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

Rayleigh is developed enough already. Stop building more houses. Stop any kind of building/development on green belt land.

I strongly feel that further new housing building in Rayleigh will totally cripple the creaking traffic system. In particular The High Road near Great Wheatley is under enormous traffic flow pressure and is frequently (and at many varying times of day ) at a standstill in both directions. There are further traffic congestion issues approaching the town from London Road, Hockey and Eastwood. Our schools, doctors and dentistry cannot cope with further population.
I also STRONGLY OBJECT to ANY development on green belt land. This is a precious natural asset to the town and existing residents and must be preserved.

i agree

No large scale development should be agreed in Rayleigh unless there is adequate infrastructure improvement, including new roads to take traffic away from the town centre. School places, GPs and increased capacity within local hospital.

I strongly object to the potential development at the end of Bull Lane, Napier And Wellington Road. This is a vital green lung for my part of Rayleigh. This area of Rayleigh is hugely developed already. Thank you for your attention

Rayleigh scores low for 'all residents living within walking distance of a local green space'. Any building on any land should be prevented, with the view to actually adopting and modifying existing brown field sites to become green spaces instead, to help improve the environment and the Green completeness mapping score.

The vision statement should mention leisure facilities - the town needs a wide range of restaurants and pubs, religious and cultural facilities (e.g. Mill Hall) appropriate to serve the town and surrounding communities.
Walking distance of services (medical, local shops) is also a need.

Persimmon Homes agrees with the vision for Rayleigh. As the District’s only Tier 1 settlement, it is correct that it should take large proportion of the District’s Plan Requirements during the Plan Period.

I don't believe the space needed to house the amount of people is possible without impacting green space and the mental and physical health of residents.

We currently find it difficult to get out of our drive opposite Western Rd due to parked cars on the road and speeding vehicles. This is bound to cause various accidents. I have only lived here for 1 year and nearly been crashed in to several times. Bought this a year ago and wasn’t aware of the plans, this will seriously de value ours and surrounding properties. Number 68 Great Wheatley road. The road is unfit for further expansion.

Rayleigh is already an overpopulated town with limited routes in and out of the area. Traffic is dreadful in this area at the best of times so adding this many houses will only make the situation worse. Also I have noticed that recent developments of houses in the area have crammed houses in with no driveway and narrow streets. With most households now having 2+ cars and nowhere to park any new developments should have to provide adequate parking to avoid cars ending up parked on the pavements.

You have described in your vision for Rayleigh a vibrant High Street etc etc by 2050 which it appears can only be achieved by a huge development provided by your business.We feel that there are already a severe lack of amenities for young and old to make use of-a situation that has worsened as the local population has increased considerably by over developement of existing sites,We understand this hasnot been addressed because of the very limited open space avialable and yet you propose to increase the population by developing green sites which could provide recreational amenities for the current population.

Far too much house building proposed - we need more schools and hospital capacity

Public transport should not only be reliable and functional, but more routes should be introduced to encourage more use of public transport, and minimise traffic congestion . Cycle lanes would be a welcome addition too.
Focus should be given to local businesses so that the high street continues to thrive with a wide variety of small and independent shops and businesses.

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

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

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

Spatial Themes not included - Cultural and Accessibility.

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

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

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

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

Planned Forms of Housing: Mix of housing for “affordable“ properties with higher standards for gardens and recreational space. Consideration should be given to the provision of Lifetime Homes specifically adapted homes for the disabled and elderly, bungalows and other potential buildings for downsizing families. Housing for the hidden homeless – those “sofa surfing” & Emergency housing. The plan makes no reference to social housing quotas which should be included in all new developments. By working closely with planners and developers, as well as different charities and communities, residents and businesses. You will then get a better understanding as to what you need and what will be achievable.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Reading through your proposals i have no faith what so ever that the local people will be listened too. Rayleigh and Hullbridge has already sustained mass building, where infrastructure has been completely ignored.

Why has the council made these things so difficult to make comments ? Why havent you created an online form with everything proposed for each area and a space for people to list their comments.

Rayleigh has nothing to offer people when you look at what other councils do for their tax payers.

Why are you not building council housing for local people ? You sold off a lot of the council housing but never replaced it.

We all know affordable housing isnt actually affordable and the current housing list is 12yrs plus, thats even if you qualify to go on there.
Its more like ethnic cleansing of the locals as no one can afford the housing, its all being taken by people from London as they have sold there propertys for loads of money and can afford to buy the housing being built locally, we should not be Londons dumping ground.

With crime increasing we have no walk in police station.

My brother in law needed an ambulance and they had been sent from chelmsford and needed directions for southend hospital.

Rayleigh needs a proper small injurys unti that runs 24hrs a day including dental, no one can get nhs dentists or appointments at the doctors now, southend hospital has the longest waiting lists in the country do you honestly think by mass building in this area it will help. Rayleigh desperatly needs a medical center.

The traffic in rayleigh is at a standstill in rush hour a lot of the time, the air pollution is already awful and not meeting guidelines.

Have you seen the state of the roads and pavements they are too small and dangerous for older people.

Leave our greenfield sites and parks alone, rayleigh is in danger of loosing what was good about it, you dont keep our parks looked after, there is no swimming pool in rayleigh, i could never understand why you didnt build a pool behind rayleigh liesure center liads of room less cars on the road as people could walk there and it would be used.

If you need anything medical or liesure you have to travel out of rayleigh, putting more traffic on the roads, its irressponsible to put peoples health and wealthfare after mass building of the wrong sort.

Infustructure has to come before building the people of Rayleigh have already been pushed to their limits over the mill hall now this, its unacceptable and seems to be greed over wealthfare.

Theses builders will be claiming all the government bonuses get the land cheap build the houses and make them so expensive, rayleigh becomes over crowed, the locals are forced out the area as they cannot afford to live here. It has to stop.

I am writing to object in the strongest possible terms to a Change of Use of Rayleigh's Conservation Areas to Residential Use.

One area of contention, but amongst others, is The Mill Hall: a well used site by so many different groups, which brings people into the town, who will then use local shops, etc. The parking areas there are usually full, where will people be able to park, especially those with limited mobility, if there are no spaces at that end of town? Maybe they will decide to go elsewhere....

One vital question I do need to put to you is about air quality. I do remember that Rayleigh town centre had high levels of pollutants due to traffic a few years ago. Has this now been resolved? I think rather not. Do you have current figures on air quality? What are the projected levels expected to rise to when thousands more cars are using our local roads? Have you driven through Rayleigh yourselves recently? Even on a "normal" day it is slow moving. Have you noticed the gridlock conditions that arise when there need to be roadworks, or following a breakdown or accident? Even if that is at the Weir or further afield? Cleaner, all-electric vehicles are a long way off yet I fear.

I appreciate that whilst green open spaces are pleasant - I would say vital - for the residents and visitors alike, they don't necessarily bring in revenue do they? It's just a field or open space, doing nothing, it would appear. Housing does of course, but at what other costs to our lives?

I urge you to please reconsider your plans and ideas for our beautiful town of Rayleigh, to keep it that way for us and future generations to enjoy.

I would like to provide my general comments regarding the consultation on the Spatial Options document as follows;

 Based upon the government’s own statistics of 2.4 people and 1.3 cars per household, the proposed 7,200 new homes in Rochford district would equate to in excess of 17,000 additional people and over 9,000 additional cars, which when put into perspective, represents a similar population to South Woodham Ferrers.

 I note that most of the promoted sites are to the West of Rayleigh and this would inevitably mean those people would be drawn to Rayleigh which is already over developed and consequently overburdened in every respect.

 All of the major sites promoted are too far away to walk to Rayleigh or the station and that will force more people to drive exacerbating congestion, which is already at unacceptable levels, and indeed pollution.

 Promoted sites next to major roads, especially the A127, should not be considered due to air and noise pollution. The Rayleigh Weir junction is already overly congested as are the roads that lead from it.

 Any voluminous development in Rayleigh will be devastating and I am opposed to it.

 I am in agreement with the Liberal Democrat Group, there needs to be a more radical approach, a plan should be made for a whole new town/village incorporating all of the appropriate infrastructure and that this should do be done in conjunction with adjacent councils and not in isolation.

Dear Sir / Madam,

Please find below my comments regarding the Spatial Options Consultation for your analysis.

Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter.

Kind Regards,
Jane

Q1. Are there any other technical evidence studies that you feel the Council needs to prepare to inform its new Local Plan, other than those listed in this section?
I could not confirm what were the studies you conducted in order to determine the young people’s needs for leisure activities other than sports. In addition, could you please make available the studies conducted.
Q2. Do you agree with our draft vision for Rochford District?
In a matter of principle, yes, I agree, but there should be a greater highlight to creating new jobs through the establishment of business incubators and support to traditional and new outdoor markets to support local farmers.
Q3. Do you agree that we should develop a range of separate visions for each of our settlements to help guide decision-making?
I don’t agree with the separate visions as it will divert the resources from a global vision for Rochford District in terms of number of houses and the respective infrastructure. As such I think it would be detrimental to have a narrower vision which can overlook the effects that the increase of population in one area will have on the remaining parts of the district.
Q4. Do you agree with the strategic priorities and objectives we have identified?
As principles, yes, but I have several objections in the way they are supposedly achieved.
Strategy Options
Q5. Do you agree with the settlement hierarchy presented?
Yes.
Q6. Which of the identified strategy options do you consider should be taken forward in the Plan?
It is my understanding that Option 4 would be preferable, but the more the building is concentrated into one area, the less green belt would have to be released. I will detail my concerns in Q17.
Q7. Are there any reasonable alternatives to these options that should be considered instead?
Please refer to Q6 and Q17.
Spatial Themes
Q8. Are there any key spatial themes that you feel we have missed or that require greater emphasis?
Yes, I was not able to verify what would be the dedicated areas for the construction / improvement of roads and other public transport infrastructure. In addition, I could not confirm where will the new waste management facilities (dumps or recycling centres) will be placed, the way the options are presented it does not allow the public to have a detailed understanding of it.
Q9. Do you agree we should take a sequential approach to flood risk and coastal change in our plan, locating development away from areas at risk of flooding and coastal change wherever possible? How can we best protect current and future communities from flood risk and coastal change?
Yes. No infrastructure or housing development should be authorised to be built in high floor risk areas or coastal change areas. As the plan is omits what would be the estimated costs in terms of the additional infrastructure that would be required for building in these areas, it doesn’t allow for a risk/benefit analysis of allowing to build in risk areas versus costs that would have to be paid in rates by the general public.
Q10. Do you agree that the Coastal Protection Belt and Upper Roach Valley should be protected from development that would be harmful to their landscape character? Are there other areas that you feel should be protected for their special landscape character?
Yes. In addition, Hockley Woods, Rayleigh Mount and Grove Woods should also be preserved from development.
Q11. Do you agree we should require development to source a percentage of their energy from low-carbon and renewable sources? Are there other opportunities in the District to supply low-carbon or renewable energy?
I agree, provided that the energy production equipment produces a relevant amount of energy.
There are plenty of opportunities to establish micro-production with community funding. I am not an expert, but please refer to the work done in Manchester in this regard http://www.gmcr.org.uk/ .
Q12. Do you agree we should require new development to achieve energy efficiency standards higher than building regulations? What level should these be set at?
I agree that energy efficiency should be an important consideration in any development, and they should be above the bear minimum, but I lack the technical knowledge to comment any further.
Q13. How do you feel the plan can help to support the local generation of low-carbon and renewable energy? Are there locations where you feel energy generation should be supported?
The Council should encourage companies, charities and individuals to come up with projects and provide administrative and financial support whenever needed to help them see it through.
Considering the availability of surface water and rain in the UK but the lack of natural elevations in the Essex region, consideration should be given to hydro-electric micro-production facilities.
In addition, solar and wind energy should also be encouraged wherever possible.
Q14. Do you consider that the plan should include a place-making charter that informs relevant policies? Should the same principles apply everywhere in the District, or should different principles apply to different areas?
Yes. The principle should be applied by areas.
Q15. Are the principles set out in the draft place-making charter the right ones? Are there other principles that should be included?
Yes, 1) there is no point regarding public transport (bike lanes and walk paths alone are nowhere near the needs of the community) and 2) there is no point regarding the minimization of the impact that new roads will have in the fabric of the places they will go through.

