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?

We would like to, having parents living on The Chase, complain and object about the above development taking place.

The local area is already far too busy on the roads, significant developments taking place, very few green areas are still unbuilt as well as it already being impossible to get appointments at the oversubscribed doctors surgeries.

This can’t be approved and will ruin the area.

Cfs027,cfs098,cfs086,cfs029,cfs053
No to these proposed planning due to inadequate infrastructure and passed flooding in the local area.

CF5053, CF5098, CF5027, CF5086 CF5029

I am putting in a my objection to the above proposed planning on the following points:-
Firstly the air quality in Rayleigh with the traffic, the volume of traffic is appalling.
It takes appox.30 minutes to get out of Rayleigh on a week day for a 10 minute drive.
When there is an accident on the 127 near Rayleigh , the whole town comes to a stand still.
The proposed site regarding Napier Road is not suitable, the road is narrow and coming out
into Nelson Road with the traffic speeds, an accident is just waiting to happen.

This land is classified as Green Belt land there are trees all along the side of Napier Road,
helping the carbon footprint.

AMENITIES

With all this building in Rayleigh there is no consideration to the amenities, thousands of extra people, with the proposed size of the hall at the site of the Mill Hall only suitable for a playschool.
On Saturdays you can not get parked in Rayleigh now.
Then there is all the other problems , doctors, dentist and schools.
The only bus that goes down Bull Lane is the no. 20, and that is quite away to walk with shopping
to the proposed sites.

I hope in your decision you will consider the above points.

REF CFS027 / CFS098 / CFS086 / CFS029 / CFS053

NOOOOOOOOOO

I am voting no to housing being built in this area!!!

I would like to register my concerns with the proposed developments planned at the below locations,

Land between Wellington road, bull lane and Napier road.

The roads around these locations have already suffered from flooding recently and with less green space to help drain excess rain water this will only get worse.

As a Rayleigh resident we severely struggle to get health care appointments with the current population and this will only get worse with the proposed increase of housing.

The roads in these locations are severely run down and have several pot holes and are only going to get worse again with increased use due to more housing.

It will have a negative impact on popular walking routes which current residents enjoy and will destroy the nature that habitats the areas.

Schools are already over subscribed and with no new schools proposed how will this be remedied.

Traffic in Rayleigh is usually gridlocked currently with more housing brings more cars resulting in more pollution and more traffic.

By getting rid of these green spaces you are eroding the appeal of Rayleigh and not thinking about current residents that have lived here and enjoy living here because of the wonderful balance that currently exists but is disappearing with the number of substantial developments already constructed/in construction.

CFS027, CFS098, CFS086, CFS053, CFS029

I am writing to voice my concern at Rochford Council’s proposal to build on green belt land and in particular in the above locations.

It is now widely recognised that green space is good for mental well-being as well as for the environment. A small amount of manufactured green space cannot replace the beauty and environmental value of naturally evolved green belt, woodland and open fields.

Rayleigh has already grown from a small market town to a busy and quite densely populated sprawl. It’s virtually impossible to get a doctor’s appointment and traffic congestion is creating pollution levels that will only become more unacceptable if, as the council proposes, population levels continue to grow exponentially.

In response to the council’s request for comment on the proposals, my answer is NO! We do not want more housing, more traffic, more social and infrastructure problems and nor do we want to lose our much loved and well used green belt.

