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?

To whom this may concern.

As the homeowner of [redacted - house number] Little Wakering Road, Barling Magna, Essex SS3 0LN I write to express my serious concerns about the council’s proposals of the Spatial Options Consultation, beginning with the communication to local residents and administration of process. The online consultation portal and supporting documents, reports, interactive maps etc. I consider to be deliberately designed to confuse even the most educated of local residents. The sheer volume of supporting documents and their size makes it almost impossible for the average local resident to respond objectively and succinctly outline their thoughts – good or bad.

For this reason I have not responded through the portal as simply put I am struggling to navigate it. Instead, by cc’ing in one of our local councillors I hope my thoughts are duly considered by the council.

I am particularly concerned by the potential site CFS004 (next to Barling Magna School). I live on this extremely narrow stretch of Little Wakering Road just a few doors down from this site and regularly use this area with my wife and young children (under 3yrs) horse riding, walking, cycling and running. The pavements are too narrow in places to get our buggy through and the numerous parked cars make pulling out of our drive very difficult. We are regularly blocked in by other cars during school runs and are frequently woken up at night by cars speeding along this narrow section. I must disagree entirely with elements of the Initial Appraisal and question the methodology behind the ratings.

For example, the Existing Site Access Score is a 5, the highest rating. How can this be so? This is on the very narrow section of Little Wakering Rd and directly opposite our childrens nursery. This whole area frequently becomes gridlocked during school runs presenting a significant hazard to local residents, children at the nursery / preschool / primary school and their parents.

A second example – the rating for access to a Secondary School is 4. Yet slightly further down Little Wakering Road at site CFS192 (Land to West of Little Wakering) the rating for Secondary School is 1, the lowest possible. The sites are barely 1/2mile apart, are served by the same bus route, and only have pavements on the opposite side of the road. This high rating is surprising given that the access to bus services and train services are 1, presumambly this means the council are relying on student’s parents driving them to the secondary school? This isn’t exactly in keeping with current ‘green environmental policies’ that I am sure the council is bound to. I am sure that detailed review of all of the sites would present similar inconsistencies. Though perhaps isolated inconsistencies, it is this same data that is a major factor in determining which sites may be viable and proceed along the planning process. If either site were to be considered I would pursue a detailed response from the council evidencing their reasons for the different ratings.

Putting potentially 26 houses in this small area is so out of keeping with the local area. All of the houses along this section of Barling are detached or semi-detached, most with driveways and front gardens. There are fewer than 26houses in the entire SS3 0LN postcode. Should any houses be permitted at this plot they must be in keeping with Barling village. The architype of houses at the current Barrow Hall and Star Lane developments would be of detriment to our small and picturesque village.

I am unable to provide a detailed response to each of the local sites for the reasons outlined in the opening paragraph. I note the following general and specific points as bulleted below and strongly request that they are taken into consideration by the council.

• It is my understanding (based on page 28 of the Rochford and Southend Stage One and Two Green Belt Study 2020) that almost all of the potential sites from the south of Rochford to Little Wakering and south of Great Wakering are within Green Belt Land. It is my limited understanding that Green Belt Land is protected to prevent urban sprawl from connecting small villages and towns, to keep green space between them. I therefore cannot see how almost all of these sites can be even considered by the council due to their being located within the Green Belt. Many of them are scored the lowest 1 rating, the highest level of harm to the Green Belt. Disappointingly Site CFS004 receives a 2 rating for this. I perceive this as another inconsistency as detailed above and would request further information as to why this constitutes less harm than the site CFS192 below.
• The main roads into Barling and Little Wakering are 60mph national speed limit country roads. They are uneven, twisted, with no or limited street lighting, have uneven cambers and are exceedingly narrow for the most part. The section of Barrow Hall Road where it joins Barling Road is barely 4m, this means that 2 larger cars can’t pass one another without significant care or attention. There are regularly accidents along these roads and therefore I consider them to be wholly unsuitable for access to residential developments. I hope that the council has not set a precedence by allowing the developer of the Barrow Hall site to use this for access, Southend Road to the south would have been much more appropriate.
• Shopland Road is similar to Barrow Hall Road and Barling Road. What is most concerning is that the narrow bridge by Butlers Farm cannot safely accommodate much more vehicular traffic. There are regularly accidents at this bridge as 2 larger cars cannot pass each other in the same manner as described above. Any developments in this area must include a widening (and straightening) of this section of road to prevent further accidents.
• Public transport is very poor within Little Wakering and Barling. There are very limited bus services making it difficult to access local services and shops, plus Southend and Shoebury without having access to a private vehicle. Any developments in these villages will greatly increase the number of vehicles on these narrow roads with the usual negative effect on parking, driveway access, speeding and pollution.
• There is a lack of suitable footpaths within Little Wakering and Barling. Much of Barling only has a path on one side and this simply stops at Church Rd and a short distance where Little Wakering Road joins Barling Road. Where are the residents of this potential development (CFS004) supposed to walk to safely without being forced to walk into a national speed limit county road? The footpaths we have are narrow and steeply cambered in many places, I would hope that the council upgrades these should any of these developments be passed for planning.
• There are two main sections of Little Wakering Road that cause myself and other local residents concern.
o Opposite my house (between Barling Lodge and the Primary School) is very narrow. Cars are always parked on the east side meaning that there are very few areas that cars can safely pull in. With the volume of traffic noticeably increasing of late, particularly at school runs, there is frequently congestion, dangerous driving, and driveways including my own being blocked in. More cars on the road from any residential developments will only add to this. Only last month my neighbour (redacted - house number) had his van damaged by someone travelling at speed from the north end, this road is simply too narrow to support any more traffic without taking into account the dangers to the children using the school and nurseries.
o Between the Castle Pub and Kimberly Road. The north bound section of road is frequently almost entirely blocked by parked cars leaving little or no space for cars to pass each other. Many times I have witnessed dangerous & aggressive driving by irate drivers trying to navigate this stretch and blocking each other in. Any development plans to Little Wakering must mandate improvements to Little Wakering Road.
• Generally, I cannot see how this area (north of Southend to Rochford and the villages of Great Wakering, Little Wakering and Barling Magna) can support more houses without provisions for additional GP and other healthcare services. The GP at Great Wakering is almost impossible to get an appointment at, the same for many local NHS dentists. Little Rascals Nursery and the pre-school in Barling are already full. More houses will only make this worse.

