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

To whom it may concern,

In response to the spatial options consultation concerning Barling, Great Wakering, Little Wakering, Rochford and the SS0 to SS9 Area.

There may well be a need to provide additional housing for local children and their children's children however, as already being demonstrated, by the rocketing House prices recently in this area, that it is more affluent Londoners that are moving into this (cheaper to them) area. Supposedly they are moving here because its ironically greener.

These are the reasons I oppose this proposal

I moved from Southend into Little Wakering as I was struggling to cope with the busy built up area. Now I have a field at my open back fence and around me where I can calm my mind and balance my busy work schedule at the local hospital. It is my saviour. Evidence suggests for mental peace and mindfulness spending time surrounded by nature releases the hormone oxytocin to help our brains soothing system and lower our stress hormone cortisol, which keeps us in the threat fight or flight centre in the brain. With the rising levels of anxiety and mental health conditions particularly amongst the young we need to preserve green space in this area.

Mental health is already putting great strain on the NHS and doesn't, even now, have sufficient funding to manage the situation, let alone in the future when we are so crammed in no one can get space or do the things they enjoy to balance life's stressor.

Alot of the population are introverts and they get their energy from time away from people. Not being able to live with space around them will be detrimental to local health.

The pandemic has illustrated how living in built up, close proximity, highly populated areas is detrimental to health and has allowed ease of transmission of the virus. This will only get worse and more prevalent if we continue to fill in the green gaps with more people.

It will impact on the NHS, even now, there is great difficulties in this area accessing and getting a doctors or hospital appointment. I have already lost two people I love dearly because they couldn't get in to see a doctor or timely investigations and became terminal. This issue will grow even more.

Only two main roads in and out. Building in this dead end is trapping us and reducing our quality of life. Already I and my family have made life changes. Things that we used to enjoy we no longer do because of how busy the area has become and how difficult it is to get out of the area. I don't visit family in other areas very frequently because of the time it takes to get out and back in and stress the traffic creates. Family members have stopped clubs they enjoyed in Basildon because of the time it now takes with the built up traffic. All ready I don't do days out because it takes so long getting out and back into the area. I don't visit my elderly parents in Rochford as frequently as I would like because of the traffic to get there and back in a reasonable time around my work hours and children. This concerns me when I will need to travel there daily to be able to care for them but getting along the Ashingdon road is already a nightmare. I avoid going to town or retail because of the traffic to get there, because of how busy the places are.

Also where we are trying to lower carbon emissions and pollution we are sitting in traffic with engines running. Already this is the case to get anywhere. The junction at shopland Road and Sutton Road. Passed purdeys industrial estate to try and get to Rochford. Trying to get along the Ashingdon road. Priory Park, progress Road, Rayleigh weir etc. The more houses you build in this area, the more cars, the more pollution with traffic sitting at a standstill and not being able to get anywhere.

The condition of the roads is not suitable for more traffic like Barrow Hall Road and shopland Road. The road is narrow and there are many near misse head on crashes. The edges of the road are in poor condition which does not allow for manoeuvre when the road is so narrow especially with the speed people drive along the roads.

Business not being able to travel with ease in and out of the area will impact on economy.

It will impact on my NHS community physio team. We are having to restrict patient appointment already because it takes much longer to travel between patients in this area. Building up this dead end area will massively impact on the health care available to our aging population. It is already an issue, I live it every day at work. It is escalating stress in the team, in families and patients. It is a growing problem.

No infrastructure improvements with the builds that are already happening. Doctors, schools, fire service, community teams. There is only one secondary school for RDC pupils and space is already full at the primary schools.

Building up the area is restricting access to activities people do in their down time, how people in this area look after their mental and physical health. How they unwind. Less walks across field footpaths. Busier roads less access and more danger to cyclist. This area is popular for cyclists. It will restrict an activity that a vast number of people do for their health. Keeping active in this way will reduce their ailments in later life and will therefore need to access health services less. The reason it is popular for cyclists is that there is space, there is peace and the roads are quiet and safer.

There is alot of wildlife that New builds are pushing out of this area. Our children have a right to live amongst nature, that is how they learn to appreciate and take care of it.

With rising sea levels building on our limited open areas will increase flooding risk to those already living here.

This dead end area is not the area to build up. It is not fair to the existing population. Please stop trapping us here and negatively affecting our quality of life.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would like to express concerns about the plans for development and housing on our beautiful and essential green spaces.

Living in the centre of Hockley I am acutely aware of the pressure on our local road system which has increased significantly in recent years. The mini roundabout at the Spa is already dangerous to use, far too small for the sheer number of cars, and difficult to use safely when turning out of and into Woodlands Road. I also feel that many of the local roads and infrastructure as a whole is inadequate for the current volume of traffic, let alone any additional development. With one road in and out of Hockely, and many dangerous potholes and burst water mains on Rochford and Hockley roads at all times of year, RDC need to focus ensuring the roads can cope with current housing, let alone additional.

There also needs to be adequate schools, doctors, public transport etc to cover the additional needs of new housing. The 3-4 local primary schools in Hockley are all oversubscribed as it is.

Trees and woodlands are absolutely essential for counteracting climate change, as well as providing homes for a wide range of wildlife, and providing the local children with invaluable education and experiences. The U.K. is already facing a critical shortage of trees. Green spaces are under threat when they should be cherished and protected. We are incredibly lucky to have the fields and woodlands, which are used daily by families, dog walkers, joggers and ramblers.

In particular the plan ref CFS064, which proposes a development on a well loved green space and ancient woodland behind Folly Chase, the Hockley Community Centre, and Hockley Primary school, is disturbing to the many families that use these areas on a regular basis for fresh air and outdoor activities.

If the last year and a half of a global pandemic has had any positive impact on us as a community it is that people have rediscovered a love for the local green space, woodlands and wildlife. Being locked down throughout a lot of 2020 and 2021 was extremely damaging to both the mental and physical health of children and adults. Being able to walk, run and play in the fields and woods as a form of exercise was a lifeline to some families, keeping little ones active and allowing parents to clear their minds. I can’t tell you how many times I heard people express how grateful they are to have this precious space and how crucial is has been, and will always continue to be, for the well-being of the community.

Stand in the field behind the community centre and watch a Jay hop along, spot a squirrel, listen to the crickets and birdsong. Imagine losing this resource to diggers and developers, knowing the damage it’ll cause the local area, traffic, air quality, pollution levels, wildlife, infrastructure, education and overall health of our community. I hope and trust that the council will choose to invest in and care for the community it already has, to help us thrive and protect our beautiful green spaces, fields, woodlands and homes.

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

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


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


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


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


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

Q5. Do you agree with the settlement hierarchy presented?


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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Spatial Themes

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

Housing for All

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


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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

Employment and Jobs

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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


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

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

Biodiversity

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


YES

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

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

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


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

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

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

Green and Blue Infrastructure

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


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

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


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


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

Community Infrastructure

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

Heritage

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


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

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


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


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

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


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

Town Centres and Retail

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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


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

Transport and Connectivity

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


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

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


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

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

Green Belt and Rural Issues

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


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

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

Planning for Complete Communities

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


N/A


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


N/A


Q56d. Are there areas that require protecting from development?


N/A


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


N/A

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



N/A

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


N/A


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


N/A


Q57d. Are there areas that require protecting from development?


N/A



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

N/A

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

N/A

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

N/A

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


N/A

Q58d. Are there areas that require protecting from development?


N/A



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


N/A


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

N/A

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


N/A




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


N/A





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


N/A


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


N/A


Q60a. Do you agree with our vision for Hullbridge?


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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


N/A


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


N/A


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


N/A


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

N/A

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

N/A



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


N/A


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


N/A


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

N/A



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

N/A



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


N/A





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


N/A


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


N/A


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


N/A


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


N/A


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


N/A


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


N/A


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


N/A

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


N/A


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


N/A


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


N/A


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


N/A


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


N/A


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


N/A






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


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

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


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

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


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

Create a Country Park to the west of Hullbridge.

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

To whom it may concern, we would like to raise our very strong objections to the following.
INFRASTRUCTURE
The two main roads leading to this area. ie. the A127. and the. A13
They are ridiculously congested already and they then lead onto smaller, narrower roads built to connect villages, not towns. We already have bumper to bumper traffic at all times, even more so now with the excessive building of new dwellings in Rawreth, ( just past Asda), Hullbridge, Rayleigh Town Centre, Rochford ( Hall Road) and Canewdon.
GP. SURGERIES and DENTISTS are already struggling with the overload of patients.
HOSPITALS in this area were struggling, even before Covid and are now worse than ever.
ALL LOCAL SCHOOLS are oversubscribed and totally full.

NEW HOSPITALS, GP SURGERIES AND SCHOOLS are always promised, but never materialise. !!!!!

WITH REFERENCE TO,
Areas, CFS053, CFS098, CFS029, CFS027, CFS086
1, This land we are given to understand is, GREEN BELT and listed within the
“ WORLD HERITAGE SITES “. ( Google 24/3/1995 )
2, To build on this land would cause serious drainage problems as rainwater would not be able to naturally drain away and feed the sources of the River Roach in the form of a spring, rising from the rear of No. 45 and 47. Nelson Road.
3, To remove this vital and natural open land drainage, would impact on Nelson Road, Napier Road and Albert Road, causing flooding from surplus rainwater.
4, We also need to keep open spaces to support our wildlife such as Badgers, (protected) Bats (protected ) Birds, including Owls and Buzzards, Foxes, Rabbits, Deer and BEES.
5, The land behind Nelson Road and Napier Road, is permanently farmed, supporting valuable crops which are desperately needed in these climate changing times.

We hope that all the issues as listed above will be taken into account and seriously considered in your forthcoming enquiries/ decisions.

Regarding the proposal to develop land around Hullbridge.

The council need to appreciate that not every constituent wants to live in a concrete jungle surrounded by buildings with no sign of nature or the countryside.

We moved to Hullbridge three years ago because it is a peaceful rural village and a good location to help with our mental well being and medical needs. This location has proved essential over the past 18 months with COVID and lock downs adding extra stress and anxiety. To include this area in the plan is not taking into account people’s well being and has no consideration for why people move to rural locations.

The proposal to build on Green belt between Keswick Avenue, Pooles Lane and Long Lane would also cause distress to [REDACTED - PERSONAL INFORMATION] who suffers from a neurological disorder which is exacerbated by vibration, which would be caused by building works. Also Green belt and farm land should not be destroyed by buildings but left to help combat global warming and food shortages.

On a more general view, the infrastructure is not sufficient to handle the proposed number of new homes in the Rockford district. The roads are not suitable as has been proved many times when there is an incident on either the A127, Rawreth Lane, Beeches Road/Watery Lane or Lower Road the whole area is brought to a stand still.
Then there is medical facilities, schools and transport. It’s ok saying more schools, transport and medical facilities will be provided but you have to get staff to man them and with the news saying there is a shortage of trained staff this is easier said the done.

I hope you take our views into consideration.

It is encouraging to learn of Rochford District Council’s intention to provide housing to meet the needs of both young and old that are carbon neutral and energy efficient.

