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?

SITE ASSESSMENT PROFORMA: CFS084
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

SITE ASSESSMENT PROFORMA: CFS079
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

SITE ASSESSMENT PROFORMA: CFS078
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
Landscape Impact
2
Impact on Local Habitats
2
Impact on safeguarded minerals
2
Impact on Agricultural Land
1

SITE ASSESSMENT PROFORMA: CFS083
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
Landscape Impact
2
Impact on safeguarded minerals
2
Impact on Agricultural Land
1

2 proposed building sites 1 in the chase ashingdon and one on ashingdon hill boarding the chase.
The first site for 5 houses is in the back gardens of 2 properties in Stanley road that back on to the chase. The chase is a private street single track way in and one way out the propose entrance is one of only 2 passing spots. The road is maintained by the residential and will not take the wear that large lorries and not wide enough for lorries to turn etc. The. Owner of the land does not have right of way too use the chase as the entrance to a new estate of 5 houses.
The second site for 10 houses. Is overdevelopment the site entrance would have to be on the brow of ashingdon hill.There is no site access from the chase to the propose site. The site is covered with mixture of trees which would be a shame to cut down. Residents leaving the chase would have no view to traffic coming down the hill Unfortunately the owners of the land cannot be bothered to maintain the frontage of the land on the ashingdon hill. The residents of the chase have to cut the grass and fallen trees and overgrown foliage from the footpath to enable the residents to leave the chase safely. We have contact the local parish council and Essex highway regarding this issue to no avail.

Large sites near hockley, hawk well and ashingdon
Dear sir or madam

I am writing to add my voice to my fellows residents concern with the amount of proposed housing around the hockley/hawkwell area.
Developments in recent years has put the B1013 along with the surrounding infrastructure under massive pressure and now again we see potentially large developments adding to this.

Hockley and hawkwell are expanding villages not expanding towns. Much of the roads are build for a different era and cannot cater with today’s volume of traffic.

I have been a resident of Hockley for 25 years so rather than shoehorn in more houses develop the roads and infrastructure to support the housings what are already here. NO MORE DEVELOPMENT PLEASE UNTIL MY DRIVE THROUGH HOCKLEY TAKES MINUTES RATHER THAN HOURS.

Proposed building in Rochford Hawkwell and Rayleigh
Dear Planning

We are so unhappy with the proposed large scale housing developments.
Having lived in Hockley for over 35 years we have certain seen it grow. But enough is enough, the area can not take anymore traffic.

Let’s keep our wonderful town and villages as they are.

I’m writing to raise my concern over a number of sites:

CFS216
CFS133

Myself and My family feel that building on these sites would be irresponsible and dangerous, with a huge increase in traffic so close and entrance and exits close to the primary school.

We also feel that having housing / buildings close to the school would not keep in the nature of what the school is and would destroy the village environment that Ashingdon has.

The amount of added air pollution to the area is also of great concern with many children now suffering from asthma, this would only get worse. The added strain on our doctors surgery, pharmacy and school would also be unacceptable.

Please do not allow our local area to be ruined and nature destroyed.

SITE ASSESSMENT PROFORMA: CFS080
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:

Green Belt Harm
1
Impact on Agricultural Land
1

SITE ASSESSMENT PROFORMA: CFS085
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:

Green Belt Harm
2
Impact on Protected Trees
2
Impact on safeguarded minerals
2

Please accept this email as a formal objection to all the proposed new home building sites you currently have earmarked for Hockley, Hawkwell and Ashingdon. If you would like more detail then I would be only too glad to provide it ....

[RE CFS126 & CFS261]

I am writing to set out my objections to the possible development of the land marked above.

This area is heavily used by the community because of its rural nature. Especially in the current situation and during the hardship that many people faced during lockdown, it has given the local community freedom to be outside and enjoy the beautiful countryside. This area is used everyday by many people in the community: those walking their dogs, horse riders, families going for a walk. The paths around this site are used throughout the year and offer great enjoyment of the countryside which is rare in our area. I believe strongly that building on this site will affect many families who currently enjoy this area. It will also affect the wildlife in this area, where there is an abundance of wildlife that would not survive. A variety of birds and other creatures have this area as their habitat. If developed, many of these will not survive.

In particular, I am also greatly concerned about the impact of further housing in this area. Already the journey along Ashingdon Road is impaired by many things. Heavy congestion, having 4 schools on the same road. Even one delivery along the road can hold up traffic for a great deal of time.

I am also concerned as to the to the impact on our services. Schools are already oversubscribed. Doctors’ surgeries area bursting at the seems and it is impossible to get through on phone lines for appointments.

Bearing all of this in mind, the assessment of this site needs to be reviewed. In particular the grading given to this assessment:

Green belt harm - should be 1 based on my above comments regarding the use of the land
Local habitats - this has been given 5 when most certainly should be assessed as 1. The abundance of wildlife in this are would clearly be lost.
Agricultural land - should be given a 1 instead of a 2. This site has been under constant cultivation of agriculture for many years
Access to open space - the loss of open space to this community would be devastating, as I mention in my first paragraph. This area has kept people going during the toughest of times and will continue to be a great resource for the local community. This should also be given 1.
The assessment for the site gives a score of 5 saying no overhead power lines or pylons when in fact there are. Clearly, this has not been assessed correctly.

To clarify, I fully object to this area being developed for the above reasons.

