Q57b. With reference to Figure 45 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the land edged blue should be made available for any of the following uses?

I believe that our fields could be used for forestry , wind farming and or Solar panels. Maybe even country parks. But please, no more people , and no more houses.

Objection for CFS013
I am objecting to this site on the basis of sustainibility. Releasing small plots of greenbelt land like this achieves little besides eroding the green belt boundary piece by piece. Small plots of land such as CFS013 do not qualify for additional infrastructure such as schools, doctors, hospitals etc if the approach is to release lots of these small pockets of land we shall find ourselves in a position where we have the worst of all outcomes. Loss of greenbelt with an unsustainable demand on infrastructure.
Ashingdon road is congested enough without the proposed release of even more greenbelt for housing. I note the recently denied permission for the bloor homes development on the grounds of a "severe" impact to local highway network. This is something I and many other residents agree with. What do we expect to change that will faciliate the release of so much green belt around Ashingdon?
Ashingdon is a small parish village with road networks appropriate for its size. I would argue that building additional housing in and around Ashingdon will also have a severe impact on the local highway network. It is fantasy to think that we can mitigate the impact on road networks with cycle lanes or public transport. Vehicle sales have increased. People are making more journeys, not less since the pandemic.
We must go back to the Government and challenge the housing target. The appointment of a new housing minister (a great advocate of countryside and green belt might I add) and the pausing of reforms to planning law means there has never been a better time to push back against these mandatory housing targets. I know the fear has always been intervention, but who's to say that will happen now?

If we must build so many houses then my belief is that regrettebly we should release a large site of green belt land. Someting that will enable a school, doctors or hospital to be constructed. It would make sense for us to partner up with Southend Council and utilise land on our adjacent boundaries.

• animal welfare and green belt land being built on. Beautiful land and destroying countryside.
Biodiversity— animals, plants, removal of head rows.
• Extra housing in this peaceful rural area will cause extra pollution and more traffic when people have bought property in this area for the rural and quiet space.
• high demand to get into doctors surgery already.
• lots of houses have been built in the area already at the end of the road and opposite our house.
• bigger school classes
• over congested on the Ashingdon road.
•

There are vacant buildings in Rochford which should be developed. The old football pitches behind the old college development (College Gardens) have been unused for many years and could be developed. There is already too much traffic in Rochford/Ashingdon and the infrastructure is severely lacking (promises made for infrastructure for the Hall Road development were not met). Pollution will increase and contribute to rising health issues and greater pressure on NHS. In a world with increasing population it is vital to keep good quality agricultural land to grow food to feed the people.

I feel that as an area we have taken a high amount of housing and am concerned by the number of sites that are coming forward in this area. I would support an increase in retail in the area.

As you are aware CFS261 is the Doggetts farm proposal for an eco housing environment. After spending some time listening to their proposals this seems a good approach. Whilst it is green belt the development they are suggesting seems sensitive to the environment (larger plots that allow people to grow food, very eco friendly houses, hedgerows, tree planting etc) Depending on size it would include some infrastructure. It is close to existing facilities such as education so helps reduce transport needs.

I object to sites that increase the urban sprawl including CFS261 and CFS126. I don't agree with you initial appraisal of CFS126 especially as it suggests that it could be good for regeneration of a deprived area. This area is not deprived therefore should be given a higher rating. No more houses should be built until the infrastructure is addressed prior to building. This does not mean the developer just handing extra money over as has happened with all the new developments across the area, this does not help the traffic problem. Nor does adding a filter lane to various junctions on the Ashingdon Road (as happened with the Hall Road development), as this only allows one more car to move forward as the filter lane is not big enough for more than that. The Highways technical report told you this road was over capacity years ago and you haven’t listened. There have been 227 days of roadworks over a span of 400 days between Ashingdon and the Anne Boleyn, that’s more than every other day meaning we are stuck in traffic throughout the day, more often than not, which triples my journey times. There are 4 primary schools and one secondary school at capacity (in fact class sizes have been increased due to demand). This is an exceptional circumstance not to build anywhere in this area due to the current congestion. Where is the new school originally in the Hall Road development? The number of built and planned housing has already gone over the 1500 that should trigger a new primary school. The only solution is a new road linking the areas, the current road cannot cope and it is the residents of Rochford and the surrounding area who suffer. Relieve the traffic problems first or do the traffic survey when there are roadworks going on and look at your results then, as that will give you a more realistic picture of the issue that everyone talks about. You, as our council, need to push back against the government targets which are unrealistic for this anywhere off the Ashingdon Road, it is unique. The green belt policy says that it should only be used in exceptional circumstances and need for housing is not in its own right and exceptional circumstance. Your policy is almost the opposite, in that it seems to be it should be used unless there is an exceptional circumstance not to. I would be very surprised if any of our views make a difference because you will choose the option that best suits the council not the residents.

I am for more development of housing as long as it stays away from the country areas out the back of Rochford.

clealry it is the 3rd suggestion
Allowing the Village hall and the pavillion to expand and unify would mean there was enhanced capacity to the Community infrastructure.
In the King Georges fields and Car parks we already have the open space.
In thepavillion we already have part of the education with the provision of pre school playgroup. We have healthcare in the pharmacy but do not have any doctors closer than Puzey in Rochford, Lascelles Gardens or Greensward. Clearly that is a lack. Allotments could be provided at the end of the fields.
If there was a link up by taking the Ashingdon Hill into the fields there could be better walking. Allowing a coffe shop would be a great addition,
Other

I would like to put forward some comments with regards to the proposed eco village at doggetts farm.
I back onto the farm, and do not want another 4000 houses to be built, with no infrastructure etc. It seems to me that it would be more beneficial to the community to have a smaller amount of houses along with the other facilities that Rochford is missing and ‘link up’ what is essentially Rochford and Ashingdon with a long road in between.
The state of our climate also concerns me at the moment so the auastainable housing which has been proposed, and which will hopefully be achievable for our young people to buy (speaking as the mother of a 20 &17 year old) is a brilliant idea.
I hope we do not have another development with just a load of ‘concrete boxes’ filling up the beautiful view we currently have, and the disruption this will cause for years very much distresses me and causes much anxiety.

We would like to preface everything we are about to say with the following. Our district cannot take
any more 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. I 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. 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 dangerously 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 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 events surrounding 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 cut it.
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 residents this would require. 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 over-subscribed thanks for 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 –
Roland and Gordon Harwood) are fully represented in this process and during the subsequent stages
of the local plan being written and implemented.

We would like to preface everything we are about to say with the following. Our district cannot take
any more 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. I 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. 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 dangerously 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 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 events surrounding 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 cut it.
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 residents this would require. 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 over-subscribed thanks for 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 are fully represented in this
process and during the subsequent stages of the local plan being written and implemented.

I would like to provide a consultation response to the promoted site CFS261.

I understand the pressure the Council is under to provide the number of housing as per government requirements and the also the opportunity the owners of Doggett's Farm have identified to sell off their agricultural land for housing development.

However I would like to record my objection of the plan for this site and for it to be promoted for housing. The main objection is a personal one as our garden borders the site. The fantastic views we have from our garden and the peaceful environment was one of the reasons for us moving here. Although I appreciate that such personal views would have little bearing on any objection to the development, it is no doubt the feeling by all living on the border of the promoted site.

However, in addition to personal sentiments, there are also some wider implications to any development of the site. The loss of agricultural land is one; the importance of being able to produce food locally and not being dependant on the distribution, has recently proven crucial. Although I appreciate the value to the land owner is far higher were is housing, the fact is that there is a need to protect the ability we have to produce food locally.

The second is the question of infrastructure; although I am well aware that the plans will include infrastructure solutions and have a plan attached, there is no doubt that Rochford is becoming more and more congested. The planned and approved development by Holt Farm has already attracted considerable objections and a similar one on the promoted site would attract even more.

Doggetts farm has become a family attraction, with local families visiting to experience farming and the heritage of Rochford as a farming community. With most of the families living in urban environments, access to green space and farming activities provides a welcome contribution to living in Rochford and an opportunity for the District to be more than just a dormitory town to London and other major employment areas.

I applaud the Landowners aspiration to develop an Eco Village however I fail to see the reason behind using more of the green belt to develop more housing creating further pollution and congestion.

Although I appreciate that this is a major site and would be one of the preferred options, I ask that that the council considers the loss of valuable agricultural land, the creation of more congestion and pollution as a result of the development, and instead look to see if there are any brownfield sites which can provide the housing numbers required.

In addition to the objection of this site I would also like to see Social Value policies being introduced to planning agreements and to feature as a planning obligation in the new Local Plan. Requiring developers to produce Employment and Skills Plans as part of the planning process will ensure that local residents and businesses will benefit and I would argue, be a good selling point to residents when presenting development proposals.

Re Ref: CFS217 Land at Doggetts Chase
1. If it is proposed to use Stilwells as an access road the proposed development would inconvenience ourselves and other road users by generating increased traffic in the immediate vicinity and in Rochford Town Centre. For many years Stilwells/Doggetts Chase has been a welcome, safe, leisure area for walkers, cyclists, joggers, horse riders, fishermen etc. The increased use of the road would have an adverse effect on this asset to the community.
2. The proposed development would have a negative impact on amenity due to increased noise, disturbance and nuisance. Stilwells is currently a relatively quiet residential area during the day and particularly at night.


Re Ref: CFS261 Land east of Oxford Rd
1. The proposed development would have a negative impact on the views and surroundings that create a backdrop to the area in which we live. The area is currently valuable agricultural land with historic buildings and pleasant countryside views. Mixed woodland, hedges and a nature reserve provide an important habitat for wild flowers and wildlife. This could be prejudiced by the development.
2. The proposed development would inconvenience ourselves and other road users by generating excessive traffic in the immediate vicinity, in Rochford Town Centre and beyond. For many years Stilwells/Doggetts Chase has been a welcome, safe, leisure area for walkers, cyclists, joggers, horse riders, fishermen etc. The increased use of the road would have an adverse effect on this asset to the community.
3. The proposed development would have a negative impact on amenity due to possible overlooking of our property, loss of privacy, increased noise, disturbance and nuisance. Stilwells is currently a relatively quiet residential area during the day and particularly at night.

Clearly the above are comments as requested but could be considered as objections should the proposed developments be carried forward.

I am writing in response to the consultation on the New Local Plan: Spatial Options Document 2021.
My opinions predominantly apply to the promoted site CFS013 (Land at rear of Newton Hall
Gardens, Ashingdon) and CFS119. To structure my response, I am referring to Q57 and its
subsections of the survey.
I believe the final allocation of promoted sites will say a lot about our community’s culture and vision
for the future. I hope to outline my own vision, and that shared of others I have spoken to, so the
council can best serve its lifelong residents, and returning residents with who are invested in the
community.
I am a 29-year-old secondary school teacher who grew up in Canewdon View Road. I moved out at
the age of eighteen for university but upon returning from university I struggled to afford a property
in the local area. After nearly a decade of saving and career progression buying a property in
Ashingdon with my partner was just about viable. I am therefore heavily invested in strengthening
our community such that others in my own situation can afford to live where they grew up.
However, any future development should not be to the detriment of existing residents and
communities, such that Ashingdon and Rochford become dormitory towns for London.
Rochford and Ashingdon need more affordable housing, However I believe that new developments
should occur away from current population centres and only where large-scale projects (500+
homes) can be constructed. This is so they can be accompanied with infrastructure investment with
an emphasis on GP surgeries, schools and social care. Any developments on the immediate
periphery of existing side roads to Ashingdon road will only worsen congestion and demand on
public services. Developments close to people’s homes would also damage trust with Rochford
residents, whom I’m sure the majority understand the need for new housing but do not wish it upon
their own doorsteps.
I have looked very carefully at the Spatial Options Map and it seems that CFS261 meets this criteria,
given its relative separation from existing population centres and closer proximity to Rochford town
centre. Albeit the section of this site that closely borders Lingfield Drive should not be developed out
of respect to the current homeowners.
I would now like to draw your attention to a promoted site that borders my own property CFS013
(Land at rear of Newton Hall Gardens, Ashingdon) and CFS119 (the adjacent plot).
Residents of Newton Hall Gardens and Assandune Close currently enjoy the benefits of living in a
Cul-de-sac, surrounded by open fields filled with horses. This was one of the many reasons my
partner and I chose to purchase our property two years ago. The benefits of good air quality, low
noise pollution and low levels of traffic all being key factors, especially with our intention of soon
starting a family. The cul-de-sac has a strong sense of community, with most neighbours being on
first name terms and group gatherings such as VE day parties and Jubilee celebrations being a given.
This sense of community is rare in the modern world and should be preserved, with the support of
our local council who should capitalise on and foster such communities. We are concerned that if
CFS013 or the adjacent CFS119 were to be developed in the future for housing or commercial
purposes, Newton Hall Gardens would become a through road. Many residents already park on the
road making it effectively single lane, young children enjoy playing around the road, this would be
unsafe if the road became access to a larger development.
If access were obtained by other routes, Newton Hall gardens would still suffer in terms of its
microenvironment due to the potential for reduction of green space surrounding the homes,
changes to noise and air pollution, and the prospect of being overlooked. North facing properties of
Newton Hall gardens (including my own of number 9) also enjoy stunning views of St Andrew’s
Church and the River crouch (see attached), this green outlook enriches our appreciation of the
property and surrounding countryside. If the small patch of CFS013 highlighted in a darker blue in
the picture below were to be developed, these views would all be imposed upon, as could the
market value of our properties.

