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?

Comments and Objections concerning CFS059
I am writing as I strongly object to the inclusion of the field at the end of our road in the new Spatial Options Document. I love where I live, and part of that is the peace and safety of our road, which is being threatened. The field being built upon or developed would open us up to a slew of problems. Our road is private and is calm and safe. We do not have cars speeding down here, it is quiet and safe for our children and family to use as it is not a busy area, or a road used as a cut through. If the traffic flow increased by the possible 40 cars attached to 20 new houses, that safety would disappear. As residents we had no say in the road layout when it was adapted from an unmade road, so there is not a consistent pavement. A busier road would make it unsafe for residents and others to walk in the road, as the risk of an accident would increase significantly with more traffic. The possible development also means more damage and wear to our road, which will come down to us to pay maintenance for. Parking is already sometimes an issue down our road as its wideness varies, so more cars parked will have a negative effect on access in our road, causing conflict, and again effecting the safety or residents and children. It could also interfere with access for larger essential vehicles such as refuse trucks and emergency vehicles. There is also the risk that residents or visitors to the new houses developed on the field, will park on our road causing problems or obstructions The noise pollution will also increase, and our property value is likely to decrease, which is detrimental to home owners. Our homes are an investment, and some of us are hoping to pass them on to our families or children, this development would have a massive impact on that. Our road is a community, and many of us have lived here decades and in peace. This development is not just about effecting property values or parking, it will have an impact on safety and the close community we have here. So we are strongly objecting to the inclusion of the field as an option for development. thank you very much.

SITE REFERENCE: CFS059
With regards to the above site reference, we are writing to you to strongly object to the proposed development affecting Sandhill Road, SS9.

Back in 2018 we purchased a property in Sandhill Road, mainly due to the peaceful location due to the small number of properties within the road. Should your proposed development be successful this will completely change the area in a very negative way for all those currently living in this road and the surrounding area.

Should this go ahead, during the lengthy development process, both traffic and noise levels will increase significantly. Site vehicles and future increased traffic would cause a very large safety factor for the young children who meet in this road. During lockdown this was a very important part of all the children's wellbeing with regards to their mental health, and continues to be so.

The site vehicles will also cause significant damage to the roads as it will be a constant. Any increased damage to the roads will be at the expense of the residents, as the road is private and unadopted.

One of the unique selling points of properties on Sandhill Hill and other nearby roads is the fact that it is so quiet and most of the residents on this street, bought properties and have not moved for many years for that very reason. The consent to this development would significantly reduce house prices within the area, potentially forcing people to move. This road has a number of elderly residents whom of which will be very disturbed and unsettled by these proposals.

Of greater concern, is the environment. Everyday we look at the media and all people are saying more needs to be done. The world at present is at a great risk - the words of the environment minister on the news today. How can constant new developments within the concentrated areas of Rochford and Rayleigh be helping this. Increased traffic congestion, causing greater pollution, over populated areas, the destruction of fields and wild life. How on earth can this be the right thing to do?

Going forward I would be most grateful to be included in any future correspondence that goes out regarding this proposed development. This needs to be a transparent process between Council, developers and local residents. Any other way of dealing with this could potentially cause a severe amount of distress and animosity to all parties concerned.

CFS077
I write regarding the local plan for potential development, map reference as above.

I live in Highmead which is a very small road. The plan indicates the opening at Poyntens would be used as an access road which would cause even more traffic and congestion in Spring Gardens. At present I cannot reach my house during school times if I drive this way due to the weight of traffic. Although I can choose Love Lane instead this is also a nightmare traffic wise and is dangerous with so much traffic and all of the primary school children. I do not feel this small area could take any more houses/cars.

The other points I would like to make are travelling anywhere around Rayleigh by car is completely horrendous!! Trying to get a GP appointment is practically impossible too. Whilst plans may provisionally include new GP surgeries and schools this often doesn’t happen when developing happens. In any case it’s still the tiny roads which wouldn’t be able to withstand more through traffic.

I feel the local residents and wildlife - we have foxes and badgers in the field - do not deserve to have a new housing development put on our doorsteps destroying our lives as we know it.

Please consider alternatives with more space and less negative impact on the local residents.