[Re CFS064; 194; 169; 150; 020]

I strongly object to the suggested building on the above referenced sites - details as follows.

CFS064 - Green Belt area. The increase in traffic would greatly impact our roads, particularly B1013 which suffers severe congestion now.
The wildlife habitat of our surrounding fields would be severely disrupted at a time we are all being asked to support our native species.

The other areas are all prone to flooding!! Is this ideal for housing building?

Infrastructure not confirmed. Ideally planned and achieved first. Lack of buses and the extra strain on our local education and medical surgeries needs to be considered initially. Promises were made for Hall Road development but infrastructure failed to be addressed! Prime example.

The reasons I do not agree with even more housing in Great & Little Wakering are detailed overleaf.

INFRASTRUCTURE - The village will not be able to cope, it is already impossible to get a GP appointment due to new houses still being built. The roads will not be able to cope with the volume of traffic.

ROAD ACCESS - Only 2 main roads in & out of the village, access is very limited at busy times. If there is an accident which often happens then only one way in and out.

FLOOD PLAINS - If all the local brooks are built on, the whole area will be even more prone to flooding.

CRITICAL INCIDENT - If roads are blocked by the extra traffic, emergency services will not be able to get in and residents will not be able to get out in the event of any evacuation. This will cost lives.

WORKING FROM HOME - More people work from home now. Extra homes, more people, busier village, will impact on quality of life & mental health.

EDUCATION - Not enough school places, also school buses will not be able to accommodate numbers.

INCREASE IN CRIME - No longer will be a village with a local village community.

To Rochford council
We would like to raise our objections to the proposed sites identified in the Hockley Local Action Plan and in particular the sites listed above currently in the consultation process for future development. We live at the above property and moved to Hockley to live in a semi-rural village and to enjoy open spaces, wild life and all that county living offers, away from heavy traffic and poor air pollution. We understand the need for more housing in the southeast and would support housing projects which included their own infrastructure and facilities ie roads, schools, Doctors etc in an area that does not impact on existing towns and village which are already over- developed for the services and infrastructure in place.
The proposed development of the above sites would have a direct impact on our property and lifestyle and we oppose the development of those sites for the following reasons:
Housing built on CFS242 and CFS150 is likely to overlook our garden and the trees surrounding our property would need to be removed to enable building, spoiling our outlook and tranquillity and could result in property prices being affected as the desirability of the area would be compromised. Our property is located at the bottom of victor gardens which is on an incline and already suffers with water drainage problems and during the winter months the garden becomes water logged. Further development on CFS242 & CFS150 would impact further on water drainage in the area.
The Nature reserve is very close to the proposed sites and building on these areas would impact on the wildlife significantly.
We oppose the building on any green belt land to protect the countryside, Footpaths and bridleways which would be lost.
Parking in Victor gardens is likely to be impacted with further development. Many of the houses in the road have already been extended and some single plots purchased by builders and then replaced by two large properties which has increased the traffic and parking in the road.
We also oppose the over development of Hockley/Hawkwell to protect it as a village.
The roads are already very congested and presenting problems in the area and further development would cause major problems getting in and out of the village without new road structures being put in place.
Many of the local schools are already full or close to full capacity and more housing would result in a lack of school places and choice for local children. If more educational facilities are not provided with further development then our children’s education will be compromised at the expense of development and housing.
The health facilities in the area are already overstretched and more housing in the area will definitely impact on our heath services.
Having lived and worked in this area for over 25years we feel that Hockley/Hawkwell is already overdeveloped for the infrastructure and facilities in place and therefore oppose further major development/ housing of this area.

I feel the need to contact you to put my comments forward regarding the new local plan that is currently being consulted on. I understand that the council is under pressure to build homes to meet housing needs but I really do question who these new homes are for. We live in the area (Hullbridge). We have a 22 year old daughter and a 25 year old son. We are sadly in the process of having 500 homes built just down the road to us and a further huge development near Makro in Rayleigh and our own children and other local families cannot afford them! This cannot be right surely! If any housing is to be considered then it really does need to be affordable for local families and not sold on to inner and outer London housing associations!!

After looking at the area map in great detail and the proposed development sites being put forward, I would suggest that all housing is in one location either as mentioned in the consultation document: 3a - West of Rayleigh or 3b North of Southend.

Hullbridge once again, appears to have been targeted as a major area for development. My own garden and the land that we back onto, is designated as Green Belt/Agricultural land, yet this is still being considered. We wish to ask some questions and bring to your attention some issues with this that may have been completely overlooked when setting out this consultation document and map of proposed sites, in particular those EAST of Ferry Road CFS128, CFS265, CFS151, CFS172, CFS042, CFS041, CFS243, CFS237, CFS100:

• Most if not all of this land is designated green belt land and we have already had a large amount of housing in our 'village'. We want to maintain our village status!

• CFS151, CFS128, CFS172, CFS265 - have a large number of very old oak and ash trees bordering the land that should not be destroyed but have the potential of being so if the sites are developed. A neighbour had plans turned down for a wooden annexe because it would mean that trees needed to be cut down so this should also be the case when considering future development sites.

• CFS 151/CFS172 - I am not sure if you are aware but there is a history of JAPENESE KNOT WEED on/ near to both of these sites. I am sure that any future developer/prospective purchasers of homes on these sites would be very interested to know this, as any future homes could be rendered completely worthless.

• CFS151/CFS172 - The lane that borders this land (Long Lane) is a bridleway and pubic footpath that allows riders and the public to enjoy our countryside safely. We do not want, nor can we afford for these to be lost. Horse riders are already in danger when trying to access these bridleways from the main road (Lower Road). The road is so busy without the additional traffic that new homes would bring!

