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?

Most traffic is passing through Rayleigh. If the A127 is blocked, Rayleigh becomes blocked.
There should be plans for a bypass, through the land South of Battlesbridge, South of Hullbridge and through to Southend Airport and beyond.
This would create a relatively traffic free high street and Rayleigh, improving air quality and making the roads safer for pedestrians and cyclists.
Also, as a byproduct, it will create a corridor for more potential developments in the future.

Improvements to existing road networks are supported but any large scale bypass scheme that cuts through the green belt such as the previous 'Southend Outer bypass' should be opposed as this would bring increased development that would destroy our green belt and the environment.

Roads must be improved. Must areas have one road in and out causing severe congestion.

This has an affect on public transport such as buses.

Trainlines cannot be improved

It is widely acknowledged that Rayleigh town is already gridlocked? London Road (A129) is well known for this. New builds already going in with no infrastructure makes CFS 146 and 147 impossible and needs to be removed. I cannot see where cycle routes can be added. Busus alreay queue with the traffic and footpaths on the main road are just too narrow. It is not unusual to have to step into the Road to let someone with a buggy pass.
Do not add extra housing when we do not cope with current builds and those being built now.

You need to start from a plan to address current transport issues and then ensure any new development does not make matters worse.

Walking and cycling routes are very welcome and help the physical and mental well-being of residents. The road infrastructure is very difficult. There are frequently traffic jams, roads that were built as 18th and 19th century routes are not able to sustain delivery vans being parked in our 21st century. Traffic all too soon snarls up and comes to a halt. The main problem is there are too many cars on the roads. Mor housing developments will only exacerbate this problem. A fatal flaw in the plan.

stop building houses! more houses and people means more infrastructure needed when there is no space for improvement. better encouragement for rail and bus links during off peak - local frequent minibus services for elderly or disabled.

To many meaningless words
Needs new roads schools, doctors and social centres for the young and old alike.

Encourage greater availability and use of Bus transport.
Because:
Especially in Rayleigh we have no space to widen existing or create new roads.
The Hill topology limits cycle usage to the young and fit

Rayleigh is the only place I know where the bypass appears to go through the middle. Properties built to the east only increase the pressure on the roads and additional building right in the town centre is making problems worse and worse not only for the length of journeys but for air polution infrastructure must have priority and government should improve that before asking for more homes.

More cycle routes (or reduces car traffic) is needed. There are good routes for cyling, but the traffic puts off people from using them.
The local footpaths need to be maintained regularly - there is not a proactive appraoch to ensures that footpaths are passable.

Join up cycle lanes so that cyclists have the opportunity to travel from villages into main towns without having the danger of cycling on busy roads (cycle lanes should be clearly defined and clear to both drivers and pedestians, they shouldn't suddenly stop and should link with quieter roads
Have phone apps and websites that offer environmentally friendly routes into main travel hubs, by users just entering in start and finish points

I fully support the "feedback from the Issues and Options consultation that many residents experience major congestion on our road network and feel that the road network has not kept up with increased demand in recent years. Whilst new developments can only mitigate their own impact, and not existing congestion, it is clear that a more ambitious approach is required to connectivity if we are to keep growing".
I would however suggest .a more ambitious approach is actually required to our roads now before any more development takes place.

The public transport is not fit for purpose now, it will be worse if more housing is built. The train line from Rochford to Liverpool street is constantly closed for engineering work. I work shifts and there is never a train early enough on a Sunday. The bus service around Rochford would have to be improved, at the moment there seems to be one bus an hour.

I agree with an infrastructure delivery plan that deals with the congested roads but thinking that people are going to jump out of their cars and onto public transport etc is naive. This plan should not be carried out alongside new developments but before them because by your own admission the roads are already congested.

First off you need to understand why are people driving and where to and then decide what you want to achieve - reduced congestion, modal change, cleaner air, climate change objectives etc.
The problem with modal change is that things like walking and cycling are great when the weather is nice but tend to suck when its pouring with rain. Public transport is woeful with limited destinations, erratic availability and it often just works out cheaper to drive. As noted there is a total lack of safe cycle routes and the roads are in such poor shape that cycling can be downright dangerous with the many deep potholes and sunken drains at the side of the roads.
Some ideas:
Improve cycle paths where possible and failing that improve the edges of roads so there are fewer pot holes, dips and sunken drains. increase places to securely store bikes as well, no point everyone cycling if, when they arrive at their destination, the bike gets nicked!
Increase frequency of public transport during winter months and try and expand the network (I realise that is potentially very expensive). Look at costs of public transport and compare to cost of driving. If it isn't cheaper then people won't use it and If you can't make it cheaper then you are doing something wrong.
Look at slowing traffic down (controversial I know) so that it reduces the danger to cyclists and other road users such as electric scooters if they get introduced. Pedestrianize town centres (may help improve the retail experience as well).
The reality is however, that people are wedded to their cars as they are so flexible. So there needs to be a push to at least go electric. Look at dedicated electric only parking spaces, increase charging infrastructure (encourage businesses and hotels to install them), free parking. Make petrol cars less attractive - higher parking charges, charge to enter towns/villages. This would need the co-operation of the surrounding authorities to ensure they do the same so that people don't just all go to Southend or Basildon. It also needs the changes to improve cycling/public transport to be implemented so that people have the choice, especially for those that can't afford an electric car yet

Persimmon Homes would support the four options listed to address transport and connectivity through the plan.

2 – Prepare an infrastructure and delivery plan alongside the plan to ensure new development delivers meaningful improvements to transport networks, including cycling, walking, public transport, and road.

4 – Work with government, Highways England, ECC and neighbouring LAs to deliver meaningful new transport options, such as rapid transit.

2 – Prepare an infrastructure and delivery plan alongside the plan to ensure new development delivers meaningful improvements to transport networks, including cycling, walking, public transport, and road.

4 – Work with government, Highways England, ECC and neighbouring LAs to deliver meaningful new transport options, such as rapid transit.

Though the document recognises the issues
north south
lower road
ashingdon road
rawreth lane
it makes no mention that there are railway bridges forcing large vehicles to use certain routes
nor does it state that lower road and rawreth lane are pretty much rural.
Nor does it state that ashingdon road is extremely urban, includes multiple junctions and five schools [seven if you include the two not actually on the road] or nine if you say the road continues past the Spa and so includes a further primary and secondary school.
Not only that but access to the Baltic wharf means large lorries travel along the bottom half of the route up to brays Lane and past three primary schools!
This makes it the most used most dangerous, most congested sub B road in Essex let alone RDC.
So what is planned to do about it?
It should not... it cannot be ignored.
There must be a plan to improve the air quality, the congestion and the lives of our children.
Why not reroute all lorries

Sustainable development needs to address road use, by implementing public transport upgrades coincident with developments coming on line, strategic road improvements to accommodate the increased volume of traffic generated and full accountability of the road owner to properly evaluate road safety as part of the planning process. E.g. Barrow Hall Road is unsuitable for 2 way traffic in some areas as cars/vehicles are larger now that 25 years ago yet highways approved the development without carrying out any road safety analysis.