Proposed housing in Hockley, Hawkwell and Ashingdon
Build your houses elsewhere, we do not want to become an extension of Southend or overflow for the London boroughs.

People live in Rochford for its style, peace and quality of living.

Try getting to work on a school or bin day, a delivery van causes untold misery.

Get out and watch at the evening rush hour when traffic diverts off through Rochford for Southend. Gridlock.

Any new developments will be met with the full force of residents. Use your brain and not government targets.

The plan was difficult to access and view online. I have been unable to comment online.

Where is the infrastructure for all these proposed houses? ?
The current roads in particular the B1013 cannot cope with the current volume of traffic. Is there going to be provision for new GP surgeries, dentists, schools and supermarkets. Is there enough local employment?
Each new house, means at least one car but it’s more likely to be 2 nowadays. Leading to an increase in volume,noise and pollution in the area.

Eradication of the green belt and open spaces. Surely brownfield sites and empty buildings should be developed first before the countryside is lost for ever.

I object to the following developments

CFS040 and CFS264. Church road.
CFS064 folly chase
Building on green belt. Proposals will increase density and give further traffic problems on a busy country road which is used as a rat run . Church road is narrow. It is also used by cyclists and local equestrian riders to get to hockley woods. It will have knock on effects…ie Fountain Lane which is narrow and without pedestrian paths and the B1013.


CFS161 and CFS160
There is supposed to be a buffer zone of no development in order to protect ancient Hockley Woods. Loss of green belt and green corridors for wildlife.
More traffic on the B1013.

CFS261 I object. Loss of agricultural land. This will have huge knock on effects to Ashingdon Road and the surrounding areas eg Lower road or B1013 and the road leading to Southend airport.

CFS074. There is a bridleway on 2 sides of this proposed site which needs to be retained. Loss of agricultural land. We loose our land to grow crops locally. More traffic onto B1013.
CFS191 again bridleways need to be retained. More traffic onto B1013.
CFS045. The site has been a valuable well used resource and should be retained for future generations . It’s important that youngsters are encouraged to stay fit and healthy, saving our much valued NHS. More traffic onto B1013.

CFS002/06/013/015/017/018/019/020/022/023/024/025/027/029/030/031/032/033/034/035/036/037/039/040/041/042/043/044/045/049/050/051/052/053/055/056/057/058/059/060/061/062/063/064/065/066/067/068/069/070/071/072/073/074/075/076/077/078/079/080/081/082/083/084/085/086/087/088/089/090/092/093/094/095/096/097/098/


OBJECT

Over-development: meaning loss of habitats, bio-diversity, green space, green fields, nature; agricultural land; detrimental to one's mental and physical health.

We need farmers to 'bring back' their depleted farmland in order to farm sustainably for the future, not to sell it for development.

I am a resident of Rochford, specifically Rectory Rd, SS4 1UE. I have concerns about the following proposals, primarily due to the lack of infrastructure required to accommodate the increase in traffic. There will also need to be considerable building in terms of schools and other necessities, although these things are often neglected when it comes to building new estates.

I believe the emergency services have already expressed grave concerns regarding the traffic on the Ashingdon Rd during rush hour and the school run. This will become impassable if the following proposals are agreed:

CFS261 (4447 houses! How can you even consider such a thing?)
CFS074
CFS194
CFS169
CFS150
CFS020

None of the above should be considered without a serious, independent assessment of the impact on the roads, particularly Ashingdon Rd. Infrastructure first, please!

I am very concerned about future plans to build a huge housing development on CFS013.
This will have a detrimental effect on my life and many others.
I have lived here for ten years and have noticed how busy this area has become with all the new housing being built with no new infrastructure put in place.
There are many animals and birds that inhabit these fields such as horses, foxes, badgers, bats, crested newts, and slow worms.
I bought this house because of the views, I don't fancy looking out on to a ugly housing estate.
Why is our lovely countryside being built on, its very sad. Completely spoils the area.

Planning Objections
CFS045
CFS064
CFS160
CFS161
CFS074
CFS194
CFS169
CFS150
CFS020
CFS261

The volume of the proposed builds are ridiculous.
No way can the roads handle the extra traffic that these estates will generate, the roads around these areas are already under strain with congestion, let alone the condition of the roads where maintenance has been disregarded…
Public transport is also running at near full capacity and I regularly see busses stuck in the congestion.
The areas proposed may also impact on local wildlife, I assume a lot of the field and wooded areas will be cleared for the construction.
I also feel the additional properties, vehicles etc will have a negative impact on air quality, especially if during the construction trees are removed. There is already proof of serious effects on some local residents caused by this.

I strongly feel we have enough homes in the area at present with all the current building works that are going on.

I would like to add my comments to the Spatial Options Consultation. The survey raises enormous questions and few individuals are likely to have knowledge of the whole district, so I am limiting my comments to those sites I am most familiar with.

CFS 074, scheduled for a possible 498 houses, would involve the destruction of valuable green belt and agricultural land. It is unsustainable in that it has a poor bus service, is not within easy walking distance of (or on a safe cycling route to) the railway station, to and would result in hundreds of extra cars feeding onto the already frequently congested B1013.

CFS 045, Belchamps, though rather smaller has the same issues of unsustainability. Furthermore, being so close to Hockley Woods, its development would inevitably be detrimental to the Woods. I believe it has also ancient woodland within the site so should be protected from any housing development.