• CFS100 - This land was part of the old NSEC site and must be contaminated land. We would like to know how this is going to be dealt with, if development plans go through?

• CFS128 - This land is a haven for wildlife, including munt jac deer and barn owls that roost in the barn on site. Other areas should be considered before destroying the habitat of these animals. Where will they go if you build homes on all the fields in this area?

• There is a distinct lack of infrastructure in our village to cope with the amount of housing proposed! This was completely overlooked in order to push through plans for the 500 homes currently being built West of Ferry Road in Hullbridge and we are paying for it! Our roads are busier than ever. We now struggle to get a doctors appointment, there is one private dentist that only opens a few days a week and the public transport is totally unacceptable and unreliable, especially when it comes to getting children to and from school. We have the following questions that we would like to be carefully considered and then answered before any further homes are built in this area:
1. When were traffic surveys carried out? If they were during or since the pandemic, or conducted during the school holidays, then they will not give an accurate reflection of the amount of traffic that passes through our village nor the congestion that we face coming in and out of our village. A six minute journey has taken over an hour when Watery Lane is closed!
2. Has the Environment Agency's new potential flood maps been considered? This shows that most of Hullbridge will flood by 2040. It is going to be very difficult for home owners to get house insurance now that this new map has been released and will make it more difficult to sell homes.
3. What public transport will be available for any prospective new home owners East of Ferry Road? We DO NOT HAVE ANY public transport links, yet it was scored a '5' as 'very good public transport links'. This is not correct at all and does not even reflect the number of buses that leave Ferry Road per hour, let alone public transport for homes at the top of Coventry Hill. A score of '5' means 10+ buses an hour. This is totally inaccurate! The 820 bus school bus service for children travelling to and from Sweyne Park school has just been suspended, leaving many school children without a bus service to school. The bus company's answer is to use public transport but as I have previously mentioned, this is completely inadequate and we are already seeing children left stranded at the bus stops both in Hullbridge and then near Rayleigh station. Stopping this service will only put more pressure on our roads and add to pollution levels. This is without the number of new homes that you are once again considering for Hullbridge.
4. What traffic calming measures will be put into place to slow traffic down for any vehicles on the proposed sites to enter/exit Lower Road? Nobody has listened to current residents regarding the danger that we face pulling out onto Lower Road where it bends and narrows. We have been asking for a speed camera or flashing speed signs for years and have been passed back and forth between the council and highways, with no resolution at all.
5. What increase in local services will we see? Our doctors are already over stretched and the building of 500 homes West of Ferry Road has not yet reached completion, so we are yet to see the full impact of these new homes, let alone the homes proposed in this new local plan. Will there be additional doctors surgeries built? Will there be an NHS dentist? How will you ensure that local school children can get a place in the village school? What measures will be put into place to prevent the flooding, as detailed in the Environment Agency's map? How will you ensure that children have access to school transport to and from the local secondary school as this has already been cancelled by the bus service and is causing chaos trying to get the children to and from school? What will you do to ensure that vital services such as policing, waste collections, postal services and emergency services are maintained with the influx of residents? Most of the services are overstretched as it is!
I fully appreciate that you are under pressure from the Government to build new homes but 4298 homes in our village is far too many and will more than double the size of our village, meaning that we will are unable to preserve our rural coastal village outlook.
Any homes that are built should have a large proportion set aside for residents of Rochford District Council to purchase affordable housing. There is not any point in building homes that are going to be bought up by wealthier London Boroughs, leaving our own local families without homes! This should not just be a money making/box ticking exercise but something that has a positive impact on local families in within Rochford District Council boundaries.

Thank you for taking the time to read our comments. I look forward to your answers to our questions.

Consultation on the New Local Plan by Rochford District Council, Site CFS064
Land bounded by Folly Chase, Betts Farm Estate, Hockley Community Centre, the railway line and Hockley Primary School.
Please accept this as my comment on the proposed development above.
It is completely unreasonable to suggest any further development in the above area. There were already concerns at the last development at the time and to add any further properties would be totally unadvisable.
Greensward Academy and Hockley Primary School are both full and adding a further housing estate based on say, 2 children per household would mean that schooling would not be available for these children.
Despite my complete opposition to this development on the basis of lack of infrastructure and resources such as primary clinics, shops, and over-crowding of roads to Rayleigh and Rochford my most vehement concern is that of a lack of schooling for the incumbent population.
Where are these children going to be educated??. Do you have plans for a new school in the vicinity?? Both infant, primary, secondary and sixth form college.
I totally oppose the development of this land. As a long term resident and local teacher I totally refute any development at the above land.

I am responding to the new Local Plan for the area and am making the following objections for the proposed developments in Hullbridge:

* The previous Local Plan/Core Strategy has resulted in significant strain on public services, roads etc despite repeated requests to both County and District for proper infra structure. As a result, the latter councils did not complete transport or sustainable
infrastructure assessments prior to this consultation. This needs
be addressed urgently in light of the new Local Plan.

* Vision statement: this was written by Rochford Council without any consultation of our local community in Hullbridge. There is a lack of understanding of our local community and its future. For instance, some of the 'promoted sites' have been put forward without the landowner's consent and are therefore inappropriate. An example of this is land that was agricultural and which has now been developed into a very successful vineyard.
Hullbridge has a 'village' community feel but with any additional building it is in severe danger of losing this and just becoming urban sprawl.

* Negative impact would be made to the precious Green Belt and Coastal Protection Belt if further building were allowed to go ahead.

* There would be critical flood and drainage risks. For instance, Watery Lane still floods although this was disregarded in the previous Local Plan. By 2040, Hullbridge will have a significant proportion of the village below sea level, hence making it unsuitable for building.

* Negative impact on local habitats: animals, birds and insects are being squeezed into smaller and smaller green spaces and this is detrimental to both them and us. As a direct result of the recent house building in Hullbridge, the number of dead animals killed by increased traffic has risen significantly.

