Q56d. Are there areas that require protecting from development?

Objection to Spatial Option on Greenbelt Land - Wellington/Napier/Bull Lane
Reference Numbers:

CFS027
CFS098
CFS086
CFS029
CFS053

I'd like to register my extremely strong objection to the spatial option plan to build on the protected greenbelt land and countryside around Wellington, Napier and Bull Lane Farm Road.

I'd like to think that you and any council that aspires to be ethical, positive and sustainable would be in total agreement that Greenbelt land should be protected at all costs for the good of our community, our planet, our future and our children's futures.

I'm sure you're aware that the Prime Minister Boris Johnson has come under major criticism from his own party for his incredibly irresponsible and very dangerous proposal to consider more building on greenbelt land. So much so that he has been urged to scrap any proposal to do this and is fully expected to revert on this in the very near future.

I understand that this land is not only greenbelt but is within the area known as "Rochford's Green Lung" which I understand is an absolutely critical piece of land for the Rochford environment and vital that it is protected and never built on for the good of the whole of the Rochford area.


Just the fact that it is greenbelt land and within Rochford's Green Lung should be enough to stop any building plans but I'd also like to raise the below very strong objections:

Stretched Facilities - this option ONLY adding to the problem:
This particular spatial option is relatively small compared to the other spatial options so it seems like it would be almost possible to add any extra facilities like a doctors, dentists, sports centre or school etc so it would actually only add to the major problem Rochford is facing of massively over-stretched facilities, rather than helping to solve those significant problems.

Since moving into the area we have been informed we would have to get a private dentist as there is no availability remaining for an NHS dentist and the earliest appointment would be around December - a 5 month wait!

The majority of nursery's were full, after trying about 7 nursery's we finally got the last remaining place at one.

We are informed by the neighbours that wait times for doctor's appointments are weeks and it's very hard to get an appointment.

As mentioned above, this spacial option would just add to this problem, rather than solve it!

Horse Rescue: There is a horse's field which usually houses around 10 rescued horses and pony's. This place is absolutely wonderful and somewhere we should cherish!
Many families come to visit and see the horses - making a wonderful activity for Rochford families. Even more powerful than that, there are several fantastic young adults who give their time helping out at the stables.
Where would these beautiful rescued horses go? Would they be abandoned again? What about the fantastic young adults? Are we abandoning them too? Do we want to force them to hang around on the streets instead? What about the little children and families who love coming here?

Bridelpaths & Public Walkways: There are multiple bridlepaths across the area you have mapped for development. I understand bridlepaths are massively protected and would cause significant problems for any plans for development.

Flood Risk: This area has experienced flooding in the past and the land is very hilly so it feels very unsuitable and inappropriate for building houses on.

Wildlife: This land is abundant with wildlife and plants and flowers. In a short time here we have seen it is home to foxes, horses, rabbits, hedgehogs, squirrels, badgers, moles, lizards and an amazing array of birdlife, butterflies and insects. It is also home to amazing plants and flowers and a huge amount of crops which are obviously vital. This area is absolutely crucial for the Rochford eco-system hence the green-lung tag. It would be incredibly dangerous to destroy all of that. Rochford council must protect this land.

Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty: As well as being home to a spectacular array of wildlife and flora, this is also an area of outstanding natural beauty that Rochford council and our community should be very proud of and protect at all costs. We simply cannot destroy this. We should treasure this. The aforementioned hills also add to the beauty of the area!

Physical & Mental Health: This area is used by a huge amount of dog walkers, walkers and runners and is vitally important for all of those people. As you know this country is in the midst of a mental health crisis that is costing many lives every year and has a devastating impact, we should be promoting what a huge part walking and running in these surroundings can play in this crisis - not destroying this land, worsening the crisis further.

Pollution/Public Health: I've just moved my young family from London to Rayleigh as my 3 year old daughter developed asthma in London's polluted streets and we were advised by doctors to move to the countryside for the good of her health. We deliberately moved to be near the countryside and deliberately ensured the land was greenbelt, protected land before buying our home as we knew this meant it could not be built on. As a mother I plead with you to protect our greenbelt land and protect the health of Rochford's children.


I would like to reiterate the strength of our objection and would urge you to consider the many other sites before completely destroying Rochford's beautiful and extremely precious greenbelt land.

You as the council are the guardians of this and have the power to ensure it stays protected. Once it's gone, it's gone and it can never be replaced.

I wish to put on record my opposition to the rezoning of areas in Rayleigh that are valuable from a biodiversity perspective and amenity land for the local community, in particular, in the vicinity of Bull Lane, Napier Road and Wellington Road. Particularly during lockdown this area, this area provides a valuable green lung enabling people to maintain their mental health. It includes footpaths and bridleways. It is home to many birds, butterflies, bats, foxes and badgers. Other than that there is arable land which is important for food production and provides a pleasant vista and also a habitat. Rezoning will destroy the character of the area and make Rayleigh an unpleasant and oppressive place to live. Further, the replacement of Mill Hall with a tiny facility will mean that cultural opportunities for new residents will be extremely limited. Already the roads and doctors’ surgeries cannot cope. And all this for what? To build homes that are no doubt barely affordable for the average citizen. It is doubtful that planning permission should be given after rezoning, in view of the environmental concerns. This is surely just about pure profit and in no way necessary when there exist hundreds of empty homes throughout the country.

We would like to preface everything we are about to say with the following. Our district cannot take anymore housing. We do not have the infrastructure. Government targets, or no government targets, what you are allowing to happen to our communities is permanently destroying what has made this area such a beautiful place to live for many, many generations. Council officers and councillors need to have much more integrity when carrying out these consultations and making planning decisions. There needs to be more determination to stop this endless destruction. There are many stories from around the country of councils and councillors that are being creative and taking a few more risks in order to save and preserve their communities and their heritage. We expect to see more of this from Rochford District council in the years ahead - be more tenacious - we are counting on you. The residents in Ashingdon have shown us this can be done with their successful campaign against SER8 - now it's time for the Council to step up to the plate. It's time to start representing your residents and the people that pay your wages!

We strongly object to any development on green belt land. We are in the middle of an environmental crisis - the evidence of which is all around us. The council must immediately cease to approve any further development on green belt sites and only brown belt sites must be considered moving forwards. With this in mind, all proposed green belt sites must be removed from the local plan in order to make green belt development as difficult as possible.

Furthermore, we would add that the local infrastructure simply cannot cope. Medical facilities are all vastly over-subscribed. There is a lack of doctors and NHS dental places, not enough school places and already over-sized classes. The County Council have proved how utterly inept they are at even attending to the most basic repairs on some of our most seriously damaged roads. We simply cannot allow more traffic to go through the district's roads until all outstanding repairs have been addressed and a proper strategy has been drafted, presented and agreed with the residents of our district for how the roads will be managed and maintained proactively going forwards. The county council have clearly demonstrated they cannot be trusted to get on with this and now need to be put under pressure by the district councils and their residents.

Road capacity is another serious issue. This can be evidenced if you try and travel anywhere by car on a Monday to Friday during rush hour or on a Saturday (if, heaven forbid, you try and go anywhere to possibly try and enjoy your spare time away from your home). This view is clearly widespread among many residents and councillors based on the reasoning for the recent rejection of SER8.

Any further development that is approved (for example, on brown belt sites) must have ample infrastructure included within the proposals. This must also factor-in the infrastructure deficit we are already running due to existing developments having been allowed to go ahead without adequate controls and safeguards being in place to ensure that supporting infrastructure is also delivered. Therefore, any new developments must deliver not only their own infrastructure needs but also help 'pay down' some of the deficit that has been built up. The council must (we repeat - MUST) make sure the infrastructure is secured and committed to. Furthermore, the infrastructure must (we repeat - MUST) be delivered before any housing is allowed to be developed. This must be a prerequisite. The council must not allow another Hall Road situation to materialise. It is actually beyond a joke that Hall Road still does not have a school, with no sign of one appearing anytime soon. The word incompetence just doesn't do the situation justice.

In addition to the above, we would like to add the following specific objections to the following sites:

CFS074 - Land south of Mount Bovers Lane, Hockley
This land must be removed from the Local Plan. The house building would ruin the landscape and views that are available from Hawkwell Chase, Hawkwell Common and from Main Road Hawkwell (looking towards Gusted Hall). This land should be kept out of the local plan and (when the opportunity allows) used to extend the natural areas around Cherry Orchard and Gusted Hall.

CFS045 - Belchamps Scout Site, Holyoak Lane, Hawkwell
CFS251 - Land at Peartree Cottage, Holyoak Lane, Hockley
CFS191 - Land at Mount Bovers Lane, Hawkwell
CFS074 - Land south of Mount Bovers Lane, Hockley
CFS160 - Northlands Farm, 65 High Road, Hockley
CFS161 - 57 High Road, Hockley, Essex, SS5 4SZ
CFS083 - Land south of Hall Road and west of Ark Lane, Rochford
CFS078 - Land west of Cherry Orchard Way and south of Cherry Orchard Lane, Rochford
CFS079 - Land west of Cherry Orchard Way and east of Cherry Orchard Lane, Rochford
CFS135 - Land at Flemings Farm Road, Eastwood
CFS059 - Land at Sandhill Road, Eastwood
CFS037 - The Ramblers & Dahlia Lodge, Eastwood Rise, Leigh
CFS134 - Land between Eastwood Rise and Rayleigh Avenue, Eastwood
CFS027 - Land north of Bull Lane, Rayleigh
CFS029 - Land at Turrett Farm, Napier Road, Rayleigh
CFS098 - Land north of Napier Road, Rayleigh
CFS053 - Land south of 38 and 39 Wellington Road, Rayleigh
We would like to request that this land is removed from the Local Plan. The location falls within, or very close to, the Upper Roach Valley Special Landscape Area. This area has been afforded a special status for good reason and therefore these sites must be removed from the Local Plan. We would also request for the Special Landscape Area to be extended to encompass the land in the above sites. Losing any land within, or close to, the Special Landscape Area would result in a permanent loss or deterioration of very special green spaces - these must be protected for environmental and wildlife reasons as well as to be enjoyed by future generations.

CFS064 - Land north and east of Folly Chase, Hockley
This land must be removed from the Local Plan. This field offers a unique home for wildlife and is one of the few remaining rural landscapes and walks for residents living on Betts Farm. Hockley Primary school would also not stand any chance of catering for the number of places a development of this size would require. Even with a possible extension, the school, surrounding roads and facilities were simply not built/designed to cater for the number of additional residents a development would bring. There are also significant issues with road access from Folly Lane which is already an extremely hazardous road.