CFS191 and CFS 251 are also so close to Hockley Woods that development would inevitably have a negative impact on the woods and local wildlife. Though relatively small, my comments above on unsustainability applies also to both these sites. An additional point is that these areas get very wet and boggy in winter, often causing water to flow down Mount Bovers, so that drainage and potential flooding would be problems .

CFS 262 and CFS 049 seem to me to have less potential impact on Green Belt and landscape, but there remain the same issues of sustainability (poor bus service, distance from station, lack of safe cycling routes). Moreover, as a resident of Highwell Gardens, I am well aware of the difficulty drivers face when joining the B1030 in this part of Hawkwell. A right turn is particularly dangerous, because traffic coming round the bend, often at speed, is invisible until the last moment. Exit from the proposed developments would be equally dangerous

CFS 118: Exiting to the main road from any houses constructed on the strip of land by the junction of Rectory Road and Clements Hall Road cannot be done safely, whether access is to be off Rectory Road, Clements Hall Way or through Clements Gate.

CFS 083 and CFS 078 – Damage to green belt, destruction of agricultural land, lack of good public transport, resulting in more traffic on inadequate roads, so unsustainable.

CFS 135 – Damage to green belt and landscape, far from town centre and local services, therefore unsustainable. Also adjacent to Cherry Orchard Country Park, a valuable and much-loved public open area, which will be harmed as a result.

CFS 160 – In addition to the damage to the green belt and destruction of agricultural land, this site is immediately adjacent to Hockley Woods so that building there will cause damage to the woodland, and to wildlife.

Most of the sites I have listed are entirely or partially within the Upper Roach Valley Special Landscape Area which the District Council’s vision statement for Hawkwell and Hockley rightly recognises is a ‘green lung’ with its accessible ancient woodland and nature reserves. If, however, building takes place in this area it will lose its valuable character and distinctive quality, thus making the vision statement meaningless. That in itself should be a good enough reason not to build within the SLA.

Dears Sirs,
Find below my thoughts opinions and concerns related to the spatial options plan.

The document is far reaching and after spending over 40 hours researching and reading documents I have concerns that some sites marked for housing are unsuitable for various reasons these I have listed these below. Due to the scope of the spatial options I feel that I have been only able to scratch the surface of the plan.

Also there are sites which look more suitable for housing but have not been included. I understand that this is only the first round of consultations and look forward to commenting on future consultations.

Sites I Conceder Unsuitable or Unwise to Be Used For Housing

COL83
I consider this site to be unsuitable as in the past it was the site of RDC rubbish landfill and developing this site could be problematic as site I believe was closed in the early 1970’s before there where strict rules as to what could be placed in landfill.

COL7
This site should not be used for housing development I quote
Heritage Assessment for Rochford District (Oct-2020) completed by Place Services (Essex County council)
Mill Events Centre - Assessment: Moderate Adverse
The development of this site will cause (less than) substantial harm to heritage assets and this harm is considerable. There are likely no options for mitigation. Proposals causing this level of harm to the significance of heritage assets should be avoided.
Built heritage - Lies within the Rayleigh Conservation Area & medieval town extent. Careful master planning will be required with early involvement of the Conservation Officer.
Archaeological impact - Impacts the scheduled Monument of Motte and Bailey
As you will already know Rayleigh town council have already made there veiws on this matter clear.
I also believe that part of site contained in COL7 has a covenant on it requiring it to only be a car park.

COL20
Again quoting from Place Services Heritage Assessment
Rayleigh Civic Suite - Assessment: Major Adverse
The development of this site will cause substantial harm to a heritage asset. There are likely no options for mitigation. Proposals causing this level of harm to the significance of a heritage asset should be avoided.
Built heritage - Lies within the Rayleigh Conservation Area and & medieval town extent. Contains GII Listed Barringtons [1168536]
Archaeological impact - Will need archaeological investigation.
Sites not considered both in and outside conservation areas
As a lay person I view that there are sites which could be considered suitable for housing but have not been included.

Back Lane Car Park
This car park in centre of Rochford is underused and plenty of parking is available in both the railway car park and also freight house. RDC have placed conservation area elsewhere as suitable for housing why is this not included.

Rochford 100 Golf Club
I note that this isnt included as suitable for housing as it seems to have more promise in development for housing than many sites listed. Large area, close to rail station, possible easy access to the road network connecting to both hall lane and cherry orchard lane (with extra road connections).

I thank you for reading my thoughts these matters . This is a big thing for the area and I hope RDC continue to consult residents and do not go forward in the manner they have with a certain project currently in progress.

Be Advised that I have no issue in the making of this letter public and if RDC wishes not to publish it I reserve the option to publish it myself.

