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?

Rayleigh currently has four GP surgeries and could do with a fifth. It is difficult to get an appointment at some practices.

Ashingdon Road which (at it's worst pinch points) cannot be changed. The road causes constant problems and is frequently blocked. Getting anywhere in rush hour is a nightmare.

There are severe capacity issues as the Puzey Family Practice. They are doing a wonderful job under horrendous restrictions. We don't have enough GPs and the place is often staffed by locums.Read the FB page to find out how people get on when they try to get an appointment.

Hullbridge has been much overlooked when it comes to any kind of infrastructure and facilities. Our children have no secondary school and we have to pay to send them to the surrounding towns. The bus service is inadequate. Because there is only 1 road in or out of the village, when this road has problems the buses are often cancelled altogether giving the people who rely on them no way of getting in and out of the village. We have no train station and as stated the road out of the village is very often gridlocked.

Residents of Rayleigh often comment on the pressure our school, road, and healthcare structures are already exposed to and fear additional housing without creation of new infrastructure.

These comments are consistent with my view that new large scale developments, such as new settlements, must first provide the infrastructure required to sustain them.

Yes. I currently live in great Wakering.

We do not have a dentist, we do not have a supermarket, we do not have a close secondary school, we do not have a Trainline, we do not have a close police station.

Currently Mill Hall serves as the only performance facility in the district, and provides an important function to support the vitality of Rayleigh as a town centre. The plan proposes residential use for this site within Site Allocation COL7. Theatres Trust as a statutory consultee will strongly object to proposals which diminish Mill Hall's performance function; the proposed replacement facility outlined within consultation documents would be significantly smaller and would not realistically facilitate theatre and other larger shows. We object to allocation COL7 as set out within our specific comments on that section. The plan can address this by ensuring the cultural needs of Rochford are met and that if there is need to replace Mill Hall the plan allocates appropriate replacement which ensures continued theatre and cultural provision. Given the threat to Mill Hall the Trust is likely to seek participation at Examination in Public should the plan's policies fail to robustly support and protect Rochford's community and cultural facilities.

Yes. Your proposed CFS 246 and 147 along with the current build alongside have none of these healthcare or community facilities. To address this, put facilities in first, for example. I object to these two cfs for many other reasons I hope to state later too.

Rayleigh has particular traffic issues (listen to BBC Essex's traffic reports) and problems of access to primary healthcare. Alocal plan should look to resolve these before adding to the problems.

Rayleigh needs more doctor surgeries as many people cannot get appointments to see a doctor for many weeks.
There are not enough nhs dentists in Rayleigh myself and my children have to travel to Hawkwell to see an nhs dentist. Many others have the same issue, two years ago I couldn’t find any local dentists with nhs space and now over 500 new homes have been built in Rayleigh, where are all those people going to go to see a doctor or dentist?
A hospital should be on the future plan for this influx of homes that are proposed.

Roads, schools, doctors, dentists all have severe capacity issues as of now. Try and drive somewhere on a Saturday morning - good luck! Stop building houses on green belt land.

All the schools in the District appear to be fully subscribed, so do the Doctors and the hospital has increasing waiting lists. The roads are jammed and it takes ages to get anywhere so I believe the Council needs to go back to Government and suggest no more large housing developments until all these issues are addressed. And do not demolish our community facility and desecrate our conservation area.

Healthcare facilities are at breaking point and the housing that was proposed in the last local plan hasn’t even been finished yet and there is no further provision to support the housing in this previous plan. The hospitals are now on WHITE alert (a new category invented to show the highest it has ever been). There is a 4-5 hour wait for an ambulance to unload at Southend Hospital and we are having to draft in Ambulance staff in from Thurrock, Mid Essex and further afield (like Hereford!!!). Our hospital capacity is currently EXCEEDING Oct/Nov levels (and this is not even due to COVID). The health service cannot cope. People can’t get a doctors appointment for weeks and weeks. Mental health support is broken and there very little provision for the people that need it that are already living here. And you want to bring another 7,000 new homes to area.