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

Please find below my response to the RDC Spatial Options Consultation.

Consultation Process -The volume of information contained in the consultation was difficult to access and view online. Some links did not work properly. RDC are not reaching residents who have no internet.

Spatial option 3b North of Southend is most feasible site.

Spatial Themes not included - Cultural and Accessibility.

Employment – District is lacking in Environmental services - woodland conservation and management.

Improve Long-term Economic growth - Better road networks, gigabit broadband and Wi-Fi. Apprenticeships or training for all ages with jobs at the end of training. The council should stop developing existing commercial land into housing.

Local generation of low-carbon and renewable energy - New developments should be able to source some or all of their energy from renewable sources. Solar in all new development as standard. Incentives to encourage existing developments to install solar onto their properties as well as any commercial buildings to be fitted with solar to their roofs; there are many flat roofed buildings all over the district that could accommodate solar panels without damaging the landscape. Explore tidal energy and seek out suitable locations in order to ascertain whether it is viable. Retrofitting existing housing and commercial buildings.

Settlement Hierarchy: Rayleigh is the largest town in the district, but care needs to be taken to maintain the integrity of the existing settlements with respect to green boundary between Rayleigh and its neighbours.

Planned Forms of Housing: Mix of housing for “affordable“ properties with higher standards for gardens and recreational space. Consideration should be given to the provision of Lifetime Homes specifically adapted homes for the disabled and elderly, bungalows and other potential buildings for downsizing families. Housing for the hidden homeless – those “sofa surfing” & Emergency housing. The plan makes no reference to social housing quotas which should be included in all new developments. 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.

From 1st August it was announced that empty buildings and brownfield sites should be converted rather than build new. This alternative should be evaluated first.
Many development proposals would also mean a further reduction in air quality, light pollution and the loss of trees, farming, and arable land at a time when food production and supply is becoming a cause for concern.
Enforcement on unauthorised development is not adequately managed.

Infrastructure - The Council cannot comment on the suitability of sites in the plan without completion of Infrastructure Delivery & Funding Plan, Level 2 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment and Local Cycling & Walking Infrastructure Plan.
This is a continuing concern to residents due to the volume of recent and proposed development causing additional pressure on roads, education, social services, health facilities and local employment opportunities all of which gives a sustainable balance for our communities. The Infrastructure Funding Statement states all financial and non-financial developer contributions relating to Section 106 conditions should be completed but this is not the case when larger sites are split up. If developers do not honour the conditions the money reverts to ECC and RDC who should use this to improve our existing facilities, especially on our roads and cycle paths which are in a pitiful state of repair and will only worsen with further development if funding is not used where it was intended.

Balancing access against increased congestion will be the issue for a lot of the sites in Rayleigh. If you keep adding small developments to the boundaries of the town, it will overcrowd existing houses and add to urban sprawl.
i. Rayleigh has taken the brunt of development without significant infrastructural improvement.
ii. Commercial development should be supported in town centres, secondary shopping facilities and on approved industrial estates (the latter should not become retail / entertainment locations and residential development should not encroach on them to avoid conflict). Community Improvement Districts should be established
iii. Community infrastructure should be preserved and extended. Access to town centres and secondary shopping by bicycle and foot should be made easier and safer.

Rayleigh like other towns that have suffered from overdevelopment in recent decades and should be protect from large scale private development during the forthcoming Plan Period. Only development or local needs should be permitted. Local facilities like Mill Hall would be saved and car parking retained and made cheaper to assist local town centre business to survive what will be a challenging period. Secondary shopping facilities in Rayleigh would be supported and encouraged with public finance where required. Sites within the existing Rayleigh Conversation Area should not be considered under any circumstances.
Public transport would be supported and encouragement, especially when given for children to reach school without parents’ vehicles. Renovation and refurbishment of historic buildings with modern green energy would be promoted over demolition and intensification. Public services would be encouraged to return/expand to Rayleigh, in existing buildings like Civic Suite, Police Station and Library etc. The town centre should be the heart of our community not just something you drive through to reach somewhere else. This could be our vision and our aim for the future.
Proposed sites within Rayleigh and on the Western side should not be considered for development. Only an infrastructure plan would provide evidence that the chosen sites are sustainable in the long term, and greenbelt and environmental policies should be adhered to in relation to open spaces on the edge or within the town.
Rayleigh is clearly already overcrowded; it has a road network no longer fit for purpose, some schools are at or near to capacity, it is difficult to obtain a GP or dental appointment. The majority of the town is inaccessible for wheelchair users. There is little to no disabled play areas or play equipment. There are always issues with waste collections, drain and road cleaning and verge trimming. The District Council does not have the staff to deal with all these issues. The council should either build another waste recycling site, or develop a better waste collection program which allows extra waste to be collected next to the bin. The current recycling site at Castle Road is no longer capable of expanding to meet the needs of an ever-growing population. The plan should also identify a site to accommodate commercial waste facilities to stop fly tipping.
Good public transport links are crucial for our villages, neighbourhoods and town centres. The council needs to follow the rule “No development before infrastructure”. Houses are being built without adequate road, pedestrian, and cycle networks in place. New developments should be planned with cycle paths and walkways that link up with existing paths. Designated cycling paths that are separated from existing roads and pavements, but adjacent to our road networks would help improve traffic flow. Ensure the cycle network links with public transport as part of a complete review of sustainable transport.
Ensuring that public rights of way are not blocked by landowners and are kept free from debris. Assess 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 at offering this in the larger spaces. For example, a small toilet block and hand washing facilities in a car park.

Open Spaces - The value of our open spaces and the issues with climate change has become a priority. People will continue to reduce travel and split time working from home. Our open spaces are essential for wellbeing, exercise and relaxation. We are on an overpopulated peninsular surrounded by water with one way in and one way out and there is a proven risk of flooding. Open space is at a premium. All green spaces, no matter how small, hold some significance, especially to those who use them for recreation. They are of particular community value and should not be developed. It is reasonable for RDC to encourage the development of a garden village away from existing communities to accommodate the Governments home building targets.
All Conservation areas, green belt and sites subject to the exclusion criteria (i.e. Sites of Special Scientific Interest) on the call for sites must be protected from Development.