Q16a. Do you consider that new design guides, codes or masterplans should be created alongside the new Local Plan?
I do not understand the question, this seems to be a specialist subject I cannot provide input on.
Q16b. If yes, do you think it is more appropriate to have a single design guide/code for the whole District, or to have design guides/codes/masterplans for individual settlements or growth areas?
I do not understand the question, this seems to be a specialist subject I cannot provide input on.
Q16c. What do you think should be included in design guides/codes/masterplans at the scale you are suggesting?
I do not understand the question, this seems to be a specialist subject I cannot provide input on.
Housing for All
Q17. With reference to the options listed above, or your own options, how do you feel we can best plan to meet our need for different types, sizes and tenures of housing?
I do not believe that in an area where young people have very few cheap options to buy a house, the option to primarily develop detached or semi-detached housing (80% of the planned houses) would be adequate as the house prices will still be too high, even with the affordable option.
In order to achieve the same number of houses in a significantly smaller development site, the option to increase the number of terraced houses and flats to 50% of the new builds would decrease the overall cost of providing these new houses, regardless of the affordable housing conditions.
In terms of the number of bedrooms, I agree with it, only the distribution between the house size seems too focused in large and expensive properties with a negligible discount that will not suffice to cover the current or future housing needs. A 20% discount on a £700,000 detached house for a family who can only afford a £250,000 terrace house is not an acceptable trade-off.
Q18. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there areas or sites in Rochford that you feel require a specific approach to housing types, size and tenure? What is required to meet housing needs in these areas?
In the specific case of Rayleigh where I reside, there is a significant shortage of terraced houses and flats which are by design cheaper than the other options, so in order to meet the new housing needs, development should focus on these rather than creating huge new areas of detached and semi-detached houses that will not meet current housing needs.
Q19. Are there any other forms of housing that you feel we should be planning for? How can we best plan to meet the need for that form of housing?
I could not confirm in the plan what areas are being specifically allocated to house rough sleepers and other people in homeless situations.
Q20. With reference to the options listed, or your own options, what do you think is the most appropriate way of meeting our permanent Gypsy and Traveller accommodation needs?
Provided that they are willing to pay for their own accommodation and this does not implicate any increase on the council rates, I do not have any specific input in the solution.
Q21. With reference to the options listed, or your own options, what do you think is the most appropriate way of meeting our temporary Gypsy and Traveller accommodation needs?
Provided that they are willing to pay for their own accommodation and this does not implicate any increase on the council rates, I do not have any specific input in the solution.
Q22. What do you consider would need to be included in a criteria-based policy for assessing potential locations for new Gypsy and Traveller sites?
Provide that they pay for the land they spend their time on and the facilities and amenities provided by the council and this does not implicate any increase on the council rates through the clear-up of their sites, I do not have any specific input in the solution, although I would think that they would be better placed outside urban areas without sacrificing any green belt area.
Employment and Jobs
Q23. With reference to the options listed above, or your own options, how do you feel we can best ensure that we meet our employment and skills needs through the plan?
I could not verify if the council is planning or willing to assist new businesses by providing any reduction in business rates for the first years. Considering the crisis that high-street local businesses are facing to establish themselves and thrive, this would be an incredible tool to employ. I am also not aware of any mention to the creation of new business hubs for creative industries, farmers markets and technology start-ups outside of the airport site. When considering the local importance of informal business sites, such as Battlesbridge Antiques Market, the creation of small business hubs would be extremely effective.
Q24. With reference to Figure 30, do you consider the current employment site allocations to provide enough space to meet the District’s employment needs through to 2040? Should we seek to formally protect any informal employment sites for commercial uses, including those in the Green Belt?
As a principle yes, but this has to have a case-by-case analysis of the impacts, namely in terms of polluting employment sites and the needs for infrastructure.
Q25. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to deliver new employment facilities or improvements to existing employment facilities?
When establishing the new sites for development, there is an opportunity to require the property developer to establish a commercial presence proportional to the size of the site in order to create basic shopping amenities or go further if the site so justifies in order to attract more retail. For that purpose, the planning must include loading bays in order not to disturb residents and to supply the shops.
Q26. Are there any particular types of employment site or business accommodation that you consider Rochford District is lacking, or would benefit from?
Considering that the two main villages in Rochford District are traditionally market towns, it is strange that there aren’t any plans to incentivise more street market initiatives, both seasonal and farmers markets.
Q27. Are there other measures we can take through the plan to lay the foundations for long-term economic growth, e.g. skills or connectivity?
I think more public transport to formal and informal employment sites would greatly stimulate the growth or those sites.
Q28. With reference to the options listed above, or your own options, how do you feel we can best manage the Airport’s adaptations and growth through the planning system?
The current road infrastructure is already insufficient to move the traffic from the businesses and people going to and from the area adjacent to the airport. In order to increase the ability of the airport to be a major employment site, the roads must be able to allow the circulation of the increased traffic. It is already clear that the construction of an alternative to the A127 or the increase to a dual carriage capacity of an existing road is essential.
Biodiversity
Q29. Do you agree that the plan should designate and protect areas of land of locally important wildlife value as a local wildlife site, having regard to the Local Wildlife Sites review? Are there any other sites that you feel are worthy of protection?
Yes, it should include the whole of Hockley Woods.
Q30. Do you agree that the plan should designate and protect areas of land of locally important geological value as a local geological site, having regard to the Local Wildlife Sites review? Are there any other sites that you feel are worthy of protection? [Please state reasoning]
I am not aware of it, but this seems to be a specialist subject I cannot provide input on.
Q31. Do you consider net gains for biodiversity are best delivered on-site or off-site? Are there specific locations or projects where net gain projects could be delivered?
I am not aware of it, but this seems to be a specialist subject I cannot provide input on.
Green and Blue Infrastructure
Q32. With reference to the options above, or your own options, how do you feel we can best deliver a quality green and blue infrastructure network through the plan?
I am not aware of it, but this seems to be a specialist subject I cannot provide input on.
Q33. With reference to the options above, or your own options, how do you feel we can best deliver a quality green and blue infrastructure network through the plan?
I am not aware of it, but this seems to be a specialist subject I cannot provide input on.
Q34. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to help deliver new strategic green and blue infrastructure?
I am not aware of it, but this seems to be a specialist subject I cannot provide input on.
Community Infrastructure
Q35. With reference to the options above, or your own options, how can we address the need for sufficient and accessible community infrastructure through the plan?
I could not verify where the schools are going to be built and what is going to be increased in terms of the public transport infrastructure.
Q36. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to deliver new or improved community infrastructure?
Depends on the number of houses built and where they are built. I agree that there has to be an increase, but this seems to be a specialist subject I cannot provide input on.
Q37. Are there areas in the District that you feel have particularly severe capacity or access issues relating to community infrastructure, including schools, healthcare facilities or community facilities? How can we best address these?
There is an absolute absence of any facilities for young teenagers that don’t involve organised sports or are not paid.
Regarding the schools and healthcare, the current infrastructure is stretched, and doctors are already struggling to keep up with their appointments as it is and this is a nationwide problem. With new houses being built, this should be addressed before the problem gets even worse, but this is a specialist subject I cannot provide further input on.
Open Spaces and Recreation
Q38. With reference to the options above, or your own options, how do you feel we can best meet our open space and sport facility needs through the plan?
I am not aware of it, but this seems to be a specialist subject I cannot provide input on.
Q39. Are the potential locations for 3G pitch investment the right ones? Are there other locations that we should be considering?
I am not aware of it, but this seems to be a specialist subject I cannot provide input on.
Q40. Are the listed potential hub sites and key centres the right ones? Are there other locations that we should be considering?
I am not aware of it, but this seems to be a specialist subject I cannot provide input on.
Q41. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to help deliver improvements to open space or sport facility accessibility or provision?
I am not aware of it, but this seems to be a specialist subject I cannot provide input on.
Q42. Are there particular open spaces that we should be protecting or improving?
I am not aware of it, but this seems to be a specialist subject I cannot provide input on.
Heritage
Q43. With reference to the options listed in this section, or your own options, how do you feel we can best address heritage issues through the plan?
I am not aware of it, but this seems to be a specialist subject I cannot provide input on.
Q44. Are there areas of the District we should be considering for conservation area status beyond those listed in this section?
I am not aware of it, but this seems to be a specialist subject I cannot provide input on.
Q45. Are there any buildings, spaces or structures that should be protected for their historic, cultural or architectural significance? Should these be considered for inclusion on the Local List of non-designated assets?
I am not aware of it, but this seems to be a specialist subject I cannot provide input on.
Town Centres and Retail
Q46. With reference to the options listed above, or your own options, how do you think we can best plan for vibrant town centres in Rochford, Rayleigh and Hockley? How can we also ensure our village and neighbourhood centres remain vibrant? [Please state
Ensure that new types of retail and other businesses are encouraged to establish themselves in the town centres, namely through the reduction or exemption of council rates to give them a chance to survive the initial period. Other than restaurants and beauty services, no new businesses have opened in Rayleigh High Street. This reduces the overall margin of the existing businesses, the attractiveness to the installation of new businesses and the ability to attract visitors to shop in Rayleigh.
Q47. Do you agree with the local centre hierarchy set out in Figure 36? If not, what changes would you make? [Please state reasoning]
I don’t have an issue with the hierarchy per se, but there should be some protection to the local centres and local parades to ensure that they don’t disappear.
Q48. With reference to Figures 38, 39 and 40, do you agree with existing town centre boundaries and extent of primary and secondary shopping frontages in Rayleigh, Rochford and Hockley? If not, what changes would you make? [Please state reasoning]
Yes.
Q49. Should we continue to restrict appropriate uses within town centres, including primary and secondary shopping frontages within those centres? If yes, what uses should be restricted? [Please state reasoning]
Yes. In the town centres the primary use must be commercial as the unchecked conversion to housing developments would create many problems with noise complaints and others where they didn’t exist before.
Q50. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to deliver improved retail and leisure services in the District? [Please state reasoning]
Yes, as I mentioned before, considering the market town pasts of Rayleigh and Rochford, it would greatly benefit local businesses to incentivise street market initiatives as it would not only provide a greater variety of goods to residents, but it would also provide local businesses the foot traffic.
Transport and Connectivity
Q51. With reference to the options above, or your own options, how do you feel we can best address our transport and connectivity needs through the plan?
The plan has to have appropriate measures in place to secure those roads and railways are built ahead of the conclusion of the developments and not after they are concluded, as it is common sense that once the houses are built, any compulsory purchase of space to build infrastructure will be more expensive.
From what I could understand, any plans to increase the transportation network are left to chance or delegated to other entities.
The increase of the housing without transport will further exacerbate the problems that the road infrastructure is currently facing and there are no plans whatsoever to increase public transportation to places which are already lacking, such as Hullbridge which is almost entirely dependent on Rayleigh’s infrastructure.
It is strange that the Beaulieu Estates managed to have a new train line and the people of Rochford District can’t either get appropriate roads, let alone more train connections. I cannot understand how Chelmsford is able to plan these developments to have transport connectivity and Rochford cannot plan a road.
Q52. Are there areas where improvements to transport connections are needed?
Yes, the A127 needs increasing and there is a lack of an alternative route to this road going into Rochford and Southend.
Q53. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to deliver new transport connections, such as link roads or rapid transit? What routes and modes should these take? [walking, cycling, rail, bus, road etc.]
Yes. All of the above, the increase in the demographics and the expected establishment of new businesses should account for an increase primarily focused on roads, rail and buses that serves as an alternative to the current routes that are massively overrun.
Green Belt and Rural Issues
Q54. Do you feel that the plan should identify rural exception sites? If so, where should these be located and what forms of housing or employment do you feel need to be provided?
I am not aware of it, but this seems to be a specialist subject I cannot provide input on.
Q55. Are there any other ways that you feel the plan should be planning for the needs of rural communities?
I am not aware of it, but this seems to be a specialist subject I cannot provide input on.
Planning for Complete Communities
Q56a. Do you agree with our vision for Rayleigh? Is there anything you feel is missing?
No. I cannot see this translated in the detailed plan.
Q56b. With reference to Figure 44 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the land edged blue should be made available for any of the following uses?
I cannot understand the allocation between commercial and housing properties as well as infrastructure, as there are nowhere near enough roads or overpasses in the image provided.
Q56c. Are there areas in Rayleigh that development should generally be presumed appropriate?
No, unless infrastructure is put in place. A simple example is the development in Daws Heath Road, where all these plots are meant to be made available for development, but the end of the road, approaching the A127, is not able to take two cars at the time.
Q56d. Are there areas that require protecting from development?
New developments in the Town Centre that either reduce green areas or affect the Mill Hall and any development that reduces the area of Hockley woods.
Q56e. Do you agree that the local green spaces shown on Figure 44 hold local significance? Are there any other open spaces that hold particular local significance?
The legend to Figure 44 does not allow for enough detail to understand the changes to the green spaces and the purpose of them.

Q57a. Do you agree with our vision for Rochford and Ashingdon?
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q57b. With reference to Figure 45 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the land edged blue should be made available for any of the following uses?
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q57c. Are there areas in Rochford and Ashingdon that development should generally be presumed appropriate?
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q57d. Are there areas that require protecting from development?
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q57e. Do you agree that the local green spaces shown on Figure 45 hold local significance?
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q58a. Do you agree with our vision for Hockley and Hawkwell?
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q58b. With reference to Figure 46 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the land edged blue should be made available for any of the following uses?
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q58c. Are there areas in Hockley and Hawkwell that development should generally be presumed appropriate?
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q58d. Are there areas that require protecting from development?
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q57e. Do you agree that the local green spaces shown on Figure 46 hold local significance? Are there any other open spaces that hold particular local significance?
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q59a. Do you agree with our vision for the Wakerings and Barling? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q59b. With reference to Figure 47 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the land edged blue should be made available for any of the following uses?
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q59c. Are there areas in the Wakerings and Barling that development should generally be presumed appropriate? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q59d. Are there areas that require protecting from development? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q59e. Do you agree that the local green spaces shown on Figure 47 hold local significance? Are there any other open spaces that hold particular local significance? [Please state reasoning]
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q60a. Do you agree with our vision for Hullbridge?
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q60b. With reference to Figure 48 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the land edged blue should be made available for any of the following uses?
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q59c. Are there areas in Hullbridge that development should generally be presumed appropriate?
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q59d. Are there areas that require protecting from development?
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q59e. Do you agree that the local green spaces shown on Figure 48 hold local significance?
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q60a. Do you agree with our vision for Canewdon? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q61b. With reference to Figure 49 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the land edged blue should be made available for any of the following uses? How could that improve the completeness of Canewdon?
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q61c. Are there areas in Canewdon that development should generally be presumed appropriate? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q61d. Are there areas that require protecting from development? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q61e. Do you agree that the local green spaces shown on Figure 49 hold local significance? Are there any other open spaces that hold particular local significance? [Please state reasoning]
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q62a. Do you agree with our vision for Great Stambridge? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q62b. With reference to Figure 50 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the land edged blue should be made available for any of the following uses? How could that improve the completeness of Great Stambridge?
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q62c. Are there areas in Great Stambridge that development should generally be presumed appropriate? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q62d. Are there areas in Great Stambridge that development should generally be presumed appropriate? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q62e. Do you agree that the local green spaces shown on Figure 50 hold local significance? Are there any other open spaces that hold particular local significance? [Please state reasoning]
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q63a. Do you agree with our vision for Rawreth? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q63b. With reference to Figure 51 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the land edged blue should be made available for any of the following uses?
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q63c. Are there areas in Rawreth that development should generally be presumed appropriate? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q63d. Are there areas that require protecting from development? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q63e. Do you agree that the local green spaces shown on Figure 51 hold local significance? Are there any other open spaces that hold particular local significance? [Please state reasoning]
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q64a. Do you agree with our vision for Paglesham? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q64b. With reference to Figure 52 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the land edged blue should be made available for any of the following uses?
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q64c. Are there areas in Paglesham that development should generally be presumed appropriate? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q64d. Are there areas that require protecting from development? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q64e. Are there areas that require protecting from development? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q65a. Do you agree with our vision for Sutton and Stonebridge? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q65b. With reference to Figure 53 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the land edged blue should be made available for any of the following uses?
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q65c. Are there areas in Sutton and Stonebridge that development should generally be presumed appropriate? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q65d. Are there areas that require protecting from development? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q65e. Do you agree that the local green spaces shown on Figure 53 hold local significance? Are there any other open spaces that hold particular local significance? [Please state reasoning]
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q66. Do you agree that our rural communities do not require individual vision statements? Are there communities that you feel should have their own vision? [Please state reasoning]
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q67. Do you agree with our vision for our rural communities? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q68. Are there other courses of action the Council could take to improve the completeness of our rural communities?
I cannot provide meaningful input.

