-site provision. However, to be effective this would need to be supported by a robust green and blue infrastructure strategy which identifies strategic projects that developments will be expected to deliver directly or contribute towards. The Local Plan will also need to consider how to integrate the emerging South Essex Estuary Park proposals that are being prepared by ASELA as their delivery will need to be supported by local plan policies and proposals.

I agree with the areas include as we visited Wallsea Island, Cherry Orchard Way, Hockley Woods and Rayleigh Mount during lockdown invaluable for improving mental wellbeing and exercise. Please also include Rayleigh Mount in this structure

Option 3 any developments granted should be offset by preservation and enhancement projects in the district. we have an obligation to protect the environment for future generations. Once built on the land is lost to the benefit of the environment.

Having specific areas of land and also local green areas

We are not opposed to any of the three options in principle. In line with the Lawton principles, it is important that new green infrastructure created as part of development links up with existing areas of GI to form an integrated and well planned network and that it contains areas of natural greenspace, such as woodland, so as to enhance biodiversity. It can be particularly beneficial to create new woodland by natural regeneration, adjacent to existing ancient woods, as this allows migration of species over time into the new woodland.

The Woodland Trust's Emergency Tree Plan, which is available on the publications section of our website at www.woodlandtrust.org.uk set out how trees and woods can make an important contribution to tackling the climate emergency, through both mitigation and adaptation, and the biodiversity emergency. New development offers an opportunity for planting of new trees and woods as part of GI and we would like to see your Local Plan set a target for a minimum of 30% tree canopy cover on any development site. A number of councils have set ambitious tree canopy cover targets, including Bedford and Central Bedfordshire who have gone for 30% and the former Wycombe Council (now part of Bucks unitary council) who went for 25%.

An alternative method of calculating the need for trees and woods is to use an access standard, such as the Woodland Trust's Accesss to Woodland Standard, which aspires that everyone should have a small wood of at least 2ha in size within 500m of their home and a larger wood of at least 20ha within 4km of their home. This standard is designed to be complementary to Natural England's Natural Greenspace Standard and natural greenspace does, of course, include woodland.

We would like to see tree and woodland cover in new development include both small areas of new woodland, where appropriate, and also individual trees or groups of trees in streets and on areas of greenspace in new housing estates. The Government has stated its intention to legislate to require that all streets in new housing developments should be tree lined, recognising the wide range of benefits which street trees can provide to local people.

Maximise the use of alternatives for housing before considering greenbelt.

You identified a number of concerns in a previous consultation but don't seem to have suggested ways of dealing with them in this strategy? More rights of way/footpaths that connect together (and are easier to find out about with detailed maps available) would be good. Also open footpaths to cyclists as well.

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.

The best strategy for blue and green infrastructure would be for green and blue corridors as they are most successful at sustaining and increasing biodiversity. This would need to be implemented at a district-wide scale across multiple developments sharing parts of the corridor, or on larger strategic sites.

The best strategy for blue and green infrastructure would be for green and blue corridors as they are most successful at sustaining and increasing biodiversity. This would need to be implemented at a district-wide scale across multiple developments sharing parts of the corridor, or on larger strategic sites.

Do not over develop the villages and hamlets

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.

At the moment, it appears that the Council are attempting to force development on to the existing residents of the district so that our once beautiful area makes us feel like we are hemmed in from all sides with no consideration for our needs or wellbeing.

The development on Hall Road is an example, where a loop hole was found to get away with not building the relevant facilities such as doctors and schools that were originally advertised.

The Developer gets rich from selling the properties, the council get rich from the additional revenue (which as a side note makes it disgusting that you are cutting your services) and the only people who lose out are the people who already live here.

The following points need to be considered:

- Suitable roads, doctors and school facilities must be incorporated into these developments without any loop holes that stop this from happening.

- Green belt land to be left well alone. We are a peninsula that should be encouraging wildlife, not killing it and scaring it away.

- buildings should fit in with the historical content of our area.

- affordable houses should be given to local people and not people shipped in from other areas.