Local Wildlife Sites review: RDC policies for protecting wildlife areas need to be updated. Designating initial sites is a step in the right direction but more must be done. It is proven that mental health issues can be relieved by nature and keeping the sites sacred is more important now than it ever was. Keeping a biodiverse environment, with wildlife and the environment in which it relies is paramount. The plan should create new wildlife meadows to encourage the pollinators to future proof our own existence.

Promoted Sites - Reasons against Development
CFS105 (Land North of Hambro Hill) would negatively impact the openness of the Green Belt between Rayleigh & Hockley. Rochford Green belt study states this parcel of greenbelt has a ‘Moderate’ rating for Purpose 1, and a ‘Strong’ rating for 2 & 3. It checks the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas, prevents Rayleigh & Hockley merging into one another, and assists in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.

It was put forward by an Agent or Developer, not the Landowner. Legal constraints already identified. Landowner recently had planning application (20/00826/FUL) approved so extremely unlikely to support any development: Change of use of land from Commercial to combined Agricultural and Equine use. Site was originally used as part of a landfill tip by the former Rayleigh Urban District Council which ceased around 1960.

Grade 1 Agricultural Land Successfully farmed family business for over 50 years (wheat, barley & rape crops.) Fallow agricultural land, equestrian related grazing & woodland. Portion diversified for Equestrian Centre & agricultural barn for storage.

Infrastructure / Transport Overloaded road with a dangerous junction & poor visibility. Low bridge impact public transport – no double decker buses. No cycle paths or means to incorporate one. No pavements near the access road. Public right of way (PROW 298_48) poorly maintained at entrance to the site.

Heritage Assessment by Place Services ECC Minor Adverse / development of this site will cause harm to a heritage asset. The Historic Environment Record notes various finds from the pre-historic period.

Hockley Woods is the largest remaining wild woodland in the country RDC should be doing EVERYTHING it can to save it from development, either adjacent to or close by. RDC should also actively be adding to it by planting more trees to future proof its existence and status. RDC must protect any thoroughfares that access Hockley Wood.

Rayleigh Civic Suite & Mill Hall Arts & Events Centre
Dr Jess Tipper (Historic England)
Rayleigh Castle survives well both as earthwork and buried archaeological remains. It survives as a prominent earthwork in the centre of the town, with wide views across the landscape to the west. The inner bailey is located to the east of the motte and the outer edge of the inner bailey ditch forms the west boundary to the proposed development site.
The proposed development site is within the outer bailey of the castle, which is believed to have been constructed in the late 12th century AD. This is (currently) a non-designated heritage asset with high potential for below-ground archaeological remains; previous archaeological evaluation within the outer bailey had defined evidence of occupation dating between the 10th and 13th centuries, i.e. pre-dating the construction of the outer bailey. Bellingham Lane follows the outer edge of the outer bailey ditch.
The development has the potential to cause substantial harm to below-ground archaeological remains within the development site. The remains of occupation deposits in this area, functionally related to the castle, may be of schedulable quality. Buried artefacts and palaeoenvironmental remains will also have potential to increase our knowledge of the social and economic functioning of the castle and its relationships with the surrounding medieval town and landscape.
We have, therefore, recommended that the Council commissions an archaeological evaluation, to be undertaken by a specialist archaeological contractor, at the earliest opportunity to establish the significance of surviving archaeological remains in this area. Essex CC Place Services provide archaeological advice on behalf of the District Council on non-designated heritage assets and we would expect them to lead on the brief for this work.
The impact of any proposed development at this location on the setting and significance of the designated heritage assets, including the Grade II Listed windmill, will also require robust assessment - to assess the significance of heritage assets, their settings and the contribution their settings make to the significance, and to assess the impact of the proposals on the significance of the designated heritage assets.

Essex CC Place Services High-Level Heritage Assessment for Rochford District (Oct-2020)
The development of these sites will cause substantial harm to a heritage asset. There are likely no options for mitigation. Proposals causing this level of harm to the significance of a heritage asset should be avoided.
Built heritage - Lies within the Rayleigh Conservation Area and & medieval town extent. Civic Suite site contains GII Listed Barringtons [1168536]
Archaeological impact - The Civic Suite needs archaeological investigation & any development on the Mill Hall Site impacts the scheduled Monument of Motte and Bailey

The Mill Arts & Events Centre is situated within Rayleigh Mount Conservation Area, between main entrance to Rayleigh Mount (National Trust Scheduled Ancient Monument) & Rayleigh Windmill (Grade II Listed Building.)



It has been a hub of the community in Rayleigh Town for 50 years up until the time it was closed in March 2020 due to the COVID 19 pandemic Lockdown. This year is the Mill Halls’ Golden Jubilee, built in 1971, paid for by the Community.

RDC must approve nomination for the Mill Hall to be classed as an Asset of Community Value.

The Mill Hall showcases local Artworks within its Foyer, and has a permanent mosaic completed by children of our schools. From the first step within the building, visitors can immediately feel the sense of culture and creativity. A large noticeboard of all events, shows and clubs available is straight ahead, plus the ‘tourist board’ style information desks is immediately welcoming and accessible for all.
The Mill Hall is popular with residents and visitors to Rayleigh, with a coffee shop and facilities to use after a visit to the many Heritage sites within the Town Centre. This includes the Windmill (open for weddings & tours), Rayleigh Mount, The Dutch Cottage, Rayleigh Museum, and King George’s park when Fair arrives in Town.
The Mill Hall has the performance provision for staging Theatre, Musical Concerts, Comedy shows, Live Bands etc. The venues’ size is ideal for large scale events in the main hall including Professional Wrestling, Dances, Boxing, Children’s exercise classes (Jumping Beans). Upstairs, the smaller hall has capacity and versatility to cover social events including art exhibitions, Exercise Classes, craft fairs. The Mill Hall is frequently used for wedding receptions, birthday parties, funeral wakes, Charity social nights (including Rayleigh British Legion) and local school Proms.

It is utilised as a social meeting place by a significant number of community organisations, groups, clubs, and exercise classes. They make regular use of the Mill Hall throughout the day, as well as evenings and weekends. Consequences of the decision by the Council to keep the Mill Hall closed, some organisations have dis-banded and others have become less well supported.
The Mill Hall helps to put the town on the map as a tourist destination, improving the local economy and supporting other businesses including the many restaurants & pubs in the area prior or after an Event.