However, there can only be concern that many of the designated sites are in green belt or in-fill. Land suggested for development in Hockley includes that north of Merryfields Ave, Turret Farm, Church Road, land north-east of Folly Lane, a number of sites on Greensward Lane, Lower Road and the High Road – all on green belt/agricultural land.

Of particular concern is the site at Merryfields Ave. On green belt, it abuts the nature reserve and footpath 13. The owner of this land has had several planning applications refused in the past on account of the threat to local wildlife, impact on ancient woodland, lack of access, the danger of flooding from the nearby stream and run off from the road. Also worthy of note is the land to the north east of Folly Chase also proposed for development - also in the green belt and adjacent to ancient woodland with protected trees (Betts Wood). To the west of the site there is green lane bordered with ancient trees which should be protected if development takes place.. There is no public access to the site and there is concern that the adjacent community centre could be sacrificed for this purpose.

Young people/couples do indeed find it difficult to purchase property in Hockley. It is hoped that the new developments proposed will cater for their needs with more semi-detached properties than is now the case. The growing elderly population requiring specialist/suitable accommodation need assistance. Many elderly single people are living in family-sized homes when they would prefer more suitable accommodation such as bungalows or purpose-built flats.


The main access to Hockley and on to Southend is via the B1013; one of the busiest ‘B’ roads in the country. It is difficult to understand how this already congested road could cope with the vehicles from another 1,000 houses in Hockley, let alone those from adjacent villages and towns. Rochford District is on a peninsular: traffic can go no further than Southend especially with limited access to the north of the county via Battlesbridge. It is suggested the Council undertake a road traffic survey before continuing with the District Plan.

Hockley is served by two GP practices, as has been the case for 50 years or more. Hockley’s health clinic closed in the last few year and young mothers and the elderly have to travel to Rayleigh for medical attention. What are the plans for additional health services in line with the vastly increased population should the plan be enforced?

Unfortunately for the youth of Hockley, there is no sports field they can use in the village. The District Plan does mention the use of the Greensward Playfield and it is to be hoped this will be progressed.

Hockley is fortunate in having a library but its future is uncertain.

Hockley benefits from being on the main Southend Victoria/Liverpool Street train line. Unfortunately its bus service is not so efficient with the nos 7 and 8 services passing through the village from Southend to Rayleigh and vice versa twice an hour. Services to other parts of the district/county have to be accessed from these two termini.

The District Plan places great emphasis on health and well-being. Fortuntely Hockley is well served with a network of footpaths. It is important that they are maintained and not encroached upon by development.


Surrounded by Green Belt, Hockley is lucky in having access to a number of open spaces. It is noted that the Marylands Nature Reserve is included in The District Plan but not Plumberow Mount Open Space or St Peter’s Road Open Space – all maintained by the Parish Council. Marylands Woods, Plumberow Woods, Crabtree Woods, Hockley Hall Woods and nearby Beckney Woods are all ancient woodland but in private hands. It would be of great benefit to the community if they were included in the Local Plan and protected for the future. Betts Wood and, of course, Hockley Woods are in the care of the RDC.

With so much development, it is obvious that flora and fauna will suffer. Consideration should be given to identifying further green spaces (not just play areas) for public use. Efforts should be made to ensure wild-life corridors are incorporated into developments near to woods and open countryside.


The District Plan contains a list of conservation areas. It is disappointing to note that Ss Peter and Pauls’ church, Church Road and adjacent buildings (the old school house, Hockley Hall, Mill House and the former rectory) does not appear. In the surrounding green belt, it is constantly under threat and it would be a tremendous loss to the community should this historic part of the village be developed.

Plumberow Mount (a Romano/British tumulus) does not appear in the document as an ancient monument.

I am writing to express my concerns regarding the proposed plans within the Spatial Options Consultation 2021. The plans for additional housing developments will further reduce the green spaces locally and infringe upon greenbelt land.
A brief word about the consultation itself; while the documentation has been made available and residents have been informed, I do not believe that it is presented in a manageable or accessible format. There is a plethora of information the questionnaire is very long, and the language used is formal, wordy, and fairly technical in nature. I expect that despite many residents having concerns many will not respond as they will see it as too time-consuming and impenetrable.

An uncertain future
Given the upheaval caused by the pandemic this is probably not the time to make firm plans for the next 20 years. We have been going through a period of huge change. The way we work and live are likely to be affected for some time to come, some changes will be permanent with more people working from home some or all the time. In turn this means that the use of office and retail space will change significantly. More people are moving towards online shopping and gradually retailers are improving the online shop experience. These changes are likely to free up space for redevelopment of existing office and retail space into residential use. I believe that rather than building on green field sites we should consider a more conservative approach to wait to see whether the effects of the pandemic mean that existing sites can be redeveloped. Once the green field sites have been used, they are gone. Furthermore, the pandemic has highlighted the need for areas of nature for recreation and health. It can surely not be wise to shrink these areas while adding to the population? This cannot have a positive effect on the health and wellbeing of the local population.

Local character, Historic Towns
The character of the local area is being gradually eroded with the green spaces between towns such as Rochford, Hockley, and Rayleigh dwindling. If the proposed blue sites on the interactive map https://rochford.opus4.co.uk/ you have provided were to be used for development the area is close to becoming one large conurbation. Thus, the towns will lose their character and simply become areas within a larger whole.

Greenbelt
There are many proposed sites that appear to sit within, or directly on or adjacent to the boundaries of Metropolitan Green Belt land. These appear to include, CFS07L, CFS027, CFS053, CFS160, CFS134, CFS002, CFS045, CFS251, CFS074, CFS082, CFS078, CFS080, CFS081, CFS135, CFS064, CFS264, CFS040, CFS160, CFS105, CFS024. Moreover, some of these sites would appear to involve building within Marylands Nature reserve in Hockley (CFS024) or within Hockley Woods (CFS160) or next to the boundary of Betts Farm ancient woodland and Folly Wood (CFS064). This would obviously cause immense damage to the natural environment, loss of ancient woodland and potential loss to rare species. Even if the woodland itself is not built upon the disruption to the site while building work is taking place and the loss of linking areas of open land will have a detrimental effect on the woodland environment, causing fragmentation. Studies done by charities such as The Woodland Trust state that inappropriate development of land adjacent to woodland can cause chemical pollution, disturbance to wildlife, fragmentation, introduction of non-native plants and other negative cumulative effects. Please see: Threats to woods and trees - Woodland Trust
I would draw your attention to the following paragraph within The National Planning Policy Framework revised 20th July 2021.
“13. Protecting Green Belt land 137. The Government attaches great importance to Green Belts. The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. 138. Green Belt serves five purposes: a) to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; b) to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another; c) to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; d) to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and e) to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land”
And
“Proposals affecting the Green Belt 147. Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances”
Within The draft vision for Rochford in 2050 Strategic Priority 5 is “Making suitable and sufficient provision for climate change mitigation and adaptation, conservation and enhancement of the natural and historic environment, including landscape”. I believe the plans for housing developments within the green belt will directly obstruct this priority.


Congestion, Pollution, Gridlock
An area of huge concern amongst residents is the effect of all the additional traffic created both during the building of new developments and once built from the increased traffic caused by increased population. Infrastructure in the local area is woefully insufficient already. The B1013 links Rochford, Hawkwell, Hockley and Rayleigh. Greensward Lane and Ashingdon Road link to this road. Should further housing be added to the area the pressure on these roads will be immense. There will be further delays, additional pollution, and road traffic accidents. There is already severe traffic especially at peak times along these roads. One small accident can cause gridlock. Rochford District Council is fully aware of these issues as they have been raised time and time again by residents.

In conclusion I implore you to consider carefully the impact of further residential developments on the infrastructure, character, and green field sites of our area. Examine meticulously the emerging trends due to the effects of the pandemic and our increasing dependency on information technology and take a far more conservative approach to the management of our open spaces.

SITE ASSESSMENT PROFORMA: CFS180
In relation to the ‘spatial options consultation’, I would like to request you go back to government to politely tell them where they can place their housing targets!
Not sure if you have heard about the IPCC report but WE ARE IN A CLIMATE EMERGENCY, humanity would be grateful if you would start taking action towards that instead, as it is a much bigger priority that a new local plan!
We may need our greenbelt and agricultural land to grow crops if food supplies become affected, it is madness to consider covering them in concrete! Our roads are constantly gridlocked through infrastructure neglect and surely must be at dangerous pollution levels already. Not to mention the fact that a lot of the district is expected to be under water by 2050!
In light of the above, here are my reasons for objecting to this site:

Critical Drainage Risk
3
Green Belt Harm
1

Please could I add some comments to the spatial options consultation!



Firstly, I’d like to express my concern/feedback regarding the online consultation itself:
• I felt the online setup was really badly organised and far too complicated to navigate, even for those who are quite comfortable using the internet. It deeply concerns me how many residents will not have been able to respond due to this.
• The leaflet that residents received via the post was lacking any information on how they could send their input, other than via the internet! I didn’t notice any email addresses, telephone numbers or postal address for replies, in my opinion this also excludes many residents from responding!
• I appreciate you organised pop up events around the district, however Hawkwell only had 1 option and that was during the day, this meant that workers/commuters were excluded from face to face support.
• Whilst I have had a couple of good conversations with district councillors, there are many that have been unresponsive and invisible during the consultation (specifically those in Hawkwell East who I have contacted as a resident).
• As a Parish Councillor whose colleagues are mainly of the older generation and don’t use the internet, I was quite upset to see them struggling to navigate the ridiculous amount of paperwork and information that needed printing for them, in order for us to create a council response. This leaves me worried about how our older generations within the community will have coped. Was there any support provided to our residents who might not be able to manage the consultation for themselves and that don’t have any friends or family etc to assist them?

•
In relation to the actual content of the consultation, I believe that before any consideration should be given to further development, RDC need to address the issues with our existing infrastructure. Our current services (doctors/dentists etc), schools and roads all appear to be over capacity, at breaking point in some places. This is where RDC’s priorities should be. It makes no sense to me why you would issue a consultation regarding future housing development, without a full infrastructure plan in place first. In addition to this, I also strongly feel that RDC should be responding to government to negotiate a reduction/cancellation of the unrealistic housing target that has been thrust upon our already cramped district.

I have looked at many of the sites listed in the consultation and I find it extremely disturbing how many of them:
• are on green belt land, which needs to be protected at all costs as it provides vital habitats for the other species that also live on our planet (humans are not the only ones who need a home!)
• contain ancient woodland, which in my opinion is irreplaceable.
• are on agricultural sites, which if the predictions regarding the impacts of climate change and the food shortages (due to global crop failure), we may need this land for future farming.

