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?

COL07 and COL20
I 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 a future residential development site.
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 an COL20 would be detrimental to the Rayleigh Town Centre.
The above are borne out by Rochford Council's own plans and policy documents.

Local Plan and mill Hall and Civic Suite
I object to site COL07 (Mill Hall, car park and green) and also site COL20 Civic Suite with landscaped gardens to rear being included in the Local Plan as a future residential development sites.

Under Section 71 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and 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 be developed for housing. The setting of the listed buildings is greatly enhanced by the gardens and the landscaped car parks, which make a significant contribution to the Conservation Area. This would be lost if developed for residential use.

Under Section 39 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, and other legislation, Rochford District Council has a duty to contribute towards achieving sustainable development. 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 District. One should, therefore, invest in the present buildings and make them more sustainable. Mill Hall would offer significant opportunities.

Under Section 40 0f the Natural Environment and 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 contribute greatly to the biodiversity of the area. This Conservation Area is not only valued for its buildings, but also for its mature trees and open spaces. The loss of this biodiversity would be unacceptable if these sites were changed to residential use.

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

COL07 (Mill Hall, car park and green) and also site COL20 Civic Suite
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 a future residential development site.
There is already residential development occurring in the centre of Rayleigh. To keep ‘squeezing in’ development in an area where the infrastructure is already under strain is not good planning. Also, apart from destroying the character of Rayleigh, 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 an COL20 would be detrimental to the Rayleigh Town Centre.
The above are borne out by Rochford Council's own plans and policy documents.

We object to site COL07 (Mill Hall) and site COL20 (Civic Suite) in the Local Plan as a future residential development site.

Both sites are surrounded by listed buildings and should not be developed for housing.
We believe it is important to invest in the present buildings and make them more sustainable.
We also believe that the loss of public car parking within COL07 and COL20 would be detrimental to Rayleigh Town Centre.
Instead we would favour plans that include:
- renovation of the existing Mill Hall
- retention of the 'Beacon' green space in front of the Mill Hall
- retention of the views of the Windmill from this area
- rejection of more residential development plans; we don't want and can't cope with any more

I most 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 a future residential development site.

Although I would normally voice my objections by using my own words, the following strong and clearly set out arguments, precisely sum up my feelings about these plans.

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 an COL20 would be detrimental to the Rayleigh Town Centre.

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

To close I would like to say that the impact on Rayleigh going ahead with these projects will probably not be felt by me in my lifetime. However I have children and grandchildren on whom it will most certainly have an impact on their future enjoyment, health, education and well-being. Rochford District Council should be protecting the Heritage sites and Conservation areas rather than allowing them to disappear due to the greed of a minority of fat cat developers and their enablers. We don't need more housing in the town centre, there is enough housing going up on the other sites released by the planning department. Rayleigh shouldn't end up looking any more like Basildon than it does already. The horrendous 60 style buildings we already have due to poor planning decisions in the past have made Rayleigh into a no go area for better class shops. A case in point, we are about to get a Poundland next to M&S.

Please reject these proposals and at least try to keep Rayleigh and it's Heritage and Conservation areas a pleasant place to visit and to shop.

Sites COL07 and COL20 Objections
I 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 a future residential development site.
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. As both sites are surrounded by listed buildings and a Scheduled Ancient Monument in the case of Mill Hall, neither should be developed for housing. The listed buildings' settings 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 they are 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. It 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 also significant and the loss of public car parking within COL07 an COL20 would be detrimental to the Rayleigh Town Centre if the changes go ahead.
The above are borne out by Rochford Council's own plans and policy documents.

I 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 a future residential development site.
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 an COL20 would be detrimental to the Rayleigh Town Centre.
The above are borne out by Rochford Council's own plans and policy documents.

Rayleigh Conservation Area
I, like many object strongly to any proposal to build on or alter both the Mill Hall site and Barrington's ( civic suite) site, it is vital that both are kept untouched to preserve the character of the town for future generations. If these sites in the CONSERVATION AREA are altered then future generations will never know the top of the town as it is, it will be ruined forever.
How can knocking down Mill Hall, a perfectly serviceable building that with a little TLC and properly promoted would be a massive asset to the town, and building a small, too small, for such a large town, be good for the environment?

I am not supportive of the long term options laid out in the plan. I am extremely concerned that They will increase flooding risks to the towns and villages in Rochford district and, in fact, some seem to be in areas already at risk of flooding which seems very ill thought through.

The continuing addition of bolt on housing to our towns and villages without suitable infrastructure is resulting in continual traffic difficulties, unreliable public transport and further environmental damage from idling cars due to the ongoing roadworks to support them.

If additional housing is required it seems far more sensible for this to be built in new town format along with the required infrastructure and this message should be sent to local governments. Bolt on to our existing towns is unsustainable, inconvenient and doesn’t take account of the future environmental issues.

In addition, I do not support the heritage site of the Mill and the Mill Hall being allowed for residential use. This is a historic site that we should protect and nurture. More community space is now needed given the additional housing, not less.

Site reference: CFS053 Address: Land south of 38 and 39 Wellington Road, Rayleigh
Following the potential announcement of 329 new homes between Napier Road, Wellington Road etc, I wish to strongly object to this.

I do appreciate new housing has to happen, but feel this is the wrong location. I live in Nelson Road and can vouch the fields mentioned are a haven for wildlife (deer, foxes, badgers, birds of prey etc) and the bridal path is regularly used by horse owners, and families enjoying the wildlife.

This is green belt land and should be protected for the benefit of the wildlife and the local community who enjoy the wildlife.

The infrastructure is also another point and feel the surrounding roads and utilities are not sufficient to cater for this volume of houses.

If RDC has to accept their quota of new houses, I firmly believe there are better locations for these (brown field sites etc) that will not directly affect local residents and wildlife.