CFS264 - Land at Greenacres Nursery, Hockley
CFS040 - Eastview House and Haslemere, Church Road, Hockley
These sites must be removed from the local plan due to the damage to wildlife, the environment and the effect on the landscape within the area. There are also already significant road safety issues with Church Road, Folly Lane and Fountain Lane. All these roads are very dangerous to navigate based on current traffic levels and this would be made significantly worse with any/all of these developments taking place. There are also regular flooding issues on Church Road which would only get worse with further building on surrounding land.

CFS082 - Land between Ironwell Lane and Hall Road, Hawkwell
CFS081 - Land at Stroud Green, north of Hall Road, Rochford
CFS002 - Land at Nursery Corner, between Rectory Road and Hall Road, Hawkwell
These sites must be removed from the local plan due to the total number of new dwellings that they could represent (in particular CFS082 and CFS081). The area is already unable to cope with traffic and infrastructure demand. The views from Ironwell Lane out onto these sites have been enjoyed for hundreds of years. They have already been permanently compromised by the Hall Road development and no further destruction of the area can be allowed to take place.

CFS132 - Ivanhoe Nursery, Ironwell Lane, Hawkwell
CFS219 - Ivanhoe, Ironwell Lane, Hockley, Essex, SS5 4JY
CFS240 - Old Parsonage, Ironwell Lane, Hawkwell, Essex, SS5
CFS118 - The Paddock by Clements Hall Way, Rectory Road, Hawkwell
CFS140 - Old Nursery, Ironwell Lane, Hawkwell
CFS018 - Land between The Grange and Red Roof in Ironwell Lane SS5 4JY
CFS036 - Land adjacent to Rectory Terrace off Rectory Road, Hawkwell
These sites must all be removed from the local plan due to the surrounding roads already being significantly oversubscribed thanks to the Clements Gate development. They are nowhere near any schools (resulting in yet more traffic) and will also detract from the otherwise beautiful countryside that can be enjoyed when walking up Ironwell Lane.

CFS194 - Land North of Rectory Road, Hawkwell
CFS169 - Meadowlands, Victor Gardens, Hockley, SS5 4DY
CFS020 - Land rear of St Marys Church, Rectory Road, Hawkwell
These sites must be removed from the local plan due to their proximity to St Mary's church. The surrounding landscape has always been farmers fields and countryside and it must stay this way. The area is already unable to cope with traffic and infrastructure demand. The views from St Mary's and the public footpaths out onto these sites have been enjoyed for hundreds of years. They must continue to be left as green belt countryside.

CFS093 - Greenacres and adjacent land, Victor Gardens, Hawkwell
CFS017 - Greenacres, Victor Gardens, Hawkwell
CFS093 - Greenacres and adjacent land, Victor Gardens, Hawkwell
These sites must be removed from the local plan in order to protect the amount of green space around a densely populated area. The surrounding landscape has always been farmers fields and countryside and it must stay this way. The area is already unable to cope with today's traffic and infrastructure demands. The views from Clements Hall and the public footpaths out onto these sites have been enjoyed for hundreds of years. They must continue to be left as green belt countryside.

CFS216 - Land at Fambridge Road, Ashingdon
This site must be removed from the local plan due to the potential number of houses (which the surrounding roads and local infrastructure cannot support) and the fact the land is within the Coastal Protection Belt Special Landscape Area. The Coastal Protection Belt Special Landscape Area must be protected and enlarged.

CFS121 - Land north of A127, Rayleigh
CFS261 - Land east of Oxford Road, Rochford
CFS222 - Land at Dollymans Farm, Doublegate Lane, Rawreth
CFS163 - Land at Lubards Lodge Farm, Hullbridge Road, Rayleigh, SS6 9QG
CFS164 - Land at Lubards Lodge Farm, Hullbridge Road, Rayleigh, SS6 9QG
CFS148 - Land north of Rawreth Lane, Rawreth
CFS171 - Land to the North of Rawreth Lane, Rawreth
CFS146 - Land at Rawreth Hall Farm, Rawreth Lane, Rawreth
CFS147 - Land north of London Road, Rayleigh
CFS099 - Land to the west of Hullbridge
CFS149 - Lane Field and Hullbridge Hill, Watery Lane, Hullbridge
CFS172 - Land At Cracknells Farm, Hullbridge
CFS265
CFS067 - Three Ashes, land to the south of Tinkers Lane, Rochford
These sites must be removed from the local plan due to the potential number of houses - which the surrounding roads and local infrastructure cannot support.

COL27 - Freight House Car Park, Rochford
COL13 - The Freight House, Bradley Way, Rochford
These sites must be removed from the local plan and retained in their current form. They should continue to be made available to the residents of the district as community facilities.

COL07 - The Mill, Bellingham Lane, Rayleigh
This site must be removed from the local plan and retained in its current form. It should continue to be made available to the residents of the district as a community facility.

CFS063 - Land south of Watts Lane, Rochford
CFS067 - Three Ashes, land to the south of Tinkers Lane, Rochford
Sector D (All references)
These sites must be removed from the local plan due to the inadequate roads in the area. Even with new or enlarged roads the existing roads already struggle with the volumes of traffic that they need to cater for today.

We respectfully ask you to make sure our views and those of our family (including our two sons - Arthur and Henry Watson) are fully and robustly represented in this process and during the subsequent stages of the local plan being written and implemented.

Sandhill Road
I am writing regarding the New Local Plan which is considering the field at the end of our road as promoted development land. I completely understand developments and changes need to be made, however I believe a development at the end of our Road will be detrimental for numerous reasons.
This road is a safe road that is very important to all of us, I have lived at the property of 62 Sandhill Road for over 25 years, and it is so very dear to me.
If the planned 20 new dwellings are built it would cause so many issues for all the residents. Such as Noise pollution, air pollution and increased traffic. The Road is already busy, and narrows in sections, with barely room to park or pass by at times. If road usage increases there will be accidents, arguments and general disruption. Where will all the cars for the new properties park? Our road is private, and a dead end which makes such a difference to safety. We do not have cars speeding down, or passing regularly meaning it is safer for children and walkers. If the road were to change and is used to access the new development, all this would disappear. More cars will pass through and will be going faster due to it not being a dead end. There is not pavement all along the road, so people have to walk in the road as it is, if there are increased cars coming pass, this could lead to some dangerous accidents. The increase in cars and people, and the loss of land will gravely damage the local wildlife, and their natural habitat. Children on our road regularly play out and ride bikes, as the environment is calm and safe, which will end if the development goes ahead. Access to refuse trucks and emergency vehicles could also be effected due to increased traffic and vehicles parking. This is an over development and is inappropriate for the area due to the damage it would cause. I hope you take all our concerns into consideration and choose not to move forward with the development as it will negatively effect so many people and the local area.

Please find detailed below our comments in relation to the published Rochford Council Spatial Options Paper 2021. Our specific comments relate to Q56 (d), with the following specific land references:-

• CFS027: 114 Proposed Houses (Land North of Bull Lane, Rayleigh)
• CFS029: 29 Proposed Houses (Land at Turrett Farm, Napier Road, Rayleigh)
We strongly reject the proposed housing plans for areas CFS027 & CFS029 based on the following rationale:-
1) Inadequate Surface Water Drainage/Flooding Risk
a. You only need to search for ‘Rayleigh Flooding 2013’ to see the images of disruption and despair that were felt by the many house owners in Blower Close and the immediate area on that day (24/08/2013), when the local infrastructure was not able to cope with the amount of rain water that fell, flowing off the surrounding farmers fields into peoples homes. The outcome of this situation was for the local council to pay for and build a significant drainage ditch on the bottom boundary of CFS027, emphasising the fragility of water drainage and flooding in the immediate area. This significant ditch stabilised the drainage and flooding in an area that had also seen houses flooded in 2009 and 2011 due to excessive rain water.
b. Climate scientists all agree that we will see an increase in extreme weather and if these proposals were to be granted, these areas would be concreted over with housing and thus remove any natural slow down and saturation areas for the water to traverse through.
c. Your own initial assessment of CFS029 & CFS027 identifies real concerns over the drainage risk (rated: 2) to the immediate area. Both of these areas experience a natural flow of surface water from the fields that bridge the gap between Rayleigh and Hockley. The fields and ditches act as part of a natural slow down and saturation that helps to minimise any impact to the surrounding areas, this will of course be removed if the housing development proceeds and the 143 houses are built.
d. Clearly your initial ‘flood’ assessments (rated: 5) for CFS029 & CFS027 does not taken into account any of the flooding events from 2013 in the immediate area and those that happened several years earlier in 2009. If you allow these houses to be built, then you will have effectively approved other houses to flood more regularly on the basis of commercial profit and greed!!!

2) Green Belt Destruction
a. The ancient Hockley Woodland and the surrounding Green Belt providing a crucial habitat for wildlife and a demarcation between Rayleigh and Hockley. Both these proposed developments bring the linking of Rayleigh to Hockley (Bullwood Hall development) ever closer, whilst further damaging wildlife at a time when now more than ever, we need to protect spaces that is shared between humans and nature. It also removes a ‘Green’ space that is enjoyed by people who prefer the cleaner quality of air and quality of life for recreational use that is provided.

3) Traffic Management
a. Typically 143 houses will have on average of two cars each, which will mean 286 cars having to navigate in and out of Rayleigh. When added to the ‘rat runs’ that are likely to be created as cars from Hockley try and avoid Rayleigh town centre, it will undoubtedly create speeding cars and further congestions that will both increase pollution in the area and the danger to children walking to school. The speed ramps in Helena Road and Louise Road have now been removed, having been introduced many years ago to slow traffic (to protect school children) due to both roads being used historically as ‘rat run’ for traffic to avoid Rayleigh town centre, so clearly child safety is of little concern to the council either regardless of the problems these new houses would create!!!
Kind regards,

Peter & Linda Vile

Dear Sir,
I write to submit feedback on the proposed new housing development sites in our area.

(New Local Plan: Spatial Options Document 2021) https://rochford.oc2.uk/document/207/28308#d28422

In common with the majority of residents I believe Rayleigh and surrounding areas already have enormous new build projects underway. We should stop further housing sprawl especially on the outskirts of towns such as Rayleigh where upgrading the road system is impractical. The uncertainty of the situation is causing anxiety amongst my friends and neighbours who maybe directly impacted.