Where are our new doctors surgeries, day surgery units, dentists, new primary schools, new roads? We have had nothing despite all the new housing development that has gone on in Rayleigh in the last 30+ years. We are at breaking point.

Rochford doesn’t even have its own 6th form college for kids that want more vocational training post GCSE qualification. Our kids have to go out of the area. Since teenagers now have to stay in education until 18 the only provision made in the district is 6th classes in the current schools but there is nothing for those that prefer more hands on or more skilled training. Transport to Seevic is overloaded. Where is our 6th form college?

None that I am aware of.

Healthcare in Rayleigh is terrible. I'm referencing Audley Mills doctors. The availability of appointments is non existent. It seems you either need to stay up until midnight to try and book an appointment on-line, and then 9 times out of 10, there aren't any; or you need to phone first thing in the morning and then be kept in a queue for an hour, to find there aren't any appointments left anyway. The doctors in Rayleigh seem to already be overwhelmed, and more housing is just set to make things worse than they already are.

Healthcare in particular needs to be addressed as local GP surgeries are under pressure and have been since pre Covid 19 days.

The Ashingdon road is the busiest non B road in Essex. More should be done to protect the children attending these schools that run along it. The could all be re-located. The road could be restricted to local traffic. traffic measures could be imposed. An alternative road could be used/created.
Additionally Ashingdon as a parish is the poor neighbour within RDC. It has KIng George's fields, a pavillion, two car parks a village hall, a couple of churches [one being the second oldest in England!], a church hall, a pharmacy and a couple of shops. Yes it shares a pub and a post office with Hawkwell. But it does need more - more money, more facilities, more support.
It, along with south fambridge is over 1000 years old.

allow Ashingdon its own community plan

Villages to the east of the district suffer from a medical centre that cannot cope with the volume of patients today - phone system in particular is poor.

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.

Having just received your 2020-2040 planning vision I am completely opposed to losing our precious greenbelt countryside. Namely CFS027 land north of Bull Lane, CFS029 land Turrett Farm, Napier Road and CFS098 land north of Napier Road.

We need to keep our green belt for all our generations to come, Rayleigh is already grid locked, we have drain/flooding issues with Bull Lane, it is very difficult to get a doctors appointment, how can we cope with even more cars on the road. This has to stop.

How can this area possibly take the amount of housing proposed!
Green belt disappearing, gridlocked roads , appointments impossible to obtain at doctors surgeries . Houses and gardens on top of each other.
It’s crazy

I have lived in Great Wakering and Barling for many years. A great many houses have already been built in the last 15 years already but with no more infrastructure. The roads in Barling and Little Wakering are very narrow and dangerous. At least once a month, there are cars, lorries etc in ditches and fields. There are no plans to build more schools, doctors surgeries, shops or widen roads. It is simply not possible to accommodate more people in an already overcrowded community. We cannot get through to our doctors surgery most of the time and the building of more houses will just add to the problem.

We have viewed the proposed Plan for the area surrounding our home in Blower Close and would like to record our objections to the proposal. Having lived here for 28 years we have enjoyed the Green Belt and the amenities it provides. If the Green Belt were to be developed it would devalue the whole area. The infrastructure would not meet the needs of your proposals. It is nearly impossible at the moment to get a Doctor’s appointment. There is so much traffic already that the Town is often gridlocked with queues of traffic trying to reach the main roads in and out of Rayleigh. It is often impossible to find empty spaces in the existing car parking areas and we know from experience that able-bodied drivers often use the Disabled Parking bays.

Under your Plan the development of the Green Belt would not enhance the whole area. We have seen the development alongside Hall Road, Rochford. Initially it was proposed that there would be a Doctors Surgery and a new school. The plans were passed before the developer sold off part of the area to another developer which allowed them not to build either a school or a surgery for the use of the residents. Indeed an area was sold to a London Borough to meet their housing needs. In Rawreth Lane we have yet another development reaching London Road and where traffic is reduced to a single lane. In Hullbridge they have built houses and had to build a new roundabout for the increased traffic from Watery Lane and Rayleigh. And there are always huge queues of traffic. Under your plans, fewer people would want to live in such congestion,