Hawkwell Parish Council - Official Response to RDC's Local Plan Spatial Options Consultation

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

A full infrastructure assessment should be conducted,
to include a local highway study/up to date traffic
assessment. This study needs to be undertaken prior
to deciding the best option to deliver the new Local
Plan. The cumulative effect of the development of the
present District Plan on Hawkwell’s road system; the
Christmas Tree farm, Rectory Road, Hall Road and Brays
Lane sites, without the impact of Sapwoods site yet to
be developed.
It would also be important to obtain some
statistics/reports from schools & doctor surgery and
drainage capacity. All these areas appear to be at or
near capacity already.
Comprehensive air quality testing is a necessity, with
the increase in traffic volumes (34.5%) there must have
also been increased air pollution, which is dangerous to
the health of residents and must not be overlooked.
With reports of government already struggling to meet
their climate change targets and the extremely
worrying IPCC report it is essential that we start to
consider the consequences of the rising temperatures,
therefore a Flood Risk assessment should be provided.
There are many areas in our District that are predicted
to be under flood level by 2050 and the areas that
aren’t in the flood risk zone are already suffering from
surface flooding problems when we have torrential
downpours. (A very high proportion of
Hawkwell/Hockley sites are rated 2 for flood risk)
Perhaps a windfall report? It would be good to know
how many houses have already been built over the
course of the last Local Plan that couldn’t be included.
This could potentially be used for challenging
government for a reduction in the housing target,
which is something we would like to see.
We find it very difficult to respond to this consultation
without having the above technical evidence.

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]

No. The Council believes that Hawkwell Parish should
not be split with West Hawkwell joined with Hockley
and East Hawkwell joined with Rochford in this study.

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 explained above each settlement has its own
unique needs and characteristics and it is only by
working with Parish Councils and residents that their views can be reflected in the Plan to ensure the unique
character of each settlement is protected.

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]

Strategic Option 2 fails to address the problems of the
aging population within the District, partly due to the
failure to provide low rent social housing. The strategy
should provide council housing stock in small local
exception sites.

STRATEGY OPTIONS

Q5. Do you agree with the settlement hierarchy
presented? If not, what changes do you think
are required? [Please state reasoning]

No. Council does not agree in splitting Hawkwell Parish
into West and East and joining these areas with Hockley
and Rochford/Ashingdon respectively. Hawkwell is the
largest Parish in the Rochford District, except for
Rayleigh Town Council, yet doesn’t feature as a
complete settlement in the hierarchy.

Q6. Which of the identified strategy options do you consider should be taken forward in the Plan? [Please state reasoning]

Option 3a is Council’s preferred option. This seems the
least disruptive option and a new village to the west of
Rayleigh has the advantage of being close to exiting
road hubs (A127 and A130) which would enable good
transport links to Wickford, Basildon, Chelmsford,
Thurrock and Southend (the main employment routes).
Option 3a would attract Section 106 funding for
infrastructure, rather than adding to existing villages
and hoping for S106 funding afterwards towards
schools, community centres, medical centres and
shopping parades.
The Council promoted this option in the last Local Plan.
Option 3b would put even more pressure on existing
roads and erode the green belt and current separation
between Rochford District and Southend.
Option 3c would only lead to demands for a Southend
Bypass, promoted by developers which would lead to
further developments alongside the bypass.

Q7. Are there any reasonable alternatives to
these options that should be considered
instead? [Please state reasoning]

Yes. A combination of Option 1 and Option 3a after
utilising all available brownfield sites and infrastructure
improvements have been planned and/or completed.

SPATIAL THEMES

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

Council is concerned that the whole character of the
District will change with the urbanisation of the District.
Accessibility to some of the consultation documents
has been very problematic and Council has concerns
that residents, particularly those without access to a
computer, are not realistically able to view or respond
to the consultation.

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]

We agree that it is essential that both flood risk and
coastal change be considered when developing a suitable plan and development sites. A plan needs to
focus on limiting flooding, protecting people, wildlife
and properties.
According to the climate central coastal risk screening
tool, the land projected to be below annual flood level
in 2050 includes a large part of the district (areas
affected include Foulness, Wakering, Barling,
Paglesham, Stambridge, South Fambridge, Hullbridge,
Canewdon and Rochford).
The main route out of Rochford between the train
station and the airport is also affected, roads leading to
for example, Watery Lane, Lower Road etc and
including the A130 & A1245.
Large retail areas such as Purdeys Industrial Estate may
also be affected which would affect employment. As
would employment areas such Battlesbridge, Rawreth
& Shotgate.
As the sea levels rise further other complications may
include:
• People unable to get mortgages and insurance,
therefore they may not be able to live in those
areas.
• People wanting to migrate to areas of lower
flood risk.

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]

The Coastal Protection Belt only lasts to 2025 and
needs to be extended for many years. All development
in flood plains must be resisted as the danger of
flooding will increase. Hockley Woods and Cherry
Orchard Country Park must be protected from
development. The fields around St. Mary’s church in
Hawkwell and the network of footpaths around
Clements Hall and Glencroft Open Space need to be
protected for its contribution to wildlife habitat.

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?

The way forward is renewable energy, wind farms and
solar panel farms, provided they are not in places with
impact on sensitive areas.
The area does not have enough free land to support
wind or Solar P.V farms to create enough energy. These
farms have a massive impact on the community as
large trenches have to be dug over great distances to
lay the cables to Sub Stations, that have to be built.
Other sources of producing Zero Carbon energy should
be selected, before covering every piece of land with
P.V panels or Wind turbines.

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, providing the cost is not passed to the house buyer
making the cost prohibitive. Local building control
inspections should only be carried out by the Council’s
Inspectors.

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]

Foulness Island could be a good location for a Solar
Farm and wind turbines off the shore.
The plan cannot support local low carbon generation
and renewable energy. The only way this can be
achieved by all the Districts or Counties is if the grid is
de-centralised and smaller power stations are sited in
places like Foulness, where impact to the Community
would be kept to a minimum.

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

Yes. They should be settlement specific to allow for
individual characteristic of each area, sufficiently
detailed to avoid confusion.

Q15. Are the principles set out in the draft placemaking charter the right ones? Are there other principles that should be included? [Please state reasoning]

Yes, provided that individual settlements are consulted,
and 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. Each individual settlement should be at the centre
of it and considered as their own entities, with their own individual characteristics identified.

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]

Design guides should be area specific under one single
guide covering the whole district.

c. What do you think should be included in design guides/codes/masterplans at the scale you are suggesting? [Please state reasoning].

The Design Guides must reflect the character of the
settlements while allowing for some growth.

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? [Please state reasoning]

Meet the needs for different types of tenures of
affordable, social, council and specialist housing by
requiring all types are provided on all new
developments.