On behalf of Thorpe Estate Limited (my client), please find our comments on the Rochford Local Plan Spatial
Options Consultation (SOC). My client is the owner of some 90 hectares of land to the north of Bournes
Green Chase and to the east of Wakering Road. It lies to the south west of Great Wakering. It is identified
on the plan attached.
The majority of the site falls within the administrative boundary of Southend on Sea Council (SoS) apart from
a small part of the site in the north east corner which falls within the administrative boundary of Rochford
District Council.
My client is in the process of producing an illustrative masterplan for their site, which will be supported
technical analysis on key topic areas, including transport, flood risk and ecology. This will be provided to the
Council in due course.
This masterplan for the site will be produced in conjunction with a wider masterplan and promotion of
neighbouring parcels of land by Cogent Land LLP. A collaborative approach is being taken with Cogent, which
includes co-ordination in respect of transport and other critical infrastructure.
These representations are made in the context of not having had the opportunity to engage with officers at
the Council and we would welcome a meeting at the earliest opportunity.
My client is the owner of the land, which should assure the Council that it is a site which is deliverable and
that there are no legal or ownership hurdles to overcome.
The legislative requirements for the production of Local Plans are set out in Part 2, Local Development, of
the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and in national guidance within the National Planning Policy
Framework 2021 (NPPF).
Paragraph 11 of the NPPF requires that ‘plans should promote a sustainable pattern of development that
seeks to meet the development needs of their area; align growth and infrastructure…..’.
It also requires that ‘strategic policies should, as a minimum, provide for objectively assessed needs for
housing and other uses, as well as any needs that cannot be met within neighbouring areas’.
Chapter 3 of the NPPF then goes onto set out the detailed requirements for plan making, including the
requirement set out in paragraph 24, that each authority is under a ‘duty to cooperate’ with each other on
strategic matters that cross administrative boundaries.
The objective of the plan making process is to be able to put forward a plan that is ‘sound’ and meeting the
requirements set out in paragraph 35 which are:
1. Positively prepared – to meet the area’s objectively assessed needs; and is informed by agreements
with other authorities, so that unmet need from neighbouring areas is accommodated;
2. Justified – an appropriate strategy, taking into account the reasonable alternatives, and based on
proportionate evidence;
3. Effective – deliverable over the plan period, and based on effective joint working on cross-boundary
strategic matters that have been dealt with rather than deferred, as evidenced by the statement of
common ground; and
4. Consistent with national policy – enabling the delivery of sustainable development in accordance
with the policies in this Framework and other statements of national planning policy, where relevant.
Whilst we note that the plan is at a very early stage, we do not consider that the plan is heading in a direction
where it is likely to be considered to accord with the four requirements of soundness and therefore is not
likely to be found ‘sound’.
Our overarching concern is that the Council does not appear to be discharging its responsibilities under the
duty to co-operate in respect of strategic/ cross boundary matters and specifically in relation to my clients’
interests, with SoS Council in respect of housing and infrastructure.
At this stage we would note the number of plans that have been rejected by Inspectors at submission/
examination stage on this very issue, including Sevenoaks District Council, St Albans City and District Council
and Wealden District Council.
We would urge the Council to review its approach to ensure that the Local Plan that gets put forward for
examination accords with the requirements of paragraph 35 of the NPPF.
Our comments below focus on the high-level strategic issues, although, my client will wish to comment on
policies not addressed below at later stages in the plan making process.
The National Picture
The Council are bringing forward their Local Plan at a time of significant challenges facing the country,
particularly because of the Covid-19 pandemic which has exacerbated historic issues of under-delivery of
housing over the past few decades.
This lack of supply is causing substantial issues in the housing market, particularly in relation to affordability
and suitability. The government has estimated that housing need in England is 345,000 homes per year.
The government has therefore set its ambition to achieve 300,000 homes per year.
Whilst the supply of housing has been increasing year on year, only 244,000 homes were delivered in 2019-
20, according to a Government research briefing, ‘Tackling the under-supply of housing in England’.
Housing Need in the Region
At a regional level, there are six South Essex authorities, which are listed below, along with their performance
against the Governments Housing Delivery Test, which measures delivery against housing requirement over
the previous three monitoring years:
1. Basildon – 45%;
2. Brentwood – 69%;
3. Castle Point – 48%;
4. Rochford – 95%;
5. Southend – 36%; and
6. Thurrock – 59%.
Not one of the six authorities have met their target and these delivery rates are amongst the lowest in the
Country and, on average, are delivering only slightly more than half (59%) of the regions housing need.
Clearly this is an issue that needs addressing urgently to avoid disastrous social and economic consequences
for the region.
We note from the SOC that Rochford is likely to have sufficient available land to accommodate its OAN which,
for now, we take at face value, albeit that we are aware of a recent refusal of planning permission on an
allocated site. It may be the case that my client decides to challenge the Council’s supply against the tests
set out in Annex 2 of the NPPF.
It is very clear from the draft SoS Local Plan, that they do not have a supply of homes that gets anywhere
close to meeting their OAN without the release of Green Belt land within their own administrative boundary,
see further commentary below. For SoS’s OAN to be met in full, neighbouring authorities, would need to
accommodate the shortfall estimated to be in the region of 3,550 to 4,300. However, given the historic
undersupply within the neighbouring authorities, who have their own challenges, it is difficult to see how
this could realistically be accommodated.
Clearly radical steps are required to address this issue.
Strategic Plan Making
It is not clear what the latest position is with the South Essex Plan. It is disappointing that this doesn’t appear
to be moving forward to allow strategic policies and growth requirements across the six neighbouring
authorities to inform and lead Local Plan production.
We are also disappointed that the Joint Part 1 Local Plan between Rochford and SoS appears to have now
been abandoned. We do not believe that an update to the November 2019 Statement of Common Ground
(SoCG) with SoS has been prepared setting out what the approach is in relation to cross boundary strategic
matters and this clearly should have been agreed before publication of the SOC.
We would particularly note the statements made at 4.3 and 4.5 of the November 2019 SoCG, which stated:
Providing Sufficient Homes – housing need is high across the area and a large amount of land is being
promoted for development either side of the Rochford/Southend administrative boundary. There is a need to
ensure that preparation of a spatial strategy, site assessment and selection is consistent across both authority
areas;
Transport Infrastructure and connectivity - Developing appropriate integrated and sustainable transport
networks to support the efficient movement of people and goods, including strategic transport corridors
(including A127, A13 and A130) recognising the requirements of both Essex and Southend local transport
plans, including modal shift, sustainable travel, new technology, rail franchisee investment plans, footpath
and cycle networks, and any access mitigation to enable strategic scale development across administrative
boundaries, and future proofed internet access to all new development;
We consider these to be two fundamental parts of the plan making process which require cross boundary
co-operation and yet seem to have been abandoned.
In the absence of this plan moving forward to take an overarching view of growth requirements for the
region, we would strongly contend that the Council should re-engage with SoS to update the SoCG as
required in paragraph 27 of the NPPF. These statements will need to demonstrate how strategic policy
making is being addressed and what steps are being taken to accommodate the significant un-met housing
need, because it is not at all clear how this requirement is satisfied in the draft version of the plan.
These statements should be updated and made publicly available for review at each stage of the plan making
process.
Release of Green Belt Land
Paragraph 140 of the NPPF sets out the tests for the release of Green Belt land and confirms that it should
only be altered where ‘exceptional circumstances are fully evidences and justified, through the preparation
or updating of plans’.
Paragraph 141 goes onto set out the steps that need to be undertaken as part of the justification for
‘exceptional circumstances’. These are:
1. makes as much use as possible of suitable brownfield sites and underutilised land;
2. optimises the density of development in line with the policies in chapter 11 of this Framework,
including whether policies promote a significant uplift in minimum density standards in town and city
centres and other locations well served by public transport; and
c) has been informed by discussions with neighbouring authorities about whether they could accommodate
some of the identified need for development, as demonstrated through the statement of common ground.
Given the scale of housing need in the region, it must be the case that there are exceptional circumstances
that would justify the release of Green Belt land.
Within the context of the above, we have set out our comments on the SOC below.
Spatial Options Map
The Spatial Options Map put forward with the SOC shows my clients land, and neighbouring sites, designated
as Regional Park, which is an interpretation of a concept set out in the South Essex Green and Blue
Infrastructure Study.
Whilst, my client would be content for some of their land to be provided as parkland as part of a
comprehensive masterplanned approach to release their site from the Green Belt for housing led
development, they would not release it solely for the purpose of it being used as parkland.
Critically, the failure to allocate their site would seriously compromise the ability for SoS to deliver homes to
be able to meet their Objectively Assessed Need.
The Spatial Options Map therefore fails all the tests set out in paragraph 35 of the NPPF in relation to the
allocation for my client’s site at parkland as it would not be deliverable.
Rochford in 2050
We agree with the thrust of the Draft Strategic Priorities and Objectives, particularly:
1. Strategic Objective 1 – provision of sufficient homes to meet local community needs in partnership
with South Essex neighbours;
2. Strategic Objective 2- provision of a mix of homes to support current and future residents;
3. Strategic Objective 9 – provision of infrastructure; and
4. Strategic Objective 10 – working with neighbouring authorities and the County Council to deliver
infrastructure.
The objectives identified above are consistent with the requirements of the NPPF, particularly in its
requirements to work strategically with neighbouring authorities to meet housing need and provide
appropriate supporting infrastructure.
However, for the reason set out below, we do not consider the SOC provides the necessary framework to
deliver on these objectives. We consider the reverse is likely to be the case and, as drafted, it would prevent
the current and future need of the area being met.
Strategy Options
It is difficult to properly understand what is proposed within this chapter. The spatial plans (Figures 18-21)
lack clarity and in the absence of a key we cannot be certain what the Council are proposing.
We would ask that at the next stage, much improved plans with a meaningful key are provided to make it
clear what is proposed and where to avoid ambiguity.

