Q58a. Do you agree with our vision for Hockley and Hawkwell?

I set out below my comments on the proposals, focussing particularly on Hawkwell, an area that I know well having lived here for over 30 years:
General comments
• Development of many of the sites will result in loss of open space, footpaths, wildlife habitats and air quality which will be detrimental to the mental health of residents current and future
• The existing infrastructure is already struggling to cope with current population and traffic
Sites CFS262, CFS074, CFS191, CFS045 & CFS251
• These sites feed onto B1013 which is already very congested and public transport is limited
• The sites all result in loss of green belt, footpaths, wildlife habitats and, in the case of CRS045, the loss of a local and national amenity, being the Belchamps Scout Centre
• There is insufficient capacity at local schools and doctors
• The housing densities proposed exceed those in the surrounding residential areas
Sites CFS088, CFS240, CFS093, CFS169
• The sites all feed onto residential roads which in turn feed onto B1013 which is already very congested and public transport is limited
• As noted in the initial site appraisals, the sites will result in the loss of green belt land and have drainage issues
• The initial site appraisals suggest that there will be little or no impact of wildlife habitats, I believe this to be incorrect.
• There is insufficient capacity at local schools and doctors
• The housing densities proposed far exceed those in the surrounding residential areas and are not in keeping with those areas
Sites CFS194, CFS169, CFS150, CFS020
• The sites all feed onto Rectory Road or Ashingdon Road which in turn feed onto B1013 which is already very congested and public transport is limited
• The sites will have a detrimental effect on local wildlife habitats
• There is insufficient capacity at local schools and doctors
• The housing densities proposed far exceed those in the surrounding residential areas
• Site CFS194 is near Hawkwell Brook and is designated tidal by DEFRA. The potential flooding risk to properties on this site and nearby does not seem to have been considered
With kind regards
Janet Baldwin

To whom it may concern,

I have recently found out there is a proposal to build 214 houses at the end of Folly Chase, off Folly Lane.
I have been a resident in Folly Lane for 50 years and seen more and more houses being built around me, much to the detriment of the surrounding area for wildlife and residents who already live here.

We have in recent years seen numerous houses built on land which was at one time a mushroom industry in Folly Lane.
This alone has caused much congestion in the road, through the village and surrounding area. It is an absolute joke trying to get anyway.
To build a further 214 houses is a ridiculous idea in this proposed site, we will soon not be able to get out of Hockley!!
There is not enough infrastructure to support more housing, not enough Schools, Doctors or Dentists.
We will end up all living on top of each other and no where to go walking, not everyone has a car to get out!

I would like to see a plan and receive an explanation of what is going on and why such a ridiculous suggestion has been made buy whom and to who.
I am strongly against to any such plan, as are many people are in the surrounding area.

ECC Response to Rochford New Local Plan: Spatial Options Consultation July 2021

Thank you for consulting Essex County Council (ECC) on the Rochford New Local Plan: Spatial Options Consultation (SOC) published in July 2021. ECC has engaged with Rochford District Council (RDC) in the preparation of the new Local Plan, and our involvement to date has been proportionate at this early stage of plan preparation, building on the Issues and Options consultation in 2017/18. Once prepared, the new Local Plan will include the required strategies, policies and site proposals to guide future planning across the District, and will replace the current suite of adopted Development Plans up to 2040.

ECC welcomes the opportunity to review and comment on the emerging new Local Plan vision, strategic priorities and objectives, initial growth scenarios, spatial options, thematic themes and ‘Planning for Complete Communities’. As Plan preparation continues, ECC is committed to working with RDC through regular and on-going focussed collaborative discussions to prepare evidence that ensures the preferred spatial strategy, policies and site allocations are sound, viable and deliverable, where future development is aligned to the provision of required local and strategic infrastructure.

A Local Plan can provide a platform from which to secure a sustainable economic, social and environmental future to the benefit of residents, businesses and visitors. A robust long-term strategy will provide a reliable basis on which RDC, ECC and its partners may plan and provide the services and required infrastructure for which they are responsible. To this end, ECC will use its best endeavours to assist on strategic and cross-boundary matters under the duty to cooperate (Duty), including engagement and co-operation with other organisations for which those issues may have relevance.

It is acknowledged that RDC has engaged ECC under the Duty, during the past year, in addition to the joint and regular meetings established with the South Essex authorities, through specific South Essex strategic planning duty to co-operate groups for Members and Officers respectively to explore strategic and cross boundary matters.

ECC interest in the Rochford New Local Plan – spatial options consultation
ECC aims to ensure that local policies and related strategies provide the greatest benefit to deliver a buoyant economy for the existing and future population that lives, works, visits not only in Rochford District, but Essex as a whole. This includes a balance of land-uses to create great places for all communities, and businesses across all sectors; and that the developer funding for the required infrastructure is clear and explicit. As a result, ECC is keen to understand, inform, support and help refine the formulation of the development strategy and policies delivered by LPAs within and adjoining Essex. Involvement is necessary and beneficial because of ECC’s roles as:
a. the highway and transport authority, including responsibility for the delivery of the Essex Local Transport Plan; the lead authority for education including early years and childcare (EYCC), Special Education Needs and Disabilities, and Post 16 education; Minerals and Waste Planning Authority; Lead Local Flood Authority; lead advisors on public health;
and adult social care in relation to the securing the right housing mix which takes account of the housing needs of older people and adults with disabilities;
b. an infrastructure funding partner, that seeks to ensure that development proposed is realistic and does not place an unnecessary (or unacceptable) cost burden on the public purse, and specifically ECC’s Capital Programme;
c. major provider and commissioner of a wide range of local government services throughout the county (and where potential cross boundary impacts need to be considered);
d. Advocate of the Essex Climate Action Commissioner’s (ECAC) Report 2021 Net Zero – Making Essex Carbon Neutral providing advice and recommendations for action on climate change mitigation and adaption including setting planning policies which minimise carbon. This work has been tailored for use in the county of Essex; and
e. involvement through the Association of South Essex Local Authorities (ASELA) and Opportunity South Essex Partnership (OSE), promoting economic development, regeneration, infrastructure delivery and new development throughout the County.

In accordance with the Duty, ECC will contribute cooperatively to the preparation of a new Rochford Local Plan, particularly within the following broad subject areas,
• Evidence base. Guidance with assembly and interpretation of the evidence base both for strategic/cross-boundary projects, for example, education provision and transport studies and modelling, and wider work across South Essex as part of the joint strategic plan.
• ECC assets and services. Where relevant, advice on the current status of assets and services and the likely impact and implications of proposals in the emerging Local Plan for the future operation and delivery of ECC services.
• Sub-regional and broader context. Assistance with identification of relevant information and its fit with broader strategic initiatives, and assessments of how emerging proposals for the District may impact on areas beyond and vice-versa.
• Policy development. Contributions on the relationship of the evidence base with the structure and content of emerging policies and proposals.
• Inter-relationship between Local Plans. Including the Essex Minerals Local Plan (2014) and the Essex and Southend-on-Sea Waste Local Plan (2017).

To achieve this, ECC seeks a formal structure for regular and ongoing engagement with RDC through the next stage of Plan preparation. Of critical importance is the additional evidence required for the site assessment process at both the individual and cumulative level to refine and develop the spatial strategy, which will be informed by the provision of sustainable and deliverable infrastructure and services at the right scale, location and time, for the existing and future residents of Rochford. There are also challenges arising from COVID-19 and how these can be addressed through the Local Plan and the future growth ambitions for London Southend Airport.

Key issues and messages of the ECC response
The ECC requirements are set within the context of national policy and ECC’s organisation plan proposals within “Everyone’s Essex” and commitments for “Renewal, Ambition and Equality” based on ECC’s strategies, policies, objectives and evidence base. The ECC response therefore identifies where we support emerging options and proposals, and where we recommend further work and engagement with ECC in order to refine and inform the “Preferred Options”, the next iteration of the local plan preparation, scheduled for consultation in Spring 2022. The key messages in ECC’s response are summarised below.
1. ECC support RDC preparing a new Local Plan and will assist with the preparation of sound evidence and policies, that plan for long term sustainable infrastructure delivery.
2. It is still too early for ECC to provide detailed comments on the impacts, opportunities and requirements for the full range of ECC infrastructure and services, and additional evidence is required on a range of matters to inform the selection of a preferred strategy and sites, together with supporting policies. It is acknowledged that ECC has engaged with RDC on the preparation of the transport evidence base to date, which has been proportionate to this stage of plan preparation.
3. The preferred strategy and site allocations will need to ensure that the requirements of ECC infrastructure and services are met to secure their sound, viable and sustainable delivery at the right scale, location and time, that is commensurate with housing needs and growth aspirations.
4. This will include engagement with preparing additional evidence, that will include, but is not limited to,
o Transportation modelling (including sustainable transport) to develop a strategy to realise modal shift including analysis of existing active and sustainable travel infrastructure (including bus network and services). In collaboration with ECC, it is recommended that RDC prepare a Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan (LCWIP).
o Scenario testing for education provision including early years and childcare and the approach to Special Education Needs with Disabilities provision.
o Minerals and waste policy compliant assessments.
o Flood and water management assessments through revised Critical Drainage Areas (CDAs) and revisions to the South Essex Water Management Action Plan.
o Economic need and employment evidence including an up to date Economic Development Needs Assessment to refine the level of economic growth to be planned for.
o ECC will also contribute to the evidence in respect of skills, Adult Social Care, Public Health, climate change, and green and blue infrastructure to that can deliver safer, greener, healthier communities.
o There is also benefit in undertaking a Health Impact Assessment to ensure health and wellbeing is comprehensively considered and integrated into the Local Plan, including a strategic health and wellbeing policy, an area where ECC can advise and assist, and one successfully implemented and included in other plans across Essex.
5. RDC will need to engage and work closely with ECC to inform site selection and the range of preferred sites both individually and cumulatively, having regard to the evidence.
6. Spatial Growth Scenarios – the preferred scenario should meet national policy to deliver housing and other growth requirements; climate change resilience and adaptation; and environmental aspirations of RDC. As a minimum, the standard methodology should be met and any buffer to drive local economic growth or address unmet need from elsewhere is supported but will need to be based on sound evidence.
7. Spatial Strategy Options – the spatial strategy option to proportionately spread growth across the district would not deliver the necessary scale of growth to secure the viable and sustainable delivery of local or strategic infrastructure and services (most notably a secondary school) and would not be supported. Based on the information presented in the SOC, a preferable option is likely to see a combination of the options presented resulting in urban intensification, a focus on main towns, and concentrated growth in one or more locations (resulting in a new neighbourhood the size of a larger village or small town). The option will need to be informed by the evidence base and further site assessments.
8. ECC will need to be involved in any cross boundary development proposals. To this end, Option 3a would need to be delivered in the longer term given current constraints of the strategic road network (Fairglen Interchange) and have regard to emerging proposals and aspirations arising in Basildon and Castle Point Boroughs; and Option 3b will require close and formal working arrangements with Southend-on-Sea Borough Council.
9. It is noted that several of ECC’s comments and observations made in response to the Issues and Options consultation from 2017/18 continue to apply, given the early stages of Plan preparation. We therefore reiterate where important our previous comments and additional points where this is necessary to do so.

The ECC response is set out in table from page 5 onwards and reflects the order of the SOC paper including responses to specific questions; the Integrated Impact Assessment; supporting Topic Papers; and Site Appraisal Paper.

[Due to tabular format of submission, please refer to attached documents for full submission]

I would like to express concerns about the plans for development and housing on our beautiful and essential green spaces.

Living in the centre of Hockley I am acutely aware of the pressure on our local road system which has increased significantly in recent years. The mini roundabout at the Spa is already dangerous to use, far too small for the sheer number of cars, and difficult to use safely when turning out of and into Woodlands Road. I also feel that many of the local roads and infrastructure as a whole is inadequate for the current volume of traffic, let alone any additional development. With one road in and out of Hockely, and many dangerous potholes and burst water mains on Rochford and Hockley roads at all times of year, RDC need to focus ensuring the roads can cope with current housing, let alone additional.

There also needs to be adequate schools, doctors, public transport etc to cover the additional needs of new housing. The 3-4 local primary schools in Hockley are all oversubscribed as it is.

Trees and woodlands are absolutely essential for counteracting climate change, as well as providing homes for a wide range of wildlife, and providing the local children with invaluable education and experiences. The U.K. is already facing a critical shortage of trees. Green spaces are under threat when they should be cherished and protected. We are incredibly lucky to have the fields and woodlands, which are used daily by families, dog walkers, joggers and ramblers.

In particular the plan ref CFS064, which proposes a development on a well loved green space and ancient woodland behind Folly Chase, the Hockley Community Centre, and Hockley Primary school, is disturbing to the many families that use these areas on a regular basis for fresh air and outdoor activities.

If the last year and a half of a global pandemic has had any positive impact on us as a community it is that people have rediscovered a love for the local green space, woodlands and wildlife. Being locked down throughout a lot of 2020 and 2021 was extremely damaging to both the mental and physical health of children and adults. Being able to walk, run and play in the fields and woods as a form of exercise was a lifeline to some families, keeping little ones active and allowing parents to clear their minds. I can’t tell you how many times I heard people express how grateful they are to have this precious space and how crucial is has been, and will always continue to be, for the well-being of the community.

Stand in the field behind the community centre and watch a Jay hop along, spot a squirrel, listen to the crickets and birdsong. Imagine losing this resource to diggers and developers, knowing the damage it’ll cause the local area, traffic, air quality, pollution levels, wildlife, infrastructure, education and overall health of our community. I hope and trust that the council will choose to invest in and care for the community it already has, to help us thrive and protect our beautiful green spaces, fields, woodlands and homes.

It is encouraging to learn of Rochford District Council’s intention to provide housing to meet the needs of both young and old that are carbon neutral and energy efficient.

However, there can only be concern that many of the designated sites are in green belt or in-fill. Land suggested for development in Hockley includes that north of Merryfields Ave, Turret Farm, Church Road, land north-east of Folly Lane, a number of sites on Greensward Lane, Lower Road and the High Road – all on green belt/agricultural land.

Of particular concern is the site at Merryfields Ave. On green belt, it abuts the nature reserve and footpath 13. The owner of this land has had several planning applications refused in the past on account of the threat to local wildlife, impact on ancient woodland, lack of access, the danger of flooding from the nearby stream and run off from the road. Also worthy of note is the land to the north east of Folly Chase also proposed for development - also in the green belt and adjacent to ancient woodland with protected trees (Betts Wood). To the west of the site there is green lane bordered with ancient trees which should be protected if development takes place.. There is no public access to the site and there is concern that the adjacent community centre could be sacrificed for this purpose.

Young people/couples do indeed find it difficult to purchase property in Hockley. It is hoped that the new developments proposed will cater for their needs with more semi-detached properties than is now the case. The growing elderly population requiring specialist/suitable accommodation need assistance. Many elderly single people are living in family-sized homes when they would prefer more suitable accommodation such as bungalows or purpose-built flats.


The main access to Hockley and on to Southend is via the B1013; one of the busiest ‘B’ roads in the country. It is difficult to understand how this already congested road could cope with the vehicles from another 1,000 houses in Hockley, let alone those from adjacent villages and towns. Rochford District is on a peninsular: traffic can go no further than Southend especially with limited access to the north of the county via Battlesbridge. It is suggested the Council undertake a road traffic survey before continuing with the District Plan.

Hockley is served by two GP practices, as has been the case for 50 years or more. Hockley’s health clinic closed in the last few year and young mothers and the elderly have to travel to Rayleigh for medical attention. What are the plans for additional health services in line with the vastly increased population should the plan be enforced?

Unfortunately for the youth of Hockley, there is no sports field they can use in the village. The District Plan does mention the use of the Greensward Playfield and it is to be hoped this will be progressed.

Hockley is fortunate in having a library but its future is uncertain.

Hockley benefits from being on the main Southend Victoria/Liverpool Street train line. Unfortunately its bus service is not so efficient with the nos 7 and 8 services passing through the village from Southend to Rayleigh and vice versa twice an hour. Services to other parts of the district/county have to be accessed from these two termini.

The District Plan places great emphasis on health and well-being. Fortuntely Hockley is well served with a network of footpaths. It is important that they are maintained and not encroached upon by development.


Surrounded by Green Belt, Hockley is lucky in having access to a number of open spaces. It is noted that the Marylands Nature Reserve is included in The District Plan but not Plumberow Mount Open Space or St Peter’s Road Open Space – all maintained by the Parish Council. Marylands Woods, Plumberow Woods, Crabtree Woods, Hockley Hall Woods and nearby Beckney Woods are all ancient woodland but in private hands. It would be of great benefit to the community if they were included in the Local Plan and protected for the future. Betts Wood and, of course, Hockley Woods are in the care of the RDC.

With so much development, it is obvious that flora and fauna will suffer. Consideration should be given to identifying further green spaces (not just play areas) for public use. Efforts should be made to ensure wild-life corridors are incorporated into developments near to woods and open countryside.


The District Plan contains a list of conservation areas. It is disappointing to note that Ss Peter and Pauls’ church, Church Road and adjacent buildings (the old school house, Hockley Hall, Mill House and the former rectory) does not appear. In the surrounding green belt, it is constantly under threat and it would be a tremendous loss to the community should this historic part of the village be developed.

Plumberow Mount (a Romano/British tumulus) does not appear in the document as an ancient monument.

These representations have been prepared by Barton Willmore LLP on behalf of Bloor Homes (the ‘Promoters’). The Promoters have an active interest in a Site at Land North of Rectory Road, Hawkwell, which is identified in the Site Location Plan at Appendix 1.
This Site could provide much needed, deliverable residential development in a sustainable and appropriate location, and is considered suitable for allocation within the Rochford New Local Plan (RNLP).
1.2 This Report is submitted in response to the formal public consultation. Section 2 of this report provides comments on the Spatial Options Consultation Paper (SOCP)(2021); and Section 3 responds to the Integrated Impact Assessment (IIA)(July 2021). These sections
are followed by Section 4, which provides an overview and assessment of the Site which is promoted for development at Land North of Rectory Road, Hawkwell.
1.3 A number of supplementary documents are appended to these representations which are referred to throughout. These include a landscape and visual appraisal (LVA) of the site (Appendix 2) of the site, and an indicative framework layout (Appendix 3). Additional
visuals are also included in appendices 4-9, which provide context and support to the LVA and indicative framework layout. A Transport Appraisal (with associated plans and figures) of the site is included within Appendix 10 confirming its sustainability in transport terms.
A Flood Risk and Drainage report is included within Appendix 11 which demonstrates how any flood risk and drainage matters associated with development of the site could also be addressed

[Due to size of full submission, please refer to attached document, along with individual representations to questions].

Summary and Conclusions:
Overall Bloor Homes is supportive of the proposed approach put forward within the SOCP and IIA documents and it is commended that a positive view is taken with regard to strategy option 4 and higher growth options.
Based on the information put forward within the consultation documents and the supporting evidence base we consider that strategy option 4 and the growth option should be pursued across the district in the interests of planning positively for the most sustainable patterns of growth across the district in its context with surrounding areas.
It is also considered that the Green Belt Study and Landscape Character, Sensitivity and Capacity study papers be immediately reviewed in the context of this to realise positive opportunities for growth particularly in the case of greenfield and green belt sites that may be suitable for release.
Land North of Rectory Road, Hawkwell has the opportunity to deliver on the council’s objectives in a sustainable location in Hawkwell consistent with the approach outlined within strategy option 4. The delivery of the site could contribute to addressing the housing needs of the district and local area whilst securing a new defensible green belt boundary and compensatory improvements, alongside additional public open space,
sustainable transport connections, biodiversity net gains, and sustainable infrastructure. Bloor Homes would also be happy to engage with the council further to discuss this opportunity.