It is my view that CFS013 and CFS119 should only be promoted for use as community infrastructure
e.g. open space, allotments or as an extension to King Georges playing field. These sites in their
historic proximity to Ashingdon hill and St Andrew’s church should not be used for commercial and
housing purposes. If one considers the view from the church itself it would be greatly damaged by a
modern, tightly packed housing development of gardenless mansions.
In conclusion, I plead that you protect our little slice of eden on the edge of residential Ashingdon by
denying the allocation of CFS013 and CFS119 as promoted sites in the New Local Plan but I also
encourage the council to promote sites that are away from existing population centres, and come
with the promise of new infrastructure to serve our communities.

1.0 Introduction
1.1 These representations are submitted to the Rochford New Local Plan Spatial Options on behalf of Bellway Strategic Land in relation to Land North of Brays Lane, Ashingdon (‘the Site’).
1.2 The Site has previously been submitted into the Call for Sites, references CFS126 and CFS007, which Bellway Strategic Land are promoting together to ensure a
comprehensively planned extension to Ashingdon.
1.3 Representations were submitted to the New Local Plan Issues and Options consultation in 2018 to further promote the allocation of the Site to help meet market and affordable housing need in a logical way at the edge of an existing settlement.
1.4 The only current constraint to development is the location of the Site within the Green Belt, with it being unconstrained in other regards. The Site can be used much more effectively to deliver around 250 new market and affordable homes to meet the identified needs within the District and provide new public open space.
1.5 A Vision Document (Appendix A) is submitted as part of these representations to provide further detail about the Site and its proposed development.
2.0 Response to Spatial Options Consultation Questions
Q3. Do you agree that we should develop a range of separate visions for each of our settlements to help guide decision-making?
2.1 A vision for each settlement could be helpful, but we would highlight that these should not be too restrictive. Given the length of time the Local Plan will cover, there will be changes in the local areas, some of which could be significant. It is important that the visions do not stop development reacting to such changes or the potential responding to new technology, and does not stifle innovation.
Q4. Do you agree with the strategic priorities and objectives we have identifies? Is there anything missing from the strategic priorities or objectives that you feel
needs to be included?
2.2 We suggest that objectives of the Local Plan should include to improve the affordability of housing for people of Rochford District.
2.3 The RLPSO notes (page 12) that:
“The affordability of all housing is an issue constraining the ability for residents to afford homes in the area. The average house costs around ten times to average annual income of a Rochford resident, which has increased significantly from around five times 20 years ago and is significantly above the national average”. (RLPSO,
page 12).
2.4 The most recent data available reports that the median house price in the District is 11.57 times the median gross annual workplace-based earnings (‘the affordability ratio’). This is significantly greater than the national average, and indicates housing affordability
has worsened drastically in recent years.
2.5 In 2000, the affordability ratio for the District was 5.08 – only slightly worse than the national average of 4.13. By 2020, the national affordability ratio had increased to 7.69
– significantly below the District’s 11.57.
2.6 In addition, the longer term impact on housing demand resulting from the Covid-19 pandemic may well impact significantly on Rochford’s housing market and affordability of homes for local people. Whilst empirical data is currently limited, there are early indications there has already been an increased desire to move from more to less urban areas, due to a greater desire for homes with larger garden areas and home offices, better access to open space, and within less densely populated areas.
2.7 At the same time, the pandemic has forced many employers (although not within all sectors) to adapt and enable home-working. Whilst it is largely expected there will be a degree of return to office-working, it is anticipated that the need for employees to be physically present within a particular office will be substantially reduced.
2.8 As a consequence, it can be readily predicated that many more people will be prepared to live considerably further from their place of work. This is of particular relevance to Rochford, as London is accessible via railway services from parts of the District; and house prices are relatively affordable when compared to other areas in and around London. As a consequence, the area may well prove an increasingly popular destination for those migrating out of higher density areas in and around London. This in turn is likely to put considerable pressure on the housing market. If insufficient homes are provided, it is also likely to result in a significant worsening of affordability. Ensuring a sufficient supply of homes will be imperative if the Council is to tackle the issue of housing
affordability in the District.
2.9 The RLPSO’s proposed Strategic Objective 3 is:
“To facilitate accelerated growth in our local economy through supporting the delivery of suitably located land which meets businesses needs at each stage of their lifecycle (including delivering grow-on space to enable local businesses to flourish), the continued functioning of London Southend Airport as a thriving regional airport,
serving London and the South East, as well as supporting the continued growth and innovation at the Airport Business Park”
2.10 We support this and, in addition, suggest this objective should recognise that the critical role house-building plays in supporting the local economy, and the economic benefits house builder would have for the District.
2.11 As the Local Plan Spatial Options recognises on page 26, areas within which new homes are built have the potential to see significant additional expenditure and job creation.
2.12 Employment relating directly to the construction of the development will have positive economic and social impacts; as will jobs relating to the supply chain which will be supported. Construction is an important part of the local economy in the District: the 2011 Census recorded that 10.5% of employed residents in Rochford District were working in the construction industry.
2.13 Development of additional homes in the District will also engender sustained local economic benefits relating to additional local expenditure, with additional expenditure on goods and services by future occupiers of new homes on first occupation, on home set up cost, and on an ongoing basis in local shops and services in the area.
2.14 Furthermore, ensuring the provision of sufficient, suitable accommodation is important to securing investment and employers in the District.
Q5. Do you agree with the settlement hierarchy presented? If not, what changes do you think are required?
2.15 We agree that Rochford, including Ashingdon, should be highly ranked within the settlement hierarchy to reflect the wide range of services and facilities available,
alongside sustainable transport options and employment opportunities.
2.16 As the RLPSO recognises, Rochford and Ashingdon together form a functionallyconnected settlement.
2.17 Its ranking as Tier 2 is justified given the range of facilities available, but we would highlight that it would be beneficial for the settlement hierarchy itself to state ‘Hockley, Rochford and Ashingdon’, rather than referring to Ashingdon in the accompanying text only. This will be clearer and provide greater clarity to the decision maker.
Q6. Which of the identified strategy options do you consider should be taken forward in the Plan?
2.18 Given the market and affordable housing needs, affordability issues and heritage and environmental constraints in the District, it is important that the overall strategy seeks to provide a wide range of housing options throughout the Plan period in suitable locations. As such, the strategy should utilise a range of different sites to maximise options to bring forward these new homes and associated infrastructure.
2.19 The temporal dimension of any strategy will also be an important consideration. The Local Plan should seek to ensure that homes can be provided across the plan period, including within the early years. Indeed, it is particularly important for the strategy to deliver homes in the early years of the plan period, given current, acute housing needs.
2.20 For the Local Plan strategy to be sound, we consider that it will need to direct a significant proportion of housing growth to Rochford / Ashingdon.
2.21 As the RLPSO recognises, Rochford and Ashingdon together form a functionallyconnected settlement home to around 18,000 residents. Between Rochford town centre and a number of neighbourhood centres located throughout the wider settlement, the Rochford provides for a wide range of services and business spaces, including a number of specialist employment areas supporting nearby London Southend Airport. The
settlement also benefits from a railway station and has good public transport links, particularly when compared to much of the District.
2.22 Rochford / Ashingdon is characterised as a top tier settlement within the current Development Plan, i.e. one of the most sustainable settlements to which to direct
additional growth.
2.23 The Census 2011 suggested that Ashingdon Parish has an ageing population, with a
median age of 45, compared to the nation median of 39. Nevertheless, in 2011 over
20% of the population of Rochford and Ashingdon were aged 17 or under – children / young adults still make up a significant proportion of the local population, suggesting a
relatively large cohort of young people growing up in the area who may well wish to form their own households within the community in which they were raised. However, in the last 10 years, the average price paid for a homes in Ashingdon has increased 61% and the current average dwelling value is estimated to be £337,818. This suggests a lack of housing supply compared to need in the area.
2.24 Rochford and Ashingdon benefit from a range of facilities, services and employment opportunities, many of which are located in Ashingdon, as shown in Figure 2 and discussed in the previous section of this document. This resulted it being categorised (along with Rochford) as a top tier settlement in the District’s hierarchy within the current Development Plan
2.25 Ashingdon was identified as a suitable location to accommodate a proportion of the District’s housing needs through the Rochford Core Strategy (2011) – an approach that was confirmed as sound through a robust examination of proposals. The characteristics of Ashingdon remain broadly the same as they were 10 years ago, and it is evidently still a sustainable location to accommodate some growth.
2.26 One of the options presented by the RLPSO is considered far less likely to result in a sound Local Plan or to deliver sustainable development: Option 1 (urban intensification).
The RLPSP states this option entails making best possible use of our existing planned developments, previously developed land and other under-utilised land, such as vacant buildings and contaminated land; and notes that a strategy based on urban intensification
could also include taking a more permissive approach to higher densities in suitable locations (such as town centres and near stations). The RLPSO claims this approach could deliver 4,200 dwellings over the next 10 years.
2.27 It is important to recognise that in order to be consider sound, the Local Plan is required to meet objectively assessed housing needs. The RLPSO reports that the minimum housing requirement for the District over a 20-year period is 7,200 dwellings.
2.28 If Option 1 were to deliver 4,200 dwellings, this would result a significant housing shortage in the District. This would result in significant negative social and economic impacts – it would not deliver sustainable development.
2.29 Furthermore, we question whether urban intensification would deliver as many as 4,200
new homes.
2.30 To achieve this would require an average of 420 dwellings per annum (dpa) to be sustained over a 10-year period.
2.31 The Council’s Annual Monitoring Report 2019/20 reports that over the10-year period between April 2010 and March 2020, the District averaged delivery of 176.8 dpa
2.32 The 1,768 dwellings delivered over this period included a significant number from allocations made through the Rochford Allocations Plan (2014), and did not merely comprise dwellings provided through redeveloped of previously developed land / urban intensification.
2.33 It is also relevant to note that over the last 10 years, local and national policy has supported the redevelopment of suitable previously developed land for residential use. It is likely that much previously developed land that is suitable and viable for residential development has already been redeveloped for housing.
2.34 Even if urban intensification could meet housing needs in full, it would be highly questionable as to whether such development would be suitable. To deliver such a quantum of development within existing settlement boundaries would clearly necessitate
significantly greater densities of development than existing. This in turn would likely result in harm to the existing character of the District’s settlement, and risk harm to amenity of existing residents.
2.35 In addition, it is unlikely that such urban intensification could meet the range of different
housing needs. The RLPSO appears to suggest that it would deliver a low proportion of affordable housing (only 800 out of a total of 4,200).
2.36 A further concern is whether urban intensification would result in the same level of infrastructure improvements and other community benefits that larger allocations are capable of delivering.
2.37 Finally in relation to Option 1, it is unclear what the spatial distribution of housing would be through this approach, and whether it would result in a sustainable pattern of growth.
2.38 Rather than relying on urban intensification, it is clear that if the Local Plan strategy is to be sound and is to deliver sustainable development, it will be necessary to release some Green Belt and allocate land for residential development.
2.39 The NPPF confirms (paragraph 140) that it is appropriate for Local Plans to make alterations to the Green Belt boundary, provided there are exceptional circumstances for doing so, and that these are justified and evidenced.
2.40 Exceptional circumstances are not defined in national policy or guidance. However, there is case law which provides a basis for the consideration of the issue. In particular, the judgment in Calverton Parish Council v Nottingham City Council & Ors [2015] EWHC 1078 (Admin) suggests (paragraph 51) that the following matters are relevant in the consideration of whether exceptional circumstances exist to justify alterations to the Green Belt:
 The scale of the objectively assessed need;
 Constraints on supply/availability of land with the potential to accommodate
sustainable development;
 Difficulties in achieving sustainable development without impinging on the Green
Belt;
 The nature and extent of the harm to the Green Belt; and
 The extent to which impacts on the purposes of the Green Belt may be mitigated as
far as practicable.
2.41 Given the scale of the District’s objectively assessed need faced, and the lack of potential alternatives to releasing Green Belt in order to sustainably meet such needs, it is evident that there are exceptional circumstances that justify alteration to the Green Belt through the preparation of this Local Plan.
2.42 Overall, we consider that a balanced combination of utilising appropriate small scale and larger sites, on both brownfield and greenfield sites is the best approach to seek to meet identified housing needs within the District.
2.43 A balanced approach provides opportunities to deliver housing close to existing communities, making use of existing sustainable locations whilst providing new homes for people in their local community.
2.44 Bellway Strategic Land’s Site north of Brays Lane can form part of this approach, delivering around 250 homes in a sustainable location. The Site is relatively
unconstrained and can start delivering homes early in the Plan period, continuing to deliver in the medium term. It has the potential to deliver much needed new market and
affordable homes to the area at a density and layout that reflects the existing pattern and character of development in the locality.
Q14. Do you consider that the plan should include a place-making charter that informs relevant policies? Should the same principles apply everywhere in the
District, or should different principles apply to different areas?
2.45 We caution against applying the same approach everywhere in the District as different areas within Rochford are very different to one another.
2.46 With over 300 listed buildings and 10 conservation areas in the District, clearly some areas have a historic nature that needs to be considered, whereas others, such as east of Ashingdon, do not have such heritage considerations.
2.47 Should the Council seek a District wide place-making charter, this will need to be relatively high level to ensure that it does not unduly restrict development and prevent it from being appropriate to its context, as recognised in Section 12 of the NPPF. A small scale proposal on brownfield land in the middle of a town, for example, will have very different design requirements to a larger scheme of homes on the edge of a settlement.
2.48 Any place-making charter should be formulated through consultation with stakeholders, including developers, to ensure that it is realistic, achievable and does not result in development becoming unviable. Such a charter should be published as part of the Local
Plan to ensure that all parties have an opportunity to comment and input.
Q16a. Do you consider the new design guides, codes or masterplans should be created alongside the new Local Plan?
Q16b. If yes, do you think it is more appropriate to have a single design guide/code for the whole District, or to have design guides/codes/masterplans for individual settlements or growth areas?
2.49 Given the pressing housing and affordability needs within the District, it is important that homes are delivered as soon as possible. This is particularly pertinent given that adoption of the Local Plan is not anticipated until late 2023 at the earliest. If the Council seek to deliver design guides or codes, these should be developed alongside the Local Plan with input from stakeholders to ensure that once the Plan is adopted development can commence without delay.
2.50 There is otherwise the risk that the Council adopt a Plan but development is significantly delayed, to the detriment of residents in need of new homes.
2.51 An alternative could be to allow developers to produce design guidance for allocated sites with input from the Council, local community, etc. As set out in the submitted Vision Document, Bellway Strategic Land has begun to consider the design of the land north of
Brays Lane and how development could appear.
2.52 This has been based on technical work and an assessment of the nearby area, building on the successful scheme opposite. Whilst we are keen to engage with the Council, stakeholders and local community in relation to the layout to progress this further, it is not considered that detailed design guidance is required to deliver a successful scheme on this site given the work already undertaken and success of the scheme opposite.
Q17. With reference to the options listed above, or your own options, how do you feel we can best plan to meet our need for different types, sizes and tenures of
housing?
2.53 With areas within the District having different characteristics and development over the Plan period likely to be of varying scales, it is important for developments to be able to provide homes suitable for the site and location.
2.54 Option 1 appears too inflexible in this regard and does not recognise that individual areas have different needs in terms of housing requirements. Such an approach risks being overly restrictive and not allowing development to be appropriate to its context.
2.55 Option 2 does provide such flexibility, which is welcomed and the option we believe the Council should proceed with. It also recognises that different scales of development can be better placed to provide greater flexibility of types of housing, such as self-build.
Q34. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to help deliver new strategic green and blue infrastructure?
2.56 Utilising a range of sites across the District, especially edge of settlement extensions,
can provide significant opportunities for new green and blue infrastructure.
2.57 As set out in the Vision Document, land north of Brays Lane can provide significant new public open space, connecting to footpaths in the wider area. This will assist in delivering new green infrastructure for both existing and future residents.
Q57a. Do you agree with our vision for Rochford and Ashingdon? Is there anything you feel is missing?
2.58 Whilst we agree with the principles of the vision, it should also include reference to the provision of new homes to meet local needs and help sustain the existing services and facilities.
2.59 Not providing any new homes in the area risks affordability issues worsening and negative social and economic impacts.
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?
2.60 Land north of Brays Lane should be utilised to provide new market and affordable homes, alongside new public open space, site references CFS007 and CFS126.
2.61 Utilising such locations already benefitting from infrastructure allows development to commence early in the Plan period to start delivering homes.
2.62 As set out in the Vision Document, the Site is within a sustainable location in close proximity to a wide range of services and facilities within easy reach by sustainable
transport methods.
2.63 The Site represents a logical infill adjacent to the existing settlement, extending no further east than existing development to the south.
2.64 The Site is currently defined as being within the Green Belt, being the only constraint to its development.
2.65 Rochford District and Southend-on-Sea Borough Joint Green Belt Study February 2020 (‘the Green Belt Study (2020)’) considered the Site as part of Parcel 61 in the Stage 1 Assessment. Parcel 61 is a large area of land covering the entire eastern side of Rochford and Ashingdon. Clearly an assessment of this size parcel of land has limited use when assessing specific sites given that the characteristics are very different. We would caution the Council against giving this weight in the assessment process. Instead, as identified through the Welwyn Hatfield Local Plan Examination, it is important that Green Belt is considered at a sufficient fine grain. In the Examination of this Local Plan, the Inspector advised as follows: “The phase 1 Green Belt Review was at such a strategic level as to render its findings on the extent of the potential harm to the purposes of the Green Belt, caused by development within the large parcels considered as a whole, debatable when applied
to smaller individual potential development sites adjacent to the urban areas. It goes without saying that a finer grained approach would better reveal the variations in how land performs against the purposes of the Green Belt. Such an approach is also more likely to reveal opportunities as well as localised constraints, both of which might reasonably be considered further”. (EX39 of the Welwyn Hatfield Local Plan Examination, December 2017).
2.66 The Green Belt Study (2020) Stage 2 assessment did not consider the Site specifically in detail. The Site was considered as assessment area AA112. However, only a brief assessment is provided with an overall conclusion on the level of harm rather than a detailed assessment against each purpose of the Green Belt.
2.67 The Green Belt Study (2020) found that the Site makes a moderate contribution to preventing sprawl of the built-up area and a strong contribution to preventing
encroachment on the countryside. For any site not already within a built up area, these conclusions are highly likely to be similar, which must be recognised. Furthermore, as the Site is bounded by existing residential development on three sides, it is important to
consider how its development would be perceived, which is as an extension to the built up area rather than a site within the countryside.
2.68 The Site would ‘round off’ the existing settlement pattern and is already well connected to existing development. As such, it is considered to have low potential to lead to unrestricted urban sprawl when considered against purpose 1 of the Green Belt.
2.69 In relation to purpose 2, the Site is some distance from the nearest other settlement, being approximately 2 miles from Canewdon to the east. Its development would not have any risk of either actual or perceived coalescence of Ashingdon with any other
settlement.
2.70 In respect of purpose 3, there is no existing, strong defensible boundary between the urban area and adjoining countryside. There are hedgerows associated with existing garden boundaries, but no dominant landscape feature. Existing development is present
and visible within the landscape, with the site providing an opportunity to reframe this edge. The Site is not currently considered to strongly assist in safeguarding the
countryside from encroachment.
2.71 The Site is not adjacent to a conservation area or any listed buildings. Ashingdon itself has a limited number of listed buildings, with two to the very north and to the south a considerable number within Rochford. This is pertinent given that there are over 300 listed buildings within the District. The Site makes no contribution towards preserving the setting and special character of historic towns in respect of purpose 4.
2.72 In respect of purpose 5, this is only applicable where development needs can be met in full on previously developed land. For Rochford District, this is not an option as the amount of market and affordable homes that could be delivered is significantly below the
identified need.
2.73 The above assessments have been informed by the site-specific Landscape / Visual
Appraisal prepared for the Site and previously submitted to the Council. Overall it is
considered that the Site makes limited contribution towards the purposes of the Green Belt, and its residential development would not undermine the strategic purposes of the Green Belt.
2.74 The Council’s SHELAA 2017 considered that the Site is available and achievable, with the suitability dependent on an assessment of the Green Belt purposes. It was considered suitable in other regards. As set out above, the Site is considered to make limited contribution towards the Green Belt purposes and should be considered suitable, available and achievable.
2.75 As set out in greater detail in the submitted Vision Document, the Site is unconstrained and located in an already sustainable location. It can provide around 250 new homes, including a mix of sizes, market and affordable.
2.76 With infrastructure already in place, homes can start to be delivered early in the Plan period to meet identified needs.
2.77 The proposal on the Site is of a scale suitable for its surroundings, reflecting its location
adjoining the built up area of Ashingdon. It can reflect the popular and well received
Bellway development opposite on the south of Brays Lane, continuing this high quality design to provide new homes and public open spaces.
2.78 Overall, the Site is well placed to deliver much needed homes for residents, whilst contributing towards local infrastructure, both directly from the development and in the long term from spending in the local economy by residents. With the exception of the Green Belt policy constraint, it is unconstrained and represents a logical ‘filling in’ of the existing development pattern.