I write with reference to the Local Plan being proposed by Rochford District Council.
Having lived in this area now for over 75 years, I have seen the continual destruction of the green belt land being sold off for ill advised development, and sadly this proposed future Local Plan just continues to place the whole area under further extreme development, without FIRST putting in place the very necessary infrastructure that is already overdue and causes more difficulties with inadequate road access, public transport, schools and medical treatment facilities, all of which are either now non existent, or under extreme pressure already.
For many years now there has been a complete decline in the many and varied wildlife and birdlife habitat due to over-development of Green Belt and agricultural land, we have lost many species of birds, grass snakes, newts and other invertebrates and a complete extinction of hedgehogs and slow worms from this area.
Medical facilities have been decimated by the closure and removal of Rochford Hospital together with many of the Health Clinics in this immediate area, placing great pressure on Southend Trust Hospital to the point of near collapse. General Doctor Practice surgeries are so over burdened that appointments are almost impossible to obtain within a two week period already and will only worsen with these extreme development proposals.
The already colossal increase in road traffic within the areas of Ashingdon Road, Rectory Road and the B1013 from Rayleigh through to the A127 at Westcliff, finds gridlock at peak times of morning and evening travel and during school access times. The Rochford Council Planners do not seem to realise that each new home will bring another 3 cars onto the already over stretched road network of the area, with the resultant chaos, jams and loss of working hours, plus the extreme levels of pollution these vehicles engender by stopping and starting within a "tail back", pollution which is very damaging to the local residents health, the adjacent wildlife and vegetation.
The areas adjacent to Clements Hall Centre through to Windsor Gardens and St Marys Church are the lowest in the entire district between Ashingdon Heights, Hall Road (B1013) and Hockley and thus the water fall out from any proposed building will further exacerbate the flooding of the Hawkwell Brook and surrounding fields and all the existing and future housing built near or thereon. Development on this particular area alone will result in chaos with great financial costs as the climate warms and increased flooding occurs. I am old enough to well remember the various flood problems here over many previous winters, which this Local Plan totally ignores when considering opening up land for development under CFS194 / CFS169 / CFS150 / CFS020 respectively.
Overall one readily realises that new housing has to be provided within Rochford District, BUT it has to be sensitively placed in areas of "Brown Field", with good vehicular access, good Public transport, Medical facilities and future flood plain and flooding issues etc very carefully considered and the remedies ALREADY PUT IN PLACE prior to any development being considered or eventually agreed.

I would like to object to the plans of CFS008 as you can see from the images below the road that this has plans for, for 15 properties to go to would mean them going on a single private road, with only 2 turning points and one turning point would be taken away to build this, thus leaving residence nowhere to pull in if need be now. . Thus, causing issues with all residents trying to pass by on the street while they are being built.
The new residence would have to understand they have maintained the road and understand this is how the current situation as we are not supported by the council.
If we have several trucks coming down the road, the road would be destroyed and again the water pipe would burst (as he has before) and thus leaving the residence with no water for days.
The road is in in green belt area and already serval residence who have not been able to build a simple garage or conservatory on their property, if this would to be allowed then this would allow all residence to build on their land adding housing as many have gardens over 2 acres of land on their site.
The noise it would cause while being built will be bigger than normal as it is a small road, and we currently have badgers and bats living in the gardens opposite and this would cause them distress and they are also endangered.
We have a lot of vulnerable people down our street and if carer or ambulance needed to get down the road and they were blocked by truck thus would cause harm to them. We also have several key workers and again if they could not get to work because of the trucks / workers on site down this single road there could potential lose they jobs.

Considering the road is on ceptic tanks and we are note on mains water, this also needs to be considered, we also do not have good access to internet / phone and again for new builds this would be an essential for them.

The carbon footprint for this road is low and by building 15 houses would cause more damage to the environment and wildlife and several trees would have to be taken down, some which have been there for years.
we are also on a main road, the traffic coming off this road is quite dangerous and this would have the potential for accident for trucks pulling out of this little road onto a hill and if completed the new residence.

Objections to housing proposals - Rochford and Hawkwell District.
We strongly object to the proposals for new housing in the Rochford district.

There firstly will be NO consideration too the local road infrastructure. The recommendations are solely relying on increasing an already over stretched Ashingdon Road.

If the proposed increase in housing is too go ahead, each house will potentially have 2-3 vehicles, which will not only over crowd the already congested roads, ie Ashingdon Road, BUT will immensely increase the local carbon footprint, disrupt and kill the air quality, which will affect wildlife, and open spaces.

It would seem that land owners feel that by selling their land too developers is more important too society than helping the District with improving air quality, the local wildlife, and create open spaces

AND I PRESUME THAT THERE WILL BE NO MORE DOCTORS SURGERIES, pharmacists etc too compensate these proposals, just like the huge development down Hall Road, Rochford..

I hope that the Council seriously re consider their idea of these proposals too help Rochford stay as the small country village we have lived in for so many years.

I am sending you a letter with our responses to the questions relevant to the Croudace development in Rochford. I have also attached a copy of the area Croudace propose to build on in relation to Question 57b. I hope you find these comments constructive and informative.