Local Plan Spatial Options Consultation
Please find below the comments from Hockley parish Council regarding the Spatial Options consultation.
The need for housing is understood but many of the proposals in the Local Plan Consultation and the impact of over-development in Hockley are a major cause for concern, especially without evidence of supporting infrastructure. This initial consultation informs residents of landowners who have put forward sites for future development so there is a personal gain aspect here. Rochford District Council has a duty to actively support residents needs in all communities and influence
Government policies.
Consultation Process -The volume of information contained in the consultation was difficult to access and view online. Some links did not work properly. RDC are not reaching residents who have no internet.
Spatial Themes not included - Cultural and Accessibility.
Vibrant Town Centres: Work actively with premises owners to assist in the re-letting of any empty shops. Maybe offer a reduced rent to new businesses as a start-up scheme for “local” business only – allowing the entrepreneurs in the Rochford District a chance to showcase their businesses. Discuss with owners of empty shops how they can best strive to fill these premises and if not, then have some visual displays in the windows, perhaps photos of the old towns or useful information, to make them more attractive.
Employment – District is lacking in Environmental services - woodland conservation and management. Work with local schools and colleges, as well as businesses and the job centre, to see what sustainable employment is needed in the district. Incorporate ways to assist in schemes/apprenticeships to train all ages get back into work or upskill (with jobs at the end of training.) Developers should be encouraged to use local labour. The current employment site allocations on Figure 30 do not provide enough space to meet the district’s employment needs through to 2040. There are eighty-seven thousand people in the district. There is no data on the form to suggest how many of these are in employment and how many are looking for work, but the
council need to reassess its future needs to future-proof our residents’ opportunities Improve Long-term Economic growth - Better road networks, gigabit broadband and Wi-Fi. The council should stop developing existing commercial land into housing.
Planned Forms of Housing: Young people/couples do indeed find it difficult to purchase property in Hockley. It is hoped that the new developments proposed will cater for their needs with more semi-detached properties than is now the case. The growing elderly population requiring
specialist/suitable accommodation need assistance. Many elderly single people are living in familysized homes when they would prefer more suitable accommodation such as bungalows or purpose-built flats. Mix of housing for “affordable“ properties with higher standards for gardens and recreational space. Consideration should be given to the provision of house for life, Adapted homes for the disabled, bungalows and other potential buildings for downsizing families. Housing
for the hidden homeless – those “sofa surfing” & Emergency housing. The plan makes no reference
to social housing quotas which should be included in all new developments. By working closely with planners and developers, as well as different charities and communities, residents, and businesses. You will then get a better understanding as to what you need and what will be achievable.
From 1st August it was announced that empty buildings and brownfield sites should be converted rather than build new. This alternative should be evaluated first.
Many development proposals would also mean a further reduction in air quality, light pollution and the loss of trees, farming, and arable land at a time when food production and supply is becoming a cause for concern.
Care needs to be taken to maintain the integrity of the existing settlements with respect to green boundary between Hockley and its neighbours. Essential green belt is being allowed to erode further (suggested land at north of Merryfields Avenue, Turret Farm, Church Road, land north east of Folly Lane, a number of sites on Greensward Lane, Lower Road and High Road) which will be impossible to replace.
Enforcement on unauthorised development is not adequately managed.
Local generation of low-carbon and renewable energy – It is encouraging to learn of Rochford
District Council’s intention to provide housing to meet the needs of both young and old that are
carbon neutral and energy efficient. New developments should be able to source some or all their energy from renewable sources. Solar in all new development as standard. Incentives to encourage existing developments to install solar onto their properties as well as any commercial buildings to be fitted with solar to their roofs; there are many flat roofed buildings all over the district
that could accommodate solar panels without damaging the landscape. Explore tidal energy and seek out suitable locations to ascertain whether it is viable. Retrofitting existing housing and commercial buildings.
Infrastructure - The Council cannot comment on the suitability of sites in the plan without completion of Infrastructure Delivery & Funding Plan, Level 2 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment and Local Cycling & Walking Infrastructure Plan. This is a continuing concern to residents due to the volume of recent and proposed development causing additional pressure on roads, education, social services, health facilities and local
employment opportunities all of which gives a sustainable balance for our communities. The Infrastructure Funding Statement states all financial and non-financial developer contributions relating to Section 106 conditions should be completed but this is not the case when larger sites
are split up. If developers do not honour the conditions the money reverts to ECC and RDC who should use this to improve our existing facilities, especially on our roads and cycle paths which are in a pitiful state of repair and will only worsen with further development if funding is not used where was intended. The volume of traffic has increased to an unacceptable level on the B1013
causing noise, air pollution and disturbance; Is the traffic survey up to date?. The main access to Hockley and on to Southend is via the B1013; one of the busiest ‘B’ roads in the country. It is difficult to understand how this already congested road could cope with the vehicles from another 1,000 houses in Hockley, let alone those from adjacent villages and towns. Rochford District is on
a peninsular: traffic can go no further than Southend especially with limited access to the north of the county via Battlesbridge. It is suggested the Council undertake a road traffic survey before continuing with the District Plan.
Good public transport links are crucial for our villages, neighbourhoods, and town centres. Hockley
benefits from being on the main Southend Victoria/Liverpool Street train line. Unfortunately its bus
service is not so efficient with the nos 7 and 8 services passing through the village from Southend to Rayleigh and vice versa twice an hour. Services to other parts of the district/county have to be accessed from these two termini. The council needs to follow the rule “No development before infrastructure”. Houses are being built without adequate road, pedestrian, and cycle networks in place. New developments should be planned with cycle paths and walkways that link up with existing paths. Designated cycling paths that are separated from existing roads and pavements, but adjacent to our road networks would help improve traffic flow. Ensure the cycle network links with public transport as part of a complete review of sustainable transport. Cycling infrastructure and other sustainable transport methods should be prioritised over a car-centric highway use.
Balancing access against increased congestion will be the issue for a lot of the promoted sites in Hockley. If RDC keep adding small developments to the boundaries of the town, it will overcrowd existing houses and add to urban sprawl.
Ensuring that public rights of way are not blocked by landowners and are kept free from debris. Assess paths to make them accessible to the disabled so that all is inclusive. There are some green areas that do not have public facilities and it would be advantageous to look at offering this in the larger spaces. For example, a small toilet block and hand washing facilities in a car park.
Community infrastructure - Community infrastructure should be preserved and extended.
Access to town centres and secondary shopping by bicycle and foot should be made easier and safer. Hockley has a road network no longer fit for purpose, some schools are near to capacity, it is difficult to obtain a GP or dental appointment. Hockley is served by two GP practices, as has been the case for 50 years or more. Hockley’s health clinic closed in the last few years and
young mothers and the elderly have to travel to Rayleigh for medical attention. What are the plans for additional health services in line with the vastly increased population should the plan be enforced?. There is little to no disabled play areas or play equipment. There are always issues with waste collections, drain and road cleaning and verge trimming. The District Council does not have the staff to deal with all these issues. The current recycling site at Castle Road, Rayleigh is
no longer capable of expanding to meet the needs of an ever-growing population. The plan should also identify a site to accommodate commercial waste facilities to stop fly tipping.
Open Spaces - The value of our open spaces and the issues with climate change has become a priority. People will continue to reduce travel and split time working from home. Our open spaces are essential for wellbeing, exercise and relaxation. We are on an overpopulated peninsular surrounded by water with one way in and one way out and there is a proven risk of flooding. Open
space is at a premium. Unfortunately for the youth of Hockley, there is no sports field they can use in the village. The District Plan does mention the use of the Greensward Playfield and it is to be hoped this will be progressed. The District Plan places great emphasis on health and wellbeing. Fortunately Hockley is well served with a network of footpaths. It is important that they
are maintained and not encroached upon by development All green spaces, no matter how small, hold some significance, especially to those who use them
for recreation. They are of community value and should not be developed. It is reasonable for RDC to encourage the development of a garden village away from existing communities to accommodate the Governments home building targets. RDC must protect all recreational spaces
and improve them, where necessary.
Conservation areas, Green Belt & sites subject to the exclusion criteria (i.e. Sites of Special Scientific Interest) on the call for sites must be protected from Development.
Local Wildlife Sites review: RDC policies for protecting wildlife areas need to be updated. Designating initial sites is a step in the right direction but more must be done. It is proven that mental health issues can be relieved by nature and keeping the sites sacred is more important now than it ever was. Keeping a biodiverse environment, with wildlife and the environment in which it relies is paramount. The plan should create new wildlife meadows to encourage the pollinators to future proof our own existence.
RDC to focus on concerns and consideration to wildlife, birds, animals, and insects. Alongside plants and endangered species. Surrounded by Green Belt, Hockley is lucky in having access to a number of open spaces. It is noted that the Marylands Nature Reserve is included in The District Plan but not Plumberow Mount Open Space or St Peter’s Road Open Space – all maintained by the Parish Council. Marylands Woods, Plumberow Woods, Crabtree Woods, Hockley Hall Woods and nearby
Beckney Woods are all ancient woodland but in private hands. It would be of great benefit to the community if they were included in the Local Plan and protected for the future. Betts Wood and, of course, Hockley Woods are in the care of the RDC. With so much development, it is obvious that flora and fauna will suffer. Consideration should be given to identifying further green spaces (not just play areas) for public use. Efforts should be
made to ensure wild-life corridors are incorporated into developments near to woods and open countryside.
Heritage
The District Plan contains a list of conservation areas. It is disappointing to note that St Peter and Pauls’ Church, Church Road and adjacent buildings (the old school house, Hockley Hall, Mill House and the former rectory) does not appear. In the surrounding green belt, it is constantly under threat and it would be a tremendous loss to the community should this historic part of the
village be developed.
Plumberow Mount (a Romano/British tumulus) does not appear in the document as an ancient monument.
Promoted Sites (Hockley)
The plan proposes around 1000 additional houses in Hockley with other developments on land bordering the parish. This density will have a major detrimental impact on the quality of life for the settlements.
• CFS105 (Land North of Hambro Hill) would negatively impact the openness of the Green Belt between Rayleigh & Hockley. Rochford Green belt study states this parcel of greenbelt has a ‘Moderate’ rating for Purpose 1, and a ‘Strong’ rating for 2 & 3. It checks the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas, prevents Rayleigh & Hockley merging into one another, and assists in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.
• The Merryfields Avenue (green belt) proposal has been previously rejected by residents due to access issues as the land borders on the Nature Reserve and footpath 13. Consideration should be given to incorporating it into the Reserve rather than releasing it for development. The owner of the tract of land has made a few unsuccessful planning applications in the past on account of the threat to local wildlife, impact on ancient woodland, lack of access, the danger of flooding from the nearby stream and run off from the road. The cost effectiveness of providing access and services could prove to be exorbitant along with any damage incurred on the nearby
Nature Reserve, better that the land become part of the Reserve.
• Proposals for Folly Chase and Church Road will increase density and give further traffic problems on a busy county access road which has light industry and equestrian centres but does not have footways for pedestrian safety; vehicles are also subject to dangerous line of sight restrictions. The Folly Chase proposal was previously rejected by residents and supposedly dismissed by RDC but still appears in the Local Plan for development. The land to the north east of Folly Chase is adjacent to ancient woodland with protected trees (Betts Wood).
To the west of the site there is a green lane bordered with ancient trees which should be protected if development takes place. There is no public access to the site and there is concern that the adjacent community centre could be sacrificed for this purpose. What are the plans for the Community Centre and public footpaths which must be retained?
• Sheltered accommodation is in danger of being lost at Lime Court and Poplar Court.
• The proposal for development on land at Belchamps is particularly contentious due to the lack of open space for activities available to youngsters and community groups in the Rochford District. Any considered development would be a detrimental impact to the Historical
woodlands. This site has been a very valuable well used resource and it is important this is retained for our future generations.
• As Hockley Woods is the largest remaining wild woodland in the country RDC should be doing EVERYTHING it can to save it from development, either adjacent to or close by. RDC should also actively be adding to it by planting more trees to future proof its existence and status. RDC must protect any thoroughfares that access Hockley Wood.
These comments will be publicised on the Parish Council website, I would be grateful if you could do the same on the Rochford District Council website.

1.0 Introduction
1.1 These representations are submitted to the Rochford New Local Plan Spatial Options (RLPSO) on behalf of Countryside Properties and in respect of Land at Pulpits Farm, Hockley.
1.2 The Site has previously been submitted in response to the Council’s Call for Sites, and is reference CFS263 in the Council’s plan-making process (although also referred to as Site 272, in the Council’s Green Belt Study (2020))
1.3 This representation should be read alongside the Vision Document that has been prepared in respect of the development of the Site, and which accompanies the
representations as Appendix A.
2.0 Response to Local Plan Spatial Options Question 4
Q4. Do you agree with the strategic priorities and objectives we have identifies? Is there anything missing from the strategic priorities or objectives that you feel
needs to be included?
2.1 We suggest that improving the affordability of housing for local people in Rochford District should form an objective of the Local Plan.
2.2 As the RLPSO rightly recognises at page 12, housing affordability is a particularly issue within the District.
2.3 ONS data on the affordability of housing reports that in 2020 the median house price was 11.57 times the median gross annual workplace-based earnings. The affordability of housing has worsened significantly in recent years, and is substantially worse than the
national average.
2.4 Without an increase in housing supply, we consider there is a very real risk that it will only worsen.
2.5 Not only do current projections suggest increased housing need in the District, but the longer term impact of the Covid-19 pandemic may well place additional pressure on Rochford’s housing market and affordability of homes for local people.
2.6 Early indications are that there has already been an increased desire to move from more to less urban areas, due to a combination of a desire for homes with larger garden areas and home offices, better access to open space, and within less densely populated areas; and people considering it less critical to live very near their place of work, given the increase in home working within a number of employment sectors.
2.7 This is of particular relevance to Rochford District, given that London is accessible via railway services from parts of the District; and house prices are relatively affordable when compared to other areas in and around London.
3.0 Response to Local Plan Spatial Options Question 6
Which of the identified strategy options do you consider should be taken forward in the Plan?
3.1 We consider that a balanced approach that includes direction of a relatively significant proportion of the District’s housing needs to the higher tier settlements (including Hockley) would be the most appropriate strategy, for the reason set out below.
Strategy Option 1 – Urban Intensification
3.2 The RLPSO states that this option would entail making best possible use of our existing planned developments, previously developed land and other under-utilised land, such as vacant buildings and contaminated land; and notes that a strategy based on urban intensification could also include taking a more permissive approach to higher densities in suitable locations (such as town centres and near stations). It is suggested this would involve no loss of Green Belt land, would minimise loss of greenfield, and would deliver
4,200 homes over the next 10 years.
3.3 The RLPSO describes Strategy Option 1 as “the minimum expectation of national policy” and states it is “likely to be required within every strategy option”.
3.4 We agree that it would be consistent with national policy to seek to promote the redevelopment of appropriate previously developed land to help meet development needs. However, we consider that a strategy which were to rely purely on this to meet development needs would be ineffective, unsustainable, incapable of meeting development needs in full as required by national policy, and result in a Local Plan that would be inherently unsound.
3.5 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) confirms (paragraph 35) that one of the requirements of a sound Local Plan is that it seeks to meet the area’s objectively assessed development needs in full. The NPPF also emphasises the Government’s objective to significantly boost housing land supply (paragraph 60).
3.6 However, the RLPSO acknowledges that Strategy Option 1 would fall significantly short of meeting local development needs in full. Not only would this render the plan unsound and contrary to the NPPF, but it would likely result in significant negative social and economic impacts locally.
3.7 In any case, we consider that a yield of 4,200 dwellings over 10 years through urban intensification to be unfeasibly optimistic.
3.8 To achieve this quantum, it would be necessary to sustain an average of 420 dwellings per annum (dpa) over a 10-year period. The Council’s Annual Monitoring Report 2019/20 states that between April 2010 and March 2020, the District achieved a total of 1,768 dwelling completions over this particular 10-year period – an average of just 177 dpa. Furthermore, the delivery of these 1,768 dwellings was not solely through urban
intensification, but also included allocations made through the Rochford Allocations Plan (2014). There is of course only a finite supply of previously developed land that is
suitable and viable for residential redevelopment, and it is considered that much of this has likely already been exhausted, particularly given the emphasis placed by national and local policy on utilising such sites.
3.9 In addition to Strategy Option 1 being unlikely to deliver anywhere near the number of new homes needed in the District, we would also question the appropriateness of such a strategy in any case. To make a meaningful contribution to housing needs over the
plan period, this strategy would likely require development at a significantly greater density than existing development in the District. Not only could this be harmful to the character of the District’s residential areas, but it may also result in loss of amenity for existing residents.
3.10 Furthermore, it is unclear if this approach would deliver the types of homes required where they are required in the District. Such a strategy is, for example, unlikely to deliver a high proportion of family homes.
3.11 For the above reasons, we do not consider that Strategy Option 1 is capable of resulting in a sound Local Plan and should be discounted.
Strategy Options 2, 3 and 4
3.12 Given Strategy Option 1’s inability to result in a sound Local Plan, this leaves Options 2, 3 and 4 as potential strategies.
3.13 Strategy Option 2 is to focus on urban extensions, with Option 2a entailing focussing such growth on the District’s main towns; and Option 2b dispersing to all settlements based on the settlement hierarchy.
3.14 Through Strategy Option 2 sustainable sites could be utilised at the edge of settlements, which should include Hockley, to deliver a range of housing developments, including the provision of much needed housing in the short term. This option provides flexibility to utilise smaller sites to deliver homes earlier alongside larger sites to meet the overall housing need.
3.15 We consider that Strategy Option 2b should include growth to Hockley, given that it is a top tier settlement in the adopted Development Plan’s settlement hierarchy.
3.16 In relation to Option 3, this suggests focussing growth on one of three locations (west of Rayleigh (3a); north of Southend (3b); and east of Rochford (3c)). We consider there is merit to strategic scale growth that can help deliver significant infrastructure improvements. However, this needs to be complemented by the delivery of a range of different sites (including those that can deliver in the short term and do not require
significant infrastructure improvements) and in a range of different locations that reflect the fact that the District comprises a number of distinct settlements with their own
identities and communities, all of which the Local Plan should seek to support.
3.17 The outcome of the Uttlesford Local Plan Examination provdes a warning regarding the dangers of over reliance on large strategic growth sites to meet housing needs. Recommending the submitted plan be withdrawn due to soundness issues, the Inspectors concluded:
“In order to arrive at a sound strategy, we consider that as a primary consideration, the Council would need to allocate more small and medium sized sites that could
deliver homes in the short to medium term and help to bolster the 5 year [housing land supply], until the Garden Communities begin to deliver housing. This would have
the benefit of providing flexibility and choice in the market and the earlier provision of more affordable housing”. (Paragraph 114 of Uttlesford Local Plan Examination
Inspectors’ letter of 10 January 2020)
3.18 This does not of course mean that the strategy cannot include strategic growth allocations, only that if it were to, they would need to be accompanied by a range of other small and medium sized sites.
3.19 Strategy Option 4 entails a mix of the other options, and rightly recognises that the alloction of strategic growth sites and the allocation of urban extensions are not mutually exclusive. We consider this option does have particular merit, and it is notable that it was scored positively by the Integrated Impact Assessment (IIA) in relation to its social, economic and environmental impacts. This option will still allow for current housing
needs to be addressed in the short term, as the Local Plan is required to; as well as enabling provision of strategic allocations if so wished. It will also allow for proportionate growth to be directed to the District’s various communities through settlement extensions, including Hockley – something which we consider is essential for the Local Plan to do if it is to deliver sustainable development.
Hockley
3.20 We consider that, in order for the Local Plan’s spatial strategy to promote sustainable development, to be justified, and to be capable of being found sound, it will be essential for it to direct a proportion of the District’s growth to Hockley.
3.21 Hockley / Hawkwell is identified as a Tier 1 settlement in the current Development Plan, i.e. one of the settlements considered most sustainable to accommodate greatest levels of growth.
3.22 Notwithstanding this, the District has experienced considerably less housing development since adoption of the Core Strategy than the other two Tier 1 settlements.
It is recognised that this is in part due to aspirations for the redevelopment of the town centre not being realised, as conditions have changed; and also partly due to constraints to the settlement’s growth as a result of Hockley Woods and the Upper Roach Valley Special Landscape Area to the south. Nevertheless, there are opportunities to deliver sustainable extensions to the existing settlement, particularly located away from the
more sensitive areas to the south.
3.23 Hockley is an established, vibrant community with a long history. It is important that planning helps support and enhance the vitality of the community, including by directing future growth to the settlement.
3.24 The RLPSO recognises that housing affordability and availability are key issues in Hockley. The Local Plan represents an opportunity to help address this issue, by
directing additional housing to this location. Conversely, failure to direct sufficient housing to Hockley is likely to result in housing becoming increasingly unaffordable for
local people. It is manifestly clear that if the Local Plan is to be a sound plan that meets development needs in a sustainable manner, then it cannot rely on RLPSO Option 1.
Alterations to the Green Belt boundary
3.25 It is evident that the District’s Green Belt boundaries will need to be amended in order to meet development needs and provide a sound plan for the future of the District.
3.26 The NPPF confirms (paragraph 140) that Local Plans are the appropriate vehicle through which to make alterations to the Green Belt boundary.
3.27 The NPPF (paragraph 140 again) also states that such alterations should only be made where exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and justified.
3.28 Exceptional circumstances are not defined in national policy or guidance.
3.29 However, there is case law which provides a basis for the consideration of the issue. In particular, the judgment in Calverton Parish Council v Nottingham City Council & Ors [2015] EWHC 1078 (Admin) suggests (paragraph 51) that the following matters are relevant in the consideration of whether exceptional circumstances exist to justify alterations to the Green Belt:
 The scale of the objectively assessed need;
 Constraints on supply/availability of land with the potential to accommodate sustainable development;
 Difficulties in achieving sustainable development without impinging on the Green Belt;
 The nature and extent of the harm to the Green Belt; and  The extent to which impacts on the purposes of the Green Belt may be mitigated as far as practicable.
3.30 The District is subject to an acute local housing need. The existing Green Belt boundary
is drawn tightly around the District’s existing settlements, and opportunities to meet development needs are severely restricted without alterations to the Green Belt
boundary.
3.31 Given the scale of objectively assessed need faced by the District, and the lack of potential alternatives to releasing Green Belt in order to sustainably meet such needs, it is evident that there are exceptional circumstances that justify alteration to the Green
Belt through the Rochford Local Plan.
4.0 Response to Local Plan Spatial Options Question 29
Do you agree that the plan should designate and protect areas of land of locally important wildlife value as a local wildlife site, having regard to the Local Wildlife Sites review? Are there any other sites that you feel are worthy of protection?
4.1 We agree that the Local Plan should seek to protect areas of locally important wildlife. Furthermore, we consider it should seek to deliver ecological gains.
4.2 However, the designation of such sites must be justified by robust evidence.
4.3 The 2018 Local Wildlife Review suggested a new Local Wildlife Site (R41) which
incorporates some of what is currently Local Wildlife Site R24, along with additional land to the west of this, including part of the Land at Pulpits Farm (CFS263 (‘the Site’).
4.4 The evidence for designating such additional land as a Local Wildlife Site is unclear.
4.5 It is not clear from the 2018 Local Wildlife Site Review what particular characteristics of the land forming part of CFS263 proposed to be designated as a Local Wildlife Site justify this land’s designation as such.
4.6 There is no evidence that a detailed survey of the Site was undertaken as part of the 2018 Local Wildlife Site Review that could justify its inclusion within a Local Wildlife Site.
4.7 The Site has been subject to an ecological constraints and opportunities survey, undertaken in 2020 by qualified specialist ecological consultancy, Southern Ecological Solutions.
4.8 This survey identified that the Site comprises habitats of varying value to biodiversity, with the most suitable habitat at the Site’s boundaries in the form of hedgerows, mature trees, rough grassland margins and watercourses. However, there was nothing to suggest that the Site merits any form of designation for its ecological value.
4.9 A copy of this initial survey is provided as Appendix B to these representations.
4.10 It is not the case that evidence must be provided to set out why the Site should not form part of the Local Wildlife Site. On the contrary, if this land is to be designated as a Local Wildlife Site, it is incumbent upon the Council to provide robust evidence justifying this.
4.11 We do not consider the Site merits designation for its ecological value, and would object to any proposals to do so. However, we do recognise that parts of the Site are of
ecological value. As part of the development of the Site, existing ecological features would be retained and, where practicable, enhanced.
4.12 It is important to recognise that development of land often has the potential to engender ecological benefits, and that would be the case in the development of site CFS263.
5.0 Response to Local Plan Spatial Options Question 58
Q58a. Do you agree with our vision for Hockley and Hawkwell? Is there anything you feel is missing?
5.1 We agree with the vision for Hockley as proposed by the RLPSO.
5.2 In particular, we very much support the objective of improving housing affordability in order to ensure that local first-time buyers can afford to live locally.
5.3 If this vision is to be realised, it will be imperative to provide a sufficient number of new homes for Hockley, and of a variety of types and tenures, to meet all of the community’s needs.
Q58b. With reference to Figure 46 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the promoted sites should be made available for any of the following uses? How could that improve the completeness of Hockley and Hawkwell?
i. Housing
5.4 Land at Pulpits Farm (CFS263, ‘the Site’) is suitable, available, and achievable for residential development as a sustainable extension to Hockley. The Vision Document
which accompanies this representation (Appendix A) sets out details regarding the Site’s ability to sustainably deliver a high-quality development.
5.5 The Site was considered through the Council’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHELAA) (2020). The SHELAA (2020) considered the Site’s suitability in relation to a multitude of constraints, including policy, environmental, ecological, heritage
and physical constraints. In respect of the Site and potential constraints, this assessment concluded:
“Green Belt site that is currently in mixed use with residential and ancillary outbuildings, with some vacant grassland. There is an existing access with no
fundamental constraints to redevelopment of the site” [Emphasis added].
5.6 In summary, the only constraint to the Site’s development identified was its location within the Green Belt in the current Development Plan – a policy constraint.
5.7 In addition, the SHELAA (2020) assessed the Site’s suitability in terms of its accessibility to local services.
5.8 In relation to accessibility alone, it stated:
“There are two bus stops within c 0.3km of the site, however these are served by only two bus routes (No7/18). A private road connects the site to Greensward Lane, a C road which traverses the centre of Hockley before connecting to the wider strategic road network”
5.9 In addition to the points made within the SHELAA (2020) we would add that the Site is c.12 minutes walking distance from Hockley railway station. When considering
accessibility of this Site, and its appropriateness for allocation, this is clearly a key consideration.
5.10 In particular, it is important to note that the NPPF instructs Local Planning Authorities to prioritise sites that have good access to public transport when considering release of Green Belt to meet development needs. At paragraph 142 of the NPPF it states:
“Where it has been concluded that it is necessary to release Green Belt land for development, plans should give first consideration to land which has been previouslydeveloped and/or is well-served by public transport”.
5.11 The Green Belt is drawn tightly around the existing extent of residential development in Hockley. As noted in our response to Question 6, Hockley is clearly a sustainable location to accommodate a proportion of the District’s housing needs, and furthermore it is important that the vitality of Hockley be supported through the direction of sustainable growth to the settlement. It will be necessary to direct some growth to Hockley in order to ensure a sound Local Plan that delivers sustainable development, and to deliver this it will be necessary to alter the existing Green Belt boundary. In making such a revision, sites such as CFS263 which have good access to public transport should be prioritised for residential allocation.
5.12 The SHELAA (2020) considered the Site’s proximity to local services and stated: “A primary school sits c 1km to the east of the site, with a secondary school c 0.6km
to the west. A garden centres [sic] sits within C 0.3km of the site with a small number of shops along Greensward Lane”.
5.13 We consider the above significantly understates the range of local services and facilities that are in proximity to the Site.
5.14 In particular, the SHELAA (2020) appears to have overlooked that the Site is adjacent to
a GP surgery.
5.15 The Site is also well located in relation to a range of other services, facilities, employment opportunities and centres. As set out in the Vision Document that accompanies this representation, the following can be reached without use of a car within the following
journey times:
Walking:
Bus stop 1 minute
Greensward Surgery 1 minute
Greensward Academy Secondary School 5 minutes
Hockley Railway Station 12 minutes
Plumberow Academy Primary School 15 minutes
Convenience retail (Co-Op, Spa Road) 15 minutes
Hockley Post Office 15 minutes
Eldon Way 15 minutes
Approximate centre of Hockley Town Centre 17 minutes
Bus:
Approximate centre of Hockley Town Centre 5 minutes
Rochford Town Centre 14 minutes
Rayleigh Town Centre 16 minutes
Train:
Southend Victoria 27 minutes
London Liverpool Street 60 minutes
5.16 In 2014, sustainable transport charity Sustrans estimated that school traffic contributed,
nationally, to 24% of all traffic at peak times. The accessibility of both primary and
secondary schools from the Site without reliance on a car, and the potential to avoid
additional traffic that might be otherwise generated, is considered to be a factor which
weighs significantly in favour of utilising this Site to help meet housing needs.
5.17 The principal constraint to the Site’s development is that it is currently within the Green Belt.
5.18 In terms of the Site’s contribution to the purposes of the Green Belt, it is relevant to note that is an edge-of-settlement Site, the character of which has been influenced by adjacent residential uses to the north, west and south. The Site is subject to a degree of containment provided by existing features, and its development would not give rise to unrestricted urban sprawl. On the contrary, it would allow for a new, robust Green Belt
boundary to be implemented.
5.19 The Council’s Rochford District and Southend-on-Sea Borough Joint Green Belt Study February 2020 (‘the Green Belt Study (2020)’ concluded that the western portion of the Site could be developed with only moderate harm to the Green Belt. This is before mitigation measures are factored in (which case law suggests must be considered in determining whether exceptional circumstances apply), and once potential measures are
accounted for (such as provision of landscape buffers) it is considered that the Site’s development would not undermine the strategic purposes of the Green Belt.
5.20 Use of the Site to provide market and affordable homes would result in a number of social, economic and environmental benefits, as set out within the Vision Document
(Appendix A). These include, in summary:
 Market and affordable homes to help meet acute local need;
 Highly accessible Site, with opportunities for future residents to access services and facilities without use of a car;
 Efficient use of land which lacks environmental constraints, reducing pressure to develop more sensitive sites to meet needs;
 Provision of variety of public open space across the Site, including informal open space, ponds, structural landscaping for wildlife;
Increased expenditure within the local area, supporting jobs and helping sustain local facilities and services;
 Creation of direct employment during construction, as well as indirect employment related to the supply chain;
 Landscape and ecological enhancements as part of development;
 Development within a location that will help sustain the vitality of Hockley Town Centre.
5.21 It is important that where Green Belt is released for housing, the Council can have confidence that such land will be delivered and contribute to meeting needs.
5.22 In addition to being suitable and sustainable, the Site is also available and achievable for residential development.
5.23 The Site is not subject to any legal or ownership constraints to development.
5.24 The Site is being actively promoted for development by an established housebuilder with a track record of delivery. The Council can be confident that the Site will be deliver, and through a high-quality development, if allocated through the Local Plan.
6.0 Comments on Integrated Impact Assessment
Assessment Framework
6.1 At Table 1.1 of the Integrated Impact Assessment (IIA), the assessment framework is set out. This explains that the objectives of the population and communities theme are
1) to cater for existing and future residents’ needs as well as the needs of different groups in the community; and 2) maintain and enhance community and settlement identity.
6.2 In respective of objective 1, Table 1.1 explains that assessment questions relate to the following:
 Meet the identified objectively assessed housing needs, including affordable, for the plan area?
 Ensure an appropriate mix of dwelling sizes, types and tenures to meet the needs of all sectors of the community?
 Improve cross-boundary links between communities?
 Provide housing in sustainable locations that allow easy access to a range of local services and facilities?
 Promote the development of a range of high quality, accessible community facilities, including specialist services for disabled and older people?
6.3 We support the above decision-aiding question, but suggest that, in addition to meeting the District’s housing needs (including affordable housing), the Local Plan should seek to improve the affordability of housing for local residents.
6.4 The median house price in the District is 11.57 times the median gross annual workplacebased earnings (‘the affordability ratio’). The affordability of housing has worsened significantly in recent years – and to a much greater extent than the national average. In 2000, the affordability ratio for the District was 5.08 – only slightly worse than the national average of 4.13. By 2020, the national affordability ratio had increased to 7.69 –
significantly below the District’s 11.57.