1.0 Introduction
1.1 These representations are submitted to the Rochford New Local Plan Spatial Options on behalf of Bellway Strategic in relation to Land at Hambro Hill, Rayleigh (‘the Site’).
1.2 The Site has previously been submitted into the Call for Sites under reference CFS105. The site extends to some 10.3ha and has been promoted by Bellway Strategic for a sympathetically planned development at Rayleigh, adjacent to the urban area, open space, and a proposed Regional Park.
1.3 Representations were submitted for the site under the Call for Sites in 2015 and the Issues and Options consultation in 2018, under a different promotor.
1.4 The condition of the site is a mixture of a minerals site and grassland. It is not open to
the public. The site is predominantly grassland but with significant areas of despoiled land used for sand extraction. Alongside the site to the northwest are commercial uses, containing large areas of hardstanding, a compound for vehicle storage, and warehousestyle buildings. The site is clearly separated from the farmland that stretches from the north of the site across to Hockley. It has a very different character to the surrounding
land by virtue of its use for mineral extraction and its isolation created by residential development to the south, west and east, commercial development to the west and north, and a small woodland to the northeast.
1.5 The site is designated as Green Belt in the current adopted Development Plan, which remains the only constraint to the delivery of the site. While within the Green Belt, the site is immediately adjacent to the settlement boundary of Rayleigh, the districts largest
settlement, and is located on the eastern side of the District’s largest settlement. The site has development to the south, east and west, with open space to the north that is proposed to be identified as a regional park. Accordingly, the allocation of the site would make use of the previously despoiled site and be able to provide a more attractive transition into the new parkland, if allocated.
1.6 The site has a planning history which includes the granting of planning consent for the extraction of sand in 1987 (application ROC/916/86). Notwithstanding the green belt designation of land in this area, the established commercial uses on land to the west and
northwest, and the quarrying activity on the site itself, combined with the neighbouring residential development, all identify the site as being less-valued Green Belt land that is not visible from public viewpoints
1.7 The land is served by an existing vehicular access. The site is located in proximity to the junction of Hambro Hill with Hockley Road, and is well placed in relation to the wider strategic highway network and access to Rayleigh, which contains a full range of services
and facilities to serve any future residents. The site is extremely well served by public transport, is in good proximity to both primary and secondary schools, health, open space, the town centre and employment opportunities. It is within reasonable walking distance of the rail station, which can also be reached easily by cycle or public transport. The site represents one of the most suitable sites in terms of sustainable transportation.
1.8 The site is entirely contained within Flood Zone 1. As such, the site is at a low risk of tidal or fluvial flooding and is appropriate for any form of development from a flood risk perspective.
1.9 The site is not subject to any environmental, ecological or heritage designations that would prohibit or constrain its potential to deliver housing sustainably. The site represents a logical extension to the existing settlement boundary, which would deliver an attractive development of market and affordable housing positioned alongside a potentially significant area of open space. When planned considerately and comprehensively, the site would be capable of delivering an extremely attractive extension to Rayleigh.
1.10 The site was assessed as part of the Council’s Strategic Housing and Employment Land Availability Assessment 2017 (SHELAA 2017) to determine its suitability, achievability and availability as a site to help meet the District’s housing needs.
1.11 Appendix C of the Assessment identifies the site as being:
‘Concreate, gated drive way with large car park and vehicle scrap yard with a metal container used as a reception. Unsurfaced ramp to vacant field with overhead
cable traversing the site with trees and hedgerows on the boundary. Large warehouse-style buildings to the rear of the site’
1.12 The adjacent land uses were identified as residential / woodland and notes that there are no constraints on the site (SSSI, Ancient woodland, SLA, SAC, etc). The assessment identifies an active sand and gravel extraction permission.
1.13 Under Housing Development Potential the assessment considers the site to be available and achievable. For suitable, the Assessment states ‘unknown’ and the supporting text states that this will be unknown until a Green Belt assessment is undertaken.
Accordingly, the 2017 SHELAA Assessment finds the site to be suitable on all matters, with the outcome of a pending Green Belt Assessment being the only outstanding matter commented upon in the Assessment.
1.14 Commentary on the Green Belt Assessment is provided later in this response. In summary, it is considered that the Green Belt Study (2020) considered an exceptionally large parcel of land (Parcel P23), extending to 93ha between Rayleigh and Hockley. The
extent of the parcel did not reflect the extent of the two sites submitted to the SHELAA that fall within it, being:
 Site 105 (this representation) - 10.3ha and
 Site CFS040 - 1.11ha.
1.15 In comparison the Green Belt parcel was nearly 88% larger than the total area of land submitted to the Council that falls within the Parcel. Further, by identifying the parcel as land between Rayleigh and Hockley, the larger site inevitably scores strongly for Purpose 2 - preventing neighbouring towns from merging:
1.16 Given the open landscape and natural condition of the majority of the land in the parcel, which was not submitted for consideration for development, it is predictable that the
Parcel would score highly for Purpose 3, to safeguard the countryside from encroachment. The Parcel also scores strongly for assisting in urban regeneration by
directing development to derelict or other urban land.
1.17 A more detailed consideration of site 105 is provided at Stage 2 (Appendix 4 of the GBS) which provides an Area Assessment for Area AA38 (pages 77-78). The Assessment finds the overall score to be a moderate-high harm from release of the site. However, in the justification this appears to be reached as a result of a relatively open boundary to the north, which could readily be contained by new landscaping that would be ubiquitous of new large scale residential development. The Assessment considers the release of the Site to weaken the Green Belt purposes of land to the west, but this is currently
identified for open space and would therefore be protected for that other purpose. The assessment also appears to downplay the description of the Site from the SHELAA (provided above) as being alongside previously developed land and its condition as a minerals extraction site.
1.18 As a general assessment of the overall conclusions to the Assessment and the Purposes
of the Green Belt, as shown at pages 40-45 of the Assessment (figures 3.1 - 3.6), it is clear that there is little differentiation between the results across parcels. There is a general north/south split for purpose 1, an east/west split for purpose 2, and very little variation for purposes 3, 4 and 5. For the overall contribution to the Green Belt, there is a strong rating for all of the land lying between Rayleigh, Hockley and Rochford, with lower ratings for the parcels of land radiating away from these towns.
1.19 Accordingly, development of the parcel is identified as being less-harmful than it would be for land between Rayleigh, Hockley and Rochford and the scores of parcels have a clear geographic spread that does not differentiate parcels to any significant degree in a way that clear guides the spatial distribution to prefer one approach compared to another, in terms of protecting Green Belt land. Further, the parcel is much larger than the two sites submitted within it (105 and 40), representing an artificially high overall contribution
compared to any releases that may be proposed through the Local Plan. Finally, when considering the site itself, the current condition and uses on the site appear to have been downplayed.
1.20 In combination with the sustainable location and positive SHELAA assessment, with only the Green Belt assessment outstanding at the time, the Site is considered to represent a highly suitable, available and achievable development opportunity. In combination with
other opportunities for land within the parcel, the site is a highly attractive location for a modest development of around 250 dwellings that would not undermine the purposes of including land within the Green Belt.
1.21 It is worth noting that, in this instance, the allocation of the site within the Green Belt is directly contrary to the fifth purpose of including land in the Green Belt, as it discourages the regeneration of the brownfield parts of the site.

2.0 Response to Spatial Options Consultation Questions
Q3. Do you agree that we should develop a range of separate visions for each of our settlements to help guide decision-making?
2.1 In combination with an overall vision for the district, a vision for each settlement (or some of the settlement) may be helpful in articulating a specific, focused objectives for a settlement, distinguishing its development aims from another settlement. It is important that the visions do not prevent development from reacting to change, such as the demands and expectations from homes and businesses, technology, and construction
methods.
Q4. Do you agree with the strategic priorities and objectives we have identifies? Is there anything missing from the strategic priorities or objectives that you feel
needs to be included?
2.2 The Priorities and objectives identify a fairly broad approach to development demands, covering a lot of aspects of development under each priority. It is recommended that these could be more focused on the spatial challenges and opportunities to ensure they
add value to the plan making process.
2.3 While recognizing that the spatial Options are still open to be determined, one omission is that there is no clear indication of where the district may seek to direct development. There is reference to supporting rural areas but there should be a clear steer towards growth in the most sustainable locations. Regardless of the eventual decision on the spatial distribution, the Vision should identify that the majority of growth will be in the
most sustainable locations and close to existing larger settlements where services are most accessible and available. While we support some development in more rural areas, as currently drafted the Vision appears to articulate the approach to rural diversification, support for rural economic development and supporting rural communities, far more clearly than it does any urban developments or extensions to existing settlements.
Presumably urban extensions will provide the larger share of growth over the plan period and therefore the Vision should more clearly articulate the support for urban developments and extensions to existing settlement. In addition, there appears to be some potential strain between the support for rural development in the Strategic Priorities compared to the objectives in Priority 5 - Making provisions for climate change, conservation and enhancement.
2.4 For the above reasons, we recommend that references to delivering sufficient, sustainable housing is welcome but this should be emboldened by a clear indication of where the majority of growth may be directed and why. Following the adoption of a spatial
strategy it is recommended that the Vision is updated to include where the majority of development will be directed to, and that this should identify the larger settlements as providing the best opportunities for the majority of sustainable development.
2.5 We also consider that the objectives are too ambiguous in relation to affordability and recommend that there should be a distinct objective to improve the affordability of housing in Rochford District, as identified in the spatial challenges.
2.6 The RLPSO notes (page 12) that:
“The affordability of all housing is an issue constraining the ability for residents to afford homes in the area. The average house costs around ten times to average
annual income of a Rochford resident, which has increased significantly from around five times 20 years ago and is significantly above the national average”.
(RLPSO, page 12).
2.7 The most recent data available1
reports that the median house price in the District is
11.57 times the median gross annual workplace-based earnings (‘the affordability ratio’).
This is significantly greater than the national average, and indicates housing affordability has worsened considerably in recent years.
2.8 In 2000, the affordability ratio for the District was 5.08 – only slightly worse than the national average of 4.13. By 2020, the national affordability ratio had increased to 7.69
– significantly below the District’s 11.57.
2.9 In addition, the longer term impact on housing demand resulting from the Covid-19
pandemic may well impact significantly on Rochford’s housing market and affordability of homes for local people. Whilst empirical data is currently limited, there are early indications there has already been an increased desire to move from more to less urban areas, due to a greater desire for homes with larger gardens, space for home offices, better access to good quality open space, and situated within less densely populated areas.
2.10 At the same time, the pandemic has forced many employers (although not within all sectors) to adapt and enable home-working. Whilst it is largely expected there will be a degree of return to office-working, it is anticipated that the need for employees to be physically present within a particular office will be substantially reduced.
2.11 As a consequence, it can be predicted that many more people will be prepared to live considerably further from their place of work. This is of particular relevance to Rochford, as London is accessible via rail from parts of the District; and house prices are relatively affordable when compared to other areas in and around London. As a consequence, the area may well prove an increasingly popular destination for those migrating out of higher density areas in and around London. This in turn is likely to put considerable pressure on the housing market. If insufficient homes are provided, it is also likely to result in a significant worsening of affordability. Ensuring a sufficient supply of homes will be imperative if the Council is to tackle the issue of housing affordability in the District.
2.12 The RLPSO’s proposed Strategic Objective 3 is:
“To facilitate accelerated growth in our local economy through supporting the delivery of suitably located land which meets businesses needs at each stage of their lifecycle (including delivering grow-on space to enable local businesses to flourish), the continued functioning of London Southend Airport as a thriving regional airport,
serving London and the South East, as well as supporting the continued growth and innovation at the Airport Business Park”
2.13 We support this and, in addition, suggest this objective should recognise that the critical role house-building plays in supporting the local economy, and the economic benefits house building would have for the District.
2.14 As the Local Plan Spatial Options recognises on page 26, areas within which new homes are built have the potential to see significant additional expenditure and job creation.
2.15 Employment relating directly to the construction of the development will have positive economic and social impacts; as will jobs relating to the supply chain which will be supported. Construction is an important part of the local economy in the District: the 2011 Census recorded that 10.5% of employed residents in Rochford District were working in the construction industry.
Q5. Do you agree with the settlement hierarchy presented? If not, what changes do you think are required?
2.16 We agree that Rayleigh should be identified as the highest ranked settlement, reflecting the wide range of services and facilities available, alongside sustainable transport options and employment opportunities.
2.17 The RLPSO estimates (Figure 7) the 2018 population of the town to be 33,663, equating to 39% of the District’s total population.
2.18 In preparing the Core Strategy (2011), the Council identified that 44.4% of the demand for housing on the Council’s housing waiting list was focused on Rayleigh.
2.19 The adopted Core Strategy also noted, at paragraph 2.68, that Rayleigh has the best access to services within the District. As a retail centre, Rayleigh is by far the largest in the District. The RLPSO recognises this, identifying Rayleigh as the lone Tier 1 settlement in the District.
2.20 Rayleigh is one of only three settlements in the District served by a railway station, and is better served by bus services than the majority of the District. Combined with the range of facilities and services contained within the town itself, it perhaps has the best
potential of the District’s settlements to accommodate growth without reliance on use of the private car.
2.21 It is clear that a significant proportion of the District’s housing growth should be directed to Rayleigh as part of any spatial strategy, and that such development would be
sustainable.
2.22 Finally, it is not clear that Hockley and Rochford (including Ashingdon) provide only local services, as set out in the hierarchy and we recommend the assessment could benefit from not elevating Rayleigh too far above these other settlements, with the implications this may have on growth in these other sustainable locations, the scale of inward investment, and the benefits that come from development.
Q6. Which of the identified strategy options do you consider should be taken forward in the Plan?
2.23 Given the market and affordable housing needs, affordability issues and heritage and environmental constraints in the District, it is important that the overall strategy seeks to provide a wide range of housing options throughout the Plan period in suitable locations. As such, the strategy should utilise a range of different sites to maximise options to bring forward these new homes and associated infrastructure.
2.24 The temporal dimension of any strategy will also be an important consideration. The Local Plan should seek to ensure that homes can be provided across the plan period, including within the early years. Indeed, it is particularly important for the strategy to deliver homes in the early years of the plan period, given current housing needs against housing delivery.
2.25 For the Local Plan strategy to be sound, we consider that it will need to direct a significant proportion of housing growth to Rayleigh as the most sustainable settlement in the district.
2.26 We consider Option One to be far less likely to result in a sound Local Plan, or to deliver attractive sustainable development that would be welcome in the district, in comparison to the other Options. Option 1 (urban intensification) states this option entails making best possible use of [our] existing planned developments, previously developed land and other under-utilised land, such as vacant buildings and contaminated land; and notes that a strategy based on urban intensification could also include taking a more permissive approach to higher densities in suitable locations (such as town centres and near stations). The RLPSO claims this approach could deliver 4,200 dwellings over the next 10 years.
2.27 It is important to recognise that in order to be consider sound, the Local Plan is required to meet objectively assessed housing needs. The RLPSO reports that the minimum housing requirement for the District over a 20-year period is 7,200 dwellings.
2.28 If Option 1 were to deliver 4,200 dwellings, this would result a significant housing shortage in the District. This would result in significant negative social and economic
impacts – it would not deliver sustainable development.
2.29 Furthermore, we question whether urban intensification would deliver as many as 4,200 new homes unless densities were increased in a greater number of locations that simply the town centres. To achieve this would require an average of 420 dwellings per annum (dpa) to be sustained over a 10-year period. The Council’s Annual Monitoring Report
2019/20 reports that over the10-year period between April 2010 and March 2020, the District averaged delivery of 176.8 dpa.
2.30 The 1,768 dwellings delivered over this period included a significant number from allocations made through the Rochford Allocations Plan (2014), and did not merely comprise dwellings provided through the redevelopment of previously developed land / urban intensification.
2.31 It is also relevant to note that over the last 10 years, local and national policy has supported the redevelopment of suitable previously developed land for residential use. It is likely that much previously developed land that is suitable and viable for residential
development has already been redeveloped for housing.
2.32 It is also unclear whether a strategy of intensification could meet the range of different housing needs. The RLPSO appears to suggest that it would deliver a low proportion of affordable housing (only 800 out of a total of 4,200).
2.33 A further concern is whether urban intensification would result in the same level of infrastructure improvements and other community benefits that larger allocations are capable of delivering.
2.34 Finally in relation to Option 1, it is unclear what the spatial distribution of housing would be through this approach, and whether it would result in a sustainable pattern of growth.
2.35 Rather than relying on urban intensification, it is clear that if the Local Plan strategy is to be sound and is to deliver sustainable development, it will be necessary to release some Green Belt and allocate land for residential development.
2.36 The NPPF confirms (paragraph 140) that it is appropriate for Local Plans to make alterations to the Green Belt boundary, provided there are exceptional circumstances for doing so, and that these are justified and evidenced. It is considered that within Rochford, a case can readily be made that exceptional circumstances exist to justify the release of land from the Green Belt given the scale of the District’s objectively assessed
need, and the lack of potential alternatives to releasing Green Belt in order to sustainably meet those needs.
2.37 With Option 1 failing to deliver the growth required, we consider the other options to represent far more appropriate strategies for the Plan and provide a short commentary on these below.
2.38 Strategy Option 2 is to focus on urban extensions, Option 2a focuses such growth on the District’s main towns; and Option 2b dispersing to all settlements based on the settlement hierarchy.
2.39 Option 2a would identify sustainable sites at the edge of settlements, which would include Rayleigh, to deliver a range of housing developments. This provides flexibility to utilise smaller sites to deliver homes earlier, alongside larger sites to meet the overall housing need, as urban extensions. Option 2b disperses the growth in accordance with a settlement hierarchy. There is merit in both Options, but would advise that when factors such as accessibility, service availability and constraints are considered, the same sites may well be identified under either option. Further, a rigid application of a settlement
hierarchy can be problematic if suitable sites in more sustainable locations are omitted in favour of following the hierarchy. Finally, lower-tier settlements are often overlooked for any development opportunities through a hierarchy approach, again potentially omitting suitable sites.
2.40 Option 3 focuses growth on one of three locations (west of Rayleigh (3a); north of Southend (3b); and east of Rochford (3c)). We consider there is merit to strategic scale growth that can help deliver significant infrastructure improvements, however, this needs
to be complemented by the delivery of a range of different sites, including those that can deliver in the shorter term and do not require significant infrastructure improvements. It is also important to reflect that the District comprises a number of distinct settlements
with their own identities and communities, all of which the Local Plan should seek to support. We therefore caution against concentrating on a few strategic allocations to
meet housing need as this may not deliver consistently over the plan period and may result in an inflexible approach for the authority if any of those sites do not deliver as expected. We therefore recommend that growth in and around existing settlements should always form part of the Council’s strategy.
2.41 Strategy Option 4 entails a mix of the other options, and rightly recognises that the allocation of strategic growth sites and the allocation of urban extensions are not mutually exclusive. We consider this option to be the most appropriate for Rochfrod district and note that it scored positively in the Integrated Impact Assessment (IIA) in relation to its social, economic and environmental impacts. This option will allow current housing needs to be addressed in the short and medium term while enabling provision for strategic allocations. It will also allow for proportionate growth to be directed to the
District’s various communities through settlement extensions, including Rayleigh, whichwe consider should always form part of the distribution strategy to provide sustainable development.
2.42 A balanced approach provides opportunities to deliver housing close to existing communities, making use of existing sustainable locations whilst providing new homes for people in their local community.
2.43 The Bellway Strategic Site at Hambro Hill can form an important part of such a strategy, delivering around 250 homes in a highly sustainable location. The Site is unconstrained, is partly developed already with good access, and can start delivering homes early in the
Plan period and through into the medium term at a character that respects Rayleigh while transitioning to open space beyond.
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?
2.44 We caution against applying the same approach everywhere in the District as different areas within Rochford are very different to one another.
2.45 With over 300 listed buildings and 10 conservation areas in the District, clearly some areas have a historic nature that needs to be considered, whereas others will not.
2.46 Should the Council seek a District wide place-making charter, this will need to be relatively high level to ensure that it does not unduly restrict development and prevent it from being appropriate to its context, as recognised in Section 12 of the NPPF 2.47 Any place-making charter should be formulated through consultation with stakeholders, including developers, to ensure that it is realistic, achievable and does not result in development becoming unviable. Such a charter should be published as part of the Local Plan to ensure that all parties have an opportunity to comment and input.
Q16a. Do you consider the new design guides, codes or masterplans should be created alongside the new Local Plan?
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?
2.48 Given the pressing housing and affordability needs within the District, it is important that homes are delivered as soon as possible. This is particularly pertinent given that adoption of the Local Plan is not anticipated until late 2023 at the earliest. We primarily recommend that design guides, codes and Masterplans are not necessary in order to achieve good quality development, and the planning system is capable of ensuring good design is achieved without the need for additional layers of design work to be added to the process.
2.49 If the Council seek to deliver design guides or codes, these should be developed alongside the Local Plan with input from stakeholders to ensure that once the Plan is adopted development can commence without delay. There is otherwise the risk that the Council adopt a Plan but development is significantly delayed, to the detriment of residents in need of new homes.
Q17. With reference to the options listed above, or your own options, how do you feel we can best plan to meet our need for different types, sizes and tenures of
housing?
2.50 With areas within the District having different characteristics and development over the Plan period likely to be of varying scales, it is important for developments to be able to provide homes suitable for the site and location. A fixed housing mix across the district will not work, as different locations are suitable for different lifestyles. Option 2 provides flexibility, which is welcomed and this is the option we believe the Council should proceed with. It also recognises that different scales of development can be better placed to
provide greater flexibility of types of housing, such as self-build 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?
2.51 We consider the provision of additional parkland has the potential to have numerous ecological and social benefits. In particular, the Central Woodlands Arc Regional Parkland appears to have considerable potential to provide an alternative recreational
destination to internationally important habitats within the District, including Special Protection Areas.
2.52 From Figure 32 of the RLPSO, it appears that the proposed extent of the Central Woodlands Arc Regional Parkland, passes very close to – or even adjoins – the extent of existing settlements, including in Hullbridge. If such parkland is to be provided, it is considered that it should be located such that it can be sustainably accessed by existing and future residents. However, at the same time, it is important that the precise
boundaries of any such designation do not preclude highly sustainable sites for housing from consideration for residential allocation.
Q56a. Do you agree with our vision for Rayleigh? Is there anything you feel is missing?
2.53 We agree with the principles of the vision. We would caution against identifying a strict boundary for the settlement area, as the experience of the urban area does not have a clean cut off between (for example) Rayleigh and Hockley. Accordingly, we consider that Hambro Hill (105) is better aligned to Rayleigh than to Hockley and should be considered in that regard.
Q56b. With reference to Figure 44 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the promoted sites should be made available for any of the following uses?
How could that improve the completeness of Rayleigh?
2.54 Land at Hambro Hill, Site CFS105, is on the boundary of the area identified in figure 44.
The land should be included within the area of Rayleigh for the reasons above. That is, the site is most closely associated with Rayleigh and would be capable of providing a sustainable and attractive development on a despoiled site in the highest tier settlement
in the district. To associate the site with Hockley misses the spatial position of the site adjacent to the boundary with Rayleigh, with a considerable area of open space between the site and the urban edge of Hockley, extending to some 80ha. This appears to follow the political ward boundary but has little relationship to how the site is experienced and its relationship to Rayleigh. We strongly recommend that this is corrected.
2.55 The site should be used to provide housing alongside new public open space.
2.56 The site already benefits from access to existing infrastructure and would therefore
represent and effective and efficient use of land. The site is within walking distance of
all categories of school, GP surgery, open space, the Town Centre and the rail station, all of which are made even more accessible with the ready access to bus routes. 2.57 Accordingly, the site should be identified as part of Rayleigh and we consider it to be ideally located for residential development, as identified by the Council in the SHELAA. The only constraint on the site is its current Green Belt designation. The need to release
land in the Green Belt is covered elsewhere in these responses, alongside a comparative assessment of the harm of releasing this site from the Green Belt, which is considered to be superior to other more high performing green belt land, while on other criteria the site scores no worse that vast tracts of land in the district.
2.58 The Site represents a logical extension to Rayleigh that would provide a sustainable development of around 250 dwellings. The Site is well placed to deliver much needed homes for residents, whilst contributing towards local infrastructure, both directly from the development and in the long term from spending in the local economy by residents. With the exception of the Green Belt policy constraint, it is unconstrained and represents a logical ‘filling in’ of the existing development pattern.