Spatial Options Consultation

Q2. Do you agree with our draft vision for Rochford District? Is there anything missing from the vision that you feel needs to be included? [Please state reasoning]
We agree with the draft vision for Rochford District, especially in relation to the delivery of high quality homes supported by accessible and responsive services and facilities, creating healthy and sustainable communities.
Q4. Do you agree with the strategic priorities and objectives we have identified? Is there anything missing from the strategic priorities or objectives that you feel needs to be included? [Please state reasoning]
We agree with Strategic Priority 1, Objective 1, facilitating the delivery of high quality and sustainable homes that meet your local community needs. Whilst we agree that previously developed land should be an important part of meeting needs for development, the council needs to be realistic about how much of the district’s need for development can be accommodated on previously developed land.
We agree with Strategic Objective 2 of Priority 1 which states that Rochford need to plan for a mix of homes to support current and future residents. It is important that the council take into account the types of dwellings required when allocating sites, considering the likely sizes and types of dwellings likely to be accommodated on any given site. Sites such as that at Hall Road, Rochford, being promoted by Croudace, offers an important opportunity to provide a diverse portfolio of housing, addressing the affordability issue that Rochford currently struggles with. From 2016-2019 Rochford only delivered 677 of the 876 new dwellings set out in the housing delivery test (2020). This rate of delivery also falls short of the South Essex Strategic Housing Market Assessment of May 2016 and June 2017 which stated that between 331 and 361 new dwellings should be delivered per annum up to 2037.
We agree with Strategic Objective 6 of Priority 1 which states that the council want to ensure that all new homes “are built to the highest attainable quality, design and sustainability standards”. Croudace prides themselves on the quality and design of the housing they build and we are certain we will meet the council’s standards for development.
We agree with Strategic Objective 11 of Priority 3 which wants to encourage sustainable travel within the district such as walking and cycling. Croudace’s two sites, CFS081 and CFS082 at Hall Road in Rochford, are within walking distance of Rochford town centre, encouraging residents to walk or cycle to the town centre. This factor should be given significant weight when appraising possible Greenfield and green belt releases.
Q5. Do you agree with the settlement hierarchy presented? If not, what changes do you think are required? [Please state reasoning]
We agree with the settlement hierarchy presented as we think it is reasonable to have Rayleigh, the largest town should be at the top of the hierarchy with Hockley and Rochford in tier 2 and the smaller settlements in the tiers below.
Q6. Which of the identified strategy options do you consider should be taken forward in the Plan? [Please state reasoning]
Of the identified strategy options we believe Option 2b should be taken forward by the Plan. Option 2b would see urban extensions dispersed to settlements based on hierarchy. We agree that spreading the housing supply across a number of builders is the correct and less risky strategy and means that more housing can be delivered sooner, relieving Rochford of its affordable housing supply shortage. We believe that some of the better sites for sustainable development are within the greenbelt so as Option 2b states, some Green Belt land will need to be released. Option 2 would deliver 3,000 – 5,000 more dwellings than Option 1, which already delivers 3,000 – 5,000 homes, with 1,000 – 2,000 of these new houses being affordable, giving a potential total of 10,000 new houses of which 4,000 are affordable houses. We believe this is the correct solution to solving the affordable housing issue in Rochford. As stated in the 2021 draft Local Plan for Rochford, for every 10 additional homes the local community sees the benefit of creating or sustaining 9 local jobs and bringing in £250,000 in additional local spend from new residents.
Q12. Do you agree we should require new development to achieve energy efficiency standards higher than building regulations? What level should these be set at? [Please state reasoning]
For residential development, the Planning Practice Guidance (paragraph 012) is clear that any energy performance standard required by a local policy should not exceed the equivalent of Level 4 of the Code for Sustainable Homes. The building regulations remain the most straightforward way of the country as a whole meeting the challenge of climate change. The Government is working on its Future Home Standard for significantly reducing the carbon emissions of homes, with a challenging but achievable timetable for introduction over the period to 2025. Local policies on the subject can add value where there is a locally-specific justification or opportunity, but the council needs to be clear that the policies it proposes on this front are justified, will add value, and will be capable of implementation without creating substantial duplication of work for both council and applicant that is more simply administered through the building regulations system.
Q14. Do you consider that the plan should include a place-making charter that informs relevant policies? Should the same principles apply everywhere in the District, or should different principles apply to different areas? [Please state reasoning]
The plan should include a place-making charter that informs relevant policies. However, the same principles should not apply everywhere in the district because some policies would not be relevant in a residential development for example.
Q15. Are the principles set out in the draft place-making charter the right ones? Are there other principles that should be included? [Please state reasoning]
The principles set out in the draft place-making charter are commendable but it is important that the Council set out in policy what they require regarding place-making in the district. These policies will have to be financially budgeted for and may slow down development.
Q16a. Do you consider that new design guides, codes or masterplans should be created alongside the new Local Plan?
It would not be necessary to create new design guides, codes or masterplans alongside the new Local Plan as this would create an additional burden on the council and potentially delay the release of the new Local Plan. Any design guides, codes or masterplans could be created once the new Local Plan was published.
Q17. With reference to the options listed above, or your own options, how do you feel we can best plan to meet our need for different types, sizes and tenures of housing? [Please state reasoning]
The best method to ensure Rochford Council can deliver different types, sizes and tenures of housing is to allocate different types of sites to be available for builders to buy. Ranging from brownfield sites in urban areas to Green Belt land being released for new housing developments, making available different types of sites will ensure a mix of housing types, size and tenure are built. It is also important to take into account when creating policy regarding the development of housing that the demand for different type, size and tenure will fluctuate as the demographic and requirements in relation to services of the district change. For this reason, it is important that some flexibility be designed into the policy when determining what size, type and tenure of housing is to be built on a site and that this be determined when the application is received taking into account the current local housing context. With regard to affordable housing, we expect the council to calculate how many affordable houses they need for a given period so as to not slow down the application process with lengthy negotiations. We also want to raise the issue of all the other policy measures and building regulations that builders have to comply with when assessing the number of affordable houses that need to be built, and taking into account the financial feasibility of these requirements.
Q18. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there areas or sites in Rochford that you feel require a specific approach to housing types, size and tenure? What is required to meet housing needs in these areas? [Please state reasoning]
For Sites CFS081 and CFS082 at Hall Road, Rochford, Strategy Option 2b would be suitable for the specific housing approach which would see a mix of 1 to 4 bedroom houses built on these parcels of land. The suitable housing tenure for these sites would be a mixture of owner occupation and affordable houses falling under affordable rented tenure and intermediate (shared ownership) homes. What is required to meet the housing needs in these areas are an increased land supply to provide more housing for Rochford. Rochford has become one of the most unaffordable district counties in the country, with house prices increasing by 70% in the past 15 years. The 2016 and 2017 South Essex SHMA calculated that Rochford district council needed to build at least 360 houses for the next 20 years, however, Rochford currently build on average 166 new houses per year, which falls below the government requirement set out in the SHMA. If Rochford continue to undersupply new dwellings, housing-related issues such homelessness and concealed homes, where young people are forced to stay or move back in with their parents longer than they would want to, will become an increasing issue within the district.
Q23. With reference to the options listed above, or your own options, how do you feel we can best ensure that we meet our employment and skills needs through the plan? [Please state reasoning]
By providing well designed, high quality and affordable housing Rochford will be able to attract more potential workers and businesses to the district and prevent young people moving away from the area in search of affordable housing. This will ensure a stable and able work force whilst also providing jobs to the local population during the construction period of the new dwellings.