Q1. Are there any other technical evidence studies that
you feel the Council needs to prepare to inform its
new Local Plan, other than those listed in this section?

The Council would expect to see specific reference to:
• The Infrastructure Delivery and Funding Plan
• Level 2 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment
• Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan
These plans are vital to the long-term sustainability assessment of any proposed sites. Without these
we are unable to comment
Evaluation of the impact of current development on the town of Rayleigh
Rochford District Council should produce its own estimate of Housing need with which to Challenge the figures imposed by Westminster, it is known that the nearest neighbours have all done this.
The Town Council cannot comment on the suitability of the sites in the plan without completion of an
Infrastructure Delivery and Funding Plan which is being undertaken at present, why has this consultation been undertaken before this is available. RDC, ECC, and SBC,
I would expect it to see specific reference to
i) the main Roads and the principal junctions and exit points to Rayleigh, there is potential in this
plan is to build on London Road, Eastwood Road, Hockley Road and Hullbridge Road simultaneously.
ii) Consultation with the actual schools in Rayleigh as to capacity, too often there are no places in
specific school.
iii) Consultation with Doctors and Pharmacies as well the local Healthcare Trust, again there is
evidence of no capacity in certain parts of Rayleigh.
iv) Next level HealthCare such as Hospitals, need consulting, as they are overstretched.
v) Air Quality Management - too many parts of Rayleigh have poor CO2/CO readings
Any such Plan would need agreement with Rochford District Council, Essex County Council, and
Southend Borough Council as they are all affected

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]
Mostly. Although you have not included enough information on how you might achieve housing for
the hidden homeless or those on low incomes, schemes to allow the elderly in large houses to be able
to downsize or how you plan to provide suitable commercial units of varying sizes, to allow businesses
to up or downsize into a suitably sized premises without them needing to relocate into another area.
No provision for emergency housing.

Q3. Do you agree that we should develop a range of
separate visions for each of our settlements to help
guide decision-making? [Please state reasoning]
Yes, as each settlement has its own characteristics and needs.

Q4. Do you agree with the strategic priorities and
objectives we have identified? Is there anything
missing from the strategic priorities or objectives that
you feel needs to be included? [Please state
reasoning]
No comments.

Q5. Do you agree with the settlement hierarchy
presented? If not, what changes do you think are
required? [Please state reasoning]
Yes. Rayleigh is the largest town in the district but care needs to be taken to maintain the integrity of
the existing settlements with respect to green boundary between Rayleigh and its neighbours.

Q6. Which of the identified strategy options do you
consider should be taken forward in the Plan? [Please
state reasoning]
Creating a new town would enable all the infrastructure to be put in place, allowing more scope for
cycling routes and pedestrianised areas. This will stop the urban sprawl which is currently happening
in the larger town (and proposed in option 1), creating traffic havoc and pollution. A single large
"garden" village, possibly shared with Southend could allow a more environmentally friendly
development. A development that allows the infrastructure to be developed in advance of the
housing.

Q7. Are there any reasonable alternatives to these options that should be considered instead? [Please state
reasoning]
Small development and windfall developments should be included in housing count.

Q8. Are there any key spatial themes that you feel we
have missed or that require greater emphasis? [Please
state reasoning]
Yes: Cultural and Accessibility.

Q9. Do you agree we should take a sequential approach to flood risk and coastal change in our plan, locating
development away from areas at risk of flooding and
coastal change wherever possible? How can we best
protect current and future communities from flood
risk and coastal change? [Please state reasoning]
Yes. You must ensure the district has a suitable plan to protect not only the towns and village communities, their houses and businesses but also the natural areas as well. The district needs adequate defences to limit flooding in all areas, protecting people and wildlife. Maybe these could be incorporated in the “natural” landscape theming so as to deflect any water away from these areas.
New developments not only need to address their carbon footprint but also the design of the housing they build so that they limit flood damage; raised floors, bunded gardens etc.
The plan must include or identify a flood plane that is protected from development.

Q10. Do you agree that the Coastal Protection Belt and
Upper Roach Valley should be protected from
development that would be harmful to their
landscape character? Are there other areas that you
feel should be protected for their special landscape
character? [Please state reasoning]
All the coastal areas and areas of special interest, especially where there is a significant risk of
flooding and harm to the environment need careful consideration.
The Ancient woodlands such as Kingley Woods, Hockley Woods and Rayleigh Grove Woods and all
natural parks, not just the actual woodlands but also the surrounding areas

Q11. Do you agree we should require development to
source a percentage of their energy from low-carbon
and renewable sources? Are there other opportunities
in the district to supply low-carbon or renewable
energy?
Yes.
New developments should be able to source some or all of their energy from renewable sources.

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].
Yes. The Town Council believes that you should aim to achieve a higher standard if possible and
encourage developers to put forward new ways of achieving this. You must plan for future generations and should not be stuck in the past. Why go for minimum standards? Always aim higher! Keep the technology under review to capitalise on new development.

Q13. How do you feel the plan can help to support the local generation of low-carbon and renewable energy? Are there locations where you feel energy generation
should be supported? [Please state reasoning]
Solar in all new development as standard. Incentives to encourage existing developments to install
solar onto their properties as well as any commercial buildings to be fitted with solar to their roofs;
there are many flat roofed buildings all over the district that could accommodate solar panels without
damaging the landscape. Explore tidal energy and seek out suitable locations in order to ascertain
whether it is viable. Retrofitting existing housing and commercial buildings

Q14. Do you consider that the plan should include a placemaking 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 district has some very distinct areas and a “one shoe fits all” would be detrimental to some smaller communities. The place-making charter should be bespoke, with each area being considered
in its own right. The rules on building should be strict so as to enhance the areas of development and needs to consider the wider picture in respect of amenities, open spaces, retail, schools, services, pollution, character and accessibility (to name but a few). There should not be deviation of plans unless there are exceptional circumstances. Time and again, SPD2 documents are ignored and ugly extensions and dormers are built to the detriment of the area.

Q15. Are the principles set out in the draft place-making
charter the right ones? Are there other principles that
should be included? [Please state reasoning]
They are, as long as they are adhered to.

Q16.
a. Do you consider that new design guides, codes or
masterplans should be created alongside the new
Local Plan?
Yes.
b. If yes, do you think it is more appropriate to have a
single design guide/code for the whole District, or to
have design guides/codes/masterplans for individual
settlements or growth areas? [Please state reasoning]
You need different design guides as this district is both unique and diverse and the “one shoe fits all"
would be detrimental to its character and charm.
c. What do you think should be included in design
guides/codes/masterplans at the scale you are
suggesting? [Please state reasoning].
You need to ensure that the character and heritage of the settlements are adhered to whilst allowing for some growth, in order to rejuvenate the smaller settlements if needed.

Q17. With reference to the options listed above, or your
own options, how do you feel we can best plan to
meet our need for different types, sizes and tenures of
housing? [Please state reasoning]
By working closely with planners and developers, as well as different charities and communities,
residents and businesses. You will then get a better understanding as to what you need and what will
be achievable.

Q18. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there areas or sites in Rochford that you feel require a specific approach to housing types, size and tenure?
What is required to meet housing needs in these
areas? [Please state reasoning]
The district has a large number of houses, existing and approved that have four or five bedrooms. The number of homes available with two or three bedrooms is minimal, which increases their price and availability. The smaller properties are the ones that need to be affordable for families. You must ensure that the “affordable“ properties are not all flats and that minimum or higher standards are
met for gardens and recreational space. There are sure to be single, elderly residents that would like to downsize from their large family homes, into a smaller, more manageable one but do not wish to go into an assisted living, residential or retirement homes. They may want a one or two bedroomed property, maybe one storey, or low-rise apartment that they own freehold. The Council would like to safeguard the number of smaller bungalows available and make sure that the existing stock is preserved and a suitable number are provided in the housing mix. You need to consider that some residents may need residential care and you should be looking at ways to cope with the rising number of elderly and provide accommodation for them also.
Consideration should be given to the provision of house for life, bungalows and other potential buildings for downsizing families.
The plan makes no reference to social housing quotas.
The district desperately needs to meet the needs of the hidden homeless. People like the adult children on low wages who have no hope of starting a life of their own away from their parents. By living in these conditions, even if the family unit is tight and loving, it will cause mental health issues, stress and anxiety. You also need accessible properties for the disabled members of our community, where they are assisted in order to fulfil a normal as possible life. All these issues, and perhaps many more, need be addressed.

Q19. Are there any other forms of housing that you feel we should be planning for? How can we best plan to meet the need for that form of housing? [Please state
reasoning]
Housing for the hidden homeless – those “sofa surfing”, or adult children living at home with parents as they are on low wages or wages that would not allow them to move out to rent or buy somewhere on their own. Adapted homes for the disabled. Smaller, freehold properties for the older generation to enable them to downsize from large family homes. Emergency housing.

Q20. With reference to the options listed, or your own
options, what do you think is the most appropriate
way of meeting our permanent Gypsy and Traveller
accommodation needs? [Please state reasoning]
You need to find a permanent site that has a little room to expand but not exponentially. The “Traveller” life has changed over the years and you should revisit the criteria for the traveller community to meet the legal requirements. Strong controls are needed to prevent illegal building work and to ensure the site populations do not exceed capacity.

Q21. With reference to the options listed, or your own
options, what do you think is the most appropriate
way of meeting our temporary Gypsy and Traveller
accommodation needs? [Please state reasoning]
See answer to Q20

Q22. What do you consider would need to be included in a criteria-based policy for assessing potential locations
for new Gypsy and Traveller sites? [Please state
reasoning]
See answer to Q20.

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]
The council should stop developing existing commercial land into housing. Too many sites have already been lost and many more are planned to go. Consider how the plan can help those businesses wanting to expand. Work with local schools and colleges, as well as businesses and the job centre, to see what sustainable employment is needed in the district. Incorporate ways to assist in schemes to train all ages get back into work or upskill. Developers should be encouraged to use local labour

Q24. With reference to Figure 30, do you consider the
current employment site allocations to provide
enough space to meet the District’s employment
needs through to 2040? Should we seek to formally
protect any informal employment sites for commercial
uses, including those in the Green Belt? [Please state
reasoning]
No. The current employment site allocations on Figure 30 do not provide enough space to meet the district’s employment needs through to 2040. There are eighty-seven thousand people in the district. There is no data on the form to suggest how many of these are in employment and how many are looking for work but the council need to reassess its future needs in order to future-proof our residents’ opportunities. The plan should only formally protect sites the that have a future and a
potential to expand or continue effectively.

Q25. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to deliver new
employment facilities or improvements to existing
employment facilities?
Option 3 could deliver new opportunities for employment as it would be a new site completely. Industrial units of various sizes, with room for expansion plus retail, hospitality and other employment could be included in the criteria for the development.
Q26. Are there any particular types of employment site or
business accommodation that you consider Rochford
District is lacking, or would benefit from?
Environmental services - woodland conservation and management. (We need to find funding for this
as it is important!) HGV training school and modern transport training. Improve manufacturing base.
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?
Better road networks, gigabit broadband and Wi-Fi. Apprenticeships or training for all ages with jobs
at the end of training. CCTV where appropriate.
Q28. With reference to the options listed above, or your
own options, how do you feel we can best manage the
Airport’s adaptations and growth through the
planning system? [Please state reasoning]
No comments.
Q29. Do you agree that the plan should designate and
protect areas of land of locally important wildlife
value as a local wildlife site, having regard to the Local
Wildlife Sites review? Are there any other sites that
you feel are worthy of protection? [Please state
reasoning]
Yes. You should conform to and improve existing RDC policies for protecting wildlife areas. Everyone should be doing all in their power to protect wildlife sites. All wildlife is important and has been neglected, sites have been slowly lost over the years. Wildlife now enters suburban areas as their own habitats have diminished and they can no longer fend for themselves adequately from nature. Badgers and hedgehogs as well as rabbits, frogs, newts, voles and shrews are declining and are seldom seen apart from dead at the roadside. Bat numbers are declining as their habitats are lost. Designating initial sites is a step in the right direction but more must be done. It is proven that mental health issues can be relieved by nature and keeping the sites sacred is more important now than it ever was.
Keeping a biodiverse environment, with wildlife and the environment in which it relies is paramount. You mention that Doggett Pond no longer meets the standard but are there no steps to improve its status instead of dismissing it? It is obviously an important site for the wildlife in that area. To lose it would be to our detriment. You should be looking at creating new sites with every large housing
development, and protecting them to improve our district and our own wellbeing. Private households should not be allowed to take over grass areas and verges or worse, concreting the verges over for parking and cost savings. These areas, although small are still areas for wildlife. Bees and butterflies are also in decline, as are
the bugs which feed our birds. The plan should create new wildlife meadows to encourage the pollinators in order to future proof our own existence. You should be exploring smaller sites that could be enhanced, managed and protected to give future generations a legacy to be proud of.
Q30. Do you agree that the plan should designate and
protect areas of land of locally important geological
value as a local geological site, having regard to the
Local Wildlife Sites review? Are there any other sites
that you feel are worthy of protection? [Please state
reasoning]
Yes. The plan must protect them for future generations and teach our children their history and importance so that they can continue to keep them safe.
Q31. Do you consider net gains for biodiversity are best
delivered on-site or off-site? Are there specific
locations or projects where net gain projects could be
delivered?
On site. You can then assess in real time and sort out any issues you would not have known about off
site.
Q32. With reference to the options above, or your own
options, how do you feel we can best deliver a quality
green and blue infrastructure network through the
plan? [Please state reasoning]
You need to retain what we already have by ensuring the necessary links are in place to join as many as possible, and ensuring that public rights of way are not blocked by land owners and are kept free from debris. You also need to assess some paths to make them accessible to the disabled so that all is inclusive. There are some green areas that do not have public facilities and it would be advantageous to look into offering this in the larger spaces. For example, a small toilet block and hand washing facilities in the car park. Obtaining funding from new developments that can enhance existing areas as
well as providing new spaces and facilities. The sites should be well-maintained.
Q33. Do you agree that the central woodlands arc and
island wetlands, shown on Figure 32 are the most
appropriate areas for new regional parklands? Are
there any other areas that should be considered or
preferred? [Please state reasoning]
They are a step in the right direction, but you need to assess periodically in order to be able to add further links to any new parkland that may be created in the future. The map is unclear as it does not show exact routes. There is a large open space to the South West of Rayleigh (on the border), South of Bardfield Way and The Grange/Wheatley Wood, which could be enhanced. Existing sites must be retained
Q34. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to help deliver new
strategic green and blue infrastructure? [Please state
reasoning]
Enhancing existing areas and ensuring developers include green space and recreational facilities
within their developments. A new, separate development would be able to deliver this within their plan layout. Ensuring there are suitable links, access and footpaths. Making sure some of these footpaths are maintained and accessible for the disabled.
Q35. With reference to the options above, or your own
options, how can we address the need for sufficient
and accessible community infrastructure through the
plan? [Please state reasoning]
Assess the shortfall of facilities and networks before plans are approved so that adequate planning
and funding can be secured before any building takes place.
Q36. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to deliver new or
improved community infrastructure? [Please state
reasoning]
A new town would have this infrastructure built into its plans. Funding for improvements must otherwise come from developers if an area is already overpopulated.
Q37. Are there areas in the District that you feel have
particularly severe capacity or access issues relating to
community infrastructure, including schools,
healthcare facilities or community facilities? How can
we best address these? [Please state reasoning]
Rayleigh is overcrowded; it has a road network no longer fit for purpose, some schools are near to capacity, it is difficult to obtain a GP or dental appointment. There is little to no disabled play areas or play equipment. There are always issues with waste collections, drain and road cleaning and verge trimming. The District Council does not have the staff to deal with all these issues. The council should either build another waste recycling site, or develop a better waste collection program which allows extra waste to be collected next to the bin. The current recycling site at Castle Road is no longer
capable of expanding to meet the needs of an ever-growing population. The plan should also identify
a site to accommodate commercial waste facilities to stop fly tipping.
Q38. With reference to the options above, or your own
options, how do you feel we can best meet our open
space and sport facility needs through the plan?
[Please state reasoning]
Improve what we already have. The tennis courts on Fairview Park needs improvement. Safeguard our open spaces to protect wildlife and recreation. Develop different types of sporting facilities. We need to offer free recreation.
Q39. Are the potential locations for 3G pitch investment
the right ones? Are there other locations that we
should be considering? [Please state reasoning]
All-weather facilities should be considered
Q40. Are the listed potential hub sites and key centres the right ones? Are there other locations that we should
be considering? [Please state reasoning]
They look suitable. They will probably need funding.
Q41. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to help deliver
improvements to open space or sport facility accessibility or provision?
A new development would be able to deliver this in their plans or fund improvements for existing facilities in line with national strategy and requirements.
Q42. Are there particular open spaces that we should be
protecting or improving? [Please note, you will have
an opportunity to make specific comments on open
spaces and local green spaces in the settlement
profiles set out later in this report]
The sites will be specific in each parish. You must protect all of these recreational spaces and improve them, if necessary. Once lost to development, they can never come back.
Q43. With reference to the options listed in this section, or your own options, how do you feel we can best
address heritage issues through the plan? [Please
state reasoning]
You should reassess the planning policies regarding alterations made to the buildings on the heritage
list, especially those in conservation areas. There have been a few occasions where buildings of “interest” (or other) have been altered, and that places in conservation areas have been allowed canopies, shutters and internal illumination of signage without challenge. Any building work should be sympathetic to the area and you should require corrections to unauthorised changes, even if they
have been in place for some time. Shop fronts are huge areas of uninteresting glass with garish colours. No objections are raised to signage and advertising that is out of character with a conservation area in a heritage town. Ensure statutory bodies are consulted and heeded.
You should take effective actions to manage the footways, ‘A’ boards and barriers are obstructions to
those with impaired sight or mobility.
Q44. Are there areas of the District we should be
considering for conservation area status beyond those
listed in this section? [Please state reasoning]
You should not take areas of precious woodland to make way for housing. Sites within the existing Rayleigh Conversation Area should not be considered