3.0 Comments on Integrated Impact Assessment
Assessment Framework
3.1 At Table 1.1 of the Integrated Impact Assessment (IIA), the assessment framework is set out. This explains that the objectives of the population and communities theme are 1) to cater for existing and future residents’ needs as well as the needs of different groups in the community; and 2) maintain and enhance community and settlement identify.
3.2 In respective of objective 1, Table 1.1 explains that assessment questions relate to the following:
 Meet the identified objectively assessed housing needs, including affordable, for the plan area?
 Ensure an appropriate mix of dwelling sizes, types and tenures to meet the needs of all sectors of the community?
 Improve cross-boundary links between communities?
 Provide housing in sustainable locations that allow easy access to a range of local services and facilities?
 Promote the development of a range of high quality, accessible community facilities, including specialist services for disabled and older people?
3.3 We support the above decision-aiding question, but suggest that, in addition to meeting the District’s housing needs (including affordable housing), the Local Plan should seek to improve the affordability of housing for local residents.
3.4 The median house price in the District is 11.57 times the median gross annual workplacebased earnings (‘the affordability ratio’). The affordability of housing has worsened significantly in recent years – and to a much greater extent than the national average. In
2000, the affordability ratio for the District was 5.08 – only slightly worse than the national average of 4.13. By 2020, the national affordability ratio had increased to 7.69 –
significantly below the District’s 11.57

1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Rochford District Council is seeking feedback from interested parties on its identified ‘Options’ in the
New Local Plan: Spatial Options document.
1.2 Lee Evans Planning have been instructed to make representations on behalf of Ms Suzanne Redwood,
Mr Roger Lambourne and Mr Colin Humphries.
1.3 Section 2 sets out relevant extant Planning Policy considerations.
1.4 Section 3 reviews and comments on the Spatial Options document, including providing responses to
Questions outlined in the Consultation.

2. CURRENT POLICY POSITION
National Planning Policy Framework
2.1 The National Planning Policy Framework sets out the meaning and role of sustainable development and how planning can help to achieve it. At a very high level, the objective of sustainable development can be summarised as meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
2.2 A rising population and longer life expectancy requires growth and an increase in the volume and
choice of housing. The NPPF identifies the need to complement this growth with high standards of
design and to protect our built, natural and historic environments. The NPPF also highlights the
fundamental role that sustainable development plays in the plan-making and decision making process.
So that sustainable development is pursued in a positive way, at the heart of the Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development
2.3 The NPPF serves to provide a framework around which the community and the councils can produce
the local and neighbourhood plans, which reflect the needs and priorities of the community.
The National Planning Policy Framework must be taken into account in preparing the development plan, and is a material consideration in planning decisions.
2.5 Paragraph 8 of the NPPF reiterates the role of the planning system and the contribution it must make to realising sustainable development. Sustainable development has three dimensions to it; economic,
social and environmental.
• an economic objective – to help build a strong, responsive and competitive economy, by ensuring that sufficient land of the right types is available in the right places and at the right time to support growth, innovation and improved productivity; and by identifying and
coordinating the provision of infrastructure;
• a social objective – to support strong, vibrant and healthy communities, by ensuring that a sufficient number and range of homes can be provided to meet the needs of present and future generations; and by fostering well-designed, beautiful and safe places, with accessible services and open spaces that reflect current and future needs and support communities’ health, social and cultural well-being; and
• an environmental objective – to protect and enhance our natural, built and historic environment; including making effective use of land, improving biodiversity, using natural resources prudently, minimising waste and pollution, and mitigating and adapting to climate
change, including moving to a low carbon economy.
2.6 The NPPF considers in further detail the need to protect and improve the quality of the built, natural and historic environment. One aspect of this aim is to widen the choice of quality homes. This can be achieved through the plan-making process, as discussed in paragraph 11.
Plans and decisions should apply a presumption in favour of sustainable development. For plan-making this means that:
a) all plans should promote a sustainable pattern of development that seeks to: meet the development
needs of their area; align growth and infrastructure; improve the environment; mitigate climate change (including by making effective use of land in urban areas) and adapt to its effects;
b) strategic policies should, as a minimum, provide for objectively assessed needs for housing and other uses, as well as any needs that cannot be met within neighbouring areas, unless:
i. the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a strong reason for restricting the overall scale, type or distribution of development in the plan area; or
ii. any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when
assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole.
2.7 Paragraph 60 notes the need to boost the supply of homes through land allocation. To support the Government’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes, it is important that a sufficient amount and variety of land can come forward where it is needed, that the needs of groups with specific housing requirements are addressed and that land with permission is developed without unnecessary delay.
2.8 Paragraph 61 outlines the approach to determining housing need. The New Local Plan; Spatial Options
document is unclear on the degree to which the duty to cooperate has been explored with neighbouring areas, suggesting that at present the assumption should be made that all identified housing need must be delivered within the district.
To determine the minimum number of homes needed, strategic policies should be informed by a local housing need assessment, conducted using the standard method in national planning guidance – unless exceptional circumstances justify an alternative approach which also reflects current and future demographic trends and market signals. In addition to the local housing need figure, any needs that cannot be met within neighbouring areas should also be taken into account in establishing the amount of housing to be planned for.
2.9 Each year the local planning authority will identify their supply of specific deliverable sites to provide the next five years of housing with an additional 5% buffer. This will allow for both choice and competition in the market. Developable sites that can accommodate for years 6-10 of the plan period and beyond will also be identified.
2.10 A 10% buffer should be provided “where the local planning authority wishes to demonstrate a five year
supply of deliverable sites through an annual position statement or recently adopted plan, to account for any fluctuations in the market during that year”.
2.11 A 20% buffer should be provided “where there has been significant under delivery of housing over the
previous three years, to improve the prospect of achieving the planned supply”. The NPPG elaborates
by stating that “A 20% buffer will apply to a local planning authority’s five-year land supply if housing delivery falls below 85%”.
2.12 If a five year supply of deliverable housing cannot be demonstrated policies relating to the supply of housing should not be considered to be up-to-date. All housing applications should be considered on the basis of a presumption in favour of sustainable development as has been discussed above. The most recent Authority Monitoring Report (draft 2019-2020), suggests that there exists a district housing need of 1,800 homes over a five year period (equating to 360 homes per year) and that the Council could at that time illustrate a 6.32 year housing land supply at a 5% buffer level, and 5.53 year supply at the 20% buffer, albeit it is noted that this was only draft and requires updating for the 2020-2021 period. The current supply is unknown but the Spatial Options document notes that the need for 360 homes per
year over the course of the Plan (20 years), equating to 7,200 homes total, remains. This figure does not include for assisting other districts in the duty to cooperate or any 5/20% buffer, so could well be higher. Notwithstanding this, there is a clear need to increase the allocation of housing land in the new Local Plan to illustrate the potential for 7,200 homes to be delivered.
2.13 Paragraph 73 highlights the opportunity for larger scale development and the benefits of this approach
in achieving the necessary supply of housing. It is possible that new settlements or extensions to
existing settlements can provide a route to sustainable development.
The supply of large numbers of new homes can often be best achieved through planning for larger scale development, such as new settlements or significant extensions to existing villages and towns, provided they are well located and designed, and supported by the necessary infrastructure and facilities (including a genuine choice of transport modes).
2.14 Paragraph 23 notes that Local Plans should plan positively for development by allocating sites for
development and identify land where development would be inappropriate due to its environmental or historic significance.
Broad locations for development should be indicated on a key diagram, and landuse designations and allocations identified on a policies map. Strategic policies should provide a clear strategy for bringing sufficient land forward, and at a sufficient rate, to address objectively assessed needs over the plan period, in line with the presumption in favour of sustainable development. This should include planning or and allocating sufficient sites to deliver the strategic priorities of the area
2.15 Paragraph 138 of the NPPF refers to the purposes of the Green Belt;
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.
2.16 Local Plans will be examined by an independent inspector before they are adopted. To be considered
ready for adoption they will need to be shown to be ‘sound’, as per paragraph 35 of the NPPF;
Local plans and spatial development strategies are examined to assess whether they have been
prepared in accordance with legal and procedural requirements, and whether they are sound. Plans are
‘sound’ if they are:
a) Positively prepared – providing a strategy which, as a minimum, seeks to meet the area’s objectively assessed needs; and is informed by agreements with other authorities, so that unmet need from neighbouring areas is accommodated where it is practical to do so and is consistent with achieving sustainable development;
b) Justified – an appropriate strategy, taking into account the reasonable alternatives, and based on proportionate evidence;
c) Effective – deliverable over the plan period, and based on effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic matters that have been dealt with rather than deferred, as evidenced by the statement of common ground; and d) Consistent with national policy – enabling the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in this Framework and other statements of national planning policy, where relevant. Rochford District Core Strategy and the Allocations Plan
2.17 The key strategic documents in the local development plan are the adopted Core Strategy 2011 and the Allocations Plan 2014. These are both dated documents and would be considered out of date where
the content conflicts with NPPF policy. Nonetheless, they provide a useful basis against which to subsequently consider the options in the New Local Plan consultation.
2.18 The following exerts are of interest;
District
2.41 “Failure to provide affordable housing that meets the needs of the District’s residents may lead to
continued out-migration, to the detriment of the vitality of local communities.” (p31)
Rayleigh
“The largest settlement is Rayleigh which, in 2001, was home to 30,196 people (38% of the District’s
residents at that time).” (p28)
Housing Development
2.39 “As well as directing housing growth to areas of need/demand, and away from unsustainable
locations subject to constraints, the Council must consider the relationship of housing growth to areas
of employment growth.” (p30)
Vision – Medium/Long Term “A range of high-quality, sustainable new dwellings that meet the needs
of local people of all social groups are in place and integrated into communities. The vast majority of
the District’s Green Belt remains undeveloped. New infrastructure has accompanied new residential
development, meeting the need of local communities.” (p41)
Policy H1 – the efficient use of land for housing
“The remaining housing requirement that cannot be delivered through the redevelopment of appropriate previously developed land will be met through extensions to the residential envelopes of existing settlements as outlined in Policy H2.” (p45)
The Green Belt
Housing Objective “Prioritise the redevelopment of appropriate brownfield sites for housing, to minimise the release of Green Belt land for development” (p41).
“In order to fulfil the requirements of the East of England Plan and to meet the housing need of the District, the Council is required to allocate additional land for residential development, including land, which is currently allocated as Green Belt, due to the limited supply” (p45).
“it must be also mindful of the need to maintain Green Belt as far as possible.” (p46)
2.19 The extant Core Strategy outlines a strong protection of the Green Belt, as per national policy. However, this was predicated on an old housing need and supply, which is now out of line with current demand
and what can be achieved through existing permissions, allocations, brownfield sites and windfall forecasts. Rayleigh is considered a focal settlement and one that has both a sizeable population already and the infrastructure to service those residents.
2.20 Notwithstanding the above, the Council recognised the need to review the designation of the Green Belt in the face of the relatively low housing need at the time the Core Strategy was drafted. It states;
The Council will continue to support the principles of restricting development in the Green Belt, as set out in PPG2, and will preserve the character and openness of the Green Belt. However, a small proportion of the District’s Green Belt will have to have its designation reviewed to allow the development of additional housing and business premises, taking account of the very limited
opportunities to accommodate further development within existing settlements.
2.21 This position regarding housing need and lack of land supply (before moving onto Green Belt land), will
be felt more acutely during the drafting of this new Local Plan.