I do not think the local towns and villages can sustain any more housing,the area is totally gridlocked at present the roads cannot cope with the volume of cars at present let alone adding more housing to the area.
Southend hospital is overwhelmed as are the doctor surgerys and schools,infrastructure must be addressed before any more homes are built,and not just a couple of new roundabouts as we have seen done in Hullbridge.
I have lived in Hullbridge since 1962 and am using the same roads as of then to enter and exit the village the amount of cars on the narrow old roads cannot cope anymore,also the amount of gas and water leaks on these roads lately from high volumes of traffic and heavy lorries is ridiculous .
Hullbridge has endured nearly 4 years of traffic lights,dust,noise and disruption from all the new housing estates in the area it is not fair on the local residents in the area enough is enough !!!!
I appreciate the need for more housing but do not see affordable housing at present with houses being sold at £400,00 plus,the only winners at present are the large building firms such as Barretts etc.
A whole new town needs to be built such as we had before like Basildon and south Woodham,where shops ,doctors and services are put into place to service the expanding population,unlike as is happening at present where 500 plus homes attached to existing towns with nothing more than a new roundabout is put in to service the area.
Rochford council is appalling in their handling of the housing being allowed at present without sorting the bigger problems out that the area has,any car journey is taking twice as long nowadays and to get a hospital or doctors appointment is getting longer by the day.
The whole area has reached saturation point essex needs green space and less traffic if we are to combat, climate change and give our kids and grandkids a future,please look at one new big town to give the housing and AFFORDABLE housing the area needs rather than keep tagging new housing estates onto already over stretched areas as is happening at present.

As a resident of Barling Magna for many years, I am very concerned about the possibility of more houses being built in the village. We do not have the infrastructure as the roads are very poor around this area. It's so important for Barling Magna to remain a village, we would not need any more services if this was the case.
1. We do not have any local shops.
2. Wakering Doctors Surgery is already overcrowded and you could die before getting an appointment.
3. We are in a flood plain.
4. The drains and gas pipes could not cope and already full with water, so I am sure sewers would not be able to cope with more houses.
5. The roads are always full of cycles and people horse riding, more traffic would create untold accidents on winding country roads.
6. We currently have nice surroundings and it would be a travesty to destroy this with new houses.
7. Who were the people who proposed Barling. I bet they do not live here!!

Considering all of the doctors and schools in the area of Rayleigh are full to overflowing - adding all of the houses proposed is not sustainable if the current infrastructure is not upgraded.

I OBJECT unless:
A. A new Primary AND secondary school is built in the area to accommodate the hundreds of children that will be joining the area (adding to those joining the area on the Hullbridge estate) B. At least 1 new doctors surgery is built to accommodate residents as it is increasingly hard to get an appointment with doctors at the moment without all of these extra residents C. Suitable parking is provided with each property ie. space for at LEAST 2 cars per household as that is a minimum required for families at the moment D. Suitable green space is kept for local wildlife/mental health of residents/exercise E. Potentially a new road into Rayleigh from the A1245 or Beeches Road/Chelmsford Road to accommodate the new traffic that will be entering the area considering the build up of traffic currently.

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.

I am writing to express my objection to
TO CS194 - 500 + Houses behind Rectory Road, Hawkwell, running from Clements Hall Leisure Centre to Windsor Gardens right down to The Railway Line.

HIGHWAY ISSUES
The development could increase traffic movements by nearly 50% on the current 2019 counts which further could represent an increase of over 90% since 2008.
Improvements were made to the junction at Nursery Corner in relation to Clements Gate. No further junction improvements are possible so material congestion will result.
The other junction on Rectory Road is at a Railway Bridge where no improvements can be made so material congestion will result.
Both unacceptable and unsustainable for further development.

INFRASTRUCTURE ?
Residents have great concerns that a standard charge or levy for infrastructural components (CIL) will be insufficient to meet the real costs of making this location sustainable.
The location is likely to generate more private car journeys and it is unlikely that bus or walking or cycling will prove a via viable alternative.
The location is currently inaccessible and any new road created from the demolition of houses in Rectory Road will be a bottleneck.
Rectory Road is on the Speedwatch list because of continuing speeding problems revealed. Given the volume of traffic, often released in batches from one end by traffic lights and the other by a mini roundabout this leads to driver frustration and speeding occurs giving rise to the potential for multiple vehicle accidents and with those trying to emerge from side roads at high traffic volume periods.