Rayleigh’s position within the District - and its proximity/travel links to Southend-on-Sea and Chelmsford - mean it is well placed to attract tourists and visitors who want to visit, eat out and then enjoy an event/show at the Mill Hall, without a long train journey home. The free parking after 1pm on Saturdays already brings in visitors to Rayleigh for shopping, so this would be ideal for evening shows/events at the Mill Hall.
The Mill Hall has excellent potential once renovated & refurbished. More focus/marketing placed on its Theatre staging ability. It could be a magnet for touring theatre groups and become part of the East of England theatre circuit, much like Chelmsford & Norwich.
Objections have been raised throughout the Asset Strategy Delivery Program by non-Administration District Councillors and residents with Rochford District Council over plans to demolish the Mill Hall and redevelop the site with housing. More than 4,000 people from the District have signed a petition opposing the demolition of the Mill Hall and building housing in the Rayleigh Conservation Area.
The Theatre’s Trust - the national advisory body for theatres and a statutory consultee within the planning system, has written to RDC in support of maintaining the Mill Hall performance venue.
Sustainable development as defined through the NPPF (2019) includes a social objective to support social and cultural wellbeing. Paragraph 92 seeks planning decisions to plan positively for facilities and to guard against unnecessary loss.
We do not consider there to be sufficient justification demonstrating the existing Mill venue and the live events it hosts are no longer required.

We would also suggest the economic impact on the town should be considered in terms of loss of audience spend in other businesses when attending shows and events. There will be significant harm to social and cultural wellbeing through the loss of existing events held at the Mill Hall.

Local Authorities are the biggest funder of arts and culture in England. They support cultural activity in their areas in order to provide their residents with a better quality of life, to promote tourism, stimulate the local economy, and build their area’s reputation – creating a unique sense of place. The Partnership Panel meeting earlier this year requested Officers research funding for the Mill Hall via Arts Council. Has this been completed and what opportunities are there to support this fantastic venue?

We would like to preface everything we are about to say with the following. Our district cannot take
any more 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. I 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. 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 dangerously 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 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 events surrounding 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 cut it.
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 residents this would require. 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 over-subscribed thanks for 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 –
Roland and Gordon Harwood) are fully represented in this process and during the subsequent stages
of the local plan being written and implemented.

We would like to preface everything we are about to say with the following. Our district cannot take
any more 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. I 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. 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 dangerously 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 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 events surrounding 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 cut it.
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 residents this would require. 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 over-subscribed thanks for 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 are fully represented in this
process and during the subsequent stages of the local plan being written and implemented.

Thank you for consulting Castle Point and Rochford Clinical Commissioning Group (the CCG) on the Rochford New Local Plan: Spatial Options Consultation paper 2021. The CCG and the Mid and South Essex Health and Care Partnership (HCP) welcome the
opportunity to provide comments on the consultation document. The focus of the comments is on the document’s approach to health and wellbeing and, the provision for healthcare facilities.
Draft vision
It is noted that the draft vision for Rochford in 2050 makes references to achieving a network of infrastructure including health as well social and green infrastructure, enabling residents to work locally and have many accessible and high quality open spaces including coastline that residents can enjoy. These ambitions will promote the health and wellbeing of our population and are supported.
Draft Strategic Priorities and Objectives
The strategic priorities to meet the need for homes and jobs in the area; to provide for retail, leisure and other commercial development, infrastructure and climate change mitigation and adaptation are supported. Amendments are suggested to strengthen the strategic objectives that support these priorities.
Strategic objective 2: The stated objective is to plan for a mix of homes needed to support current and future residents, in particular viably addressing affordability issues and supporting our ageing population. The objective is supported; access to quality housing is one of the wider determinants of health.
Reference could be drawn from the Lifetime Homes standard to ensure that homes make life as easy as possible for as long as possible, providing accessible and
adaptable accommodation for everyone, from young families to older people and individuals with a temporary or permanent physical impairment. This approach should,
over time, allow older people to stay in their own homes for longer and reduce the need for home adaptations.
It is also important to recognise the housing needs of younger members of the population and to address the challenges of entering the housing market. In addition,
the ability of health and social care workers to access the housing market should be considered when addressing the affordability of housing. A local health and care
workforce, as well as built and digital infrastructure, is needed to successfully deliver services for the benefit of our population.
Strategic objective 3: Economic wellbeing is a wider determinant of health and so objectives to deliver more local jobs such as strategic objective 3 are supported.
Strategic objective 4: In addition to allocating land for employment development, provision should be made to enable working from home, which has the benefits of
reducing travel. Houses should be of sufficient size and flexible designs to accommodate this option.
Strategic objective 7: The scope of this objective could be extended from the town centres in Rayleigh, Hockley and Rochford meeting local niche shopping and leisure
needs to include a broader range of activities. These could include shared workspaces for local businesses, community cafes and drop-in facilities for early intervention health services, which would support health and wellbeing of the population.
Strategic objective 8: This objective could include improvement of village and neighbourhood centres to enable the delivery of some health services such as
vaccination centres and drop-in facilities. This would benefit the health and wellbeing of residents and reduce the need to travel.
Strategic Objective 11: Encouraging walking and cycling and so levels of physical activity is supported. Ensuring that our population is well served by public transport is
important to achieving equal access to healthcare services and is important both in new developments and to link established and new developments.
Strategic objective 14: The CCG and HCP welcome the inclusion of strategic objective 14 and look forward to working with the Council and other partners to ensure that our population has access to good quality social and health and wellbeing services.
Strategic objective 15: The inclusion of a reference to older people in this objective is positive. However, it should be made clear that promoting healthy and active lifestyles, and improving physical and mental health and wellbeing, is important for people of all ages, including young people.
Strategic objective 23: Mitigating and adapting to climate change is supported. This objective should be amended to make it clear that those changes are current as well as
forecast and so require immediate action.
Figure 16 – Typical Levels of Growth required to Deliver Infrastructure
It is important to note that the level of growth required to deliver a primary healthcare centre given is, as the title indicates, only typical. There are circumstances where a new facility would be triggered by a development of less than 3,500 additional dwellings and others where 3,500 new dwellings would not result in the provision of a new healthcare facility.
Spatial Strategy Options
Additional healthcare capacity will be needed to provide primary care services to meet the needs of new residents in each of the spatial strategy options. How this additional capacity is achieved will need to be the subject of discussion
informed by more detail about the scale and location of development. New facilities are one option but may not be the most appropriate solution in all cases. Increased capacity through reconfiguration and/or extension of existing premises will also be considered.
It is requested that the wording in the ‘This strategy could deliver…’ text boxes on pages 30, 31 and 32 be amended from ‘…new medical facilities…’ to ‘additional medical facility capacity’. This is to clarify that new facilities will not necessarily be delivered in relation
to all growth whether through urban extensions, concentrated growth or a balanced combination of the options presented.
Further information about the scale and location of developments in the options presented would be needed to form any preference for a particular spatial strategy. The Health and Care Partnership would welcome discussions with the Council and further involvement in development of the local plan strategy to ensure that healthcare needs are properly addressed.
Question 9 – It is agreed that a sequential approach should be taken, and development should be located away from areas at risk of flooding. The HCP would not support the provision of healthcare premises in areas of high flood risk.
Question 10 – The Coastal Protection Belt and Upper Roach Valley should be safeguarded from development as they are a valuable resource to help residents
maintain good physical and mental health.
Question 11 – The principle of requiring developments to source energy from low-carbon and renewable sources in supported. Care should be taken to ensure other important resources, such as landscape are not compromised as a consequence.
Question 12 – Yes, developments should be striving for the highest energy efficiency standards. New NHS buildings are being designed to standards higher than the building regulations in the drive to achieve net-zero carbon developments.
Place-making and design
The inclusion of a place-making charter for Rochford in the Local Plan is supported. It should secure high quality buildings and built environments as well as green and blue spaces; encourage active travel; make provision for local/community food production; and require accessible and adaptable homes. It is also important that existing
communities and new developments, including for our travelling communities, are successfully integrated with easy active travel options and public transport between
them. This approach will help to ensure that development has positive impacts on the health and wellbeing of all of our residents
Healthcare facilities
The structure of healthcare bodies in Mid and South Essex changing. Separate clinical commissioning groups are coming together in an integrated care body which will be part of an integrated care system with other health and social care partners. It is therefore requested that the reference to the Castle Point and Rochford Clinical Commissioning Group is removed.
It is suggested that the ‘Healthcare Facilities’ text on page 57 of the consultation document is replaced by:
With a growing and ageing population, provision of health and community facilities and services within the district is going to become even more important. There is a need to
provide health care facilities that meet existing and future needs, including those arising from the population growth across the plan period. There are currently 10 GP practices in Rochford and the average list size is around 9,500 patients.
The shape of healthcare delivery in Mid and South Essex is also changing. As well as increasing capacity in all three hospitals in Mid and South Essex, the health and care partnership is aiming to invest in and support GP practices to work together to provide
joined up care, building activities in prevention, helping people at an earlier stage and
avoiding serious illness. These priorities will require healthcare hubs that can host a wider
range of healthcare services including diagnostics and early intervention services; support
a move to improved digital services and provide capacity for drop-in and wellbeing services. These will be established through a combination of refurbishment and/or extension of existing facilities; sharing of facilities; and new build projects. The Health and Care partnership is pleased to have to opportunity to respond to the Rochford Local Plan consultation and requests ongoing engagement in development of the plan.