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

There is a need for more flats, bungalows, 2 bed
houses. These can be accommodated in Option 3a. In
addition, the Council has a long-held view that
bungalows should not be converted into houses as this
depletes the bungalow stock which are required for an
ageing population.

According to the strategy options/growth scenarios, the house price to local earning ratios, suggest our area is the least affordable in the country. It also states that our housing registers has grown by 20% in the last year.
With house prices going up it would mean that younger
generations are priced out of the area. If they leave the
area it would create more of a retirement settlement
than before, therefore requiring less employment & retail space etc.
Focus on building smaller properties (e.g. 1-3 bedrooms) and tailored towards singles/couples/first time buyers/young adults who are still living at home with parents.
Other priorities should be for ground level properties,
suitable for the aging and disabled residents, we should
be safeguarding existing bungalows which are rapidly
disappearing. Providing these options would ‘free up’
the larger properties within the district, meaning we
shouldn’t require so many larger (4/5 bedroom) homes.
It is important to note that first time buyers, buying a
property in the area will more than likely already live in
the district and own a vehicle. This means that no new
traffic is created, however for larger, more expensive
properties that attract buyers from outside the area
will also bring additional vehicles onto the already
congested roads.
Social housing and homes for homeless and vulnerable
residents also needs better consideration.

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]

Affordable housing for the disabled and starter homes
should be planned for.

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]

Possible need a permanent traveller site which could be
controlled in terms of site population exceeding 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]

Sites need to be away from residents but also close
enough to schools. Also needs to be near main roads to accommodate large vehicles and caravans.

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 Q21. In addition, sensitive green belt
areas should not be considered as potential locations.

EMPLOYMENT & 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? [Please state reasoning]

Ensure that Essex Education Authority provides evening
and afternoon classes to offer affordable, local adult
education to address skill shortages and allow
opportunities to support residents to get back into
work or upskill/retrain. Work with local colleges, as
well as businesses, job centres and Essex County
Council to assess what sustainable employment is
needed in the District.
Large retail areas such as Purdey’s Industrial Estate may
be affected by flooding in the future, which would
affect employment. Current businesses within the flood
risk area may possibly need to be relocated or they
could lose employment opportunities.

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]

Greenbelt sites must be controlled by regularisation of
informal sites. Brownfield sites should be used first and
protected from housing development if they have a
current or future potential to provide employment
opportunities. There is a need for employment in local
communities as this is a greener option as it reduces
transport use.

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

Council’s preferred option 3a provides many
employment opportunities to establish the new
infrastructure over many years. Various types of
employment facilities, i.e. industrial units, hospitality,
retail and other employment could be included in
option 3a. This option satisfies the ‘Employment
Option 4’ which states “meeting future needs by
prioritising employment space alongside any new
strategic housing developments.”

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

Yes, lacking in ‘green’ industries. Sites for ‘sustainable
living’ businesses e.g. refill stores, market type sites for
locally grown or manufactured foods or crafted items,
small holdings, upcycling or repair & restore facilities.

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 and public transport links to serve
new schools and colleges required as result of the
increase in population linked to development. Also
improve footpaths and cycle path access. Consider
higher or further education facilities and availability of
apprenticeships and training for all ages, to address the
current and future skills shortages.

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]

Careful consideration should be given to the growth of
the airport; it would bring additional jobs and business
opportunities, but it would also put more strain on the
existing transport network and would bring additional noise and air pollution. It would also require more land.
Improvements to the public transport system and road
network would be required to enable growth and jobs
linked to the airport industry. Airport linked transport
adjacent to both the existing airport industrial park and
Saxon Business Park should be included in the strategy.
Given the ongoing uncertainty surrounding the impact
of Climate Change on the aviation industry (e.g., urgent
carbon reduction), we should continue to make
decisions based on the existing JAAP for the time being,
but to consider developing a new Area Action Plan, or
masterplan, after the new Local Plan is adopted or
when the need arises.

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? [Please state reasoning]

Yes. Gusted Hall Wood, Hockley Woods (ancient
woodland). The upper Roach Valley, the lower Crouch
Valley. The rivers Roach and Crouch.
All local Nature Reserves and ancient woodland sites
must be protected at all costs. Magnolia Nature reserve
is home to protected Great Crested Newts.
We should avoid building on green belt, park land and
coastal locations, to protect wildlife and habitats.
Evidence suggests that society is losing its connection
to nature, we must not allow this to continue and must
ensure that future generations have a legacy. New
wildflower meadow creation would also be very
valuable as our insects and pollinators are in decline.

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. Many areas provide important wildlife habitats for
protected, endangered or rare wildlife and fauna. It is
important that these areas are protected for future
generations.

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.

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?
[Please state reasoning]

By retaining what is already in existence by ensuring
the links are in place to join as many locations as
possible. Additionally, ensuring that Public Rights of
Way (ProW) are free from land-owner obstructions and
that they are kept free from any debris. Also, paths
need to be made accessible to the disabled to ensure
all- inclusive facilities.

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]

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

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

Our choice of Option 3a, Council believes there should
be concentration on brownfield and town sites to
protect rural communities and the Green Belt.
Alternative options 3 or 4 mean less development in
rural areas and are therefore more accommodating to
the needs of smaller rural areas.

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? [Please state reasoning]

It is important to assess the shortfall of facilities and
networks before plans are approved to ensure
adequate planning and funding can be secured before
any building takes place.
Options could be considered to get people across the
road without the need to stop the traffic, such as a
walking bridge/flyover on Ashingdon Road where there
are 3 crossings within close proximity to each to other,
which is a significant cause of traffic and congestion.

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

Any section 106 monies should be legally
specified/described in the plans to state that it must be
allocated to the development area stated within the
plans and not used for other sites elsewhere.

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]

Ashingdon Road is gridlocked most days and has a
severe congestion problem. There should be public
transport links that allow residents to easily travel
between parishes within the district (for example:
Ashingdon to Hullbridge, or even travelling from East to
West Hawkwell would currently require 2 buses). Even
if Section 106 grants were made available, healthcare
facilities in Hawkwell are currently severely restricted,
especially since the pandemic due to doctor shortage;
those grants are unlikely to improve the situation.
Further development in Hawkwell would put further
burden on the healthcare provision.
A new site for the waste recycling site should be
located; the tip in Rayleigh seems to be insufficient
now.