LOSS OF GREEN CORRIDOR FOR WILDLIFE
There has been an increase in some wildlife from the displacement of habitat at Clements Gate. Where will it go now?

PUBLIC FOOTPATHS AND BRIDLEWAYS
A rural footpath and a bridle path are in the area these may be lost – even if retained their attractiveness will be lost. Residents also walk the field boundary which will no longer be possible. Loss of informal recreational areas.

BROWNFIELD LOCATION NEARBY
The Magees general location, a brownfield location very nearby could be used instead.
This area of Hawkwell West is low lying and prone to flooding, fog and freezing fog.

FLOODING
Reference - South Essex Level 1 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment - April 2008
Page 37 - Hawkwell Brook - Flood Zones apply to this Site.
Page 38 - Local knowledge disputes the claim that the Hawkwell Brook defences have protected against the 100 year flood event. Only 30 year protection maximum.
Indeed there were significant Hawkwell Brook flood events in 1953 (the water course was moved as a result), 1968, and 2013. These have been ommitted from the Flood Record on Pages 40 and 41.
Being in the highest risk Flood Zone – there must be no building.
It is likely that the site risk itself would be potentially reduced by the 1 in 100 year calculations but there is no control or checks on these systems and they are unproven. As the site is adjacent to a tidal river the risk would remain and probably increase flooding risk on adjacent areas
AIR QUALITY
Air quality will decrease further. Traffic volumes have increased by 34.5%. This has increased air pollution. Residents have noticed that lichens on roof's have reduced which is a well known ecological marker of increased pollution.
FLOOD ZONE
The area nearby is in a flood zone.
Reference - South Essex Level 1 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment - April 2008
Page 37 - Hawkwell Brook - Flood Zones apply to this Site.
Page 38 - Local knowledge disputes the claim that the Hawkwell Brook defences have protected against the 100 year flood event. Only 30 year protection maximum.
Indeed there were significant Hawkwell Brook flood events in 1953 (the water course was moved as a result), 1968, and 2013. These have been ommitted from the Flood Record on Pages 40 and 41.
It is a greenfield and a nearby brownfield would be ignored.
ACCESSIBILITY TO SERVICES
Walking Distances using a midpoint on Rectory Road
Hockley Railway Station 33mins
Hockley Spa/shops 31+ mins
Hawkwell Parade 21mins
Shorter routes use unmade paths and alleyways that are not suitable for all, even the main road
route uses narrow footpaths that are unsuitable for some prams/buggies/mobility aids. All routes are uphill.
Golden Cross Parade 18mins
Rochford Railway Station 39 mins
Rochford Square 41mins
All routes necessitate crossing Rectory Road and include a narrow footpath under the railway bridge.
Again the narrow footpath is unsuitable for some prams/buggies/mobility aids.
The only cycle path is along Ashingdon Road but there is no linkage to it.
General issues with suitability of walkways for elderly/infirm and young
Hockley Car railway car park already at capacity at 9.30am Railway Company promised 4 trains per hour but only delivering three.
Limited capacity of Rochford Station Car Park
Taxi fares about £8.00 to Rochford
If travelling to Rochford station possible congestion due to early start time at King Edmund School
No safe bike route as the road width does not even incorporate a safe footway in Rectory Road on one side and none on the other. A cycle path could not be included.
No and not feasible – in the other direction the railway bridge would preclude this.
There is a growing issue at Nursery Corner which is concerning residents right now and could be exacerbated in the future by a major development.
Basically there are long tailbacks at rush hour times in Rectory Road and it is impossible for pedestrians to cross the B1013.
And there is a bottleneck at St Mary’s Bridge.
And at Golden X
And at Hockley Spa
EDUCATION
From a review of the “10 Year Plan – Meeting the demand for school places in Essex 2019 – 2028 prepared by The Essex School Organisation Service”, we note the following:
The Report confirms that “the significant increase in demand for school places in Essex is predicted to continue” (page 4).
The Report states that the figures endeavour to account for possible future developments, and therefore, the additional demand on the schools in the area (page 7).
However, the school place forecast figures for Reception for the local area on pages 55-57 show that in some areas in the latter years covered by the Report there is already insufficient capacity.
In addition, the school place forecast figures for Secondary Schools for the local area, specifically Rochford/Hockley, on page 58 confirm that throughout 2019/2020 up to 2028/2029, there are insufficient school places to cope with current demands and development.
Any additional new developments, such as this potential development of up to approximately 450 dwellings, would certainly place increased pressure on the schools in this area and only exacerbate this issue.
Pre- School - There is only one, Clever Clogs at Hawkwell Village Hall, within one mile and there is no info on capacity.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: Spatial Options Consultation, Site Reference CFS064

