Q57c. Are there areas in Rochford and Ashingdon that development should generally be presumed appropriate?

There is enough development already

Yes, large scale sites that do not border peoples homes should be developed, prolonging they bring with them improved public services and infrastructure. However CFS013 and CFS119 would not be suitable for these purposes, as they border too many peoples homes and therefore would massively impose upon the green environment that is so cherished by those of us who border these promoted sites.

Rochford town centre should be the focus of any building and more apartments would suit our younger residents. This is also handy for buses and the station which they need to get to work.

Sustrans is supportive of the development principles of CFS095 due to its high quality walking and cycling permeability of the site. Its connectivity to the Greenway along the Prittle Brook and proximity to the rail station make it aligned with Sustrans' and the Local Plans sustainable transport objectives.

In the current condition the areas which are being suggested and for the number or houses presented, the infrastructure cannot support the number of residents this will bring in. The priority is obviously not developing the area as services would be included and the level of prioritisation in the number of houses would show.

I object to this site and CFS133 due to, The Increase in traffic on the already congested roads. it will generate more private cars and air quality will decrease further meaning that the site is unacceptable and unsustainable for further development. Public transport, Doctors, Schools and local shops are required to be improved before any new houses.

I do not consider any buildings of more houses in the area to be viable

In my opinion, if the proposed new development (North of Rochford Garden Way) is implemented, this area should only be considered for minor or small developments.

Rochford does not need any more housing

no

no

no

no

No further development in and around Ashingdon road which is already heavily conjested should be attempted. Ashingdon Road, simply cannot cope. Separately, the impact to what is left of our rural community is being ruined by ridiculous Government demands on councils to build in the south on green belt locations, with no thought process or care of local community opinions. It is just a money making attempt by our council to destroy what little rural landscape we have left to enjoy.

No areas are suitable for development because you don't have an acceptable infrastructure to support it

No large developments should be agreed that will increase traffic volumns through Rayleigh

Generally no areas are appropriate because over population in the area impacting on road capacity and local amenities e.g. schools, healthcare and social services

Brown filed sites should be considered for housing. Farm land considered for Wind Farms / Solar Panels or a country park. None others.

We have taken a high level of housing in the previous local plan and the Ashingdon Road is now at capacity and not able to take any more traffic.

Too much housing already - this is a rural community this turns it into a small dormitory town

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.

Assuming emails will be accepted and previous near impossible navigation if the whole document is not required then I provide the following comments; observations and objections on the spatial options using CFS064 as an example and objecting to.that and development of Bull Lane; Napier Road and Wellington Road as well.

1) the whole process is flawed. Even at the "tail" of the pandemic some residents are unable or unwilling to contribute because of issues in attending events and/or lack of internet access preventing them viewing the proposals.

2) the central Government building requirements are based upon ideas originally drawn up by John Prescott in a Labour government. They do not take account of fundamental changes in working environment brought about by factors such as technology; COVID; and the demise of the High St. This may well see more town and city space particularly in London becoming available for accommodation. I am aware of a number of London companies "hotdesking" workers and essentially having only 50% attending on any one day. Couple this with the ability to store and use data electronically it is clear lots of office space will become available and the knock on effect may be other city shops close as there are less people using them. This relieves pressure on surrounding areas for building of more homes

3) the local plans take little account of the need to maintain open spaces. As seen in the Pandemic these were crucial for wellbeing. Plans involving building on Hockley Woods and fields around Betts Wood are not credible.

4) plans to build on areas around Bull Lane Nelson; Napier; and Wellington Roads put in jeopardy RDC's pledge to maintain gaps between the various towns and villages in the area. Here in particular the Hockley and Rayleigh buffer is already eroded by Bullwood Hall developments and new properties added to Turret Farm ( were these approved)

5) proposals to release agricultural land. Anyone who walked around the area in the pandemic will be well aware many of these plots are apparently used for growing food. Given current supply problems and the growing need to feed people this element seems to be fundamentally flawed.

6) it is clear from your own Q&A councils are out of their depth. Several correspondents have already raised the issue of the lack of infrastructure and the response has been GP surgeries; schools etc only need to be provided for large developments (approx 1000 houses). Clearly house builders know how to play the game and avoid such commitments (and provision of sufficient affordable housing).

7) in relation to several of the points above why all the councils (predominantly tory) in the Thames Gateway do not group together to lobby Tory central government for more power to determine their plans and to reach a better outcome for developments than seeing inner London borough's rent or buy large swathes of housing stock.

8) as with 3 above will Southend Airport remain open? Believe this is leased by RDC to Southend BC but, given the lack of passenger flights and income; one wonders if it will last. Is lease income being maintained? Is airport being subsidised? Would make ideal building plot

9)There is also a need to maintain historic and scientific areas as well as minimising impact on wildlife using green belt impacts all these

10) the roads are gridlocked at peak times and delivery times. Especially B1013. This is already the busiest B road in the county and adding any development in the vicinity is going to make this worse. Impacting health and particularly that of children in schools along the route RDC will be aware of the Coroner's findings in respect of the death of Ella Kissi-Debrah where air pollution was given as the cause. Perhaps RDC can confirm they have addressed all current air pollution problems and fully and correctly assessed all risks of this nature were further developments to take place

[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.