*Proximity to local transport: the number 20 bus runs along Ferry Road which is a significant distance from any proposed new builds.
This puts pressure on people to use cars which adds to further pollution. RDC say that there are 4 -7 buses an hour on Ferry Road but this is a huge inflation of the truth!

* Lack of accessible open spaces and amenities: there is a distinct lack of these in Hullbridge and an assessment needs to take place in advance of any further development.

* Loss of footpaths and/or bridleways: there has already been a loss of these owing to the building of the roundabout at Rawreth Lane and further loss would be extremely detrimental to people and those on horseback.

* Impact on agricultural land: we need agricultural land to provide food for us and for animals and brownfield sites should be considered before any greenbelt land is considered for building.

* Existing community infrastructure: there are poor road links, few sustainable transport options and huge pressure already on local education/schools, medical services, youth services, leisure facilities etc. Roads cannot cope with cope with increased traffic; it is very difficult to get a GP appointment; there are long waiting lists at our local hospital in Southend.

* Here in Hullbridge, we are keen to protect our rural coastal village outlook and vehemently object to unnecessary building which will spoil the nature of our village.

* I am not in favour of any further building but if I had to choose one spatial option it would be 3 as these are considered priority options and would keep any new housing on one area.

With regard to the Proposed Local Plan

The local area is already suffering from overcrowding without adding more houses.
The new builds at Rawreth Lane and Hullbridge have already shown that developments cause major disruptions to the traffic in the area.
The installation of the two new roundabouts caused delays in all directions for many days over several months. This was at the same time as ongoing work on other roads within the area.

The total grid lock in the area when an incident occurs only goes to show that the traffic levels are already at breaking point.
Understandably, when a water main bursts and the road collapses it becomes necessary to close the road. However, the ensuing queues and problems to move around the area again only demonstrate the already heavy density of traffic.

When new homes are built little consideration seems to be given to the needs of the proposed residents. Which schools are the children supposed to go to?
Where will they find doctors and dentists? How will they travel to and from work? Wolsey Park has just one bus which goes along Rawreth Lane only every two hours.

The existing open spaces are relatively small for the existing number of residents. If the proposed sites are to be built on this ratio will be even lower.

The future plans do not show any intention to increase open spaces, build schools or extra leisure facilities.

The road surfaces in the area are dreadful. Some repair work has been done but adjoining areas remain untouched. Increased traffic flow will not improve this situation.

Regarding the proposed new homes around the Wakering area, I believe that the building that is already in progress is already stretching the infrastructure of the village to the limit.

I would be very disappointed if further new homes go ahead. We are a fairly small village and further homes will completely change the environment and ambience of village life.
Doctors, schools and roads are already too busy and if further homes are built, it would completely spoil our village.

Would you please keep these points in mind whilst planning our future.

To whom it may concern,
I am writing to air my objection to the following planning permission references
CFS045, CFS064,CFS160, CFS161, CFS194, CFS169, CFS150, CFS020, Belchamps and Mount Bovis Lane (Fields)
Firstly, the impact upon the local community from a wellbeing point of view as well as environmental factors such as pollution from the increased traffic and noise would be extremely stressful for all residence.
People live here because of the surroundings which Hockley and Hawkwell, as a small village are renowned for. We appear to be trying to change the identity of our rural villages into small towns, for which they are not designed. I.e. the local infrastructure such as school's, doctors, dentists and nurseries as well as the road network in this area are not adequate for a major development.
Since the latest developments around the Rochford District Council area have been completed, the increased traffic already present is threatening to overwhelm the roads.
If you surveyed the main road through Hawkwell and Hockley between 08:30am & 3-6pm you would see it is struggling. All roads to the schools and train station queue every week day.
Finally, these areas around Mont Bovis and Belchamps are used for recreation for the locals and many of us love to walk the fields and woods. This must also have a major impact on the wildlife. Within the fields and wood here you have, deer, badgers, bats and vast range of birds from robins to Sparrow Hawks and Woodpeckers.
I really don’t believe Hawkwell and Hockley need a 1000 house’s in such a tight community space.
The only people to benefit from this are the investors and property developers.

Firstly I should like to say that I think the presentation of this to the local people is far too complicated and I feel many people will just “give up” trying to respond However, I will attempt to put my views to the best of my ability.
I feel strongly that there should be no further major development in Hullbridge as this would damage the environment, compromise and have a detrimental impact on existing wildlife and result in more pollution and flooding. With the current UK emphasis on planting trees and hedgerows to help reduce pollution and benefit our natural wildlife, any further major development would go completely against this philosophy.
With the information given to me, I feel that the best option would be to build all housing in one location west of Rayleigh where there are already good transport links via A127, A130 and A13 These roads would serve as good links for work and business in Basildon, Southend, Wickford, Chelmsford, Thames Gateway and Tilbury2.
This option would enable a “tailor-made” approach to good housing and infrastructure, schools, GP surgeries, open spaces and community facilities. This option would not put extra strain on the current villages whose roads, facilities and amenities are already stretched to breaking point. An example of this is the current through traffic on Lower Road in Hullbridge where there has been a vast increase in the volume of traffic and consequential increase in air pollution (due to recent developments in Rochford and Ashingdon). Lower Road has become a rat run for traffic from Southend and en route areas through to to Chelmsford. The increased volume and speed of traffic along Lower Road makes getting in and out of residential driveways on to Lower Road extremely hazardous; it can take anything up to ten minutes to pull off our driveway safely. The increase in Lower Road traffic has resulted in numerous accidents in recent times, one of which was sadly a fatality. The keep left sign on Lower Road near the junction with Long Lane has been completely demolished by a car on one occasion. On another occasion a car hit the lamp-post bringing it completely down. Numerous animals have been run over. A car ran into a van that was trying to exit his own driveway on to Lower Road. A man was knocked off his motorbike in Lower Road. The air ambulance has had to attend incidents in Lower Road twice within five days recently. It is virtually impossible to cross Lower Road safely on foot and one lady recently told me she has become virtually housebound in Central Avenue as, because of continuous stream of traffic, she cannot get across Lower Road on her mobility scooter and there is no pavement for her to travel along to get to Hullbridge village shops and GP.
In addition, heavy goods vehicles are continually using Lower Road and these are putting excessive strain on the underground utilities. This means we are constantly experiencing the road being dug up for water main repairs, gas leaks, etc. Even a major sinkhole appeared in Hullbridge Road in the summer 2021.
Hullbridge has limited school facilities and I understand that only last year an infant school child was allocated a place in a Harlow school as there were no other local options available at that time.
The only GP surgery in the village is at capacity and getting through on the telephone is extremely problematic because so many people are trying to get appointments. In addition there is a shortage of doctors.
In Lower Road Hullbridge, there is no regular bus service, which means children at the south end of Hullbridge have a thirty minutes’ walk to the local infants and junior schools. This is tiring for five year olds and difficult in the winter months when it is dark and often wet. As there is no regular bus service along Lower Road, senior school children have a long walk along a busy main road to catch the bus at Coventry Corner (the nearest bus stop for number 20 bus). When the bus arrives, it is often full up with children and commuters who have previously boarded in the village along Ferry Road.
At the south end of Hullbridge there are no public recreational facilities. There is a local sports club but this is not open to the general public to allow children to just play and run around. In addition there are no general community facilities for the older people at the south end of Hullbridge.
We do have a number of valued and well used footpaths and bridle ways but these would be lost if there were to be further development in Hullbridge.
I understand that according to a recent report, much of the proposed development area in Hullbridge will be below sea level by 2050 - it makes no sense to consider further development on such vulnerable sites.
It is for these reasons that I feel further major development in Hullbridge should not be permitted.