Apart from the standard infrastructure details that I wasn’t able to locate in the consultation and I believe should have been provided (e.g. Up to date traffic assessments, statistics/reports on doctor/dental surgeries and schools, in relation to their current and predicted capacities ((based on current resident records)), I feel it is also essential that the council arranges:
• An up to date air quality assessment and associated comprehensive report – the traffic volumes have increased significantly over recent years, surely this means that pollution levels will also have increased, which can cause serious health issues for residents.
• An in-depth Flood Risk assessment – according to the ‘climate central coastal risk screening tool’ the land projected to be below annual flood level in 2050, includes a large part of the district (areas affected include Foulness, Wakering, Barling, Paglesham, Stambridge, South Fambridge, Hullbridge, Canewdon and Rochford). This worries me for many reasons:
o It means all current housing, retail sites and infrastructure in those areas could be at risk.
o It may mean that people are not able to obtain mortgages or insurance in parts of the district.
o Many homes in the district already suffer from surface flooding when we have torrential downpours, this can only get worse.

Please could I ask that instead of continuing with this consultation, you instead invest the time into lobbying government, addressing our existing infrastructure problems and planning for protection of residents, wildlife and property, from the effects of climate change.

Local Plan Spatial Options Consultation
Please find below the comments from Hockley parish Council regarding the Spatial Options consultation.
The need for housing is understood but many of the proposals in the Local Plan Consultation and the impact of over-development in Hockley are a major cause for concern, especially without evidence of supporting infrastructure. This initial consultation informs residents of landowners who have put forward sites for future development so there is a personal gain aspect here. Rochford District Council has a duty to actively support residents needs in all communities and influence
Government policies.
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 Themes not included - Cultural and Accessibility.
Vibrant Town Centres: Work actively with premises owners to assist in the re-letting of any empty shops. Maybe offer a reduced rent to new businesses as a start-up scheme for “local” business only – allowing the entrepreneurs in the Rochford District a chance to showcase their businesses. Discuss with 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.
Employment – District is lacking in Environmental services - woodland conservation and management. 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/apprenticeships to train all ages get back into work or upskill (with jobs at the end of training.) Developers should be encouraged to use local labour. 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 to future-proof our residents’ opportunities Improve Long-term Economic growth - Better road networks, gigabit broadband and Wi-Fi. The council should stop developing existing commercial land into housing.
Planned Forms of Housing: Young people/couples do indeed find it difficult to purchase property in Hockley. It is hoped that the new developments proposed will cater for their needs with more semi-detached properties than is now the case. The growing elderly population requiring
specialist/suitable accommodation need assistance. Many elderly single people are living in familysized homes when they would prefer more suitable accommodation such as bungalows or purpose-built flats. Mix of housing for “affordable“ properties with higher standards for gardens and recreational space. Consideration should be given to the provision of house for life, Adapted homes for the disabled, 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.
Care needs to be taken to maintain the integrity of the existing settlements with respect to green boundary between Hockley and its neighbours. Essential green belt is being allowed to erode further (suggested land at north of Merryfields Avenue, Turret Farm, Church Road, land north east of Folly Lane, a number of sites on Greensward Lane, Lower Road and High Road) which will be impossible to replace.
Enforcement on unauthorised development is not adequately managed.
Local generation of low-carbon and renewable energy – It is encouraging to learn of Rochford
District Council’s intention to provide housing to meet the needs of both young and old that are
carbon neutral and energy efficient. New developments should be able to source some or all 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 to ascertain whether it is viable. Retrofitting existing housing and commercial buildings.
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 was intended. The volume of traffic has increased to an unacceptable level on the B1013
causing noise, air pollution and disturbance; Is the traffic survey up to date?. The main access to Hockley and on to Southend is via the B1013; one of the busiest ‘B’ roads in the country. It is difficult to understand how this already congested road could cope with the vehicles from another 1,000 houses in Hockley, let alone those from adjacent villages and towns. Rochford District is on
a peninsular: traffic can go no further than Southend especially with limited access to the north of the county via Battlesbridge. It is suggested the Council undertake a road traffic survey before continuing with the District Plan.
Good public transport links are crucial for our villages, neighbourhoods, and town centres. Hockley
benefits from being on the main Southend Victoria/Liverpool Street train line. Unfortunately its bus
service is not so efficient with the nos 7 and 8 services passing through the village from Southend to Rayleigh and vice versa twice an hour. Services to other parts of the district/county have to be accessed from these two termini. 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. Cycling infrastructure and other sustainable transport methods should be prioritised over a car-centric highway use.
Balancing access against increased congestion will be the issue for a lot of the promoted sites in Hockley. If RDC keep adding small developments to the boundaries of the town, it will overcrowd existing houses and add to urban sprawl.
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.
Community infrastructure - Community infrastructure should be preserved and extended.
Access to town centres and secondary shopping by bicycle and foot should be made easier and safer. Hockley has a road network no longer fit for purpose, some schools are near to capacity, it is difficult to obtain a GP or dental appointment. Hockley is served by two GP practices, as has been the case for 50 years or more. Hockley’s health clinic closed in the last few years and
young mothers and the elderly have to travel to Rayleigh for medical attention. What are the plans for additional health services in line with the vastly increased population should the plan be enforced?. 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 current recycling site at Castle Road, Rayleigh 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.
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. Unfortunately for the youth of Hockley, there is no sports field they can use in the village. The District Plan does mention the use of the Greensward Playfield and it is to be hoped this will be progressed. The District Plan places great emphasis on health and wellbeing. Fortunately Hockley is well served with a network of footpaths. It is important that they
are maintained and not encroached upon by development All green spaces, no matter how small, hold some significance, especially to those who use them
for recreation. They are of 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. RDC must protect all recreational spaces
and improve them, where necessary.
Conservation areas, Green Belt & 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.
RDC to focus on concerns and consideration to wildlife, birds, animals, and insects. Alongside plants and endangered species. Surrounded by Green Belt, Hockley is lucky in having access to a number of open spaces. It is noted that the Marylands Nature Reserve is included in The District Plan but not Plumberow Mount Open Space or St Peter’s Road Open Space – all maintained by the Parish Council. Marylands Woods, Plumberow Woods, Crabtree Woods, Hockley Hall Woods and nearby
Beckney Woods are all ancient woodland but in private hands. It would be of great benefit to the community if they were included in the Local Plan and protected for the future. Betts Wood and, of course, Hockley Woods are in the care of the RDC. With so much development, it is obvious that flora and fauna will suffer. Consideration should be given to identifying further green spaces (not just play areas) for public use. Efforts should be
made to ensure wild-life corridors are incorporated into developments near to woods and open countryside.
Heritage
The District Plan contains a list of conservation areas. It is disappointing to note that St Peter and Pauls’ Church, Church Road and adjacent buildings (the old school house, Hockley Hall, Mill House and the former rectory) does not appear. In the surrounding green belt, it is constantly under threat and it would be a tremendous loss to the community should this historic part of the
village be developed.
Plumberow Mount (a Romano/British tumulus) does not appear in the document as an ancient monument.
Promoted Sites (Hockley)
The plan proposes around 1000 additional houses in Hockley with other developments on land bordering the parish. This density will have a major detrimental impact on the quality of life for the settlements.
• 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.
• The Merryfields Avenue (green belt) proposal has been previously rejected by residents due to access issues as the land borders on the Nature Reserve and footpath 13. Consideration should be given to incorporating it into the Reserve rather than releasing it for development. The owner of the tract of land has made a few unsuccessful planning applications in the past on account of the threat to local wildlife, impact on ancient woodland, lack of access, the danger of flooding from the nearby stream and run off from the road. The cost effectiveness of providing access and services could prove to be exorbitant along with any damage incurred on the nearby
Nature Reserve, better that the land become part of the Reserve.
• Proposals for Folly Chase and Church Road will increase density and give further traffic problems on a busy county access road which has light industry and equestrian centres but does not have footways for pedestrian safety; vehicles are also subject to dangerous line of sight restrictions. The Folly Chase proposal was previously rejected by residents and supposedly dismissed by RDC but still appears in the Local Plan for development. The land to the north east of Folly Chase is adjacent to ancient woodland with protected trees (Betts Wood).
To the west of the site there is a green lane bordered with ancient trees which should be protected if development takes place. There is no public access to the site and there is concern that the adjacent community centre could be sacrificed for this purpose. What are the plans for the Community Centre and public footpaths which must be retained?
• Sheltered accommodation is in danger of being lost at Lime Court and Poplar Court.
• The proposal for development on land at Belchamps is particularly contentious due to the lack of open space for activities available to youngsters and community groups in the Rochford District. Any considered development would be a detrimental impact to the Historical
woodlands. This site has been a very valuable well used resource and it is important this is retained for our future generations.
• As 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.
These comments will be publicised on the Parish Council website, I would be grateful if you could do the same on the Rochford District Council website.

RDC have launched their Spatial Options Consultation to the residents of Rochford District for comment on proposed sites to be brought forward for housing development to meet proposed numbers of new housing to be built .


The question must be asked WHY this is happening prior to ECC Highways Study being commenced and a report compiled. Is this not against Government guidelines? Highways are a major consideration and huge concern to most residents in the district. RDC should not or cannot make any kind of plan or recommendation to its officers until capacity of the local road network has been reviewed. Any possible proposed extension or changes to the network must have guaranteed Central Government Funding in place before any further consideration for further building is planned.

Local infrastructure is not fit for use.

The current road network is already under severe strain with current car movements. Recently RDC made a decision to refuse the proposed Bloor development in Ashingdon. “In the absence of a definition of severe it is for the local authority to determine whether a severe impact would result and in this case it considered that the development would result in severe impact on the local highway network”

By definition RDC has acknowledged that the road network throughout the area does not have capacity to take on increased capacity through mass development.

Of particular concern to us is site Field CFS064. This site is constrained by existing housing. The only possible access being through woodland in Manor Road or Folly Chase, a private road which is a public footpath. The site is also boarded by a public footpath. Loss of amenity to the local community would be catastrophic. The site would feed out on the B1013 already running at well over capacity.

Rochford district is constrained by its location. Located on a peninsula it is bordered by the River Crouch, areas of SSI, ancient woodland, Green belt and the proximity of the coast. Railway bridges built up to 120 years ago constrain movement on roads in at least five locations on the network. All, but one, have height restrictions. None allow easy movement of two opposing cars passing, one is one way only.

The road system running through the district is ancient in many places. Indeed the Ashingdon Road having been laid out and originally built by The Romans. Maps dating from the 18th century show most major roads, e.g. the B1013, having a layout which still exists in 2021. Housing, shops and businesses have been built along their borders allowing
no capacity for expansion. We no longer see the stagecoach bound for Southend, two donkeys, a haycart and the odd child on a bicycle moving along these roads each day compared to the number of vehicle movements now seen.

Lower Road and Watery Lane are used as major or main routes in and out of the district into and out of Southend, Chelmsford and beyond.

The following areas are also of significant concern to me as a resident all being at or close to saturation point with demand from the current population.

An aging and vulnerable services system. Water, drains, sewage, (one recent development was actually completed without sewage systems being in place) gas, electricity and communication networks. E.g., Recent catastrophic water main collapse in The Hullbridge Road due to aged pipes.

Roads which are no longer fit for purpose. Many and multiply needs for repair, maintenance upgrade and extension causing broken surfaces and most significantly constant road closure or restrictions. County Highways seems to deem the district way down on its list for repairs and maintenance.