3. NEW LOCAL PLAN: SPATIAL OPTIONS QUESTIONS
3.1 It is noted that in its introductory section the Spatial Options document considers the need to “coordinate the delivery of much needed housing”. It also states that;

“Rochford should consider every opportunity to meet its own housing needs within its own authority
area, with a focus on genuinely affordable housing that meets genuinely local needs”
3.2 Given the extent of Green Belt in this part of South East Essex, it is considered likely that as in Rochford,
surrounding districts will find it difficult to deliver their full quota of required housing land supply within
existing settlements and on brownfield land, i.e. there will be a need to use Green Belt. To this end it is
submitted that they will be unable to offer assistance to Rochford in providing surplus land to accommodate housing delivery. We support the Spatial Options document in the above assertion.
3.3 This will necessitate a review of Green Belt designation to a greater extent than that previously carried out with the adopted Core Strategy. As noted above, Green Belt serves 5 purposes; “to check the
unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas, to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another, to
assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment, to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns and to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.” It is submitted that where these matters are less acutely felt, and in those areas of lesser
landscape quality, new housing land allocations could be proposed within the currently designated Green Belt, to assist with achieving the necessary housing land supply. The Core Strategy acknowledges this approach;
The term ‘Green Belt’ refers to a planning designation and is not necessarily a description of quality of
the land. Land designated as Green Belt can include, primarily for historical reasons, developed land and
brownfield sites. As such, whilst it is considered that all land currently designated as Green Belt helps achieve the five green belt purposes as set out in the NPPF to at least a degree, some green belt land is less worthy of continued protection.
3.4 This is acknowledged in the New Local Plan: Spatial Options document, which considers 4no. spatial
options for delivery of necessary development and infrastructure. All but Option 1 would necessitate
the use of Green Belt.
Question 5. Do you agree with the settlement hierarchy presented? If not, what changes do you think
are required?
3.6 We support the settlement hierarchy presented. This focuses development at the most appropriate
settlements in the order of their ability to support new development. Rayleigh benefits from a strong existing resident mass and thus has a viability for growth and expansion of businesses and communities. We would submit that the majority of new development, and residential site allocations, should be around Rayleigh.
Question 6. Which of the identified strategy options do you consider should be taken forward in the Plan?
3.7 We support Strategy Option 2 and in particular Option 2a. This option provides a balanced response to the housing need of 7,200 – 10,800 dwellings (delivering between 8,700 to 10,700 dwellings), the necessary mass to support a good level of new infrastructure and facilities, and the need to minimise as much as possible the release of Green Belt for development.
3.8 Option 1 would not deliver the required housing land necessary to respond to the identified housing
need over the course of the Plan, and as discussed, it is considered unlikely that other surrounding districts would be able to assist with additional land. Option 3 would necessitate a significant release of Green Belt and would have a significant impact on the character of the surrounding Green Belt due to the size of a new villages/towns. As with to Option 3, Option 4 would require a sizeable release of Green Belt and significant impact on surrounding land around any new villages/towns.
3.9 Figure 23 of the Spatial Options document provides a Sustainability Appraisal of the various Options and this illustrates the balance that Option 2 provides, albeit it is noted that Option 4 scores best.
However, due to its mix of strategies for the delivery of development we would note a concern that it would pose significant complexities in implementing. In order to achieve the development required the full mix of strategies would be required, and if one were to fail or be delayed (as is a real risk with new villages/towns), a shortfall in housing or employment space could result, putting the Council’s position at risk.
Question 56a. Do you agree with our vision for Rayleigh? Is there anything you feel is missing?
3.10 We support the vision for Rayleigh. It is and should remain the only Tier 1 settlement given its existing
population mass, infrastructure/facilities provision and ability to accommodate significant growth relative to other settlements. The growth and expansion of Rayleigh with urban extensions would generate a sizeable portion of the housing quota required to respond to the identified housing need. Through the development of the majority of those sites submitted for consideration around the edges of Rayleigh, this focal settlement could alleviate pressures on more rural settings and larger swathes of
Green Belt throughout the rest of the district.
Questions 56b, 56c, 56d and 56e.
3.11 It is submitted that land at Call for Sites references CFS044 and CFS256 would offer an opportunity to
contribute to identified housing need delivery in a Green Belt location that could maintain the five purposes of Green Belt and in a location that has reduced landscape quality but is also well screened from surrounding areas. The attached initial Scoping Landscape Statement and Transport Planning Technical Note support that proposal.
3.12 The Council have carried out an initial assessment of these sites, as below.

[SEE DOCUMENT FOR IMAGE]

3.13 Whilst the appraisals above highlight the impact upon Green Belt, as discussed it is submitted that most
virgin sites put forward will impact upon that designation. It is considered that a sequential assessment
of the districts Green Belt would be appropriate in this regard and could highlight those sites that would
have a lesser visual impact and still maintain the purposes of Green Belt as best possible. The above
sites are expected to respond positively in both regards. The accompanying Scoping Landscape Statement concludes thus;
The landscape is subdivided into paddocks and is not of the highest visual quality, but the structure is strong and there are valued elements within it. The site is well contained by woodland and hedgerows, which should be used to inform design work for any forthcoming development proposal. Development of the site would take place within the current Green Belt designation / boundary, but the impact of development upon the openness of the Green Belt would be limited, due to the site's location adjacent to the existing urban area, its location within an enclave of landscape defined by the urban area and the A127, and the fact that the site's character is already enclosed, offering few publicly
accessible viewpoints.
Development of the site would not bring about coalescence of settlement, due to the strong landscape
barrier represented by the A127 itself, and the extensive Pound Wood Nature Reserve to the south of it,
separating the site from Daws Heath. Should the site be brought forward for development, design work should be informed by a full understanding of local landscape and visual character. The enclosed and compartmentalised character of the site should be retained and used as a constraint for design.
3.14 The Sustainability Appraisal also scores the sites low on ‘Existing site access’. However, the
accompanying Transport Planning Technical Note identifies 3no. possible accesses to the site, two of
which would be new accesses. It comments thus;
A number of options have been identified as having good potential for providing vehicle access to the site to unlock its development potential and deliver between 200 and 300 residential dwellings as part of the new Rochford Local Plan.
Providing a sustainable transport link from the site to the north is considered important to unlock the full sustainable development potential of the site as there are a number of local facilities and services on this section of A1015 Eastwood Road including bus stops.
3.15 It is submitted that in other key criteria the sites score well in the Sustainability Appraisal and in
combination would provide a high scoring option as a residential/housing allocation (including market
and affordable).
3.16 It is submitted that generally the area of these sites is well suited to accommodating a moderate
amount of new development. It is well enclosed by existing built form with the edge of Rayleigh to the
immediate north and the A127 to the immediate south. As such it would not lead to an interruption of
open land and countryside to the detriment of the landscape and quality of Green Belt. Furthermore,
this area scores well in terms of its Walking Completeness Score, in particular the two sites identified,
which are adjacent to land scoring of 8-10.
3.17 In combination with other similarly sized sites in this location to the south east of Rayleigh, a good level
of housing land supply could be achieved across numerous parcels (each able to provide in the region
100 to 400 dwellings). This would not necessitate significant new infrastructure but rather upgrades to
existing. Furthermore, the delivery of this volume of dwellings across several parcels would allow for
the retention of important green spaces and structural planting in between, which could serve to
maintain the green character of this urban/rural fringe and complement the Green Belt beyond.
3.18 We Support the allocation of Open Space and Local Wildlife Sites to the east of Rayleigh. It is
submitted that development on or adjacent to these protected sites could negatively impact upon
them, through increased light/air/noise pollution and walker/visitors (in the case of the wildlife sites).
There is an added logic in retaining these sites as open space and wildlife sites (for their intrinsic value)
as they could double as Green Belt.

SPATIAL OPTIONS CONSULTATION - NEW LOCAL PLAN
REF: CFS027, CFS098, CFS086, CFS029, CFS053
AND OTHER PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SITES AROUND RAYLEIGH

Looking at the proposed development sites for Rayleigh, it is not difficult to conclude that we are quickly becoming engulfed as a borough within Greater London where Rayleigh’s identity will be erased. Rayleigh is a ‘Market Town’ and has an immense amount of history to preserve and protect.

Sunderland is one such place where surrounding villages have lost their identity with village backing onto village without any green space to separate identities. I have experienced the effect of suffocation this creates, which definitely has an effect on one’s mental health. Rayleigh and Hullbridge are within metres of realising this scenario!

The impact that the proposed plan will have on the area is immense – trying to cross Rayleigh by car from the Rayleigh/Hockley boundary to The Weir takes at least half an hour on a good day, where a journey to Duxford only takes an hour! The amount of traffic on our roads has increased twofold bringing with it an increase in pollution, which has already been reported as dangerously high at times in Rayleigh Town. Our health is at risk. Even trying to sit in your garden these days brings with it a ‘hum’ of constant traffic along the Hockley Road and trying to cross the Hockley Road on foot is like taking a risk with your life.

The effect that building to this scale will have on the A13 and A127 is incomprehensible. The A127 from 3pm onwards is already just a car park and the added traffic on the A13, although improvements are being made for Tilbury Docks traffic, will undoubtedly resemble the A127, especially with an unprecedented building plan around Linford and the proposed building of a New Thames Tunnel crossing. We are at crisis point without adding to this crisis.

Where is all the added traffic to go? We have no added infrastructure at all in Rayleigh. The most recent development in progress along Rawreth Lane was promised to include a new school and doctor’s surgery, but, yet again, developers appear to have pulled back on this promise and the Council fails to make sure such facilities are put in place. How are we, the public, to believe that these further proposed developments will cater for an increase in such essential needs? Without them our schools, doctors, and hospital (already at breaking point) will no longer be able to provide a decent level of service, if any. No wonder house sales have increased in the area with residents moving out.

The public’s mental health is seriously under attack. During Covid lockdowns it was literally a breath of fresh air to be able to walk in open spaces, especially where proposed sites between Wellington Road and Bull Lane are concerned, taking in the land behind Nelson Road, Albert Road and off the top of Bull Lane. As a community we need our open spaces for our sanity and to thrive. Nelson Road is already fast becoming a rat run and, as mention before, Hockley Road is becoming chocked with traffic. A new development on these sites will be extremely detrimental with a threat of losing Hockley Woods (another historic area connected to Henry VIII) to further development.

Rayleigh is a dumping ground for large estates of houses with even our children not being able to afford to live in the area. ‘Affordable homes’ are ‘not affordable’. It doesn’t help with people from the London area moving out of London to the suburbs adding to house price increases. My three children have had to leave the district, my youngest only being able to afford property from Manchester northwards! This also affects family dynamics, not only with children having to move to the other side of the country, but having to live at home into their thirties. Instead of all the massive executive homes being built, what is wrong with terraced houses to help our young buy at truly affordable prices and get on the housing ladder? It should also allow more land to be used more economically providing a greater number of homes. I’m not saying halt building entirely, but small pockets of building will be more acceptable than these such vast proposals.

Even if ‘locals’ wanted to buy, it appears London councils are buying up property in the area because it is cheaper than housing their residents in London, i.e. Hall Road development. What a blot on the landscape Hall Road is with houses packed in like slum buildings of old (on top of each other) and the height of properties being so overbearing. It appears this is what Rayleigh is to expect too by looking at the Rawreth Lane development and all that may follow.

There are very little facilities for the adolescent members of our community to engage in enjoyment, even when my children were young there was a huge lack of something for them to do and nothing appears to be available with the Council wanting to demolish the only community hall we have at Bellingham Lane. As a result of losing community spaces no doubt Rayleigh will be looking at an increase in crime (adding to a presently overstretched police force) and the influx of residents from London boroughs may well add to an increase in the already budding gang culture in the South East. These points have to be considered.

I strongly oppose to demolishing Rayleigh Mill Community Hall. To engulf the area in flats is unthinkable what with taking away visible access to The Mount and surrounding it in yet more concrete. Regal House will be so close to the proposed flats and reducing car parking spaces is also unbelievable. It isn’t easy to park in Rayleigh at the best of times and there is no park and ride scheme. I am aghast at a new community hall plan being so small, especially with the amount of increased housing that is being proposed in Rayleigh. It will no way be ‘fit for purpose’. As a resident, my family and I have/ utilise The Mill Hall on many occasions. Our community ‘needs’ this coming together space.