Our overarching concern with this chapter is that none of the development options set out in this chapter
take account of the development options that are being put forward within SoS’s ‘Refining the Plan Options’
version, which includes the release of my client’s land, and neighbouring parcels, from the Green Belt for a
residential led development.
Indeed, it would appear that it will only be possible for SoS to meet its OAN through the development of my
client’s land along with neighbouring parcels promoted by Cogent Land LLP and a neighbouring authority
(potentially Rochford) accommodating any shortfall. However, there may be pressure from the other three
South Essex Council’s for housing shortfalls to be accommodated beyond their administrative boundaries.
In order for SoS OAN to be fully addressed, section 2.3i – Requirement for New Homes of the SoS draft Local
Plan identifies that between 3,550 to 4,300 new homes would need to be accommodated either in Rochford
or another neighbouring authority.
At the very least the SOC should include this within its options, including taking account of provision of
strategic infrastructure, particularly roads.
Strategy Option C of the SoS draft Local Plan shows the development of my client’s land, with neighbouring
sites and associated infrastructure.
Strategy Option D shows this growth extending into Rochford, which would allow SoS’s housing OAN to be
met in full.
At the very least, the Council ought to be fully engaging with SoS about its housing need and under its duty
to co-operate required by paragraph 35 a) of the NPPF and testing these options at consultation stage as
part of its SOC. Not to do so is a serious failure of proper planning in this region.
The options currently being promoted within the SOC would likely prevent SoS being able to deliver Options
C or D within its draft Local Plan and therefore prevent it from getting anywhere close to meeting its OAN.
Spatial Themes
My client is generally supportive of the thrust of this chapter and the principles to guide development coming
forward. In particular, the requirements for new development set out in ‘A Place-Making Charter for
Rochford’. We believe the 13 (or 14) points identified will enable the provision of good quality development
consistent with the NPPF.
We don’t have specific comments to make in respect of the questions raised, other than in respect of 16a to
16c. Whilst we feel that design codes will be helpful, these should be kept high level and not specific, unless
in relation to areas of very strong character or of heritage or landscape value. More specific design codes
could be readily formulated at outline permission stage.
Overly prescriptive codes at this stage in areas that are not constrained potentially stifle innovative design.
Housing for All
In relation to questions 17 to 19 It is important that the Council’s policies relating to housing units within
schemes are not overly prescriptive and take a flexible approach. We would expect a definitive policy is
likely to result in most developments being unable to meet that policy for a variety of reasons, such as site
constraints, viability, location, access to services/ public transport etc.
It is our experience that the unit mix that comes forward on each site, should be tailored to the individual
circumstances of that site, having regard to identified need.
We would therefore agree that a combination of Options 2 and 4 would be the most appropriate.
We agree that all homes should meet, or exceed, Nationally Described Space Standards, unless exceptional
circumstances prevent that from being possible, such as conversions or co-living schemes.
We agree that all homes should meet M4(2) of the Building Regulations, again, unless exceptional
circumstances prevent that from being possible.
Finally, we also agree that a ‘suitable’ proportion of new homes should be built to M4(3) of the Building
Regulations. However, we would strongly suggest that evidence ought to be produced to identify and justify
any prescriptive requirement set out in policy to ensure is is not overly onerous and proportionate to the
likely level of need.
Green and Blue Infrastructure
Our comments in relation to this chapter concern my clients’ landholdings which are shown in Figure 32 as
providing Regional Parkland. As the majority of this land is within the administrative area of SoS, we would
recommend that the Council’s immediately look to co-ordinate their approach. Not to do so, risks any
positive conclusions in respect of the duty to co-operate. The approach suggested within the SOC is at odds
with that shown within SoS’s draft plan, particularly in relation to the options that show my clients land being
released from the Green Belt for housing led development.
At no stage has my client put forward its land for regional parkland and, even if it is not released from the
Green Belt for development, it would remain in private ownership. This proposal is therefore not deliverable
and not consistent with paragraph 35 of the NPPF.
We would therefore strongly suggest that the Council review this chapter with the relevant landowners to
understand what is capable of being delivered.
My client would however be prepared to dedicate some of their site to parkland as part of a wider master
planned approach, but only as part of a residential led scheme.
Community Infrastructure, Questions 35 to 37
We agree with the Council’s approach, that it is critical that appropriate infrastructure if planned for to take
account of future growth. However, where we do not agree with the approach taken by the Council is in
relation to the concerning apparent lack of cross boundary discussions with neighbouring authorities about
their future growth and how infrastructure provision may need to be planned for to take account of those
requirements.
Consistent with comments made above, we would strongly urge the Council immediately engage with its
neighbouring authorities so that a cross boundary approach is taken to infrastructure provision that will
address future needs.
Infrastructure should be provided for as part of a cross boundary approach and as part of ‘walkable
neighbourhoods’ to ensure communities have facilities on their doorstep.
Transport and Connectivity
We enclose comments from Arup who are my clients transport and highways advisors in respect of this
chapter of the SOC.
The Wakerings and Barling, Questions 59a to 59e
We do not agree with the vision for The Wakerings and Barling shown in the SOC for reasons previously
explained. It would prejudice the ability for SoS to meet its housing need and the Council should be
discussing the potential release of surrounding Green Belt sites and other strategic cross boundary matters
to facilitate this.
Summary and Recommendations
Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to comment on your SOC. Whilst there are a great many aspects
of the plan that my client fully supports, for the reasons set out above, it does not meet the requirements
for plan making set out in national guidance. If it were to move forward on this basis, we do not believe it
would be capable of being found ‘sound’ in accordance with the tests set out in paragraph 35 of the NPPF.
Chiefly amongst our concerns is that the Council appear to have abandoned its engagement with SoS, and
taking a co-ordinated approach to strategic policy making to meet the need for the region, particularly in
relation to housing growth.