Special Options Plan CFS053,CFS086,CFS098,CFS029,CFS027

I am writing to object about the proposed development of the above sites.
This Green Belt land has been used for the enjoyment of the local community for many years. It is what makes this corner of Rayleigh such a valuable asset to the town for all to be enjoyed. In particular residents enjoy walking through the field behind Nelson Road and this was even more apparent during the Pandemic. The local community can experience the space, countryside and nature giving some sanctuary from the situation we find ourselves in.To propose to cover the area in housing would totally remove and ruin this natural environment which the community is currently able to experience. It is what helps make Rayleigh the popular town which it is.
The field between Wellington Road and Nelson Road (CFS053) is mostly on a hill. For the residents living along Nelson Road, due to the difference in height, this will mean their properties will be completely overlooked and will cause a total lack of privacy which has been enjoyed for many years. How can the visual amenity of the area be so disregarded? The nature of this hill already causes flooding issues as does similar situations in Albert Road and Blower Close. To cover the area in housing and concrete would be removing land which helps soak up this excess water.
Nelson Road is already used as a cut-through by vehicles from the Hockley Road with cars often speeding dangerously. To then add hundreds of more cars to this scenario from new homes would cause major highway safety issues. Due to the location of Fairview Park, there are many children and dog walkers who use the lane from Albert Road, up to Napier Road and then across Nelson Road through to the park entrance which lays opposite between 62 and 64 Nelson Road. More cars would cause a definite safety issue. That is without taking into consideration the excess traffic and pollution which is already an issue in the area. Traffic along the Hockley Road is a big problem with often extremely long delays and that is before the impact is felt from the new housing at Bullwood Hall. It is also a problem for emergency services to travel around the area at busy times of the day.
Access is also a concern. Wellington Road is presently a small, quiet turning and is certainly not fit to have hundreds of extra vehicles using it. Napier Road not only is a private road but is extremely narrow and I believe a recent planning application was refused due to access issues.
Our doctors and schools are already over-subscribed with local children not guaranteed a place at their local school (a fact I know from personal experience) and it is already virtually impossible to get a doctor’s appointment.
If more housing is a necessity, surely the best option would be to create a new area on land that is presently more rural and have less impact on the existing communities. Infrastructure can be built to sustain a new community rather than totally ruining what Rayleigh already enjoys and represents. Please protect Rayleigh for our future generations.

Site Assessment proforma ref CFS059

Sandhill road cannot cope with the development of 20 houses.Each house on average 2 cars per house=40 cars.The road is so narrow it will not take this amount of traffic.We are experiencing problems with traffic at the moment. With at least another 40 cars our road will not cope. This development cannot go ahead.

Ref nos. CFS027 CFS098 CFS086 CFS029 CFS053
Please record our opinion as NO.

I live at XX Sandhill Road, Leigh-on-Sea, SS9 5BY. I have reviewed the Spatial Options document and interactive plan, following receipt of your flyer regarding the new Local Plan. I would like to put forward an objection as follows.

I note from the Spatial Options interactive map that the field at the end of Sandhill Road is being considered as promoted development land. I do not consider this viable for a number of reasons:
1. Firstly, Sandhill Road is a single-width road, not suitable or safe for the increased traffic which would come with erection of 20 new houses. There would inevitably be issues with parking, which would make it unsafe for emergency vehicles and refuse collection vans to pass down the road;
2. Sandhill Road and its surround are currently very quiet areas, home to lots of widelife and providing amenity areas for the community. Development would disrupt the current landscape, bringing more noise pollution and traffic;
3. There is insufficient parking in the area. If 20 new houses are erected, and each homeowner has 2 cars each, that means 40 new cars that will be fighting for parking on the development, and inevitable spilling out into Sandhill Road. This is likely to cause all manner of disputes (some potentially legal), since Sandhill Road is currently unadopted. Each current homeowner owns up to the middle of the road pursuant to the principle of ad medium filum, and if cars end up parking on paved areas fronting existing properties, this will effectively amount to trespass.
I should be grateful if you would acknowledge safe receipt of this objection and confirm that it has been passed to the relevant department(s).

I would like to log my objection to any ideas you have for developing the Land at the end of Sandhill Road, Eastwood. As you would be aware, Sandhill Road is not an adopted highway it is a private road and is far too narrow to accommodate an additional potential of 40 cars (say 2 per household) if the proposed 20 new houses were ever to be built. We do not have any pavements or safe footway here and therefore more traffic would be extremely dangerous for residents, pets and children who often play outside in the private road. I presume that the highways department would have to adopt the road and bring all pavements and street furniture up to current regulation, to conform with health and safety etc before any development could be considered. To accommodate the aforementioned footpaths and street furniture etc, the council would have to negotiate and purchase land from current residents, whom I know would be extremely reluctant to part with any land.

We also live alongside an abundance of wildlife including badgers, muntjac deer and bats which we all embrace and enjoy, any development will have a detrimental impact on their habitat.

I note that you have taken into consideration the flood risk, you may or may not be aware that the surface water in the area and some of the sewage is controlled by mini pumping stations, which often sound alarms and go faulty after a period of rain. Therefore, extra homes would put more strain on an already struggling system. There is a very popular private fishing lake in the nearby vicinity, which will no doubt be adversely affected by more housing and hard landscaping.

The traffic in adjacent Eastwood Rise, which also has no pavements, has increased dramatically in recent years with the promotion of Cherry Orchard Park and become quite dangerous. Therefore, any further development in this area would only have a detrimental effect on an already unsuitable road.

I hope you take my comments seriously when considering using this land as a feasible development site for additional housing.

Housing development Bull Lane/Blower Close

I have been informed about the prospect of future plans for a housing development in the fields at the end of Albert Road and behind Blower Close.