1. Introduction
These representations are submitted by Wood Group UK Ltd (Wood) on behalf of Bloor Homes Ltd.
⚫ Section 2 provides a summary response to the Spatial Options consultation,
specifically in support the ‘Potential Cross-Boundary Opportunity’ east of Wickford,
explaining why the site should be part of whichever Strategy Option is taken forward
as it performs so well.
⚫ Section 3 sets out further detailed justification for a strategic land allocation to the
east of Wickford - centred on the release of sites CFS222 and CFS239 from the Green
Belt and improvements to remaining Green Belt in this area1
- in the context of
national Green Belt policy, sustainability, limited harm and the Council’s evidence base.
⚫ Section 4 explains the specific opportunities and benefits associated with a strategic
land allocation east of Wickford, supported by a concept masterplan and proposed
revision to the Green Belt boundary. This is intended to aid understanding of the
significant potential of this location.
⚫ Section 5 provides answers to the specific questions identified in the consultation
document.

2. Summary
A strategic site allocation to the east of Wickford has such significant credentials in sustainability
and Green Belt terms that it should be allocated as a strategic site whichever Strategy Option is
taken forward - the allocation could be central to Strategy Options 2, 3 or 4. Option 1 (urban
intensification) is unsound given that it does not meet the district’s housing needs and would not
constitute a positively prepared plan.
The size and status of Wickford as essentially a Tier 1 settlement equivalent to Rayleigh at the top
of Rochford’s settlement hierarchy means that this is where development should be focussed.
Wickford is a highly sustainable location for growth and development. It has a range of services,
two secondary schools, strategic employment, retail and a recently upgraded railway station
providing trains to London Liverpool Street. This is all within close proximity to land east of Wickford, which adjoins Wickford Business Park, lies on the A129 high frequency public transport
corridor and is just a 15-minute bus/cycle journey to the railway station and town centre.
In Green Belt terms the ‘exceptional circumstances’ for reviewing boundaries required by NPPF140
are evidenced and justified by the lack of available land outside the Green Belt to meet the district’s
needs through to 2040. When reviewing Green Belt boundaries, the promotion of sustainable
patterns of development and use of previously developed land or sites well-served by public
transport are policy requirements (NPPF142) which the site supports given the sustainability
credentials outlined above. The extent of land controlled by Bloor in this location also provides
the opportunity for compensatory improvements to the remaining Green Belt, through the
provision of new/enhanced sports pitches, biodiversity net-gain and improvements to
walking/cycle links (also NPPF142).
Land east of Wickford is well-related to the urban edge, is visually well-contained, already contains
urbanising influences and has the long term robust boundary of the A130. The presence of the
A130 as such a strong recognisable physical barrier - central to defining Green Belt boundaries
through plan-making under NPPF143(f) - is a particular advantage that other strategic Green Belt
locations in Rochford district do not have (for example, in contrast, there is no such significant and
defensible barrier for development sites centred on Strategy Option 3b, north of Southend).
Release of land east of Wickford will therefore not result in urban sprawl, nor lead to neighbouring
towns merging or encroachment into the countryside. In Green Belt terms land east of Wickford is
a unique opportunity and the best performing strategic location for Green Belt land release,
resulting in the least harm.
From a landscape and heritage perspective it also one of the best performing strategic locations
assessed as part of the Spatial Options consultation (again, in contrast, Strategy Option 3b is in
proximity to designated heritage assets and in an area with low landscape capacity to
accommodate new development). It also an area of lower landscape sensitivity when compared
with other options.
As illustrated on the accompanying plans (Appendix A), a strategic site allocation east of Wickford
can deliver around 1,500 new homes and employment at a scale which supports the delivery of
new community infrastructure, including a primary school and new local centre (convenience retail
and other community facilities). An allocation here would reduce the pressure on other
communities in Rochford district.
In terms of delivery, the land is all under the single control of Bloor Homes, a 5* housebuilder
committed to working with Rochford District Council, the local community and key stakeholders to
realise the opportunities presented by this important opportunity.