OPEN SPACES & 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? [Please state reasoning]

Permanent all year-round bus services to our main
leisure sites.
Section 106 monies, if available, should help fund the
improvement of the football pitches at Clements Hall. It
is important to safeguard, improve and maintain
existing open spaces and recreational sites.

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 where
appropriate.

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]

The potential sites seem acceptable.

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?

There could be improvements made to Clements Hall,
including public transport links to and from the leisure
centre. Council’s preferred option 3a. would enable
delivery of new open space and sports facility provision
and S106 monies from larger developments could help
fund appropriate new facilities.

Q42. Are there particular open spaces that we should be protecting or improving? [Please note, you will have an opportunity to make specific comments on open spaces and local green spaces in the settlement profiles set
out later in this report]

Magnolia Nature Reserve and all other Reserves, green
spaces, parks, woodlands and the reservoir must be
protected.

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? [Please state reasoning]

Villages and rural areas need to be protected from over
and/or inappropriate development through careful
planning considerations. A list of sites should be
composed with local consultation and those sites
maintained with local residents and organisations.

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

Areas of precious woodland should not be taken for
housing.

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

The updated Local List needs to be made available for
an answer on this section.

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 reasoning]

People need to ‘want’ to visit towns. People’s habits
have changed and therefore entertainment and shop
offerings need to reflect this. If nightlife is going to be
improved then consideration needs to be given to
security; people need to feel safe, especially in areas
that are prone to Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) already.
Transport links to town shopping and amenities need to
be improved. For example, there are no easy transport
links from Hullbridge to Hockley, Hawkwell or Rochford.

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

Rochford District Council (RDC) needs to encourage
business with free parking and reduced business rates.
Businesses should be encouraged to work together, or
a number of shops have extended opening hours to
encourage shoppers coming out in the early evening.

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]

N/A

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 selection of retailers is essential. There needs to
be a balance of outlets that keeps the area viable.
Consideration should also be given to the restriction of
chain stores as these tend to be the first to go in a
crisis.

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

Spatial strategy option 3a will allow the most
opportunity to expand retail both in terms of including
retail space and bringing customers into the town
centres, nearest to new developments. Depending on
the development size, in a new development there
would be scope to add a small, medium, or large retail
precinct.

TRANSPORT & 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? [Please state reasoning]

Development should not be seen without seeing
infrastructure first. Prepare an Infrastructure Delivery
Plan to deliver meaningful improvement to transport
networks, including cycle routes, walking pathways,
public transport and roads. It is worth noting these
modes are currently completely stretched and
therefore modernisation and improvements
need to occur before future housing developments are
built. (An electric scooter scheme could also be
introduced.) RDC need to work with Government,
Highways England, Essex County Council etc to deliver
meaningful road improvements to both the main and
local road network. However, the Southend Bypass
scheme which will destroy a large green belt area
should be opposed.

Q52. Are there areas where improvements to transport connections are needed? What could be done to help improve connectivity in these areas?

There needs to be an extensive review of the area with
highways and transport revisions.

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

A bypass scheme that would only incorporate cycling,
walking and scooters etc around the outskirts would
help with congestion issues on the overcrowded roads.

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? [Please note you may wish to comment on the use of specific areas of land in the next section]

Green belt and farmland / agricultural sites must be
protected. Rural and village life must also be
safeguarded.

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

There should be support for the requirement of
developers of 10 units or less to pay something akin to
s.106/CIL monies. That would go towards infrastructure
improvements, particularly those affecting rural
communities.

PLANNING FOR COMPLETE COMMUNITIES

Q56.
a. Do you agree with our vision for Rayleigh? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]

N/A

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?

N/A

How could that improve the completeness of Rayleigh?

N/A

i. Housing [market, affordable, specialist, traveller, other]

N/A

ii. Commercial [offices, industrial, retail, other]

N/A

iii. Community infrastructure [open space, education, healthcare, allotments, other]

N/A

iv. Other

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

N/A

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

N/A

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?

N/A

Q57.
a. Do you agree with our vision for Rochford and Ashingdon? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]

Hawkwell Parish shares the Ashingdon Road with both
Ashingdon and Rochford Parish so any development
has an impact on East Hawkwell, which is not
mentioned in the consultation. Development not only
affects our Primary Schools and Doctors Surgeries but
also the road network. The proposed sites (some 5,000
properties) accessing onto Brays Lane leading onto the
Ashingdon Road and Rectory Road, onwards to Cherry
Orchard Way plus developments proposed in West
Hawkwell (some 1,280 properties) would lead to the
majority of the total development being concentrated
in this part of the District and would result in complete
urbanisation.

b. With reference to Figure 45 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the promoted sites should be made available for any of the following uses? How could that improve the completeness of Rochford and Ashingdon?

Council’s preferred Option 3a would alleviate the
pressure on the villages of Hockley, Hawkwell,
Ashingdon and Rochford.

i. Housing [market, affordable, specialist, traveller, other]

N/A

ii. Commercial [offices, industrial, retail, other]

N/A

iii. Community infrastructure [open space, education, healthcare, allotments, other]

N/A

iv. Other

N/A

c. Are there areas in Rochford and Ashingdon that development should generally be presumed appropriate? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]

N/A

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

N/A

e. Do you agree that the local green spaces shown on Figure 45 hold local significance? Are there any other open spaces that hold particular local significance? [Please state reasoning]

N/A

Q58.
a. Do you agree with our vision for Hockley and Hawkwell? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]

The vision “In 2050, Hockley and Hawkwell should be
the District's gateway to the green lung of the Upper
Roach Valley, making the most of its access to ancient
woodland and a network of nature reserves. Its town
and neighbourhood centres should be vibrant places
with an emphasis on independent businesses and
providing for a diverse range of jobs. Deprivation should
continue to be largely absent from Hockley and
Hawkwell however housing affordability should have
been addressed to ensure that local first-time buyers
can greater afford to live locally.”
Firstly, it will not be a green lung if houses are built
within it. To be the ‘gateway to the green lung’, it
needs to be protected. Some of the proposed areas for
Hockley & Hawkwell contain ancient woodland. A
gateway also presumes by its nature that throughfare
of traffic is required, which could be interpreted as
traffic problems.
Also, Hockley has a village centre whereas Hawkwell is
mainly residential and comprised of green spaces
rather than leisure/social facilities, except for Clements
Hall, so the term vibrant would only be appropriate for
Hockley. As answered in Questions 2 and 5, Council
believe that there should be separate visions for
Hockley and Hawkwell as they are very different.
We agree that: “deprivation should continue to be
largely absent from Hockley and Hawkwell however
housing affordability should have been addressed to
ensure that local first-time buyers can greater afford to
live locally.”