As residents of nearby Folly Lane, we were very concerned to learn of the potential plans to build 214 new homes on the land north and east of Folly Chase, Hockley. Adding this amount of homes to an area that already experiences a vast amount of congestion on nearby roads is inevitably going to make things worse. It is already gridlocked throughout Hockley and going into neighbouring towns at peak times and these plans will just exacerbate the issue.

More homes also means more school places will be required for children moving to the area. There is already strong competition for places at the nearby schools; the Essex County Council Primary, Infant and Junior Schools Admission Policies Directory 2022/2023 reflects that the number of applications at each of these schools was between 3-5 times more than the places on offer. Again, this situation will only be made worse by building such a large number of homes in the area. As a parent of a child at Hockley Primary School, I also have safety concerns over the inevitable influx of vehicles to an area where many children will be present during peak times.

The plans will also mean greater stress on local health facilities, which we already struggle to access due to the shortage of appointments and practitioners available. Trying to get an appointment at local doctors and dentists is a gamble at times and substantially increasing the number of residents in the local area will stretch already limited resources further.

In addition to the practicalities of such plans, the land itself provides valuable green space for the local community. The Queen Elizabeth II Jubilee Walk cuts through the land and has provided a much needed escape for many local residents during the past 18 months. The opportunity to walk in this peaceful area does much for both our physical and mental well-being.

We urge you to rethink the plans for this area as it will be detrimental to local residents for the reasons we’ve identified above and more. If such plans were approved then we fear this may lead to current residents moving out of Hockley in the coming years, a scenario that I’m sure the Council would prefer to avoid.

We would like you to know that we feel any kind of action to the needed changes within the Rochford District will probably be ignored as many complaints and comments have been made over the many years we have lived here and very little has been done. Our roads in the area are in the most disgusting condition causing danger not only to motorists but cyclists, motor bike riders and pedestrians. The work that does get done is inadequate and has to be redone on frequent occasions. Drains are blocked and cause rain to flood roads. The housing estates are being built regardless of the lack of infastructure, the inability for some children to attend schools within their catchment areas, due to overcrowding, a lack of GP surgeries, parking facilities, which are overpriced and inadequate. The bus service regardless of the increased population is still poor, sites which are part of our heritage are either sold off or left to deteriorate as is the site where the old police station is in Rochford. The possibility of Mill Hall being pulled down, leaving no social centre for sport, entertaining etc. is also on the cards. Shops are closing due to high business rents and are left in poor condition making them undesirable to new business ventures. The gatehouse at the end of Hawkwell Park Drive is falling into disrepair beyond belief with overgrown garden etc. We thought this was a listed Grade 11 building. The cake shop next to it is a disgrace and would not tempt me or many people i know to have a cake made there particularly when you see the state of the waste ground outside. The parking at the end of Hawkwell Park Drive is appalling causing back ups of traffic into the road around which cars/vans turning off the main road are unable to progress. The overspill of cars from White Hart Lane Service Station, which are left in Hawkwell Park Drive and Park Gardens is also unacceptable. The cost of our Council tax is high enough to warrant all of these problems being resolved and I am afraid, as are many people I know, feeling that your request that we have an input into the future of our area is a complete waste of time.