3. Justification for a strategic land allocation /
cross boundary opportunity east of Wickford
3.1 Green Belt
NPPF Green Belt Policy
Exceptional circumstances (NPPF140)
The case for exceptional circumstances for Green Belt land release in Rochford – as required by
NPPF140 - is established under Strategy Options 2 and 3. As recognised on page 29 of the Spatial
Options, Strategy Option 1 (urban intensification), predicated on no Green Belt land release, will
not meet Rochford’s growth needs, and is therefore unlikely to be considered sound, being not
positively prepared. Green Belt land is needed. The question is where the best locations are to do
so whilst limiting the overall harm to the Green Belt and with respect to the requirements of
NPPF142 and NPPF143 in particular.
Promoting sustainable patterns of development and giving first consideration to land which has
been previously-developed ‘and/or’ is well-served by public transport (NPPF142)
Wickford is rightly recognised as equivalent to a Tier 1 settlement2
– i.e. the top of the settlement
hierarchy alongside Rayleigh. It has two secondary schools, strategic employment and retail, with
Wickford railway station - recently subject to a £4m package of improvements – providing trains
into London Liverpool Street.
Land east of Wickford is highly sustainable, as supported by the Council’s evidence base, including
the Complete Communities Topic Paper. As shown on Figure 4 of this topic paper the site adjoins
frequent public transport (more than 4 services per hour), with bus stops to the north west
(Southend Road roundabout3
), east (A129/Old London Road) and west (Hodgson Way). As part of
a strategic site allocation there is the potential to route a bus into the site and enhance
accessibility.
As supported by the Site Appraisal Paper all key facilities are nearby, including secondary school
(Beachamps High), local shops and Post Office (centred around the junction of Southend
Road/Fanton Walk/Bruce Grove), healthcare (Shotgate Surgery), jobs and employment (at
Dollymans Farm, Wickford Business Park & Fanton Hall Farm). Furthermore, the site is well-located
in proximity to extensive areas of open space, including sports pitches at The Warren, Rayleigh FC
Boys & Girls, Chichester Ground Football Pitches and Shotgate Park (with respect to the Site
Appraisal Paper, the site should at least score ‘4’ given proximity within 400-800 metres). Land
east of Wickford is just a 15-minute bus/cycle journey from the railway station and the town centre.

Promoting sustainable patterns of development in NPPF Green Belt terms therefore means
directing a significant share of new growth and development towards Wickford, whichever Strategy
Option of 2, 3 or 4 is pursued.
The site is already part brownfield and part developed with clear urbanising influences - as
acknowledged in the Site Appraisal Paper - encompassing one of the district’s twelve ‘informal
employment areas’ (Economy & Skills Topic Paper) as well as an existing dwelling and curtilage at
Dollymans Farm.
A particular benefit in terms of sustainable patterns of development is the ability to provide a scale
of development which supports additional infrastructure and investment, with the 1,500 homes at a
level which sustains provision of a new primary school, as well as supporting facilities including a
local centre, which alongside existing and enhanced public transport all helps to create a truly
‘walkable’ neighbourhood. The ability for strategic allocations to deliver infrastructure
improvements is identified in the Spatial Options Document, supporting Strategy Options Topic
Paper and the Interim Integrated Impact Assessment IIA4
. This will also be a sustainability benefit to
the existing area – including users of Wickford Business Park and neighbouring residential areas.
This would support the intentions of Strategy Options 2, 3 and 4 whereby the ability to fund and
deliver new infrastructure is identified as a clear opportunity.
Delivering compensatory improvements to the environmental quality and accessibility of the
remaining Green Belt land (NPPF142)
Compensatory improvements to the environmental quality and accessibility of the remaining Green
Belt - another key objective of NPPF142 - could also be secured given the extent of land within
Bloor Homes’ control (e.g. around CFS223, 226, 227, 230 & 238). Improvements could include a
combination of enhanced green infrastructure connectivity, new recreational routes for walking and
cycling and additional playing fields/sports provision. This would also align with NPPG002 (Green
Belt - Reference ID: 64-002-20190722) in terms of the range of compensatory improvements. By
tying such improvements in with the allocation and future planning permission, this would also be
deliverable in the context of NPPG003 (Reference ID: 64-003-20190722) and can be secured via the
S106 process.

Defining a clear Green Belt boundary (NPPF143(f))
The A130 is a significant clear physical feature and long term permanent boundary to the east of
Wickford which would form a logical defensible boundary which is capable of enduring beyond the
plan period. In this regard land east of Wickford is a unique opportunity – with no other strategic
locations having such a significant and robust Green Belt boundary, in combination with
accessibility, sustainability and suitability (being of lower environmental value).
The Council’s Green Belt Study (Assessment Area AA01 / Sites 222, 239, 238 & 223)
Against the fundamental purpose of the Green Belt – to prevent urban sprawl (NPPF137) – the
Green Belt Study rightly recognises that the area makes a weak contribution. Surprisingly it then
identifies a ‘High’ harm impact score which then follows through into the Site Appraisal Paper.

This appears predicated on the conclusion that the area makes a ‘strong contribution’ to
preventing encroachment on the countryside. However, the assessment is flawed because it fails to
reflect the existing urbanising influences in the area, incorrectly stating that the area is
undeveloped. The presence and extent of ‘urbanising land uses and features that could diminish
openness or compromise the rural character of the countryside’ are identified as key factors in the
Green Belt Study’s own methodology (2.46, 2.477, 2.50 and 2.53) but then disregarded in the
assessment of Parcel 1/AA01. Examples of the urbanising features on the site are illustrated on the
photographs presented at Figure 2. Urbanising influences include the employment areas at
Dollymans Farm (note: non-agricultural uses), and residential use at Dollymans Farm itself, as well
Fanton Hall employment area to the south east. The presence of the A129 and A130, pylons,
employment distribution infrastructure and railway line are also urbanising influences.
Furthermore, the assessment of encroachment and wider performance of the land in this area in
terms of Green Belt purposes then fails to reflect the role of strong physical boundaries, i.e. the
A130 in this case. The dictionary definition of encroachment concerns a gradual advance beyond
usual or ‘acceptable limits’ – the acceptable limit in this case being the A130. This should be a
fundamental consideration as part of the assessment and at present is a significant omission in the
study’s methodology and in the appraisal of Parcel 1/AA01. The assessment should be revised to
conclude a weak contribution to this Green Belt purpose.
In reality, and as explained earlier in this section this is a unique and strongly performing Green
Belt site because it is so well-related to the existing urban edge, already contains urbanising
influences, is visually well-contained and has such a strong boundary in the A130 that other
strategic development locations do not have. It is the best option with the least level of harm to
the Green Belt particularly with regard to the fundamental policy aim of the NPPF in preventing
urban sprawl.
Revised scoring for Parcel 01 (from the Stage 1 Assessment) and Parcel AA01 (from the Stage 2
Assessment) is therefore presented in Figure 3. It is concluded that the overall contribution to
Green Belt purposes is weak and the harm of release reduces to low-moderate. This should then
be coupled with the site’s sustainable development credentials.