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 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.

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 have become aware, through a residents’ newsletter, of some sites earmarked for building.

I should like to say that I vigorously oppose these proposals.

CFS045 Hawkwell. Belchamps. 152 houses.
CFS064 Folly Chase-Community centre. 214 houses.
CFS160 AND CFS161. Hockley water tower. 124 houses.
CFS074. Hawkwell opposite Rawalpindi Nursery. 498 houses.
CFS 194 CFS 169 CFS 150 CFS 020. From Clements Hall to Victor Gardens, Rectory Road etc. 801 houses.
CFS 261 Off Brays Lane. 4447 houses.

Firstly, is it green belt or woodland?
Secondly, the infrastructure. The B1013 is already one of the busiest roads in Essex.
Thirdly, increased traffic.
Fourthly, wildlife. Since the Christmas Tree farm development we no longer see jays or woodpeckers. Where do they go? Conversely we have seen more rats and foxes (displaced from their habitat).
Fifthly, many of these places are used by walkers and dog walkers and horse riders. Will their paths be protected?
Sixthly, CS194 Hawkwell Brook is designated a tidal river by DEFRA. Is there a flood risk? The brook flooded in 1968 and 2013.
Seventhly, we are emerging from a pandemic, slowly, and Hawkwell and Hockley have a large proportion of elderly residents. They will be more at risk (and of COPD generally) with the inevitable reduction in air quality.
Eighthly, can the local schools and surgeries cope with this influx? How far are some of these houses from services?
Ninethly, why are these areas earmarked? We have building in Hullbridge and Rayleigh (London Road and Rawreth Lane). About 600 houses were built in Hall Road and Hawkwell had the Christmas Tree farm development. There has already been building in Folly Lane and Brays Lane, Cherry Orchard Lane is undergoing substantial development and there is a housing development near Fitzwimarc school. People moved/retired to Hawkwell because of its exclusivity and rural feel, but it’s becoming harder to see the borders between Rochford, Hawkwell/Hockley and Rayleigh.

So much building in one area is preposterous. Is the council trying to build another Basildon?

I believe any large site to the east of Ashingdon Road would put an unbearable strain on the surrounding roads. Access to these areas of Rochford are already restricted by poor road infrastructure. Crossing Ashingdon Road to head towards the A127 often requires that in you have to pass via pinch points created by narrow railway bridges in Hall Road & Rectory Road. The Ashingdon Road is already heavily congested with through traffic to and from Southend, at commuter times traffic often tails back from the Anne Boleyn pub to Rectory Road. Any roadworks, accidents or bin collections along the Ashingdon Road, Southend Road or Bradley Way results in Rochford town being grid locked with traffic queuing back to Stambridge Road/ Malting Villas Road junction.

We object to the proposed development of the following sites
CFS261 4447 Homes Land East of Oxford Road
CFS141 231 Homes Stewards Elm Farm Great
Stambridge
CFS116 411 Homes Land South Coombes Farm

CFS111 104 Homes Land North Coombes Grove

CFS124 63 Homes Land East Little Stambridge
Hall

I object to all the above sites as all would increase existing traffic problems on access routes via Ashingdon Road, Bradley Way the Rochford One Way system Stambridge Road and would have a negative impact to those living in these areas due to increase noise pollution and added inconvenience of negotiating more congested roads.

In addition the site CFS116 is not suitable for housing due to close proximity with the Purdeys Industrial estate any homes on Coombes with suffer from the industrial noises and odours of materials that are handled on the site. Should homes be built on Combes site said properties would be under the flight path to Southend Airport and as a result residents would be plagued by aircraft noise too.

I also raise objection to the any further development to areas
COL83 Millview Meadows
CFS050 Land Of Former Adult Community College
These areas are much used safe amenity for the local community and any loss of this green space would have a negative impact to all that enjoy use of this land.

I would support the following developments
CFS084 251 Homes Land South of Hall Road
CFS078 360 Homes Land West of Cherry Orchard

These sites will have little impact on the congested roads of Rochford Town, said sites would also have good access onto the A127 and the train station is easily walkable from these sites.

Of all the sites proposed we believe the sites closest to the A127 would be the best location for development
CFS121 1347 Homes Land North of A127
CFS222 3491 Homes Land Dollymans Farm

I feel these large developments in close proximity of A127 could provide new neighbourhoods built with all essential services like Schools Retail and Healthcare each neighbourhood could have its own unique identity.


I note the report states Rochford has an ageing population, we would hope that due consideration would be given to providing more homes suitable for the retired including bungalows and possibly retirement villages. At present it seems the only retirement properties being built in the area are in the form of blocks of flats, retirees may want a smaller property to suit their changing needs but not all want to give up a garden and be left with just a balcony, building homes suitable for the senior market would give opportunity for those occupying large family homes to move to more suitable accommodation and free up larger homes for young families.