My concerns are the usual ones:
• Loss of greenbelt and wildlife habitat
• Traffic congestion and associated air pollution
(Inability to widen the narrow residential roads in Rayleigh)
• Surface water drainage
• School and GP services

Fundamentally I fear we are on a path of infinite housing growth that surely cannot be sustained without deterioration to our quality of life. I feel we should halt all new housing developments on town borders (greenbelt land) and create new towns with the required infrastructure instead.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide my feedback, please find my responses to the questions enclosed.

• Dear Sir/Madam, On your Rochford district web page it states that I could give my comments to this e-mail address. I object to site COL07 (Mill Hall, car park and green) and also site COL20 Civic Suite with landscaped gardens to the rear being included in the Local Plan as a future residential development site.
Under Section 71 of the Planning (listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and other legislation Rochford District Council has a duty to preserve and enhance the Rayleigh Conservation Area. Both sites are surrounded by listed buildings and a Scheduled Ancient Monument in the case of Mill Hall, neither should not be developed for housing. The setting of the listed buildings are also greatly enhanced by the gardens and the landscaped car parks which make a significant contribution to the conservation area, these would be lost if developed for residential use.
Under S.39 Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and other legislation and guidance, Rochford has a duty to contribute towards achieving sustainable development.
It is widely acknowledged that the greenest building is the one already there. The carbon footprint of demolishing existing buildings on these sites will significantly increase the carbon footprint of the whole district. In is important therefore to invest in the present buildings and make them more sustainable (Mill Hall would appear to offer significant opportunities.).
Under S.40 of the Natural Environment & Rural Communities Act 2006, the local planning authority has a duty, when exercising its functions, to conserve biodiversity. The green areas and trees on both sites greatly contribute to the biodiversity of the area. In particular in this conservation area, which is not only valued for its buildings but for the mature trees and open space owned by the public. The loss of this biodiversity would be unacceptable if these sites were changed to residential use in the next local plan.
The contribution of car parking to the vitality of the town centre is significant and loss of public car parking within COL07 an COL20 would be detrimental to the Rayleigh Town Centre.

I am writing to register my objection to the RDC Local Plan to build between 7200 to 10,800 new homes in the Rochford district and principally in Rayleigh where the majority of new homes will be built. My general objection is to the damage to the local environment and nature with said construction on green belt and land which has been allowed to have become over grown with trees and vegetation allowing wild life to thrive. For RDC to state in their draft vision for Rochford in 2050 that Rochford will be a “green and pleasant place” is nothing short of insulting to the local residents with the proposals put forward. Rayleigh in particular cannot take on the scale of new homes being proposed and I urge Rochford District Council to rethink their current plans and instead support the Liberal Democrat alternative proposal to build a new garden village close to Fossetts Way near Southend.

My general objections to this consultation are as follows:

1. You will be destroying green belt, farming land and nature habitats; I refer specifically to your site references CFS053; CFS098 and CFS029
2. You will be destroying nature habitats in site reference CFS086, specifically badger sets, bat colonies, fox dens, squirrels and general bird and insect life.
3. The roads in Rayleigh in particular become very congested in weekday morning and early evening rush hours especially when there is the school run. In addition the roads become almost grid locked when there is a vehicle breakdown, accident or road works due to necessary emergency repair of utility services (which we have frequently). So, with the potential of 7200 new homes which will provide at a conservative estimate of over 14,000 new cars to the district I would like to know how the current road network can handle this increased volume of traffic?
4. The current utilities are creaking at the sides with the current volume of homes, specifically:
a. Electricity – we in Nelson Road experience on average around 4 power cuts per year, most recently on 15th August. How will the building of 7200 new homes help this situation?
b. Water and Sewerage – Essex Water and Anglia Water are frequent visitors to Nelson road (as recent as week commencing 23rd August) to repair their overstretched infrastructure. In particular they have attended Hamilton Mews on I would estimate at least 4 times within the past 12 months. Additionally, we had the problem in Bull Lane with water supply issues which must have been worked on for the best part of a year causing yet more traffic disruption. Clearly there is a major problem with the water and sewerage supplies in the Rayleigh area, so how can building this vast amount of new homes improve the situation with the current overstretched water and sewerage infrastructure?
5. Doctor surgeries within Rayleigh are over run now, particularly with Audley Mills which has an “open book” policy and for the older population it is becoming increasingly difficult and stressful to book an appointment. The 7200 new homes, the majority being in Rayleigh, will increase the population by an estimated 2.4 people per home, this will increase to 17,280 new people. You will need to build a new surgery the size of Audley Mills to cater for the increased volume but the amount of qualified GP’s in the UK is reducing so how would the NHS find the staff?

My Specific objections to the following sites are as follows:

CFS086 (Land between Rivendell and Brookside, Napier Road). This develop directly effects my family as from what I can understand you are considering building 11 homes at the bottom half of my garden.
a. We moved to this house in 2002 at not an inconsiderable cost and my then neighbour at No 77, Mr Franco Nicoli, had a garden that run adjacent to mine. I was aware that he owned the spare land in Napier Road but at no time was there any discussion or consultation that when he sold his house to Mr and Mrs Jones approximately 12 years ago, he was going keep the bottom half of his garden for a housing development. I would have course objected to any such proposal as it is a direct violation of our privacy in our own garden.
b. The space has become extremely over grown over the past 10 years and is now effectively a small forest which has become a home for a vast amount of wildlife which have access into my garden. These include Badgers, Foxes, Bats and we’ve even had a monk jack deer in our garden all which come from Mr Nicoli’s land. I am aware that Bats and Badgers are a protected species and I will be informing the Bat Conservation Trust to invite them at the bottom of our garden to watch them take flight at dusk.
c. Access in Napier Road. A planning request was turned down approximately three years ago due in part to limited access in and out of Napier Road, nothing has changed in turns of access as the road is extremely narrow and will allow only one vehicle width where this space of land is. With the large amount of construction vehicles, building delivers, builder’s vehicles etc the road would effectively be blocked denying access to and from Nelson road to the “Brookside” property and the house further east by the stables.
d. If it is true that RDC are planning on building 11 homes in this small plot of land they can only be classed as “affordable homes” which is totally out of context with Nelson Road which is regarded as one of the best roads in Rayleigh for quality homes.
e. Noise Pollution and loss of privacy will be a major issue for me and my neighbours with the construction of the new homes and the resulting loss of privacy following the construction of the homes.

CFS053 (Land South of 38 & 39 Wellington Road), CFS098 (Land North of Napier Road) and CFS029 (Land at Turrett Farm, Napier Road)
a. This land is green belt and should not be built on.
b. The land in CFS053 and CFS098 is at a fairly steep gradient towards the gardens in Nelson road. Certainly during the winter period we can experience heavy rainfall which causes water to cascade down the fields towards the gardens. I am concerned that with the building of a “concrete jungle” this will only heighten the problem as the rain will not have the opportunity of soaking into the sodden ground and not only will it be a problem for the outbuildings many of us have at the bottom of our respective gardens it will also be a major problem for the new homes built at the bottom of the slope.
c. As mentioned above, we are privileged to experience much nature in this area due to the surrounding fields. The removal of these fields will only do damage to the nature conservation in this area with the loss of habitats for badgers, foxes, deer, bird wild life, insects etc