The severe risk to life and property should any major, or minor, emergence occur necessitating
the need for multiple emergency services, fire, ambulance, police to attend at peak times where roads are blocked or at capacity. On street parking is also a huge issue in many areas. Grid lock throughout the district ensues almost immediately any accident occurs or road work(s) are in place.

Existing Schools are at capacity with most being in locations where it would be difficult or impossible to increase their footprint. E.g. Rochford Primary. None of the proposed developments come with any plan for new schools, or any room to build them. Current approved development has necessitated the movement of children to school in adjoining villages due to lack of planning or capacity locally, resulting in increased car movements at peak times and pollution issues.

Doctors’ surgeries are at capacity and placed under further strain by the difficulty of recruiting GP’s

Local Hospital capacity is at breaking point

Environmental issues are not mentioned or considered. Building on flood plain, lost green belt areas, loss of habitat. Existing roads or areas already exceeding approved pollution levels. This I believe must also be the case for most main roads in the area, if not all, especially during rush hours due to standing traffic.

For ALL the above reasons no additional housing should be considered until a full and comprehensive environmental study is carried out and analysed.

RDC have launched their Spatial Options Consultation to the residents of Rochford District for comment on proposed sites to be brought forward for housing development to meet proposed numbers of new housing to be built .


The question must be asked WHY this is happening prior to ECC Highways Study being commenced and a report compiled. Is this not against Government guidelines? Highways are a major consideration and huge concern to most residents in the district. RDC should not or cannot make any kind of plan or recommendation to its officers until capacity of the local road network has been reviewed. Any possible proposed extension or changes to the network must have guaranteed Central Government Funding in place before any further consideration for further building is planned.

Local infrastructure is not fit for use.

The current road network is already under severe strain with current car movements. Recently RDC made a decision to refuse the proposed Bloor development in Ashingdon. “In the absence of a definition of severe it is for the local authority to determine whether a severe impact would result and in this case it considered that the development would result in severe impact on the local highway network”

By definition RDC has acknowledged that the road network throughout the area does not have capacity to take on increased capacity through mass development.

Of particular concern to us is site Field CFS064. This site is constrained by existing housing. The only possible access being through woodland in Manor Road or Folly Chase, a private road which is a public footpath. The site is also boarded by a public footpath. Loss of amenity to the local community would be catastrophic. The site would feed out on the B1013 already running at well over capacity.

Rochford district is constrained by its location. Located on a peninsula it is bordered by the River Crouch, areas of SSI, ancient woodland, Green belt and the proximity of the coast. Railway bridges built up to 120 years ago constrain movement on roads in at least five locations on the network. All, but one, have height restrictions. None allow easy movement of two opposing cars passing, one is one way only.

The road system running through the district is ancient in many places. Indeed the Ashingdon Road having been laid out and originally built by The Romans. Maps dating from the 18th century show most major roads, e.g. the B1013, having a layout which still exists in 2021. Housing, shops and businesses have been built along their borders allowing
no capacity for expansion. We no longer see the stagecoach bound for Southend, two donkeys, a haycart and the odd child on a bicycle moving along these roads each day compared to the number of vehicle movements now seen.

Lower Road and Watery Lane are used as major or main routes in and out of the district into and out of Southend, Chelmsford and beyond.

The following areas are also of significant concern to me as a resident all being at or close to saturation point with demand from the current population.

An aging and vulnerable services system. Water, drains, sewage, (one recent development was actually completed without sewage systems being in place) gas, electricity and communication networks. E.g. Recent catastrophic water main collapse in The Hullbridge Road due to aged pipes.

Roads which are no longer fit for purpose. Many and multiply needs for repair, maintenance upgrade and extension causing broken surfaces and most significantly constant road closure or restrictions. County Highways seems to deem the district way down on its list for repairs and maintenance.

The severe risk to life and property should any major, or minor, emergence occur necessitating
the need for multiple emergency services, fire, ambulance, police to attend at peak times where roads are blocked or at capacity. On street parking is also a huge issue in many areas. Grid lock throughout the district ensues almost immediately any accident occurs or road work(s) are in place.

Existing Schools are at capacity with most being in locations where it would be difficult or impossible to increase their footprint. E.g. Rochford Primary. None of the proposed developments come with any plan for new schools, or any room to build them. Current approved development has necessitated the movement of children to school in adjoining villages due to lack of planning or capacity locally, resulting in increased car movements at peak times and pollution issues.

Doctors surgeries are at capacity and placed under further strain by the difficulty of recruiting GP’s

Local Hospital capacity is at breaking point

Environmental issues are not mentioned or considered. Building on flood plain, lost green belt areas, loss of habitat. Existing roads or areas already exceeding approved pollution levels. This I believe must also be the case for most main roads in the area, if not all, especially during rush hours due to standing traffic.

For ALL the above reasons no additional housing should be considered until a full and comprehensive environmental study is carried out and analysed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Plans for Rayleigh
I have read your recently published document and find it hard to believe that further, large new house building is proposed for the area. The area has a huge amount of building taking place at present and, in my opinion, simply does not have the infrastructure to cope with this current growth let alone further new homes at a later stage.
Any resident of Rayleigh (I have lived here for almost 8 years) will tell you that traffic in the area is appalling and will get much worse once the new developments have been completed. Traffic into Rayleigh from the Carpenters Arms roundabout is at a standstill most rush hours even before the new development there is finished. Traffic heading from Rayleigh to Hockley is similar. Surely the council is aware of the overloaded roads so I am staggered further building development is being considered.
I strongly suggest any thought of further development is shelved now.

Dear Mr Stephenson,

Response to Rochford District Consultation on New Local Plan

I am writing to you regarding Rochford District Council (RDC) consultation on your emerging new Local Plan. Please regard this letter as my formal response to your consultation. I have set out my comments under what I hope are a number of relevant headings below. In the interests of transparency, I declare an interest as a local resident myself, having lived in Essex for half a century and now in Rayleigh for a little over twenty years.

General Points

We obviously need to build some new homes in Rochford District over the next two decades, as we cannot expect people to live at home with their parents into their 50's. Nevertheless, the whole thrust of this letter is that there should be no further major housebuilding in the Rochford District without significant infrastructure investment first. Any new Local Plan has to be both environmentally and economically sustainable and must safeguard the interests of existing residents, as well as new ones.

Background

RDC has initiated this consultation, as part of the process of updating its Local Plan, an overall process which is likely to take around a further two years to complete. Once the draft plan, which should then cover the period out to 2040 has been formulated, this process should then include an examination in public by an Inspector from the Planning Inspectorate, at which I would like to request an opportunity to give evidence as one of the local MPs, when the time comes.

However, in the meantime, before RDC begins to finalise its new plan, the Council has sought early feedback from local residents, and I hope that as many as possible will have taken the Council up on its suggestion and provided comments of their own.

In my response, I have sought to make some important general points about the need to ensure that any future housebuilding is accompanied by the necessary expansion of local infrastructure. If that cannot be guaranteed, then I believe that major house building in the District should be resisted until it can.

Geography

Much of the Rochford District is effectively contained in a peninsula, bounded by the Thames Estuary to the South (beyond the Borough of Castle Point); the North Sea to the East and the River Crouch to the North, which forms a border for much of its length with the neighbouring Maldon District.

As a result of this, there are only a limited number of major routes into and out of the District, which are a major consideration in formulating any new plan.

Transport Corridors and Constraints

Rochford District is connected to the capital via a direct rail route into London Liverpool Street. This has been upgraded in recent years, with major investment in new overhead wires, longer trains with increased capacity and the upgrade of some platforms, plus a new station at Southend airport.

Prior to the Covid-19 pandemic, trains in the morning and evening rush hour were bursting to capacity. Passenger numbers are now recovering as we finally emerge from Lockdown but the extent to which capacity problems on the line will re-emerge will partly be determined by how working patterns alter post-pandemic and the extent to which people are permitted/desire to work from home, as opposed to a return to regularly commuting into London, in the traditional manner.

Rail capacity should be expanded further, when the much-delayed Crossrail (now named the Elizabeth Line) eventually opens across London, hopefully now no later than 2023. The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) on which I now sit, recently took evidence on Crossrail and is now likely to publish its latest report on the project, within the next few weeks.

In terms of air travel, unfortunately due to the loss of traffic resulting from the pandemic, both EasyJet and Ryanair have recently withdrawn scheduled passenger services from Southend, leaving the airport largely dependent on freight traffic and aircraft maintenance work for its survival. Hopefully, regular passenger services, including to popular holiday destinations, might be resumed once the economy has fully recovered, although this is by no means guaranteed.

However, the major constraint in terms of transport links to and from the Rochford District is undoubtedly the road network, which in many cases is already seriously overstretched. The two main road arteries leading to/from Rochford District are the A127 and A13.

In spite of a number of junction improvements in recent years on the A13 and A127 and widening schemes on the A13, both of these major roads are already at or very close to full capacity at rush hour. An Essex County Council A127 Task Force meeting, held a little before the pandemic struck, examined the 'heat maps' for both roads (i.e. the busier the road, the darker the shade of red on the map). These showed that in both the morning and evening rush hour, both roads glowed very deep red, with both at between 98% to 100% capacity. As we have emerged from Lockdown (and indeed as many people have avoided public transport, because of the virus) traffic levels are now virtually back to pre-pandemic levels already.

Despite some limited opportunities for modal shift (both roads are highly sustainable for cycle lanes, which would be subject to heavy traffic pollution anyway) there is a strong culture of private car use in South Essex, which many residents see as part of living in a free society. This seems unlikely to be altered by entreaties to simply abandon private car use, however well-intentioned (especially as some of those making such calls use their own private cars frequently as well).

DEFRA has been concerned for some time about air quality issues, especially along the A127 and has effectively compelled neighbouring Basildon Borough Council to implement a number of air quality initiatives, in order to obviate the imposition of a formal air quality zone in the Basildon/Pitsea area, close to the RDC boundary. Over the lifetime of the proposed new plan, this problem may be partially alleviated by the increasing introduction of electric vehicles but, while this may well deliver environmental benefits, it still does not solve the issue of the sheer volume of traffic already using both roads in the early 2020s, let alone by the late 2030s.

Along with some others, I have been calling for several years for a straightening out of the old Fortune of War junction on the A127 at Laindon (which itself would be likely to deliver air quality benefits, not least by avoiding the need for literally thousands of vehicles to slow down and then accelerate, in both directions, every day). Nevertheless, bureaucratic indifference from Essex County Council has meant that this idea is unfortunately little further advanced, despite its obvious benefits, including speeding up traffic flows on what is already one of the busiest A roads in the country.

In short, it is an 'inconvenient truth' that these two major roads are already virtually maxed out at peak times and any further local house building plans clearly have to take this serious constraint very much into account.

Unless the Government is seriously prepared to finance a major upgrade of the A127, to a largely three-lane M127 standard, (which would likely require upwards of a billion pounds), then major house building in the Rochford District should be strongly constrained.