Green Belt Land development
Ref CFS027,029,053,086,098
I am appalled at the proposed development of Green Belt land/

The human race has already destroyed too many natural landscapes and we can’t afford to lose any more. These trees also help fight climate change by storing carbon produced by burning fossil fuels. Cutting them down and replacing them will not only destroy this valuable carbon store but release more into the atmosphere by disturbing the soil. These developments will also destroy the natural habitat of wildlife and insects.
In addition to the above such increased housing will put already strained local infrastructure under impossible pressure. Schools, Doctors, Dentists are already almost impossible to access, this will make it completely impossible
Roads around this area are already clogged with traffic which not only leads to frustrated motorists but also increases pollution. More housing will add to already clogged roads and pollution.
We have problems already with sewerage pipes in the area, more houses will put such services under even more danger of failure.
The impact of this development will be catastrophic for Rayleigh and it's residents and should not proceed.

I am objecting to the removal and redevelopment of Mill Hall. This is a community building in a conservation area. You are proposing thousands more houses/flats and looking to reduce the size of Mill Hall drastically. This is an area of historic interest, we need the Mill Hall for all members of the community. It is an ideal building to house the Rochford Tapestries. I also object to any building on green belt. No thought has been given to any infrastructure, flooding or pollution. Or the fact we have poor bus routes, insufficient doctors surgeries, the Puzey Practice running at 22k patients and local schools are full. There are only 2 main routes in our area B1013 and Ashingdon Road, which CANNOT absorb any more traffic.

I strongly object to the development of Green Belt land in Rayleigh, Hockley and Rochford. We have already destroyed too many natural landscapes and woodlands; we can’t afford to lose any more. These trees and landscapes help fight climate change by storing carbon produced by burning fossil fuels. Cutting them down and replacing them with housing will not only destroy this valuable carbon store but release more into the atmosphere by disturbing the soil. These developments will also destroy the natural habitat of wildlife and insects vital to the survival of humans.
In addition to the above such increased housing will put already strained local infrastructure under impossible pressure. Schools, Doctors, Dentists are already almost impossible to access, this will make it completely impossible. Are there any plans for new schools, doctors’ surgeries and roads to cope with the increase in the population?
The roads around this area are already clogged with traffic which not only leads to frustrated motorists but also increases pollution. More housing will add to already clogged roads and pollution.
We have problems already with sewerage pipes in the area, more houses will put such services under even more danger of failure.
The impact of this development will be catastrophic for Rayleigh and the Rochford, Hockley area and its residents and should not proceed.

I sat down with the intention of completing the consultation questionnaire, however with its 68 questions, some multiple part, and the plethora of related material it appears to be designed for people with far more time on their hands than your average resident. Perhaps cynically, I fear this may not be accidental.

I would like to make my views known on the local plan and would hope they are considered although not on the official questionnaire.

My primary concern is that of potential development that will affect me and my family directly, notably that at Napier Road, Bull Lane, Wellington Road, but looking at the whole plan I find the amount and type of land earmarked as "promoted" as staggering. On the whole this is arable farmland, development of which will further erode what used to be a pleasant semi rural district. Where is the sense in developing prime agricultural land creating further reliance on food imports?
I note that there is provision within option 4 for the creation of a new country park - There is already ample country side crisscrossed by footpaths. You are proposing to develop it then attempt to justify this by creating a "country park" to which people would flock in their droves, no doubt by car further exacerbating the traffic problems as per Cherry Orchard.

I could go into the effect on traffic and infrastructure in general, as well but as you should be aware this is already groaning under the existing population, not to mention illegal levels of pollution in Rayleigh High Street. From a brief review of the impact assessment almost all options appear to have a negative effect on environmental quality and either negative or uncertain on landscape so I fail to see how this can produce a positive effect on health and wellbeing as displayed universally for all options. As for a positive impact on transport and movement as shown for options 3 and 4 - I find this incredibly hard to believe and am sure an alternative report could easily counter the assertion. Unfortunately there is no option for residents to commission anything of the sort.

I would assume that housing quotas are foisted upon the district by Westminster and there is "nothing that can be done about it". I would also guess that the majority of responses from residents will not be in favour of the local plan and as such believe that our elected members should be doing all they can to resist further development of the area, In short; Rochford Is full up.

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

CF5027, CF5098, CF5086, CF5053, CF5029
I would like to lodge my objections to the proposed 329 new houses at Wellington Road, Napier Road, The horse paddock at Albert Road and Bull Lane. These areas are all used as public spaces for the residents of Rayleigh. These areas of nature are very important areas for wildlife and dog walking. Its an area the local residents can enjoy coming into contact with nature in a residential area. This peaceful area has been very important for the residents mental health particularly in the pandemic. I have enjoyed these areas for the last 25 years with my children and now my dog. The main reason I live in this area is having nature on my doorstep. I am a resident of Albert Road in Rayleigh. If these houses are built I will not be voting Conservative anymore in the local elections.