I am concerned about the sites which have been suggested for potential development around Hullbridge. With 500 houses already being built the village, which has an existing population of less than 7000, Hullbridge will be overwhelmed if these developments are allowed to go ahead. In addition to concerns about the loss of character which will be suffered there are also practical objections:

Many of the sites which have been proposed are currently agricultural land. We are being encouraged to use local produce yet the land it comes from is being lost to development.

Poor infrastructure. Hullbridge Road/Lower Road is the main access road to Hullbridge (Watery Lane is too narrow and prone to flooding). The road network cannot cope with current levels of road usage and the addition of a large number of extra vehicles will make the situation intolerable. When Hullbridge Road or Lower Road are blocked (which unfortunately seems to happen frequently) the whole area comes to a standstill in a very short time.

No plans are included for the provision of new schools, medical facilities, leisure facilities or public transport. The existing infrastructure does not have the capacity to absorb large numbers of new residents.

Risk of flooding. We are told that water levels will rise significantly over the next few years. This will put the low lying areas of Hullbridge at a high risk of flooding. Many of the existing roads have no surface water drainage and at times of heavy rainfall the high levels of surface water cause a problem.

Whilst a small amount of development around the village seems inevitable I believe that in order to accommodate the volume of development required in the district it would be better to choose strategy 3 and build all the housing in one location. This would mean that suitable infrastructure could be incorporated into the development and a sustainable community could be developed rather than just large numbers of new homes tacked on to existing communities.

This is the first time I have sent a concern to my local authority and although I am not totally against developments (we need to provide our children and their children an opportunity to be able to afford housing my generation and older have benefited) I am still very concerned when I read this leaflet Rochford District Residents published.

My chief concern being the affect on the local roads in Hockley and Hawkwell namely the B1013. The "V" junction at the Spa Pub/Potters at times is under pressure and the proposed plans is going to make this horrendous. For example this morning at 8am it took my wife 20 minutes to drive between Broad Parade and the Hockley railway bridge. These proposed developments are only going to add traffic to this over used B1013.Secondary concerns are of course the pressure on our schools and medical facilities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consultation on the New Local Plan by Rochford District Council, Site CFS064
Land bounded by Folly Chase, Betts Farm Estate, Hockley Community Centre, the railway line and Hockley Primary School.
Please accept this as my comment on the above proposal. Not wishing to blow my own trumpet, I believe that there is no one who knows more about this piece of land and its surroundings as well its past and present uses. I am a lifelong Hockley resident, moved to Folly Chase when I was four months old, (remaining there until I married in 1976), and my parents still lived there until they passed away in the last couple of years. This area was my childhood playground.
I went to Hockley Primary School (at the old site), then became a governor of the school two years before it moved to Chevening Gardens in 1983, and remained as a governor for 38 years, of which I chaired the Board of Governors for 33years. I still chair the Parent and Community Advisory Board. At least one of my immediate family has been at HPS, either as a pupil or a governor, continuously since 1960.
Our family building contracting won the contract to design and build Hockley Community Centre in the early 1980’s, and I worked on and personally supervised the works as they took place. After the centre opened, I became a member of the Community Centre Committee for six years.
I am also a keen and very active Hockley Historian.
Given my experience of the locality, I sincerely believe that to build 214 houses on this parcel of land would be devastating for number of social, environmental and practical reasons.


Page 2
I list below these reasons:
Environmental Reasons

Most importantly this land is bounded on three sides by pieces of ancient woodland, Betts Wood, Folly Wood and Bluebell Wood. Part of Betts Wood is owned by Hockley Primary School, and in the early 1990’s the school tried to make it suitable for use by the pupils. To do so it needed to fence it off, for safe guarding reasons. Before this work was undertaken RDC’s Woodland Officer at the time, [name supplied], came and surveyed the woods and found that there was growing in there some Wild Service Trees, which are extremely rare. I was told that these trees only ever grow in undisturbed ancient woodland, that has existed for thousands of years. This shows that these parcels of land almost certainly were part of the woodland that covered Hockley from at least the middle ages. To risk losing this by developing all around these parcels of woodland would be a criminal act.