Q27. Are there other measures we can take through the plan to lay the foundations for long-term economic growth, e.g. skills or connectivity?
The foundations of long-term economic growth is through having affordable housing young people can afford. This will decrease the likelihood that they will move away, taking their skills with them, whilst also attracting potential businesses to the area to provide services. Providing this housing will also create new jobs during the construction phase which can up-skill workers over a prolonged period of time.
Q31. Do you consider net gains for biodiversity are best delivered on-site or off-site? Are there specific locations or projects where net gain projects could be delivered?
We believe net gains for biodiversity are best delivered off-site. This ensures there are no unforeseen costs during a development and we believe it is more beneficial to the environment to have biodiversity in specific areas than have it spread through developments.
Q46. With reference to the options listed above, or your own options, how do you think we can best plan for vibrant town centres in Rochford, Rayleigh and Hockley? How can we also ensure our village and neighbourhood centres remain vibrant? [Please state reasoning]
We think the best plan to ensure Rochford’s town centre remains vibrant is through option 6, specifically providing sustainable connections from any large-scale new housing development to Rochford town centre. Building new housing developments within a 20 minute walk of the town centre is a method of providing sustainable connections to existing town centres, and sites CFS081 and CFS082 fall within these parameters. Additionally, providing accommodation for more residents will provide greater footfall to the businesses within the town centre, further sustaining the services and employment opportunities for Rochford district.
Q57a. Do you agree with our vision for Rochford and Ashingdon? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]
We agree with your vision for Rochford and Ashingdon, however, the allocation for housing has not been covered. Providing new housing will support Rochford and Ashingdon’s town centre business and provide more sustainability to services.
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?
1. Housing [market, affordable, specialist, traveller, other]
2. Commercial [offices, industrial, retail, other]
3. Community infrastructure [open space, education, healthcare, allotments, other]
4. Other
We believe that site CFS081 and the eastern part of CFS082 (as shown on the attached plan) should be made available for housing market falling under Strategy Option 2b. This could improve the completeness of Rochford and Ashingdon by providing the required ‘critical mass’ in terms of housing density for additional services such as a more frequent bus services or an additional bus stop on the proposed site. This will improve the site assessments access to a bus service from a 1 to a 5 and improve the access to bus services assessment. Site CFS082 is missing from Figure 45 when it is included on the Interactive Consultation Map. We propose to build on half of the total site, preventing Rochford and Hawkwell coalescing and retaining and protecting part of the metropolitan green belt. With these two sites combined, over 600 houses could be delivered for Rochford, which would provide three main benefits. The first benefit would be to local businesses, as an increasing population would bring additional income to the business, which would allow local businesses to grow. The second benefit is that with an increasing population, other firms would view the district as a viable location to establish themselves in, further increasing employment opportunities in the district and providing more services to the area. The third benefit would be Rochford and Southend Borough District would avoid housing-related shortage issues such as homelessness and concealed households. Building more housing would also prevent young people moving away in search of housing they can afford, preventing an ageing demographic which would present its own challenges to the district.
Q57c. Are there areas in Rochford and Ashingdon that development should generally be presumed appropriate? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
Sites CFS081 and the Eastern half of site CFS082 should be presumed appropriate for development as they are within sustainable walking distance to Rochford town centre, and therefore offer a highly sustainable way of accommodating the housing needs of the town, a factor which we believe has been given inadequate weight in the council’s published site assessments. As well as meeting housing needs, building these developments would provide jobs over the construction period and prevent homelessness and concealed households becoming an issue within the district. These developments would also increase footfall for local businesses, making local businesses more sustainable, and potential businesses seeing Rochford as a viable area to locate their business. These factors bring the added benefit of greater sustainability to the local businesses and employment opportunities to the wider community.
We acknowledge that sites CFS081 and the eastern half of CFS082 are currently in the green belt. As we are only proposing building on the eastern part of site CFS082, the green belt harm assessment should be re-examined for this site to ensure that it has been fairly appraised relative to all other sites being considered. Limiting development to the eastern part of CFS082 reduces the potential harm caused to green belt purposes, preventing Rochford and Hawkley merging into one another in line with paragraph 138 subsection b of the 2019 NPPF.
The recent development of 620 homes to the east of sites CFS081 and CFS082 has demonstrated that growth of Rochford town in this direction can be successfully accommodated. There is a strip of land along the western edge of that development which remains designated as green belt, providing public open space. We believe the council needs to assess sites CFS081 and CFS082 (east) in light of the fact that the open space there is now not countryside, but is meeting the open space needs of the urban area. If sites CFS081 and the eastern part of CFS082 were to be released from the green belt they would effectively continue the urban area around this open space.
We also question the impact on Built Heritage assessments for sites CFS081 and CFS082 labelled at 1 and 2 respectively. We can only conclude that this low score is due to the nearby Pelham’s Farmhouse, which is a grade II listed building. However, on a site the size of CFS081 there is scope to plan the open space on site so as to minimise direct impacts which may arise to that heritage asset.
We question the assessment for site CFS081 in regards to the access to bus stop being scored at 2. CFS082 assessment scored a 4 and we propose linking the two sites allowing site CFS081 better access to bus stop services, and the area is closer on foot to the town centre. CFS081 and the eastern part of CFS082 are also large enough that they would reasonably be expected to make contributions toward new bus stops and improving bus services. We would also like the access to bus services re-appraised if were given permission to develop on the two sites as the increase in population density may provide the ‘critical mass’ to make the sites viable for the Rochford SS4 1NL bus service to come more frequently then it currently does. This would improve the appraisal score and make the development more sustainable.
The access to secondary schools for site CFS081 is appraised at a level 4 whereas site CFS082 is appraised at the lowest level of 1. With these two sites side by side, with access to the same road network as each other, we question why site CFS082’s access to secondary schools was appraised so low. If needs be, we can provide a financial contribution to a local secondary school to improve the facilities and size of the local secondary school.
We would like the access to town centre for site CFS082 to be reappraised as it is only a level 1 whereas site CFS081 is appraised at a level 4. With the two sites being developed on, a pathway through site CFS081 could be created for site CFS082 allowing it better access to Rochford town centre. The two sites fall within a 20 minute walk of Rochford town centre which should mean the appraisal for site CFS082 is higher.
We also question the appraisal for the access to employment site for site CFS082 at level 2 when CFS081 is appraised at level 4. With both sites having access to the same road network, these appraisals should be the same. We also question if the town centre has been considered as an employment site as it often is a major source of employment within a town. The town centre is only a 15 minute, 1 mile walk away or a 3 minute drive so the access to employment site for site CFS082 should be appraised higher.
We question why both sites CFS081 and CFS082 are appraised at levels 3 and 2 respectively for distance to strategic road network when both have access to the A127 being only 6 minutes away and 2 miles in distance via Cherry Orchard Way.
We would also like the appraisal for access to train services for site CFS082 to be reappraised as site CFS081 is appraised at level 3 whereas the former is at level 2. Through the development, site CFS082 will have access to Rochford train station like site CFS081. Rochford station is only a 15 minute walk or 3 minute drive away from the sites, at a distance of 1 mile from both sites. We therefore argue that the appraisal for access to train services for both sites should be higher.
We would also like the appraisal for site CFS082 proximity to water apparatus to be reassessed as it is a level 1 whereas neighbouring site CFS081 is appraised at a level 5. The River Roach does flow south of both sites and there is Rochford Reservoir only 1 mile away.
The assessment for Critical Drainage Risk for site CFS082 can be improved from a level 2 with implemented drainage systems for the proposed development.
We also question the level two assessment of impact on Ancient Woodland for site CFS082 being at a level 2 when the site is currently used as an agricultural field with no Ancient Woodland currently existing on the site. Site CFS081 with no ancient woodland on it as well was assessed at level 5 for impact on Ancient Woodland.