Q45. Are there any buildings, spaces or structures that
should be protected for their historic, cultural or
architectural significance? Should these be considered
for inclusion on the Local List of non-designated
assets? [Please state reasoning]
Yes there are many sites of historic importance which should be included.
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]
You can only have a vibrant town centre if there are shops to go to. If these units are subsequently changed to residential then our town centres will be fractured and uninviting. The new Use Class E will mean it will be even more important for the council to protect our retail outlets. You need to work actively with premises owners in order to assist in the re-letting of any empty shops. Maybe
offer a reduced rent to new businesses as a start-up scheme. You could contain this as a “local”
business only – allowing the entrepreneurs in the Rochford District a chance to showcase their
businesses. You also need to be able to negotiate with the owners of empty shops how they can best strive to fill these premises and if not, then have some visual displays in the windows, perhaps photos of the old towns or useful information, to make them more attractive. Explore business rates levies. Any plan should be reviewed frequently; at least every 5 years
It is a well-documented fact that independent businesses have done better than large chains during Covid as they are able to diversify at short notice. RDC need to incentivise new small or micro businesses into our town centre, either through grant support or another mechanism. Occupied premises create employment, increase footfall and reduce vandalism. Landlords should be engaged with to ensure quick turn-arounds, or for more flexible lease agreements where for example a new
business can take on a shorter lease to test the market.
Good public transport links are crucial for our villages, neighbourhoods and town centres.
Q47. Do you agree with the local centre hierarchy set out in Figure 36? If not, what changes would you make?
[Please state reasoning]
Yes
Q48. With reference to Figures 38-40, do you agree with
existing town centre boundaries and extent of
primary and secondary shopping frontages in
Rayleigh, Rochford and Hockley? If not, what
changes would you make? [Please state reasoning]
Yes.
Q49. Should we continue to restrict appropriate uses within town centres, including primary and secondary
shopping frontages within those centres? If yes, what
uses should be restricted? [Please state reasoning]
Yes. A mix of retailers is essential as a lack of variety will eventually kill off the high streets. We need to have a balance of outlets that keep the area viable as you would lose the vibrancy you are hoping to achieve.
Q50. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to deliver improved
retail and leisure services in the District? [Please state
reasoning]
Unfortunately, there has been a tendency to switch from commercial outlets to residential, where smaller retail areas have been sold off and housing development has been allowed. In a new development there would be scope to add a small, medium or large retail precinct, depending on the development size. Retail parks, leisure areas and outlets are proving in many cases, the preferred option for consumers, normally as a result of having everything in one place, free on-site parking and maximum choice. We feel that some of the sites, whilst not suitable for large housing developments, may be suitable for something of this type. It would create much needed employment, opportunity and tourism for the
area.
Q51. With reference to the options above, or your own
options, how do you feel we can best address our
transport and connectivity needs through the plan?
[Please state reasoning]
The council needs to follow the rule “No development before infrastructure”. Houses are being built without adequate road, pedestrian and cycle networks in place. New developments should be planned with cycle paths and walkways that link up with existing paths. The existing paths need updating and attention
Q52. Are there areas where improvements to transport
connections are needed? What could be done to help
improve connectivity in these areas?
More work needs to be done on the A127 and The Carpenters Arms roundabout. The feeder lanes
proposed some years ago to link the Fairglen interchange with The Rayleigh Weir in both directions is
now essential as this is a bottleneck. Hockley needs another access. Connecting the cycle ways into a
cycle network as part of the plan.
Q53. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to deliver new
transport connections, such as link roads or rapid
transit? What routes and modes should these take?
[Walking, cycling, rail, bus, road etc.]
As the preferred strategy option is 3b, this could create opportunities for improved links to Southend. You should also consider more and smaller buses to link the towns and villages. Designated cycling paths that are separated from existing roads and pavements, but adjacent to our road networks would help improve traffic flow. Ensure the cycle network links with public transport as part of a
complete review of sustainable transport.
Q54. Do you feel that the plan should identify rural
exception sites? If so, where should these be located
and what forms of housing or employment do you feel
need to be provided? [Please note you may wish to
comment on the use of specific areas of land in the
next section]
This may be a suitable option for a retirement village that could be restricted to single storey dwellings only, and could include community facilities such as convenient store, community centre and so on.
Q55. Are there any other ways that you feel the plan should be planning for the needs of rural communities?
[Please stare reasoning]
Better public transport and sustainable transport links.
Q56.
a. Do you agree with our vision for Rayleigh? Is there
anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]
The plan is adequate so far is it goes, but you have more work to do. You must plan for a reduced volume of traffic and air pollution. More attention is needed to initiatives that design-out crime and fear of crime, and this needs to be functional, sustainable and viable. The Draft Vision Statement ignores the over-development, the lack of infrastructure and facilities we already suffer. Indeed, Rochford District Council’s stated aim within their Asset Strategy and the plans of other Public Service providers is to reduce facilities in the Town further. This is at the same time as demand is growing from a sharply increasing population. This is particularly relevant for the growing elderly population. This will make the next 25 years very challenging.
1/ Cycling infrastructure and other sustainable transport methods should be prioritised over a carcentric highway use. We regret we do not because it is unrealistic, our response must be to inject a note of realism looking forward based on RDCs policies and past action. This goes to the heart of the new Local Plan.
We regret a realistic Vision Statement based on the current trajectory of further development recommended in the Draft Local Plan will be rather more dystopian. We could see a Rayleigh chocked by traffic. Although pollution should decrease with electric vehicles the advent of driverless vehicles, both domestic and commercial, servicing an ever-expanding population could result in gridlock. Pollution will increase from fossil burning home heating systems in many of the new homes. Failure to support public transport will inevitably maroon older residents in their homes far from those few
facilities and shops that remain in our town centre.
Public services offered by police and council (most likely giant unitary council catering for half million people based far away in an urban area), will seem very distant to most people. Most of the green open spaces not in public ownership, also some that are publicly owned, will be built on and have disappeared by 2050. Many public facilities and local public service providers will be taken away and sold off to property developers. The town centres will cease to be the shopping and social areas we know today as a result of Council plans and changing shopping habits. Rayleigh retail business will have closed and online and out of town retail parks will prosper with their free parking facilities. In the same way that London boroughs developed through the decades and centuries, the traditional housing we know today, with private gardens will be replaced by blocks of flats with large vehicle parking areas with recharge points.
2/ Another vision could be forged with the right policies in an enlightened Local Plan. RDC could opt for a garden village settlement away from all the Districts Towns and villages. Rayleigh like other towns that have suffered from overdevelopment in recent decades and should be protect from large scale private development during the forthcoming Plan Period. Only development or local needs should be permitted. Local facilities like Mill Hall would be saved and car parking retained and made
cheaper to assist local town centre business to survive what will be a challenging period. Secondary
shopping facilities in Rayleigh would be supported and encouraged with public finance where required. Public transport would be supported and encouragement, especially when given for children to reach school without parents’ vehicles. Renovation and refurbishment of historic buildings with modern green energy would be promoted over demolition and intensification. Public services would be encouraged to return/expand to Rayleigh, in existing buildings like Council Offices, Police Station and Library etc. The town centre should be the heart of our community not just something you drive
through to reach somewhere else. This could be our vision and our aim for the future.
b. With reference to Figure 44 and your preferred
Strategy Option, do you think any of the promoted
sites should be made available for any of the following
uses? How could that improve the completeness of
Rayleigh?
Balancing access against increased congestion will be the issue for a lot of the sites in Rayleigh. If you keep adding small developments to the boundaries of the town, it will overcrowd existing houses and add to urban sprawl.
i. Rayleigh has taken the brunt of development without significant infrastructural improvement.
ii. Commercial [offices, industrial, retail, other]
Commercial development should be supported in town centres, secondary shopping facilities and on approved industrial estates (the latter should not become retail / entertainment locations and residential development should not encroach on them to avoid conflict). Community Improvement Districts should be established
iii. Community infrastructure [open space, education, healthcare, allotments, other]
Community infrastructure should be preserved and extended. Access to town centres and secondary
shopping by bicycle and foot should be made easier and safer.
c. Are there areas in Rayleigh that development should
generally be presumed appropriate? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
No. Large scale residential development in Rayleigh should be resisted in the new Local Plan. So called
windfall development should be incorporated in the overall development targets thereby reducing
large scale development.
d. Are there areas that require protecting from
development? Why these areas? [Please state
reasoning]
Conservation areas and green belt and sites subject to the exclusion criteria on the call for sites should be protected. Proposed sites within Rayleigh and on the Western side should not be considered for development. Only an infrastructure plan would provide evidence that the chosen sites are sustainable in the long term, and greenbelt and environmental policies should be adhered to in relation to open spaces on the edge or within the town.
e. Do you agree that the local green spaces shown on
Figure 44 hold local significance? Are there any other
open spaces that hold particular local significance?
All green spaces, no matter how small, hold some significance, especially to those who use them for
recreation. They are of particular community value and should not be developed. They must be seen as the vital green area not the next place along the line to be built on. It is reasonable for RDC to encourage the development of a garden village away from existing communities to accommodate the Governments home building targets
Q57.
d. Are there areas that require protecting from
development? Why these areas? [Please state
reasoning]
Hockley Wood
Q58.
a. Do you agree with our vision for Hockley and
Hawkwell? Is there anything you feel is missing?
[Please state reasoning]
Yes. Insofar as it relates to Rayleigh.
Q58.
d. Are there areas that require protecting from
development? Why these areas? [Please state
reasoning]
As Hockley Woods is the largest remaining wild woodland in the country you should be doing
EVERYTHING you can to save it from development, either adjacent to or close by. You should also actively be adding to it by planting more trees to future proof its existence and status. You must protect any thoroughfares that access Hockley Wood.
Q60.
a. Do you agree with our vision for Hullbridge? Is there
anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]
Yes. Insofar as it relates to Rayleigh.
d. Are there areas that require protecting from
development? Why these areas? [Please state
reasoning]
Anything too close to the river due to flood risk.
e. Do you agree that the local green spaces shown on
Figure 48 hold local significance? Are there any other
open spaces that hold particular local significance?
[Please state reasoning]
All green spaces, no matter how small, hold some significance, especially to those who use them for
recreation. They are of particular community value and should not be developed. They must be seen as the vital green area not the next place along the line to be built on. It is reasonable for RDC to encourage the development of a garden village away from existing communities to accommodate the
Governments home building targets
Q63.
a. Do you agree with our vision for Rawreth? Is there
anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]
Yes. Insofar as it relates to Rayleigh.
c. Are there areas in Rawreth that development should
generally be presumed appropriate? Why these
areas? [Please state reasoning]
d. Are there areas that require protecting from
development? Why these areas? [Please state
reasoning]
Protection needs to be given to development that change the dynamics of the village and those areas that border Wickford. There needs to be a significant amount of green belt land left to separate the two areas to prevent urban sprawl. Rawreth Lane gets heavily congested at peak times, and with Wolsey Park still not complete this is likely to increase. If there is an accident or breakdown on the road network, it has a huge knock on through Rayleigh and the surrounding areas and Watery Lane isn’t a reliable back up for when there are issue. Therefore, further development on the boundary or
otherwise could be detrimental to not only local residents but the wider District too. RDC should be supporting farmers wherever possible to continue to grow their crops in the district and protect suitable farm land in the area. We do not want to lose the local producers

Q66. Do you agree that our rural communities do not
require individual vision statements? Are there
communities that you feel should have their own
vision? [Please state reasoning]
At this time – yes, but we feel they should have some consideration in the future, in order to protect
them. It would be for the communities to decide their vision statements and we would be happy to
support them.
Q67. Do you agree with our vision for our rural
communities? Is there anything you feel is missing?
[Please state reasoning]
Yes.
Q68. Are there other courses of action the Council could
take to improve the completeness of our rural
communities?
Listen to the residents to see where they would like to go next. See if they require anything specific; travel links, facilities, affordable housing and so on. Empower Parish and Town Councils to take
relevant local actions

To whom it may concern,

I can’t write fancy words all I can do is write what I feel. At this moment I feel sick that the beautiful place where I chose to live will be devastated beyond recognition.

I object to all the proposals in and around Hockley and Hawkwell, primarily because of the impact on wildlife due to loss of habitats. In this day and age where we have finally woken up to its importance to us, RDC are going to plough on regardless with these proposals without any plans to accommodate the flora and fauna. Have you plans in place to help wildlife ? They are probably way down your list. RDC have always promoted themselves as A Green Council . Are you still ? What are you going to tell your grandchildren ? YOU were the ones that destroyed their countryside ?

Loss of productive farmland will come back to bite us in the future . We need to keep produce as local as possible.

The roads are impossible now . That amount of houses over the whole district with at least two cars each is going to make our lives even more of a misery. Also the associated pollution. Our daughter lives in Rochford and her windows are continually covered in black dust already. Lord knows what our grandchildren are breathing in at home and at even at school.

The new Saxon Airport commercial site will also add increased traffic to the new house traffic when it is completed .

What about more doctors and schools ? Are they included ?

Will we lose our public footpaths and bridleways ? . Again people have realised how important it is to get out into green spaces for their mental health. Will there be any left ?

I am too upset to continue but I think you get the gist of my concerns.

I beg you all to do what is right for each and everyone us.

I would like to register my concern over the proposals to build on yet more sites in an already crowded and over populated area. I have lived in Victor Gardens for 37 years and one of the reasons we moved to this area was because of the green spaces and rural way of life. There have already been massive developments in the area and many old character houses have been demolished, new large houses built and the character and feel of the place has been spoilt already. The two square hideous houses built next to the Dentist and Barbers in White Hart Lane are just one example. We have lost a lot of our green fields already and to suggest we can accommodate all these houses on the New Local Plan is ludicrous. If lockdown has taught us one thing, it is that green spaces are needed for not only physical well being but also for our mental well being. The traffic around this area is already too busy. If you walk up the Main Road in Hawkwell to Hockley there is a continuous stream of traffic no matter what time of day you walk. Children walking to and from Westerings school are being subjected to constant pollution from the cars, as are the children waiting at bus stops to take them to school.Trying to get anywhere locally by car means being stuck in traffic and the B1013 is already a bottle neck, it took me 50 minutes to do a 15 minute journey last week and it regularly takes me over 35 minutes to do this journey,yet the Council want to build thousands of houses which will feed onto these roads. More cars will add to the already congested roads causing even more traffic problems and pollution. The footpaths which at the moment are used by people to get around, as well as for recreation, will have houses built adjacent to them preventing people from having the option of walking in a rural setting. It will be like walking through a housing estate.The argument that is used is that we need affordable housing, but all the evidence shows that the houses being built are huge houses which are not affordable to the first time buyers. Neither of my two adult children can afford to live in this area,so who are we building the houses for? Why not build 50 -100 smaller affordable houses in every town and village rather than target one area and swamp it.
If the plans go ahead, we will lose the character of Hawkwell , which will just become a part of Rochford and Hockley, swallowed up with no definition of where it starts and finishes, with one continuous traffic problem. Considering how much money was spent last year by the Government on health, I'm surprised that health hasn't been taken into consideration for this proposal. You can't keep building on already built up areas and expect the infrastructure, the Drs, the well being of people, the schools and the other amenities to cope, let alone severe flooding which will happen as more land is built on. We have had problems with flooding in the past and I remember houses in Hawkwell Chase flooding in the 90s, Hill Lane has been flooded on several occasions as has the road under the railway bridge by St Mary's church.
I strongly object in particular to the proposal to build on site CFS074 and sites CFS194, CFS169, CFS150 and CFS020,

I fully appreciate the need for new housing in the RDC area however, the outline proposals for Hockley and Hawkwell just aren't viable.

My reasons are as follows

The size of the proposed developments is far beyond the already creaking capacity of the current infrastructure. Roads, bus services, doctors and schools just don't have the capacity to cope with the invisaged influx of people.

The Spa roundabout is already a bottle neck made worse by the developments at Hall Road and Christmas Tree Farm. It doesn't take much, something like a delivery van parking to cause gridlock. It's getting to the point where people avoid going out at certain times.

Parking in Hockley is awful particularly on a Friday night because of the number of take away restaurants. Illegal parking is rife, zebra crossings, bus stops, disabled bays, nothing is safe from the SUV's.

I think planners need to be aware of how dependent we are on emergency services from outside the immediate area. We have no Police or Ambulance presence and only one retained fire engine in Hawkwell. The more traffic that is piled onto Hockley Road the longer the response times! This puts life at risk!

It seems to me that RDC take a far too relaxed attitude to the mounting problems in this area, speeding drivers, illegal parking in the village and around schools is allowed with no deterent. When was the last time a traffic enforcement officer was seen in Hockley?

The only time RDC take an interest in the area is when they need to build more houses!

I am writing to register my objection to the building of new housing across sites in the Hockley area.
At the highest level the addition of that many new houses in and around Hockley will change the fabric of the town. We can already see in Rayleigh how the overdevelopment of an urban area can affect a town, in fact we moved to Hockley from Rayleigh for this precise reason; the overstretched local services, constant congestion and noise being the most obvious.
Here in Hockley the proposed building will result in thousands more people in Hockley. We have one trunk road in my part of Hockley, Greensward Lane, which is already heavily congested at peak times, traffic often tailing back from the Plumberow Avenue lights to Greensward School and beyond. How is all this additional traffic going to be managed, not only in the future, but also during the building stage? Greensward Lane is not fit for heavy traffic, it is relatively narrow for a main road, it is already in very poor repair, worn surface, badly potholed. This is only going to make the situation worse now and in the future.
Then there are the vital local services that are already stretched and difficult to access. My children have now left school, however even then the class sizes already exceeded 30 pupils and classes were in cabins. Where is the extra capacity going to come from? Doctors and Dentists it is already very hard to obtain appointments. My surgery does not seem to have space to expand, so where are all these extra patients going to go? Are the developers going to build extra services to support their new homes? Is this requirement included in contracts and are these going to be built first, as developers have a very poor record on delivering on such promises.
Looking at the site, local to us, the one behind Malvern Road, this is on elevated ground. When this area is concreted over where is all the runoff water that is currently absorbed by the open ground going to go? It will run down into the gardens and Malvern Road. Living at the lower end of this road, I see firsthand just how much water there can be.

The noise and disruption caused by what will be a prolonged building phase will make normal living, in what is a quiet area, and in Hockley in general very difficult. This will need to be managed to protect the conditions of the current residents who are paying their local taxes but seeing their environment deteriorate. I am also concerned about the impact upon the environment in terms of nature, wildlife, pollution and the destruction of habitat. Once greenbelt land is used for building it is lost to all future generations. I think the over population and over building of Hockley will turn a desirable area to live into a polluted and crowded place. The proposed development will have a detrimental effect on the health and well being of my family.

My wife and I object in the strongest terms.

I am responding to the Spatial Options Paper and now submit my views and concerns.

Material Planning Concern regarding Access-re sites CFS064 and CFS264
The only apparent access to both sites appears to be via Folly Chase, a small unadopted road off of the already congested and unsuitable Folly Lane. Folly Lane itself has seen an unreasonable increase in traffic as it is used to access the recent new housing developments in Pond Chase and Church Road as well as the previously existing housing estate. It is now seeing additional increases in traffic flow caused by the significant housing development in Hullbridge as it is the only direct two way road access from Hullbridge to Hockley. The road is frequently difficult to get through with parked cars along both sides and heavier traffic flows in both directions. This is not helped by it’s layout with three 90 degree bends and one c 45 degree bend along its relatively short length. These bends are difficult for larger traffic, especially the type of traffic used in construction, and a drain cover on one bend is broken several times a year by lorries having to ride up on to the kerb in order to get around the bend. Generally the speed of the ‘through’ traffic is too high and I have witnessed many near misses on the bends as vehicles either cut the corners or are forced to breach the centre of the road due to parked cars. A serious head on accident is now inevitable down this road, and the prospect of further development off of it will make matters even worse as the scale of the housing for the two sites identified in the plan would equate to approximately another 500 cars using Folly Lane just to access the developed sites. This would likely equate to an average of approximately 1000 to 2000 extra car movements a day on a road that is already inadequate.

A far as Folly Chase is concerned it is so limited in its capacity that it simply cannot be deemed suitable for access for either construction traffic or the eventual increase in residential access traffic. The Chase is not a through road, terminating at a footpath leading into designated Ancient Woodland, carrying HC1 Wildlife Site designation. Folly Chase has no significant base as it was unmade until the 1980s. The current road has been constructed and maintained by the Folly Chase Road Frontagers Committee on behalf of residents. A layer of bitumen and gravel was utilised over a thin layer of type 1 hardcore that is sufficient for the low traffic flow associated with 25 houses and no through access, but will simply not support construction traffic or the flows commensurate with the potential development. The road itself has no surface drainage features, gullies, gutters or drains so all water runs over the surface to the bottom of the road. There are no footpaths, nor is there space to construct footpaths and is approximately only 9 feet wide at its narrowest point and cannot support two way traffic. The existing housing water, and gas supplies are very shallow beneath the surface and any increase in heavy traffic will almost certainly cause collapse of these and there are numerous points where the existing sewage pipes cross the road, again, at a very shallow depth and would be extremely vulnerable to increased traffic flows.

The recent adjacent Pond Chase development has well known problems with regards to access to sewerage, and whilst this is now complete and running it should be noted that the bored line of drains that traverse the bottom of Folly Chase from Pond Chase, across to the field that is site CFS064 to the Hockley Community centre have already caused significant sinking of our road surface. The nearby development in Church Road has also had significant sewage and surface water issues and any further development adding onto the existing surface water and sewage infrastructure will only increase the pressure on existing infrastructure, potentially to the point of failure, with significant public health concerns.