As identified above, the South Essex region is catastrophically failing to deliver homes to meet need and has
produced only slightly more than half of its requirement. It is difficult to see what further ‘exceptional
circumstances’ would be required to justify the release of Green Belt land and to use the plan making process
to take a co-ordinated approach to housing and infrastructure delivery.
We would strongly encourage the Council engage with its neighbours and key stakeholders, including my
client, to agree a strategic approach to accommodating housing need in the area and associated
infrastructure. This is a requirement confirmed in paragraph 25 (and elsewhere) of the NPPF. Ideally, the
Council should re-engage with SoS and produce a joint Part 1 plan to deal with cross boundary strategic
issues. Failing that, we would request that the Council provide an up-to-date Statement of Common Ground
prior to the publication of each plan making stage (in accordance with paragraph 27 of the NPPF) to clearly
set out how it is looking to work with its neighbour on cross boundary strategic issues moving forward.
We note that the Council plans to undertake a transport study that will look at, amongst other things, any
requirements for new road infrastructure. It is essential that this happens only once there is a better
understanding of cross boundary issues, particularly housing, so that this infrastructure can be planned in a
way that facilitates the growth required for the region.
We would very much welcome an opportunity to discuss my client’s land and the strategic growth in the
region with officers at a meeting in the near future. As currently formulated – this plan is seriously flawed
and requires amendment.