Wider local plan evidence base: Site Appraisal Paper – Land East of Wickford
The Site Appraisal Paper identifies all land within Bloor Home’s control in this location as
deliverable within 5-years subject to policy, encompassing sites CFS222, CFS239, CFS238, CFS223
and CFS226. The Site Appraisal Paper shows how well-located the area is in landscape terms, lying
outside of the more sensitive landscapes in the district. Informed by the findings of the Landscape
Character, Sensitivity and Capacity Study identifies land east of Wickford as lying within a ‘LowMedium’ landscape sensitivity and ‘Medium-High’ landscape capacity to accommodate
development. The main development sites comprising CFS222 and CFS239 are also unaffected by
designated heritage assets, unlike other strategic development areas assessed in the District.
These sites all perform well in terms of accessibility given proximity to high frequency public transport on the A129 and access to facilities and services. However, there is an inaccuracy in the
scoring with respect to access to open spaces. This does not reflect the latest position on the ground, whereby the sites are very well-located in proximity to extensive areas of open space,
including sports pitches at The Warren, Rayleigh FC Boys & Girls, Chichester Ground Football
Pitches as well as Shotgate Park. The scoring for CFS222 and CFS239 should be increased from ‘1’
to ‘4’ given the extent of open space provision already within 400-800m.
In terms of access to public transport, whilst accessibility to high frequency bus routes is
recognised, the scoring for CFS222 does not yet reflect the ability to deliver
enhancements/improvements as a central part of any development scheme. In reality CFS239 –
which scores well with a ‘4’ given that it abuts the A129 and is within 400 metres of bus stops at
Southend Road roundabout – would form part of the single comprehensive allocation which aligns
with the masterplan enclosed at Appendix A. The masterplan reflects the ability for a bus to route
in and out of the scheme in order that new homes would be within 400m, so this could easily be dealt with as part of the allocation and consenting process, in which case CFS222 would also score
4.
Figure 4 presents the revised scoring for sites CFS222 and CFS239 under Bloor’s control on land east of Wickford which are to form the main area for Green Belt land release presented in section 4.
The land clearly outperforms other locations with respect to Green Belt, landscape, accessibility,
ecology and heritage.

4. Strategic land allocation - concept masterplan,
potential & opportunities
As summarised in section 2 and justified in section 3, land east of Wickford is the best location for a strategic land allocation, and should play an important role under Strategy Options 2, 3 and 4. In Green Belt terms, Wickford’s status akin to a Tier 1 settlement, accessibility to high frequency
public transport, services and facilities – and ability to deliver new community infrastructure – is
entirely consistent with promoting the sustainable patterns of development envisaged by NPPF142.
The A130 is a strong and longer term defensible Green Belt boundary unique to this location, helping limit sprawl and encroachment. Alongside the area’s relationship with the existing urban edge, visual containment and existing urbanising influences it is the best performing location for
Green Belt land release with the least harm to the overall role and function of the Green Belt in Rochford district.
In landscape and heritage terms this area would also result in the least harm when compared with other strategic options. It provides the opportunity for the Council to deliver growth in a location which minimises impacts on existing communities and environmental assets.
Appendix A provides a draft concept masterplan, with Appendix B providing a context plan and proposed revision to the Green Belt boundary in this location.
The draft concept masterplan is based on the following key features and benefits.
⚫ Around 1,500 homes, a mix of market and affordable in response to local needs, on a net residential area of around 40ha.
⚫ 2ha of land for a new 2FE primary school, supporting the Spatial Options opportunity to deliver growth at a scale which provides and sustains new infrastructure.
⚫ A new local centre, located next to the new school site, providing convenience retail
and other community uses.
⚫ A robust, long-term and defensible Green Belt boundary, capable of enduring beyond the plan period and supporting the sustainable patterns of development envisaged by NPPF142(f) Green Belt policy. The A130 and railway line provides a clear boundary using an existing physical feature that is readily recognisable and likely to be permanent, entirely consistent with NPPF132(f). Appendix B sets out the proposed Green Belt boundary revision.
⚫ New and enhanced playing pitches as a ‘hub’ for sports and recreation. The Council’s Playing Pitch Assessment and Action Plan identifies the opportunity to provide greater security of tenure for sports provision in this location – including at The Warren (CFS226) which is land under Bloor’s control. Further pitches could be provided west of the Warren/A130 or land to the east which is also within Bloor’s control. This would utilise existing bridleways all of which would link sports provision with the new homes, across the existing Pegasus crossing on the A129, with access off the A129.

Alongside the bridleways and existing crossing, the scheme would promote the use of public transport through the ability to route a bus into the site to secure a 400m walkable catchment and could provide ped/cycle links to the west through to Wickford.
⚫ Visual containment can be maximised by retaining key landscape features and enhancing structural planting alongside the site’s northern and eastern boundaries, complemented by the provision of sustainable drainage and wildlife habitats to deliver net biodiversity gain all on-site. 50% of the site would comprise green uses.
⚫ Access would be via a new roundabout on the A129, providing a tree-lined avenue
into the neighbourhood, with a potential secondary access located to the east (refer to
the masterplan in Appendix A for details).