I am very concerned about the proposed amount of housing in the area of Rochford and Ashingdon for the following reasons:- Completely inadequate infrastructure. The bus service, nos 7 and 8 do not provide a suitable alternative to car use taking too long to get to Southend and Rayleigh, running infrequently and sometimes not coming at all. New house owners are likely to resort to car use putting more traffic on the 1 road going through Ashingdon and Rochford to Southend. This road is already congested and often has major hold ups. When this occurs no emergency vehicles can get through. Most of this housing will be 3 or 4 bedroom, meaning most properties will have more than one car!. Cycling is not a feasible alternative as there are no safe cycle paths. Taking a bit of the pavement is not a suitable cycle path and makes everything more dangerous for pedestrians; particularly children walking to school!

Air pollution! This is already extremely high and traffic has increased by 34.5% already! I know personally how it has affected breathing. This is of particular concern as several schools exist along the Ashingdon road so children will be constantly subjected to this pollution! Development always requires the cutting down of trees. Something we need to reduce pollution!

Flooding. This is becoming worse due to global warming. If all these areas are being concreted over, even with drainage, this situation will get far worse. Ashingdon road floods right by the narrow path where children walk to and from school, so it is difficult to avoid getting a soaking from passing traffic.

There are no vital services in close proximity for many people. Already those doctors, dentists and schools are struggling to cope with the increase in local population, as this has been massive with the development that has already taken place. No new services have been provided. Services are often included in submitted building plans but then rarely, if ever, appear!