b. With reference to Figure 46 and your preferred strategy Option, do you think any of the promoted sites should be made available for any of the following uses? How could that improve the completeness of Hockley and Hawkwell?

i. Housing [market, affordable, specialist, traveller, other]
ii. Commercial [offices, industrial, retail, other]
iii. Community infrastructure [open space, education, healthcare, allotments, other]
iv. Other

Most of the sites listed for Hockley & Hawkwell are
marked as severe/mildly severe harm when it comes to
the green belt. There are also a number of sites that
contain ancient woodland.
Hawkwell & Hockley are already at capacity and
therefore would require infrastructure improvements
before even considering any further development. Any
sites that create traffic through Rochford, Hockley or
Hullbridge would be opposed, in particular those that
need to utilise Ashingdon Road, Spa Road & Lower
Road, and those that empty traffic onto the B1013, due
to already being over capacity.

c. Are there areas in Hockley and Hawkwell that
development should generally be presumed appropriate? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]

No, we feel it is not possible to comment on any sites
regarding their suitability without the full infrastructure
delivery plan being provided beforehand.
No green belt sites would be appropriate.
Development should be on brownfield sites only.
If the land would be of no use to agriculture and that
infrastructure had current capacity to absorb the extra
homes/residents. This would need to be evidenced.

c. Are there areas in Hockley and Hawkwell that
development should generally be presumed appropriate? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]

No, we feel it is not possible to comment on any sites
regarding their suitability without the full infrastructure
delivery plan being provided beforehand.
No green belt sites would be appropriate.
Development should be on brownfield sites only.
If the land would be of no use to agriculture and that
infrastructure had current capacity to absorb the extra
homes/residents. This would need to be evidenced.

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

Yes, green belt needs to be protected for biodiversity
reasons and agriculture sites must be protected, as one
of the consequences of climate change could mean we
would have to look at growing produce locally. Ancient
woodlands must not be touched as they are
irreplaceable. Any sites containing wildlife must also be
protected, even those that serve as a barrier from
human life to wildlife as this creates a safe zone and
habitat.

e. Do you agree that the local green spaces shown on Figure 46 hold local significance? Are there any other open spaces that hold particular local significance? [Please state reasoning]

They would hold local and national significance, as they
are green spaces and therefore hold significance,
especially in mitigating the effects of climate change.

Q59.
a. Do you agree with our vision for the Wakerings and Barling? Is there anything QUESTIONS you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]

N/A

b. With reference to Figure 47 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the promoted sites should be made available for any of the following uses? How could that improve the completeness of the
Wakerings and Barling?

i. Housing [market, affordable, specialist, traveller, other]
ii. Commercial [offices, industrial, retail, other]
iii. Community infrastructure [open space, education, healthcare, allotments, other]
iv. Other

N/A

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

N/A

d. Are there areas that require protecting from
development? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning] Q59e. Do you agree that the local green spaces shown on Figure 47 hold local significance? Are there any other open spaces that hold particular local significance? [Please state reasoning]

N/A

Q60.
a. Do you agree with our vision for Hullbridge? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]

N/A

b. With reference to Figure 48 and your
preferred Strategy Option, do you think any
of the promoted sites should be made
available for any of the following uses? How
could that improve the completeness of
Hullbridge?

i. Housing [market, affordable, specialist, traveller, other]
ii. Commercial [offices, industrial, retail, other]
iii. Community infrastructure [open space, education, healthcare, allotments, other]
iv. Other

N/A

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

N/A

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

N/A

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]

N/A

Q61.
a. Do you agree with our vision for Canewdon? Is there anything you feel is QUESTIONS missing? [Please state reasoning]

N/A

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

i. Housing [market, affordable, specialist, traveller, other]
ii. Commercial [offices, industrial, retail, other]
iii. Community infrastructure [open space, education, healthcare, allotments, other]
iv. Other

N/A

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

N/A

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

N/A

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]

N/A

Q62.
a. Do you agree with our vision for Great Stambridge? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]

N/A

b. With reference to Figure 50 and your
preferred Strategy Option, do you think any
of the promoted sites should be made
available for any of the following uses? How
could that improve the completeness of
Great Stambridge?
N/A

i. Housing [market, affordable, specialist, traveller, other]
ii. Commercial [offices, industrial, retail, other]
iii. Community infrastructure [open space, education, healthcare, allotments, other]
iv. Other

N/A

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

N/A

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

N/A

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

N/A

Q63.
a. Do you agree with our vision for Rawreth? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]

N/A

b. With reference to Figure 51 and your
preferred Strategy Option, do you think any
of the promoted sites should be made
available for any of the following uses? How
could that improve the completeness of
Rawreth?

i. Housing [market, affordable, specialist, traveller, other]
ii. Commercial [offices, industrial, retail, other]
iii. Community infrastructure [open space, education, healthcare, allotments, other]
iv. Other

N/A

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]

N/A

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

N/A

Q64.
a. Do you agree with our vision for Paglesham? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]

N/A

b. With reference to Figure 52 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the promoted sites should be made available for any of the following uses? How could that improve the completeness of Paglesham?

i. Housing [market, affordable, specialist, traveller, other]
ii. Commercial [offices, industrial, retail, other]
iii. Community infrastructure [open space, education, healthcare, allotments, other]
iv. Other

N/A

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

N/A

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

N/A

e. Do you agree that the local green spaces
shown on Figure 52 hold local significance?
Are there any other open spaces that hold
particular local significance? [Please state
reasoning]

N/A

Q65.
a. Do you agree with our vision for Sutton and
Stonebridge? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]

N/A

b. With reference to Figure 53 and your
preferred Strategy Option, do you think any
of the promoted sites should be made
available for any of the following uses? How
could that improve the completeness of
Sutton and Stonebridge?

i. Housing [market, affordable, specialist, traveller, other]
ii. Commercial [offices, industrial, retail, other]
iii. Community infrastructure [open space,
education, healthcare, allotments, other]
iv. Other

N/A

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

N/A

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

N/A

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

N/A

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

N/A

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

N/A

SAVE MILL HALL

I want the area around Mill Hall to be kept. It has been essential for the infections against the present virus, and the only building in Rayleigh for wedding parties, theatre, exhibitions etc.