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

Please see below our supportive comments on the Council’s Spatial Strategy Consultation, forming part of the new Local Plan process.

Q. 6. Balanced Option 4 .

Land North of Southend CFS 260 ( including the linked lettered sites ) is supported and should be able to provide a large tranche of new development that is required. The need for substantial land release is acknowledged, both for residential as well as employment. This site helps to fulfil the numbers for both Rochford DC and Southend BC. The site is large enough and capable of contributing to highway improvements to improve accessibility to the eastern end of the District and east Southend. Proximity to Temple Farm and Purdeys Industrial estates as well as the Airport is an advantage.

We would like to point out what could be misleading in the Site Appraisal Papers, …. CFS 261, Land to the East of Oxford Road, 147 Ha. is included in the North of Southend Cluster, instead of the East of Rochford Cluster. For clarification, our comments above on Q6 Option 4 do not refer to CFS 261.

As part of the Balanced Option, we support smaller schemes which can be brought forward whilst the larger strategic site is being worked up. They also have the benefit of a more diverse style of homes, spreading the commute journeys and meeting the demands of the market in terms of location. In particular we support…

CFS 126, North of Brays Lane. Besides proximity to The King Edmund School and Golden Cross Retail, this site has ready made access to Brays Lane. With release from Green Belt restrictions, construction could be undertaken at an early phase. Please note that under the Water Apparatus scoring that the main sewer passes through the site with 3 manholes accessible.

CFS 217 Land at Doggetts Chase, Rochford. Wedged between existing housing in Doggetts Close and the Public Open Space this site lends itself for development as sympathetically designed retirement housing.

CFS 218 Land at Oxford Road, Rochford . A small site at the end of Oxford Road and with two sides adjacent to the playing fields of the King Edmund School, this can no longer be accessed for agriculture. It is also compromised by manholes for the main sewer. Therefore its release from the Green Belt would be justified.


Q 53 Roads. In conjunction with Cluster North of Southend, CFS260, a new road could resolve a long-standing problem by linking the A 127 at Tesco /RBS roundabout, the Airport and eastwards towards Fossetts Farm and the east of the District.

Q 51. Connectivity. To improve the economic activity in Rochford Town Centre, especially for retail, efforts should be made to create a foot / cycle path more directly between Dalys Road and the Square. Currently the only way is via North Street where the pavements on both sides are very narrow as is also the road. When the development of the old hospital site took place, the NHS was reluctant to enter into a dialogue which would have created some community benefits out of this major development in the centre of Rochford. As a result there is a barrier across the town which should be addressed.

1.0 Introduction
1.1 These representations have been prepared on behalf of Essex Housing, Essex County Council’s in-house development arm, in support of the release of Land to the south of the former Adult Community Learning Centre (ACL Centre), Rocheway, Rochford (hereby referred to as the “Site” or the “Rocheway Site”) from the Green Belt and allocation for residential development.
1.2 The site is owned by Essex County Council (ECC) and is currently designated as existing open space in the adopted Local Plan. The Site has been used under license for 10 months of the year by Hambro Colts FC, a local youth football team. However, at the end of the 2020/1 football season the Colts relocated to a different ground in Hullbridge, which means that the Rocheway
Site is now without a community sports user and is not open for general public use.
1.3 The New Local Plan presents Rochford District Council (RDC) with an opportunity to take a
comprehensive approach to the consideration of open space provision alongside housing and employment strategies, considering the re-provision of existing open spaces where this would support sustainable patterns of development, where appropriate.
1.4 In this context, we therefore consider that the site has excellent residential redevelopment potential taking account of its sustainable location within walking and cycling distance of Rochford town Centre and the opportunity presented by the extant planning permission for the redevelopment of the former ACL Centre, granted under 17/00102/FUL, which would provide means of vehicle access to the site from the north.
1.5 Coupled with this, we propose that the loss of the existing vacant playing pitch space can be compensated for through better provision in terms of quantity and quality in an alternative suitable location

2.0 Background to the Site
2.1 The extent of the Site is shown on the accompanying plan at Appendix 1 of this document. The Site is currently designated as open space under adopted policy OSL1 and it falls within the Green Belt.
2.2 The Site is formed of playing fields to the south of the former Adult Community Learning Centre site (“ACL Centre”), constructed in the mid-1930s as a school which was later converted into its use as an ACL Centre. The designated open space to the south of the ACL was therefore originally intended as a playing field for the school and not as a purpose-built open space.
2.3 The Site is defined by strong physical hedgerow boundaries to its western, southern and eastern sides. Designated amenity open space at Millview Meadows is immediately to the west of the site and arable agricultural land is to the east. The Site located within easy walking distance of Rochford town centre’s many services, facilities and retail offer via safe, convenient and well-lit
pedestrian routes. Rochford town centre also offers regular bus routes to Southend-on-Sea and Rayleigh and mainline railway links to London Liverpool Street and London Southend Airport. The Site is considered to be sustainably located.