This used to be quite a rural area, not any more! What about the green corridor for wildlife! Very little or no consideration is given to animals and creatures occupying these green sites. Where are they supposed to go! Badgers, foxes frogs, toads, insects, birds etc. are constantly being displaced and, as far as I can see from the plan, if all this building goes ahead, there will be nowhere! They can’t all live in Cherry Orchard or Hockley woods!

Objections to over development
Last week we received a flyer from the Rochford District Residents. I put it to one side with a view to 'read it later'. But what a horrifying read! The list of sites being considered for more housing is crazy.

The subheading 'Infrastructure First' is an understatement. I am aware of the Bloor Homes plan for 660 houses off the Ashingdon Road. But, the other proposed sites 4447 off Brays Lane, 498 near Mount Bovers Lane, 801 near Rectory Road to name but a few. The Ashingdon Road CANNOT take any more traffic and the B1013 gets very heavily congested at times. The Hall Road part of the B1013 has no public transport and the local doctors surgery in Back Lane is stretched as it is.

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE what can be done to stop all this over development? Redevelop, renew the historic town of Rochford putting funds into maintaining the buildings, green spaces, roadways etc not BUILD BUILD BUILD. It will ruin Rochford and all the surrounding villages as traffic will be unavoidable, air quality will be poor and flooding will be on the increase. It should be a quaint little market town with independent shops and cafes encouraged NOT as an outlet for London housing.

Objections to potential housing developments in Hockley Hawkwell & Ashingdon
Further to receipt of information regarding potential housing sites/planning applications for developments in the above areas we strongly OBJECT to the following:-

CFS045
CFS046
CFS160
CFS161
CFS074
CFS194
CFS169
CFS150
CFS020
CFS261

Reasons as follows:-

The roads are very congested in these areas already making further housing unacceptable. There only has to be an accident or delivery in Hockley village or along the high road for the whole area to be gridlocked.

Infrastructure cannot support more cars there are no viable alternatives to improve infrastructure due to limited road layouts in already very densely populated areas.

There is considerable wildlife in these areas due to established woodlands and green spaces which would be displaced.

Air pollution due to traffic volumes will cause issues for residents with known serious effects.

I am writing to protest most strongly my objections to the above. Back in the early eighties a very similar plan was submitted for this site. The protestors at the time stated that “we fear it would add more traffic on already choked roads, overcrowd our full schools and strain our health and rail services” Not a lot changed in thirty years then!!
That application by Trinity College and developers Rush and Tompkins was eventually refused when it went to an enquiry and one of the reason given was Ashingdon Road. It was considered a danger then and the volume of traffic has certainly increased over the subsequent years. The road in terribly dangerous for pedestrians particularly the children who use it ever day to walk to school. The pavement is certainly not wide enough and there should definitely be a safety barrier on the bend.
The field opposite regularly floods and has done so for many years but has certainly increased since the extensive housing built at the top of Ashingdon Hill.
Green belt, farm land and ancient wood land In the area are all issues of great concern.
Mrs Veronica Mott

Dear Rochford District Council members,

My husband and I are writing in response to your New Local Plan and, in particular, to the Spatial Options Document 2021.

We have lived in the Ashingdon Road, near to the Golden Cross, for 51 years and have seen many changes in that time, mostly to the number of houses that have been built, either as new estates or squeezed into unused spaces between existing homes, and how the traffic from these all feeds into the Ashingdon Road.

We understand that growth must happen, that the area is and will continue to grow as it has been doing and that RDC has an obligation to provide a certain number of homes every year. However, it seems to us, that the Rochford Eco Village proposed by the owners of Doggetts Farm is an excellent way forward and we would highly recommend it.

It aims to meet everything that the local residents are most concerned about – firstly, affordable houses that can quickly be constructed, are carbon negative and have zero utility bills. Secondly, leisure facilities, these are recognised much more now than they were 50 years ago as being vital to our health and wellbeing as are woods, beauty spots and walks away from traffic pollution. Thirdly, the inclusion of doctors’ and dentists’ surgeries together with a Special Needs School and sensory play facilities for the further development of children and adults. None of this has been included in the housing estates that have been built since we lived here, and would have all the benefits of providing growth, homes and employment while protecting the environment.

Doggetts Farm lies between Rochford and Ashingdon and could well become a flagship of a carbon neutral, affordable development in this area that will not impinge further onto the Ashingdon Road. This is an opportunity that has not been available in the last 50 years but my husband and I firmly believe that you, as a Council, now has the responsibility to make it happen for the sake of everyone’s children and grandchildren in the next 50.

I list the following objections;

To build more than 6000 houses mostly all of which will need access onto the B1013, seems to be severely overstretching matters. If you assume an average of 1.5 cars per property, you are left with almost 10000 cars using already overused roads. Also, where will they all be going, there are probably not enough job vacancies in this area, so the likelihood of greater unemployment should be realised.
This assumes most will be using cars but what if not, there is not really a bus service to cope with this much extra load and should some wish to commute to London for work, the train service is hardly adequate, or for that matter, reliable. The amount of road accidents will surely increase, stretching emergency service still more. If CFS261 goes ahead, more children will be involved in accidents as the proposed new road is to be accessed via a new roundabout right outside Holt Farm School.
Children in these developments will be struggling to find school spaces and we already have fully occupied schools, so what next. The subject of young children also brings up the questions of air pollution from a greater traffic flow, and the need for more Dentists and Doctors. It can already take hours to try for a G.P. appointment so this will soon become completely overwhelmed.