COL07 COL20

I do object to the site COL07 and COL20 being used for yet more housing. It is after all a conservation area and therefore remain so. Rayleigh is so congested with traffic nowadays that more houses will make it even worse and spoil our town.

There must be a limit on the number of houses a town can take - we are getting close to overload!

CFS059

We have been living in Eastwood since 1999 and back onto the proposed build area. We feel that building on this site would destroy all the natural habitat. We have seen many stoats, badgers, foxes and weasels.

Also, we are concerned about the extra traffic on our narrow roads. Gravel Road is already used as a rat-run. We have seen many near-miss accidents, especially during the school run.

20 HOUSES COULD SEE 40 EXTRA CARS, PLUS POLLUTION ON OUR ROADS.

THIS IS WHY WE STRONGLY OBJECT TO THE PROPOSAL.

Ref:- COL07 & COL20

I though this was a conservation area, not for housing. Also, trees are an important part for climate change. The Council seems to want to destroy and take away all amenities.

My local residents will not bother to communicate with the Council because you don't listen.

I was always a Conservative, not anymore, even our local MP has not bothered to reply.

Or is it all to do with receiving more income, and not worry about the residents of Rayleigh.

Dear Sirs

We have looked at the proposed sites for development and are concerned that it seems as though Rayleigh will be at least a third bigger than it is presently, with, we guess if recent developments are anything to go by, few properties that first time buyers like our grandchildren would be able to afford.

Surely it would be better to build new developments away from existing towns and villages with new facilities purpose built for the amount of dwellings rather than stretching the resources which are already not coping with demand.

As there are constant traffic jams through the centre of Rayleigh particularly bad at peak times earning it the dubious reputation of having extremely bad air quality it makes us fearful of the health of Rayleigh residents if this development was to take place.

We understand that in the previous plans for development - Allocates DPD Reg. 25 it was stated that there would be public parkland providing a buffer between the built development and the A1245, but this proposal shows large areas, probably containing over 1000 dwellings right up to the A1245.

We fail to see how these proposals would enhance or conserve the natural and historic environment. Indeed, we feel that once dwellings are built near to them it would have the opposite effect of encroaching on them and eventually swallowing them up. Hence we do not support the demolition of The Mill, a recreational building, for more apartment blocks.

it would be very unlikely that the residents of these developments would bring new life to the High Street and other existing commercial properties as the queues of traffic to get into the town and parking fees would make the choice of shopping in out of town where parking is free would be much more attractive.

We both agree that Rayleigh is a lovely town but are becoming increasingly frustrated with the amount of traffic that runs through it (particularly if there is trouble on the A127 when it becomes a 'rat run'). Recent development has not enhanced the High Street apart from encouraging new eating places. Please don't let it be destroyed forever!

Re COL7 COL20

There are already too many new properties being built in the area.
All access roads in and out of Rayleigh will be blocked, particularly at rush hours.
Local shops will suffer the loss of parking.

COL07 COL20

Mill Hall would be missed by local community. I go to a keep fit class, Bazaars, comedy nights and salsa dancing. I have also hired a room for private function. My dad attends OAP club. Where will all this be held???
We need Mill Hall.

COL7 & COL20

I strongly object to the planned change of use of the Mill Hall and Civic Suite. The hall provides a valuable communal area for many functions e.g. keep fit classes, fairs for charities and many others.

The traffic conditions would be unbearable with even more housing. The planned housing would also stretch the schools and GP practices which are already under pressure.

I strongly object to site COL07 & COL20 being redeveloped for residential use. These are valuable, community sites in the heart of the town and within the designated 'conservation area' and the loss of the green areas around them would be severely detrimental to the environment and aesthetic of the area. Totally unnecessary and against the wishes of the majority of Rayleigh residents.

Please leave the Mill hall, car park and green alone. Manage the Mill Hall better to encourage more groups to use it. It is totally fit for purpose and demolition is costly and unnecessary. Also, the Civic Suite and gardens. Rochford District Council has a duty to preserve and enhance our town under Section 71 of the Planning Act 1990. They also have a duty under Section 40 of Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 1986 to conserve and encourage biodiversity. Concreting over our very few garden areas is in direct contradiction of this Act.

Hambro Hill & Close Residents

RE CFS105

Reasons why this land CANNOT be included in the Local Plan.

1. 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.

2. Metropolitan Green Belt
- Developments must not negatively impact on the environmental quality of the local area, openness of the Green Belt or the character of the countryside.
- Rochford study: 'moderate' rating for Purpose 1 & 'strong' rating for 2 & 3:
- Checks the unrestricted sprawl of built-up areas
- Prevents Rayleigh & Hockley merging into one another
- Assists in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.

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

4. 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.

5. 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

Hambro Hill & Close Residents

RE CFS105

Reasons why this land CANNOT be included in the Local Plan.

1. 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.

2. Metropolitan Green Belt
- Developments must not negatively impact on the environmental quality of the local area, openness of the Green Belt or the character of the countryside.
- Rochford study: 'moderate' rating for Purpose 1 & 'strong' rating for 2 & 3:
- Checks the unrestricted sprawl of built-up areas
- Prevents Rayleigh & Hockley merging into one another
- Assists in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.

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

4. 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.

5. 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

Spatial Options Consultations - some objections to promoted development Site CFS059

We have recently noted the promoted development of 20 houses on this 0.58 hectare site at the south-east end of Sandhill Road and wish to make several points against allowing such a development to proceed.