RDC/Spatial Consultation 2021 Questions

Q1. Are there any other technical evidence studies that you feel the Council needs to prepare to inform its new Local Plan, other than those listed in this section?
A: Evaluate the impact of the current developments, especially in Rayleigh and Hullbridge.
Q2. Do you agree with our draft vision for Rochford District? Is there anything missing from the vision that you feel needs to be included? [Please state reasoning]
A: Mostly, although I do not feel you have included enough information on how you might achieve housing for the hidden homeless or those on low incomes, emergency housing provision, schemes to allow the elderly in large houses to be able to downsize or how you plan to provide suitable commercial units of varying sizes, to allow businesses to up or downsize into a suitably sized premises without them needing to relocate into another area.
Q3. Do you agree that we should develop a range of separate visions for each of our settlements to help guide decision-making? [Please state reasoning]
A: Yes, as each settlement has its own characteristics and needs.
Q4. Do you agree with the strategic priorities and objectives we have identified? Is there anything missing from the strategic priorities or objectives that you feel needs to be included? [Please state reasoning]
A: Don’t know.
Q5. Do you agree with the settlement hierarchy presented? If not, what changes do you think are required? [Please state reasoning]
A: Yes. Rayleigh is the largest town in the district but you need to maintain the green boundaries between the surrounding areas.
Q6. Which of the identified strategy options do you consider should be taken forward in the Plan? [Please state reasoning]
A: A combination of 3 and 4.
Creating a new town would enable all the infrastructure to be put in place, allowing more scope for cycling routes and pedestrianised areas. This will stop the urban sprawl which is currently happening in the larger town (and proposed in option 1), creating traffic havoc and pollution. Combining this with option 4 could help with spreading the balance of housing needs, traffic, etc. across the whole of the district and not just in one place.
Q7. Are there any reasonable alternatives to these options that should be considered instead? [Please state reasoning]
A: Windfalls should be included in the housing quota.
Q8. Are there any key spatial themes that you feel we have missed or that require greater emphasis? [Please state reasoning]
A: Yes: Cultural and Accessibility.
Q9. Do you agree we should take a sequential approach to flood risk and coastal change in our plan, locating development away from areas at risk of flooding and coastal change wherever possible? How can we best protect current and future communities from flood risk and coastal change? [Please state reasoning]
A: Yes. We need to ensure we have a suitable plan to protect not only our towns and village communities (houses/businesses) but also the natural areas as well. We need adequate defences to limit flooding in all areas, protecting people and wildlife. Maybe these could be incorporated in the “natural” landscape theming so as to deflect any water away from these areas. New developments not only need to address their carbon footprint but also the design of the housing they build so that they limit flood damage.
Q10. Do you agree that the Coastal Protection Belt and Upper Roach Valley should be protected from development that would be harmful to their landscape character? Are there other areas that you feel should be protected for their special landscape character? [Please state reasoning]
A: Yes. I feel all of our coastal areas and areas of special interest, where there is a significant risk of flooding and harm to the environment needs careful consideration. Our ancient woodlands also need to be protected and well managed.
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?
A: Vast swathes of land being used for solar panels or unsightly wind farms should not be allowed. I do not feel we have used the potential of tidal renewable energy themes. We have potential in some areas to explore this without defacing our district. All new homes should be fitted with solar, either on their roof or windows and commercial properties could be encouraged to fit solar panels to their roof.
Q12. Do you agree we should require new development to achieve energy efficiency standards higher than building regulations? What level should these be set at? [Please state reasoning].
A: I believe that we should aim to achieve a higher standard if possible and encourage developers to put forward new ways of achieving this. We are planning for future generations and should not be stuck in the past. Why go for minimum standards? Always aim higher!
Q13. How do you feel the plan can help to support the local generation of low-carbon and renewable energy? Are there locations where you feel energy generation should be supported? [Please state reasoning]
A: 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. No wind turbines! They would ruin the landscape.
Q14. Do you consider that the plan should include a place-making charter that informs relevant policies? Should the same principles apply everywhere in the District, or should different principles apply to different areas? [Please state reasoning]
A: The district has some very distinct areas and a “one shoe fits all” would be detrimental to some smaller communities. The place-making charter should be bespoke, with each area being considered in its own right. The rules on building should be strict so as to enhance the areas of development and needs to consider the wider picture in respect of amenities, open spaces, retail, schools, services, pollution, character and accessibility (to name but a few). There should not be deviation of plans unless there are exceptional circumstances. Time and time again out SPD2 documents are ignored and ugly extensions and dormers are built to the detriment of the area.
Q15. Are the principles set out in the draft place-making charter the right ones? Are there other principles that should be included? [Please state reasoning]
A: They are, as long as they are adhered to.
Q16a. Do you consider that new design guides, codes or masterplans should be created alongside the new Local Plan?
A: Yes.
➔ 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? [Please state reasoning]
A: You need different design guides/etc as our district is unique and diverse and the “one shoe fits all" would be detrimental to its character and charm.
➔ Q16c. What do you think should be included in design guides/codes/masterplans at the scale you are suggesting? [Please state reasoning].
A: You need to ensure that the character and heritage of our settlements are adhered to whilst allowing for some growth, in order to rejuvenate the smaller settlements if needed.
Q17. With reference to the options listed above, or your own options, how do you feel we can best plan to meet our need for different types, sizes and tenures of housing? [Please state reasoning]
A: By working closely with planners and developers, as well as different charities and communities, residents and businesses. You will then get a better understanding as to what you need and what will be achievable.
Q18. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there areas or sites in Rochford that you feel require a specific approach to housing types, size and tenure? What is required to meet housing needs in these areas? [Please state reasoning]
A: The district has a large number of houses, existing and approved that have 4 or 5 bedrooms. The number of homes available with 2 or 3 bedrooms is minimal, which increases their price and availability. The smaller properties are the ones that need to be affordable for families. We should ensure that our “affordable“ properties are not all flats and that the minimum (or higher) standards are met for gardens/recreational space. There are sure to be single, elderly residents that would like to downsize from their large family homes, into a smaller, more manageable one but do not wish to go into an assisted living/residential /retirement home. They may want a 1 or 2 bedroomed property, maybe one storey, or low rise apartment that they own freehold. We also need to consider that some of our residents may need residential care and we should be looking at ways to cope with the rising number of elderly and provide accommodation for them also. We desperately need to meet the needs of the hidden homeless. The adult children on low wages that have no hope of starting a life of their own away from their parents. By living in these conditions, even if the family unit is tight and loving, it will cause mental health issues, stress and anxiety. We also need accessible properties for our disabled members of our community, where they are assisted in order to fulfil a normal as possible life. Emergency and social housing also need to be addressed.

Q19. Are there any other forms of housing that you feel we should be planning for? How can we best plan to meet the need for that form of housing? [Please state reasoning]
A: Housing for the hidden homeless – those “sofa surfing”, or adult children living at home with parents as they are on low wages or wages that would not allow them to move out to rent or buy somewhere on their own. Adapted homes for the disabled (physical, blind, etc.). Smaller, free hold properties for the older generation to enable them to downsize from large family homes. Social housing. Emergency housing.
Q20. With reference to the options listed, or your own options, what do you think is the most appropriate way of meeting our permanent Gypsy and Traveller accommodation needs? [Please state reasoning]
A: You need to find a permanent site that has a little room to expand but not exponentially. The “Traveller” life has changed over the years and many will not fit into this category. We need to be integrating those not deemed into the classification into everyday life and housing. We also need it to be managed so that illegal building work and population do not exceed its capacity. This site will need good access and be somewhere where it does not impose or affect other residents.
Q21. With reference to the options listed, or your own options, what do you think is the most appropriate way of meeting our temporary Gypsy and Traveller accommodation needs? [Please state reasoning]
A: You need to find a permanent site that has a little room to expand but not exponentially. The “Traveller” life has changed over the years and many will not fit into this category. We need to be integrating those not deemed into the classification into everyday life and housing. We also need it to be managed so that illegal building work and population do not exceed its capacity. This site will need good access and be somewhere where it does not impose or affect other residents.

Q22. What do you consider would need to be included in a criteria-based policy for assessing potential locations for new Gypsy and Traveller sites? [Please state reasoning]
A: Easy access re large vehicles to the site and main roads to ensure the residential roads are not blocked by the larger vehicles. Room for some expansion that would not encroach on the surrounding area. Away from residents to reduce disturbance of vehicle movements. Not in an area of interest or recreation where the landscape would be blighted by the appearance of many vehicles. Not all in one area – spread out our quota across the district in order to avoid another Crays Farm scenario.

Q23. With reference to the options listed above, or your own options, how do you feel we can best ensure that we meet our employment and skills needs through the plan? [Please state reasoning]
A: The council needs to stop developing existing commercial land into housing. Too many sites have already been lost and many more are planned to go. They can then concentrate on helping those businesses wanting to expand to be able to do so. They should look to working with local schools and colleges, as well as businesses and the job centre, to see what sustainable employment is needed in the district. They then need to assist in schemes to train all ages get back into work or upskill.
Q24. With reference to Figure 30, do you consider the current employment site allocations to provide enough space to meet the District’s employment needs through to 2040? Should we seek to formally protect any informal employment sites for commercial uses, including those in the Green Belt? [Please state reasoning]
A: No. The current employment site allocations on Figure 30 do not provide enough space to meet the District’s employment needs through to 2040. We have around 87,000 people in the district. There is no data on the form to suggest how many of these are in employment and how many are looking for work but the council need to reassess its future needs in order to future-proof our residents’ opportunities. We only need to formally protect sites that have a future and a potential to expand or continue effectively. Green belt sites should be assessed separately and decisions made on merit.
Q25. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to deliver new employment facilities or improvements to existing employment facilities?
A: Option 3 could deliver new opportunities for employment as it would be a new site completely. Industrial units of various sizes, with room for expansion plus retail, hospitality and other employment could be included in the criteria for the development. Option 4 could assess existing sites across the district and the options to be able to expand, as well as areas for new sites.
Q26. Are there any particular types of employment site or business accommodation that you consider Rochford District is lacking, or would benefit from?
A: Environmental services - woodland conservation/management. (We need to find funding for this as it is important!) HGV training school.
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?
A: Better road networks and Wi-Fi. Apprenticeships or training for all ages with jobs at the end of training.
Q28. With reference to the options listed above, or your own options, how do you feel we can best manage the Airport’s adaptations and growth through the planning system? [Please state reasoning]
A: Unsure, but I feel there is not enough room for too much expansion ie. add another run way. The council could consider a park and ride park, to divert some traffic away from the residential area, which could create jobs for security services, bus drivers, attendants, cleaners, etc. Expansion of the airport may affect the Grade 1 listed St Laurence and All Saints Church and this needs careful consideration.
Q29. Do you agree that the plan should designate and protect areas of land of locally important wildlife value as a local wildlife site, having regard to the Local Wildlife Sites review? Are there any other sites that you feel are worthy of protection? [Please state reasoning]
A: We all should be doing everything in our power to protect wildlife sites. All wildlife is important and we have been neglecting them, and slowly chipping away at them for years. Wildlife now enter suburban areas as their own habitats have diminished and they can no longer fend for themselves adequately from nature. We have a decline in Badgers and hedgehogs as well as rabbits, frogs, newts, voles and shrews. Ask yourselves: when did you last see a live hedgehog or badger? Most (especially badgers) are usually dead (along with foxes and deer) by the side of our roads. We have removed places that have housed bats and now we do not see them flying around the district in the numbers they did. Designating initial sites is a step in the right direction but we have to do more. It is proven that our mental health issues can be relieved by nature and keeping the sites sacred is more important now than it ever was. Keeping a biodiverse environment, with wildlife and the environment in which it relies is paramount. You mention that Doggett Pond no longer meets the standard but are there no steps to improve its status instead of dismissing it? It is obviously an important site for the wildlife in that area. To lose it would be to our detriment. We should be looking at creating new sites with every large housing development, and adding them to our protected list in order to improve our district and our own wellbeing. We should no allow private households to take over grass areas and verges (or concreting the verges over for parking and cost savings). These areas, although small are still areas for wildlife (bees and butterflies - also in decline, as well as bugs which feed our birds). We should create new wildlife meadows to encourage the pollinators in order to future proof our own existence. We should be exploring smaller sites that we could enhance, manage and protect in order to give future generations something to look back on and feel proud that we have given them a legacy. Something that we can be proud of.
Q30. Do you agree that the plan should designate and protect areas of land of locally important geological value as a local geological site, having regard to the Local Wildlife Sites review? Are there any other sites that you feel are worthy of protection? [Please state reasoning]
A: Yes. We need to protect them for future generations and teach our children their history and importance so that they can continue to keep them safe.
Q31. Do you consider net gains for biodiversity are best delivered on-site or off-site? Are there specific locations or projects where net gain projects could be delivered?
A: On site. You can then assess in real time and sort out any issues you would not have known about off site.
Q32. With reference to the options above, or your own options, how do you feel we can best deliver a quality green and blue infrastructure network through the plan? [Please state reasoning]
A: You need to enhance and maintain what we already have by ensuring the necessary links are in place to link as many as possible, and ensuring that public rights of way are not blocked by land owners and are kept free from debris. You also need to assess some paths to make them accessible to the disabled so that all is inclusive. There are some green areas that do not have public facilities and it would be advantageous to look into offering this in the larger spaces (ie in the car park – a small toilet block and hand washing facilities). Obtaining funding from large (and medium) developments for enhancement of existing areas as well as providing new spaces and facilities is a step in the right direction.
Q33. Do you agree that the central woodlands arc and island wetlands, shown on Figure 32 are the most appropriate areas for new regional parklands? Are there any other areas that should be considered or preferred? [Please state reasoning]
A: They are a step in the right direction but you need to assess periodically in order to be able to add further links to any new parkland that may be created in the future. The map is unclear as it does not show exact routes. There is a large open space to the South West of Rayleigh (on the border), South of Bardfield Way and The Grange/Wheatley Wood, which could be enhanced.
Q34. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to help deliver new strategic green and blue infrastructure? [Please state reasoning]
A: Enhancing the areas we have and ensuring developers include green space/recreational facility areas within their developments. A new, separate development would be able to deliver this within their plan layout. Ensuring there are suitable links, access and footpaths. Making sure some of these footpaths are accessible for the disabled.