Surely sacrificing an area of green belt away from existing towns to provide a ‘New Town/Garden Village’ would be a better proposition to ease the impact that such a New Local Plan for the Rochford District would create. Fossetts Way requires serious consideration to ease the burden on Rayleigh.

Rayleigh is being suffocated and living within it is becoming suffocating too – it will no longer be the town it was. We have too much development already and to build at this level will kill Rayleigh’s energy and spirit.

For the above reasons, I am opposing such large schemes of development in and immediately surrounding Rayleigh.

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]

Consultation Process -The volume of information contained in the consultation was difficult to access and view online. Some links did not work properly. RDC are not reaching residents who have no internet.
Spatial option 3b North of Southend is most feasible site.
Spatial Themes not included - Cultural and Accessibility.
Employment – District is lacking in Environmental services - woodland conservation and management.
Improve Long-term Economic growth - Better road networks, gigabit broadband and Wi-Fi. Apprenticeships or training for all ages with jobs at the end of training. The council should stop developing existing commercial land into housing.
Local generation of low-carbon and renewable energy - New developments should be able to source some or all of their energy from renewable sources. Solar in all new development as standard. Incentives to encourage existing developments to install solar onto their properties as well as any commercial buildings to be fitted with solar to their roofs; there are many flat roofed buildings all over the district that could accommodate solar panels without damaging the landscape. Explore tidal energy and seek out suitable locations in order to ascertain whether it is viable. Retrofitting existing housing and commercial buildings.
Settlement Hierarchy: Rayleigh is the largest town in the district, but care needs to be taken to maintain the integrity of the existing settlements with respect to green boundary between Rayleigh and its neighbours.
Planned Forms of Housing: Mix of housing for “affordable“ properties with higher standards for gardens and recreational space. Consideration should be given to the provision of 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.
Enforcement on unauthorised development is not adequately managed.
Infrastructure - The Council cannot comment on the suitability of sites in the plan without completion of Infrastructure Delivery & Funding Plan, Level 2 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment and Local Cycling & Walking Infrastructure Plan.
This is a continuing concern to residents due to the volume of recent and proposed development causing additional pressure on roads, education, social services, health facilities and local employment opportunities all of which gives a sustainable balance for our communities. The Infrastructure Funding Statement states all financial and non-financial developer contributions relating to Section 106 conditions should be completed but this is not the case when larger sites are split up. If developers do not honour the conditions the money reverts to ECC and RDC who should use this to improve our existing facilities, especially on our roads and cycle paths which are in a pitiful state of repair and will only worsen with further development if funding is not used where it was intended.

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

Rayleigh like other towns that have suffered from overdevelopment in recent decades and should be protect from large scale private development during the forthcoming Plan Period. Only development or local needs should be permitted. Local facilities like Mill Hall would be saved and car parking retained and made cheaper to assist local town centre business to survive what will be a challenging period. Secondary shopping facilities in Rayleigh would be supported and encouraged with public finance where required. Sites within the existing Rayleigh Conversation Area should not be considered.
Public transport would be supported and encouragement, especially when given for children to reach school without parents’ vehicles. Renovation and refurbishment of historic buildings with modern green energy would be promoted over demolition and intensification. Public services would be encouraged to return/expand to Rayleigh, in existing buildings like Civic Suite, Police Station and Library etc. The town centre should be the heart of our community not just something you drive through to reach somewhere else. This could be our vision and our aim for the future.
Proposed sites within Rayleigh and on the Western side should not be considered for development. Only an infrastructure plan would provide evidence that the chosen sites are sustainable in the long term, and greenbelt and environmental policies should be adhered to in relation to open spaces on the edge or within the town.
Rayleigh is 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.
Good public transport links are crucial for our villages, neighbourhoods and town centres. The council needs to follow the rule “No development before infrastructure”. Houses are being built without adequate road, pedestrian, and cycle networks in place. New developments should be planned with cycle paths and walkways that link up with existing paths. Designated cycling paths that are separated from existing roads and pavements, but adjacent to our road networks would help improve traffic flow. Ensure the cycle network links with public transport as part of a complete review of sustainable transport.
Ensuring that public rights of way are not blocked by landowners and are kept free from debris. Assess paths to make them accessible to the disabled so that all is inclusive. There are some green areas that do not have public facilities and it would be advantageous to look at offering this in the larger spaces. For example, a small toilet block and hand washing facilities in a car park.
Open Spaces - The value of our open spaces and the issues with climate change has become a priority. People will continue to reduce travel and split time working from home. Our open spaces are essential for wellbeing, exercise and relaxation. We are on an overpopulated peninsular surrounded by water with one way in and one way out and there is a proven risk of flooding. Open space is at a premium. All green spaces, no matter how small, hold some significance, especially to those who use them for recreation. They are of particular community value and should not be developed. It is reasonable for RDC to encourage the development of a garden village away from existing communities to accommodate the Governments home building targets.
All Conservation areas, green belt and sites subject to the exclusion criteria (i.e. Sites of Special Scientific Interest) on the call for sites must be protected from Development.
Local Wildlife Sites review: RDC policies for protecting wildlife areas need to be updated. Designating initial sites is a step in the right direction but more must be done. It is proven that mental health issues can be relieved by nature and keeping the sites sacred is more important now than it ever was. Keeping a biodiverse environment, with wildlife and the environment in which it relies is paramount. The plan should create new wildlife meadows to encourage the pollinators to future proof our own existence.
Promoted Sites - Reasons against Development
CFS105 (Land North of Hambro Hill) would negatively impact the openness of the Green Belt between Rayleigh & Hockley. Rochford Green belt study states this parcel of greenbelt has a ‘Moderate’ rating for Purpose 1, and a ‘Strong’ rating for 2 & 3. It checks the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas, prevents Rayleigh & Hockley merging into one another, and assists in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RDC must approve nomination for the Mill Hall to be classed as an Asset of Community Value.
The Mill Hall showcases local Artworks within its Foyer, and has a permanent mosaic completed by children of our schools. From the first step within the building, visitors can immediately feel the sense of culture and creativity. A large noticeboard of all events, shows and clubs available is straight ahead, plus the ‘tourist board’ style information desks is immediately welcoming and accessible for all.
The Mill Hall is popular with residents and visitors to Rayleigh, with a coffee shop and facilities to use after a visit to the many Heritage sites within the Town Centre. This includes the Windmill (open for weddings & tours), Rayleigh Mount, The Dutch Cottage, Rayleigh Museum, and King George’s park when Fair arrives in Town.
The Mill Hall has the performance provision for staging Theatre, Musical Concerts, Comedy shows, Live Bands etc. The venues’ size is ideal for large scale events in the main hall including Professional Wrestling, Dances, Boxing, Children’s exercise classes (Jumping Beans). Upstairs, the smaller hall has capacity and versatility to cover social events including art exhibitions, Exercise Classes, craft fairs. The Mill Hall is frequently used for wedding receptions, birthday parties, funeral wakes, Charity social nights (including Rayleigh British Legion) and local school Proms.
It is utilised as a social meeting place by a significant number of community organisations, groups, clubs, and exercise classes. They make regular use of the Mill Hall throughout the day, as well as evenings and weekends. Consequences of the decision by the Council to keep the Mill Hall closed, some organisations have dis-banded and others have become less well supported.
The Mill Hall helps to put the town on the map as a tourist destination, improving the local economy and supporting other businesses including the many restaurants & pubs in the area prior or after an Event.
Rayleigh’s position within the District - and its proximity/travel links to Southend-on-Sea and Chelmsford - mean it is well placed to attract tourists and visitors who want to visit, eat out and then enjoy an event/show at the Mill Hall, without a long train journey home. The free parking after 1pm on Saturdays already brings in visitors to Rayleigh for shopping, so this would be ideal for evening shows/events at the Mill Hall.
The Mill Hall has excellent potential once renovated & refurbished. More focus/marketing placed on its Theatre staging ability. It could be a magnet for touring theatre groups and become part of the East of England theatre circuit, much like Chelmsford & Norwich.
Objections have been raised throughout the Asset Strategy Delivery Program by non-Administration District Councillors and residents with Rochford District Council over plans to demolish the Mill Hall and redevelop the site with housing. More than 4,000 people from the District have signed a petition opposing the demolition of the Mill Hall and building housing in the Rayleigh Conservation Area.
The Theatre’s Trust - the national advisory body for theatres and a statutory consultee within the planning system, has written to RDC in support of maintaining the Mill Hall performance venue.
Sustainable development as defined through the NPPF (2019) includes a social objective to support social and cultural wellbeing. Paragraph 92 seeks planning decisions to plan positively for facilities and to guard against unnecessary loss.
We do not consider there to be sufficient justification demonstrating the existing Mill venue and the live events it hosts are no longer required.

We would also suggest the economic impact on the town should be considered in terms of loss of audience spend in other businesses when attending shows and events. There will be significant harm to social and cultural wellbeing through the loss of existing events held at the Mill Hall.
Local Authorities are the biggest funder of arts and culture in England. They support cultural activity in their areas in order to provide their residents with a better quality of life, to promote tourism, stimulate the local economy, and build their area’s reputation – creating a unique sense of place. The Partnership Panel meeting earlier this year requested Officers research funding for the Mill Hall via Arts Council. Has this been completed and what opportunities are there to support this fantastic venue?

Ref Spatial Options Paper
Rochford District Local Plan response / comments
Question numbers followed by comment
Q1 I believe that RDC should conduct a study to check the validity of the government’s target of 7,200 to 10,800 homes with the Rochford District. The study should check whether facilities and infrastructure have kept pace with development over the last 5 decades (not whether the infrastructure can be stretched further to cope but has it increased in line with development in the past).
Q1 RDC must take a proactive role in studying traffic increase when developing the Local Plan, not simply rely on Essex County Council advice.
If the government’s requirement, which could easily increase the District’s population by 30%, were found to be at odds with the infrastructural and facility capacities of the district then RDC should vigorously challenge government targets and seek a reduced more appropriate level of development during the plan period.
Q1 RDC should study opportunities to impose solar panels and other environmental features on all new developments. Recent and current development show no sign of adopting such measures therefore we cannot rely of a voluntary code. This must become an RDC Planning Policy with conditions imposed on all new approved applications. If support from central government required then they should be approached as a matter of some urgency.
Q1 RDC should conduct an air quality study throughout the district, not just at a very limited selected locations (all main roads and junctions in particular).
Q2 Draft Vision is far too optimistic and does not address the realities of current situation and challenges of the future.
Our vision should include respect for residents views – especially when consulted (which should be frequent).
Our Vision should include more infrastructure and facilities for existing communities which have already grown to a capacity population eg Rayleigh during recent waves of development. This infrastructure must be in place before new development is permitted
Rochford District vision should aim maintain green boundaries of individual communities - no merging of towns and villages at the boundary.
Our vision should include a desire for no further substantial boundary developments in and around Rayleigh and Rawreth, no more urban extension. The logic is that the old main roads (B roads etc.), that support the town are overburdened and cannot cope with additional traffic.
Our vision for the Plan period should be that if additional development is proved to be necessary within the Local Plan, then it should be sited in a separate ‘Garden Village’ development away from existing communities (separate from towns, villages and hamlets), with new infrastructure and roads connecting to existing main roads such as Eastern Avenue with its nearby facilities and retail opportunities.

Q5 Rayleigh is the biggest town in population and is currently undergoing yet another round of significant additional residential development in the form of urban expansion. It is therefore of deep concern that public facilities such as Mill Hall and Council Chamber are proposed to be removed from Rayleigh. It is suggested that the Council Debating Chamber be relocated to a town lower down in the hierarchy list. This is against overwhelming public opposition expressed in the Public Consultation (Engagement). Therefore the Local Plan review should consider whether hierarchy refers to population the Council serves or some other measurement which dictates where public facilities should go.

Q6 in view of public concern in most of the communities in the district, a new Garden Village Development in the east of the district, away from existing communities, should become policy, even if it regrettably it encroaches on greenbelt/agricultural land (most development will be on agricultural land anyway unless sufficient existing brownfield sites can be identified. Sites within the District that should be considered for a Garden Village new settlement are CFS155, CFS260Z, CFS260AE, CFS260AE, CFS260H, CFS260AK, CFS071, CFS071, CFS260G.
Urban extension of our existing communities is no longer acceptable in the RDC area.
Q10 Answer is NO, I do not agree. We are obliged to consider all areas if we are forced to accept new development by government. No such policy should be approved.
Q11, Q12 + Q13 RDC should demand solar panels and other environmental additions for all new housing schemes and industrial and commercial developments. The large ‘sheds’ in industrial / commercial areas would be excellent location for solar energy collection. However RDC need to do something positive about it and uphold robust planning policy on the subject not merely refer to it in the minor text of reports.
Where solar farms and wind farms are approved on agricultural land. The developers must be legally obliged to re-instate as agricultural land when their solar or wind farm etc. use is withdrawn / removed / not commenced. It should be a policy of RDC to demand legal guarantees regarding the same.
Q16 in particular item b, design guidelines should be just that – guidelines. It is not appropriate to have neo Georgian or pastiche Victorian dormers imposed on a 1960’s or mid 20th century properties. 50,60 and 70 year old property will be the heritage properties of the near future. Although not a strict rule this also applies to our town centres, shops and conservation areas.

Q18 modest starter homes for local people required, including some social housing. This is contrary to developer’s normal practice of building high value / high profit homes. RDC should challenge national government about this if they have a problem with adopting this as policy.
RDC should avoid flats especially in our crowded town centres and should generally stop all residential development in town centres, in particular Rayleigh Conservation Area, other than already accepted policy of change of use for rooms above shops as per current Local Plan.
Q20 it is important to have a well regulated Travellers Site approved, away from our communities, in order to avoid uncontrollable development of other land (as seen in recent times).
Q21 previously identified site close to A1245 / A127 junction (west side)
Q22 Travellers sites should be well regulated with clear unbreachable green boundaries.
Q23 Town centre and commercial land should not be used for housing.
Q25 the recent move to home working from former city based office working in London etc, should be carefully considered when predicting future work patterns. The change will inevitably lead to new commercial opportunities within the district that will require flexibility and commercial opportunities in our town centres and industrial estates. These sites should not be used for housing.
Q29 open/agricultural land on the edge towns and villages is very important to conserve. However the strict protection of remote agricultural land at the expense of open land close to our communities should be opposed. We have for too long sacrificed our communities on the altar of green belt protection in remote areas.
Q30 a few special sites should be protected (SSI’s etc), but the current boundaries of our towns must also be protected. They too preserve wildlife and precious environmental assets. Town and village boundary green spaces give opportunities for our population to enjoy recreation without resorting to driving to distant green locations.
Q34 A Garden Village in the east of the district away from existing communities is the best option for any essential future development. Reasoning: we have already had too much urban extension, time to do something different for future decades of growth.
Q35 & Q36 new Garden Village with new infrastructure paid for by developer.
Q37 There is very little additional capacity Rayleigh in particular, also in all other towns and villages generally in the RDC area. The burden of traffic on centuries old roads causes delay and further air pollution problems. Leaving Rayleigh at many busy times can often take as much time as a 20 mile journey after leaving the town.
Q44 It is vital that Rayleigh’s existing Conservation area be protected from housing development, views of the listed Windmill and Mount must be protected. The Civic Suite our link with local democracy with it’s historic Council Chamber should preserved and used. It is the top town in the hierarchy as stated in the draft Local Plan, with the biggest population. Therefore it is illogical to remove these facilities from the town. The beautiful gardens to the rear of Barringtons / Civic Suite – a significant part of the Rayleigh Conservation Area – should be protected.
Rayleigh’s Conservation Area should also be extended to the south as far as Rayleigh Weir under the Local Plan review. Although there are a small number of less attractive shops and restaurants close to the Police Station (buildings of their time), which could be designated an improvement area, this quickly changes to grand historic buildings of significance; the Library, Salvation Army chapel, Love Lane School, the old Post Office, former Elephant and Castle pub on the corner of Castle Road, the Baptist Chapel from the late 18th century, the Paul Pry which is not listed, the grand Rayleigh House and cottages opposite (none listed), right down to the Beautiful Weir Farm. It is not just the buildings that make a conservation area, fine trees and vegetation, in abundance at these locations, also make an important contribution in this area. . We should value High Road - the entry into Rayleigh – to a much greater extent. It should be incorporated into an enlarged Rayleigh Conservation Area. There has been survey evidence of resident approval of an extension to the Conservation Area (I can provide details if required).