Folly Chase is Private Road with an undefined Public Footpath running down it. Ownership of the road isn’t registered and absent any contrary evidence each land owner owns up to the mid- point of the road. There are some private rights of way that have been established by usage and by deed, but it is apparent that the ownership issue is complex and fragmented and that my discussions with many residents shows the large majority would be unwilling to enter into any negotiation to depart from current use and access.


Green Belt- ref site CFS064
The land in question forms part of the Metropolitan Green belt. Such land can only be developed for ‘Exceptional circumstances’ as detailed in the Planning Policy Guidance Note 2 (PPG2), and states in para 143 that Inappropriate development is by definition harmful to Green Belt’’ and in Para 145 that ‘’A local planning authority should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in the Green Belt. Exceptions to this are’’ ;


a. Agriculture and Forestry.
The outline proposal is for residential development thus condition is not satisfied. Indeed any development would actually be in direct opposition to this as the land is already prime agricultural arable land and is actively farmed.

b. Essential facilities for outdoor sport and recreation.
The site already includes a football pitches at the Community Centre, the Community Centre itself and is widely used for walking, dog walking, running and cycling. The outline proposals would diminish the provision of outdoor sport and recreation and this condition cannot therefore be satisfied by any housing development.

c. and d. Limited extension and/or alteration of existing buildings.
Other than the Community Centre there are no existing buildings within the site. The Community Centre itself still has a long unexpired lease and development of it fails the test above in any case. This condition cannot be fulfilled

e . Limited Infilling.
The Local Plan allocation site reference 179 states that the land could be used for up to 265 dwellings. This is anything but ‘limited’ and this condition cannot be fulfilled

f. Limited affordable Housing
Again the size of the potential development is anything but limited. Condition cannot be met.

g. Limited infilling or redevelopment of previously developed land.
This land has not been previously developed and condition cannot be met.


Paragraph 136 of the National Planning Policy Framework lays out that ‘exceptional circumstances’ must be met for any consideration of changing existing Green Belt boundaries. Paragraph 137 specifically states that ‘’the…authority should be able to demonstrate that it has examined all other reasonable options for meeting its identified need for development. …..and whether the strategy…. Makes as much use as possible of suitable brownfield sites and underutilized land’’

From the above it is clear that the site cannot be considered any further for housing development as to do so contravenes existing Metropolitan Green Belt legislation. The site should be removed from the development plan.


Local Wildlife Sites and Incorrect identification of their proximity to the site CFS064.
An additional contravention of Policy to the Green belt restrictions is that the site is in ‘close proximity’ to 3 Local Wildlife Sites (LoWs) namely, Betts Wood, Folly Wood and Hockley Hall-South Wood. These are all designated a minimum of HC1 (ancient Woodland) and have further designations. Folly Wood occupies most of the southern boundary of the site, Betts Wood most of the eastern boundary and Hockley Hall-South Wood circa half of the northern boundary. It should be noted that there is a strip of woodland joining Folly Wood and Hockley Hall-South Wood along the entire western perimeter and this may mean that these two LoWs are in fact one larger site. It is important to point out that the Site Allocation Assessment Criteria fails to mention the ‘close proximity’ of the LoWs and that it is vital that this is noted by RDC. This omission must render the Site Allocation Assessment as invalid, and that the site should not have passed the first stage consultation as a consequence.

The ’Buffer Zones’ that would be required at the perimeter of the LOWs and around the mature veteran Oak trees within the site would reduce the available land suitable for development significantly and render the site uneconomic.

The LoWs mentioned above, and the immediate surrounding environment, including the field detailed in site CFS 064 support a rich and varied population , indeed such woodland is recognized as providing the most diverse and important habitats in the UK and is already limited to just 550,000 Hectares across the entire UK.
The LoWs assessments do not detail many resident species but the following can/have been found in and around these sites and the site in question; Grass snakes, Adders, Slow Worms and Common Lizards , Common Frogs, Toads, Smooth Newts, Great Crested Newts, Badgers, Foxes, Muntjac Deer, Buzzards, Sparrow Hawks, Merlin, Tawny Owls, Little Owls, Nightjar, Blue Tits, Great Tits, Long Tail Tits, Coal Tits, Willow Warblers, Chiff Chaff, Blackcap, Blackbirds, Song Thrush, Goldfinch, Greenfinch, Chaffinch, Yellowhammer, Nuthatch, Swallow, Swift, House Martin, Crow, Jackdaw, Magpie, Jay, Rook, Coot, Moorhen, Cuckoo, Dunnock, Wren, Fieldfare, Lapwing, Redwing, Goldcrest, Great Spotted Woodpecker, Green Woodpecker, Lesser Spotted Woodpecker, Grey Heron, Pied Wagtail, Grey Wagtail, House Sparrow, Kestrel, Linnet, Nightingale, Meadow Pipit, Robin, Skylark, Starling and significant numbers of unidentified bats over the field and in the gardens of Folly Chase at night suggest a colony within Folly and/or Betts Woods. Rich flora, especially Bluebells and significant insect species including Wood Ant colonies.

This incredibly diverse range of species rely on the tree and plant species found in Ancient Woodland and on arable farmland. They require free movement between sites and the field, and the large mature Oaks within it, provide essential movement corridors between the three identified LoWs sites. Any development in the field in the center of these three LoWs can only have a massive detrimental effect on the population, and the existing richness and diversity proves this is a site that should be preserved, not destroyed. Consideration for development must cease forthwith.

The ’standing advice’ of the Government in this regard is found within Natural England and Forestry Commission guidance ( https://www.gov.uk/guidance/ancient-woodland-and-veteran-trees-protection-surveys-licences). Standing Advice is a ’Material planning consideration’. Ancient Woodllands have equal protection in the National planning Policy Framework.


We draw attention to the RDC’s own statements regarding potential development within the Local Plan document. The plan clearly states that one of it’s key objectives is ‘’for meeting future needs (including housing….). It will also identify areas for protection, such as sites that are important for wildlife and open space.’’ The RDC have failed in their policy objective and in following correct process that there is a failure to even identify the proximity of the LoWs detailed above in the Site Allocation Assessment Criteria.
Rather than the site be considered for development, we have shown that it should be identified for protection in accordance with the Local Plan objectives and that it should be removed from the development plan and placed in a protection plan.

Infrastructure- both sites
I have detailed my concerns above regarding the inadequate infrastructure in respect of local roads, access and drainage and sewerage. In addition it is quite clear that other local services are already struggling and would simply be unable to cope with an increase in the local population of approximately 1000 people based on the estimated development potential of the two sites. Local schools, GP surgeries and wider health care have been under significant pressure for many years. Limited local car parking inhibits local trade ( it should be noted that there are several sites used for car parking included in the site allocation potentially limiting it further) and the main Southend/Hockley/Rayleigh Road is far too frequently jammed back to Hawkwell and Hambro Hill. There is no room for dedicated bus lanes or cycle lanes along this main corridor so whatever thoughts there may be regarding increasing public transport usage or cycling are simply pie in the sky and not feasible. The main road simply cannot cope with any more traffic arising from increased housing.

Reduction of Quality Arable farming land-CFS064
I am concerned the Plan may well reduce the acreage available for arable farming. What measures have the council made to ensure we have sufficient acreage available for farming use to enable us to keep feeding ourselves?

Impact on the landscape and community
It is clear that any development at site CFS064 would have a significantly detrimental effect on the environment, biodiversity and the visible appearance of the site. The visual impact will destroy the character of the site and it’s surroundings and the increase in population and traffic would destroy the culture of the existing community within Folly Chase.

Spatial Options Document 2021
Whilst I agree with the Vision Statement for Hockley as detailed in the SOD I cannot see how the proposed development sites would achieve the stated vision. Surely any further development would conflict with the entire Vision Statement, other than the one regarding affordable housing, but as we have seen on numerous occasions building more houses does not link directly to improved affordable housing allocations as builders charge increasingly higher prices. Surely a Central Government led policy on house pricing/profits is the answer?

Q58e asks re the significance of the ‘local green spaces’ but makes no mention of the Local Wildlife Sites. These should be equally regarded and are very significant. I have heard that CFS064 could be considered for re wilding. If so, with it’s close proximity to LoWs it could become an education centre or Country park, accessible to many by foot and cycle. It therefore does need protecting form development as it would help increase the land locally t comply with the Vision Statement and improve the environment and bio diversity for the benefit of the local community.

More Suitable Sites
My introduction acknowledged the need for some developments to comply with Government policy. There is a consensus that Hockley itself cannot cope with more development in the immediate vicinity but the Plan includes sites on the western fringes of the district that are clearly more suitable . The following sites CFS146,147,167,144,168,145,137,055,121 all have far easier access, room to provide additional social infrastructure as well as housing, better transport and potential for more transport hubs, and would keep the majority of traffic away from the existing congested community of Hockley and Hawkwell, and prevent a commensurate increase in pollution, noise and general inconvenience.

Conclusion
As can be seen form my concerns detailed above , sites CFS064 and CFS264 should be removed form the next stage. They are simply not suitable when there are many more sites which would ‘score’ much better under a wide range of development considerations.

Please Note
I consent to my name and comments being added to the Councils consultation database.

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.

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.

I refer to the piece of land off of Folly Chase ( CFS064 ) earmarked for development. My reasons against this piece of land being developed are as follows:-
1. The land is surrounded by three ancient woodlands which would need to be demolished if permission were to be given to housing. In the spring there is an abundance of wild flowers in these woods including many areas of anemonies which grow at the rate of six feet in a hundred years which demonstrates how old these woods are. This is a habitat for many birds bees and butterflies. Can we really justify demolishing years and years of woodland just to line builder’s pockets? There is a suggestion that we should plant trees to save our planet and how can demolishing an old woodland demonstrate this. This is also an area where badgers roam freely at night, there are many sets on the waste land at the back of the new estate off of Folly Lane.
2. Since lockdown we have seen a considerable number of people with or without dogs wandering down our Folly chase for a stroll and into the woodlands surrounding it. The numbers have not decreased as this is now a well known spot for people to walk for exercise and enjoy the flora and fauna,birds and butterflies we still have in this area before it all disappears under the developer’s machinery.
3. During heavy rain this year the field became very waterlogged and the adjoining lane was just a big lake. As the new estate in Folly Lane has had enormous problems with sewerage just how can it be contemplated to add sewerage from another 214 houses when sewerage from the extra 75 houses cannot cope now.
4. The access to the site is very poor. Folly Chase is not wide enough for two cars to pass by. Entry via the Community Centre would lose the grassland surrounding the Community Centre which again is used by walkers, dog training club and the childrens nursery. Access via the school is not safe with small children around.
5. Traffic congestion along High Road is a constant problem, there is frequently long delays if a delivery is made anywhere in the vicinity causing exhaust pollution and that is before all the extra traffic any more houses will generate. Our children are encouraged to walk to school but how many will develop asthma from the constant exhaust fumes that will be generated by more cars stuck in traffic jams.
6. On a general note with future housing development in this area No plans as far as we know have been made to provide new schools, more doctors surgeries and new roads to cope with this influx of people and cars more building will create. As we know from the Hall Road site the builders manipulated the situation flaunting the rules meaning they did not have to provide the schools and doctors surgery as promised. Will the Council ensure that adequate provision is made and that this loophole is not used again?

Thank you for making the Local Plan and Spatial Options available on the internet and for the extensive detail included. It's taken me a while to get to examine the contents and would like to respond to proposals to develop land surrounding my family home. I am concerned by the scale of possible development all across the Rochford area, but there are two sites that will directly and adversely affect my family and I.

Of course I understand that Government policy will force significant development within the area, but I am writing to highlight issues with developing the sites of CFS064 and CFS264 and to ask that they be removed from the Plan and any subsequent consultation stages. Site CFS064 is special and should be protected in accordance with RDC's own objectives.

I list my concerns as follows:

Access to the sites CFS064 and CFS264

I live on Folly Chase, I was born here more than 50 years ago and it's been my parents only marital home in their 56 years as husband and wife. As I look at the plans it seems the only access to both sites would be through the Chase, which for many years was an unmade road off a country lane. Folly Lane is no longer a quiet road - it's a busy rat-run, with large trucks, coaches and even buses forcing their way through a narrow thoroughfare. The new housing developments in Pond Chase and Church Road has seen the speed of traffic rise dangerously. Increased building in Hullbridge, poor access on the B1013 from Rayleigh to Rochford - with drivers avoiding the often log jammed A127 - means this is now a busy road and the only direct way Hullbridge to Hockley. Car are often parked in dangerous positions on both sides of the road and it's worse when parents are dropping children at Hockley Tennis Club. Traffic goes too fast and often cut the corners of the 90 left - 90 right and 90 left bends those of us looking to pull into Folly Chase are in jeopardy at times. The roads are broken and in disrepair fallowing the construction of Pond Chase Nursery.
Any more development will just make all of this worse - if even the small site is green lit that will mean another 60 cars using the road - not to mention extra the delivery traffic.

Our road is maintained by residents and is incapable of handling construction traffic or the eventual increase in residential access traffic. It leads to a footpath, popular with dog walkers taking them into Bluebell Woods (aka Folly Wood) designated Ancient Woodland, carrying HC1 Wildlife Site designation. It's all part of the "6,320km Public Rights of Way (PRoW) in Essex - one of the most extensive networks in the country" according to the ECC website. And the Rochford District Council website highlights that "Hockley" is a member of the Parish Paths Partnership Scheme, which is an initiative introduced by Essex County Council in conjunction with The Countryside Agency to assist parish councils to maintain, develop and promote their local footpath network."

Folly Chase has no surface drainage features, no run off into gullies or gutters. There are no footpaths, and no room to build them as the roads about 9 feet wide at its narrowest point, so cannot support two way traffic. The infrastructure for housing water, and gas supplies is not far beneath the surface and any increase in heavy traffic will almost certainly damage these as they are vulnerable.

Anglian Water had serious concerns about the strain on the current sewerage systems in the area and the Pond Chase development created serious issues contributing to the ill health of several residents on the road. The complete system now cross to Folly Chase from Pond Chase, across to the field that is site CFS064 to the Hockley Community centre and has already caused significant sinking of our road surface. The nearby development in Church Road has also had significant sewage and surface water issues and any further development adding onto the existing surface water and sewage infrastructure will only increase the pressure on existing infrastructure, potentially to the point of failure, with significant public health concerns.

Folly Chase is Private Road with an undefined Public Footpath running down it. Ownership of the road isn’t registered and absent any contrary evidence each land owner owns up to the mid- point of the road. There are some private rights of way that have been established by usage and by deed, but it is apparent that the ownership issue is complex and fragmented and that my discussions with many residents shows the large majority would be unwilling to enter into any negotiation to depart from current use and access.

With specific reference to site CFS064

This land abuts the full length of our back fence, we have all manner of wild life that comes into our garden from here including newts, common lizards and adders (a protected species) as well as bats, and dragonflies.
I note that the land is Metropolitan Green belt land and have read that such land can only be developed for ‘Exceptional circumstances’ as detailed in the Planning Policy Guidance Note 2 (PPG2). It also says in paragraph 143 that "Inappropriate development is by definition harmful to Green Belt’’ and in Paragraph 145 is says ‘’A local planning authority should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in the Green Belt. Exceptions to this are;


• Agriculture and Forestry.
The outline proposal is for residential development thus condition is not satisfied. Indeed any development would actually be in direct opposition to this as the land is already prime agricultural arable land and is actively farmed.

b. Essential facilities for outdoor sport and recreation.
The site already includes a football pitches at the Community Centre, the Community Centre itself and is widely used for walking, dog walking, running and cycling. The outline proposals would diminish the provision of outdoor sport and recreation and this condition cannot therefore be satisfied by any housing development.

c. and d. Limited extension and/or alteration of existing buildings.
Other than the Community Centre there are no existing buildings within the site. The Community Centre itself still has a long unexpired lease and development of it fails the test above in any case. This condition cannot be fulfilled

e . Limited Infilling.
The Local Plan allocation site reference 179 states that the land could be used for up to 265 dwellings. This is anything but ‘limited’ and this condition cannot be fulfilled

f. Limited affordable Housing
Again the size of the potential development is anything but limited. Condition cannot be met.

g. Limited infilling or redevelopment of previously developed land.
This land has not been previously developed and condition cannot be met.

Paragraph 136 of the National Planning Policy Framework lays out that ‘exceptional circumstances’ must be met for any consideration of changing existing Green Belt boundaries.

Paragraph 137 specifically states that ‘’the…authority should be able to demonstrate that it has examined all other reasonable options for meeting its identified need for development. …..and whether the strategy…. Makes as much use as possible of suitable brownfield sites and under-utilised land’’

All the above suggests the site cannot be considered any further for housing development as to do so contravenes existing Metropolitan Green Belt legislation so it must be removed from the development plan.


Local Wildlife Sites and Incorrect identification of their proximity to the site CFS064.
An additional contravention of Policy to the Green belt restrictions is that the site is in ‘close proximity’ to 3 Local Wildlife Sites (LoWs) namely, Betts Wood, Folly Wood and Hockley Hall-South Wood. These are all designated a minimum of HC1 (ancient Woodland) and have further designations. Folly Wood occupies most of the southern boundary of the site, Betts Wood most of the eastern boundary and Hockley Hall-South Wood circa half of the northern boundary. It should be noted that there is a strip of woodland joining Folly Wood and Hockley Hall-South Wood along the entire western perimeter and this may mean that these two LoWs are in fact one larger site. It is important to point out that the Site Allocation Assessment Criteria fails to mention the ‘close proximity’ of the LoWs and that it is vital that this is noted by RDC. This omission must render the Site Allocation Assessment as invalid, and that the site should not have passed the first stage consultation as a consequence.

The ’Buffer Zones’ that would be required at the perimeter of the LOWs and around the mature veteran Oak trees within the site would reduce the available land suitable for development significantly and render the site uneconomic.

The LoWs mentioned above, and the immediate surrounding environment, including the field detailed in site CFS 064 support a rich and varied population , indeed such woodland is recognized as providing the most diverse and important habitats in the UK and is already limited to just 550,000 Hectares across the entire UK.

When I was a little girl I used to play in "the big field" and in the gloaming of summer would watch the glow-worms in the grass by Folly Woods. The LoWs assessments do not detail many resident species but it's not only the glow worms that the children growing up here see on their walks. We have grass snakes and slow worms as well as adders and very cute common lizards. There are frogs, toads, smooth Newts, great Crested Newts. I have seen badgers, foxes, muntjac deer and even a very fast weasel! There are nesting buzzards, sparrow hawks, merlin, tawny owls, little owls, nightjar, blue tits, great tits, long tail tits, robins and wrens, coal tits, willow warblers, chiff chaff, blackcap, blackbirds, thrushes, goldfinch, greenfinch, chaffinch, yellowhammer, tree creeper, nuthatch, swallow, swift, house martin. In the trees of the ancient woodland we have many corvid including crow, jackdaw, Magpie, Jay, Rook, then there's the Coot, Moorhen, Cuckoo, dunnock and sparrows and when it's cold fieldfare, lapwing, and redwing shelter and rest. Goldcrest, Great Spotted Woodpecker, Green Woodpecker, Lesser Spotted Woodpecker, Grey Heron, Pied Wagtail, Grey Wagtail, House Sparrow, Kestrel, Linnet, Nightingale, Meadow Pipit, Skylark, Starling have all been seen here as the seasons change. And we all love the bats so their must be a colony making their home within Folly and/or Betts Woods. There's rich flora, including wild honeysuckle, wood anemones and the bluebells, all with the many variety of beetles, spiders and Wood Ant colonies.

They live happily undisturbed amongst brambles, oak, hornbeam, holly and Ash trees around the Ancient Woodland and on arable farmland. They require free movement between sites and the field, and the large mature Oaks within it, provide essential movement corridors between the three identified LoWs sites. Any development in the field in the centre of these three LoWs can only have a massive detrimental effect on the population, and the existing richness and diversity proves this is a site that should be preserved, not destroyed. Consideration for development must cease forthwith.

The ’standing advice’ of the Government in this regard is found within Natural England and Forestry Commission guidance ( https://www.gov.uk/guidance/ancient-woodland-and-veteran-trees-protection-surveys-licences). Standing Advice is a ’Material planning consideration’. Ancient Woodllands have equal protection in the National planning Policy Framework.


I have been shown RDC’s own statements regarding potential development within the Local Plan document. The plan clearly states that one of it’s key objectives is ‘’for meeting future needs (including housing….). It will also identify areas for protection, such as sites that are important for wildlife and open space.’’ The RDC have failed in their policy objective and in following correct process that there is a failure to even identify the proximity of the LoWs detailed above in the Site Allocation Assessment Criteria. So this site really should not be considered for development - instead it should be listed for protection in accordance with the Local Plan objectives - taken off the development plan and placed in a protection plan.

Infrastructure- both sites

I've mentioned my concerns about local road issues - I haven't added my worries about the times ambulances take to get to our road and then back to Southend hospital (While it continues to have an A+E unit).
I have also explained how inadequate drainage and sewerage is in the area but we have to also address the pressure local services are already straining under. If both sites are green-lit hundreds more people (and children) will be looking for places in our local schools, GP surgeries, dental surgeries and nurseries. The bus service is infrequent and expensive, and speaking as a cyclist the roads are too narrow for safe transit for younger riders. I want proper cycle ways but where are they? And where would they realistically go? The B1013 cannot cope with the current traffic let along increased pressed form increased housing.

Reduction of Quality Arable farming land-CFS064
I am concerned the Plan may well reduce the acreage available for arable farming. What measures have the council made to ensure we have sufficient acreage available for farming use to enable us to keep feeding ourselves?

Impact on the landscape and community
Any development at site CFS064 will be detrimental on the environment, biodiversity and the visible appearance of the site. The visual impact will destroy the character of the site and its surroundings and the increase in population and traffic would destroy the culture of the existing community within Folly Chase.

Spatial Options Document 2021
Whilst I agree with the Vision Statement for Hockley as detailed in the SOD I cannot see how the proposed development sites would achieve the stated vision. Surely any further development would conflict with the entire Vision Statement, other than the one regarding affordable housing, but as we have seen on numerous occasions building more houses does not link directly to improved affordable housing allocations as builders charge increasingly higher prices. Surely a Central Government led policy on house pricing/profits is the answer?

Q58e asks re the significance of the ‘local green spaces’ but makes no mention of the Local Wildlife Sites. These should be equally regarded and are very significant. I have heard that CFS064 could be considered for re wilding. If so, with it’s close proximity to LoWs it could become an education centre or Country park, accessible to many by foot and cycle. It therefore does need protecting form development as it would help increase the land locally t comply with the Vision Statement and improve the environment and bio diversity for the benefit of the local community.

More Suitable Sites
My introduction acknowledged the need for some developments to comply with Government policy. There is a consensus that Hockley itself cannot cope with more development in the immediate vicinity but the Plan includes sites on the western fringes of the district that are clearly more suitable with better access, room to provide additional social infrastructure as well as housing, better transport and potential for more transport hubs, and would keep the majority of traffic away from the existing overly congested community of Hockley and Hawkwell.