Q35. With reference to the options above, or your own options, how can we address the need for sufficient and accessible community infrastructure through the plan? [Please state reasoning]
A: Ensuring that funding for existing facilities comes from new developments and making sure that these facilities are built during the time of the development (not like the London Road/Rawreth Lane development where a site was “provided” for healthcare but has not been built). Assess the shortfall of facilities and networks before plans are approved so that adequate planning and funding can be secured before any building takes place.
Q36. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to deliver new or improved community infrastructure? [Please state reasoning]
A: A new town would have this infrastructure built into its plans. Funding for improvements must otherwise come from developers if an area is already overpopulated.
Q37. Are there areas in the District that you feel have particularly severe capacity or access issues relating to community infrastructure, including schools, healthcare facilities or community facilities? How can we best address these? [Please state reasoning]
A: Rayleigh is overcrowded. It has a road network no longer fit for purpose. The schools are almost full. It is difficult to obtain a GP or dental appointment. There is little to no disabled play areas/equipment. There is always issues with waste collections, drain & road cleaning and verge trimming. The council does not have the staff to deal with all these issues. The council needs to either build another waste recycling site (as the one in Castle road is no longer capable of expanding and meeting the needs of its ever growing population) or develop a better waste collection program which allows extra waste to be collected next to bins. It also needs to find a site to address/install commercial waste facilities to stop fly tipping.
Q38. With reference to the options above, or your own options, how do you feel we can best meet our open space and sport facility needs through the plan? [Please state reasoning]
A: Improve what we already have. The tennis courts on Fairview Park need improvement. Safeguard our open spaces to ensure we have wildlife and recreation. Develop different types of sporting facilities – not just football pitches. There is a need for a larger skateboard park and BMX track. We need to offer free recreation for our teenagers.
Q39. Are the potential locations for 3G pitch investment the right ones? Are there other locations that we should be considering? [Please state reasoning]
A: The development of 3G pitches seems to be the trendy thing to do but they are plastic grass at the end of the day and we should be looking at ways to reduce our plastic use. If there is an area that already exists that is in a poor start of repair then it may be an option – especially if the “grass” is made from recyclables, but we should be thinking outside the box and not covering our parks with it.
Q40. Are the listed potential hub sites and key centres the right ones? Are there other locations that we should be considering? [Please state reasoning]
A: They look suitable. They will probably need funding.
Q41. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to help deliver improvements to open space or sport facility accessibility or provision?
A: A new development would be able to deliver this in their plans or fund improvements for existing facilities.
Q42. Are there particular open spaces that we should be protecting or improving? [Please note, you will have an opportunity to make specific comments on open spaces and local green spaces in the settlement profiles set out later in this report]
A: The sites will be specific in each parish. You need to protect all of these recreational spaces and improve if necessary as once lost to development, they can ever come back.
Q43. With reference to the options listed in this section, or your own options, how do you feel we can best address heritage issues through the plan? [Please state reasoning]
A: You need to reassess your policies on planning regarding alterations made to the buildings on your list, especially in our conservation areas. There have been a few occasions where buildings of “interest” (or other) have been altered, and that places in conservation areas have been allowed canopies, shutters and internal illumination of signage without challenge. Any building work (if any) needs to be sympathetic to the area and you should be able to request amendments to frontage, even if they have had it up for some time. Shop fronts are huge areas of uninteresting glass with garish colours. Signage and advertising (‘A’ board’s litter our pavements without challenge and large barriers are erected onto the pavements – totally out of character with a conservation area in a heritage town. Stick to your policies.
Q44. Are there areas of the District we should be considering for conservation area status beyond those listed in this section? [Please state reasoning]
A: Unsure although we need to stop taking areas of our precious woodland to make way for housing.
Q45. Are there any buildings, spaces or structures that should be protected for their historic, cultural or architectural significance? Should these be considered for inclusion on the Local List of non-designated assets? [Please state reasoning]
A: Don’t know. Mill Hall? Over 50 years old. Cultural centre in a conservation area. Needs massive investment and management. A new survey needs to be taken to ascertain whether there are any other areas that should be considered. There are many buildings along the High Road into Rayleigh (but not in the conservation area) which should be considered.
Q46. With reference to the options listed above, or your own options, how do you think we can best plan for vibrant town centres in Rochford, Rayleigh and Hockley? How can we also ensure our village and neighbourhood centres remain vibrant? [Please state reasoning]
A: You can only have a vibrant town centre if there are shops to go to. If these units are subsequently changed to residential then our town centres will be fractured and uninviting. The new Use Class E will mean it will be even more important for the council to protect our retail outlets. You need to work actively with premises owners in order to assist in the re-letting of any empty shops. Maybe offer a reduced rent to new businesses as a start-up scheme (you could contain this as a “local” business only – allowing the entrepreneurs in the Rochford District a chance to showcase their business). You also need to be able to negotiate with the owners of empty shops how they can best strive to fill these premises and if not, then have some visual displays in the windows (ie. photos of the old towns or useful information) to make them more attractive.
You will need good access links with an excellent road and cycle network and reliable public transport that links effectively from all the villages to all the towns.
Q47. Do you agree with the local centre hierarchy set out in Figure 36? If not, what changes would you make? [Please state reasoning]
A: Yes.
Q48. With reference to Figures 38-40, do you agree with existing town centre boundaries and extent of primary and secondary shopping frontages in Rayleigh, Rochford and Hockley? If not, what changes would you make? [Please state reasoning]
A: 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]
A: Yes. We do not want rows of hairdresser or rows of takeaways etc. as this would eventually kill off our high streets. We need to have a balance of outlets. You would lose the vibrancy you are hoping to achieve if you allowed this. You should also consider restricting use to giant chains as these tend to be the first to go in a crisis and make high streets lose their individuality by them all looking the same.
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]
A: Unfortunately, some of our smaller retail areas have been sold off and housing development has been allowed (eg. Rayleigh - rear of Marks & Spencer and Dairy Crest plus Lancaster Road [builders’ yard]). In a new development there would be scope to add a small/medium/large precinct of retail etc. depending on the development size.
Q51. With reference to the options above, or your own options, how do you feel we can best address our transport and connectivity needs through the plan? [Please state reasoning]
A: The council needs to address the “No development before infrastructure” mantra! Too many houses are being built without adequate road networks in place (including walking and cycling routes). A new road could be built from the A1245 to Hullbridge, limiting the traffic on Rawreth Lane. More work need to be done (and quickly) on the A127 and The Carpenters Arms roundabout. The feeder lanes proposed some years ago to link the Fairglen interchange with The Rayleigh Weir in both directions need to be done ASAP as this is a bottleneck. Hockley needs another access although I am unsure how that can be achieved. New developments should put in cycle paths and walkways and they could be made to link up with existing paths (which need updating and attention).
Q52. Are there areas where improvements to transport connections are needed? What could be done to help improve connectivity in these areas?
A: More work need to be done (and quickly) on the A127 and The Carpenters Arms roundabout. The feeder lanes proposed some years ago to link the Fairglen interchange with The Rayleigh Weir in both directions need to be done ASAP as this is a bottleneck. Hockley needs another access.

Q53. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to deliver new transport connections, such as link roads or rapid transit? What routes and modes should these take? [Walking, cycling, rail, bus, road etc.]
A: A new road from A1245 to Hullbridge is needed as Watery Lane is too narrow and winding, and is closed on a regular basis due to flooding. More (smaller) buses to link our towns and villages. Trams, although they seem a good idea, would cause congestion on our narrow roads and be unsustainable. Designated cycling paths (not on the roads or pavements) adjacent to our road networks would help improve traffic flow and these would need to be linked to be efficient.
Q54. Do you feel that the plan should identify rural exception sites? If so, where should these be located and what forms of housing or employment do you feel need to be provided? [Please note you may wish to comment on the use of specific areas of land in the next section]
A: Yes, but if they are to be affordable only, then they should be offered to local residents first and not anyone from afar who wants a cheap house or for those with a buy to let mortgage.
Q55. Are there any other ways that you feel the plan should be planning for the needs of rural communities? [Please stare reasoning]
A: Improve public transport.
Q56a. Do you agree with our vision for Rayleigh? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]
A: Yes but you also need to include a reduced volume of traffic and air pollution. The High Street is usually grid locked and this causes dangerous pollution for our pedestrians/shoppers/residents. An active Police presence.
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?
i. Housing [market, affordable, specialist, traveller, other]
ii. Commercial [offices, industrial, retail, other]
iii. Community infrastructure [open space, education, healthcare, allotments, other]
iv. Other
A: Access and increased congestion is going to be an issue with a lot of the sites in Rayleigh. If you keep adding small developments to the boundaries of the town we will create an overcrowded impacting on the developments already there and an urban sprawl effect. CFS 121 has potential for a new woodland area which could soak up some of the carbon emissions from the A127 traffic.
Q56c. Are there areas in Rayleigh that development should generally be presumed appropriate? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
A: We should be restricting any further large developments in Rayleigh and need to assess the impact of the current developments first.
Q56d. Are there areas that require protecting from development? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
A: CSF027 – The access road (Bull Lane) is a known rat run and is extremely busy. Any further traffic, which will also compete with large agricultural vehicles, could be a danger to the residents already there. Bull Lane near this point has also been flooded several times recently. CFS023 – Access to this road is via Wellington Road. It can be extremely difficult, especially at peak times (non-pandemic) to access to and from Hockley Road. Adding a large development here will have an adverse impact on existing residents and car users alike. Also, if these 2 developments are linked to Albert Road, the installation of a through road to Bull Lane will cause issues in parking, access and wellbeing as the road would become another rat run!
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?
A: All green spaces hold significance, especially to those who use them for recreation, and have community value. They should be protected. Green belt borders should be protected from development in order to prevent urban sprawl.
The green space north of CFS121 could be linked by a new bridge over the railway and create a new habitat for wildlife, with meadows and woodlands, walks and a lake/pond. A car park with facilities could be created and a small retail space could be offered for snacks etc.
Q57a. Do you agree with our vision for Rochford and Ashingdon? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]
A: I feel CFS261 would cause great harm to the area, with a potential of over 4,000 houses on the site. The road network is not sufficient to cope with half that amount of dwellings and new schools would need to be built.
Q57b. With reference to Figure 45 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the promoted sites should be made available for any of the following uses? How could that improve the completeness of Rochford and Ashingdon?
i. Housing [market, affordable, specialist, traveller, other]
ii. Commercial [offices, industrial, retail, other]
iii. Community infrastructure [open space, education, healthcare, allotments, other]
iv. Other
A: Don’t know.
Q57c. Are there areas in Rochford and Ashingdon that development should generally be presumed appropriate? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
A: Don’t know.
Q57d. Are there areas that require protecting from development? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
A: All green spaces hold significance, especially to those who use them for recreation, and have community value. They should be protected. Green belt borders should be protected from development in order to prevent urban sprawl.
Q57e. Do you agree that the local green spaces shown on Figure 45 hold local significance? Are there any other open spaces that hold particular local significance? [Please state reasoning]
A: All green spaces hold some significance, especially to those who use them for recreation, and have community value. These should be protected.