I wholeheartedly agree that there needs to be an infrastructure assessment first and foremost.

I would have objections to the sites of CFS194, CFS169, CFS150 & CFS020 for the below reasons:

Location – There is already growing road congestion as cars often park in the road and this can cause major delays with an increase of continuous traffic and this would be made worse. Currently there is only 1 bus route (unregular) that goes via Rectory Road so this would not be viable with the proposed increase. Currently it is used as farmland too.

Highway issues - the traffic has been increasing year on year with a vast amount using for access to Ashingdon Road or the B1013. Ashingdon Road needs to be carefully thought about as it cannot sustain more traffic, so this would need to be avoided at all costs. The obvious choice would be sites CFS074, CFS160, CFS161, which can then feed up through Hockley and easier access to the A127 or alternatively CFS261 would be able to feed onto the B1013 via Hockley or alternatively Lower Road for the A130 & A127.

Infrastructure – as the site proposed here does not have easy transport links, the station for Hockley is still over 30 minutes walking and not enough by way of bus links it will increase private car journeys.

Green corridor for wildlife – currently there is a bridleway that runs through these sites and is used all the time. Taking away a regularly used footpath and bridleway would be a terrible shame. To take this away would destroy links out to other very nice routes. It would also have a major impact on the nature reserve owing to the decrease in air quality. Without access to nature spots this would have a major impact on residents wellbeing and mental health.

Flooding – as it is already very widely recognised, these sites are near a Water Course, in particular CS194 and is a designated tidal river by DEFRA. This has seen flooding in the past.

Air Quality – naturally an increase of households will generally bring more pollution to the area and where this is already a very populated area it will effect a vast amount of residents who already live in the area. The obvious choice would be to have proposed site which is more rural and would not effect as many residents.

Accessibility to vital services – as mentioned above, whilst it would run next to the train line it is not quick or easy to gain access to the train station at Hockley which would be closer, otherwise, it would

Education – currently there are not enough schools in the local area to support an increase of 801 houses. And no easy solution as to where these schools would be placed. Given the size of the surrounding area, I would have thought that CFS261 would have the best infrastructure to accommodate new schools and doctors etc.

In conclusion for the above reasons I do not feel that CFS194, CFS169, CFS150 & CFS020 would be suitable.

I am of the view that the most viable options would be CFS261 and although the largest, it would negate the need for building on smaller sites in the future whilst still allowing for a very large area of natural wildlife. Alternatively, CFS160 & CFS161 or CFS074.

I would like to put forward my own opinions regarding the Spatial Options Consultation for my local area of Hullbridge and also for Rochford as a whole.

Vision for Hullbridge:

A large area of Hullbridge is NOT accessible by walking or public transport. If the proposed sites to the East along Lower Road are developed this will add to the horrific congestion on Lower Road from Coventry Hill. There are no pavements or crossings and personally, I am unable to cross over to the other side from Central Avenue where I live. It is dangerous standing on the "pavement" (such as it is) as there is no room to step back from the large lorries often going past. If building work continues this will worsen. There are no regular bus services along this route despite the bus stops and old timetables. If I find I can no longer drive I will be marooned in my road along with many others like myself.

There are indeed a growing number of older residents in this area. I feel the current trend of making bungalows into houses with loft conversions is not helping their housing needs. Rather than develop more of HUllbridge for family housing a site needs to be set aside for maybe sheltered warden controlled housing and care facilities close to the facilities around the Doctors Surgery in Ferry Road.

Our riverfront does NOT need to be developed - it is fine as it is - I feel that any development of the riverfront would be very detrimental to the rural coastal village outlook and the Hullbridge Foreshores.. A regional park to the West is a wonderful idea - a local country park would preserve habitats and wild life for the future. Much of this land to the West is flood plain and would be problematic if built on.

Building of homes:

If every site in Hullbridge is developed the scanty local facilities would totally be overwhelmed! There would be more pollution from more cars commuting to Rayleigh station or Hockley.

This is no doubt true of many of the existing towns and villages. WE are already in danger from eroding green belt. Rather than develop the needed new homes piecemeal without adequate infrastructure I feel it would be better to place them all on one site much like South Woodham Ferrears. However if any of the sites proposed are to the East of Rochford or North of Southend I feel it would place a larger burden on already busy roads. I have two suggestions:

Build on the Potential cross Boundary Opportunity marked to the West of Rayleigh - this is close to major roads and a railway line and a new station could easily be sited. This has the benefit of keeping the traffic away from local towns and not adding to congestion.

I also feel that the airport will not recover from the lost business due to the pandemic and in any case I know from experience working there how awful the pollution is from aircraft - not to mention the many cars and lorries also going there. There are already roads and a rail station and buses. Why not build on the airport. It is my understanding that the land belongs to Rochford in any case.

I hope my views are useful to the council.