I am shocked that the council could even give this a single thought. I am a resident of Blower Close who went through the terrible floods of 2013. Attended the council meetings and it was stated on record that Blower Close should never have been built and now you are planning more!!!!

We have constant concerns when we have heavy rain now as our drains don’t seem to cope.

Also, TRAFFIC!!! You can’t get in and out of Rayleigh now. It’s just one constant traffic jam, the health implications, nearly impossible to get a doctors appointment.

There can be no reasonable argument to even contemplate building in this area.

CFS053, CFS086, CFS027

Therefore with reference to the 'Spatial Options Consultation' can you please note my following objections:

Access
• All existing significant developments within the Rochford area (on green belt land) have immediate access to major road infrastructure.
• Examples include Eastbury Park (B1013 - Hall Rd), High Elm Park (Lower Rd) and Wolsey Park (Rawreth Ln)
• The options CFS053, CFS086, and CKS027 would require access via quite residential roads.
• This would have a severe impact on both the environment, well being of residents and traffic management.

Environmental
• The use of green belt land erodes the rural nature of the Rayleigh conurbation.
• The proposed development CFS053 would require the removal of a well used public footpath between Wellington Rd and Albert Rd (via Napier Road).
• This would be to the detriment of the local community for the provision of health and wellbeing.

Wildlife
• Option CFS053 is frequently visited by Badgers, Foxes and occasionally Deer.
• The destruction of this habitat would be to the detriment of these creatures.

Watercourse
• The land to the rear of Nelson Road is separated from CFS053 by the beginnings of the River Roach. Any building on this land would impact this watercourse.

CFSO27 CFS098 CFS086 CFS029 CFSO53

No! I object to the buildings at the end of bull lane

We already have gridlock, no doctor appointments available, primary school places difficult to secure especially KS2, no dentists taking on NHS patients, not enough appropriately designed and filled recreational areas and no appropriate activities to capture our current teenage population. I am in a state of disbelief that with all of the above points in mind you deem it sensible and appropriate to build even more unaffordable housing. I strongly object to your plans to increase and continue to build within the Rayleigh district

I am contacting you to register my utter disbelief and disgust that you wish to build houses on Hockley Woods, which is green belt land. Green Belt land, is land that is never to be built on. This is an area used by so many for physical and mental exercise. While the country was struggling with the pandemic, it was a place many could go to for their wellbeing.

As everyone knows, Rayleigh, as well as other local areas, are already over populated, we have new housing estates on almost any green space that once existed. Roads are always at a standstill due to the amount of traffic; we just can't take anymore.

Every time a new estate is proposed we are told they will build a new primary school, new doctors' surgery, neither of which ever emerge. Another point is that although they promise Primary schools, these children will need to go to secondary school at the age of 11 and no one wants to build a new school for them. Fitzwimac and Sweyne Park have already taken 30 pupils extra per year and cannot continue to do this.

Our doctor's surgery is at breaking point. Trying to get an appointment is almost impossible at times.

While I except you wish to build new houses, please use brown field sites, not green belt.

Proposal for new housing development Nelson Road/Wellington Road area.
No more development of houses in this area. We currently have Bullwood Hall, Rawreth Lane, London Road and of course the development on theRayleigh Hullbridge border.
Rayleigh is fast becoming very over developed. It’s hard enough at the moment to get a doctors appointment or a hospital appointment, without the hundreds of new people coming into the system. Going from A to B in the local area by road is also very trying.
Are we going to have more schools, more doctors surgeries and more importantly a new hospital? . Lots of people I speak to some born and bred in Rayleigh no longer particularly like living in Rayleigh anymore.

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.

We are writing to express our objection to the Spatial Options Plan which involves the development of land between Wellington Road and Bull Lane, taking in all the land behind Nelson Road, Albert Road and off the top of Bull Lane.
The Green Belt land at the rear of our property is a haven for bird and wildlife and development there would be detrimental to us and neighbouring properties. Indeed, the peaceful location was very much a deciding factor in purchasing the property. The water channel, which runs along the rear of the properties in Nelson Road, is an important factor. Foxes, badgers, pheasants and bird life will be affected greatly. The public right of way should also be taken into account. We often notice walkers and walking clubs as well as people riding horses enjoying the land.
A development of this size would have a severe impact on the general atmosphere, character and amenity of the town. The roads in Rayleigh town are already congested and increased traffic would severely impact on every-day life. Traffic getting out of Wellington Road and Albert Road will cause issues. Other services including schools, doctors etc are already stretched and, again, this would have an adverse impact on residents.
In our opinion, Rayleigh has managed to retain its interest and small town character. This development will change the town beyond recognition, and we must ask that the Council reconsider the current proposals.