Q58a. Do you agree with our vision for Hockley and Hawkwell? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]
A: Don’t know.
Q58b. With reference to Figure 46 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the promoted sites should be made available for any of the following uses? How could that improve the completeness of Hockley and Hawkwell?
i. Housing [market, affordable, specialist, traveller, other]
ii. Commercial [offices, industrial, retail, other]
iii. Community infrastructure [open space, education, healthcare, allotments, other]
iv. Other
A: Don’t know.
Q58c. Are there areas in Hockley and Hawkwell that development should generally be presumed appropriate? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
A: Don’t know
Q58d. Are there areas that require protecting from development? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
A: As Hockley Woods is the largest remaining wild woodland in the country you should be doing EVERYTHING you can to save it from development, either adjacent to or close by. You should also actively be adding to it by planting more trees to future proof its existence and status.
Q58e. Do you agree that the local green spaces shown on Figure 46 hold local significance? Are there any other open spaces that hold particular local significance? [Please state reasoning]
A: All green spaces hold significance, especially to those who use them for recreation, and have community value. They should be protected. Green belt borders should be protected from development in order to prevent urban sprawl.
Q59a. Do you agree with our vision for the Wakerings and Barling? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]
A: Don’t know.
Q59b. With reference to Figure 47 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the promoted sites should be made available for any of the following uses? How could that improve the completeness of the Wakerings and Barling?
i. Housing [market, affordable, specialist, traveller, other]
ii. Commercial [offices, industrial, retail, other]
iii. Community infrastructure [open space, education, healthcare, allotments, other]
iv. Other
A: Don’t know.
Q59c. Are there areas in the Wakerings and Barling that development should generally be presumed appropriate? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
A: Any development needs to be sympathetic of the area.
Q59d. Are there areas that require protecting from development? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
A: Don’t know.
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]
A: Don’t know.
Q60a. Do you agree with our vision for Hullbridge? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]
A: Yes, although you need to address the road networks as well as those you have suggested. A new link road from A1245 to Hullbridge, adjacent to Watery Lane would serve the increased population with an improved access route and divert traffic away from other areas.
Q60b. With reference to Figure 48 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the promoted sites should be made available for any of the following uses? How could that improve the completeness of Hullbridge?
i. Housing [market, affordable, specialist, traveller, other]
ii. Commercial [offices, industrial, retail, other]
iii. Community infrastructure [open space, education, healthcare, allotments, other]
iv. Other
A: Some of the sites have potential to include a mix of shops, leisure, recreation, offices and housing but a study needs to be made to assess the impact of the current development
Q60c. Are there areas in Hullbridge that development should generally be presumed appropriate? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
A: Don’t know.
Q60d. Are there areas that require protecting from development? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
A: Anything too close to the river due to flood risk.
Q60e. Do you agree that the local green spaces shown on Figure 48 hold local significance? Are there any other open spaces that hold particular local significance? [Please state reasoning]
A: All green spaces hold significance, especially to those who use them for recreation, and have community value. They should be protected. Green belt borders should be protected from development in order to prevent urban sprawl.
Q61a. Do you agree with our vision for Canewdon? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]
A: Yes. A small amount of housing can be sustainable there as long as the community feel it is needed.
Q61b. With reference to Figure 49 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the promoted sites should be made available for any of the following uses? How could that improve the completeness of Canewdon?
i. Housing [market, affordable, specialist, traveller, other]
ii. Commercial [offices, industrial, retail, other]
iii. Community infrastructure [open space, education, healthcare, allotments, other]
iv. Other
A: Opportunities for mixed retail, commercial and housing could be achieved with some sympathetic development in this area.

Q61c. Are there areas in Canewdon that development should generally be presumed appropriate? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
A: Don’t know.
Q61d. Are there areas that require protecting from development? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
A: Don’t know.
Q61e. Do you agree that the local green spaces shown on Figure 48 hold local significance? Are there any other open spaces that hold particular local significance? [Please state reasoning]
A: All green spaces hold significance, especially to those who use them for recreation, and have community value. They should be protected. Green belt borders should be protected from development in order to prevent urban sprawl.
Q62a. Do you agree with our vision for Great Stambridge? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]
A: Yes.
Q62b. With reference to Figure 50 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the promoted sites should be made available for any of the following uses? How could that improve the completeness of Great Stambridge?
i. Housing [market, affordable, specialist, traveller, other]
ii. Commercial [offices, industrial, retail, other]
iii. Community infrastructure [open space, education, healthcare, allotments, other]
iv. Other
A: Any development needs to be sensitive and sympathetic to this small village.
Q62c. Are there areas in Great Stambridge that development should generally be presumed appropriate? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
A: Don’t know.
Q62d. Are there areas that require protecting from development? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
A: Don’t know.
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]
A: All green spaces hold significance, especially to those who use them for recreation, and have community value. They should be protected. Green belt borders should be protected from development in order to prevent urban sprawl.
Q63a. Do you agree with our vision for Rawreth? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]
A: Don’t know.
Q63b. With reference to Figure 51 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the promoted sites should be made available for any of the following uses? How could that improve the completeness of Rawreth?
i. Housing [market, affordable, specialist, traveller, other]
ii. Commercial [offices, industrial, retail, other]
iii. Community infrastructure [open space, education, healthcare, allotments, other]
iv. Other
A: Don’t know.
Q63c. Are there areas in Rawreth that development should generally be presumed appropriate? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
A: Yes. Those that border the main roads as this makes easy access.
Q63d. Are there areas that require protecting from development? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
A: Those that change the dynamics of the village and those areas that border Wickford. There needs to be a significate amount of green belt land left to separate the 2 areas to prevent urban sprawl.
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]
A: All green spaces hold significance, especially to those who use them for recreation, and have community value. They should be protected. Green belt borders should be protected from development in order to prevent urban sprawl.
Q64a. Do you agree with our vision for Paglesham? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]
A: I think the 30 houses is the maximum you should build to keep this hamlet special. Maybe less. The community should be consulted for their requirements.
Q64b. With reference to Figure 52 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the promoted sites should be made available for any of the following uses? How could that improve the completeness of Paglesham?
i. Housing [market, affordable, specialist, traveller, other]
ii. Commercial [offices, industrial, retail, other]
iii. Community infrastructure [open space, education, healthcare, allotments, other]
iv. Other
A: The 30 proposed houses should reflect the history of the area and should be modest in size and scale. These does not seem to be scope for any other building project with exception to open space. Any development should be sympathetic to the design and scale of the areas history.
Q64c. Are there areas in Paglesham that development should generally be presumed appropriate? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
A: Those proposed seem appropriate subject to local knowledge and support.
Q64d. Are there areas that require protecting from development? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
A: No building anywhere where it is liable to flood. No building near the waterfront in order to protect its charm and history.
Q64e. Do you agree that the local green spaces shown on Figure 52 hold local significance? Are there any other open spaces that hold particular local significance? [Please state reasoning]
A: All green spaces hold significance, especially to those who use them for recreation, and have community value. They should be protected. Green belt borders should be protected from development in order to prevent urban sprawl.
Q65a. Do you agree with our vision for Sutton and Stonebridge? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]
A: Yes. These areas should remain low key but have better access to services.
Q65b. With reference to Figure 53 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the promoted sites should be made available for any of the following uses? How could that improve the completeness of Sutton and Stonebridge?
i. Housing [market, affordable, specialist, traveller, other]
ii. Commercial [offices, industrial, retail, other]
iii. Community infrastructure [open space, education, healthcare, allotments, other]
iv. Other
A: Don’t know, but mass development should not go ahead. The potential of building thousands of houses, retail etc would be devastating. If any form of development was to go ahead then this should be in the way of a nature reserve/woodland etc.
Q65c. Are there areas in Sutton and Stonebridge that development should generally be presumed appropriate? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
A: Don’t know.
Q65d. Are there areas that require protecting from development? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
A: Most of the area unless it is the creation of new woodland, ponds, meadows, etc.
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]
A: All green spaces hold significance, especially to those who use them for recreation, and have community value. They should be protected. Green belt borders should be protected from development in order to prevent urban sprawl.
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]
A: At this time – yes, but I feel they should have some consideration in the future in order to protect them.
Q67. Do you agree with our vision for our rural communities? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]
A: Yes. Nothing missing I can think of.
Q68. Are there other courses of action the Council could take to improve the completeness of our rural communities?
A: Survey and listen to the residents to see where they would like to go next. See if they require anything specific (travel links, facilities, affordable housing, etc.)