Conclusion
I ask that sites CFS064 and CFS264 be removed from the next stage. They are simply not suitable.

Having studied the Local Plan at length and the recently published Spatial Options pages on your website I feel I have to respond. Whilst I have wider concerns than those regarding just the two sites above I think it is to be accepted that due to Government policy significant development has to happen somewhere within the boundaries of RDC. My purpose in writing this response , however, is to advise the council of specific issues affecting the two specific sites identified in the header and to request their removal from the Plan and any subsequent consultation stages. Indeed not only should site CFS064 be removed from the development pan, it should be earmarked for protection in accordance with RDCs own objectives detailed within the plan.

My concerns are as detailed below

Material Planning Concern regarding Access-re sites CFS064 and CFS264
The only apparent access to both sites appears to be via Folly Chase, a small unadopted road off of the already congested and unsuitable Folly Lane. Folly Lane itself has seen an unreasonable increase in traffic as it is used to access the recent new housing developments in Pond Chase and Church Road as well as the previously existing housing estate. It is now seeing additional increases in traffic flow caused by the significant housing development in Hullbridge as it is the only direct two way road access from Hullbridge to Hockley. The road is frequently difficult to get through with parked cars along both sides and heavier traffic flows in both directions. This is not helped by it’s layout with three 90 degree bends and one c 45 degree bend along its relatively short length. These bends are difficult for larger traffic, especially the type of traffic used in construction, and a drain cover on one bend is broken several times a year by lorries having to ride up on to the kerb in order to get around the bend. Generally the speed of the ‘through’ traffic is too high and I have witnessed many near misses on the bends as vehicles either cut the corners or are forced to breach the centre of the road due to parked cars. A serious head on accident is now inevitable down this road, and the prospect of further development off of it will make matters even worse as the scale of the housing for the two sites identified in the plan would equate to approximately another 500 cars using Folly Lane just to access the developed sites. This would likely equate to an average of approximately 1000 to 2000 extra car movements a day on a road that is already inadequate.

A far as Folly Chase is concerned it is so limited in its capacity that it simply cannot be deemed suitable for access for either construction traffic or the eventual increase in residential access traffic. The Chase is not a through road, terminating at a footpath leading into designated Ancient Woodland, carrying HC1 Wildlife Site designation. Folly Chase has no significant base as it was unmade until the 1980s. The current road has been constructed and maintained by the Folly Chase Road Frontagers Committee on behalf of residents. A layer of bitumen and gravel was utilised over a thin layer of type 1 hardcore that is sufficient for the low traffic flow associated with 25 houses and no through access, but will simply not support construction traffic or the flows commensurate with the potential development. The road itself has no surface drainage features, gullies, gutters or drains so all water runs over the surface to the bottom of the road. There are no footpaths, nor is there space to construct footpaths and is approximately only 9 feet wide at its narrowest point and cannot support two way traffic. The existing housing water, and gas supplies are very shallow beneath the surface and any increase in heavy traffic will almost certainly cause collapse of these and there are numerous points where the existing sewage pipes cross the road, again, at a very shallow depth and would be extremely vulnerable to increased traffic flows.

The recent adjacent Pond Chase development has well known problems with regards to access to sewerage, and whilst this is now complete and running it should be noted that the bored line of drains that traverse the bottom of Folly Chase from Pond Chase, across to the field that is site CFS064 to the Hockley Community centre have already caused significant sinking of our road surface. The nearby development in Church Road has also had significant sewage and surface water issues and any further development adding onto the existing surface water and sewage infrastructure will only increase the pressure on existing infrastructure, potentially to the point of failure, with significant public health concerns.

Folly Chase is Private Road with an undefined Public Footpath running down it. Ownership of the road isn’t registered and absent any contrary evidence each land owner owns up to the mid- point of the road. There are some private rights of way that have been established by usage and by deed, but it is apparent that the ownership issue is complex and fragmented and that my discussions with many residents shows the large majority would be unwilling to enter into any negotiation to depart from current use and access.


Green Belt- ref site CFS064
The land in question forms part of the Metropolitan Green belt. Such land can only be developed for ‘Exceptional circumstances’ as detailed in the Planning Policy Guidance Note 2 (PPG2), and states in para 143 that Inappropriate development is by definition harmful to Green Belt’’ and in Para 145 that ‘’A local planning authority should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in the Green Belt. Exceptions to this are’’ ;


a. Agriculture and Forestry.
The outline proposal is for residential development thus condition is not satisfied. Indeed any development would actually be in direct opposition to this as the land is already prime agricultural arable land and is actively farmed.

b. Essential facilities for outdoor sport and recreation.
The site already includes a football pitches at the Community Centre, the Community Centre itself and is widely used for walking, dog walking, running and cycling. The outline proposals would diminish the provision of outdoor sport and recreation and this condition cannot therefore be satisfied by any housing development.

c. and d. Limited extension and/or alteration of existing buildings.
Other than the Community Centre there are no existing buildings within the site. The Community Centre itself still has a long unexpired lease and development of it fails the test above in any case. This condition cannot be fulfilled

e . Limited Infilling.
The Local Plan allocation site reference 179 states that the land could be used for up to 265 dwellings. This is anything but ‘limited’ and this condition cannot be fulfilled

f. Limited affordable Housing
Again the size of the potential development is anything but limited. Condition cannot be met.

g. Limited infilling or redevelopment of previously developed land.
This land has not been previously developed and condition cannot be met.


Paragraph 136 of the National Planning Policy Framework lays out that ‘exceptional circumstances’ must be met for any consideration of changing existing Green Belt boundaries. Paragraph 137 specifically states that ‘’the…authority should be able to demonstrate that it has examined all other reasonable options for meeting its identified need for development. …..and whether the strategy…. Makes as much use as possible of suitable brownfield sites and underutilized land’’

From the above it is clear that the site cannot be considered any further for housing development as to do so contravenes existing Metropolitan Green Belt legislation. The site should be removed from the development plan.


Local Wildlife Sites and Incorrect identification of their proximity to the site CFS064.
An additional contravention of Policy to the Green belt restrictions is that the site is in ‘close proximity’ to 3 Local Wildlife Sites (LoWs) namely, Betts Wood, Folly Wood and Hockley Hall-South Wood. These are all designated a minimum of HC1 (ancient Woodland) and have further designations. Folly Wood occupies most of the southern boundary of the site, Betts Wood most of the eastern boundary and Hockley Hall-South Wood circa half of the northern boundary. It should be noted that there is a strip of woodland joining Folly Wood and Hockley Hall-South Wood along the entire western perimeter and this may mean that these two LoWs are in fact one larger site. It is important to point out that the Site Allocation Assessment Criteria fails to mention the ‘close proximity’ of the LoWs and that it is vital that this is noted by RDC. This omission must render the Site Allocation Assessment as invalid, and that the site should not have passed the first stage consultation as a consequence.

The ’Buffer Zones’ that would be required at the perimeter of the LOWs and around the mature veteran Oak trees within the site would reduce the available land suitable for development significantly and render the site uneconomic.

The LoWs mentioned above, and the immediate surrounding environment, including the field detailed in site CFS 064 support a rich and varied population , indeed such woodland is recognized as providing the most diverse and important habitats in the UK and is already limited to just 550,000 Hectares across the entire UK.
The LoWs assessments do not detail many resident species but the following can/have been found in and around these sites and the site in question; Grass snakes, Adders, Slow Worms and Common Lizards , Common Frogs, Toads, Smooth Newts, Great Crested Newts, Badgers, Foxes, Muntjac Deer, Buzzards, Sparrow Hawks, Merlin, Tawny Owls, Little Owls, Nightjar, Blue Tits, Great Tits, Long Tail Tits, Coal Tits, Willow Warblers, Chiff Chaff, Blackcap, Blackbirds, Song Thrush, Goldfinch, Greenfinch, Chaffinch, Yellowhammer, Nuthatch, Swallow, Swift, House Martin, Crow, Jackdaw, Magpie, Jay, Rook, Coot, Moorhen, Cuckoo, Dunnock, Wren, Fieldfare, Lapwing, Redwing, Goldcrest, Great Spotted Woodpecker, Green Woodpecker, Lesser Spotted Woodpecker, Grey Heron, Pied Wagtail, Grey Wagtail, House Sparrow, Kestrel, Linnet, Nightingale, Meadow Pipit, Robin, Skylark, Starling and significant numbers of unidentified bats over the field and in the gardens of Folly Chase at night suggest a colony within Folly and/or Betts Woods. Rich flora, especially Bluebells and significant insect species including Wood Ant colonies.

This incredibly diverse range of species rely on the tree and plant species found in Ancient Woodland and on arable farmland. They require free movement between sites and the field, and the large mature Oaks within it, provide essential movement corridors between the three identified LoWs sites. Any development in the field in the center of these three LoWs can only have a massive detrimental effect on the population, and the existing richness and diversity proves this is a site that should be preserved, not destroyed. Consideration for development must cease forthwith.

The ’standing advice’ of the Government in this regard is found within Natural England and Forestry Commission guidance ( https://www.gov.uk/guidance/ancient-woodland-and-veteran-trees-protection-surveys-licences). Standing Advice is a ’Material planning consideration’. Ancient Woodllands have equal protection in the National planning Policy Framework.


We draw attention to the RDC’s own statements regarding potential development within the Local Plan document. The plan clearly states that one of it’s key objectives is ‘’for meeting future needs (including housing….). It will also identify areas for protection, such as sites that areimportant for wildlife and open space.’’ The RDC have failed in their policy objective and in following correct process that there is a failure to even identify the proximity of the LoWs detailed above in the Site Allocation Assessment Criteria.
Rather than the site be considered for development, we have shown that it should be identified for protection in accordance with the Local Plan objectives and that it should be removed from the development plan and placed in a protection plan.

Infrastructure- both sites
I have detailed my concerns above regarding the inadequate infrastructure in respect of local roads, access and drainage and sewerage. In addition it is quite clear that other local services are already struggling and would simply be unable to cope with an increase in the local population of approximately 1000 people based on the estimated development potential of the two sites. Local schools, GP surgeries and wider health care have been under significant pressure for many years. Limited local car parking inhibits local trade ( it should be noted that there are several sites used for car parking included in the site allocation potentially limiting it further) and the main Southend/Hockley/Rayleigh Road is far too frequently jammed back to Hawkwell and Hambro Hill. There is no room for dedicated bus lanes or cycle lanes along this main corridor so whatever thoughts there may be regarding increasing public transport usage or cycling are simply pie in the sky and not feasible. The main road simply cannot cope with any more traffic arising from increased housing.

Reduction of Quality Arable farming land-CFS064
I am concerned the Plan may well reduce the acreage available for arable farming. What measures have the council made to ensure we have sufficient acreage available for farming use to enable us to keep feeding ourselves?

Impact on the landscape and community
It is clear that any development at site CFS064 would have a significantly detrimental effect on the environment, biodiversity and the visible appearance of the site. The visual impact will destroy the character of the site and it’s surroundings and the increase in population and traffic would destroy the culture of the existing community within Folly Chase.

Spatial Options Document 2021
Whilst I agree with the Vision Statement for Hockley as detailed in the SOD I cannot see how the proposed development sites would achieve the stated vision. Surely any further development would conflict with the entire Vision Statement, other than the one regarding affordable housing, but as we have seen on numerous occasions building more houses does not link directly to improved affordable housing allocations as builders charge increasingly higher prices. Surely a Central Government led policy on house pricing/profits is the answer?

Q58e asks re the significance of the ‘local green spaces’ but makes no mention of the Local Wildlife Sites. These should be equally regarded and are very significant. I have heard that CFS064 could be considered for re wilding. If so, with it’s close proximity to LoWs it could become an education centre or Country park, accessible to many by foot and cycle. It therefore does need protecting form development as it would help increase the land locally t comply with the Vision Statement and improve the environment and bio diversity for the benefit of the local community.

More Suitable Sites
My introduction acknowledged the need for some developments to comply with Government policy. There is a consensus that Hockley itself cannot cope with more development in the immediate vicinity but the Plan includes sites on the western fringes of the district that are clearly more suitable. The following sites CFS146,147,167,144,168,145,137,055,121 all have far easier access, being close to A127 to London/Southend, A13 to London/Kent and A130, and room to provide additional social infrastructure as well as housing, better transport and potential for more transport hubs, and would keep the majority of traffic away from the existing congested community of Hockley and Hawkwell, and prevent a commensurate increase in pollution, noise and general inconvenience. Because these are bigger they could also attract government funding for local improvement.



Conclusion
As can be seen form my concerns detailed above , sites CFS064 and CFS264 should be removed form the next stage. They are simply not suitable when there are many more sites which would ‘score’ much better under a wide range of development considerations.

Thank you for your time in reading our response

Firstly the Consultation Process. The volume and format of information contained in the consultation was difficult to access and view online. It was difficult to understand the context of the consultation and RDC are not reaching residents who have no internet. It is also very difficult to cross reference when trying to write a response.

In my opinion the most important factor is that Infrastructure needs to be addressed before more housing is added to the area - This is a key concern for residents exacerbated by the volume of recent and proposed development causing additional pressure on roads, education, social services, health facilities and local employment opportunities. In particular our roads and cycle paths are in a very pitiful state of repair and are only likely to worsen with significant further development. The main route, the B1013 is already at full capacity and we the residents have concerns with traffic volumes causing severe Jams, increase in road noise and pollution combined with the very poor state of the roads with potholes etc

The Infrastructure Funding Statement states all financial and non-financial developer contributions relating to Section 106 conditions should be completed but this has not always been the case and is not the case when larger sites are split up. This was evident at the Hall Road development that promised a school and and doctors both of which were promised but not delivered

Open Spaces - The value of our open spaces and the issues with climate change have become a priority. The use of empty buildings and Brownfield sites should be evaluated first and consideration should be given to identifying an area where a discrete garden village with appropriate infrastructure, separate from current settlements, could be created. Prime examples of such working developments include Chelmsford Beaulieu Park and the South Woodham Ferrers development. I believe that approach is much better that the “Pepper Pot” approach in that it does not give residents a clear picture of the local area erosion of space and general slow increases of population that lead to an adverse effect on local infrastructure.

Potential Developments in Hockley - The plan proposes around 1000 additional houses in Hockley with additional developments on land bordering the Parish. This density will have a major detrimental impact on the quality of life for residents. A particular concern is traffic. The volume of traffic on the B1013, into which most of the proposed new sites, including CFS045, CFS064, CFS160 & 161, CFS074, CFS194, CFS169, CFS150 and CFS020 will feed, is already at an unacceptable level. Many proposed sites are not within walking distance of services and bus and train services are limited. Current high levels of traffic mean that there is already a detrimental effect on the quality of life for residents as well as local commerce and potentially on individuals’ health, given levels of pollution. Additional traffic, potentially thousands of cars, will only worsen matters.

The proposal for development on land at Belchamps, CFS074, is particularly worrying due to the lack of open space for activities available to youngsters and community groups in the Rochford District. The site has been a very valuable well used resource and it is important this is retained for our future generations.

Whilst I understand the need to provide additional housing in Hockley, infrastructure requirements need to be considered and addressed alongside any consideration of potential development sites. Also proper consideration needs to be given to identifying development away from existing settlements. Whilst this may be unattractive due to upfront costs, such an approach could save money in the long term.

I consent. To my name and comments being added to the Councils consultation database and understand anonymous comments cannot be accepted.
I would like to be added to the council planning list and consent to my data being stored and processed for the purposes of receiving planning updates by email

We do find these development of green belts really troubling. The fact that you seem content to ride roughshod over the purpose of this legislation in halting urban sprawl is a major concern to us, as we chose to move here to get away from such sprawl. While building on green belts is permitted, it is only to be undertaken in exceptional circumstances. We do not feel this is exceptional in any way.

We are concerned that you make no effort to give any breakdown of the infrastructure improvements that you would need to undertake with each of the plots. How can you ask residents to give their opinions without supplying this vital data? Certain developments might be more palatable if you had included the link roads, schools and doctors surgeries which would be included. Current infrastructure is already seeing long delays in getting to see doctors and children not being offered their first place in primary schools (which ironically causes more road traffic). We find this lack of planning surprising as it is clear you have done intensive reviews of each of the plots, without seeming considering this vital factor.

The fact that the roads are already in a very poor state of repair, gives us no confidence that such improvement can be achieved prior to building, or even post the builds.

With reference to the areas near where we live, without understanding the infrastructure improvements needed, it is difficult to draw up a comprehensive list of objections. However, to start the ball rolling, with this development, we would like you to formall record the following objections.

Site reference: CFS023

1. You are looking to build right on the edge of ancient and well used woodland, which would clearly damage it physically, but also the nature of the woodlands itself.

2. To build the road into this development you would need to compulsory purchase a large number of plots to be able to put in a road and footpath of a suitable width.

3. Again ,with regard to the road, you would also need to cut down a number of trees which currently line the track, a number of them appear to be very old.

4. Our house is only a few meters from the proposed road, which would reduce our privacy as well as increase air pollution, and noise levels.

5. Having any development along the already crowded Greensward Lane/Ashingdon Road with its large number of schools located on or adjacent, would simply cause more road congestion, and with the road already often reduced to a crawl, which in turn would also increase the air and noise pollution for residents.


You have placed scores against schools and healthcare, but have you approached these establishments to ask if they can service these new developments? You simply cannot score against existing needs, but need to score against the projected ones. For example I know an existing local primary is full, so how can you score a 5.

Our view is that if more new houses are needed, you should focus on new town developments where you can suitably create the infrastructure needed, as part of the development itself. People moving there would fully understand what they are moving into. We would suggest building close to the A130 to the West, with their improved road links, or to the South East with links to A1159/A13. We would also suggest working alongside the surrounding councils of Wickford and Southend to produce a fully joined up offering as joint developments.

We see a number of these proposals, as death by a thousand cuts to small towns such as Hockley, which will forever change their makeup and character. We were under the impression that it was the council’s duty to protect the hamlets under their charters, but these plans seem to go totally against these aims.

With Covid, we are likely to see homework now becoming more widely used. This in turn will see more offices converting to residential use (such as Victoria Ave, in Southend), which may have a big impact on the need to build more homes in rural areas such as ours.

To restate our initial comments, we believe on top of the callus building on Green Belt, you need to produce a fully realised infrastructure plan for the regions first, to sit alongside any proposals. Only then should residents be asked for their views.

New Local Plan.CFS160, CFS161, CFS074, CFS194, CFS169, CFS150 & CFS020

I moved to Hockley 9 years ago. My reasons for moving here was: 1. To be nearer family and 2. It was a nice village surrounded by countryside with many walks, wildlife and open spaces.
Since then numerous houses have been built with no infrastructure put in place, increasing traffic dramatically and putting extra strain on local services. There are always traffic queues in and out of Hockley.
The bottom of Gladstone Road (where I live) has become a rat run.
Traffic turning in and from Station Road. This will get worse with contractors lorries etc.
If the proposed building of more houses at various sites in and around Hockley and Hawkwell goes ahead, it will add to the already overcrowded roads around the village. This will also increase noise nuisance and air pollution.

Therefore I am against the proposed plan.

[Re CFS064; 194; 169; 150; 020]

I strongly object to the suggested building on the above referenced sites - details as follows.

CFS064 - Green Belt area. The increase in traffic would greatly impact our roads, particularly B1013 which suffers severe congestion now.
The wildlife habitat of our surrounding fields would be severely disrupted at a time we are all being asked to support our native species.

The other areas are all prone to flooding!! Is this ideal for housing building?

Infrastructure not confirmed. Ideally planned and achieved first. Lack of buses and the extra strain on our local education and medical surgeries needs to be considered initially. Promises were made for Hall Road development but infrastructure failed to be addressed! Prime example.

I am writing to object to the use of Site CFS064 (Land north and east of Folly Chase, Hockley) as part of the Spatial Options Consultation.

As stated on the Site Appraisal Paper, this site will impact on the ancient woodland of Betts Wood that adjoins this site. This is only a small ancient woodland and should be protected for future generations. Having lived next to the woods for many years, I have seen first-hand the wildlife and fauna that inhabits this small beautiful woodland. I have seen many animals including badgers, foxes, owls, deer, squirrels, bats and insects that live in the woodland and traverse across the field CFS064 to hunt. By building on the allocated site you will be turning the woodland into an isolated island which will have a detrimental impact on the wildlife and biodiversity that live there. Ancient woodlands account for only 2.5% of land cover in the UK. I understand that Paragraph 175C of The National Planning Policy Framework for England states that "when determining planning applications, local planning authorities should apply the following principles" - "development resulting in the loss of irreplaceable habitats (such as ancient woodland) should be refused unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy exists". Please can you confirm what your "exceptional reasons" are for choosing this site.

The site also adjoins an open space (behind the Community Centre) where children can play safely away from traffic. There are not many open spaces like this within Hockley and this should be left for the children of the village to enjoy where they can ride bikes away from vehicles and play ball games safely.

The Site Appraisal Paper states Primary Schools as a "4". I know there are three primary schools in Hockley but I also know that all the schools are at "bursting" point now. My daughter attends Hockley Primary and her classroom just barely accommodates the children within in her class. How do you propose fitting more children into the school if you build 214 homes on this site. The school will also be impacted by the noise and pollution that will occur from building on this site. The roads are already congested around the school during drop off/pick up and it is extremely dangerous for the children attending trying to negotiate the roads now. How do you propose alleviating the congestion to the roads around this area?

The Paper also states Health Care as a "4". With only two doctors' surgeries in the area, where it is almost impossible to get an appointment now, how do you propose accommodating the building of more houses not only on this site but in Hockley generally.

The same can be said in relation to the roads entering and leaving Hockley which are already congested - how will you alleviate the impact of more traffic due to building more houses in the vicinity. Hockley does not have the infrastructure in relation to roads, schools and health care at present to accommodate more home building.

This site has previously been flooded, can you confirm that this will not happen again in the future or have any impact on existing properties in the vicinity.

For the sake of building 214 homes there must be only marginal gains for the home owners with increased noise and pollution for everyone in the vicinity.

I hope you will take this email and my objections into consideration when deciding on the sites you wish to build upon.

[additional email via same address from daughter]

To Sir/Madam,

Please don't build on the field! Your actions will destroy a perfectly good habitat and effect everything around it. All wildlife will be destroyed or will move out which would be a very tricky situation as you have the school on one side the Community centre in the middle and the train tracks on the other side. However, they could move to the other little woods but it is almost full and it would be impossible to make it a home for other animals. It would also affect Betts woods which I have seen every single secret den and hiding place spending hours after school exploring with my best friends. I would hate to see what they would look like after you started to build near them. If you hadn't noticed there is a stream that gives me and my family water but it would be piloted and disgusting! There is a badger's den which I have seen myself and I am concerned that you could disturb it. There may also be a whole underground burrow underneath the field and if you began to build houses on it will collapse and you will not be able to build on it anyway ruining a habitat at the same time.