I have received your proposal for my area namely , CFSO27, CFS098, CFS086,
CFS029, and CFS053.
For these areas to be removed from their current GREENBELT protection.

I know that the need for extra housing is an important consideration and I hope that the required numbers can be realised from areas other than these. Everyone wants to keep the Beauty of the countryside.
Unfortunately with new housing comes the need for NEW SCHOOLS, NEW NHS facilities and of course NEW CARS, Which I’m aware do not come under your control, but hope that you have some influence with ESSEX c.c

May I suggest a duel carriageway new road connecting Hullbridge via Lower Road with Hockley and Southchurch via Sutton Road. This would be a great help for all of us…….

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

I have been made aware of the possible interest in developing houses on the green field down sandhill road Ss95by (reference CFS059) and felt I should leave my personal comment on this. I strongly OBJECT to this due to the disaster it would cause for the residents of the road and neighbouring roads:
1- increased noise pollution.
2- loss of nature for the abundance of wildlife we have.
3- Increased traffic of which our small road would not cope with due to only being a single-width road. Each house could have a minimum of 2 cars which is 40 new cars (likely more), Also, where will these cars park as I highly doubt they will have adequate parking and therefor will spill out on the road causing all manner of disruption and disputes.
4- Our road is a quiet safe road which has resident children playing on it daily! This would no longer be possible due to the increased traffic.
5- This will likely devalue our properties (especially if there is affordable housing).
6- This will cause more traffic problems for the neighbouring roads such as sandhill road on the opposite side, Rayleigh avenue, Eastwood rise and gravel road, as a few examples, which are already used as rat runs and can’t cope with traffic as it is.
I hope my OBJECTION will be logged.

Proposed Housing Development behind Nelson Road/Albert Road
I have viewed the consultation document and am appalled that yet another green field site is going to be lost and another 300+ homes built. Despite all the council’s positive comment’s on infrastructure and affordable housing the reality is Rayleigh has now reached saturation point. Schools, Surgeries , Dentists, Childcare facilities, social/council services are at breaking point directly as a result of the huge housing expansion experienced over recent years without due consideration to its residents.

The roads in and around around Rayleigh are unable to cope with the volume of traffic, again directly due to the housing expansion. Most times of the day there are traffic jams throughout the area but the council keeps proposing yet more housing ! I am totally against this particular proposal and in particular yet more large scale developments in the area. There has to be a limit to what this area can absorb and I firmly believe Rayleigh has already reached that stage. I see very little improvement in what is becoming a “scruffy” town which it is becoming a far less appealing town to live for all the reasons above. I don’t believe Rochford Council listens to its residents and will go ahead with the proposals anyway !

Having had the opportunity to explore the maps as you have provided I wish to express my concern as to the potential impact it would have on the area in which I have lived for 26 years.

I believe Rayleigh has accepted more than its fair share of development in recent times with large estates already going up to the West of the town. We are now being asked to start accepting such developments to the East in what is already a developed and congested area. On many occasions the town centre is gridlocked (in fact leaving Betjeman Close two weeks ago in the morning it took me an hour to get to the Rayleigh Weir). The roads cannot take much more without substantial investment in improvements and indeed the local infrastructure is already creaking. No details of how this estates may be accessed is shown and I have no doubt major alterations would have to be made to local roads which are too narrow for the traffic flows that may be expected.

Trying to get doctors appointments is almost an impossible task and the schools are full to bursting.

I recognise that housing is important but it cannot be right that they are spoiling areas to the detriment of peoples lives in the area. Also the developments do not have affordable housing as is always mooted as being part of the development with properties regularly over the half million pounds mark and greater. What chance for local young people?

So my views and that of my family is a resounding NO to your plans but I am sceptical about how much notice will be taken.

Ref CFSO27, CFSO98, CFSO86 CFSO29 CFSO53
No we do not want these houses built in greenbelt land. Please stop this from happening.

Ref CFSO27, CFSO98, CFSO86 CFSO29 CFSO53
Please do not allow this to go ahead.

Ref CFSO27, CFSO98, CFSO86 CFSO29 CFSO53
Please do not allow this building work to go ahead. This is greenbelt land and should remain so.

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.

I object to the proposed planning under references - CFS027, CFS098, CFS086, CFS029 & CFS053

I would like to say No to any house building in Rayleigh