Our local roads are extremely busy too. The B1013, which runs from Rayleigh, through Hockley and down into Hawkwell, is already one of the busiest B roads in the country, especially during the morning and evening peak. Also, the Ashingdon Road, leading from Ashingdon down through parts of Hawkwell into Rochford, is also a very busy road, as anyone who has used it regularly during the rush hour can testify. This is one of the reasons why I spoke out so forcibly at Rochford District Council's Development Committee against the recent Bloor Homes application to build 662 properties just off the Ashingdon Road, which I am pleased to say that RDC resolved to oppose (and which may now go to appeal as a result).

In any future plans for more housing in the Rochford District, a vital question will be, where will the accompanying new roads be built/expanded - and, crucially, who will pay for them? For all the reasons outlined above, it is important to raise this absolutely key issue now, before any new Local Plan is formulated.

Pressure on NHS Services

I declare a potential interest in raising the topic of pressure on NHS services, as my partner works as a Radiographer at an NHS hospital. Indeed, she has worked for the NHS for nearly two decades now. Nevertheless, this has helped to provide me with some additional insight into the pressure our hospitals and the wider NHS has been under, especially as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic.

Essex has five major District General Hospitals, arranged roughly in a star pattern, with Chelmsford (Broomfield) in the centre and the others in Harlow (North West); Colchester (North East); Basildon (South West) and Southend (South East). In 2020, Basildon, Broomfield and Southend came together to form the Mid Essex Hospitals NHS Trust. Even prior to the Covid-19 pandemic, all five hospitals were already under pressure and the pandemic has obviously exacerbated these problems further.

As far as I am aware, none of the forty hospitals earmarked for new construction and/or major rebuilds are currently earmarked for Essex and despite the best efforts of dedicated NHS staff, pressure on our hospitals in Essex and, in the case of RDC on Southend Hospital in particular, is only likely to be exacerbated by further major house building in South East Essex. NHS planners and the senior management of the Mid Essex Trust clearly need to take these additional pressures into account and a solution must be found or any major house building should be delayed until it is.

Access to primary care and GP appointments in particular is an increasing issue across the Rochford District as, again, the NHS seeks to rebalance in emerging from the pandemic. The reorganisation of Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs), which seek to co-ordinate primary care services and commission hospital care as well, from five CCGs to one across South Essex, is now being superseded by the creation of larger Integrated Care Systems (ICSs) which seek to more closely co-ordinate NHS and social care services.

A new Mid and South Essex ICS (which should mirror the area covered by Basildon, Broomfield and Southend Hospitals) is now scheduled to begin operating from April 2022 onwards. As well as these senior level organisations within our local NHS, any further expansion in the local population will need to be accompanied by a commensurate addition in the availability of primary care services, especially GPs. With the trend in recent years towards fewer but larger practices, there is a need to consider expanding the physical size of a number of practices (as, for instance, was achieved with the new extension to the Audley Mills practice in Rayleigh, several years ago). Similarly, just across the boundary in the Basildon Borough Council area, a major new surgery building was opened in Wickford town centre (also part of my Rayleigh and Wickford Constituency) just a few years ago.

However, the Riverside Surgery at Hullbridge secured planning permission several years ago to expand its first floor, to include extra consulting tooms and administration space, to cope with the expansion in the local population, including from the new Barratt David Wilson development of some 500 homes at nearby Malyons Farm. Nevertheless, several years on, mainly due to internal NHS bureaucracy, the work has still not commenced, despite the fact that houses on the new development are already being occupied in some numbers.

This complicated and highly bureaucratic process of 'passporting' developer contributions (which themselves often take years to come through), via local councils, to NHS organisations and then finally onto GP surgeries that need to expand to cater for more patients, clearly needs to be radically speeded up, a point which I intend to pursue with Government Ministers.

As well as physical buildings, an additional challenge is finding new GPs and other medical professionals to work in them. The establishment several years ago of a new Medical School at the Chelmsford campus of Anglia Ruskin University (ARU), an initiative which I strongly supported, may help in this respect. Within a couple of years, the first medical students should begin to graduate as Doctors from ARU (with around 100 or so then expected to do so each year). A number of these students are already working in Essex hospitals and GP practices and some of them will hopefully remain in Essex when they qualify. Via this route, we will hopefully be able to replenish or, over time. even increase the number of GPs working in Essex, as any increasing population will clearly require.

In fairness to the Government, it had already committed record amounts of additional spending to the NHS, even prior to the pandemic, with an increase of some £34 billion per year already programmed in by the end of this Parliament, under the NHS Long Term Plan. This significant extra investment will hopefully help boost NHS services in Essex, including in other vital areas, such as mental health too. However, it is also very important that extra resources being put into the NHS are focused on patient care and genuinely expanding NHS capacity, rather than merely multiplying NHS bureaucracy.

Nonetheless, in addition to additional Government resources, paid for out of general taxation, I believe that property developers, who are already making very comfortable profit margins from large scale housing developments, should be able to contribute considerably greater resources towards expansion of local NHS facilities than they do now, either via revised Section 101 agreements, the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL), or similar instruments. This should be an important component of any Local Plan.

Pressure on Education and school places

Educational standards across the Rochford District are generally high and across Essex as a whole, some 90% of schools are now rated as Good or Outstanding by OFSTED. Perhaps unsurprisingly, therefore, there is continued pressure on school places ,especially at the most popular schools.

The four secondary schools in the Rochford District, which are all now Academies, have either all benefited (or are now due to benefit) from upgrades and an expansion in capacity in recent years. In Rayleigh, both FitzWimarc and Sweyne Park schools now have their own sixth forms (I campaigned for and subsequently opened both of them) and FitzWimarc has recently opened a new block, paid for largely by a grant from the Department for Education (DfE). Sweyne Park has just completed construction of a new block of several additional classrooms, financed mainly in this instance by Section 106 contributions from major housing developments in the area.

Greensward Academy in Hockley also has a sixth form and benefited from a major £14 million rebuild several years ago, paid for by the DfE following it becoming one of the first Academies to be established outside of the inner cities.

King Edmund School (KES) in Ashingdon, which also has a sixth form, is also now due for a major rebuild, following the discovery of serious building defects in some parts of the school buildings last year. Having recently been awarded a multi-million pound grant from the DfE to help finance these new facilities, including a large new block of classrooms, it is now hoped that the new block will be open for KES pupils by the commencement of the 2023/24 academic year.

The sixth forms at all for schools have proved popular and have now begun to provide many pupils and their parents with a very viable alternative to the four grammar schools in nearby Southend. However, despite their significant expansions, it will still be important to ensure that any availability of places at these four major schools can keep pace with any increases in demand from additional house building, over the lifetime of the plan.

At primary school level, there has not been the same across the board expansion in capacity as at secondary level within the Rochford District. Essex County Council, as the Local Education Authority (LEA) uses a highly formulaic method of calculating the need for new school places at primary level, based largely on birth rate data from NHS Trusts, extrapolated forward to calculate the demand for school places several years on.

However, this method, which is updated on an annual basis, is not good at capturing additional demand created 'in year' by families moving into the District and rapidly requiring school places, before the commencement of the new academic year each September.

In fairness, Essex County Council has sometimes been willing to temporarily expand capacity at some primary schools (as for instance at Riverside Academy in Hullbridge, prior to the pandemic) but as an LEA, Essex is often slower to react to the need to expand places at primary rather than secondary level and popular schools, even when they have become Academies, are still often discouraged from further expansion by excessive, 'Soviet style' bureaucracy at County Hall.

As one example of this, the new Countryside development in Rayleigh has set aside a plot for a new primary school, or alternatively ECC could expand capacity 'offsite' at nearby primary schools instead - with the developer paying for either option, via already agreed Section 106 contributions. However, despite some four years of being asked to make a choice, of one or the other, ECC has still refused to take a decision. In my view, ECC's highly dirigiste system for expanding school capacity at primary level, should be completely reviewed, from top to bottom, in order to allow successful schools to expand and to cater for any additional school places which may be required over the lifetime of RDC's new Local Plan.

Flood Risk

The issue of flooding and building in areas liable to flooding has long been an emotive issue in Essex, reach back as far as the Great Flood of 1953, in which a number of Essex residents unfortunately lost their lives, including nearby on Canvey Island.

As well as the North Sea immediately to the East, there are a number of rivers in the Rochford District, including the Crouch and Roach, plus a number of smaller tributaries and streams/brooks which permeate parts of the District, as far across as Rayleigh and Rawreth.

Given the pressure to release land for house building, there may be a temptation to recommend building in areas at potential risk of flooding, be it tidal or as a result of surface water run-off and/or local drainage systems being overwhelmed, during period of exceptionally heavy rainfall (such as unfortunately happened in Rayleigh and some other parts of the District in 2014). Building major housing estates only increases these risks and adds to pressure on the already pressurised local drainage network.

Even allowing for more modern flood management technology, such as Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS) on modern housing developments, it seems sensible, not least from both an environmental and safety standpoint, to strictly constrain house building ambitions in any areas which may be liable to flooding, for whatever reason. Again, given the specific geography and topography pf the Rochford District, this is an important consideration in formulating any new Local Plan.

Summary

Clearly, there has to be some limited future house building in the Rochford District, as young people cannot be expected to live at home with their parents into their 50's. Nevertheless, any such development has to be sustainable, both environmentally and economically.

Given the physical geography of the Rochford District and the constraints on its existing infrastructure, especially its road infrastructure, there should be strict limits on any major house building without major new investment in supporting infrastructure, whether financial by central Government; regional bodies such as the South East Local Enterprise Partnership (SELEP), Essex County Council or property developers hoping to profit from future developments in the Rochford District, or a combination of all four.

In this response to RDC's consultation I have sought to flag up a number of key infrastructure issues, including transport constraints, growing pressures on local NHS services, competition for school places and the dangers of building in areas of potential flood risk, all of which will require significant investment, if future house building is to be achieved, without a detrimental effect on my constituents. I trust that these comments will be taken into account as RDC evolves its new Local Plan over the next two years or so.

In view of the repeated references to the need for infrastructure investment contained in this letter, I am copying this response to a number of potentially interested parties, in both central and local Government. These include the Rt Hon Michael Gove MP, the Secretary of State at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) and his Housing and Planning Minister, Christopher Pincher MP. I have also sent it to the Rt Hon Sajid Javid MP, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care; the Rt Hon Nadim Zahawi MP, the Secretary of State for Education and to the Rt Hon Grant Shapps, the Transport Secretary, as well as to Christian Brodie, the Chairman of the South East Local Enterprise Partnership (SELEP), which includes Essex within its remit.

I have also copied it to County Councillor Kevin Bentley, the Leader of Essex County Council; County Councillor Lee Scott, Cabinet Member for Highways and Sustainable Transport at County Hall and also to County Councillor Tony Ball, ECC's Cabinet Member for Education and Lifelong Learning.

In response to the Spatial Options Consultation,

Insufficient infrastructure to support further houses, such as;

Doctors - there are already significant issues in obtaining appointments and while you may argue this can be overcome with more doctors, there is a shortage in general which is unlikely to be overcome in the mid-term which puts additional stress on this remaining resources.