Q45 Additional buildings local list buildings in Rayleigh Mill Hall, Civic Suite with Council Chamber, Rayleigh Library,( Paul Pry pub, Rayleigh House and old Post Office if not already on the List). The principle of adding to the list is a good one and should be considered during the Local Plan process with public input.
Q46 keep all parking spaces, make them easily accessible and affordable, maintain town centre facilities and shops. Do not allow residential development in Rayleigh Conservation Area which will lead to downgrading of shopping facilities and the loss of community assets like Mill Hall and Civic Suite.
Q47 the natural hierarchy of Rayleigh is threatened by proposed housing development of COL07 and COL20.
Q50 we must protect Rayleigh with it’s vibrant town centre with shopping and other facilities. The biggest threat to Rayleigh Town Centre and Conservation Area is the District Council’s own plan to demolish and promote residential development on sites COL07 AND COL20. RDC has a vested interest in these development sites. This must not sway their impartial creation of a Local Plan.
Q51 RDC must retain all its Rayleigh town centre car parking.The Rayleigh car parks are unusually attractive and do not receive adequate recognition of their contribution to the town’s Conservation Area, views of historic buildings, parks and gardens. They add significantly to the the town centre vitality. Building on any part of them should be forbidden.
Q53 safe cycle routes requires more attention and support in the new RDC Local Plan.

Q56 Vision statement ignores major traffic problems in Rayleigh. I would challenge the optimistic words about walking distances. Rayleigh has grown to such an extent that walking to the town centre is impractical for many of the new developments. There must be no further urban extension developments in / around Rayleigh / Rawreth.
All potential development areas around Rayleigh and Rawreth should be excluded from development sites in the new Local Plan. This is important in view of the enormous amount of urban expansion during past decades and lack of infrastructure and facilities. I strongly object to site COL07 (Mill Hall, car park and green) and also site COL20 Civic Suite with landscaped gardens to the rear being included in the Local Plan as future residential development sites.

Under Section 71 of the Planning (listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and other legislation Rochford District Council has a duty to preserve and enhance the Rayleigh Conservation Area. Both sites are surrounded by listed buildings and a Scheduled Ancient Monument in the case of Mill Hall, neither should not be developed for housing. The setting of the listed buildings are also greatly enhanced by the gardens and the landscaped car parks which make a significant contribution to the conservation area, these would be lost if developed for residential use.

Under S.39 Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and other legislation and guidance, Rochford has a duty to contribute towards achieving sustainable development.
It is widely acknowledged that the greenest building is the one already there. The carbon footprint of demolishing existing buildings on these sites will significantly increase the carbon footprint of the whole district. In is important therefore to invest in the present buildings and make them more sustainable (Mill Hall would appear to offer significant opportunities.).

Under S.40 of the Natural Environment & Rural Communities Act 2006, the local planning authority has a duty, when exercising its functions, to conserve biodiversity. The green areas and trees on both sites greatly contribute to the biodiversity of the area. In particular in this conservation area, which is not only valued for its buildings but for the mature trees and open space owned by the public. The loss of this biodiversity would be unacceptable if these sites were changed to residential use in the next local plan.

The contribution of car parking to the vitality of the town centre is significant and loss of public car parking within COL07 and COL20 would be detrimental to the Rayleigh Town Centre.

The above are borne out by Rochford Council's own plans and policy documents

Q63 Greater Rawreth has also sustained huge amount of development and has significant flood issues. Rawreth has no facilities. No further development should be permitted in in the Rawreth parish area.

Q65 C. Sutton and Stonebridge. I would not support additional development as extensions of these existing communities. However, the Sutton Parish does hold potential for a Garden Village site which could join onto main access roads and facilities nearby. Included in this is the opportunity of access to nearby retail and other facilities in Southend.
Sites within Sutton Parish that should be considered are CFS155, CFS260Z, CFS260AE, CFS260AE, CFS260H, CFS260AK, CFS071,CFS071, CFS260G.

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

1.0 Summary
1.1 These representations have been prepared on behalf of Crest Nicholson in support of Land at Lubards Lodge Farm, Rayleigh (hereafter referred to as the “Site”) for consideration in the Rochford District Council (“RDC”) Spatial Options Local Plan (“the emerging Plan”) consultation of September 2021. Appendix 1 contains a Site Location Plan which shows the extent of the
boundaries of the Site.
1.2 The site comprises approximately 42.4 hectares of greenfield land with the potential to deliver a proportion of Rochford District Council’s local housing need. The Vision Statement in Appendix 2 of these representations contains an indicative masterplan layout which has been led by an assessment of the constraints and opportunities.
1.3 Green Belt release is recognised as necessary within the emerging Plan, where it is acknowledged that there is an insufficient supply of brownfield sites within the District to meet the full identified housing need. As an unencumbered greenfield, Green Belt site, Lubards Lodge Farm represents a sustainable and logical extension of Rayleigh and an excellent opportunity for residential development in the most sustainable settlement in the district according to the Council’s proposed settlement hierarchy.
1.4 Crest Nicholson is an award-winning national housebuilder with the means, experience and proven
track record to deliver sustainable development in partnership with RDC, so the residential
development of the Site would be ensured if it is allocated in the emerging Local Plan.
1.5 We support the identification of Rayleigh as the single Tier 1 settlement at the top of the proposed
hierarchy.
1.6 We note that the Council correctly identifies that the minimum number of homes it should be planning for over a 20-year period is the 7,200 homes arrived at using the standard method. This is the minimum number of homes that needs to be planned for and it is clear that neighbouring Southend Borough Council will need support from Rochford District Council to deliver its housing need.
1.7 We support Spatial Options 2 and 4 insofar as they are relevant to the growth of Rayleigh and development of suitable available deliverable sites in sustainable locations that would enhance the completeness of Rayleigh, such as the Land at Lubards Lodge Farm.
1.8 We consider that Lubards Lodge Farm should be allocated for housing, with supporting community
infrastructure. The accompanying Vision Statement confirms that there are no overriding technical constraints to development, specifically in respect of landscape, highways, drainage, ecology and utilities. The Vision Statement demonstrates how a masterplan could deliver a balanced new community in the region of 500 new homes in this sustainable location, together with a new home for Rayleigh Boys and Girls FC, a new Country Park, integrated water management systems and
enhanced pedestrian and cycle links to the existing surrounding area.
1.9 We look forward to working with RDC, relevant stakeholders and the local community to help deliver our vision for Land at Lubards Lodge Farm.

2.0 Responses to the Spatial Options Questionnaire
Hierarchy of Settlements
Question 5 – Do you agree with the Settlement Hierarchy presented?
If not, what changes do you think are required?
1.1 Yes, we agree with the Settlement Hierarchy. It suitably recognises the availability of services and connections within each of the settlements and appropriately categorises them into tiers based on how the towns and villages perform in relation to both sustainability and employment.
1.2 Rayleigh is identified as the Tier 1 settlement and we consider this is entirely appropriate in light of its significantly larger population than any other settlement in the district, and that it contains by far the widest range of local and regional services. It would therefore be appropriate for a large proportion of the District’s growth to be directed to Rayleigh.

Spatial Strategy Options
Question 6 – Which of the identified strategy options do you consider should be taken forward in the Plan?
2.1 As a general comment, we note that the Council correctly identifies that the minimum number of homes it should be planning for over a 20-year period is the 7,200 homes arrived at using the
standard method. However, this is the minimum number of homes that needs to be planned for and the Council will need to carefully consider whether a higher housing requirement isnecessary to support economic growth, infrastructure improvements or address the needs arising
from neighbouring authorities.
2.2 In particular it will be important for the Council to work closely with Southend Borough Council (SBC) which has a minimum housing requirement of 1,180 new homes per annum using the standard method. As the Council will be aware, SBC set out in its latest consultation that even with Green Belt release, it is only able to deliver around 20,000 new homes to meet its total
requirement over the plan period of 23,620 homes. It is clear that SBC will need support from Rochford and other neighbouring boroughs to meet its housing needs in full. Rochford District Council should therefore plan for a level of housing growth that meets both their own needs as
well as the unmet needs of SBC.
Strategy Option 1 – Urban Intensification – we do not support this option.
2.3 In light of our comments above, this option must be ruled out as it fails to meet the needs of Rochford district, let alone neighbouring areas.
2.4 This option alone would not provide the necessary quantum of land to meet the identified housing need. This strategy requires the least use of greenfield land and, by definition, would involve no further release of land from the Metropolitan Green Belt. We recognise that focusing purely on brownfield and under-utilised land provides opportunities for infill development, however this does not allow for the necessary larger scale development options, would fail to deliver new
infrastructure, and is not a sufficient option to provide the unit numbers and infrastructure Rochford requires.
Strategy Option 2 - Urban Extensions – we support option 2 insofar as it is relevant to the larger scale urban extensions proposed in Rayleigh.
2.5 Option two is split into two sections. Section 2a focuses urban extensions in main towns. Option 2b looks to deliver a hybrid approach whereby the larger urban extensions would be focused on the main towns including Rayleigh, whilst some of the residual urban extension growth would be dispersed to other lower order settlements based on the hierarchy.
2.6 Option 2 provides significantly better opportunities to deliver the housing and infrastructure targets than Option 1. Option 2a ensures development is focused in sustainable locations where transport connections are established and sustainable to support the development, including Rayleigh. New urban extensions focussed on the main towns in Option 2a gives the opportunity to provide additional services and facilities and provide improvements to existing infrastructure to support the new development in addition to the existing communities.
2.7 Insofar as this option is relevant to Rayleigh, we support the proposals in Option 2a to direct growth to suitable deliverable sites in and on the edge of Rayleigh.
2.8 Insofar as it is relevant to Lubards Lodge Farm, we would be supportive of Option 2b provided that large scale growth is not directed towards the lower order settlements at the expense of the most sustainable and deliverable sites in Rayleigh, including Lubards Lodge Farm.
Strategy Option 3 - Concentrated Growth – we do not support this option.
2.9 A strategy option that seeks to deliver the whole local plan requirement for housing in a concentrated development (or concentrated developments) runs the very serious risk of being undeliverable. Too often local plans focus allocations on a small number of large strategic sites that inevitably come forward later in the plan period, or worse, fail at Examination. Whilst such
sites can be an important part of housing supply, their allocation should not be to the detriment of deliverable large scale (but not strategic scale) sites, such as the Site at Lubards Lodge Farm.
2.10 A clear example of the risks of concentrated growth is the North Essex Authorities, where three new Garden Communities were proposed to deliver a proportion of housing across three local authorities later into the Plan period. In 2020, following the Examination, the Inspector concluded that two of the three garden communities were not viable and therefore not deliverable, leaving
the authorities without 37,500 planned new homes for the Plan period and beyond.
2.11 Another current local example of this is in Maldon, whose Local Plan (adopted in 2017) places a substantive reliance on the large-scale Garden Suburbs. The latest 5-year housing land supply statement confirms that the supply of housing arising from these allocations is falling below the previously anticipated trajectories. This means that the Council cannot currently demonstrate a 5-year supply of housing 2.12 We therefore consider that this option runs the very serious risk of non-delivery and is unlikely to be capable of being found sound at Examination.
Strategy Option 4 – Balanced Combination – We support this option insofar as it relates to the allocation of suitable available greenfield sites on the edge of Rayleigh.
2.13 Option 4 provides a balanced approach, allocating a variety of sites both in terms of size and location which would have far greater potential to deliver a wide mix of housing types and style whilst also ensuring homes come forward consistently across the whole Plan period.
2.14 This Option also provides good opportunities for sustainable growth within Rayleigh with an appropriate scale of development based on the settlement hierarchy. This option is not restrictive on the location or scale of development.
2.15 Based on the response set out above we are supportive of Options 2 or 4 insofar as they direct
proportionate levels of growth to the higher order settlements in the hierarchy, including Rayleigh.
Our support for either of these two options is conditional on the proposed allocation of the Site at Lubards Lodge Farm, which is suitable, deliverable and sustainably located.

Planning for Complete Communities
Question 56a – Do you agree with our vision for Rayleigh?
2.16 Yes, we agree with RDC’s vision for Rayleigh. We note that the Vision Statement says that Rayleigh should be a “thriving town with a wide range of shops and services”, vibrant town centre, functional and reliable transport system with all residents living within walking distance of a local green space. It should provide for a diverse range of housing and job opportunities
meeting the needs of all in the community, whilst retaining its strong historic and cultural character.”
2.17 The best way of ensuring this vision is realised is by allocating significant land for residential development on the edge of Rayleigh. Land at Lubards Lodge Farm is capable of providing development of a scale to support the vitality of the town centre, the local bus routes, providing for diverse range of housing and retaining the town’s strong historic and cultural character.
2.18 Significant new housing growth in Rayleigh, through the allocation of greenfield land, is the only way of ensuring this.