329 Houses on Wellington and Napier road
I wish to object to Re: CFS 027 CFS 098 CFS 086
CFS 029 CFS 053.
This land is agricultural land at the end of Wellington road
So we don’t anymore houses
Your certainly not think of global warming
eg : with all the concrete around the place where is the water going to drain when we start getting floods
The roads are congested enough as it is and very badly maintained of which you should be ashamed of yourselves as I’m led to believe you now take 8% of council tax goes towards maintaining them
I always thought car road tax should cover the cost for the maintenance so why are they in such a poor state
You really need to look into how your ruining this area I’ve lived here all my life 63 years
And the changes are in explainable
So please except my objection
We don’t need anymore houses

CFS053
I would like to raise objection to this proposed development, not from a sense of NIMBYism, since everyone needs somewhere to live, but from real concern for the local environment.

The land on which the development is to be sited represents the "lungs" of Rayleigh town and its use for housing, of whatever kind, will be detrimental to the overall wellbeing of the town and its residents. Further, on the Council's own assessment, the risk of flooding is very high, and I can say from the experience of neighbours who have lived here longer than I that the additional pressure on the brook at the edge of the flood will inevitably cause flooding, since this has already happened some years ago when the brook was not cleared

I would also add that traffic volumes in the town are already virtually unmanageable, and yet further building will exacerbate that situation. Local roads, of which Nelson Road is one, are already busy "rat runs" and additional housing in a congested area will make the situation intolerable.

I would ask that my comments be taken into consideration during the planning process.

CFS027, CSF098, CFS086, CFS029, CFS503
Please accept this email as my notice of objection to the development of land being considered in the above references.

I strongly object to using more of the green belt areas that made moving to Rayleigh the right choice for our family. In particular I object to the consideration of using the land at the end of Wellington Road which is currently a popular bridle path and footpath.

CFS098
I would like to raise objection to this proposed development, not from a sense of NIMBYism, since everyone needs somewhere to live, but from real concern for the local environment.

The land on which the development is to be sited represents the "lungs" of Rayleigh town and its use for housing, of whatever kind, will be detrimental to the overall wellbeing of the town and its residents. Further, on the Council's own assessment, the risk of flooding is very high, and I can say from the experience of neighbours who have lived here longer than I that the additional pressure on the brook at the edge of the flood will inevitably cause flooding, since this has already happened some years ago when the brook was not cleared.

I would also add that traffic volumes in the town are already virtually unmanageable, and yet further building will exacerbate that situation. Local roads, of which Nelson Road is one, are already busy "rat runs" and additional housing in a congested area will make the situation intolerable.

CFS053
I would like to raise objection to this proposed development, not from a sense of NIMBYism, since everyone needs somewhere to live, but from real concern for the local environment.

The land on which the development is to be sited represents the "lungs" of Rayleigh town and its use for housing, of whatever kind, will be detrimental to the overall wellbeing of the town and its residents. Further, on the Council's own assessment, the risk of flooding is very high, and I can say from the experience of neighbours who have lived here longer than I that the additional pressure on the brook at the edge of the flood will inevitably cause flooding, since this has already happened some years ago when the brook was not cleared.

I would also add that traffic volumes in the town are already virtually unmanageable, and yet further building will exacerbate that situation. Local roads, of which Nelson Road is one, are already busy "rat runs" and additional housing in a congested area will make the situation intolerable.