5. Response to specific questions
Q6. Which of the identified strategy options do you consider should be taken forward in the Plan?
For the reasons explained in section 2, the cross-boundary opportunity east of Wickford has such
significant and unique credentials in sustainability, Green Belt and deliverability terms that it has a
role to play in delivering all Strategy Options 2, 3 and 4.
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?
Standards for new developments relating to both energy supply and energy efficiency standards should be left to national building regulations (e.g. linked to the Future Homes Standard or similar
initiatives in the future).
Q34. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to help deliver new strategic green and blue infrastructure?
Under Strategy Options 2, 3 or 4, a strategic land allocation east of Wickford could clearly support
the opportunity for new green infrastructure, including a new hub for sports provision in this
location (improving both the quality and quantity of sports pitches), improvements to GI
connectivity (e.g. upgrading existing bridleways), biodiversity net gains and further strategic
landscaping, particularly associated with the establishment of a robust and defensible Green Belt
boundary to the east of Wickford / west of the A130. This package of measures would also support
the environmental quality and accessibility of remaining Green Belt land, as set out in NPPF142.
Q36. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to
deliver new or improved community infrastructure?
Under Strategy Options 2, 3 or 4, a strategic land allocation east of Wickford can deliver growth at
a scale – 1,500 homes plus employment - which provides and sustains new community facilities,
including land for a 2FE primary school, new local centre (which provides convenience retail and
other community provision), extensive green infrastructure as well as new and enhanced sports
provision. Further details are provided in sections 3 and 4 of these representations.
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?
Bringing forward a strategic land allocation east of Wickford – under Strategy Options 2, 3 or 4 –
would support improvements to open space and sports provision. There are opportunities to deliver additional pitches as well as greater security of tenure, for example, on retained Green Belt
land centred on sites CFS223 and CFS226, all on land which Bloor Homes controls and would tie in
with a new strategic land allocation. The opportunity to provide greater security of tenure at The
Warren in particular (CFS223) is identified in the Playing Pitch Assessment and Action Plan. Further
details are provided in sections 3 and 4 of these representations, with the opportunity to provided
new pitches identified on the concept masterplan presented in Appendix A (6-7ha of
new/enhanced pitch provision complemented by extensive green infrastructure and biodiversity
net gains).
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?
The potential for impacts on the significance of heritage assets and their setting is a key constraint
to consider through plan-making and subsequent decision-taking on planning applications. The
Council should look therefore towards options with no/limited heritage constraints, as is the case
for land east of Wickford, recognised in both the Site Appraisal Paper and IIA.
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?
Growth should be directed to the most sustainable locations already well-served by high frequency
public transport, services and facilities, and where there is the opportunity to deliver a scale of development to sustain new services and facilities to deliver truly walkable neighbourhoods.
Promoting sustainable patterns of development is central to the review and release of Green Belt land and where land east of Wickford performs particularly well. Wickford is equivalent to a Tier 1
settlement, has rail access into London Liverpool Street, with the opportunity that Bloor has identified just a 15-minute bus/cycle ride to the station and lying on a high frequency public transport corridor (recognised in the Connecting Communities Topic Paper). Land east of Wickford
is already identified as having a positive contribution to sustainable transport in the IIA. Further detail on transport and sustainability for the cross-boundary opportunity east of Wickford is provided in sections 2, 3 and 4 of these representations.

Having reviewed the Strategy Options presented, Option 3b appears less suitable in transport terms for the following reasons.
⚫ A review of the potential development sites outlined in Figure 17 associated with Option 3b of the Spatial Strategy Options shows there is a lack of suitable infrastructure to support a significant level of housing growth in this region when compared with other strategic options (e.g. land east of Wickford). Figure 2 of the Complete Communities Topic Paper shows that this area is also less well-served by public transport – highlighting non-frequent bus services and services less than 4 per hour when compared with the high frequency public transport provided on land east of Wickford (tested under Option 3a).
⚫ The land identified for Option 3b within the Spatial Strategy Options is sandwiched between the River Roach to the north, Potton and Foulness Islands to the east, the existing settlement of Southend-on-Sea, and the River Thames to the south and London Southend Airport to the west.
⚫ The only strategic route to and from this area is via the A127 which provides a route
west towards the A130 (north / south route) and the M25. All vehicle redistribution and growth associated with a new, large residential settlement in this area would therefore be required to utilise the A127 as the main route in and out of the area. This route also serves as the main route for London Southend Airport which is due to continue to expand.
The other option for movement into and out from the area is less strategic and comprises the A13 London Road though this would require traffic to travel through
the centre of Southend-on-Sea.
⚫ If a strategic scale of development is proposed then significant new transport
infrastructure may be required, whereby the location of Option 3b presents limitations. For example, the proximity of London Southend Airport to the A127 to the south, and River Roach to the north mean there is very little scope to enhance a connection east from lands north of the town centre.

Q63a. Do you agree with our vision for Rawreth? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state
reasoning]
Land east of Wickford sits within Rawreth parish but is fundamentally related to and links to
Wickford/Shotgate, lying east of the A130. Engagement with the parish council will be central to
our approach, including how the wider transport, green infrastructure, sports pitches, school and
local centre to benefit existing residents in this area.
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?
Linked with the response to Q63a, the cross-boundary opportunity east of Wickford should be
recognised and allocated as part of the new local plan under whichever strategy option is taken
forward. The opportunities associated with this land allocation are presented in sections 2, 3 and 4
of these representations, supported by the concept masterplan provided in Appendix A.
Essentially, it would comprise a new walkable neighbourhood of around 1,500 homes, employment
plus 2FE primary school and local centre, through removing sites CFS222 and CFS239 from the
Green Belt. A new defensible Green Belt boundary would be established to the west of the A130
and north of the railway line, as shown on the plan enclosed at Appendix B.
Retained Green Belt land under Bloor Homes control – comprising CFS238, CFS223, CFS226, CFS227 and CFS230 – could deliver compensatory improvements to the environmental quality and
accessibility of remaining Green Belt land, including new and improved sports pitches (e.g. CFS222 and CFS226/The Warren), biodiversity net gain, improved walking/cycle links and strategic landscaping.

I just thought I’d email in regarding the proposed development / spatial options plan as per Rochford DCs website.

I’d just like to put on record my own objection to this plan, in that it sacrifices for development invaluable open/green spaces which are of particularly easy access to Rochford residents, especially in terms of the land near Southbourne Grove where I live.

Rochford is rightly regarded as rural, but much of that rural / green belt is often difficult to access and fastly diminishing.

COVID has demonstrated how much we appreciate what is on our doorstep and this stripping away of green space will do great damage to the physical and mental health and well-being of the district, not least the environment.

The infrastructure of the area is also under great pressure from all angles, e.g. school places, roads, etc with Hall Road, Clements Hall and Rawreth Lane all substantial recent developments.

Rochford is therefore in real danger of becoming a souless urban sprawl and we risk destroying the core character of the district for future generations.

I appreciate the need for more homes within reason, but I’d like to know what has been explored in terms brownfield sites and other options first.

As a Southbourne Grove resident myself, if these plans are adopted, I would continue to object with all means at my disposal and look to galvanise similar responses from my fellow residents.

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

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

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

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

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

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