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? How could that improve the completeness of Rayleigh?
i. Housing [market, affordable, specialist, traveller, other]
ii. Commercial [offices, industrial, retail, other]
iii. Community infrastructure [open space, education, healthcare, allotments, other]
iv. Other
2.19 Yes, we consider that the Lubards Lodge Farm site, which forms a part of site CFS164 (excluding the brownfield land in CFS164 which falls outside of the control of Crest Nicholson and is not associated with these representations), should be allocated for housing, with supporting community infrastructure including a Country Park and a new outdoor sports area. The
release of this site from the Green Belt would accord with the settlement hierarchy, and Spatial Options 2 and 4. It is suitable, available and deliverable within the Plan period. Crest Nicholson has the means, experience and track record to deliver the development.
2.20 To deliver the necessary level of housing growth identified for the Plan period it will be necessary for RDC to focus its attention on the allocation of a large-scale greenfield site(s) on the edge of the higher order settlements in the district, including the single Tier 1 settlement – Rayleigh. The Site is one of only a small number of large-scale sites on the edge of Rayleigh and, because it is unconstrained and accessible, in light of RDC’s housing need and that Rayleigh is the only Tier 1
settlement, it therefore naturally means that the Site should be allocated for housing development through the Local Plan. The extract from Figure 44 below exemplifies this.
2.21 The proposed development onsite is market led residential housing, with supporting community
infrastructure including a new country park and onsite high-quality playing pitch provision for outdoor sport. As the Land at Lubards Lodge Farm is a greenfield site, it can accommodate a policy compliant quota of affordable housing and a package of proportionate infrastructure
provision only a greenfield site of this size within the sole control of a major national housebuilder could deliver. This is extremely important if RDC wants to realise its planning policy objectives by delivering healthy balanced communities with a range of supporting infrastructure, access to local employment opportunities, provision of public open space, biodiversity net gain and an enhanced new home for Rayleigh FC back in Rayleigh, where the Club belongs. This is unlikely to be possible on smaller scale allocations because they would be unable to deliver transformational infrastructure. It would be undeliverable on strategic scale allocations because the extent of funding required to deliver the necessary infrastructure would be likely to have significant impacts
on the ability to deliver on other planning policy objectives, such as affordable housing provision.
2.22 Taking account of the above, there are few comparable alternative suitable sites in Rayleigh that
are capable of delivering what is proposed by Crest Nicholson at Lubards Lodge Farm. For ease of reference an extract from Figure 44 of the consultation document showing the range of sites put forward for development around the edge of Rayleigh is shown below.
[see attached document for map]
Above: Extract from Figure 44 of the consultation document showing the promoted sites around Rayleigh in blue.
Land at Lubards Lodge Farm is available and deliverable
2.23 Lubards Lodge Farm is in single ownership and is wholly within the control of Crest Nicholson. Crest Nicholson’s due diligence to date suggests that there are no reasons why development of the site could not be delivered. This is further demonstrated under the technical sub-headings as set out in the accompanying Vision Statement.
2.24 Crest Nicholson has been building new homes for over 50 years and is firmly established as a leading developer with a reputation for creating vibrant sustainable new communities. Crest Nicholson’s contribution to the built environment has been recognised with a strong of awards, including The Queen’s Award for Enterprise in Sustainable Development. This award is testament to Crest’s continued emphasis on producing high quality developments that champion the very best principles in sustainability. More recent awards include winning Sustainable Housebuilder of the Year at the Housebuilder Awards 2016, and Large Housebuilder of the Year in 2015.
2.25 The Site is therefore available and deliverable.
Land at Lubards Lodge Farm is suitable
2.26 The Site is a suitable location for development, is free from constraints and is unencumbered in all respects. This is demonstrated in the accompanying Vision Statement prepared in support of these representations. To supplement this assertion, we have extracted the Appraisal for the wider CFS164 site from the Site Appraisal paper in RDC’s evidence base – see below.
[see attached document for table]
Above: extract from RDC’s Site Appraisal paper for CFS164 Lubards Lodge Farm
2.28 Against the assessment criteria in the Site Appraisal paper, site CFS164 scores comparatively well against other Rayleigh sites. It is noted as being developable (subject to policy) and deliverable for housing and/or commercial development. We agree with this assessment, as there are no overriding constraints to development. Similarly, the site is attributed high scores (4 or 5 out of 5, i.e. well performing) against most of the assessment criteria, including flood risk (the site is within Flood Zone 1) air quality, various forms of utility infrastructure, access to transport options and facilities. This all corroborates with the evidence contained within our accompanying Vision Statement for the development of the Site.
2.29 The Appraisal attributes scores of 1 out of 5 (i.e. worst performing) against the Green Belt and Agricultural Land Quality measurements. In respect of Green Belt harm, we must draw to RDC’s attention two matters in particular that must be noted in order for these “issues” to be properly viewed in context:
● It is inevitable that the development of any greenfield Green Belt site would cause harm to the Green Belt. Any harm to the Green Belt arising from development needs to be balanced against RDC’s need for new homes, which cannot be delivered wholly on brownfield land in
the district because there are not enough previously developed sites.
In accordance with NPPF guidance and established case law1, where exceptional circumstances for the release of Green Belt land are justified, it is necessary to consider,
amongst other factors:
− Whether the Plan could achieve sustainable development without the use of Green Belt land,
− Whether the nature and extent of Green Belt harm would be minimised through the site selection process by selecting sites that contribute the least to Green Belt purposes, and
− The extent to which consequent impacts on the purposes of the Green Belt may be ameliorated or reduced to the lowest reasonably practicable extent, through the redefinition of the Green Belt boundary via physical features that are likely to be permanent, and through scheme design. The extent of harm to the Green Belt, by reference to the Appraisal paper’s score for the Site, is therefore not in itself a reason to discount it from consideration.
● The Appraisal for the CFS164 site considers the Site in its entirety. It should however be noted that the Green Belt Review Stage 2 assessment for CFS164 splits the site into two distinct assessment parcels, identifying that the south-eastern part of the assessment parcel has a lower Green Belt sensitivity. An extract from the site assessment is shown below.
[see document for image]
Above: Green Belt Review Stage 2 assessment – CFS164 is split and assessed as two parcels
Against the south-eastern half of the assessment area for CFS164, the Green Belt review identifies that “release of the land in the southern and south eastern Moderate-High corner of the assessment area up to and including the developed site 163 is significantly more contained by urbanising development. Consequently its release would have a more limited impact on adjacent Green Belt land. Whilst it would lead to the breaching of a strong
boundary along Rawreth Lane, development has already taken place to the north of this road to the west and east of the parcel.”
It is demonstrated that a blanket assessment of the site in its entirety does not accurately reflect the way in which the impact of development could be ameliorated by a reduced development coverage. Added to this, NPPF paragraph 143f) states that when defining Green Belt boundaries, plans should “define boundaries clearly, using physical features that are readily recognisable and likely to be permanent”. We consider that any residual harm to the Green Belt can be addressed through masterplanning and landscape mitigation. Crest
Nicholson has the means, experience and track record to ensure this. Indeed, the southeastern parcel within CFS164 broadly corresponds with the masterplan proposals we have put forward within our accompanying Vision Statement. This can be refined as necessary in
due course, should RDC consider it necessary to do so.
2.30 Taking account of the above, it is considered that harm to the Green Belt caused by the development of the Site can be appropriately mitigated. We look forward to working with RDC to ensure that effects can be minimised in this respect.
2.31 The Site Appraisal identifies a high degree of harm under the Agricultural Land Quality criteria. However, as with the Green Belt matter, the Paper identifies at paragraph 70 that the nature of the District has “a relatively scarce supply of brownfield land” which means that if the district’s identified housing need is to be met in full, greenfield land would need to be released. It is
therefore inevitable that some “best and most versatile” agricultural land would need to be lost if RDC wishes to achieve wider sustainability objectives, in accordance with the Strategic Objectives and the draft Vision for Rayleigh. We consider that there are therefore sustainability factors that would outweigh the loss of BMV land.
2.32 Taking account of the above, we consider that the Site is entirely suitable for development. Land at Lubards Lodge Farm would enhance the completeness of Rayleigh
2.33 The NPPF states at paragraph 142 that when drawing up Green Belt boundaries, the need to
promote sustainable patterns of development should be taken into account. At paragraph 105 the NPPF states that “the planning system should actively manage patterns of growth in support of [sustainable transport] objectives. Significant development should be focused on locations which are or can be made sustainable, through limiting the need to travel and offering a genuine
choice of transport modes”.
2.34 The supporting text to the Draft Vision statement for Rayleigh says that “as can be seen from the
completeness mapping, Rayleigh benefits from a good standard of walking access to most dayto-day services. The areas of Rayleigh with the best walking access to services are around its town centre, with other strong areas to the west along London Road. Overall, even those parts of Rayleigh outside of the walking catchment of services benefit from good levels of access overall,
particularly along the spines of Rawreth Lane, Hockley Road and Eastwood Road” [Bidwells emphasis]. This is shown on the Completeness map for Rayleigh, an extract from which is shown below
[see document for image]
Above: extract from the consultation document’s Completeness map of Rayleigh
2.35 Lubards Lodge Farm is well located to enable sustainable transport choices and is within a 10-
minute walk of the following local facilities:
● Asda supermarket;
● Down Hall Primary School;
● St Nicholas C of E Primary School;
● Sweyne Park Playground;
● Employment uses at Lubards Farm to the north; and
● Rayleigh Leisure Centre.
2.36 Land at Lubards Lodge Farm is comparatively closer and more accessible to Rayleigh town centre than other large-scale sites on the edge of town and therefore offers better opportunities to make use of sustainable forms of travel. It offers the opportunity to strengthen the existing bus route along Hullbridge Road, together with potential to enhance existing non-frequent public
transport along Rawreth Lane thereby bringing enhancing the sustainability and accessibility to
residents of the existing community, as well as future residents.
2.37 Completeness benefits would not only be limited to walking and public transport options. The provision of cycle routes in Rayleigh is currently limited, however, several proposed routes are identified in the Rochford District Cycling Action Plan (published by Essex County Council in 2017) but which do not yet appear to have been taken forward. These include Proposed National
Cycle Route 135 passing the Site along Hullbridge Road and Rawreth Lane, and an extension of an existing route along Priory Chase to Rayleigh Rail Station via St Nicholas Church of England School and The Sweyne Park School (proposed route IDs 24 and 23). These are shown on the Cycling Acton Plan map extract below
[see document for image]
Above: extract from the Rochford Cycling Action Plan
2.38 Cycle routes would be provided within the development, and there is the potential to connect to
these proposed routes and contribute to improvement works to facilitate a safe route to local schools and the rail station. Provision of connections from the Site into the existing and future planned cycling infrastructure offers further potential to enhance the completeness of Rayleigh.
A new home for Rayleigh Boys and Girls FC
2.39 Rayleigh Boys and Girls Football Club has been running since 1976 and is regarded by the Essex Football Association as the largest youth football club in Essex with more than 65 teams, 12 of which are Girls teams. It is the aim of the Club to promote a safe Environment for Children of all ages to learn, develop and enjoy playing football. Despite the Club’s key role in the community, with player registrations increasing year on year, it has been very difficult for the Club to secure match-day (grass) and training (all-weather) pitches locally due to the lack of available land and funding.
2.40 The Club relies on the dedication of volunteers to organise the rental of pitches, many of which have limited facilities and require long journeys outside of Rayleigh for the children, for example the Chichester Ground in Rawreth which is only accessible by car. To-date the Club does not benefit from any form of building or clubhouse to manage operations from and allow teams and their families to interact before/after matches.
2.41 The proposals for a sustainable neighbourhood at Lubards Farm provide a unique opportunity to accommodate new training and match day pitches, and a permanent new facility in Rayleigh that the Club can finally call home. Not only would there be significant benefits for the Club’s 800+ players and families, but the facility could also be available during weekday school hours for the wider Rayleigh community (including local schools) who currently do not benefit from an allweather pitch, despite being the largest town in the District. Crest Nicholson specialises in delivering community-led, high quality new homes and is proud to be working with the Club to inform the proposals from the outset.
Lubards Lodge Farm would deliver green and blue infrastructure
2.42 There is an opportunity to incorporate managed green infrastructure to the north of the site in the
form of a Country Park, to enhance the already strong natural defensible Green Belt boundary and to ensure the maintenance of the gap between the settlements of Rayleigh and Hullbridge, to help prevent coalescence in accordance with Green Belt policy. It would also ensure that opportunities to enhance the beneficial use of the Green Belt, as redrawn, could be maximised.
2.43 As the Site is currently private land it does not benefit from the same potential that its allocation for
residential development would bring in this regard.
2.44 Within the rationale provided by the South Essex Green and Blue Infrastructure Study, the Country Park established in the north of site would become a multifunctional greenspace with areas of high value habitats as well as recreational areas. The park would include a range of circular walks and dogs-off lead areas as well as public rights of ways connections to adjacent greenspace. The Country Park would integrate SuDS and swales within habitat links to create well-connected
wetlands. There are opportunities to maximise connectivity with adjacent habitats. Enhanced habitat connectivity will be created through strengthened linkages and ‘stepping-stone’ areas across the site; for example, grassland, hedges and other linear features, and water features. The proposals will maximise connectivity for species such as bats with the adjacent golf course and priority habitats to southeast (woodlands) and west.
Land at Lubards Lodge Farm benefits from recently delivered highways improvements
2.45 A new 3-arm compact roundabout has been built in the location of the former mini roundabout between Rawreth Lane and Hullbridge Road, directly adjacent to the south-eastern corner of the Site, where there is the opportunity for the Site’s vehicular access to be taken from.
2.46 Financial contributions towards the cost of improvement works were secured by Essex County
Council to build the roundabout to relieve congestion at the local bottle neck. Work was commenced in January 2021 and was completed in the summer of 2021.

[CFS027, CFS098, CFS086, CFS029, CFS053]

I am writing to strongly oppose the developments proposed by Rochford District Council (reference numbers above)

Firstly, I would like to comment on the completely unsuitable, archaic and alienating online 'comment' system you have created that is supposedly 'straightforward'. You claim it is the 'quick[est] and [most] efficient method for submitting comments'. I have never encountered such an inefficient online form (there are over 100 questions!! What part of that is quick and efficient?!!), and think it poses a huge barrier to those who are perhaps less computer literate or to be honest, anyone who has ever used an online portal for anything - ever. This is hugely problematic, as the details of a project that will affect so many, will be reviewed by only the very few who have hours to navigate your suggested ‘streamlined’ portal. Not inclusive or accessible at all.

Secondly, and perhaps my most pressing reason for objection is the complete 'tone deaf' attitude Rochford Council appear to have for the environment and climate change. The weighting given to climate related issues in this proposal is not aligned anywhere near to what is expected as we experience a global climate crisis. Housing currently accounts for around 15% of the UKs green house has emissions. Building more homes will only exacerbate this. This doesn’t account for any of the devastating impacts incurred through the loss of biodiversity and natural habitats, increased land, water and air pollution - and no these issues aren’t mitigated by ‘carefully mapping’ areas not to build on, or by creating new ‘wildlife spaces’ in the development plans. The issues are ‘mitigated’ by not developing at all.

More developments in Rayleigh/Rochdord will also result in more cars on the road. This will in turn result in greater levels of congestion, noise pollution and increase the level of carbon emissions entering the atmosphere. I’m not entirely sure how this project aligns with the governments net zero ambitions or the global aims of keeping global heating below 1.5 degrees…

The extreme proposal will see Rayleigh transformed to a traffic ridden, polluted and over crowded town, where current infrastructure simply will not support this vast expansion into green spaces!

Strongly oppose this proposal and hope it does not go ahead.

Our hearts sank when we received notice of a possible building development across the road from our new house. We moved to the end of Bull Lane at the end of June, then learnt of the possibility of houses being built there at the start of August.

As a family, we have wanted to move to the countryside for a long time. When we found the house at the end of Bull Lane, it was in a perfect position- right by fields and also within easy walking distance of a nice town, which we thought was important with young children.

We have always lived on a cul de sac, and having only farm traffic go past was an easy compromise to make. We would be devastated to suddenly have more traffic going right past our house. Coming from a busy town, we paid a premium to be right by the fields. For this to be taken away from us would produce a huge amount of stress.

Furthermore, we believe it is not right to build on green belt land. If it continues, we as a country will end up with no green space which would be extremely detrimental to our environment. As a family, we are doing as much as we can to help the environment, including for example using reusable nappies. Those in power need to take some responsibility for keeping our green space green.

There are already a huge amount of new houses going up around Rayleigh, including developments on Rawreth Lane, and at the top of Hambro Hill. These are both less than ten minutes from our house. We really don't think it is necessary to put up more houses so close to these developments. It will not only harm the green belt, but will also produce more traffic. Rayleigh town centre is already too busy.

More new families moving to new houses also means schools will be more stretched than they are already, and doctors will have even longer waiting lists. We do not think Rayleigh has enough resources to support the families of the houses that are already going up, let alone any more.

Thank you in advance for your concern.

I would like to oppose more development in Rayleigh (options 2a and 2b, Urban Extension). I would prefer options 3a or 3b, and a new garden village.