Planning History
2.4 The ACL Centre site directly to the north of the Site is subject to a planning consent, granted under 17/00102/FUL in March 2018 by Rochford District Council, for the redevelopment comprising a 60 dwelling Independent Living Residential Care Home (Class C2) and 14 dwelling houses (Class C3). The development is being implemented.
2.5 An extract from the approved layout plan is shown below. It includes a proposed spine road that would provide access to the dwellings to the west and the Independent Living scheme to the east. The access road extends through the site to its southern boundary with the playing fields.

[see document for image]

2.6 The development is phased to enable delivery of the 14 residential dwellings prior to the delivery of the C2 scheme. As part of this approach it was necessary for a displacement car park facility to be provided for the playing fields so that the future use of the playing fields would not be prejudiced. Therefore, application 17/00807/FUL was submitted to and in November 2017
approved by Rochford District Council for the provision of a car park and area for demountable buildings for use as a changing room to serve the playing field. This planning permission is subject to conditions, amongst others, requiring that:
● The car park area in its entirety should be constructed and operational prior to the commencement of the Phase 2 development on the former ACL Centre site.
● The demountable buildings forming the changing room and W.C facilities should be provided and made available for use prior to the beneficial use of the car park

2.8 From the above it is possible to confirm that the delivery of the displacement car park and changing facilities on the playing field land is triggered by the commencement of the Phase 2 part of the development on the ACL site.
2.9 The Phase 2 part of the development is yet to commence. The facilities consented under 17/00807/FUL are therefore yet to be delivered onsite.

3.0 Responses to the Spatial Options Questionnaire
Hierarchy of Settlements
Question 5 – Do you agree with the Settlement Hierarchy presented?
If not, what changes do you think are required?
3.1 Yes, we agree with the Settlement Hierarchy. It suitably recognises the availability of services and connections within each of the settlements and appropriately categorises them into tiers based on how the towns and villages perform in relation to both sustainability and employment.
3.2 Rochford is identified as a Tier 2 settlement and we consider this is appropriate in light of the range of services and community facilities it offers, and its overall sustainability. It would therefore be appropriate for a commensurate level of the District’s growth to be directed to Rochford town.
Spatial Strategy Options
Question 6 – Which of the identified strategy options do you consider should be taken forward in the Plan?
3.3 As a general comment, we note that the Council correctly identifies that the minimum number of homes it should be planning for over a 20-year period is the 7,200 homes arrived at using the standard method. However, this is the minimum number of homes that needs to be planned for and the Council will need to carefully consider whether a higher housing requirement is
necessary to support economic growth, infrastructure improvements or address the needs arising from neighbouring authorities.
3.4 In particular it will be important for the Council to work closely with Southend Borough Council (SBC) which has a minimum housing requirement of 1,180 new homes per annum using the standard method. As the Council will be aware, SBC set out in its latest consultation that even
with Green Belt release, it is only able to deliver around 20,000 new homes to meet its total requirement over the plan period of 23,620 homes. It is clear that SBC will need support from Rochford and other neighbouring boroughs to meet its housing needs in full. Rochford District Council should therefore plan for a level of housing growth that meets both their own needs as
well as the unmet needs of SBC.
Strategy Option 1 – Urban Intensification – we do not support this option.
3.5 In light of our comments above, this option must be ruled out as it fails to meet the needs of Rochford, let alone neighbouring areas.
3.6 This option alone would not provide the necessary quantum of land to meet the identified housing need. This strategy requires the least use of greenfield land and, by definition, would involve no further release of land from the Metropolitan Green Belt. We recognise that focusing purely on brownfield and under-utilised land provides opportunities for infill development, however this does
not allow for the necessary larger scale development options, would fail to deliver new infrastructure, and is not a sufficient option to provide the unit numbers and infrastructure Rochford requires.
Strategy Option 2 - Urban Extensions – we support option 2a insofar as it is relevant to the growth of Rochford town.
3.7 Option two is split into two sections. Section 2a focuses urban extensions in main towns. Option
2b looks to deliver urban extensions dispersed to settlements based on hierarchy.
3.8 Option 2 provides significantly better opportunities to deliver the housing and infrastructure
targets than Option 1. Option 2a ensures development is focused in sustainable locations where transport connections are established and sustainable to support the development, including Rochford town. New urban extensions focussed on the main towns in Option 2a gives the opportunity to provide additional services and facilities and provide improvements to existing
infrastructure to support the new development in addition to the existing communities.
3.9 Insofar as this option is relevant to Rochford town, we support the proposals in Option 2a to direct growth to suitable deliverable sites in and on the edge of Rochford.
3.10 We would be unsupportive of Option 2b if it would result in large scale development being directed to less sustainable locations in the district, such as the Tier 3 settlements, at the expense of suitable alternative locations in higher tier settlements such as Rochford town, including the Site at Rocheway. This would not be justified and a Plan based on this approach would therefore be unsound.
Strategy Option 3 - Concentrated Growth – we do not support this option.
3.11 A strategy option that seeks to deliver the whole local plan requirement for housing in a concentrated development (or concentrated developments) runs the very serious risk of being undeliverable. Too often local plans focus allocations on a small number of large strategic sites that inevitably come forward later in the plan period, or worse, fail at Examination. Whilst such
sites can be an important part of housing supply, their allocation should not be to the detriment of deliverable small and medium sized sites, such as the Site at Rocheway.
3.12 A clear example of the risks of concentrated growth is the North Essex Authorities, where three new Garden Communities were proposed to deliver a proportion of housing across three local authorities later into the Plan period. In 2020, following the Examination, the Inspector concluded that two of the three garden communities were not viable and therefore not deliverable, leaving the authorities without 37,500 planned new homes for the Plan period and beyond.
3.13 Another current local example of this is in Maldon, whose Local Plan (adopted in 2017) places a
substantive reliance on the large-scale Garden Suburbs. The latest 5-year housing land supply statement confirms that the supply of housing arising from these allocations is falling below the previously anticipated trajectories. This means that the Council cannot currently demonstrate a 5-year supply of housing.
3.14 We therefore consider that this option runs the very serious risk of non-delivery and is unlikely to be capable of being found sound at Examination.
Strategy Option 4 – Balanced Combination – We support this option insofar as it relates to the allocation of suitable available Greenfield sites on the edge of Rochford town.
3.15 Option 4 provides a balanced approach, allocating a variety of sites both in terms of size and location which would have far greater potential to deliver a wide mix of housing types and style whilst also ensuring homes come forward consistently across the whole Plan period.
3.16 This Option also increases the opportunities for small and medium sized housebuilders to deliver
homes in the District. It provides good opportunities for sustainable growth within Rochford with an appropriate scale of development based on the settlement hierarchy. This option is not restrictive on the location or scale of development.
3.17 Based on the response set out above we are supportive of Options 2a or 4 insofar as they direct
proportionate levels of growth to the higher order settlements in the hierarchy, including Rochford
town. Our support for either of these two options is conditional on the proposed allocation of the
Rocheway Site, which is suitable, deliverable and sustainably located.
Open Spaces and Recreation
3.18 Our responses to Open Spaces and Recreation questions are in the context of the current designation of the Rocheway Site in RDC’s Allocations Plan as an area of Existing Open Space.
Question 38 – 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?
3.19 We support Option 3 as suggested by RDC which proposes to “embed a hierarchy approach into policy that seeks to prioritise and direct investment to the most important recreational facilities, including potential hub sites and key centres”. This would ensure that the funding and resource is appropriately directed to the most important, larger, locations where they are needed the most, to enable the provision and maintenance of higher quality facilities in the district in areas of high
utilisation. Coupled with this, we would support the rationalisation of low value playing pitch sites
that are rarely used and/or are without appropriate ancillary facilities, such as the Rocheway Site. As the landowner of the Rocheway Site, Essex County Council is also prepared to make a financial contribution towards the creation, improvement of, or extension to an existing multi-pitch hub site or key centre as identified in the Local Plan, to ensure that there is no net loss of pitch space.
3.20 We would therefore support the review of open spaces which do not feature within the list of hub sites and key centres, including those that are rarely used and without appropriate ancillary facilities, so that the case for rationalisation can be suitably planned for in the event such a course of action is deemed appropriate as part of the wider Local Plan proposals.
3.21 Land to the south of the former ACL Centre, Rocheway, is currently unused by the community
following its vacation by the Hambro Colts football club in 2021. This is not picked up in RDC’s Playing Pitch Strategy, which was published in 2018 and is now already three years old. The Hambro Colts were the sole users of the Site but now that it is vacant, following their move to alternative grounds in Hullbridge, the future of the Rocheway Site is uncertain. It would therefore be inappropriate for the Rocheway Site to be identified as a facility of “local importance” until an update to the Playing Pitch Strategy is undertaken in line with its own recommendation1 , which identifies that “without any form of review and update within this time period [three years] it would be difficult to make the case that the supply and demand information and assessment work is
sufficiently robust.”
3.22 The Rocheway Site is comprised of grass pitches and, in an era of challenging public sector budgets, their ongoing maintenance without a user in the community is an unnecessary burden.
This is compounded by the fact that local authorities, including Essex County Council as landowner of the Rocheway Site, are not eligible for Grass Maintenance Fund grants2
.
3.23 The Playing Pitch Strategy acknowledges on page 7 that “as the resources to improve grass pitches are limited, an increase in 3G provision could help to reduce grass pitch shortfalls through the transfer of play....”. The Local Football Facility Plan (LFFP) for Rochford, [repared by Knight, Kavanagh and Page (KKP) with support from local partners including The FA, Essex County FA,
Football Foundation, Rochford District Council, Sport England and Active Essex, was published in 2018. The purpose of the LFFP is to enable investment in football facilities to be accurately targeted. The LFFP is the go-to document for football facility investment in Rochford and aims to:
● create a network of 3G Artificial Turf Pitches;
● improve grass pitches;
● develop and improve changing rooms and pavilions; and
● develop small-sided football facilities, particularly for informal football.
3.24 The LFFP identifies eight priority projects for potential investment. Prioritisation has been
informed by local partners with the rationale of selecting sites in the poorest condition, that were most well utilised or of strategic focus to improve Local Authority pitches. These include:
● John Fisher, Rayleigh;
● Ashingdon Recreation Ground;
● Fairview Playing Field, Rayleigh;
● Great Wakering Recreation Ground;
● The Warren, Rawreth;
● Hullbridge Sports Association;
● Apex Sports Ground, Hockley; and
● Rochford Recreation Ground.
3.25 It should be noted that the Rocheway Site does not feature as a target for future investment within the LFFP.
3.26 In line with the conclusions of the Playing Pitch Strategy, we consider that where there are low value playing pitch sites that are rarely used and/or are without appropriate ancillary facilities, such as the Rocheway Site, they should be rationalised, coupled with a contribution towards the creation, improvement of, or extension to an existing multi-pitch hub site or key centre as identified in the Local Plan.
Question 40 – Are the listed potential hub site and key centres the
right ones? Are there other locations that we should be considering?
3.27 In line with our response to Question 38 above – yes, we agree that the hub sites and key centres referred to in the table are correct. We do not consider that “all other facilities” should be identified as being of local importance until the 2018 Playing Pitch Strategy has been updated to reflect changes of circumstance on sites that have occurred in the past three-year period, in line
with its own recommendations. This specifically affects the Rocheway Site, which is no longer with a user in the community and should not automatically be subject to continued designation as open space in light of this change in circumstance.
Question 41 – 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?
3.28 Yes, there is an opportunity to allocate the Rocheway Site for residential development, which is
now without a community sports user, to help deliver improvements to sport facility provision onthe hub sites and/or key centres in Rochford. This approach would deliver tangible planning benefits because the Rocheway Site is in a highly sustainable location near to the core of
Rochford town centre. It would therefore be extremely well suited to residential development.
Coupled with this, financial contributions collected as a result of the allocation and development of the Site could be directly used to help fund (and expand upon the scope of) the planned improvements to hub sites and key centres as identified in the Local Football Facility Plan for Rochford. This would provide a clear planning benefit that would accord with Sport England guidance and NPPF paragraph 99, which requires the “loss from the development to be replaced by equivalent or better provision in terms of quality and quantity in a suitable location”.
3.29 For ease of reference an extract from Figure 45 of the consultation document showing the sites
put forward for the development in and around Rochford is shown below.
[see document for image]
3.30 It may be seen that the Site is identified as an area of “Other Open Space”. Without a user of the playing pitches on the Site, it is of no benefit to the community in this retained use as it is not open for public use. It should therefore be re-allocated for residential development, as part of a wider strategy involving contributions from its development to help fund improvements to other
nearby sports facilities.
Question 42 – Are there particular open spaces that we should be
protecting or improving?
3.31 Yes, we consider that Millview Meadows in Rochford should continue to be protected and identified for improved accessibility, on the condition that an allocation for residential development of the adjacent Rocheway Site is key to unlocking these improvements.
3.32 Millview Meadows is a 4.5 hectare park located directly adjacent to the west of the Rocheway Site. The park is identified on the satellite image below
3.33 The most up-to-date evidence base that audits the quality of this park is RDC’s 2009 Open Space Study. It is identified as an “Amenity Greenspace” with the following description:
“Poor accessibility (situated between houses), no information sign identifying the area, pathway around open space, grass area with planting, some seating and bins provided, broken fence to rear of playing field, no lighting”.
3.34 The only formal means of access to Millview Meadows is via a narrow alley between two residential properties at Spindle Beams to the west, as correctly described in the Study. Access is convoluted and tortuous for any visitor who does not live in the adjacent estate.
3.35 The accessibility of Millview Meadows has not increased since 2009 despite its relative quality and maintenance staying the same. In light of its size and proximity to existing and future potential residents in the core of Rochford town, Millview Meadows is severely let down by its lack of formalised access point(s).
3.36 RDC notes that feedback from the Issues & Options consultation was clear about the importance of residents having access to well-maintained and accessible open and green spaces. The Rocheway Site offers the significant potential to improve access to this underused and underappreciated local park. But access improvements that maximise the benefit of this existing
local resource can only be delivered as part of a masterplanned approach involving the residential development of the adjacent Rocheway Site.