Given its clay and sandy sub soil, Hockley has numerous underground waterways. The land from the top of Fountain Lane, Hockley, through to the piece of land that forms the proposal, are riddled with these. Despite being at the one of the highest points in the area there is even a spring at the top of Fountain Lane. Having built around this area, and personally dug at least ten sets of foundations in Folly Lane and Folly Chase I can vouch for these underground streams. Close to the bottom of Folly Chase is a pond that provided irrigation, via a wind pump, to Oaklands Nursery in Folly Chase many years ago. This pond still exists and is always full of water, fed by the underground waterways. In the middle of the proposal site there I, I believe, a large well, that was dug for the use of Bluehouse Farm, which once stood on the site in the 19th century. This would surely would have been filled by these underground sources. This well is clearly shown on past OS maps. To use this land for housebuilding now, would disturb these waterways and could potentially cause devastation to the local area.

Westminster Drive was built at the same time as we were building the Community Centre. I understand that this is under consideration as the access to the proposed site. When it was built it was built as access to the 50 or so homes that are on the road, and the Community Centre. It is not designed as an access road for a further 200 houses. It is narrow and used for off street parking and has a sharp bend at the bottom of the slope. Quite simply this road is not suitable. The environmental and safety risk to the existing residents would be great.

The land in question has been farmed for as many years as records exist. It is clearly Green Belt farmland and should remain as such.


Page 3
Social Reasons

There does not appear to be any consideration as to the infrastructure to cope with yet another 200 houses in the immediate are. Hockley Primary School has been oversubscribed for years, and given its constrained site, there would be little opportunity to substantially extend the school, for the use of potentially another 200 children. The school would need to expand by around 50% to accommodate this number. Similarly, there are no Doctors surgeries within a short walking distance, and those that are in the village simply cannot cope now with the numbers of patients they already have.

This is not the first time this site has been suggested for development. Around 10 years ago, agents for the owners contacted the school and asked if it would consider selling a piece of land on the corner of the schools entrance and playing field in Chevening Gardens to form an entrance to the site. There was also an offer of a land swop to extend the school playing field and create some much needed car parking.
The school was then self regulating, and so governors took advice from its own agents. Following a great deal of research and discussion the governors unanimously took the decision not to take this forward, for many of the reasons already noted in this letter, and because of the impact it would have on its pupils, surroundings and its neighbours, who they have to live with. (As Chair, I declared an interest, and took no part, as I knew some of the site owners from when I was a child). However, It is clear that the reasons to refuse this application now, have already been harboured for many years.

There is clearly a public footpath that runs across the proposed site. This is not just any old public footpath, but one of the oldest and most important footpaths in Hockley. It should not be destroyed or deviated in any way. This footpath is shown on Ordnance Survey Maps in the 1870’s. This path was a Coffin Walk, used by the residents of the Eastern parts of Hockley to carry their dead to the Parish Church Graveyard. When the railway was built in 1887-9 a large cutting needed to be dug across the route of this path. As it was so important, Great Eastern Railway were forced to build a very large and very expensive footbridge over the cutting in order to maintain that part of the path. This bridge still stands today and in circa the 1970’s British Rail were then forced to spend a considerable sum to refurbish it and make it safe and usable, for the same reason.






Page 4
Practical Reasons
I am somewhat confused by the suggestion that The Community Centre entrance is to be used as an entrance to the proposed site. Having been involved with the Community Centre from before Day 1, I am aware that that one of the reasons the Councillors, at the time, took the decision to site the Centre where it was, was to stop the legally aggressive and unseemingly unstoppable march of developers Wimpeys across the old Betts Farm Land. As well as being a much needed amenity for the village, The Community Centre was built where it is sited to protect the Green Belt Land behind it. Will the present Councillors agree to simply override the wishes of their predecessors?

With regard to the Community Centre, if its entrance and adjacent land is proposed to be used by the developers/land owners to access their site, how or have they obtained the land? As I recall the Community Centre was part funded by RDC, Hockley Parish Council and also by The Community Centre Association itself, by local fundraising and membership, and as such, these were all part owners. Has each of these groups given their consent?

The public foul sewer that runs across the Community Centre land to the bottom of Folly Chase serves the residents of Folly Chase and also, I believe, now (or will) the residents of The Pond Chase Nursery development in Folly Lane. This connects to the main sewer in Westminster Drive. This sewer is not large and at where it connects to the main sewer it is very shallow. Indeed, as you drive into The Community Centre there is a noticeable hump in the driveway as it had to be raised simply to get over the top of the sewer. Given that there is already an issue with the sewer capacity in Hockley, has this been taken into consideration, notably as the site is somewhat lower than the surrounding land and drainage, both foul and stormwater, will be serious issue for the site. There are already several large stormwater culverts that run through the grounds of Hockley Primary School from the Betts Farm Estate towards the railway.

There are other Brownfield sites in the village that could be taken into consideration for future development, the old railway siding at Hockley Station and the land behind the station building in Plumberow Avenue for example. These should be considered before using prime Green Belt farming land.

To whom it may concern,

Having Moved to Hockley for the space and countryside 6 years ago, we have already been affected by new building of estates on our boundary. We have lost the dark night skies and now have houses with lights on all the time, in the fist two years we enjoyed watch bats of various sizes dance in the twilight skies. Alas we are lucky to see one or two backs and that is infrequently.

Our own garden/ trees have been affected also by the increase of concrete/drives redirecting the water flow in the area. However that aside.

My main concern is centred on Hockey, where we moved to, and live in particular the areas around references CFS064, CFS264, CFS040, CFS160 and CFS191.

Hockley is a small village and whilst the Spacial Statement looks to keep Hockley as the gateway to the Green Lung with Hockley woods etc. this does seem to be in direct conflict with proposed development sites along the ancient woodlands edges and there seems to be a desire to continue to encroach on this delicate and valuable asset plus our other green field/green belt sites. Hockley woods offers diverse habitat for wildlife and recently increase of butterflies has been noted.

Traffic congestion since we moved has been noticeable in such a short space of time., increasingly so is the the junction of Main Road/ Spa Road/Southend Road which is a constant bottleneck often stacking back to Fountain Road from Rayleigh Walking to/from the village along MainRoad/Aldermans Hill is not a great experience at any time and I feel that the air quality has diminished in recent times as the traffic continues to mount up and as a commuter to walk that route daily is not pleasant. Further development can surely only add to the issues.