1. The existing site access (which is the only genuinely conceivable access for this development) is rated using the scoring system on the Site assessment Proforma as 3. This seems fairly neutral but we are both of the opinion that this is a serious underestimate of the negative impact such a development would have on Sandhill Road. The cul de sac section of Sandhill Road, which would give access to any development, is private, narrow (especially at its south-east end adjacent to the site) and poorly lit. Sandhill Road and the Rochford district section of Eastwood Rise have no pavements so that vehicles and pedestrians share the carriageway. Emergency vehicles, dust carts, delivery lorries etc., frequently have difficulty reaching the far end of Sandhill road and further development would aggravate this problem.

2. The junction of this part of Sandhill Road with Eastwood Rise, which features an unusable mini roundabout, is already difficult for all and dangerous for some because of the narrowness of Sandhill Road and poor sight lines at the junction. This is especially true for pedestrians given their lack of separation from vehicles.

3. The building of the development would cause high levels of lorry traffic and we have strong doubts as to whether the standard of road metalling in this private road is high enough to prevent serious damage.

4. We see that the distance to the strategic road network (presumably at the junction of Eastwood Rise and Rayleigh Road in the Southend-on-Sea Unitary Authority area) is rated at 5 (best). This is obviously correct in a basic geographical sense - half a mile at most, but attention must be focussed on the already very congested nature of this junction. The south end of Eastwood Rise, in particular, is used for delivery vehicle and shoppers' parking and the parking of vehicles in the bay in the Rayleigh direction of Rayleigh Road obscures a clear view in a manner which is frequently dangerous. Heavy construction traffic turning into Eastwood Rise at this junction would be extremely dangerous as would the increased traffic from twenty houses after completion of the promoted development.

5. Traffic flows on the Rayleigh/Eastwood Road are already very high especially at the Progress Road junction, Jones's Corner and Rochford Corner. Increased congestion and accident risk on what is probably the main link between Rayleigh and Rochford would be unavoidable given the practical impossibility of improving this road.

6. A route along Gravel road, Wren Avenue, Green lane and Western Approaches is already being used as an alternative by drivers between Rayleigh and Southend and Rochford to avoid congestion on the Rayleigh Road. Gardens on Gravel Road are quite small and there is a lot of on-street parking so that traffic flow can be single lane over quite long distances. Heavier traffic on this road, which passes very close to two primary schools, would make it even more dangerous than it is now.

7. We also note that your assessment of the impact of this promoted development on Greenbelt land, landscape etc., is toward the worst end of your scale. This is already an overdeveloped area close to Edwards Hall park and Cherry Orchard Jubilee Park. We feel that housing development, and this also applies to some other promoted areas on your map, close to these valuable amenities would be to the great detriment of the whole area and detract from the beneficial and much valued aspects of these parks.

8. We understand that new housing is required, although at a national level there must be alternatives to cramming so much of it into the home counties. However our preference is for small number of larger developments (like that adjacent to Hall Road, Rochford) as with these the necessary road infrastructure and amenities such as schools, doctors' surgeries etc., can be provided. This, surely has to be preferable to a number of small 'fill in' estates like that being promoted for Sandhill Road.

As a resident of Great Wheatley Road, I object to zoning for development of CFS077 particularly and CFS121 and CSF087 because:-

1/ AIR QUALITY and carbon monoxide levels in our part of Rayleigh is already much worse than other areas.

2/ WILDLIFE THREAT to hunting grounds in the zones green belt of existing badgers, bats, owls and deer living in protected trees/ hedgerows. This should be considered for Wildlife Protection Status not destroyed.

3/ PHYSICAL & MENTAL HEALTH of existing residents (some with asthma) who have invested in this historic and traditional/ tranquil neighbourhood should not be disregarded.

4/ INFRASTRUCTURE is at maximum capacity this side of Rayleigh regarding traffic congestion. Cycling and walking is already dangerous on narrow and uneven pavements and roads invariably obstructed by parked vehicles.

Thank you for considering my objection.

Under this “spatial Options Consultation”

I wish to object to any zone changes to allow building development of the Green-Belt high quality arable farmland to the North of Great Wheatly Road. (CFS077 Address: Land to the north of Great Wheatley Road, Rayleigh) which has been promoted for development.
In the Green Belt Study of 2020 this Parcel of land has been given a “Strong” assessment under “Assist in Safeguarding the Countryside from Encroachment”
This is one of the few remaining pieces of higher-ground green belt in Rayleigh that is clear of development. In previous proposals it has been recognised that it would be inappropriate to develop this area. The West of Rayleigh is already a low-air-quality zone. Development of this area would exacerbate the problem while removing the crops that give this part of Rayleigh its lungs. The zone also includes some areas of woodland that is home to wildlife, with trees listed for preservation. Development of this parcel of land would block natural animal corridors.

Under the “High Level Heritage Assessment for Rochford District” the area was classified as “Moderate Adverse” – Potentially impacting the setting of the three designated buildings at Great Wheatley Farm.

Development of this area would also detract from the existing character.

Please help protect the character of our town by avoiding any re-designation of CFS077

I live at number [redacted] Spring Gardens, Rayleigh, SS6 7DQ and would like to comment upon the plan. I understand that I am a few hours late and apologise for this; I had wanted to provide my comments but got stuck in traffic for most of the afternoon in both the Southend and Rayleigh area. I hope you will accept my comments.

The plot that I wish to comment upon in particular is CFS077, Land to the north of Great Wheatley Road, Rayleigh. Number 47 Spring Gardens is situated on the corner of Spring Gardens and Poyntens which would be the access road for the plot.

1. (a) The first point I raise relates to the traffic, parked cars and narrow road access in this area. I attach photos showing 2 cars trying to drive in opposite directions just a few weeks ago, taken when I was out walking. This was actually a good day for parked cars when there weren’t that many around. The burgundy Fiesta in the picture had to reverse all the way back up the road to allow the other through. When there are many cars parked and also many cars trying to drive up and down the road (such as a school morning) this creates havoc. On some days it is almost impossible to leave my home in the car in any event, without adding (a) a construction site where articulated lorries will be driving up and down and needing access via Poyntens and then (b) a housing estate with potentially 263 houses where the majority of people will have at least 2 cars meaning an additional 526 cars to get in and out of Poyntens.

(b) This is also extremely dangerous as emergency vehicles would not stand a chance of being able to access anyone down our road in an emergency, potentially costing lives.