Planning for Complete Communities
Question 57a - Do you agree with our vision for Rochford and Ashingdon? Is there anything you feel is missing?
3.37 Yes, we agree with RDC’s vision for Rochford and Ashingdon. In particular, we note that the Vision Statement says that “its town centre should be reimagined to become a more sustainable and vibrant space whilst retaining its historic character. It should make the most of its proximity to key employment sites and London Southend Airport to significantly grow its economic potential and the range of jobs it provides for.”
3.38 The Vision is appropriate given the Tier 2 status of these two settlements. The best way of ensuring that the Vision is realised is by allocating suitable available deliverable sites for residential development on the edge of Rochford. Land south of the former ACL Centre,
Rocheway is capable of delivering residential development that would maintain the town centre’s
vibrancy and make the most of its proximity to key local employment sites.
Question 57b - 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?
1. Housing [market, affordable, specialist, traveller, other]
2. Commercial [offices, industrial, retail, other]
3. Community infrastructure [open space, education, healthcare,
allotments, other]
4. Other
3.39 We consider that promoted site CFS050 should be allocated for housing. CFS050 is the Land south of the former ACL Centre, Rocheway.
3.40 The proposed development is market led residential housing. As CFS050 is a greenfield site, it is
capable of accommodating a policy compliant quota of affordable housing and infrastructure provision. As the Site’s promoter is also the landowner, Essex County Council, we can ensure that, if allocated, the loss of the existing vacant playing pitch space can be compensated for through better provision in terms of quantity and quality in an alternative suitable location, in
accordance with Sport England guidance.
3.41 There are few comparable sites in Rochford which offer such an opportunity to maximise the potential to enhance the completeness of the town. Land south of the former ACL Centre would enhance the completeness of Rochford
3.42 The NPPF states at paragraph 142 that when drawing up Green Belt boundaries, the need to
promote sustainable patterns of development should be taken into account. At paragraph 105 the NPPF states that “the planning system should actively manage patterns of growth in support of [sustainable transport] objectives. Significant development should be focused on locations which are or can be made sustainable, through limiting the need to travel and offering a genuine
choice of transport modes”.
3.43 Allocation of this site for development would substantially improve the completeness of Rochford
because it is located within a highly accessible location very close to the town centre. This is perfectly encapsulated within the Walkability Map extract below, which shows that the Site is within the only part of the town where the highest scoring walking completeness area (shown by the yellow shading) overlaps with the open countryside to the east. A lack of any residential
development in this location would fail to capitalise on this excellent location which can help meet
RDC’s strategic objectives

[see document for image]

3.44 Further residential development to the eastern side of the town centre would capitalise on this location’s high walkability and access to services/facilities which, in recent decades, have not been realised as the town has essentially grown in other directions primarily to the north and west, with substantially lower walkability than the land south of the ACL Centre site at Rocheway.

3.45 Coupled with the above, the Site is only 800 metres (or a 10-minute walk) from Rochford train station, which provides regular mainline services to Southend Victoria, Southend Airport and London.
3.46 The Site is also within cycling distance of the district’s major employment areas including Southend Airport, Purdeys Industrial Estate, Rochford Business Park and the emerging Saxon Business Park.
3.47 Further development to the east, specifically at Site CFS050, would therefore plainly improve the
completeness of Rochford.
Land south of the former ACL Centre is suitable
3.48 The Site is a suitable location for development, is free from technical constraints and is unencumbered. To justify this assertion, we have extracted the Appraisal for the CFS050 site from RDC’s Site Appraisal paper as contained within the evidence base – see below.

[see document for image]

3.49 Against the assessment criteria in the Site Appraisal paper, site CFS050 scores very well. Most of its assessed criteria fall into the green (i.e. performing well/unconstrained), scoring either 4 or 5 out of a possible 5 points in respect of its suitability. The Site is noted as being deliverable for housing, subject to policy. We agree with this assessment, as there are no overriding constraints to development. In this respect it will be noted that the Site performs well against the criteria relating to ecology, resource, air quality, site conditions, access to facilities and Green Belt impact.
3.50 In respect of Green Belt, we note the findings of the Green Belt Study (Assessed under parcel AA120) and propose that the existing Green Belt boundary is re-drawn along the Site’s existing eastern boundary, which is formed of mature trees and hedgerow and could be strengthened as part of a scheme’s masterplan, so that the Site is included within a revised development
boundary for Rochford, in accordance with NPPF paragraph 143f).
3.51 In only one case does the Appraisal attribute a low score of 1 out of 5 – relating to “access to bus services”. Allied to this it should be noted that the Site scores 4 out of 5 against the “distance to bus services” criterion. We agree with this as the nearest bus stops to the Site are
less than 400 metres away, on East Street/North Street. But we do not agree that the Site has poor access to bus services. The extract from the Essex Bus Map3 below shows that the numbers 7 and 8 buses, frequent services at every 15 minutes, pass through East Street/North
Street on their way to local destinations including Rayleigh, Hockley, Southend Airport, central Southend and Shoeburyness, amongst other local villages. School services also offer transport to secondary schools in Rayleigh and Southend.

[see document for image]

3.52 Based on these observations, when assessed against the Appraisal’s methodology, the “access to bus services” score should instead be at least 3 out of 5.
3.53 In two cases the Appraisal attributes a low score of 2 out of 5 – relating to heritage (built assets)
and site conditions and hazards (water).
3.54 In respect of the Built Heritage, RDC’s Conservation Area Appraisal & Management Plan shows
that the nearest designated heritage assets (Grade II listed 26 and 28 East Street and the
Rochford Conservation Area boundary) are approximately 200 metres from the Site. It should be
noted that the development of the former ACL centre (consented under 17/00102/FUL) directly to
the north, there was no suggestion that the scheme would cause any harm to heritage assets.
According to the methodology, we therefore consider that the Site should be attributed a score of 3 out of 5 on the basis that, at the very least, any impacts could be mitigated through scheme design.

3.55 In respect of site conditions and hazards (water), the Appraisal attributes the Site a score of 2, which is defined in the methodology as “containing water supply apparatus or easements”. It should be noted that the development of the adjacent former ACL centre, which historically formed part of the same site as CFS050, is currently being delivered onsite. This means that the
presence of any water apparatus should not present an insurmountable constraint to development and would be accounted for as part of the design.
3.56 Taking account of the above, we consider that the Site is entirely suitable for development.
Land south of the former ACL Centre is available and deliverable
3.57 Land south of the former ACL Centre is in single public sector ownership and is wholly within the
control of Essex County Council. Essex Housing on behalf of Essex County Council has a growing track record of securing viable planning permissions for and then delivering sites for new housing across the County, including sites at Goldlay Gardens and Moulsham Lodge in Chelmsford, Norton Road in Ingatestone, the former County Hospital in Colchester, and the former ACL Centre at Rocheway adjacent to the north of this Site, which is currently being delivered. As the Site’s promoter is also the landowner, Essex County Council, it can be ensuredthat the loss of the existing underutilised and poor-quality playing pitch space can be compensated for through better provision in terms of quantity and quality in an alternative suitable location, in accordance with Sport England guidance.
Increasing the accessibility of Millview Meadows

3.58 As set out above, the release of the Rocheway Site from the Green Belt and allocation for residential development as part of the new Local Plan brings with it the opportunity to vastly enhance the accessibility to Millview Meadows, the public park to adjacent to the west of the Site which suffers from very poor accessibility despite being open to the public. It should be possible
to create new pedestrian access points into the park as part of a masterplanned new development on the Rocheway Site.
Enhancing local sports facilities
3.59 As set out under the relevant chapter heading above, the development of the Rocheway Site
offers the opportunity to direct financial contributions towards the substantive improvement of other local sports hub sites and/or key centres identified in the Local Plan and through the supporting evidence base, to ensure that there is no net loss of pitch space

• Hello, please see my comments on the Spatial Options Considerations with particular regard to the following sites CFS027, CFS029, CFS053, CFS086 and CFS098. I strongly object to the redevelopment of the the areas listed above and I have summarised my reasoning below.
Traffic congestion/pollution
The proposal amounts to some 350 new properties being build along with new/upgraded access points. This will amount to a significant increase in traffic in the area and the resulting traffic pollution, traffic noise and highway safety concerns.
There are many children who use Victoria Park and Fairview park for their recreation and consideration should be given to their safety and wellbeing which could be impacted by the increase in traffic.
The local road infrastructure is not sufficient to deal with this increase in traffic. For example, Nelson Road is a very narrow road and is already used as a rat run, the increase in traffic volumes will further exacerbate the problem,
The same can be said of Helena Road, Victoria Road and Bull Lane. The increase in traffic volumes resulting from the proposed redevelopment will obviously make the situation much worse.
Rayleigh is already extremely congested with traffic. Take for example the Hockley to Rayleigh Road (B1013). This is already very heavily used, as is Hambro Hill, which is used a main thoroughfare between North Rayleigh and Hullbridge. This of course will also have adverse implications for Ashingdon, Hawkwell, Rochford and other surrounding villages
Parking is already a problem in Rayleigh town centre, the addition of several hundred cars will increase the strain on the already overstretched local parking facilities
Another consideration is the high volumes of traffic in Rayleigh caused when there is an issue with traffic on the the A127, A13, Rayleigh weir. Rayleigh is used as the alternative route which often causes Rayleigh to be gridlocked. This also has a knock on affect for Hullbridge, Ashingdon, Hawkwell, Rochford, Hadleigh, Benfleet and other surrounding villages.
Other Considerations

The preservation of our green belt and open spaces is essential. This is especially relevant in todays climate where open spaces and places to exercise have been paramount in helping people with mental health issues.

The encroachment of our countryside through more development should be prevented to safeguard our natural habitat and the 'merging' of towns/villages should be avoided.

Take for example the redevelopment of Bullwood Hall and the proposal to establish further housing on the sites I mention earlier in this correspondence. Hockley and Rayleigh get ever closer, it's only a matter of time before they become one.

With regard to the proposed development of agricultural land. With the urgency in trying to rectify the issues surrounding climate change why take away a green space and build properties causing more pollution to add to the problem.

Now that we have left the European Union surely it is incumbent upon us as a nation to become more self sufficient in all aspects including food production, This means preserving our agriculture and agricultural land.

The destruction of our local wild life environment would also be catastrophic. There are deer, badgers, foxes, bats and many species of birds in the area behind Nelson Rd/Napier Rd which will be lost to the area.

There must also be careful consideration given to additional schools, GP surgeries, dentists and clinics required. As I'm sure you are aware, to get an appointment with a doctor or dentist now proves to be difficult. With more people moving to the area this will only aggravate the situation.