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]

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

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

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


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


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


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


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

Q5. Do you agree with the settlement hierarchy presented?


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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Spatial Themes

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

Housing for All

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


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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

Employment and Jobs

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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


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

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

Biodiversity

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


YES

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

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

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


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

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

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

Green and Blue Infrastructure

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


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

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


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


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

Community Infrastructure

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

Heritage

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


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

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


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


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

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


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

Town Centres and Retail

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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


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

Transport and Connectivity

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


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

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


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

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

Green Belt and Rural Issues

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


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

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

Planning for Complete Communities

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


N/A


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


N/A


Q56d. Are there areas that require protecting from development?


N/A


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


N/A

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



N/A

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


N/A


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


N/A


Q57d. Are there areas that require protecting from development?


N/A



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

N/A

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

N/A

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

N/A

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


N/A

Q58d. Are there areas that require protecting from development?


N/A



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


N/A


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

N/A

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


N/A




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


N/A





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


N/A


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


N/A


Q60a. Do you agree with our vision for Hullbridge?


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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


N/A


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


N/A


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


N/A


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

N/A

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

N/A



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


N/A


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


N/A


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

N/A



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

N/A



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


N/A





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


N/A


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


N/A


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


N/A


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


N/A


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


N/A


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


N/A


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


N/A

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


N/A


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


N/A


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


N/A


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


N/A


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


N/A


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


N/A






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


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

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


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

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


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

Create a Country Park to the west of Hullbridge.

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

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

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

Rochford District – Regulation 18 Local Plan Spatial Options Consultation
I refer to your consultation on Spatial Options for the ongoing preparation of the Rochford District Local
Plan.
I also refer to your letter of the 6th August 2021 enquiring as to whether Castle Point Borough Council can assist Rochford District Council in accommodating its development needs in locations outside the current
extent of the Green Belt pursuant to paragraph 141 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Unmet Development Needs
I will address your letter of the 6th August first. As you will be aware, Castle Point Borough Council submitted its draft Local Plan to the Secretary of State for examination in public on the 2nd October 2020.
That submitted plan, to accommodate the needs for development arising in Castle Point, includes several
allocations within the current extent of the Green Belt. The submitted Castle Point Local Plan is in the process of being examined, and hearing sessions into its soundness and legal compliance took place in May and June 2021.

The Castle Point Local Plan states that it is not possible for Castle Point to meet its own development needs without incursion into the Green Belt. The supply identified across the urban area in Castle Point is
sufficient to provide 3,148 homes which amounts to around 53.4% only of the borough’s own development
requirement. To this end, Castle Point Borough Council is not able to assist Rochford District Council in meeting its development needs to 2040 in non-Green Belt locations.

Spatial Options
With regard to the Spatial Option Consultation, I note that you currently have capacity for housing within the existing urban area and on existing allocations for around 4,500 homes. This is not sufficient to meet the requirement for housing in Rochford District as derived from the Standard Methodology set out in the Government’s National Planning Policy Framework and Planning Practice Guidance of 7,200 homes to 2040. You are therefore exploring spatial options for meeting this additional need within the extent of the Green Belt in Rochford District.

The Spatial Options Consultation sets out three broad options, numbers 2 to 4 which enable Rochford District Council to explore opportunities for development in Green Belt locations. All three options include the potential for development to the west of Rayleigh.
Under option 2 consideration is being given to sites which would form an extension to Rayleigh. It is noted
that combined sites CFS121, CFS146 and CFS147 which sit to the west of Rayleigh could deliver 2,838
homes.

Under option 3 consideration is being given to concentrating growth to the west of Rayleigh. This option
appears to include sites adjacent to Wickford with a combined capacity of over 5,000 homes.
Option 4 allows for the different spatial scenarios to be combined which means that there is scope for
Rochford District Council to bring forward both an extension to Rayleigh and concentrated growth to the
West of Rayleigh delivering close to 8,000 homes in this location.

Rochford District Council will be aware that Castle Point Borough Council are considering growth in the North West Thundersley area in a review of its local plan, which sits to the south of the A127 and the south of the sites being considered for development to the West of Rayleigh.

Delivery of any development in the North West Thundersley area will depend on access from the Fairglen Interchange.

Castle Point Borough Council has therefore been in early discussion with Essex County Council as the Highway Authority about joint working to bring this location forward alongside long-term proposals for the Fairglen Interchange.