To Rochford council
We would like to raise our objections to the proposed sites identified in the Hockley Local Action Plan and in particular the sites listed above currently in the consultation process for future development. We live at the above property and moved to Hockley to live in a semi-rural village and to enjoy open spaces, wild life and all that county living offers, away from heavy traffic and poor air pollution. We understand the need for more housing in the southeast and would support housing projects which included their own infrastructure and facilities ie roads, schools, Doctors etc in an area that does not impact on existing towns and village which are already over- developed for the services and infrastructure in place.
The proposed development of the above sites would have a direct impact on our property and lifestyle and we oppose the development of those sites for the following reasons:
Housing built on CFS242 and CFS150 is likely to overlook our garden and the trees surrounding our property would need to be removed to enable building, spoiling our outlook and tranquillity and could result in property prices being affected as the desirability of the area would be compromised. Our property is located at the bottom of victor gardens which is on an incline and already suffers with water drainage problems and during the winter months the garden becomes water logged. Further development on CFS242 & CFS150 would impact further on water drainage in the area.
The Nature reserve is very close to the proposed sites and building on these areas would impact on the wildlife significantly.
We oppose the building on any green belt land to protect the countryside, Footpaths and bridleways which would be lost.
Parking in Victor gardens is likely to be impacted with further development. Many of the houses in the road have already been extended and some single plots purchased by builders and then replaced by two large properties which has increased the traffic and parking in the road.
We also oppose the over development of Hockley/Hawkwell to protect it as a village.
The roads are already very congested and presenting problems in the area and further development would cause major problems getting in and out of the village without new road structures being put in place.
Many of the local schools are already full or close to full capacity and more housing would result in a lack of school places and choice for local children. If more educational facilities are not provided with further development then our children’s education will be compromised at the expense of development and housing.
The health facilities in the area are already overstretched and more housing in the area will definitely impact on our heath services.
Having lived and worked in this area for over 25years we feel that Hockley/Hawkwell is already overdeveloped for the infrastructure and facilities in place and therefore oppose further major development/ housing of this area.

Hello
I Would just like to oppose the proposal for CFS064 the new house development for betts Farm Estate. There is far too many houses all being built round the folly lane area.I live in folly lane and since the new development on the pond farm estate it is just so busy in this road. Somedays it is congested with cars because of trouble on the High Road.My front wall has now been knocked down twice from speeding cars. I don't suppose it will be the last. Also the footpath round the cornfields has always been a lovely walk to take our dogs. With houses being built there it will no longer be a safe place to walk. There will be nowhere other than hockley woods to go. Myself being a women will not go there alone.
There seems to be proposals to build so many more houses all round hockley too. Every where will be so congested. Too many people and not enough facilities doctors etc.I have only lived in hockley 14 years and have seen it change in that short time.

Comments on RDC Local Plan Consultation for Hockley Sept 2021
The need for housing is understood but many of the proposals in the Local Plan Consultation and the impact of over-development in Hockley are a major cause for concern, especially without evidence of supporting
infrastructure. This initial consultation informs residents of landowners who have put forward sites for future
development so there is a personal gain aspect here. Rochford District Council has a duty to actively support
residents needs in all communities and influence Government policies.

Consultation Process -The volume of information contained in the consultation was difficult to access and view online. Some links did not work properly. RDC are not reaching residents who have no internet.

Infrastructure - This is a continuing concern to residents due to the volume of recent and proposed development
causing additional pressure on roads, education, social services, health facilities and local employment
opportunities all of which gives a sustainable balance for our communities. The Infrastructure Funding Statement
states all financial and non-financial developer contributions relating to Section 106 conditions should be
completed but this is not the case when larger sites are split up. If developers do not honour the conditions the
money reverts to ECC and RDC who should use this to improve our existing facilities, especially on our roads and cycle paths which are in a pitiful state of repair and will only worsen with further development if funding is not
used where it was intended.

Open Spaces - The value of our open spaces and the issues with climate change has become a priority. People
will continue to reduce travel and split time working from home. Our open spaces are essential for wellbeing,
exercise and relaxation. We are on an overpopulated peninsular surrounded by water with one way in and one
way out and there is a proven risk of flooding. Open space is at a premium. Many proposals would also mean a further reduction in air quality, light pollution and the loss of trees, farming and arable land at a time when food production and supply is becoming a cause for concern. Sites of Special Scientific Interest will also be affected.
The Merryfields Avenue proposal has been previously rejected by residents due to access issues as the land borders on the Nature Reserve. Consideration should be given to incorporating it into the Reserve rather than releasing it for development.

• The plan proposes around 1000 additional houses in Hockley with other developments on land bordering
the parish. This density will have a major detrimental impact on the quality of life for the settlements;
• From 1st August it was announced that empty buildings and brownfield sites should be converted rather than build new. This alternative should be evaluated first;
• Essential green belt is being allowed to erode further which will be impossible to replace;
• Enforcement on unauthorised development is not adequately managed.
• The volume of traffic has increased to an unacceptable level on the B1013 causing noise, smells and
disturbance; Is the traffic survey up to date;
• Proposals for Folly Chase and Church Road will increase density and give further traffic problems on a
busy county access road which has light industry and equestrian centres but does not have footways for
pedestrian safety; vehicles are also subject to dangerous line of sight restrictions. The Folly Chase proposal was previously rejected by residents and supposedly dismissed by RDC but still appears in the Local Plan for development. What are the plans for the Community Centre and public footpaths which must be retained?
• Sheltered accommodation is in danger of being lost at Lime Court and Poplar Court;
• The proposal for development on land at Belchamps is particularly contentious due to the lack of open space for activities available to youngsters and community groups in the Rochford District. The site has been a very valuable well used resource and it is important this is retained for our future generations.
We have to consider some growth in Hockley and surrounding areas but a more measured approach must
be taken on the sites put forward by landowners. The views of our residents on the Consultation should be
acted upon by RDC and unsuitable and overdeveloped areas withdrawn from the Plan.

To whom it may concern,

Having Moved to Hockley for the space and countryside 6 years ago, we have already been affected by new building of estates on our boundary. We have lost the dark night skies and now have houses with lights on all the time, in the fist two years we enjoyed watch bats of various sizes dance in the twilight skies. Alas we are lucky to see one or two backs and that is infrequently.

Our own garden/ trees have been affected also by the increase of concrete/drives redirecting the water flow in the area. However that aside.

My main concern is centred on Hockey, where we moved to, and live in particular the areas around references CFS064, CFS264, CFS040, CFS160 and CFS191.

Hockley is a small village and whilst the Spacial Statement looks to keep Hockley as the gateway to the Green Lung with Hockley woods etc. this does seem to be in direct conflict with proposed development sites along the ancient woodlands edges and there seems to be a desire to continue to encroach on this delicate and valuable asset plus our other green field/green belt sites. Hockley woods offers diverse habitat for wildlife and recently increase of butterflies has been noted.

Traffic congestion since we moved has been noticeable in such a short space of time., increasingly so is the the junction of Main Road/ Spa Road/Southend Road which is a constant bottleneck often stacking back to Fountain Road from Rayleigh Walking to/from the village along MainRoad/Aldermans Hill is not a great experience at any time and I feel that the air quality has diminished in recent times as the traffic continues to mount up and as a commuter to walk that route daily is not pleasant. Further development can surely only add to the issues.

The impact on services must also be taken into account. Local Doctor surgeries appear to be full as do Dentist. Obtaining appointments to either services can takes hours if not days to arrange. On a wider scale I am not sure how University Hospital Southend will cope with up to 10,000 more souls from the Rochford area alone plus whatever Southend Borough are planning. The hospital seems under immense pressure - even before COVID.

CFS064 and CFS264
The location is at the end of a private road leading to an active agricultural site and is close to valued woodland and walking/recreational sites/footpaths over a mile from the centre of Hockley.

Access to the private road (Folly Chase) is via Folly Lane which itself is a narrow and increasingly overused thoroughfare, and the entrance is on a tight bend. Folly Lane is not a road best positioned for any increase in traffic at anytime least of all heavy lorries on and off site. The road infrastructure is poor and any increase in road usage would surely cause mayhem and possible failure.

The site is an active agricultural site. With todays emphasis to be more self sufficient in food production to lose this site would surely be short sighted. The Hedgerows offer blackberries and Sloe berries for autumn foraging for many. The impact of any large development would also have a severe impact on the local wildlife and leisure (dog walking/ walking/cycling/horse riding) would be substantial not to mention the pressure on local and ancient woodland and the wildlife. Local deer, badger, bat and fox communities are already under pressure from recent developments down Church Road and Pond Chase - which has already increased road traffic in the area with detrimental affect although was to a larger part good use of a brown field site and worthy of support. Frequent near miss of Horse and car /Lorries can only get worse. The speed and size of vehicles which use Folly Lane and Church Road does need a study and traffic calming measures Now even before any consideration given to more housing needs to be strongly considered.

CFS040
This is surprising that the area is still on the plan. It has recently had planning approved for 2 large private residential properties and surely access would be restricted. However, much as mentioned above Church Road at the proposed site is very narrow and close to the junction with Folly Lane and Fountain lane. Church Road has seen a large increase in traffic not just with the building of over 60 houses in the immediate vicinity in the last 5 years but also affected by use as a cut through from Hullbridge along Lower Road and the residential development that is going on there.

The road is showing signs of deterioration. Repeated reporting of drain failure /water seepage and drain overflows have gone unheeded it appears as no effective repairs /investigations made. It also has a number of stables and is used constantly as access to Bridleways for those exercising horses as well as walkers given the access to the open countryside. It should be pointed out that for the most part there are no footways either and walking is a hazardous undertaking. The road infrastructure doesn't support increased traffic and public transport is poor. The recent new builds (Astors/Church Mews) also appear to ave affected the water run off -water now constantly flows down Church road and floods under the rail bridge when rains. Prior to these builds we would have decent water run onto our property which ran to the ditch at the rear, we have lost numerous trees since.

CFS160

This must be seen as an encroachment on the edge of Hockley Wood and the green belt. This seems to be another such erosion of those green areas that we seem to be keen to keep? The proposed area is quite a way from any of the essential services in Hockley or Rayleigh with limited public transport options and again the High Road which is very busy will incur further traffic adding to alreday high levels of congestion and a deterioration in the air quality. There has already been new estate in that area of Bullwood Hall adding pressure to such as small road access and added traffic to The Rayleigh Hockley Road.

Infrastructure is so severely lacking in this area and further housings in these areas will only have a detrimental affect on the area.

Objection to the Spatial Options Consultation Proposals.
In Particular around Hockley Hullbridge and Rochford, All of which will add to the problematic traffic issues, with limited road access, also to the limited Healthcare and Schooling provisions.
I am deeply disappointed by the swathes of countryside/Greenbelt that has been highlighted as suitable for conversion to Housing land, from the report you commissioned with Southend by Lichfields in 2020.
I appreciate that East of England designated you in 2005 with the responsibility to enable the provision of 4750 new builds by 2025, which was added to the 20yr Local Strategic Plan, and that you have fallen behind meeting those targets.
I also appreciate all of the reports you have had drawn up and the various calls for land, which have encouraged many greedy land owners, and developers to offer their land for proposed change of use, hoping for the subsequent windfalls they will benefit from.
However, as a property and business owner within RDC over the past 35 years, I am extremely concerned and as I said before, disappointed that, although the area has grown significantly in population, the infrastructure has not grown to meet the existing demands, let alone cope with the increase of some approx. 15000 + people to inhabit these new proposed properties.
The residents of Rochford District have not seen Section 106 enable the provision of new Schools, GP Clinics, Social or Healthcare services. Prior to meeting you today at Hawkwell Baptist Church, it did seem that it was acceptable for RDC to allow the developers to divide the development sites between companies to ensure they reduce their responsibility of Section 106 obligations. However after it was explained that the funds for this provision has been made over to the council, and you pointed out that you have ‘advised‘ the NHS and Education that it is there awaiting them. But they have neglected to utilise these finds nor provide additional support. You told me at your open event today that you ‘consult with’ other parties regarding development proposals. This is not agreement to provide though is it. How can you possibly prepare for the future if the various stakeholders are not working with joined up thinking/synergy. The affected service partners need to be in full agreement prior to passing such huge permissions, otherwise the additional demands fall squarely onto the shoulders of the already overloaded services of Health and Education. The effect of which leaves the general community burdened with additional constraints.
(It’s hard enough as it is to find an NHS dentist or get a doctors appointment currently, classrooms are already overstretched and local schools bursting at the seams).
Local Police services are reducing, and the demands upon them increasing.
Road and access infrastructure has not been enhanced in any way to accommodate such a huge increase of up to 10,000 more vehicles on the roads (2.2 cars per house hold), travelling around the district now takes twice the time it used to 25 yrs ago, with journeys between Rochford and Rayleigh taking up to, and sometimes over, 40 mins during rush hours.
This increased congestion creates pollution, is not environmentally friendly, and will see a sharp increase to RDC’s carbon footprint.
The water gas and sewerage supplies are greatly affected, which will again affect the roadways as new services are provided.
Water run-off from additional ill planned bolt on sites, will also create localised flooding
Previously, Highways discussed the provision of an extension to the A130, another promise that is yet to be fulfilled. Had it have done so, you might have been better placed to have created a new village along its course, with schools GP and transport infrastructure incorporated.
Interestingly, Chelmsford have done just this with Beaulieu Park. The A130 has been improved and enabled a development which incorporates all of the infrastructure requirements to service the new population. This way shops services healthcare outdoor spaces and schooling have been incorporated, and a new village has been born.
They have met their Thames Gateway requirements, and not suffocated the existing population, but enhanced their District, providing both short- and long-term employment in the process. All of which has been accomplished, without disturbance or displacement of the existing local population.
To earmark so much of our territory is heinous, and will destroy the quality of life for tens of thousands of your existing residents.
The creation of a conurbation between Rochford / Hockley /Rayleigh to Wickford would be devastating to the local wildlife, and countryside and to the mental health of your current community as a whole.
In conclusion
Limited infrastructure has been provided or is planned to support the building of significant thousands of properties in the area, and without such regional fundamental investment, (providing enhanced and increased services and roads for all of the designated locations upon your interactive map), I consider this Spatial exercise to be not only premature, but irresponsible to your existing residents and taxpayers.
You would be better placed to enable the majority of the increased housing provision west of Rayleigh where access to the A130 and A127 would enable easy access, and such a large development would ensure that the full support structure is incorporated at the time of the build, in a seamless joined up integrated planned development with all the service providers, that adds benefits for all .

RDC/Spatial Consultation 2021 Questions

Q1. Are there any other technical evidence studies that you feel the Council needs to prepare to inform its new Local Plan, other than those listed in this section?
A: Evaluate the impact of the current developments, especially in Rayleigh and Hullbridge.
Q2. Do you agree with our draft vision for Rochford District? Is there anything missing from the vision that you feel needs to be included? [Please state reasoning]
A: Mostly, although I do not feel you have included enough information on how you might achieve housing for the hidden homeless or those on low incomes, emergency housing provision, schemes to allow the elderly in large houses to be able to downsize or how you plan to provide suitable commercial units of varying sizes, to allow businesses to up or downsize into a suitably sized premises without them needing to relocate into another area.
Q3. Do you agree that we should develop a range of separate visions for each of our settlements to help guide decision-making? [Please state reasoning]
A: Yes, as each settlement has its own characteristics and needs.
Q4. Do you agree with the strategic priorities and objectives we have identified? Is there anything missing from the strategic priorities or objectives that you feel needs to be included? [Please state reasoning]
A: Don’t know.
Q5. Do you agree with the settlement hierarchy presented? If not, what changes do you think are required? [Please state reasoning]
A: Yes. Rayleigh is the largest town in the district but you need to maintain the green boundaries between the surrounding areas.
Q6. Which of the identified strategy options do you consider should be taken forward in the Plan? [Please state reasoning]
A: A combination of 3 and 4.
Creating a new town would enable all the infrastructure to be put in place, allowing more scope for cycling routes and pedestrianised areas. This will stop the urban sprawl which is currently happening in the larger town (and proposed in option 1), creating traffic havoc and pollution. Combining this with option 4 could help with spreading the balance of housing needs, traffic, etc. across the whole of the district and not just in one place.
Q7. Are there any reasonable alternatives to these options that should be considered instead? [Please state reasoning]
A: Windfalls should be included in the housing quota.
Q8. Are there any key spatial themes that you feel we have missed or that require greater emphasis? [Please state reasoning]
A: Yes: Cultural and Accessibility.
Q9. Do you agree we should take a sequential approach to flood risk and coastal change in our plan, locating development away from areas at risk of flooding and coastal change wherever possible? How can we best protect current and future communities from flood risk and coastal change? [Please state reasoning]
A: Yes. We need to ensure we have a suitable plan to protect not only our towns and village communities (houses/businesses) but also the natural areas as well. We need adequate defences to limit flooding in all areas, protecting people and wildlife. Maybe these could be incorporated in the “natural” landscape theming so as to deflect any water away from these areas. New developments not only need to address their carbon footprint but also the design of the housing they build so that they limit flood damage.
Q10. Do you agree that the Coastal Protection Belt and Upper Roach Valley should be protected from development that would be harmful to their landscape character? Are there other areas that you feel should be protected for their special landscape character? [Please state reasoning]
A: Yes. I feel all of our coastal areas and areas of special interest, where there is a significant risk of flooding and harm to the environment needs careful consideration. Our ancient woodlands also need to be protected and well managed.
Q11. Do you agree we should require development to source a percentage of their energy from low-carbon and renewable sources? Are there other opportunities in the District to supply low-carbon or renewable energy?
A: Vast swathes of land being used for solar panels or unsightly wind farms should not be allowed. I do not feel we have used the potential of tidal renewable energy themes. We have potential in some areas to explore this without defacing our district. All new homes should be fitted with solar, either on their roof or windows and commercial properties could be encouraged to fit solar panels to their roof.
Q12. Do you agree we should require new development to achieve energy efficiency standards higher than building regulations? What level should these be set at? [Please state reasoning].
A: I believe that we should aim to achieve a higher standard if possible and encourage developers to put forward new ways of achieving this. We are planning for future generations and should not be stuck in the past. Why go for minimum standards? Always aim higher!
Q13. How do you feel the plan can help to support the local generation of low-carbon and renewable energy? Are there locations where you feel energy generation should be supported? [Please state reasoning]
A: Solar in all new development as standard. Incentives to encourage existing developments to install solar onto their properties as well as any commercial buildings to be fitted with solar to their roofs (there are many flat roofed buildings all over the district that could accommodate solar panels without damaging the landscape). Explore tidal energy and seek out suitable locations in order to ascertain whether it is viable. No wind turbines! They would ruin the landscape.
Q14. Do you consider that the plan should include a place-making charter that informs relevant policies? Should the same principles apply everywhere in the District, or should different principles apply to different areas? [Please state reasoning]
A: The district has some very distinct areas and a “one shoe fits all” would be detrimental to some smaller communities. The place-making charter should be bespoke, with each area being considered in its own right. The rules on building should be strict so as to enhance the areas of development and needs to consider the wider picture in respect of amenities, open spaces, retail, schools, services, pollution, character and accessibility (to name but a few). There should not be deviation of plans unless there are exceptional circumstances. Time and time again out SPD2 documents are ignored and ugly extensions and dormers are built to the detriment of the area.
Q15. Are the principles set out in the draft place-making charter the right ones? Are there other principles that should be included? [Please state reasoning]
A: They are, as long as they are adhered to.
Q16a. Do you consider that new design guides, codes or masterplans should be created alongside the new Local Plan?
A: Yes.
➔ Q16b. If yes, do you think it is more appropriate to have a single design guide/code for the whole District, or to have design guides/codes/masterplans for individual settlements or growth areas? [Please state reasoning]
A: You need different design guides/etc as our district is unique and diverse and the “one shoe fits all" would be detrimental to its character and charm.
➔ Q16c. What do you think should be included in design guides/codes/masterplans at the scale you are suggesting? [Please state reasoning].
A: You need to ensure that the character and heritage of our settlements are adhered to whilst allowing for some growth, in order to rejuvenate the smaller settlements if needed.
Q17. With reference to the options listed above, or your own options, how do you feel we can best plan to meet our need for different types, sizes and tenures of housing? [Please state reasoning]
A: By working closely with planners and developers, as well as different charities and communities, residents and businesses. You will then get a better understanding as to what you need and what will be achievable.
Q18. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there areas or sites in Rochford that you feel require a specific approach to housing types, size and tenure? What is required to meet housing needs in these areas? [Please state reasoning]
A: The district has a large number of houses, existing and approved that have 4 or 5 bedrooms. The number of homes available with 2 or 3 bedrooms is minimal, which increases their price and availability. The smaller properties are the ones that need to be affordable for families. We should ensure that our “affordable“ properties are not all flats and that the minimum (or higher) standards are met for gardens/recreational space. There are sure to be single, elderly residents that would like to downsize from their large family homes, into a smaller, more manageable one but do not wish to go into an assisted living/residential /retirement home. They may want a 1 or 2 bedroomed property, maybe one storey, or low rise apartment that they own freehold. We also need to consider that some of our residents may need residential care and we should be looking at ways to cope with the rising number of elderly and provide accommodation for them also. We desperately need to meet the needs of the hidden homeless. The adult children on low wages that have no hope of starting a life of their own away from their parents. By living in these conditions, even if the family unit is tight and loving, it will cause mental health issues, stress and anxiety. We also need accessible properties for our disabled members of our community, where they are assisted in order to fulfil a normal as possible life. Emergency and social housing also need to be addressed.