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

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

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

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

Consultation Process -The volume of information contained in the consultation was difficult to access and view online. Some links did not work properly. RDC are not reaching residents who have no internet.
Spatial option 3b North of Southend is most feasible site.
Spatial Themes not included - Cultural and Accessibility.
Employment – District is lacking in Environmental services - woodland conservation and management.
Improve Long-term Economic growth - Better road networks, gigabit broadband and Wi-Fi. Apprenticeships or training for all ages with jobs at the end of training. The council should stop developing existing commercial land into housing.
Local generation of low-carbon and renewable energy - New developments should be able to source some or all of their energy from renewable sources. Solar in all new development as standard. Incentives to encourage existing developments to install solar onto their properties as well as any commercial buildings to be fitted with solar to their roofs; there are many flat roofed buildings all over the district that could accommodate solar panels without damaging the landscape. Explore tidal energy and seek out suitable locations in order to ascertain whether it is viable. Retrofitting existing housing and commercial buildings.
Settlement Hierarchy: Rayleigh is the largest town in the district, but care needs to be taken to maintain the integrity of the existing settlements with respect to green boundary between Rayleigh and its neighbours.
Planned Forms of Housing: Mix of housing for “affordable“ properties with higher standards for gardens and recreational space. Consideration should be given to the provision of house for life, Adapted homes for the disabled, bungalows and other potential buildings for downsizing families. Housing for the hidden homeless – those “sofa surfing” & Emergency housing. The plan makes no reference to social housing quotas which should be included in all new developments. By working closely with planners and developers, as well as different charities and communities, residents and businesses. You will then get a better understanding as to what you need and what will be achievable.
From 1st August it was announced that empty buildings and brownfield sites should be converted rather than build new. This alternative should be evaluated first.
Many development proposals would also mean a further reduction in air quality, light pollution and the loss of trees, farming, and arable land at a time when food production and supply is becoming a cause for concern.
Enforcement on unauthorised development is not adequately managed.
Infrastructure - The Council cannot comment on the suitability of sites in the plan without completion of Infrastructure Delivery & Funding Plan, Level 2 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment and Local Cycling & Walking Infrastructure Plan.
This is a continuing concern to residents due to the volume of recent and proposed development causing additional pressure on roads, education, social services, health facilities and local employment opportunities all of which gives a sustainable balance for our communities. The Infrastructure Funding Statement states all financial and non-financial developer contributions relating to Section 106 conditions should be completed but this is not the case when larger sites are split up. If developers do not honour the conditions the money reverts to ECC and RDC who should use this to improve our existing facilities, especially on our roads and cycle paths which are in a pitiful state of repair and will only worsen with further development if funding is not used where it was intended.

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Objection to proposal Mill Hall COL7
I wish to lodge objections to the above proposal.
If demolished we could be affected by demolition emissions. We would also lose facilities we have enjoyed and appreciated at the Mill Hall. The two lane road access to the proposed flats could hamper our movements and presumably remove the tree lined island containing town memorabilia. Many of us use walking aids and no longer move quickly. The new road could also possibly remove our ambulance bay. An indirect problem would be gridlock at the Church Street junction. Already some of us have been delayed by heavy traffic when heading for medical appointments. Overall these proposals are being made on N arDC conservation area.

SECONDLY I object for historical reasons. Building the proposed flats could damage an historical asset, namely the 11th century outer Bailey of Rayleigh Mount and lie close to the 200 year old Grade Two listed windmill. I have further fears that the latter’s footings could be weakened by building flats so close to it. It’s perspective and tourist attraction would be damaged.

THIRDLY I also object to building proposals around Grade Two listed Barringtons. Again perspective would would damaged but a major problem could be traffic gridlock. Vehicles could find it difficult to negotiate the junction of Bull Lane with Webster’s Way.

FOURTHLY I object to all of the above because of greatly increased traffic pressures at the junction at Holy Trinity Church. These could impact on traffic elsewhere in Rayleigh

I trust account will be taken of my objections.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Greenbelt under threat
Ref cfs027
My opinion NO

NO to the RDC Spatial-Options - Consultation
I was born in no XX Nelson Road in 1962 and have lived in the area all my life. I currently live in XX Nelson Gardens, SS6 8HD.

As a child the fields and green belt land all the way from Wellington Road, Nelson Road, Albert Road and even down towards the now Kirbys coach field (horses were there then) were mine and my friends playground. As a child you take for granted the safe open spaces are there for all to enjoy, but as now an adult I know the importance of green belt land, not only for the physical and mental health reasons but for the environment too. I walk my dog on a regular basis around the areas that have been highlighted for re-development…where else am I to walk..safely! Fairview Park is a quagmire when the fields are wet and with the additional footfall that the loss of the other ‘open spaces’ will only make it worse.

I think its degusting Rochford District Council can even consider another housing estate in such a small area desecrating such beautiful land and im ashamed to call myself a resident .

Also, the traffic along Nelson Road is already alarmingly busy, as it’s used as a rat run the miss out the high street. A lot of the drivers have no respect for speed limits either and iv already had a few near misses where the drivers come speeding around the top of Nelson Road on the bend! The roads have not got the infrastructure to take more cars and I for one DO NOT want more houses or cars spoiling the area where I have lived for the past 59 years.