If Rochford District Council are similarly considering the potential to concentrate growth near the Fairglen
Interchange, then there is scope for the authorities to work collaboratively to open up development
opportunities around this junction. Castle Point Borough Council would therefore ask Rochford District Council to work jointly with them on planning for this area if the decision is taken to concentrate all or some of the growth within the Rochford Local Plan to the west of Rayleigh. We recommend that Basildon Council also be part of the that discussion as their borough boundary also abuts and incorporates elements of the Fairglen junction.

Sustainable Travel
I notice from the consultation material that you are seeking to emphasise a shift towards more sustainable
modes of travel through the Rochford District Local Plan. The use of Walking Completeness scores for each of the settlements will enable Rochford District Council to identify which sites will contribute best towards the creation of more sustainable walkable communities, and it will therefore be interesting to see how these scores are used to select sites and plan for the provision of community infrastructure and services.

It is however noted that the majority of Rochford residents work outside the district, and many of your
residents live in smaller settlements where the range of services is more limited. There is therefore a need to improve public transport provision alongside the growth in the Local Plan. Castle Point has similarly come to this conclusion, and will need to see service improvements across the Borough as set out in our Infrastructure Delivery Plan.

With regard to the A129, Essex County Council is developing a route improvement strategy for the stretch
from Victoria House Corner in Hadleigh to the Rayleigh Weir with an emphasis on promoting more
sustainable modes of travel. However, journeys and especially sustainable travel journeys being made by
foot, bicycle or bus do not stop at the borough boundary but continue into Rayleigh from Castle Point and
vice versa. There is therefore a need for Castle Point and Rochford Council’s to work together with Essex
County Council to ensure that the route improvement strategy, especially in relation to sustainable travel
modes extends all the way into Rayleigh town centre and to Rayleigh station.

Duty to Cooperate
Based on the comments above Castle Point Borough Council believes that there are potential strategic
cross-boundary issues to be addressed through the preparation of the Rochford District Local Plan in
relation to:
a) Any development proposed to the west of Rayleigh
b) Sustainable travel on the A129
Castle Point Borough Council is willing to work cooperatively with Rochford District Council to ensure that any issues or opportunities arising from these matters are addressed.
To date, officers of both Councils have met on the respective local plans and worked closely on ASELA
projects, including strategic planning issues. The Council submitted to the Castle Point Local Plan Inspector a statement on Duty to Cooperate within South Essex which can be found at:
https://www.castlepoint.gov.uk/download.cfm?doc=docm93jijm4n5855.pdf&ver=9609
Separately, I note that you have used evidence base jointly prepared across South Essex to inform the
Spatial Options consultation and the approach you are proposing to some matters. I welcome your use of this shared evidence base as it helps to improve the consistency of planning between the different
boroughs in South Essex.

I also note that your proposals incorporate the South Essex Regional Park, the potential for which was
identified through the South Essex Green and Blue Infrastructure Strategy. Your incorporation of the
Regional Park within the proposals for the Rochford Local Plan is also welcomed as it will aid in the delivery
of Green and Blue Infrastructure across the wider South Essex area.

Castle Point Borough Council is willing to continue working with Rochford District Council and all other
South Essex partners as appropriate to prepare a joint evidence base, to bring forward a Strategic Planning
Framework for South Essex, and to deliver the priorities of the Association of South Essex Local Authorities.

I trust this response is of assistance to you in taking forward the preparation of your Local Plan. If you have
any queries, or if you wish to meet to discuss our comments please do not hesitate to contact the Planning
Policy Manager, Amanda Parrott – aparrott@castlepoint.gov.uk

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Heritage

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

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

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

Highways

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

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

Housing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear RDC,

Re CFS043 land at Bolt Hall Farm which we will refer to as Lark Hill from now on.

We wish to persuade you to give this a higher site assessment score rather than proposing it for ‘exclusion as too remote’.
Canewdon is seen by many as only ‘the village’ but Canewdon is a big parish with a large percentage of parishioners living outside of ‘the village’, they are forgotten when it comes to amenities as only ‘the village’ is the focus of attention. A development at Lark Hill will help many of these forgotten parishioners.

Lark Hill is an ideal position, it does not as others do, fall in the Coastal Protection Belt which RDC designated as having the most stringent restrictions on development. The existing high hedge along Lark Hill Road which will be kept, screens the site from being seen from Lark Hill Road. All development proposals in Canewdon will by default bring extra traffic, but Lark Hill will not bring extra traffic through Canewdon Village, past Canewdon School and the pinch point in the high street opposite one of the school entrances and Rose Cottage which is really only wide enough for one car at a time, as is much of Anchor Lane especially during school time. There is not a even a complete pedestrian pavement through Canewdon high street leading to the park and village hall, residents of Canewdon Village do not want a development that brings extra traffic through their village making it more unsafe for pedestrians.

The 80 or so houses adjacent to the proposal at Lark Hill do not have access to mains sewage, a public bus stop, public bus service, walking infrastructure, green space/playing field. They have lost the bus route along Lark Hill/Canewdon Road where there used to be at least 4 bus stops including one on the proposed Lark Hill stretch of road; as youngsters this was our route to Rochford, Rayleigh and Southend. This bus route has been lost for the moment but a development at Lark Hill would stimulate demand for this route to be reinstated, this would be a benefit to so many especially as public transport is going to be so important in a future low carbon economy.
Canewdon Parish has lost so many facilities to development which have been turned into housing; Younnes Village shop, the Chequers Pub and Creaksea Ferry Inn; hairdresser, bakers, hardware shop and village garage; the village café along Lambourne Hall Road and of course the riding stables which was enjoyed by people far and wide and is now a housing development.