The impact on services must also be taken into account. Local Doctor surgeries appear to be full as do Dentist. Obtaining appointments to either services can takes hours if not days to arrange. On a wider scale I am not sure how University Hospital Southend will cope with up to 10,000 more souls from the Rochford area alone plus whatever Southend Borough are planning. The hospital seems under immense pressure - even before COVID.

CFS064 and CFS264
The location is at the end of a private road leading to an active agricultural site and is close to valued woodland and walking/recreational sites/footpaths over a mile from the centre of Hockley.

Access to the private road (Folly Chase) is via Folly Lane which itself is a narrow and increasingly overused thoroughfare, and the entrance is on a tight bend. Folly Lane is not a road best positioned for any increase in traffic at anytime least of all heavy lorries on and off site. The road infrastructure is poor and any increase in road usage would surely cause mayhem and possible failure.

The site is an active agricultural site. With todays emphasis to be more self sufficient in food production to lose this site would surely be short sighted. The Hedgerows offer blackberries and Sloe berries for autumn foraging for many. The impact of any large development would also have a severe impact on the local wildlife and leisure (dog walking/ walking/cycling/horse riding) would be substantial not to mention the pressure on local and ancient woodland and the wildlife. Local deer, badger, bat and fox communities are already under pressure from recent developments down Church Road and Pond Chase - which has already increased road traffic in the area with detrimental affect although was to a larger part good use of a brown field site and worthy of support. Frequent near miss of Horse and car /Lorries can only get worse. The speed and size of vehicles which use Folly Lane and Church Road does need a study and traffic calming measures Now even before any consideration given to more housing needs to be strongly considered.

CFS040
This is surprising that the area is still on the plan. It has recently had planning approved for 2 large private residential properties and surely access would be restricted. However, much as mentioned above Church Road at the proposed site is very narrow and close to the junction with Folly Lane and Fountain lane. Church Road has seen a large increase in traffic not just with the building of over 60 houses in the immediate vicinity in the last 5 years but also affected by use as a cut through from Hullbridge along Lower Road and the residential development that is going on there.

The road is showing signs of deterioration. Repeated reporting of drain failure /water seepage and drain overflows have gone unheeded it appears as no effective repairs /investigations made. It also has a number of stables and is used constantly as access to Bridleways for those exercising horses as well as walkers given the access to the open countryside. It should be pointed out that for the most part there are no footways either and walking is a hazardous undertaking. The road infrastructure doesn't support increased traffic and public transport is poor. The recent new builds (Astors/Church Mews) also appear to ave affected the water run off -water now constantly flows down Church road and floods under the rail bridge when rains. Prior to these builds we would have decent water run onto our property which ran to the ditch at the rear, we have lost numerous trees since.

CFS160

This must be seen as an encroachment on the edge of Hockley Wood and the green belt. This seems to be another such erosion of those green areas that we seem to be keen to keep? The proposed area is quite a way from any of the essential services in Hockley or Rayleigh with limited public transport options and again the High Road which is very busy will incur further traffic adding to alreday high levels of congestion and a deterioration in the air quality. There has already been new estate in that area of Bullwood Hall adding pressure to such as small road access and added traffic to The Rayleigh Hockley Road.

Infrastructure is so severely lacking in this area and further housings in these areas will only have a detrimental affect on the area.

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

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

Background

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strategy Options

Q5: Do you agree with the settlement hierarchy presented?

No.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spatial Themes

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

No.

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

Yes.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please see our response to Q16 and Q59.

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

Please see our response to Q14.

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

Yes.

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

Please see our detailed response to Q16b. and Q16c.

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

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

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

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

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

Please see also our response to Q16b.

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

Housing For All

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Biodiversity

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

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

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

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

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

Community Infrastructure

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

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

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

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

Yes.

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

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

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

Yes – see our response to Q.36.

Open Spaces and Recreation

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

BDW support Option 4.

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

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

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

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

Yes.

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

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

No.

Transport and Connectivity

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

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

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

Please also see our response to Q51.

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

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

Please see our response to Q52 / Q53.

Planning for Complete Communities

Wakerings and Barling

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Next Steps

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

Yours faithfully
David Churchill
Partner

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strategy Options

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yours faithfully

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

Objection
I would like to put an objection against building new housing in the area of Rochford council especially in smaller areas such as Hullbridge. I feel there is not enough infrastructure in the area to accommodate any more housing. The hospitals schools and doctors are already over run and are struggling to accommodate the people in the area as it is. The green belt land should be left for people to enjoy. Roads around Hullbridge and the surrounding areas struggle at peak times with out the increased traffic and foot fall.

District Council’s new local plan up to 2040, the plan having been written by yourselves without any consultation of our community.

I have strong objections to any more new housing in Hullbridge as we are now suffering already from the present construction of the 550 houses previously given permission for. People’s lives have been made a misery from the increase in traffic, noise, pollution and constantly being stranded from roads being closed for numerous reasons. Even when the 550th house is finished I cannot see life becoming any easier.

If this latest plan is supposed to be extended to 2040, I understand Hullbridge will have a considerable amount of land that will be below sea level by then anyway! This village is renowned for flooding particularly in the Watery Lane area and I seriously wonder how the latest development being built now will manage over time.

Public transport is becoming increasingly more difficult with buses cut out and the whole of the No. 20 bus route sometimes just ceasing for several days for all sorts of reasons – road flooded, road impassable from holes appearing etc. The No. 20 bus route has 4 buses an hour – not 4-7 buses an hour! Where did the council come up with that figure? We have two roads in and out of the village and Watery Lane which can be hit and miss. If anything goes wrong with either of these roads chaos occurs. People are so delayed when these problems happen they are frequently late for work or appointments. With an increase in the population right now and not even thinking about the future the buses will be unable to cope.

The infrastructure in and around Hullbridge is very poor right now so in the future it can only get worse. Poor road links, poor public transport, not enough school places or medical services. There are very few leisure facilities in the village, and this is particularly bad for the young.