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

Introduction
1.1 These representations are submitted to the Rochford New Local Plan Spatial Options (RLPSO) on behalf of Mr G Marshall and in relation to Peggle Meadow, Rochford (‘the Site’).
1.2 The Site has previously been submitted in response to the Council’s the Call for Sites, and is reference CS095 in the Council’s plan-making process.
1.3 Representations were submitted to the Local Plan Issues and Options consultation in 2018 to further promote the allocation of the Site to help meet development needs
through a sustainable, proportionate extension to the south of Rochford, capable of delivering numerous benefits.
1.4 This representation should be read alongside the Vision Document that has been prepared in respect of the development of the Site, and which accompanies the
representations at Appendix A.
2.0 Response to Local Plan Spatial Options Question 4
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?
2.1 We consider that Strategic Objective 1 could be clearer that the provision of homes to meet local needs entails providing housing close to existing communities. As currently drafted, it could be inferred that the priority is working with neighbouring authorities, rather than trying to meet local housing needs and support existing communities within the District per se.
2.2 Providing homes through extensions to existing settlements ensures local residents can remain within their local community and close to family, friends, and other informal social networks that form an important part of everyday life. It also ensures greater choice for
existing residents, and reduce the risk that existing members of the community may have to move elsewhere due to a lack of suitable housing.
2.3 We suggest that Strategic Objective 1 should be amended to:
To facilitate the delivery of sufficient, high quality and sustainable homes to meet local community needs, through providing homes close to existing communities, utilising previously developed land and working with neighbouring authorities if required.
2.4 In addition, we suggest that objectives of the Local Plan should include to improve the affordability of housing for people of Rochford District.
2.5 The RLPSO notes (page 12) that:
“The affordability of all housing is an issue constraining the ability for residents to afford homes in the area. The average house costs around ten times to average
annual income of a Rochford resident, which has increased significantly from around five times 20 years ago and is significantly above the national average”
2.6 We agree that affordability of housing is a very real local concern, and an issue the Rochford Local Plan must seek to address. The most recent data available1
reports that the median house price in the District is 11.57 times the median gross annual workplacebased earnings (‘the affordability ratio’).
2.7 The affordability of housing has worsened significantly in recent years – and to a much greater extent than the national average.
2.8 In 2000, the affordability ratio for the District was 5.08 – only slightly worse than the national average of 4.13. By 2020, the national affordability ratio had increased to 7.69
– significantly below the District’s 11.57.
2.9 Additionally, and whilst empirical data is currently limited, the longer term impact on housing demand resulting from the Covid-19 pandemic may well impact significantly on Rochford’s housing market and affordability of homes for local people. Early indications
are that there has already been an increased desire to move from more to less urban areas, driven by what has been dubbed the ‘race for space’ – the desire for homes with larger garden areas and home offices, better access to open space, and within less densely populated areas.
2.10 At the same time, the situation has forced many employers (although not within all sectors) to adapt and enable home-working. Whilst it is largely anticipated that there will be a degree of return to office-working, it is expected that the need for employees to be physically present within a particular office will be substantially reduced.
2.11 As a consequence, it is anticipated that many more people will be prepared to live considerably further from their place of work. This is of particular relevance to Rochford, as London is accessible via railway services from parts of the District; and house prices are relatively affordable when compared to other areas in and around London. As a consequence, the area may well prove an increasingly popular destination for those migrating out of higher density areas in and around London. This in turn is likely to put considerable pressure on the housing market. If insufficient homes are provided, it is also likely to result in a significant worsening of affordability. Ensuring a sufficient supply of homes will be imperative if the Council is to tackle the issue of housing affordability in the District.
2.12 Strategic Objective 3 is proposed to be:
“To facilitate accelerated growth in our local economy through supporting the delivery of suitably located land which meets businesses needs at each stage of their lifecycle (including delivering grow-on space to enable local businesses to flourish), the continued functioning of London Southend Airport as a thriving regional airport,
serving London and the South East, as well as supporting the continued growth and innovation at the Airport Business Park”
2.13 We support this and, in addition, suggest this objective should recognise that the critical role house-building plays in supporting the local economy, and the economic benefits house building would have for the District.
2.14 As the Local Plan Spatial Options recognises on page 26, areas within which new homes are built have the potential to see significant additional expenditure and job creation.
2.15 Employment relating directly to the construction industry will have positive economic and social impacts; as will jobs relating to the supply chain which will be supported. Construction is an important part of the local economy in the District: the 2011 Census recorded that 10.5% of employed residents in Rochford District were working in the construction industry.
2.16 Development of additional homes in the District will also engender sustained local economic benefits relating to additional local expenditure, with additional expenditure on goods and services by future occupiers of new homes on first occupation, on home set up cost, and on an ongoing basis in local shops and services in the area.
2.17 Conversely, failure to deliver sufficient homes for the District would not only result in a failure to support the local construction industry and failure to realise the potential opportunities outline above, it would also likely significantly deter inward investment by potential employers, if insufficient, affordable accommodation was not available locally to provide a local workforce.
3.0 Response to Local Plan Spatial Options Question 6
Which of the identified strategy options do you consider should be taken forward in the Plan?
Growth of Rochford
3.1 It is important to recognise that Rochford District contains a number of settlements, each with their own character and communities. Whichever growth strategy is ultimately pursued, the Local Plan should ensure a proportionate level of growth is directed to the
District’s various settlements, having regard to their characteristics and sustainability to accommodate additional growth.
3.2 For the Local Plan strategy to be sound, we consider that it will need to direct a relatively large proportion of housing growth to Rochford.
3.3 As the RLPSO recognises, Rochford and Ashingdon together form a functionallyconnected settlement home to around 18,000 residents. Between Rochford town centre and a number of neighbourhood centres located throughout the wider settlement, Rochford provides for a wide range of services and business spaces, including a number of specialist employment areas supporting nearby London Southend Airport.
3.4 The RLPSO also recognises that Rochford benefits from good walking access to most services, and that the only parts of Rochford with particularly poor access to services are around Purdeys industrial estate and the residential neighbourhoods of Ashingdon village.
3.5 Rochford / Ashingdon is characterised as a top tier settlement within the current Development Plan, i.e. one of the most sustainable settlements to which to direct
additional growth.
3.6 It is one of only three settlements in the District that benefits from a railway station.
3.7 In addition, it is also one of only three settlements in the District that benefits from a defined town centre.
3.8 The Local Plan strategy should direct a significant proportion of housing development to Rochford.
3.9 In respect of RLPSO Option 1 (urban intensification) we note that the RLPSO suggests this would involve no loss of Green Belt land, would minimise loss of greenfield, and would deliver 4,200 homes over the next 10 years.
3.10 The RLPSO describes Option 1 as “the minimum expectation of national policy” and states it is “likely to be required within every strategy option”.
3.11 It goes on to state that this option would entail making best possible use of our existing planned developments, previously developed land and other under-utilised land, such as vacant buildings and contaminated land; and notes that a strategy based on urban intensification could also include taking a more permissive approach to higher densities in suitable locations (such as town centres and near stations).
3.12 The RLPSO suggests that at least 4,200 homes will be built over the next 10 years under Option 1 and that the Urban Capacity Study suggests up to a further 1,500 homes could be built through a mixture of maximising the capacity of planned housing developments and taking a more permissive approach to higher densities in urban areas.
3.13 Whilst elements of Option 1 may be capable of being incorporated into a sustainable strategy for growth, it is clear that Option 1 cannot alone result in a sound Local Plan strategy.
3.14 Firstly, it is important to note that national policy places great emphasis on the need to
significantly boost the supply of housing and to meet local housing needs. Indeed, it is an express requirement of a sound Local Plan (as per paragraph 35 of the NPPF) that it seeks to meet the area’s objectively assessed needs, as a minimum. The RLPSO suggests a need to plan for at least 7,200 additional homes, and Option 1 would fall significantly short of meeting this.
3.15 Secondly, we consider that it is highly unlikely that 4,200 dwellings could be delivered through this option within the next 10 years. Such delivery would equate to an average of 420 dwellings per annum (dpa). The Council’s Annual Monitoring Report 2019/20
states that between April 2010 and March 2020, the District achieved a total of 1,768 dwelling completions – an average of 177 dpa. This figure included homes that had been delivered on large allocations made through the Rochford Allocations Plan, and did not rely solely on redevelopment of previously developed land / urban intensification, yet was still significantly short of delivering 420 dpa.
3.16 Furthermore, the Council’s Annual Monitoring Report 2019/20 noted that of the 347 net dwelling completions achieved in 2019/20, 268 of these were from major schemes. A significant proportion of these were delivered on allocated settlement extension sites in
the adopted Development Plan. It reports that 55% of dwelling completions were on greenfield land and, separately, that only 81 net dwelling completions in 2019/20 were from windfall sites.
3.17 In addition, it must be remembered that there is only a finite supply of previously developed land suitable and viable for residential development, and it is likely that a
significant proportion of this has already been exhausted.
3.18 Thirdly, it cannot be assumed that such a level of urban intensification would be suitable or sustainable. To achieve such a level of urban intensification to deliver the number of new homes that the RLSPO suggests through Option 1 would likely result in densities of development vastly greater than existing, to the potential detriment of the amenity of existing residents and character of the District’s settlements; and / or requiring the
redevelopment of existing employment / retail / community uses for housing, with resultant negative social and economic impacts.
3.19 Fourthly, it is not clear where in the District such intensification / redevelopment of previously developed land would deliver housing, and what spatial distribution of homes this would provide. As noted earlier within this representation, it is important to recognise that Rochford District comprises multiple settlements, each with their own communities, and each with their own needs. Option 1 is unlikely to address such needs, and instead would simply focus housing where there happened to be opportunities to redevelop previously developed land.
3.20 Fifthly, it is unlikely that a strategy reliant on urban intensification / redevelopment of previously developed land will deliver the types of homes required or infrastructure improvements. It is unlikely, for example, that such approach would deliver as many affordable homes as alternative strategies, or be accompanied by any substantial infrastructure improvements, due to the likely limited scale of individual developments and potential viability challenges they would face.
3.21 It is manifestly clear that if the Local Plan is to be a sound plan that meets development needs in a sustainable manner, then it cannot rely wholly on RLPSO Option 1.
3.22 The NPPF confirms (at paragraph 136) that Local Plans are the appropriate vehicle through which to make alterations to the Green Belt boundary. The NPPF also states that such alterations should only be made where exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and justified; and that strategic policies should establish the need for any changes to Green Belt boundaries.
3.23 Exceptional circumstances are not defined in national policy or guidance. However, there is case law which provides a basis for the consideration of the issue. In particular, the judgment in Calverton Parish Council v Nottingham City Council & Ors [2015] EWHC 1078 (Admin) suggests (paragraph 51) that the following matters are relevant in the consideration of whether exceptional circumstances exist to justify alterations to the Green Belt:
 The scale of the objectively assessed need;
 Constraints on supply/availability of land with the potential to accommodate
sustainable development;
 Difficulties in achieving sustainable development without impinging on the Green
Belt;
 The nature and extent of the harm to the Green Belt; and
 The extent to which impacts on the purposes of the Green Belt may be mitigated as far as practicable.
3.24 Given the scale of objectively assessed need faced by the District, and the lack of potential alternatives to releasing Green Belt in order to sustainably meet such needs, it is evident that there are exceptional circumstances that justify alteration to the Green
Belt through the Rochford Local Plan.
3.25 We also note that there are potential options for the District to explore designation of additional, new Green Belt – land on the eastern side of the District, at Foulness, is very much open and rural in character, and in addition subject to multiple constraints that
make it unsuitable for any significant scale of development. However, this area of the District is not currently allocated as Green Belt.
4.0 Response to Local Plan Spatial Options Question 9
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?
4.1 We agree that the Local Plan should seek to direct development to Flood Zone 1 (land least at risk of flooding from tidal or fluvial sources).
4.2 In doing so, however, it is important that sites, part of which lie in Flood Zone 2/3, but which are perfectly capable of accommodating a quantum of development in Flood Zone 1, are not rejected on flood risk grounds. To do so would be patently unjustified, giving rise, ultimately, to soundness concerns.
5.0 Response to Local Plan Spatial Options Questions 32 and 34
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?
5.1 It is considered that the allocation of additional sites for development gives rise to the potential to make significant enhancements to green and blue infrastructure.
5.2 For example, in respect of proposals for Peggle Meadow, Rochford, and as set out in the Vision Document that accompanies these representations, green and blue infrastructure enhancements are proposed.
Q34. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to help deliver new strategic green and blue infrastructure?
5.3 The development of Peggle Meadow, Rochford (CFS095) gives rise to the potential for green and blue infrastructure enhancements to be delivered, as set out in the Vision Statement that accompanies this representation.
6.0 Response to Local Plan Spatial Options Question 46
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?
6.1 It is critical that the Local Plan seeks to direct sufficient growth to the District’s various
settlements such that inter alia local services and facilities can be sustained and supported.
6.2 We consider that the Local Plan should seek to support and enhance the vitality and vibrancy of the District’s town centres; and to sustain village and neighbourhood centres.
6.3 It should be recognised that towns such as Rochford contain smaller neighbourhood centres, as well as a town centre, and that these often perform an important function for the local community which planning should seek to support.
6.4 The town centre and neighbourhood centres both have important roles in such settlements, and the Local Plan should look to support both. In respect of South
Rochford, for example, it is considered that the Local Plan should seek to ensure that neighbourhood shopping along Southend Road is sustained, as well as acting to
enhance the vitality of the town centre. Support for both is not mutually exclusive – the direction of growth to South Rochford can help support local neighbourhood shops, as well as the town centre.
7.0 Response to Local Plan Spatial Options Question 57b
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
7.1 The Site (CFS095) is considered suitable, available and achievable for residential development in a highly sustainable location for additional growth, and without
undermining the strategic purpose of the Green Belt. This is discussed in further detail in response to this question.
7.2 In addition, the Vision Document for Peggle Meadow that accompanies this representation (Appendix A) details the sustainability and deliverability of the Site for
housing, and demonstrates how a high-quality development will be delivered on the Site.
South Rochford as a location for growth