We would like to persuade RDC that Lark Hill is not remote, a recent case Braintree Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government found that a site for residential development in a rural area should not be considered to be isolated, ‘if there are other houses close by’, there are circa 80 dwellings close by along Lark Hill Road and Pudsey Hall Lane. All of these adjacent dwellings will benefit from a development at Lark Hill.
If developed, Lark Hill will aid/provide the following:
1: Sewage will need to be laid on for Lark Hill allowing a connection to mains sewage for nearby houses.
2: Public transport will once again become viable along Lark Hill/ Canewdon Road.
3: A green space/park will be built at Lark Hill.
4: Walking infrastructure will be improved alongside Lark Hill Rd.
5. The creation of up to 8km of bridleways.

We have picked some scores for Lark Hill that we would like to discuss from your site assessment proforma for CFS043..
Critical Drainage only 2: It is envisaged all surface water will be recycled on Lark Hill in 2 large ponds and a wildlife reed bed will be created.
Impact on Built Heritage and Archaeology only 2s: Is this because of the Pill Box? This will be protected and will not be demolished as so many have been, as a family we are proud to be caretakers of a piece of history.
Access to bus services is only 1: We agree with this and it highlights the need for the bus route to be reinstated for the existing residents along Lark Hill/Canewdon Road/Hyde Wood Lane and Pudsey Hall Lane.
Public rights of way only a 3: There is a public foot path through the site which links to a network of footpaths so why such a low score? There will be a public footpath created to the North of the site which will join with other parts of the local footpath network leading to the River Crouch.
Secondary Schools only a 1: Considering the catchment area for King Edmunds encompasses Wakering and Foulness we believe Lark Hill should be higher as Greensward is only 2.9 miles away and closer still King Edmunds 2.3 miles.
Impact on jobs only a 3: The land at Lark Hill only provides enough work for about 1/10th of a man year, developing Lark Hill will create many local jobs.
Access to train services only a 1: Train stations at Rochford and Hockley are nearby being only 3.6m and 3.2m away. When reading estate agents selling points for properties along Lark Hill Road, they extol the fact Greensward and King Edmunds schools and the train stations at Hockley and Rochford are so close.

Self Builds: Government encourages self- build housing and councils to make sites available, there is already a demand with over 80 people on the RDC self-build register. Self-builders would be actively encouraged at Lark Hill so fulfilling the duty RDC has to provide self-build plots.
The community benefits of a development at Lark Hill.
1: No extra traffic through Canewdon Village.
2: Access to mains sewage for existing adjacent residents.
3: Improved public footpath network.
4: Reinstated bus route.
5. Creation of bridleways.
Environmental benefits of a development at Lark Hill.
1: 2 wildlife ponds will be created on site.
2: A 22 acre reed bed will be created for wildlife.
3: During the building phase spoil will be used to help create the reed bed and for maintenance of the Upper Raypits seawall, so no muck away lorries will need to use the local road network.
4: With the transition away from gas and also hydrocarbons Lark Hill will be heated by a community heat network using the latest green renewable energy technology available.
5: Green renewable energy will be generated to produce as close to 100% availability as possible.
6: Houses to be built to Passive Haus standards.
Points 4, 5 and 6 will be a showcase for existing communities such as Canewdon village showing how to lower their carbon emissions. Government is banning the use of gas and oil in new build houses by 2025 which as we write this letter is only just over 3 years away. It`s unbelievable that new developments are still being built using gas and oil for heating and without electric car charging points infrastructure at the 11th hour!

In the 60`s Canewdon was at the forefront of housing development when the ` new model village` was created and could be at the forefront again. Lark Hill is ready to step up if given the go-ahead to showcase a new affordable low carbon emission community that we all need to adopt for the future.

Dear Councillor Simon Wooton,

I hope you are well and a belated congratulations for being voted in leader of Rochford District Council last July.

I purposely write to you as a person of leadership for my area and with genuine interest of your views, given someone in your position will naturally do your very best to put resident interests (amongst other things) at the heart of everything.

I’m namely reaching out to you in relation to the identified or proposed plans for new housing development.

Before I go on, I feel for integrity I should briefly introduce myself and explain what has compelled me to write to you. I’m Jason McGinley, a 47 year old who moved to the Hawkwell area back in 2002/3, I am married, have 3 children (mostly grown up now) and have my Dad living close by. The reason I moved here was to find more space, tranquility, good schooling and the green space. The pace of life here back in 2002/3 was much slower and quieter than I was used to but was just what we looking for, and we integrated quickly and very much appreciated the qualities of local community life and living.

I’m not a man of erratic views or knee-jerk decisions and want for nothing in the main. However, I’ve found myself thinking over the last few years that perhaps it’s time to move on to somewhere which offers what we found here back in 2002/3. The area in ‘some’ ways has developed out of all recognition and has become an area with different dynamics, with seemingly many more people and car traffic and now feels quite claustrophobic and restrictive – feelings which my last area were reminiscent of.