Green spaces - will there be much left by 2040 if the plan goes ahead? I thought we were in a Green Revolution but it would appear not in this area. Most of the greenbelt in and around Hullbridge will be non-existent and the character of our lovely village will be lost. The people of Hullbridge enjoy the few public footpaths and bridleways we have and the lovely walks along the river but in the future, these could be non-existent with huge numbers of new houses and an increase in population. The wildlife in and around the village will be seriously affected as I believe has happened already.

The saddest part for me is the nature of our ‘village’ is being trampled over and we could become just another urban sprawl.

These are my views and I hope you will consider them seriously.

I write in response to the above.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RDC/Spatial Consultation 2021 Questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With reference to the recent communication regarding proposed development in Hullbridge, I wish to object on the following basis:

1. Impact on Green Belt and Coastal protection belt.
2. Critical Flood and drainage risks. Not only has the new development near Watery Lane suffered from excess water but Hullbridge will have a significant proportion of the village below sea level by 2040.
3. Impact on wildlife.
4. Not enough local transport facilities.
5. Lack of open spaces and amenities.
6. Loss of footpaths or bridleways.
7. Impact on Agricultural land.
8. Existing Community infrastructure constraints,,being, poor road links, few sustainable transport options, education, medical services, public transport, youth services, leisure facilities and the like.
9. Preservation of our rural coastal village outlook.

I hope that the above will be taken into consideration prior to any proposals being agreed.

I think much of Rochford is losing it’s character and attractiveness and more development without greater thought together with the loss of amenities will further diminish the area.
Roads and Public Transport.
Roads are very narrow and congested and as one delivery driver told me several years ago, the area will become a ‘no go’ area eventually. Cars are frequently parked on the pavement making it impossible for pedestrians and mobility scooter users to negotiate. The volume of traffic at school opening and closing times is amazing. If public transport was improved and perhaps school buses introduced this might alleviate the congestion. There is only one bus an hour to the main City of Chelmsford, which was intended for travellers to Stanstead who have priority, leaving those who need to travel there for other reasons behind on occasions. Train travel is prohibitively expensive for many. More housing will greatly add to the traffic congestion problem and emissions without improved facilities.
Infrastructure must be put in place BEFORE further development takes place, not after as is so often the case, causing chaos for local people.

It was reported that Rochford and Castle Point have the longest hospital waiting times in the country. Southend Hospital could not cope before Covid so more development would increase the pressure and I feel sure people would die waiting for appointments.

I feel that a village development with appropriate facilities and jobs would be the best solution. With global warming it is essential to preserve our green spaces and reduce travel and emissions.
Time constraints prevent me from continuing but closing existing, well used facilities (the Mill Hall) and expanding on green sites is going to make life more difficult for the people of Rochford and the planet, in my opinion.

I write in response to the above.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Development of Land to Rear of Malvern Road/Cattery (CFS023)


Destruction of this Green Belt Land and the excessive use of the Ancient Woodland of Beckney Wood through the development of 139 dwellings would be catastrophic for the woodland and land which supports such a large and diverse variety of flora, animals, reptiles, insects and birds, some of which we will list and all of which are ecologically dependant upon each other. Trees and woodland plants such as wood anenomes, celendine and bluebells. Animals including Badgers, squirrels, field mice, shrews, muntjac deer, foxes and bats which are a protected species. Butterflies, bees, adders, grass snakes, lizards. Birds, Sparrow hawks, Buzzards, Pheasants, Spotted and Green Back Woodpeckers, Chaffinches, Jackdaws and Herons in addition to the more common species, Wood pidgeons, Magpies, Blue tits, Long Tailed tits, Thrushes, Robins, Blackbirds, Sparrows House/Hedge etc.

With our own and Governments worldwide promoting Bio security/diversity to maintain a healthy populations it would, in our view, be a mistake to develop this land contrary to current thinking.

The topography of the land with very steep gradients both north to south and west to east would increase the risk of flooding to current properties
in Malvern Road and is of major concern if this land is developed. Present areas of flood risk in the Rochford District is already recorded and the issue of climate change and scientifically predicted increase in rainfall in relation to this proposed development should be considered of paramount importance.


The infrastructure in Hockley would be unable to absorb the proposed development of 139 dwellings and the extra strain on the towns resources would be enormous.

The Greensward Lane G.P. Surgery already has a waiting list of weeks to see a Doctor and all services there are over stretched. Local hospitals are also being stretched beyond capacity.

In addtion the local schools, according to the OFSTED reports are:

Plumberow Academy 2018 states, exceeded pupil capacity
Greensward Academy 2018 states, 122 places remaining and approaching full capacity.
Westerings 2017 states, exceeded capacity.

The proposed access to the development through Harrogate Drive would create a very narrow and dangerous junction onto Greensward Lane. As there is no land available to widen the road, turning into Greensward Lane would be extremely hazardous and the potential for serious accidents increased.

The road network in Hockley also needs addressing and it is doubtful if the current situation at the Spa roundabout could sustain the additional traffic resulting from a further 139 households and potential delivery vehicles the development would attract. Movement both in and out of Hockley as far as Rayleigh and Rochford can often be difficult and time consuming. The additional pollution from exhaust fumes the extra traffic would create would also have a detrimental effect on health if natural resources like Green Belt are to be replaced with concrete and vehicles.

It was once boasted that Rochford was the green lungs of Essex.

We hope you will consider our comments in your decision making.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q5. Do you agree with the settlement hierarchy presented?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q60a. Do you agree with our vision for Hullbridge?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I wish to give comments to the recent local plan for new housing.

As a resident of Great Wakering I would ask that when decisions are being made that thought should be given not only to the lack of infrastructure in this area (doctors and schools, buses) but also to congestion getting out of this area. At present it is congested enough trying to get anywhere - Southend and Rochford cause huge bottle necks of traffic - to add further housing east of Southend would make this current problem even worse.

Great Wakering was, and I would like to think, would remain, semi rural. Already many new houses built - hopefully this is enough.