Roads - two main roads in and out of the village which already have issues with speeding which you have not addressed. In addition, being a peninsula with limited local employment, this will put additional strain on already strained roads at peak times. This is a particularly for the A127 which experiences lengthy queuing up to and including Progress road and M25 junction.

Parking - parking in the village, especially around the limited shops and at school start and finish times is already a significant issue, causing antisocial parking habits which impact local residents and increase the potential for more serious accidents.

Flooding - insufficient drainage to deal with surface water already with localised flooding. Potential for future tidal flooding if the current sea defences are not maintained and potentially increased to counter the affects of global warming.

School - insufficient spaces already with both Great Wakering and Barling primary schools overly full and residents needing to keep children in schools outside of the area.

Policing - increase in housing will result in an increase in crime and anti-social behaviour for which the local authorities give little interest in. We already have a lack of police presence in the village and further house building will make the situation worse still.

The current round of house building, which is getting out of hand given the above, has, for the last year, been a source of noise and dust pollution which they have done little to control. I’m under no illusion that this would be regularly inspected or controlled given the issues experienced so far.

Given the issues experienced as a result of the pandemic which has highlighted this country exposure to supply chain issues, farmland should remain as farmland to support the ever increasing demand in basic foodstuffs.

Large sites near hockley, hawk well and ashingdon
Dear sir or madam

I am writing to add my voice to my fellows residents concern with the amount of proposed housing around the hockley/hawkwell area.
Developments in recent years has put the B1013 along with the surrounding infrastructure under massive pressure and now again we see potentially large developments adding to this.

Hockley and hawkwell are expanding villages not expanding towns. Much of the roads are build for a different era and cannot cater with today’s volume of traffic.

I have been a resident of Hockley for 25 years so rather than shoehorn in more houses develop the roads and infrastructure to support the housings what are already here. NO MORE DEVELOPMENT PLEASE UNTIL MY DRIVE THROUGH HOCKLEY TAKES MINUTES RATHER THAN HOURS.

Introduction

The purpose of this letter is to provide my feedback to your current public consultation .

I appreciate the hard work that you have put in at the time of the pandemic in putting this together.

I also appreciate the difficulties that the District Planners face, given the current hiatus in the governments new approach to planning, plus given the difficulties in predicting what our economic future will be post-pandemic.


Comments on the Consultation itself

For a public consultation it seemed very technical and full of planning jargon, rather than being written in plain English.

In my view there were far too many questions. At times these read more like a set of examination questions about Spatial Planning rather than a public consultation.

Questions written by experts for experts to answer, with lots of references to “showing your reasoning”. This gave them an off-putting rather than engaging appearance.

Please note therefore that in providing this response I have followed specific Section / Chapter headings rather than reply to each individual question asked.


District Profile

Population Statistics = a strange change of approach.

Population growth statistics are probably the most important single metric in the whole planning document, yet you have chosen to abandon the parish based method shown in the current plan (2011) and the previous options paper (2018), replacing instead with the vaguely defined Settlements table.

Presenting a confusing and contradictory picture

I found your approach here very confusing.

You have rolled parishes up and/or split them into different units making comparison difficult, compromising the consistency of the information provided, thereby making understanding the figures significantly more difficult.

For example your 2018 paper showed the population of Great Wakering as 5587 and Barling Magna as 1740, giving an total of 7327.

Yet your current stats show a rolled up total of 6225. These imply that the population has shrunk by over 1000 people, which is definitely not the case. Such shifting sands provide no firm basis for robust and rigorous analysis or decision making.

Use proper hard credible metrics

The current table is confusing and not based on a solid administrative foundation = the Civil Parishes.

I suggest you return to using a standard consistent basis for showing population change by using the current administrative parishes for these figures, splitting them below Parish as you think necessary to show specific locations (Stonebridge/Sutton, Little Wakering)

By all means use this in addition to Parish statistics but not instead of the Parish ones, because they are the unit of financial disbursement of Council tax precepts.

And here as a starting point instead of using estimated growth, you should have solid figures for every year up to the current one, based on the disbursement of precept year-on-year from the District to each Civil Parish which I understand is based on the population for each Parich.

A suggested alternative

I would produce a table as suggested below showing figures for each Civil Parish within the District

2011 census figures 2018 Precept figures estimated precept figures, , for 2023*
* to reflect position as at 2023 = the start of the new plan.

Figures should include known and agreed developments already taking place and likely to be completed by that date, for example in Great Wakering = Star Lane Brickworks (100+ dwellings), land South of High Street / West of Little Wakering Road = 250 dwellings =

= an overall village population increase of some 500+ residents.


Presenting your figures in this way should give you, your council members, and the residents a much clearer, more rigorous, more robust, less abstract, more understandable and more justifiable and defensible basis for this particular round of the new District Plan, than using only the table as currently shown.


Spatial Strategy Options

Option 3a = the best strategic solution

Option 3a based to west of Rayleigh is the only sensible place to put the bulk of the new dwellings, based on its proximity to the A127 / A130 corridor, the ONLY major road links into / out of the District.

This option assumes that ECC can actually start doing something about improving the Fairglen interchange rather than just talking about it.

Here it can be noted that since the date of the last local plan in 2011, Southend Unitary Authority has done 3 significant changes to the A127 junctions (Cuckoo Corner, Kent Elms and currently The Bell ), while the County seems to have done little for the road users in the District at all. Certainly nothing of note to the roads between Rochford and GW.

Unless a major new road is built into the District to relive the increasing pressure on East / West travel in / out of the District, and this is a highly unlikely development in the next 20 years at least, then approving new developments away from the two major arterial routes referred to above, to elsewhere in the District, just places further burdens on the already over-stretched and over-stressed largely minor road network in the rest of the District, and the further east you go the worse it gets.

Such poor travel links as well as being a burden on residents also compromises the ability to attract into and keep business in the area.

Option 2 is tactical not strategic

Option 2 of just “bolting-on” more and more developments at the tactical level on the side of existing locations is not the answer because this approach delivers none of the benefits that a strategic solution, with planned-in transport, digital, education, health and other essential infrastructure, would bring.


Spatial Themes - suggested additions

Waste and Recycling

I didn’t see many specific references to this subject.

It is strange because the District has much to be proud of in promoting recycling through the weekly bin collection.

In comparison the County provision is poor. For GW residents with items to recycle, a 20mile+ round trip to the Rayleigh tip is the only option. The monthly "in village" collection only covers non-recyclables.

If districts are to deliver on their agendas it is time the County did it’s bit to improve and extend such facilities. Make it easy to recycle and people will recycle, as the District has successfully proved, time and again


Digital Infrastructure

Given its importance to every aspect of modern life, I would add a specific subject here i.e. the need to upgrade digital facilities and telecommunications capability across the district, especially for existing remoter areas.

For example, you will only be able to deliver the digital health facilities you mention, if there is sufficient connectivity and bandwidth to do so. Yet much of GW’s telecoms infrastructure is still through copper wire carried by telegraph poles.

Integrating this infrastructure is much easier for new developments, but plans need also to be put in place to modernize the existing infrastructure throughout the District as well.



Green Belt Policy

Worryingly your paper talks about “less valuable Green Belt”. I’m not sure what this is or who decides which bits are more or less valuable.

Given that in West Great Wakering, the two major developments approved under the current plan, plus the proposed new business park, have already eroded this green belt buffer.

If you are serious about maintaining the character of the village, to ensure that GW remains “vibrant and distinctive’, to deliver on your excellently worded “Draft Vision", will require you to vigorously and robustly defend the village from further developmental incursions into the village’s surrounding Green Belt land. In particular, to ensure it is not subsumed into other neighbouring areas, especially North Shoebury, by avoiding the threat of such coalescence.


Bio-Diversity

Wildlife / natural environment pretty much goes hand in hand with a strong adherence to Green Belt policy. Your recognition of the valuable role played by Star Lane LWS / local Geological site is welcomed but it will be placed under considerable stress if what remains of the Green Belt in WGW is further eroded.


Spatial Themes - Flood Risk

Most of the flood prevention measures refers to maritime flooding, but recent climate events have shown increasing vulnerability to extreme pluvial flooding events as well.

Paving over more Green Belt especially in those areas where significant new building has already taken / is currently taking place, further increases this risk. This is especially so in low-lying areas, as precious soak-aways have been lost and it becomes a vicious circle = more building = less natural ground = more risk of flooding as previously robust and resilient locations lose that capability and become unable to cope with heavy rainfall.

Building more new homes on flood risk areas will just leave new residents unable to get flood insurance and puts existing residents at increased risk as well, as existing mains drainage of varying age and vintage is found to be inadequate.


Transport and Connectivity

Public Transport

A lot of fine words with virtually no chance of being delivered.

The inverted pyramid is fine in theory but fails in practice because the public transport links from/to GW are so poor.

Since the previous plan the foreign-owned Arriva Bus Company has got rid of the main service 4/4A, pretty much a dedicated service to and from the village to Southend, and replaced it by the much poorer extended 7 /8 service. This change seriously compromised its convenience, punctuality, reliability so much so that people have left the village because of it. I used to use the old service a lot, the replacement has sent me back to my car.

Put the 4 / 4A (or an equivalent) back on and see if it persuades private car drivers to get back on the bus, because although Stephenson’s 14 service is much better than Arriva's, = more reliable / punctual, it runs less frequently, So using a car is so much more convenient, comfortable and reliable than current public transport options.

And as for Sundays, the service has been cut it back to only a 2 hourly service = 4 buses for the whole day in each direction. This is no way to incentivise anyone to move from car to bus, unless you have absolutely no other means of transport at all.

Walking

Walking within the village is OK but to go beyond it, forget it, until significant upgrade to pavements and road crossings in the area are made.

For example, the Star Lane / Poynters Lane junction is a horror-show. To encourage more people to walk, they need to feel safe doing so. A significant upgrade to current pavements out of the village would be required to deliver on this agenda, but in the last 10 years under the current plan nothing has happened to improve this aspect at all.

This paper is full of fine words and aspirations. But as was the current plan, sadly it is just all words and no action, in spite of the fact that developments in the area which might have been expected to bring such improvements, but have so far not delivered them.


Conclusion

I trust this is satisfactory and you find these comments of use.

Thank you for providing residents with the opportunity to comment on the future of the District.

I look forward to receiving details of the future development of the plans for the District'


The following occurred to me at lunchtime today, for possible inclusion under the Spatial Themes heading.

Electronic Car Charging

The government has stated its intention to promote the adoption of electronic car use, by phasing out the building of new petrol and diesel based vehicles.

This initiative is due to come into effect during the lifetime of the new District plan.

To be succesful it will require the installation of potentially significant amounts of charging facilities and supporting infrastructure.

This will present the District with significant Planning challenges:

1. to ensure that ALL new developments have sufficient car charging facilities and capability, built-in from the very start of the Planning process for such developments

2 this will include ensuring that the requisite electrical supply and delivery capability exists for individual dwellings, shared dwellings, other types of premises e.g. garages, retail, business premises.

additional electrical supply infrastructure might also be needed to be planned in here.