So with introductions out the way, I understand plans seem to include over 6,200 houses across 6 sites with others involved in addition. I’m also mindful of the considerable amount of new housing already developed over last number of years and observe just from them along, a distinct lack of new supporting services / shops / road access - notwithstanding the impact to existing services in the surrounding areas. Specifically on the ‘past’ element effect, I’ve tried not to use the roads at all during weekends due to the traffic congestion stress it brings to me on a personal level.

Before I try to summarise business type reasons of concern, I’m conscious that this type of issue is 1 of many part of the bigger plan you’re responsible for. I also understand that for every past there’s also a present and a future, which requires a lot of balancing, thought and change, Having said all that, I do think there’s a lot of overlap across multiple touch-points, including decision making, and for that reason I’d like to really ‘pick-your-brains’ on the wider view and challenges or pressures you have to factor in to decisions.

For me it’s crucial to understand and differentiate between the directives you’re working to against viable options specific to our district – I’m sure this is something that most residents would have empathy on too?

On the ‘overlap’ I referred to, budget is a big one, as is climate and environment, younger generation, core services and local business. Being in business myself, naturally I can see benefit from creating efficiencies and making strategic decisions which embed and have sustainable impact. Personally I have lots of ideas around both, and am more than happy to impart these as part of resident feedback – should there be good reason to.

I genuinely am really interested to hear the challenges for our district and how you have to balance and manage these as part of a local and central Govt plan, including any personal thoughts presuming you’re a local resident too.

Back to the new housing point, the main aspects of concern or interest are:

1) Road traffic and lack of road infrastructure to deal with this – personally speaking, I can’t even see or understand how implementing new road space will even impact or help with this issue, for example the road in and out of Rayleigh through to Rochford and beyond just can’t cope anymore and neither would the main roads like A127 – we’re simply at ‘tipping point’.
Beyond the local access, those outside our district would find it near impossible to access what our area has to offer without extreme delay or difficulty.

2) Lack of new support services and shops / or impact to existing – such as supermarkets, doctors, hospitals, dentists, car parking, park space, exercise space, public transport and public houses. I often find which situations like this, you hear about conceptual ideas and promises without analysis of numbers before/future and real thought to how this will truly affect these things without having those who work or live on the ground in or near these things.

3) Population – whilst this relates to points 1) and 2) coming back to the qualities and dynamics the area offered back in 2002/3 versus what it’s like now, it just seems that there’s now too many people for what the area can deal with. I’m inclusive but this is something different to simply preferring it less busy.

4) Air pollution / Climate / Environment – for me this all overlaps and whilst more housing will bring more diversity, I just cannot see how for any of these points we will be in a better position ‘locally’, rather the opposite. Any statistical development analysis over last 5 or 10 years would be useful, against what locally and centrally we’re trying to achieve in this space and how more housing will align to the ambition.

5) Green Space / Flooding – again I think this overlaps. Much of the local beauty and attraction is the green space and all that it offers for wildlife and people alike, yet we keep taking it up more and more with concrete. Additionally, the flooding aspect as result and impact to utility service disruption i.e. blockage/flooding. To me this is alarming from both a future risk point of view and personal experiences namely from blocked drains causing both flooding and polluted flooding (from faeces) – which has become much more frequent. Ultimately I presume this is a shared risk for local Council services, budget and disruption too.

6) Youth – there seems to have been a lack of Council driven effort to generate new ideas or services which positively engage youth and the younger generation. This is an aspect I’ve spoken about for years too. There seems to be a whole range of opportunities but possibly a lack of budget, insight or plan to develop it. Additionally, it seems we now live in a world of such heavy compliance / regulation / and process, that bringing these types of things to life take extraordinary time and cost with incredible inefficiency – making them then quite un-attractive to take up. Also getting the right people involved is crucial to success.

7) Crime – I really don’t know the statistics here but do know on experience that it has become a much more frequent occurrence in recent years versus when we first move here. As result, I’m keen to hear what is planned in this regard if thousands of new residents arrive?


I recently saw a Rochford District Council report from 2018 on additional dwelling plans between 2010 – 2025, and attach a screen shot below. In reflection my immediate thoughts were:

• Planned 3,750 dwellings in a 15 year period (2010-2025) versus:

now in 2021 adjusted plans suggest ‘additional’ 6,236 dwellings across 6 sites alone, which seems a huge uplift in comparison?

• How policy can change from 1 year to another completely affecting previous plans
• What additional new dwellings have been developed in the interim period 2018 – 2021
• There were 33,600 dwellings in 2011, how many are there in 2021
• The 2021 Census doesn’t seem to be accessible yet?

I also found a Population chart (per below) which whilst has steadily grown from 2002 – 2018 by 7,656, it seems comparatively fair in relation to new dwellings, which using the above chart (from 2018) of 3,750 new dwellings there were 3,887 additional in population. One could suggest then, that this was driven mainly be ‘new housing’ more than anything else?

I remain interested in your response but for completeness and timing have also copied in the ‘SpatialOptions’ team. Please let me know if you prefer to arrange a face-to-face meeting as part of any response, or, feel free to call me too.