7.3 The adopted Core Strategy (2011) identifies Rochford as a tier 1 settlement, noting that it is a local centre. Rochford is one of the largest settlements in the District and is home to a range of services, facilities, employment opportunities, and is well served by public transport. It clearly represents a sustainable location to which a proportion of the District’s growth should be directed.
7.4 The general location South Rochford was considered through the Council’s previous Local Development Framework process and Core Strategy as a general location for growth.
7.5 The Council’s reasons for rejecting South Rochford were set out in the Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal Addendum (2011) and were as follows:
“Location 2 [South Rochford] was not selected as it has the potential to engender coalescence with Southend, performed less well in sustainability terms compared with
West Rochford and would be less likely to deliver community benefits than development in South East and East Ashingdon”.
7.6 It is important to note that these concerns related to the general location of South Rochford, and not to any specific site.
7.7 The other reason to reject South Rochford as a general location was not that it was an unsustainable area for growth per se, but rather there were other areas that were considered more sustainable.
7.8 Firstly, it should be recognised that these areas have subsequently been developed, or their development is already been accounted for, and that there is still an outstanding need for housing.
7.9 Secondly, since adoption of the Core Strategy, Rochford District – jointly with Southendon-Sea Borough Council – adopted the London Southend Airport and Environs Joint Area Action Plan (JAAP). The JAAP directs significant employment growth and
infrastructure improvements into the area commensurate with the general location of South Rochford.
7.10 In addition, a railway station has been delivered at London Southend Airport. This is accessible from a number of locations within South Rochford, and significantly enhances the sustainability of this area for growth.
7.11 Having regard to the above, it is clear South Rochford is considered a sustainable location for growth.
Peggle Meadow (CFS095)
7.12 Peggle Meadow, Rochford is site reference CFS095 in the Council’s current plan-making process.
7.13 It is located off Southend Road, at the southern end of Rochford. Peggle Meadow is a mall site on the edge of an existing urban area, with development immediately to the north and west.
7.14 The Site measures c.3.9 ha, is mostly grassland, resembling a horse paddock, and contains several storage sheds no longer in use.
7.15 Historically, the land was farmed as market gardening. However, it has not been in productive use for c.25 years and has been uncultivated during this time. The land is not currently in use and, indeed, is no longer viable for agricultural use.
7.16 The Site is located to the south of Rochford, and is subject to a significant degree of containment due to the existing residential development immediately to the north and west; and watercourses and their accompanying dense vegetation to the south and east.
Views into and out of the Site are very much restricted.
7.17 The Site is close to the District boundary with Southend Borough Council, with Warners Bridge Park to the south providing a substantial and robust green buffer between it and the built form of Southend-on-Sea.
7.18 Arable fields are located to the east of the site, though it should be recognised that the Site does not project any further eastwards than the existing built form to the north of the Site.
7.19 There are a range of shops, services and facilities within close proximity to this Site.
7.20 As set out in the Vision Document (Appendix A) that accompanies this representation,
the Site is within walking distance to a range of facilities, services, public transport connections, and employment opportunities; and benefits from excellent access to rail
and bus services, providing sustainable links to larger centres.
7.21 A retail park including both convenience and comparison shops is located approximately 400m from the site – well within walking distance. Additionally, a neighbourhood shopping parade is located to the north of the Site, and also within walking distance.
7.22 London Southend Airport and Southend Airport railway station (which provides links to Southend, Rochford centre, and London Liverpool Street), are located opposite the site and within walking distance.
7.23 In addition to being accessible to future employment growth at London Southend Airport, the site is well located in relation to existing employment areas at Temple Farm Industrial Estate and Purdeys Industrial Estate.
7.24 The Site is accessed via Southend Road – which provides a direct connection with Southend to the south; and Rochford town centre to the north, negating the need for vehicles travelling from the site to either of these centres to navigate through existing residential areas / the non-strategic highway network within the District.
7.25 Development of the Site is presents a number of opportunities, which are discussed in details within the Vision Document. In summary, these opportunities / benefits of the Site’s development include:
 Creation of a more robust and defensible Green Belt boundary.
 Minimal impact on the Green Belt, and would not engender coalescence.
 Landscape enhancements.
 Provision of homes in a location well related to facilities, services and employment opportunities; and with excellent accessibility to public transport services.
 Enhanced sustainable transport links for the wider area.
 Avoidance of impact on the District’s local highway network.
7.26 In relation to the Site’s ability to deliver improved sustainable transport links to the benefit of the wider area, the cycling and walking charity, Sustrans, have confirmed they expressly support development of the Site due to the sustainable transport
improvements it will enable. A copy of Sustrans’ letter is provided as Appendix B. We consider this is a factor that should be afforded significant weight in favour of the Site’s allocation.
7.27 Further to the Site’s excellent accessibility to public transport services (including rail and bus) it is important to note that the NPPF states:
“Where it has been concluded that it is necessary to release Green Belt land for development, plans should give first consideration to land which has been
previously-developed and / or is well-served by public transport”. (Paragraph 142, emphasis added)
7.28 The Site has been considered by the Council through its Strategic Housing and Employment Land Availability Assessment (SHELAA) (2017) (as site referenceCFS095).This noted that the Site is not subject to any constraints that would prohibit its development.
7.29 The SHELAA (2017) considered the Site’s proximity to educational facilities; healthcare facilities; open space / leisure facilities; retail facilities; public transport facilities; and existing residential areas. Against all of these, with the exception to education, it found that the site’s proximity was ‘good’.
7.30 In respect of proximity to education it was rated as ‘medium’.
7.31 In respect of proximity to education, we note that the SHELAA (2017) does not consider that this renders the site unsuitable, but would nevertheless wish to emphasise that the Site is in close proximity to Southend Road along which run regular bus services which
connect the site to a number of schools (and, considering accessibility beyond educational facilities, to the town centre).
7.32 The SHELAA (2017) acknowledged that the vast majority of the Site is within Flood Zone 1 – land least at risk of tidal or fluvial flooding. Development of the site can be delivered without residential development taking place within Flood Zone 2 or 3.
7.33 The Site has been subject to a Flood Risk Assessment (July 2020), provided as Appendix C to this representation. Key conclusions of this Flood Risk Assessment include:
 All proposed dwellings will be located within Flood Zone 1. NPPF states that all uses of land are appropriate in this zone and the Sequential Test has been applied within
the site boundary and can be deemed as being passed.
 All built development and SUDS features will be located outside of the design climate change (35%) 1 in 100 year floodplain and climate change (65%) 1 in 100 year floodplain.
 Proposed dwellings will be set above the extreme climate change 1 in 1000 year flood level.
 Safe access/egress can be achieved during the peak of the event.
 It is considered that there is a low risk of groundwater flooding.
 There is a very low to high risk of surface water flooding which will be mitigated by ensuring that the proposed dwellings are set above the flood depth. 7.34 The SHELAA (2017) confirmed that the Site can be delivered without requiring significant infrastructure upgrades.
7.35 Vehicular access to the site can be achieved, as confirmed through an Access Appraisal
that has been undertaken, and previously submitted to the Council.
7.36 There are no physical constraints that prohibit the development of Peggle Meadow for housing.
7.37 The SHELAA (2017) concluded that the Site’s suitability for development will be dependent on a Green Belt assessment.
7.38 Subsequently, the Council published the Rochford District and Southend-on-Sea Borough Joint Green Belt Study February 2020 (‘the Green Belt Study (2020)’).
7.39 The Green Belt Study (2020) suggested that development of the Site would result in ‘moderate-high’ level of harm to the Green Belt.
7.40 Within this study, the Site forms a small part of the a larger parcel that was assessed as P65.
7.41 The Green Belt Study (2020) concluded that Parcel P65 makes a strong contribution to purposes 1, 2, 3 and 5 of the Green Belt (to check the unrestricted sprawl of large builtup areas; to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another; to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; and to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land). It concluded that it makes a weak contribution to purpose 4 (to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns).
7.42 It is important to recognise the need to treat the results of any assessment of a larger parcel with caution when seeking to apply them to a smaller site within such a parcel. Clearly, smaller sites within a larger parcel may make a different level of contribution to the purposes of the Green Belt, and the harm their development may cause to the purposes of the Green Belt may well be different to that of the larger parcel in which they
have been incorporated for the purposes of assessment. 7.43 A note provided by the Local Plan Examination Inspector to Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council in relation to its Local Plan and the approach to the review of the Green Belt underlines this issue, stating:
“The phase 1 Green Belt Review was at such a strategic level as to render its findings on the extent of the potential harm to the purposes of the Green Belt, caused by
development within the large parcels considered as a whole, debatable when applied to smaller individual potential development sites adjacent to the urban areas. It goes without saying that a finer grained approach would better reveal the variations in how land performs against the purposes of the Green Belt. Such an approach is also more likely to reveal opportunities as well as localised constraints, both of which might
reasonably be considered further”. (EX39 of the Welwyn Hatfield Local Plan
Examination, December 2017).
7.44 As such, it is imperative to consider the Site itself: its contribution to the purpose of the Green Belt, and the extent of any harm to the purposes of the Green Belt that its development would entail.
7.45 In addition, case law confirms that in considering whether exceptional circumstances apply that justify alterations to the Green Belt, it is necessary to not only consider the potential harm to the purposes of the Green Belt development would engender, but also the degree to which such harm could be mitigated. The Green Belt Study (2020) fails to consider potential mitigation measures, and this will be something that the Local Plan
will need to consider.
7.46 A Green Belt Report (2020) has been prepared and submitted previously to the Council, and provided again as Appendix D to this representation. In addition, a site-specific Landscape and Green Belt Statement (2021) has been undertaken by James Blake Associates and provided as Appendix E.
7.47 As these studies confirm, when one looks at the Site in detail, it is clear that it only make a limited contribution to the purposes of the Green Belt.
7.48 The Landscape and Green Belt Statement (2021) considered the Site specifically, and in detail. In relation to Purpose 1 of the Green Belt (to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas) it noted that the Site is located in close proximity to the built up area of Rochford and would not result in encroachment. Rather, its development would result in limited ‘infill’ of the previous brownfield land. It also noted that the Site is well contained by strong physical features including the built-up area of Rochford, the Prittle Brook and the Harp House Ditch. Overall, it concluded the Site was of low importance to Purpose 1 of the Green Belt.
7.49 In relation to Purpose 2 (to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another) the Landscape and Green Belt Statement (2021) found that the Site is physically and visually separated from Southend and as such would not result in any physical or visual
encroachment. Furthermore, it noted that Warners Bridge Park provides a gap between Rochford and Southend which is of substantial permanence, and that the gap which exists now between the two settlements will exist to no greater or lesser degree whether or not Peggle Meadow is developed. It concluded the Site is of zero importance to Purpose 2.
7.50 Regarding Purpose 3 of the Green Belt (to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment), the Landscape and Green Belt Statement (2021) found that the Site is well contained by strong man-made features to the north and west, and and dense and mature green infrastructure to the east and south. It also noted that the proposed strategic green infrastructure will provide further containment. As the Landscape and Green Belt Statement (2021) noted, it is also relevant that the Site has a degraded / neglected character. It concluded that the Site is of low importance to Purpose 3 of the
Green Belt.
7.51 In relation to Purpose 4 (to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns) the Landscape and Green Belt Statement (2021) concluded that the Site is not considered to form part of the landscape setting of a historic town, nor does it impact on any Conservation Areas or Listed Parks and Gardens. It went on to conclude the Site is of zero importance to Purpose 4.
7.52 In summary, the Landscape and Green Belt Statement (2021) provided by James Blake Associates concludes the Site is of low importance to Purpose 1 and Purpose 3 of the Green Belt, and of zero importance to Purpose 2 and Purpose 4. It provided clear and
robust justification for reaching such conclusions.
7.53 In respect of the need to consider the potential to mitigate impacts on the Green Belt in addition to considering a site’s contribution to the purposes of the Green Belt, it is relevant to note mitigation measures are proposed as part of the development of the
Site.
7.54 These include enhanced landscaping to reinforce the existing mature vegetation towards the southern boundary; and a loose-grained layout of dwellings towards the south and east of the Site (proposed to take a traditional form, and will be a scale and massing
which reflect the existing residential development in the locality, in order to minimise visual impact).
7.55 Additionally, and still in relation to the issue of Green Belt, the NPPF states that where Green Belt is released to meet development needs, as well as prioritising locations close to public transport links, plans should also set out ways in which the impact of removing land from the Green Belt can be offset through compensatory improvements to the environmental quality and accessibility of remaining Green Belt land. The PPG3
sets out the compensatory improvements that strategic plan-making authorities should seek to deliver in the event that it is necessary to release land from the Green Belt. These include the following:
 New or enhanced green infrastructure;
 Woodland planting;
 Landscape and visual enhancements (beyond those needed to mitigate the immediate impacts of the proposal);
 Improvements to biodiversity, habitat connectivity and natural capital;
 New or enhanced walking and cycle routes; and
 Improved access to new, enhanced or existing recreational and playing field provision.
7.56 A number of such compensatory improvements can be delivered through development of the Site. 7.57 In terms of new or enhance green infrastructure, in addition to the enhanced landscaping that is proposed, the proposed development also incorporates the creation of a new public open space to the north of the Site. This will also provide a recreational benefit.
7.58 Through development of the Site, ecological benefits will be delivered, with ecological enhancements to be delivered as part of the additional landscaping enhancements,
SuDS and open space provision.
7.59 In terms of cycle and pedestrian link enhancements, the Site represents a unique opportunity to deliver a cycle link which the Core Strategy (2011) promoted.
7.60 This link is discussed further within the accompanying Vision Statement, and to reiterate,
is supported by Sustrans.
7.61 This link will facilitate a safe and attractive pedestrian and cycle access to Warners
Bridge Park, Temple Farm Industrial Estate, and to Southend-on-Sea more generally,
for existing and future residents of Rochford.
7.62 It should be noted that this new link will also provide a safe and convenient pedestrian / cycle access for existing and future residents of Rochford to recreational facilities and playing fields at Warners Bridge Park.
7.63 The ability of the Site to deliver the above compensatory measures called for by national
guidance in instances where land is removed from the Green Belt, are factors which weigh very much in favour of removing this Site from the Green Belt.
7.64 The Site is clearly a suitable and sustainable site for residential development, and one through which a number of additional benefits, in addition to the provision of housing, can be delivered.
7.65 Turning In relation to deliverability, the Site is not subject to any legal or ownership constraints to its delivery for housing, and is being actively promoted for development by the owner. It is an available and achievable site for residential development, in addition
to being a sustainable one.
7.66 A Landowner’s Vision Statement has been prepared by the landowner, and accompanies this representation as Appendix F. This sets out the landowner’s desire for an exceptionally high quality development at Peggle Meadow, to provide a legacy for this Site, which has been in his family’s ownership for generations.