3 consideration of the impact of these rerquirerments on the existing installed base of all types of residential, business, retail, community premises.

this will be easier in some places which have their own private driveways, parking facilities, etc.

but it will present a considerable challenge for older properties, especially residential premises with on-street parking in narrow car-crowded streets, where parking outside ones own property might be difficult.

4. this would argue for the development, location and installation of community charging facilities, all of which will need to be planned for.

My main comments are:-

No new housing should be built on green belt land, we need to protect our environment and the lungs of the area and not turn it into a concrete jungle, use brown fields site only, any housing plans should not be pushed through against the local residents wishes and more notice must be taken of objections and people’s views unlike now.

I live in Hullbridge and your proposed housing sites will make the “village” a town, this is unacceptable for the following reasons :-

Hullbridge is a one road village, Lower Road is already at full capacity particularly at school times and the morning and afternoon rush hours, to get access onto the road from a side road you take your life in your hands, there are 40 ft, artic lorries using a road which is totally unsuitable, especially considering the amount of cyclists using it now which is being encouraged by central government to reduce car movements, so will only increase as would car movements should housing stock increase in the area.

Watery Lane is a road which again is totally unfit for purpose with more minor accidents than almost anywhere else, Hullbridge road has improved with the new roundabout at Rawreth Lane although I reserve judgement until the rest of the houses already planned for the area are complete but any slight problem, an accident or road works it becomes a total nightmare with traffic virtually making Hullbridge impossible to get to or leave, with emergency vehicles stranded.

One of the proposed areas for new housing is Pooles Lane, how anyone in their right mind can even consider this or propose this I do not know, the road between the Community Centre and Tower Park entrance is effectively a one lane road with a blind bend, unfortunately some drivers appear to have developed eyesight that allows them see round bends and to go round the bend at speed, many near misses everyday here, I stood watching this piece of road for just under half an hour one day 3 weeks ago, in that short period 7 vehicles mounted and drove along the footpath, I cannot imagine how many a day there are.

Other as important reasons that new housing should not be considered apart from roads are :-

Schools, where are the increase in pupils of any age going to school, the schools are at full capacity now, education is vital and any young person should not have to travel for a long period to be educated especially on grid locked roads.

Medical facilities are over stretched and at breaking point, Southend Hospital Group cannot cope now, so after any development in other areas or any future planned development have the possibility to cause mayhem, it will not handle the increase in population.

Hullbridge Riverside Medical Centre is a very good practice but with standards reducing with appointments very hard to get, this will get worse once the houses already being built locally and are full of people the practice will be under even more pressure so how will they cope with any further increase, they will not, lives will be put at risk especially with an aging population as Hullbridge.

I feel that other questions in your plan have been adequately answered by our parish council response.

As a local resident I am writing to raise my objections to more housing being considered in and around Wakering.
Traffic is already a problem trying to get out of the area and on the A127 in both directions. More housing will only make this much worse. Wakering is accessed by country roads and there are limited options for access. Should there be an emergency evacuation due to flooding etc. this could be problematic.
The current infrastructure: drainage, doctors, hospitals, schools, police, fire brigade etc. barely cope, so more stress on this would just make it worse. More houses mean more traffic, more pollution, higher crime. People live here because they like village life, being part of the spreading suburban sprawl will affect people negatively.
The increased population will negatively impact the environment and wildlife including biodiversity.
Road traffic accidents will increase as more people use the local country roads. Public transport is already insufficient, and this will struggle. There is no local railway station to help cope with all extra load.
Building in condensed areas must run contrary to the environment bill and programmes to reduce carbon footprints.
I am shocked at the numbers of new houses being discussed in the local and wider area. No additional infrastructure has been added for the recent and current developments, so we are forced to accept an increasingly worse service, more pollution and less green space.
Rather than adding to the burden on current areas and infrastructure, I think the new town developments such as Milton Keynes should be considered, and the required infrastructure could be designed in rather than ignored or swept under the carpet.
Thanks for your attention, and I hope you will seriously consider peoples objections to these proposals.

I have read with concern the possible future sites for building in and around great Wakering and out towards Shopland and Sutton Road.

Wakering is one of the only remaining villages in this part of Essex and those that live here enjoy the village community because of the way of life. i feel that this is slowly being eroded and will affect the health and well being of the residents detrimentally. More housing will also increase crime.

There are also surface and tidal issues to consider here and further building will increase the risk of flooding. There are several sights near to creeks which would put any development itself at risk of flood. With climate change this is likely to be an increased risk anyway and our drainage system cannot cope as it is.

New homes rarely bring more or improved infrastructure. This area is a peninsula with only 2 roads in and out. Residents have to travel to work as there is no transport links by way of station or public transport to support this. Traffic is already at a standstill at times. It only takes one lorry parked in the road for a delivery to bring gridlock. In addition many of the roads are rural and the fact is that the majority or road accidents happen on rural roads. Any further increase in traffic will increase accidents. We already have one new housing development with access via a country lane. Not a road... as not even wide enough for central white lines. Lorries etc on this road accessing the new site will make this lethal.

We struggle already for children to get places in the local schools and the doctors surgery is under immense pressure. 30 years ago, with far fewer residents, we had 4 doctors. We now have three.

I am therefore opposed to any of the sites in the consultation to be considered for future building as I do believe that building in condensed areas goes against both the environment bill and the goal of carbon neutrality.

If new houses are really needed, this is not the area to build in and add to the congestion, destruction of the environment, biodiversity and our wildlife.

Although I do not like the option of new garden villages to the west of the area, this may be the only way forward as it will ensure that the infrastructure is put in place.

Objection to new houses
As a new resident in Elmwood Avenue, Hockley, I am writing to object to the proposed land up for new houses in the letter received from Rochford District Council. These areas of land are CFS045 in Hawkwell, CFS064 in Hockley, CFS160 and CFS161 in Hockley and CFS074 in Hawkwell.

As a new resident, we chose to live in this area due to its remoteness and beautiful countryside at our fingertips. We enjoy family country walks around the farmers land close to Belchamps, it would break my heart if it would all be destroyed in order to build more houses which will only overpopulate the area.

The B1013 is already a busy main road and building more houses increasing the population to the area will inevitably make this road a huge problem.

I strongly object to the proposed land.

Spatial Options Consultation:
I oppose any further residential development in the Rochford Council area - in particular in Great Wakering and the bordering area of Southend Borough Council.
The grounds for my objection include:

A lack of infrastructure:
There are only 2 roads in and out of Great Wakering. In the event of an emergency evacuation of the village - which is very probable because many homes are already built on an ever-expanding (because of global warming and the resulting higher tides) flood plane.
The junction of Alexandra Road and the High Street regularly floods resulting in water lapping into our house. When I lived in the adjacent Brougham Close we had a major claim against Anglian Water when the sewage system failed to cope with heavy rainfall.
There is one primary school in the village and each year there are not enough school places to fulfil demand.
The Wakering Medical Centre has already tipped over through demand, with complaints lodged as residents are unable to get through on the phone line and emails are unanswered, let alone are residents able to secure an appointment.
Parking is a major issue in Great Wakering. With families regularly owning more than two vehicles per dwelling, will the proposed developments be able to factor in sufficient parking spaces? Where will any overspill be accommodated. There’s certainly no more room on our residential streets.
Like the majority of those who have chosen to live in the village, I have done so because of the quality of life this gives me and my family.
The erosion of the nearby countryside would have a huge detrimental effect on the quality of life for me, my family and thousands of local residents.
Can the authorities guarantee that the developers will follow building guidelines to ensure there is no disruption to local residents’ lives? There are multiple complaints made about the development of the Wimpy estate on Star Lane. The local authorities appear powerless to enforce the nuisance of noise and pollution from this development. My family has not been able to enjoy the expected peace of our garden for several years because of the noise and pollution coming from this development. What guarantees can be given that further developments will not blight the peace and tranquility of village life?
More housing will increase crime. Insurance premiums will rise. What compensation will be available for locsl residents to redress this negative impact on their finances?
Water supply has been cut off to Great Wakering in recent months due to a failing infrastructure that can be traced all the way back to the Bournes Green roundabout. Will the supply be able to cope with the additional demand of local houses.
The village is blessed with biodiversity and wildlife. Birds of prey, Canadian geese, a duck pond overflowing with wildlife, Great Wakering Common - it’s upkeep in the charge of local residents - is brimming with wildfowl, animals and flora. . . there is a true sense of village community in our corner of Essex and this will be terribly eroded by any proposed development.
It is a fact that the majority of serious road accidents occur on rural roads. Fatalities along Southend Road are commonplace. There are two blind corners on this mile-long stretch of road - my heart is in my mouth every time I go along this road. Add further vehicles to the mix and you will be responsible for adding more deaths and serious injuries to these hard-to-bear statistics.
This area is a peninsula-people have to travel to work. There is no nearby train station and the bus services have limited capacity, a handful of destinations and run a limited service on Sundays that means those without vehicles are cut off from the rest of the world from early on in the evening.
Building homes in condensed areas goes against both the environmental legislation and the UK Government’s goal of carbon neutrality.
How can this and all the other developments be allowed to go ahead while Boris Johnson grandstands in meetings with the president of the USA demanding North America gets its house in order when it comes to the environment?
It is my understanding that the only reason the areas under consideration have been chosen is to satisfy central government edicts that do not take into account the intricacies of our local area.
If the Government is so keen to “level up” the UK - don’t level Great Wakering’s countryside. Develop the homes required away from the over-populated south east of England and protect what countryside remains.

I would like to register my concern over the proposals to build on yet more sites in an already crowded and over populated area. I have lived in Victor Gardens for 37 years and one of the reasons we moved to this area was because of the green spaces and rural way of life. There have already been massive developments in the area and many old character houses have been demolished, new large houses built and the character and feel of the place has been spoilt already. The two square hideous houses built next to the Dentist and Barbers in White Hart Lane are just one example. We have lost a lot of our green fields already and to suggest we can accommodate all these houses on the New Local Plan is ludicrous. If lockdown has taught us one thing, it is that green spaces are needed for not only physical well being but also for our mental well being. The traffic around this area is already too busy. If you walk up the Main Road in Hawkwell to Hockley there is a continuous stream of traffic no matter what time of day you walk. Children walking to and from Westerings school are being subjected to constant pollution from the cars, as are the children waiting at bus stops to take them to school.Trying to get anywhere locally by car means being stuck in traffic and the B1013 is already a bottle neck, it took me 50 minutes to do a 15 minute journey last week and it regularly takes me over 35 minutes to do this journey,yet the Council want to build thousands of houses which will feed onto these roads. More cars will add to the already congested roads causing even more traffic problems and pollution. The footpaths which at the moment are used by people to get around, as well as for recreation, will have houses built adjacent to them preventing people from having the option of walking in a rural setting. It will be like walking through a housing estate.The argument that is used is that we need affordable housing, but all the evidence shows that the houses being built are huge houses which are not affordable to the first time buyers. Neither of my two adult children can afford to live in this area,so who are we building the houses for? Why not build 50 -100 smaller affordable houses in every town and village rather than target one area and swamp it.
If the plans go ahead, we will lose the character of Hawkwell , which will just become a part of Rochford and Hockley, swallowed up with no definition of where it starts and finishes, with one continuous traffic problem. Considering how much money was spent last year by the Government on health, I'm surprised that health hasn't been taken into consideration for this proposal. You can't keep building on already built up areas and expect the infrastructure, the Drs, the well being of people, the schools and the other amenities to cope, let alone severe flooding which will happen as more land is built on. We have had problems with flooding in the past and I remember houses in Hawkwell Chase flooding in the 90s, Hill Lane has been flooded on several occasions as has the road under the railway bridge by St Mary's church.
I strongly object in particular to the proposal to build on site CFS074 and sites CFS194, CFS169, CFS150 and CFS020,

We understand the need for more housing. However, it is clear from the idea's presented that the those of whom who have created these plans clearly do not live in or around Hullbridge and we disagree with this vision.