I was devasted many years ago when houses were built on the farm fields in Nelson Road, where houses for the ‘rich’ were developed taking away the beautiful green belt and scenery. Whether rich or poor housing (which we know will be more for the rich)

I WANT TO MAKE MY PROTEST IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE OPEN SPACES, I KNEW AS A CHILD AND NOW USE FOR DOG WALKING AND MY PHYSICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH. THE IMPACT IT WILL HAVE ON THE ENVIRONMENT WILL BE DETRIMENTAL. AS A LOYAL RESIDENT OVER THE MANY YEARS I FEEL I HAVE A RIGHT TO ASK YOU TO RECONDIER THIS APPALLING PROPOSAL!!!

Thank you for taking time to read my protest and I hope you consider all the areas I have mentioned along with everyone else’s protests im sure you will receive.

NO to developments
Cfs027,cfs098,cfs086,cfs029,cfs053

Concerning the proposed plans for the housing development in Rayleigh.
This will greatly increase the amount of traffic which is already a problem along the hockley road and also around Rayleigh. This development will have a huge impact on the Green Belt which is gradually being taken away, we really can't take more building developments in Rayleigh!!

Proposed building in Rayleigh
We are most concerned about the proposal for adding a considerable number of dwellings around our area of Albert Road. I have lived in Rayleigh since before W.W.11, and always cherished the 'country feel' it offers, especially in our current position. Since the age of two, I have suffered with Asthma, and now being in my latter years, it is troubling me even more. It was because I suffered with Asthma, that we chose the cul-de-sac at the end of Bull Lane now known as Albert Road, Very little traffic passes our house, so the vehicle fumes are minimal, and have hardly any effect on my breathing.

However, if there is an increase in traffic, in particular busses, we will have to consider moving - something we never thought we would have to do at our age!
I realise not everything stays the same forever, but since singing as a small choirboy in Rayleigh Holy Trinity Church, I have really cherished living here - please don't let it change.

Planning refs. CFS027, CFS098, CFS086 CFS029 & CFS053
Having looked at the Rochford plans for possible development, I was somewhat taken aback at the massive loss of greenspace.

The current infrastructure can barely support the current level of housing, and yet here is a plan to rob us of valuable green space and place even more burden upon the local amenities and services. If additional housing has to be considered, then please brownfield sites ONLY.

RE: CFS027, CFS098, CFS086, CFS029, CFS053
I say NO to more homes being built in Rayleigh.
We simply don't have the infrastructure to cope and planning always underestimate the number of people and cars that new development attracts.

CFS027, CFS098, CFS086, CFS029, CFS053
I am writing in response to the reference numbers in the subject line.

I hope my comments and concerns are taken into consideration along with the strong opposition you have already received.

The housing development proposed should not go ahead due to the immense loss of greenbelt land as a result. The damage it will cause to the environment and wildlife will be disastrous.

This plan for a new housing development on green belt land is also bound to have a negative impact on local residents' mental health - which is of course an immensely important and sensitive topic.

In addition the roading is inadequate, the doctor's surgery will be overwhelmed even more than it already is, and schools are already oversubscribed.

This housing development plan must not go ahead.

CFS027, CFS098, CFS086, CFS029, CFS053
I am writing in response to the reference numbers in the subject line.


I hope my comments and concerns are taken into consideration along with the strong opposition you have already received.

The housing development proposed should not go ahead due to the immense loss of greenbelt land as a result. The damage it will cause to the environment and wildlife will be disastrous.

This plan for a new housing development on green belt land is also bound to have a negative impact on local residents' mental health - which is of course an immensely important and sensitive topic.

In addition the roading is inadequate, the doctor's surgery will be overwhelmed even more than it already is, and schools are already oversubscribed.

This housing development plan must not go ahead.

CFS027, CFS098, CFS086, CFS029, CFS053
I am writing in response to the reference numbers in the subject line.

I hope my comments and concerns are taken into consideration along with the strong opposition you have already received.

The housing development proposed should not go ahead due to the immense loss of greenbelt land as a result. The damage it will cause to the environment and wildlife will be disastrous.

This plan for a new housing development on green belt land is also bound to have a negative impact on local residents' mental health - which is of course an immensely important and sensitive topic.

In addition the roadways are inadequate, the doctor's surgery will be overwhelmed even more than it already is, and schools are already oversubscribed.

This housing development plan must not go ahead.

You cannot rob us of this beautiful green space

CFS027 CFS098
CFS086 CFS029
CFS053

Hi – I strongly believe that building on this green belt would be to the detriment of all Rayleigh residents, and that the greenbelt should be protected.

CFS027 CFS098
CFS086 CFS029
CFS053