It was with great sadness I have seen the proposed planning for Rayleigh and surrounding area, I was born in Rayleigh and seen it gradually being overrun with overcrowding on the roads, housing etc.
The new proposals are horrendous, the amount of gridlock that occurs here regularly which is only going to get worse with all the extra housing.
The doctors cannot cope now, it is so hard to get appointments , dentists are the same, schools too, we do not have the infrastructure here, we have all the flats behind M&S ,those behind Superdrug already being built, which brings me to the Mill Hall COL07 which is a conservation area, part of the heritage of Rayleigh to even think of building flats there is awful.
The Mill Hall being pulled down and replaced with a smaller hall which isn't large enough for current activities yet alone when more people are living here is ridiculous and surely there should have been an agreement before this £700,000 was spent on consultations and there doesn't appear to have been any figures on costings on how much it would cost to upgrade the hall.
Why does the council need new offices built onto The Freight House, again a listed building which will cost who knows what, just a waste of “OUR” money?
Building more flats in the town centre is disgusting, Rayleigh needs to have some heritage sites left alone.
Barringtons which is another lovely building....more flats!!!!! The area behind is a little haven, more flats there, more traffic and congestion in Rayleigh.
The added pollution and congestion of the whole of Rayleigh would be detrimental to the health of all of us.
How can the RDC possibly go ahead with these plans, Rayleigh gets gridlocked so easily now how are people going to travel to work/ children getting to school on time apart from the rest of us living here shopping etc it is already a nightmare, please, please rethink these plans.
I have never responded to anything like this before but just couldn't sit back and not write a complaint about this madness.
Yours in hope of a change of mind.

CFS027 Behind Blower Close
I have the following objections to the development planned in the field behind Blower Close:

Flood Risk
Rainfall on the farm fields behind Blower Close drains down towards the houses because the properties are situated at the bottom of a slope. This has caused serious flooding to the properties 3 times since 2004. It is a very real issue that was recognised by Rochford Council, which as a result dug a wide and deep ditch in the field behind the gardens. The farm fields naturally absorb a lot of any rainfall, and to concrete over the field in question with a housing estate can only raise the flood risk. The open ditch regularly copes with 3 to 4 feet of rain water in the winter, but if it is replaced by a covered water pipe, there is a strong possibility that the pipe would be insufficient and the flooding would return.

Of further concern is when the water main in the field in question burst in July, it caused severe flooding at the junction of Bull Lane and The Chase. The existing drains were unable to cope with the excess water and many houses were flooded. I believe this shows the existing drainage system in this area also could not manage the addition of extra houses.

Traffic Access & Increase
If Wellington Road is connected to Napier Road and Albert Road, there will be a significant increase in traffic and it will become a rat run. Albert Road in particular is already congested with parking on both sides which means only one lane of cars can go down at a time. More motorists needing to access Albert Road can only raise the risk of traffic incidents as impatient rush hour drivers try to manoeuvre in a very narrow space.

I have lived at Blower Close, Rayleigh, SS6 8HW for over 40 years.

I am most concerned about the proposal to build on the field at the back of our house CFS027 on your plan. Over the years there have been floods in the Close, both in our back gardens (and into several homes) and also numbers 1-8 were flooded by water pouring down from the top of Albert Road around the corner into the Close. A frightening experience at the time.

The council is well aware of this. Several of us erected walls half way up our gardens. Then the council consented to pay for digging a wider ditch in the field bordering our gardens. At the time we signed to say that we would ensure the ditch was kept clear. It would be impossible for us to do this if the field was built on. I am extremely worried about the risk of FLOODING if the field is built on because it slopes towards our houses and with concrete replacing the field. I was surprised to see flooding wasn’t a risk for this area but the lady I spoke to in the High street explained this was referring to risk of flooding from seas and rivers.

I am also concerned about the increased TRAFFIC caused by such a development. If the roads link up, more traffic will cut through between the Hockley Road and The Chase. This will be DANGEROUS as there are several schools on the route. Not to mention the CONGESTION in Rayleigh anyway.

I hope the pressure on services such as schools and doctors/hospitals is considered before any development plan is implemented.

I tried to complete your consultation online but couldn’t find the link. Happy to do this if it helps.

I object to site COL07 (Mill Hall, car park and green) and also site COL20 Civic Suite with landscaped gardens to the rear being included in the Local Plan as a future residential development site.
Under Section 71 of the Planning (listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and other legislation Rochford District Council has a duty to preserve and enhance the Rayleigh Conservation Area. Both sites are surrounded by listed buildings and a Scheduled Ancient Monument in the case of Mill Hall, neither should not be developed for housing. The setting of the listed buildings are also greatly enhanced by the gardens and the landscaped car parks which make a significant contribution to the conservation area, these would be lost if developed for residential use.
Under S.39 Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and other legislation and guidance, Rochford has a duty to contribute towards achieving sustainable development.
It is widely acknowledged that the greenest building is the one already there. The carbon footprint of demolishing existing buildings on these sites will significantly increase the carbon footprint of the whole district. In is important therefore to invest in the present buildings and make them more sustainable (Mill Hall would appear to offer significant opportunities.).
Under S.40 of the Natural Environment & Rural Communities Act 2006, the local planning authority has a duty, when exercising its functions, to conserve biodiversity. The green areas and trees on both sites greatly contribute to the biodiversity of the area. In particular in this conservation area, which is not only valued for its buildings but for the mature trees and open space owned by the public. The loss of this biodiversity would be unacceptable if these sites were changed to residential use in the next local plan.
The contribution of car parking to the vitality of the town centre is significant and loss of public car parking within COL07 an COL20 would be detrimental to the Rayleigh Town Centre

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

Both sites are surrounded by listed buildings and Mill Hall by a Scheduled Ancient Monument. The setting of the listed buildings is enhanced by the gardens and landscaped car parks, making significant contribution to the conservation area and would be lost if developed for residential use.
Rochford District Council has a duty to preserve and enhance the Rayleigh Conservation area, under section 71 of the Planning (listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and other legislation.

The contribution of public car parking within COL07 and COL20 is significant to the town centre’s vitality and it would be detrimental to the town centre if it was lost due to development.

The local planning authority has a duty to conserve biodiversity when exercising its functions under S.40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006.
It would be unacceptable if the mature trees and open space owned by the public in sites COL07 and Col20 were lost to residential use in the next local plan. The green areas and trees are greatly valued and contribute to the biodiversity of the area.

As Rochford Council has a duty to contribute towards achieving sustainable development under S.39 Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and other legislation and guidance it is important to invest into present buildings to make them more sustainable.
The carbon footprint of demolishing existing buildings on these sites will significantly increase the carbon footprint of the whole district. Investment should be made into the current buildings to make them more sustainable.

You are aware that there is a growing movement in progress to save the Mill Hall in Rayleigh from demolition and redevelopment.What Rochford Council is planning to do amounts to the vandalism of a town that at the moment is a nice place to live, you will be taking away a cultural hub that in the past (pre pandemic) was contrary to what the council alleges was well used.
Please do not do to our town what Thurrock council did to Grays,they took the soul out of it.By following your plan you will take the soul out of Rayleigh

am writing to object very strongly to the plans to use conservation areas in Rayleigh for housing development. SiteCOLO7( Mill Hall, car park and green) and SiteCOL20 (Civic Suite with gardens) are both conservation areas and are NOT suitable for housing development.
The Mill Hall should be made more sustainable( I understand a free survey has been offered by a charitable organization) and the Civic Suite should be kept for the present amenities that it serves. That is, the CAB who have now had to move to Basildon! What use is that for the people of Rayleigh? Also the OACS Counselling Service who have had to close and now have no premises at a time when this service is more urgently required. Think again about what you are planning for the people of Rayleigh and listen to what we residents are urging you NOT to do.

Not being an engineer or environmentalist I can not comment on much of the information in your local plan.
However as a resident and road user I feel I must comment on an issue I believe that has been either ignored or overlooked.
The current roads in and around Rayleigh are already very busy and most evenings Rawreth Lane is often at a standstill or at least no more than walking pace. There are already 600 houses being built on Rawreth Lane plus a further 500 in Hullbridge.
It is a common fact that there are at least 2 cars per dwelling - in fact it is more like 1 car per bedroom.
Surely those in power must be aware that the current roads cannot cope with many thousands if not 10s of thousands extra cars on the roads in the area.
The extra pollution and congestion will be intolerable. People still need to get to work and most will most likely be working outside the area, with public transport lacking and the trains overcrowded, people will continue to use their cars for many decades to come.

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

My objections are generated by several universal and government considerations.
• Given recent reports, following increasing pressure, it is likely the UK Government will considerably change and 'water down' the proposed changes to planning laws.
• This is likely to include the scrapping of zonal systems and mandatory housebuilding targets for councils.
• Furthermore, increasing pressure will be placed on all elements of government to manage the effects of climate change.
• The considerations of climate change have already started to be considered by the UK Government, viz:
quote.......

Biodiversity, geodiversity and ecosystems
Is there a statutory basis for seeking to conserve and enhance biodiversity?
Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 places a duty on all public authorities in England and Wales to have regard, in the exercise of their functions, to the purpose of conserving biodiversity. A key purpose of this duty is to embed consideration of biodiversity as an integral part of policy and decision making throughout the public sector, which should be seeking to make a significant contribution to the achievement of the commitments made by government in its 25 Year Environment Plan.

Guidance on the law concerning designated sites and protected species is published separately because its application is wider than planning. In applying this, the aim should be to fulfil statutory obligations in a way that minimises delays and burdens.

Paragraph: 009 Reference ID: 8-009-20190721
Revision date: 21 07 2019
.........unquote

As representatives of the local population, it is Rochford Council's responsibility to observe the law and consider the negative future impact of their proposed changes.

My objections are supported when considering these very important factors mentioned above.

I strongly object to site COL07 (Mill Hall, car park and green) and also site COL20 Civic Suite with landscaped gardens to the rear being included in the Local Plan as a future residential development site.
My reasons are as follows:-
Under Section 71 of the Planning (listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and other legislation Rochford District Council has a duty to preserve and enhance the Rayleigh Conservation Area. Both sites are surrounded by listed buildings and a Scheduled Ancient Monument in the case of Mill Hall, neither should not be developed for housing. The setting of the listed buildings are also greatly enhanced by the gardens and the landscaped car parks which make a significant contribution to the conservation area, these would be lost if developed for residential use.
Under S.39 Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and other legislation and guidance, Rochford has a duty to contribute towards achieving sustainable development.
It is widely acknowledged that the greenest building is the one already there. The carbon footprint of demolishing existing buildings on these sites will significantly increase the carbon footprint of the whole district. In is important therefore to invest in the present buildings and make them more sustainable (Mill Hall would appear to offer significant opportunities.).
Under S.40 of the Natural Environment & Rural Communities Act 2006, the local planning authority has a duty, when exercising its functions, to conserve biodiversity. The green areas and trees on both sites greatly contribute to the biodiversity of the area. In particular in this conservation area, which is not only valued for its buildings but for the mature trees and open space owned by the public. The loss of this biodiversity would be unacceptable if these sites were changed to residential use in the next local plan.
The contribution of car parking to the vitality of the town centre is significant and loss of public car parking within COL07 an COL20 would be detrimental to the Rayleigh Town Centre.
On closer inspection of the spatial options map, the Mill Hall site now includes the Bellingham Lane car park as an option for a development site. How is this possible? I understand the car park has a covenant on the deeds which means it must STAY a car park and not be developed. So why do you promote it as a site?
The above are borne out by Rochford Council's own plans and policy documents.