Hullbridge is a village and it should remain so. We moved from Wickford due to over building and increased traffic. You can rarely get in or out of Wickford without getting stuck in traffic. The same is now happening in Hullbridge.

Funny how land is deemed as greenbelt unless the council want to use it or they are approached by developers with large cheque books. Green belt should remain green belt, we need these areas to do what mother nature intended: Keep the air clean, and to be used as a place to go for mental and physical health benefits. Area's marked for potential development should be used as green space or recreational use would contribute to a healthier way of living and mind set.

Upon moving to Hullbridge 2 years ago the construction of the new estate at the junction of watery lane caused chaos, over one hour at its best to do a 20 min journey to work.

The sink hole earlier this year brought Hullbridge, Hockley & Rayleigh and surrounding areas to a standstill for most of the day for the whole week the road was closed for, and the construction works of the new roundabout going on at the junction of Rawreth Lane and Hullbridge road did not help, and these works are still incomplete.

Watery Lane, Lower Road are used daily as a go through road to Rochford / Rayleigh and A130, Watery Lane is in much need of attention, with poor drainage, over grown hedgerows and lighting, is closed every month for minimum 1 day and yet no visible signs of any works being carried out, without the usual winter closures due to flooding. Hullbridge just doesn't have the scope or infrastructure to cope with any additional vehicles. How about making improvements to roads like this first, along with other roads in Hullbridge that are in desperate need of attention.

The new infrastructure, recently added to the area only just accommodates the local traffic as it is, without a further 7000 homes, potentially 14000 cars based on 2 car households.
You also need to consider the air quality and the impact on pollution these 14000 cars will create, with more traffic jams creating more pollution, and seeing as the pollution tests carried at the junction of Ferry Road to Lower Road & Hullbridge road that were conducted 3-4 years ago, with the results showing the highest pollution rate in the area due the basin like dip in the road.

Some will say Electric Cars would ease this issue, however as the land needs to be excavated to find the lithium in the first place, it is a false economy and will / does have diminishing consequences to already struggling natural wildlife habitats. Then there is the disposal of the batteries when they are at the end of their life, where will these go? along with other rubbish, that we all take to Rayleigh tip for disposal if it were to close as per the proposed closure to make way for more housing. Dispensing of Rayleigh tip will only encourage more fly tipping.


River development?? The River crouch can only be used during high tides, it is not like the Thames as it does not actually go anywhere only to a dead end, and a little stream. Therefore, any kind of "river ferry shuttle service" is restrictive and unreliable. It is likely that the houses along the river front won't even exist in 20-30 years' time, due to climate change, and rising water levels, as they are highlighted as being in the flood plain path / area. Essex is already sinking at a rate 0.4 > 0.7mm per year, so any further development on such highlighted areas would be an environmental disaster and is not to be considered. These should be protected.

There is also the problem of limited schooling & medical facilities, of which is barely adequate for the village residents as things stand, We need to improve these facilities now, for existing ageing residential population who do not need employment, but do need health services, and for the younger generation who need improvements in primary school places within the community to help alleviate / minimise the use of cars to transport their children to & from schools as this currently is not the case, in a bid to reduce air pollution and congestion, and making the area a cleaner & safer place to live.

Our services would certainly struggle with any extra demand. With Ferry Road being the main road in and out of the village, it will be impossible to increase the road infrastructure to accommodate the unreasonable proposition of this housing expansion and transport connectivity demand. Many are working from home now, but what about when all return to the office / place of work? I don't believe this has been taken in to consideration.

Our preferred site would be 3b Southend North.

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the proposed developments for Hullbridge.

Firstly I would like to comment on the changes made when the current development was approved:
The roundabout at the entrance to the new development and the roundabout at the junction of Rawreth Lane and Hullbridge Road are too small and seem to cause far more congestion rather than ease it. Due to the amount of heavy and large vehicles now using the road through Hullbridge as a 'rat run', presumably to avoid the congestion on the A127, these roundabouts are difficult for the larger and longer lorries that use the route, they have difficulty in manoeuvring around them, certainly the one at Rawreth Lane causes problems for the longer lorries, blocking the road as they struggle to turn, also the narrow lanes and sharp turns do not help.
Also in Hullbridge we have been blighted by water and gas leaks, therefore having numerous occasions where temporary traffic lights are used, again causing considerable delays and traffic chaos, I'm sure that these problems are caused by the amount of disturbance to the existing 'old' pipework by the new development and building works. We have the perpetual noise from the development and I know that there has been an influx of rats into houses near the new development, presumably as their homeland has been taken away from them and many other animals.

These problems will be the same or probably worse if any of the proposed sites are developed in Hullbridge.
The continual and seemingly endless decimation of our Green Belt land will have a significant effect on all wildlife habitats in and around the area, as Hullbridge is situated alongside the River Crouch I am sure this will cause significant flooding problems, a lot of the proposed land is liable to flooding, removing floodplains causes serious problems, especially as we are constantly being told that due to climate change the water levels are rising at an alarming rate. Presumably a number of public footpaths and bridleways will be lost to the residents of Hullbridge forever.
A major concern is for the infrastructure, Hullbridge is currently served by a single road, in and out of the village, I guess we will soon lose that title as we become a 'town' due to the continual expansion, this road, as I have previously said, cannot cope with the present traffic volume and the development by Watery Lane is nowhere near completion, meaning there is still a number of cars/vans to be added to our congested village, again we are constantly being informed that the pollution levels are too high but there are new developments being built and proposals for even more without any improvements to the road system, the pollution levels will get even worse as more traffic will clog up the already congested road system. Public transport in the village is quite poor and the rail service to London is far too expensive and until the pandemic was far too crowded, people will no doubt be working in London and will have to travel to Rayleigh to use the train, getting to and from Rayleigh during the rush hours is horrendous now and will only get worse.
Hullbridge currently has only one school, serving both infants and juniors, the senior schools are based in Rayleigh or Hockley and the transport for these has now been withdrawn by the council for the children to get there, meaning, more traffic on the road. There is also one Doctors Surgery which I feel sure is at capacity, as to get an appointment is very difficult, I am concerned that with the current development the surgery will not be able to cope let alone any new proposals

There are numerous reasons for not building in and around Hullbridge, I really do hope that the reasoning behind these proposals is not purely for the Council to gain considerable additional revenue. Please do not ignore the residents of Hullbridge, as seemed to be the case with the Watery Lane development, these people voted and put the council in office they should not live to regret it.

I fully appreciate the need for new housing in the RDC area however, the outline proposals for Hockley and Hawkwell just aren't viable.

My reasons are as follows

The size of the proposed developments is far beyond the already creaking capacity of the current infrastructure. Roads, bus services, doctors and schools just don't have the capacity to cope with the invisaged influx of people.

The Spa roundabout is already a bottle neck made worse by the developments at Hall Road and Christmas Tree Farm. It doesn't take much, something like a delivery van parking to cause gridlock. It's getting to the point where people avoid going out at certain times.

Parking in Hockley is awful particularly on a Friday night because of the number of take away restaurants. Illegal parking is rife, zebra crossings, bus stops, disabled bays, nothing is safe from the SUV's.

I think planners need to be aware of how dependent we are on emergency services from outside the immediate area. We have no Police or Ambulance presence and only one retained fire engine in Hawkwell. The more traffic that is piled onto Hockley Road the longer the response times! This puts life at risk!

It seems to me that RDC take a far too relaxed attitude to the mounting problems in this area, speeding drivers, illegal parking in the village and around schools is allowed with no deterent. When was the last time a traffic enforcement officer was seen in Hockley?

The only time RDC take an interest in the area is when they need to build more houses!

I am writing to register my objection to the building of new housing across sites in the Hockley area.
At the highest level the addition of that many new houses in and around Hockley will change the fabric of the town. We can already see in Rayleigh how the overdevelopment of an urban area can affect a town, in fact we moved to Hockley from Rayleigh for this precise reason; the overstretched local services, constant congestion and noise being the most obvious.
Here in Hockley the proposed building will result in thousands more people in Hockley. We have one trunk road in my part of Hockley, Greensward Lane, which is already heavily congested at peak times, traffic often tailing back from the Plumberow Avenue lights to Greensward School and beyond. How is all this additional traffic going to be managed, not only in the future, but also during the building stage? Greensward Lane is not fit for heavy traffic, it is relatively narrow for a main road, it is already in very poor repair, worn surface, badly potholed. This is only going to make the situation worse now and in the future.
Then there are the vital local services that are already stretched and difficult to access. My children have now left school, however even then the class sizes already exceeded 30 pupils and classes were in cabins. Where is the extra capacity going to come from? Doctors and Dentists it is already very hard to obtain appointments. My surgery does not seem to have space to expand, so where are all these extra patients going to go? Are the developers going to build extra services to support their new homes? Is this requirement included in contracts and are these going to be built first, as developers have a very poor record on delivering on such promises.
Looking at the site, local to us, the one behind Malvern Road, this is on elevated ground. When this area is concreted over where is all the runoff water that is currently absorbed by the open ground going to go? It will run down into the gardens and Malvern Road. Living at the lower end of this road, I see firsthand just how much water there can be.

The noise and disruption caused by what will be a prolonged building phase will make normal living, in what is a quiet area, and in Hockley in general very difficult. This will need to be managed to protect the conditions of the current residents who are paying their local taxes but seeing their environment deteriorate. I am also concerned about the impact upon the environment in terms of nature, wildlife, pollution and the destruction of habitat. Once greenbelt land is used for building it is lost to all future generations. I think the over population and over building of Hockley will turn a desirable area to live into a polluted and crowded place. The proposed development will have a detrimental effect on the health and well being of my family.

My wife and I object in the strongest terms.

Housing in Hockley and Hawkwell
I think it is disgusting and stupid to build so many houses in this now over crowded area.
I live in Hawkwell near the White Hart Pub, and continually have a problem getting on to the B1013.
Building 6236 houses means 12000 + cars. Our roads are chocker block now, so god forbid what our roads will be like when that lot are built.
Have some common sense and say NO to so many houses , to protect what was once a delightful area to live in.
No infrastructure, schools or doctors or decent roads.
NO NO NO NO NO to more houses.