SITE ASSESSMENT PROFORMA: CFS180
In relation to the ‘spatial options consultation’, I would like to request you go back to government to politely tell them where they can place their housing targets!
Not sure if you have heard about the IPCC report but WE ARE IN A CLIMATE EMERGENCY, humanity would be grateful if you would start taking action towards that instead, as it is a much bigger priority that a new local plan!
We may need our greenbelt and agricultural land to grow crops if food supplies become affected, it is madness to consider covering them in concrete! Our roads are constantly gridlocked through infrastructure neglect and surely must be at dangerous pollution levels already. Not to mention the fact that a lot of the district is expected to be under water by 2050!
In light of the above, here are my reasons for objecting to this site:

Critical Drainage Risk
3
Green Belt Harm
1

Please could I add some comments to the spatial options consultation!



Firstly, I’d like to express my concern/feedback regarding the online consultation itself:
• I felt the online setup was really badly organised and far too complicated to navigate, even for those who are quite comfortable using the internet. It deeply concerns me how many residents will not have been able to respond due to this.
• The leaflet that residents received via the post was lacking any information on how they could send their input, other than via the internet! I didn’t notice any email addresses, telephone numbers or postal address for replies, in my opinion this also excludes many residents from responding!
• I appreciate you organised pop up events around the district, however Hawkwell only had 1 option and that was during the day, this meant that workers/commuters were excluded from face to face support.
• Whilst I have had a couple of good conversations with district councillors, there are many that have been unresponsive and invisible during the consultation (specifically those in Hawkwell East who I have contacted as a resident).
• As a Parish Councillor whose colleagues are mainly of the older generation and don’t use the internet, I was quite upset to see them struggling to navigate the ridiculous amount of paperwork and information that needed printing for them, in order for us to create a council response. This leaves me worried about how our older generations within the community will have coped. Was there any support provided to our residents who might not be able to manage the consultation for themselves and that don’t have any friends or family etc to assist them?

•
In relation to the actual content of the consultation, I believe that before any consideration should be given to further development, RDC need to address the issues with our existing infrastructure. Our current services (doctors/dentists etc), schools and roads all appear to be over capacity, at breaking point in some places. This is where RDC’s priorities should be. It makes no sense to me why you would issue a consultation regarding future housing development, without a full infrastructure plan in place first. In addition to this, I also strongly feel that RDC should be responding to government to negotiate a reduction/cancellation of the unrealistic housing target that has been thrust upon our already cramped district.

I have looked at many of the sites listed in the consultation and I find it extremely disturbing how many of them:
• are on green belt land, which needs to be protected at all costs as it provides vital habitats for the other species that also live on our planet (humans are not the only ones who need a home!)
• contain ancient woodland, which in my opinion is irreplaceable.
• are on agricultural sites, which if the predictions regarding the impacts of climate change and the food shortages (due to global crop failure), we may need this land for future farming.

Apart from the standard infrastructure details that I wasn’t able to locate in the consultation and I believe should have been provided (e.g. Up to date traffic assessments, statistics/reports on doctor/dental surgeries and schools, in relation to their current and predicted capacities ((based on current resident records)), I feel it is also essential that the council arranges:
• An up to date air quality assessment and associated comprehensive report – the traffic volumes have increased significantly over recent years, surely this means that pollution levels will also have increased, which can cause serious health issues for residents.
• An in-depth Flood Risk assessment – according to the ‘climate central coastal risk screening tool’ the land projected to be below annual flood level in 2050, includes a large part of the district (areas affected include Foulness, Wakering, Barling, Paglesham, Stambridge, South Fambridge, Hullbridge, Canewdon and Rochford). This worries me for many reasons:
o It means all current housing, retail sites and infrastructure in those areas could be at risk.
o It may mean that people are not able to obtain mortgages or insurance in parts of the district.
o Many homes in the district already suffer from surface flooding when we have torrential downpours, this can only get worse.

Please could I ask that instead of continuing with this consultation, you instead invest the time into lobbying government, addressing our existing infrastructure problems and planning for protection of residents, wildlife and property, from the effects of climate change.

SITE ASSESSMENT PROFORMA: CFS119
Rochford District Council,
In relation to the ‘spatial options consultation’, I would like to request you go back to government to politely tell them where they can place their housing targets!
Not sure if you have heard about the IPCC report but WE ARE IN A CLIMATE EMERGENCY, humanity would be grateful if you would start taking action towards that instead, as it is a much bigger priority that a new local plan!
We may need our greenbelt and agricultural land to grow crops if food supplies become affected, it is madness to consider covering them in concrete! Our roads are constantly gridlocked through infrastructure neglect and surely must be at dangerous pollution levels already. Not to mention the fact that a lot of the district is expected to be under water by 2050!
In light of the above, here are my reasons for objecting to this site:
Critical Drainage Risk
3
Green Belt Harm
1
Impact on Agricultural Land
2

SITE ASSESSMENT PROFORMA: CFS013
In relation to the ‘spatial options consultation’, I would like to request you go back to government to politely tell them where they can place their housing targets!
Not sure if you have heard about the IPCC report but WE ARE IN A CLIMATE EMERGENCY, humanity would be grateful if you would start taking action towards that instead, as it is a much bigger priority that a new local plan!
We may need our greenbelt and agricultural land to grow crops if food supplies become affected, it is madness to consider covering them in concrete! Our roads are constantly gridlocked through infrastructure neglect and surely must be at dangerous pollution levels already. Not to mention the fact that a lot of the district is expected to be under water by 2050!
In light of the above, here are my reasons for objecting to this site:

Critical Drainage Risk
3
Green Belt Harm
1

SITE ASSESSMENT PROFORMA: CFS129
In relation to the ‘spatial options consultation’, I would like to request you go back to government to politely tell them where they can place their housing targets!
Not sure if you have heard about the IPCC report but WE ARE IN A CLIMATE EMERGENCY, humanity would be grateful if you would start taking action towards that instead, as it is a much bigger priority than a new local plan!
We may need our greenbelt and agricultural land to grow crops if food supplies become affected, it is madness to consider covering them in concrete! Our roads are constantly gridlocked through infrastructure neglect and surely must be at dangerous pollution levels already. Not to mention the fact that a lot of the district is expected to be under water by 2050!
In light of the above, here are my reasons for objecting to this site:


Critical Drainage Risk
3
Green Belt Harm
1

SITE ASSESSMENT PROFORMA: CFS130
In relation to the ‘spatial options consultation’, I would like to request you go back to government to politely tell them where they can place their housing targets!
Not sure if you have heard about the IPCC report but WE ARE IN A CLIMATE EMERGENCY, humanity would be grateful if you would start taking action towards that instead, as it is a much bigger priority than a new local plan!
We may need our greenbelt and agricultural land to grow crops if food supplies become affected, it is madness to consider covering them in concrete! Our roads are constantly gridlocked through infrastructure neglect and surely must be at dangerous pollution levels already. Not to mention the fact that a lot of the district is expected to be under water by 2050!
In light of the above, here are my reasons for objecting to this site:
Critical Drainage Risk
3
Green Belt Harm
1
Impact on Agricultural Land
2

SITE ASSESSMENT PROFORMA: CFS131
In relation to the ‘spatial options consultation’, I would like to request you go back to government to politely tell them where they can place their housing targets!
Not sure if you have heard about the IPCC report but WE ARE IN A CLIMATE EMERGENCY, humanity would be grateful if you would start taking action towards that instead, as it is a much bigger priority than a new local plan!
We may need our greenbelt and agricultural land to grow crops if food supplies become affected, it is madness to consider covering them in concrete! Our roads are constantly gridlocked through infrastructure neglect and surely must be at dangerous pollution levels already. Not to mention the fact that a lot of the district is expected to be under water by 2050!
In light of the above, here are my reasons for objecting to this site:

Critical Drainage Risk
3
Green Belt Harm
1
Impact on Agricultural Land
1

SITE ASSESSMENT PROFORMA: CFS126
In relation to the ‘spatial options consultation’, I would like to request you go back to government to politely tell them where they can place their housing targets!
Not sure if you have heard about the IPCC report but WE ARE IN A CLIMATE EMERGENCY, humanity would be grateful if you would start taking action towards that instead, as it is a much bigger priority than a new local plan!
We may need our greenbelt and agricultural land to grow crops if food supplies become affected, it is madness to consider covering them in concrete! Our roads are constantly gridlocked through infrastructure neglect and surely must be at dangerous pollution levels already. Not to mention the fact that a lot of the district is expected to be under water by 2050!
In light of the above, here are my reasons for objecting to this site:
Critical Drainage Risk
2
Green Belt Harm
2
Impact on Protected Trees
2
Impact on safeguarded minerals
2
Impact on Agricultural Land
2

SITE ASSESSMENT PROFORMA: CFS261
In relation to the ‘spatial options consultation’, I would like to request you go back to government to politely tell them where they can place their housing targets!
Not sure if you have heard about the IPCC report but WE ARE IN A CLIMATE EMERGENCY, humanity would be grateful if you would start taking action towards that instead, as it is a much bigger priority than a new local plan!
We may need our greenbelt and agricultural land to grow crops if food supplies become affected, it is madness to consider covering them in concrete! Our roads are constantly gridlocked through infrastructure neglect and surely must be at dangerous pollution levels already. Not to mention the fact that a lot of the district is expected to be under water by 2050!
In light of the above, here are my reasons for objecting to this site:

Critical Drainage Risk
2
Green Belt Harm
1
Impact on Local Habitats
2
Impact on Protected Trees
2
Impact on safeguarded minerals
2
Impact on Agricultural Land
1

SITE ASSESSMENT PROFORMA: CFS081
In relation to the ‘spatial options consultation’, I would like to request you go back to government to politely tell them where they can place their housing targets!
Not sure if you have heard about the IPCC report but WE ARE IN A CLIMATE EMERGENCY, humanity would be grateful if you would start taking action towards that instead, as it is a much bigger priority than a new local plan!
We may need our greenbelt and agricultural land to grow crops if food supplies become affected, it is madness to consider covering them in concrete! Our roads are constantly gridlocked through infrastructure neglect and surely must be at dangerous pollution levels already. Not to mention the fact that a lot of the district is expected to be under water by 2050!
In light of the above, here are my reasons for objecting to this site:
Critical Drainage Risk
3
Green Belt Harm
1
Impact on safeguarded minerals
2
Impact on Agricultural Land
1