I strongly object to site COL07 (Mill Hall, car park and green) and also site COL20 Civic Suite with landscaped gardens to the rear being included in the Local Plan as a future residential development site.
My reasons are as follows:-
Under Section 71 of the Planning (listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and other legislation Rochford District Council has a duty to preserve and enhance the Rayleigh Conservation Area. Both sites are surrounded by listed buildings and a Scheduled Ancient Monument in the case of Mill Hall, neither should not be developed for housing. The setting of the listed buildings are also greatly enhanced by the gardens and the landscaped car parks which make a significant contribution to the conservation area, these would be lost if developed for residential use.
Under S.39 Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and other legislation and guidance, Rochford has a duty to contribute towards achieving sustainable development.
It is widely acknowledged that the greenest building is the one already there. The carbon footprint of demolishing existing buildings on these sites will significantly increase the carbon footprint of the whole district. In is important therefore to invest in the present buildings and make them more sustainable (Mill Hall would appear to offer significant opportunities.).
Under S.40 of the Natural Environment & Rural Communities Act 2006, the local planning authority has a duty, when exercising its functions, to conserve biodiversity. The green areas and trees on both sites greatly contribute to the biodiversity of the area. In particular in this conservation area, which is not only valued for its buildings but for the mature trees and open space owned by the public. The loss of this biodiversity would be unacceptable if these sites were changed to residential use in the next local plan.
The contribution of car parking to the vitality of the town centre is significant and loss of public car parking within COL07 an COL20 would be detrimental to the Rayleigh Town Centre.
On closer inspection of the spatial options map, the Mill Hall site now includes the Bellingham Lane car park as an option for a development site. How is this possible? I understand the car park has a covenant on the deeds which means it must STAY a car park and not be developed. So why do you promote it as a site?
The above are borne out by Rochford Council's own plans and policy documents.

I look forward to your response and better still, the abandoning of all ties and projects with GB Partnerships (Rochford) Ltd, subject to unfortunate contractual obligations that you have undemocratically taken on our behalf.

COL07 and COL20
I object to site COL07 (Mill Hall, car park and green) and also site COL20 Civic Suite with landscaped gardens to the rear being included in the Local Plan as a future residential development site.
Under Section 71 of the Planning (listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and other legislation Rochford District Council has a duty to preserve and enhance the Rayleigh Conservation Area. Both sites are surrounded by listed buildings and a Scheduled Ancient Monument in the case of Mill Hall, neither should not be developed for housing. The setting of the listed buildings are also greatly enhanced by the gardens and the landscaped car parks which make a significant contribution to the conservation area, these would be lost if developed for residential use.
Under S.39 Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and other legislation and guidance, Rochford has a duty to contribute towards achieving sustainable development.
It is widely acknowledged that the greenest building is the one already there. The carbon footprint of demolishing existing buildings on these sites will significantly increase the carbon footprint of the whole district. In is important therefore to invest in the present buildings and make them more sustainable (Mill Hall would appear to offer significant opportunities.).
Under S.40 of the Natural Environment & Rural Communities Act 2006, the local planning authority has a duty, when exercising its functions, to conserve biodiversity. The green areas and trees on both sites greatly contribute to the biodiversity of the area. In particular in this conservation area, which is not only valued for its buildings but for the mature trees and open space owned by the public. The loss of this biodiversity would be unacceptable if these sites were changed to residential use in the next local plan.
The contribution of car parking to the vitality of the town centre is significant and loss of public car parking within COL07 an COL20 would be detrimental to the Rayleigh Town Centre.
The above are borne out by Rochford Council's own plans and policy documents.

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

Under Section 71 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, and other legislation, Rochford District Council has a duty to preserve and enhance the Rayleigh Conservation Area. Both sites are surrounded by listed buildings and a Scheduled Ancient Monument in the case of Mill Hall. Neither should be developed for housing. The setting of the listed buildings is greatly enhanced by the gardens and the landscaped car parks, which make a significant contribution to the Conservation Area. This would be lost if developed for residential use.

Under Section 39 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, and other legislation, Rochford District Council has a duty to contribute towards achieving sustainable development. The greenest building is the one already there. The carbon footprint of demolishing existing buildings on these sites will significantly increase the carbon footprint of the District. One should, therefore, invest in the present buildings and make them more sustainable. Mill Hall would offer significant opportunities.

Under Section 40 0f the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 the Local Planning Authority has a duty, when exercising its functions, to conserve biodiversity. The green areas and trees on both sites contribute greatly to the biodiversity of the area. This Conservation Area is not only valued for its buildings, but also for its mature trees and open spaces. The loss of this biodiversity would be unacceptable if these sites were changed to residential use.

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

COL07 (Mill Hall, car park and green) and also site COL20 Civic Suite
I strongly object to site COL07 (Mill Hall, car park and green) and also site COL20 Civic Suite with landscaped gardens to the rear being included in the Local Plan as a future residential development site.
There is already residential development occurring in the centre of Rayleigh. To keep ‘squeezing in’ development in an area where the infrastructure is already under strain is not good planning. Also, apart from destroying the character of Rayleigh, under Section 71 of the Planning (listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and other legislation Rochford District Council has a duty to preserve and enhance the Rayleigh Conservation Area. Both sites are surrounded by listed buildings and a Scheduled Ancient Monument in the case of Mill Hall, neither should not be developed for housing. The setting of the listed buildings are also greatly enhanced by the gardens and the landscaped car parks which make a significant contribution to the conservation area, these would be lost if developed for residential use.
Under S.39 Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and other legislation and guidance, Rochford has a duty to contribute towards achieving sustainable development.
It is widely acknowledged that the greenest building is the one already there. The carbon footprint of demolishing existing buildings on these sites will significantly increase the carbon footprint of the whole district. In is important therefore to invest in the present buildings and make them more sustainable (Mill Hall would appear to offer significant opportunities.).
Under S.40 of the Natural Environment & Rural Communities Act 2006, the local planning authority has a duty, when exercising its functions, to conserve biodiversity. The green areas and trees on both sites greatly contribute to the biodiversity of the area. In particular in this conservation area, which is not only valued for its buildings but for the mature trees and open space owned by the public. The loss of this biodiversity would be unacceptable if these sites were changed to residential use in the next local plan.
The contribution of car parking to the vitality of the town centre is significant and loss of public car parking within COL07 an COL20 would be detrimental to the Rayleigh Town Centre.
The above are borne out by Rochford Council's own plans and policy documents.

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

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

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

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

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

Under S.39 Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and other legislation and guidance, Rochford has a duty to contribute towards achieving sustainable development.

It is widely acknowledged that the greenest building is the one already there. The carbon footprint of demolishing existing buildings on these sites will significantly increase the carbon footprint of the whole district. In is important therefore to invest in the present buildings and make them more sustainable (Mill Hall would appear to offer significant opportunities.).

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

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

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

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

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

Sites COL07 and COL20 Objections
I object to site COL07 (Mill Hall, car park and green) and also site COL20 Civic Suite with landscaped gardens to the rear being included in the Local Plan as a future residential development site.
Under Section 71 of the Planning (listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and other legislation, Rochford District Council has a duty to preserve and enhance the Rayleigh Conservation Area. As both sites are surrounded by listed buildings and a Scheduled Ancient Monument in the case of Mill Hall, neither should be developed for housing. The listed buildings' settings are also greatly enhanced by the gardens and the landscaped car parks, which make a significant contribution to the conservation area. These would be lost if they are developed for residential use.
Under S.39 Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and other legislation and guidance, Rochford has a duty to contribute towards achieving sustainable development.
It is widely acknowledged that the greenest building is the one already there. The carbon footprint of demolishing existing buildings on these sites will significantly increase the carbon footprint of the whole district. It is important therefore to invest in the present buildings and make them more sustainable. Mill Hall would appear to offer significant opportunities.
Under S.40 of the Natural Environment & Rural Communities Act 2006, the local planning authority has a duty, when exercising its functions, to conserve biodiversity. The green areas and trees on both sites greatly contribute to the biodiversity of the area. In particular, in this conservation area, which is not only valued for its buildings but for the mature trees and open space owned by the public, the loss of this biodiversity would be unacceptable if these sites were changed to residential use in the next local plan.
The contribution of car parking to the vitality of the town centre is also significant and the loss of public car parking within COL07 an COL20 would be detrimental to the Rayleigh Town Centre if the changes go ahead.
The above are borne out by Rochford Council's own plans and policy documents.

I object to site COL07 (Mill Hall, car park and green) and also site COL20 Civic Suite with landscaped gardens to the rear being included in the Local Plan as a future residential development site.
Under Section 71 of the Planning (listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and other legislation Rochford District Council has a duty to preserve and enhance the Rayleigh Conservation Area. Both sites are surrounded by listed buildings and a Scheduled Ancient Monument in the case of Mill Hall, neither should not be developed for housing. The setting of the listed buildings are also greatly enhanced by the gardens and the landscaped car parks which make a significant contribution to the conservation area, these would be lost if developed for residential use.
Under S.39 Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and other legislation and guidance, Rochford has a duty to contribute towards achieving sustainable development.
It is widely acknowledged that the greenest building is the one already there. The carbon footprint of demolishing existing buildings on these sites will significantly increase the carbon footprint of the whole district. In is important therefore to invest in the present buildings and make them more sustainable (Mill Hall would appear to offer significant opportunities.).
Under S.40 of the Natural Environment & Rural Communities Act 2006, the local planning authority has a duty, when exercising its functions, to conserve biodiversity. The green areas and trees on both sites greatly contribute to the biodiversity of the area. In particular in this conservation area, which is not only valued for its buildings but for the mature trees and open space owned by the public. The loss of this biodiversity would be unacceptable if these sites were changed to residential use in the next local plan.
The contribution of car parking to the vitality of the town centre is significant and loss of public car parking within COL07 an COL20 would be detrimental to the Rayleigh Town Centre.
The above are borne out by Rochford Council's own plans and policy documents.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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