(c) Again very recently, there have been works being carried out at the top end of Spring Gardens where our part of the road meets the other part of Spring Gardens leading onto Love Lane. The road was closed but many cars chose to drive on the pavement to get through quicker. Works like this would create chaos with articulated lorries and the eventual additional 526 cars having to go down Love Lane instead and then up via Highmead.

(d) Further on the same point, when other works were carried out in the same place, the road was not shut but was so narrow that every car had to drive on the pavement to get round the corner. This would make a complete mess of the road and pavement if lorries are doing this.

(e) The pot holes in this area are terrible as it is and further works vehicles would render the road virtually undriveable given months of work and then the additional cars.

2. The second point I wish to address is in relation to wildlife. I attach photos of buzzards flying above our house and a woodpecker in our garden. We regularly have several slow worms and gold finches in our garden too and can provide photos if you’d like. Destroying their habitat to make room for houses will mean losing much of our wildlife in this area and is not something to be condoned.

3. There is then the general issue of lack of schools , doctors etc for a further 263 households of, likely, 4 people. It is virtually impossible to make an appointment at Audley Mills surgery which is where most people would register. To see a doctor one must walk up to the surgery at 6.30am to queue for opening at 7am when you can hope to get lucky and make an appointment. This leaves the poor unfortunate people with a sick child at home who are unable to get out to make the appointment with the worst chance of being able to secure that appointment. An already farcical situation would be made much worse unless more facilities are built immediately to cope with the influx of people.

4. A final point to make is the regular flooding of Poyntens. I do not know whether this is due to poor drainage or burst water mains (such as this week on Spring Gardens) but the prospect of flooding, works vehicles for the construction site, works vehicles to fix the flooding issue and a good deal of extra people and cars on a school morning is ridiculous.

I received a leaflet through our door from the Liberal Democrats on the issue of a garden village. I do not know a great deal about their plan but, on the face of it, this seems that it should be a consideration.

I could elaborate on all of these points but I am aware that I am already late in submitting my points and sincerely hope you will accept them.

[re all sites, but in particularly CFS098, 053 & 027]

I object in the strongest terms to ALL the proposals in your spatial plan.

There is insufficient infrastructure in existence to support the huge increase in housing that you suggest, even the housing that been built over the last few years, e.g. Hall Road area, which apparently included schooling, medical and shopping but was allowed to be built without any of them due to builders being allowed to get around not being made to include them. There was no improvement to road access either.

Our roads are already congested with grid lock often being achieved in and around our town centres. The condition of our road reflects their overusage.

Our doctors' surgeries and local hospitals are already over loaded, it is hugely difficult to get an appointment and our schools appear to be full.

There was a statement made in the past by Rochford council there you intended to keep a green buffer between Rochford's towns, now you appear to plan to build on green belt, regardless of what you designate it, and even on some of Hockley woods, again to the detriment of everyone's environment. ]]You seem intent on blindly following the government demands, which are now under review, and have no interest in improving the area to the benefit of your current residents without adding additional housing. Rochford council seems to have a mercenary and blinkered approach to residents, in spite of actually putting out this plan for public opinion.

With specific interest to myself and references CFS098, CFS053 and CFS027 you have wrongly designated this land as non-flooding which wrong. I live in Nelson Road and believe the source of the Prittle Brook to be between the ends of the gardens and the fields there. We back onto the field and we have slow worms in our gardens and any building works in those fields could damage their protected environment.

It is a shame that you have made the information available on line difficult to read, negotiate and understand even for those who are computer literate.

With respect to the plans for the Mill Hall, the actual construction of the building originally contravened the laws regarding ancient monuments and unless you actually knocked it all down to restore the site to what it was originally, prior to any building, then any new building would cause further damage to that ancient site.

[re all sites, but in particularly CFS098, 053 & 027]

I object in the strongest terms to ALL the proposals in your spatial plan.

There is insufficient infrastructure in existence to support the huge increase in housing that you suggest, even the housing that been built over the last few years, e.g. Hall Road area, which apparently included schooling, medical and shopping but was allowed to be built without any of them due to builders being allowed to get around not being made to include them. There was no improvement to road access either.

Our roads are already congested with grid lock often being achieved in and around our town centres. The condition of our road reflects their overusage.

Our doctors' surgeries and local hospitals are already over loaded, it is hugely difficult to get an appointment and our schools appear to be full.

There was a statement made in the past by Rochford council there you intended to keep a green buffer between Rochford's towns, now you appear to plan to build on green belt, regardless of what you designate it, and even on some of Hockley woods, again to the detriment of everyone's environment. ]]You seem intent on blindly following the government demands, which are now under review, and have no interest in improving the area to the benefit of your current residents without adding additional housing. Rochford council seems to have a mercenary and blinkered approach to residents, in spite of actually putting out this plan for public opinion.

With specific interest to myself and references CFS098, CFS053 and CFS027 you have wrongly designated this land as non-flooding which wrong. I live in Nelson Road and believe the source of the Prittle Brook to be between the ends of the gardens and the fields there. We back onto the field and we have slow worms in our gardens and any building works in those fields could damage their protected environment.

It is a shame that you have made the information available on line difficult to read, negotiate and understand even for those who are computer literate.

With respect to the plans for the Mill Hall, the actual construction of the building originally contravened the laws regarding ancient monuments and unless you actually knocked it all down to restore the site to what it was originally, prior to any building, then any new building would cause further damage to that ancient site.

Spatial Options for Rayleigh
I am writing to object to the inclusion of Sites CFS068, CFS069 and CFS256 in the Draft Local Plan. All three sites are unsuitable and unsustainable. This is due to issues of flood risk, ecological impact, habitat destruction, poor site access and access to public transport, traffic congestion and insufficient school and healthcare infrastructure.

I have set out my alternative assessments, utilising the Council’s consultation assessment criteria, in the tables below:

[see attached document for alternative site appraisal scores provided by respondent]

Proposed housing developments

This land indicated in COL7, COL20 is council owned, this indicates it is owned by the people of Rayleigh as it is obvious by the objections the people of Rayleigh do not want this land developed. The Mill and surrounding area is historic and must be preserved as such. Rayleigh is already over-developed and struggling to cope with the new developments underway.

The option of a garden village (3a and 3b) would be somewhat better although no development at all would be ideal.

Conservative councillors barely scraped in at the last election. Unless they listen to the people of Rayleigh they will not survive the next one.