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

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

Q23. With reference to the options listed above, or your own options, how do you feel we can best ensure that we meet our employment and skills needs through the plan? [Please state reasoning]
A: The council needs to stop developing existing commercial land into housing. Too many sites have already been lost and many more are planned to go. They can then concentrate on helping those businesses wanting to expand to be able to do so. They should look to working with local schools and colleges, as well as businesses and the job centre, to see what sustainable employment is needed in the district. They then need to assist in schemes to train all ages get back into work or upskill.
Q24. With reference to Figure 30, do you consider the current employment site allocations to provide enough space to meet the District’s employment needs through to 2040? Should we seek to formally protect any informal employment sites for commercial uses, including those in the Green Belt? [Please state reasoning]
A: No. The current employment site allocations on Figure 30 do not provide enough space to meet the District’s employment needs through to 2040. We have around 87,000 people in the district. There is no data on the form to suggest how many of these are in employment and how many are looking for work but the council need to reassess its future needs in order to future-proof our residents’ opportunities. We only need to formally protect sites that have a future and a potential to expand or continue effectively. Green belt sites should be assessed separately and decisions made on merit.
Q25. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to deliver new employment facilities or improvements to existing employment facilities?
A: Option 3 could deliver new opportunities for employment as it would be a new site completely. Industrial units of various sizes, with room for expansion plus retail, hospitality and other employment could be included in the criteria for the development. Option 4 could assess existing sites across the district and the options to be able to expand, as well as areas for new sites.
Q26. Are there any particular types of employment site or business accommodation that you consider Rochford District is lacking, or would benefit from?
A: Environmental services - woodland conservation/management. (We need to find funding for this as it is important!) HGV training school.
Q27. Are there other measures we can take through the plan to lay the foundations for long-term economic growth, e.g. skills or connectivity?
A: Better road networks and Wi-Fi. Apprenticeships or training for all ages with jobs at the end of training.
Q28. With reference to the options listed above, or your own options, how do you feel we can best manage the Airport’s adaptations and growth through the planning system? [Please state reasoning]
A: Unsure, but I feel there is not enough room for too much expansion ie. add another run way. The council could consider a park and ride park, to divert some traffic away from the residential area, which could create jobs for security services, bus drivers, attendants, cleaners, etc. Expansion of the airport may affect the Grade 1 listed St Laurence and All Saints Church and this needs careful consideration.
Q29. Do you agree that the plan should designate and protect areas of land of locally important wildlife value as a local wildlife site, having regard to the Local Wildlife Sites review? Are there any other sites that you feel are worthy of protection? [Please state reasoning]
A: We all should be doing everything in our power to protect wildlife sites. All wildlife is important and we have been neglecting them, and slowly chipping away at them for years. Wildlife now enter suburban areas as their own habitats have diminished and they can no longer fend for themselves adequately from nature. We have a decline in Badgers and hedgehogs as well as rabbits, frogs, newts, voles and shrews. Ask yourselves: when did you last see a live hedgehog or badger? Most (especially badgers) are usually dead (along with foxes and deer) by the side of our roads. We have removed places that have housed bats and now we do not see them flying around the district in the numbers they did. Designating initial sites is a step in the right direction but we have to do more. It is proven that our mental health issues can be relieved by nature and keeping the sites sacred is more important now than it ever was. Keeping a biodiverse environment, with wildlife and the environment in which it relies is paramount. You mention that Doggett Pond no longer meets the standard but are there no steps to improve its status instead of dismissing it? It is obviously an important site for the wildlife in that area. To lose it would be to our detriment. We should be looking at creating new sites with every large housing development, and adding them to our protected list in order to improve our district and our own wellbeing. We should no allow private households to take over grass areas and verges (or concreting the verges over for parking and cost savings). These areas, although small are still areas for wildlife (bees and butterflies - also in decline, as well as bugs which feed our birds). We should create new wildlife meadows to encourage the pollinators in order to future proof our own existence. We should be exploring smaller sites that we could enhance, manage and protect in order to give future generations something to look back on and feel proud that we have given them a legacy. Something that we can be proud of.
Q30. Do you agree that the plan should designate and protect areas of land of locally important geological value as a local geological site, having regard to the Local Wildlife Sites review? Are there any other sites that you feel are worthy of protection? [Please state reasoning]
A: Yes. We need to protect them for future generations and teach our children their history and importance so that they can continue to keep them safe.
Q31. Do you consider net gains for biodiversity are best delivered on-site or off-site? Are there specific locations or projects where net gain projects could be delivered?
A: On site. You can then assess in real time and sort out any issues you would not have known about off site.
Q32. With reference to the options above, or your own options, how do you feel we can best deliver a quality green and blue infrastructure network through the plan? [Please state reasoning]
A: You need to enhance and maintain what we already have by ensuring the necessary links are in place to link as many as possible, and ensuring that public rights of way are not blocked by land owners and are kept free from debris. You also need to assess some paths to make them accessible to the disabled so that all is inclusive. There are some green areas that do not have public facilities and it would be advantageous to look into offering this in the larger spaces (ie in the car park – a small toilet block and hand washing facilities). Obtaining funding from large (and medium) developments for enhancement of existing areas as well as providing new spaces and facilities is a step in the right direction.
Q33. Do you agree that the central woodlands arc and island wetlands, shown on Figure 32 are the most appropriate areas for new regional parklands? Are there any other areas that should be considered or preferred? [Please state reasoning]
A: They are a step in the right direction but you need to assess periodically in order to be able to add further links to any new parkland that may be created in the future. The map is unclear as it does not show exact routes. There is a large open space to the South West of Rayleigh (on the border), South of Bardfield Way and The Grange/Wheatley Wood, which could be enhanced.
Q34. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to help deliver new strategic green and blue infrastructure? [Please state reasoning]
A: Enhancing the areas we have and ensuring developers include green space/recreational facility areas within their developments. A new, separate development would be able to deliver this within their plan layout. Ensuring there are suitable links, access and footpaths. Making sure some of these footpaths are accessible for the disabled.

Q35. With reference to the options above, or your own options, how can we address the need for sufficient and accessible community infrastructure through the plan? [Please state reasoning]
A: Ensuring that funding for existing facilities comes from new developments and making sure that these facilities are built during the time of the development (not like the London Road/Rawreth Lane development where a site was “provided” for healthcare but has not been built). Assess the shortfall of facilities and networks before plans are approved so that adequate planning and funding can be secured before any building takes place.
Q36. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to deliver new or improved community infrastructure? [Please state reasoning]
A: A new town would have this infrastructure built into its plans. Funding for improvements must otherwise come from developers if an area is already overpopulated.
Q37. Are there areas in the District that you feel have particularly severe capacity or access issues relating to community infrastructure, including schools, healthcare facilities or community facilities? How can we best address these? [Please state reasoning]
A: Rayleigh is overcrowded. It has a road network no longer fit for purpose. The schools are almost full. It is difficult to obtain a GP or dental appointment. There is little to no disabled play areas/equipment. There is always issues with waste collections, drain & road cleaning and verge trimming. The council does not have the staff to deal with all these issues. The council needs to either build another waste recycling site (as the one in Castle road is no longer capable of expanding and meeting the needs of its ever growing population) or develop a better waste collection program which allows extra waste to be collected next to bins. It also needs to find a site to address/install commercial waste facilities to stop fly tipping.
Q38. With reference to the options above, or your own options, how do you feel we can best meet our open space and sport facility needs through the plan? [Please state reasoning]
A: Improve what we already have. The tennis courts on Fairview Park need improvement. Safeguard our open spaces to ensure we have wildlife and recreation. Develop different types of sporting facilities – not just football pitches. There is a need for a larger skateboard park and BMX track. We need to offer free recreation for our teenagers.
Q39. Are the potential locations for 3G pitch investment the right ones? Are there other locations that we should be considering? [Please state reasoning]
A: The development of 3G pitches seems to be the trendy thing to do but they are plastic grass at the end of the day and we should be looking at ways to reduce our plastic use. If there is an area that already exists that is in a poor start of repair then it may be an option – especially if the “grass” is made from recyclables, but we should be thinking outside the box and not covering our parks with it.
Q40. Are the listed potential hub sites and key centres the right ones? Are there other locations that we should be considering? [Please state reasoning]
A: They look suitable. They will probably need funding.
Q41. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to help deliver improvements to open space or sport facility accessibility or provision?
A: A new development would be able to deliver this in their plans or fund improvements for existing facilities.
Q42. Are there particular open spaces that we should be protecting or improving? [Please note, you will have an opportunity to make specific comments on open spaces and local green spaces in the settlement profiles set out later in this report]
A: The sites will be specific in each parish. You need to protect all of these recreational spaces and improve if necessary as once lost to development, they can ever come back.
Q43. With reference to the options listed in this section, or your own options, how do you feel we can best address heritage issues through the plan? [Please state reasoning]
A: You need to reassess your policies on planning regarding alterations made to the buildings on your list, especially in our conservation areas. There have been a few occasions where buildings of “interest” (or other) have been altered, and that places in conservation areas have been allowed canopies, shutters and internal illumination of signage without challenge. Any building work (if any) needs to be sympathetic to the area and you should be able to request amendments to frontage, even if they have had it up for some time. Shop fronts are huge areas of uninteresting glass with garish colours. Signage and advertising (‘A’ board’s litter our pavements without challenge and large barriers are erected onto the pavements – totally out of character with a conservation area in a heritage town. Stick to your policies.
Q44. Are there areas of the District we should be considering for conservation area status beyond those listed in this section? [Please state reasoning]
A: Unsure although we need to stop taking areas of our precious woodland to make way for housing.
Q45. Are there any buildings, spaces or structures that should be protected for their historic, cultural or architectural significance? Should these be considered for inclusion on the Local List of non-designated assets? [Please state reasoning]
A: Don’t know. Mill Hall? Over 50 years old. Cultural centre in a conservation area. Needs massive investment and management. A new survey needs to be taken to ascertain whether there are any other areas that should be considered. There are many buildings along the High Road into Rayleigh (but not in the conservation area) which should be considered.
Q46. With reference to the options listed above, or your own options, how do you think we can best plan for vibrant town centres in Rochford, Rayleigh and Hockley? How can we also ensure our village and neighbourhood centres remain vibrant? [Please state reasoning]
A: You can only have a vibrant town centre if there are shops to go to. If these units are subsequently changed to residential then our town centres will be fractured and uninviting. The new Use Class E will mean it will be even more important for the council to protect our retail outlets. You need to work actively with premises owners in order to assist in the re-letting of any empty shops. Maybe offer a reduced rent to new businesses as a start-up scheme (you could contain this as a “local” business only – allowing the entrepreneurs in the Rochford District a chance to showcase their business). You also need to be able to negotiate with the owners of empty shops how they can best strive to fill these premises and if not, then have some visual displays in the windows (ie. photos of the old towns or useful information) to make them more attractive.
You will need good access links with an excellent road and cycle network and reliable public transport that links effectively from all the villages to all the towns.
Q47. Do you agree with the local centre hierarchy set out in Figure 36? If not, what changes would you make? [Please state reasoning]
A: Yes.
Q48. With reference to Figures 38-40, do you agree with existing town centre boundaries and extent of primary and secondary shopping frontages in Rayleigh, Rochford and Hockley? If not, what changes would you make? [Please state reasoning]
A: Yes
Q49. Should we continue to restrict appropriate uses within town centres, including primary and secondary shopping frontages within those centres? If yes, what uses should be restricted? [Please state reasoning]
A: Yes. We do not want rows of hairdresser or rows of takeaways etc. as this would eventually kill off our high streets. We need to have a balance of outlets. You would lose the vibrancy you are hoping to achieve if you allowed this. You should also consider restricting use to giant chains as these tend to be the first to go in a crisis and make high streets lose their individuality by them all looking the same.
Q50. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to deliver improved retail and leisure services in the District? [Please state reasoning]
A: Unfortunately, some of our smaller retail areas have been sold off and housing development has been allowed (eg. Rayleigh - rear of Marks & Spencer and Dairy Crest plus Lancaster Road [builders’ yard]). In a new development there would be scope to add a small/medium/large precinct of retail etc. depending on the development size.
Q51. With reference to the options above, or your own options, how do you feel we can best address our transport and connectivity needs through the plan? [Please state reasoning]
A: The council needs to address the “No development before infrastructure” mantra! Too many houses are being built without adequate road networks in place (including walking and cycling routes). A new road could be built from the A1245 to Hullbridge, limiting the traffic on Rawreth Lane. More work need to be done (and quickly) on the A127 and The Carpenters Arms roundabout. The feeder lanes proposed some years ago to link the Fairglen interchange with The Rayleigh Weir in both directions need to be done ASAP as this is a bottleneck. Hockley needs another access although I am unsure how that can be achieved. New developments should put in cycle paths and walkways and they could be made to link up with existing paths (which need updating and attention).
Q52. Are there areas where improvements to transport connections are needed? What could be done to help improve connectivity in these areas?
A: More work need to be done (and quickly) on the A127 and The Carpenters Arms roundabout. The feeder lanes proposed some years ago to link the Fairglen interchange with The Rayleigh Weir in both directions need to be done ASAP as this is a bottleneck. Hockley needs another access.

Q53. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to deliver new transport connections, such as link roads or rapid transit? What routes and modes should these take? [Walking, cycling, rail, bus, road etc.]
A: A new road from A1245 to Hullbridge is needed as Watery Lane is too narrow and winding, and is closed on a regular basis due to flooding. More (smaller) buses to link our towns and villages. Trams, although they seem a good idea, would cause congestion on our narrow roads and be unsustainable. Designated cycling paths (not on the roads or pavements) adjacent to our road networks would help improve traffic flow and these would need to be linked to be efficient.
Q54. Do you feel that the plan should identify rural exception sites? If so, where should these be located and what forms of housing or employment do you feel need to be provided? [Please note you may wish to comment on the use of specific areas of land in the next section]
A: Yes, but if they are to be affordable only, then they should be offered to local residents first and not anyone from afar who wants a cheap house or for those with a buy to let mortgage.
Q55. Are there any other ways that you feel the plan should be planning for the needs of rural communities? [Please stare reasoning]
A: Improve public transport.
Q56a. Do you agree with our vision for Rayleigh? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]
A: Yes but you also need to include a reduced volume of traffic and air pollution. The High Street is usually grid locked and this causes dangerous pollution for our pedestrians/shoppers/residents. An active Police presence.
Q56b. With reference to Figure 44 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the promoted sites should be made available for any of the following uses? How could that improve the completeness of Rayleigh?
i. Housing [market, affordable, specialist, traveller, other]
ii. Commercial [offices, industrial, retail, other]
iii. Community infrastructure [open space, education, healthcare, allotments, other]
iv. Other
A: Access and increased congestion is going to be an issue with a lot of the sites in Rayleigh. If you keep adding small developments to the boundaries of the town we will create an overcrowded impacting on the developments already there and an urban sprawl effect. CFS 121 has potential for a new woodland area which could soak up some of the carbon emissions from the A127 traffic.
Q56c. Are there areas in Rayleigh that development should generally be presumed appropriate? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
A: We should be restricting any further large developments in Rayleigh and need to assess the impact of the current developments first.
Q56d. Are there areas that require protecting from development? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
A: CSF027 – The access road (Bull Lane) is a known rat run and is extremely busy. Any further traffic, which will also compete with large agricultural vehicles, could be a danger to the residents already there. Bull Lane near this point has also been flooded several times recently. CFS023 – Access to this road is via Wellington Road. It can be extremely difficult, especially at peak times (non-pandemic) to access to and from Hockley Road. Adding a large development here will have an adverse impact on existing residents and car users alike. Also, if these 2 developments are linked to Albert Road, the installation of a through road to Bull Lane will cause issues in parking, access and wellbeing as the road would become another rat run!
Q56e. Do you agree that the local green spaces shown on Figure 44 hold local significance? Are there any other open spaces that hold particular local significance?
A: All green spaces hold significance, especially to those who use them for recreation, and have community value. They should be protected. Green belt borders should be protected from development in order to prevent urban sprawl.
The green space north of CFS121 could be linked by a new bridge over the railway and create a new habitat for wildlife, with meadows and woodlands, walks and a lake/pond. A car park with facilities could be created and a small retail space could be offered for snacks etc.
Q57a. Do you agree with our vision for Rochford and Ashingdon? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]
A: I feel CFS261 would cause great harm to the area, with a potential of over 4,000 houses on the site. The road network is not sufficient to cope with half that amount of dwellings and new schools would need to be built.
Q57b. With reference to Figure 45 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the promoted sites should be made available for any of the following uses? How could that improve the completeness of Rochford and Ashingdon?
i. Housing [market, affordable, specialist, traveller, other]
ii. Commercial [offices, industrial, retail, other]
iii. Community infrastructure [open space, education, healthcare, allotments, other]
iv. Other
A: Don’t know.
Q57c. Are there areas in Rochford and Ashingdon that development should generally be presumed appropriate? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
A: Don’t know.
Q57d. Are there areas that require protecting from development? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
A: All green spaces hold significance, especially to those who use them for recreation, and have community value. They should be protected. Green belt borders should be protected from development in order to prevent urban sprawl.
Q57e. Do you agree that the local green spaces shown on Figure 45 hold local significance? Are there any other open spaces that hold particular local significance? [Please state reasoning]
A: All green spaces hold some significance, especially to those who use them for recreation, and have community value. These should be protected.

Q58a. Do you agree with our vision for Hockley and Hawkwell? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]
A: Don’t know.
Q58b. With reference to Figure 46 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the promoted sites should be made available for any of the following uses? How could that improve the completeness of Hockley and Hawkwell?
i. Housing [market, affordable, specialist, traveller, other]
ii. Commercial [offices, industrial, retail, other]
iii. Community infrastructure [open space, education, healthcare, allotments, other]
iv. Other
A: Don’t know.
Q58c. Are there areas in Hockley and Hawkwell that development should generally be presumed appropriate? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
A: Don’t know
Q58d. Are there areas that require protecting from development? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
A: As Hockley Woods is the largest remaining wild woodland in the country you should be doing EVERYTHING you can to save it from development, either adjacent to or close by. You should also actively be adding to it by planting more trees to future proof its existence and status.
Q58e. Do you agree that the local green spaces shown on Figure 46 hold local significance? Are there any other open spaces that hold particular local significance? [Please state reasoning]
A: All green spaces hold significance, especially to those who use them for recreation, and have community value. They should be protected. Green belt borders should be protected from development in order to prevent urban sprawl.
Q59a. Do you agree with our vision for the Wakerings and Barling? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]
A: Don’t know.
Q59b. With reference to Figure 47 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the promoted sites should be made available for any of the following uses? How could that improve the completeness of the Wakerings and Barling?
i. Housing [market, affordable, specialist, traveller, other]
ii. Commercial [offices, industrial, retail, other]
iii. Community infrastructure [open space, education, healthcare, allotments, other]
iv. Other
A: Don’t know.
Q59c. Are there areas in the Wakerings and Barling that development should generally be presumed appropriate? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
A: Any development needs to be sympathetic of the area.
Q59d. Are there areas that require protecting from development? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
A: Don’t know.
Q59e. Do you agree that the local green spaces shown on Figure 47 hold local significance? Are there any other open spaces that hold particular local significance? [Please state reasoning]
A: Don’t know.
Q60a. Do you agree with our vision for Hullbridge? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]
A: Yes, although you need to address the road networks as well as those you have suggested. A new link road from A1245 to Hullbridge, adjacent to Watery Lane would serve the increased population with an improved access route and divert traffic away from other areas.
Q60b. With reference to Figure 48 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the promoted sites should be made available for any of the following uses? How could that improve the completeness of Hullbridge?
i. Housing [market, affordable, specialist, traveller, other]
ii. Commercial [offices, industrial, retail, other]
iii. Community infrastructure [open space, education, healthcare, allotments, other]
iv. Other
A: Some of the sites have potential to include a mix of shops, leisure, recreation, offices and housing but a study needs to be made to assess the impact of the current development
Q60c. Are there areas in Hullbridge that development should generally be presumed appropriate? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
A: Don’t know.
Q60d. Are there areas that require protecting from development? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
A: Anything too close to the river due to flood risk.
Q60e. Do you agree that the local green spaces shown on Figure 48 hold local significance? Are there any other open spaces that hold particular local significance? [Please state reasoning]
A: All green spaces hold significance, especially to those who use them for recreation, and have community value. They should be protected. Green belt borders should be protected from development in order to prevent urban sprawl.
Q61a. Do you agree with our vision for Canewdon? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]
A: Yes. A small amount of housing can be sustainable there as long as the community feel it is needed.
Q61b. With reference to Figure 49 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the promoted sites should be made available for any of the following uses? How could that improve the completeness of Canewdon?
i. Housing [market, affordable, specialist, traveller, other]
ii. Commercial [offices, industrial, retail, other]
iii. Community infrastructure [open space, education, healthcare, allotments, other]
iv. Other
A: Opportunities for mixed retail, commercial and housing could be achieved with some sympathetic development in this area.

Q61c. Are there areas in Canewdon that development should generally be presumed appropriate? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
A: Don’t know.
Q61d. Are there areas that require protecting from development? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
A: Don’t know.
Q61e. Do you agree that the local green spaces shown on Figure 48 hold local significance? Are there any other open spaces that hold particular local significance? [Please state reasoning]
A: All green spaces hold significance, especially to those who use them for recreation, and have community value. They should be protected. Green belt borders should be protected from development in order to prevent urban sprawl.
Q62a. Do you agree with our vision for Great Stambridge? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]
A: Yes.
Q62b. With reference to Figure 50 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the promoted sites should be made available for any of the following uses? How could that improve the completeness of Great Stambridge?
i. Housing [market, affordable, specialist, traveller, other]
ii. Commercial [offices, industrial, retail, other]
iii. Community infrastructure [open space, education, healthcare, allotments, other]
iv. Other
A: Any development needs to be sensitive and sympathetic to this small village.
Q62c. Are there areas in Great Stambridge that development should generally be presumed appropriate? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
A: Don’t know.
Q62d. Are there areas that require protecting from development? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
A: Don’t know.
Q62e. Do you agree that the local green spaces shown on Figure 50 hold local significance? Are there any other open spaces that hold particular local significance? [Please state reasoning]
A: All green spaces hold significance, especially to those who use them for recreation, and have community value. They should be protected. Green belt borders should be protected from development in order to prevent urban sprawl.
Q63a. Do you agree with our vision for Rawreth? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]
A: Don’t know.
Q63b. With reference to Figure 51 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the promoted sites should be made available for any of the following uses? How could that improve the completeness of Rawreth?
i. Housing [market, affordable, specialist, traveller, other]
ii. Commercial [offices, industrial, retail, other]
iii. Community infrastructure [open space, education, healthcare, allotments, other]
iv. Other
A: Don’t know.
Q63c. Are there areas in Rawreth that development should generally be presumed appropriate? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
A: Yes. Those that border the main roads as this makes easy access.
Q63d. Are there areas that require protecting from development? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
A: Those that change the dynamics of the village and those areas that border Wickford. There needs to be a significate amount of green belt land left to separate the 2 areas to prevent urban sprawl.
Q63e. Do you agree that the local green spaces shown on Figure 51 hold local significance? Are there any other open spaces that hold particular local significance? [Please state reasoning]
A: All green spaces hold significance, especially to those who use them for recreation, and have community value. They should be protected. Green belt borders should be protected from development in order to prevent urban sprawl.
Q64a. Do you agree with our vision for Paglesham? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]
A: I think the 30 houses is the maximum you should build to keep this hamlet special. Maybe less. The community should be consulted for their requirements.
Q64b. With reference to Figure 52 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the promoted sites should be made available for any of the following uses? How could that improve the completeness of Paglesham?
i. Housing [market, affordable, specialist, traveller, other]
ii. Commercial [offices, industrial, retail, other]
iii. Community infrastructure [open space, education, healthcare, allotments, other]
iv. Other
A: The 30 proposed houses should reflect the history of the area and should be modest in size and scale. These does not seem to be scope for any other building project with exception to open space. Any development should be sympathetic to the design and scale of the areas history.
Q64c. Are there areas in Paglesham that development should generally be presumed appropriate? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
A: Those proposed seem appropriate subject to local knowledge and support.
Q64d. Are there areas that require protecting from development? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
A: No building anywhere where it is liable to flood. No building near the waterfront in order to protect its charm and history.
Q64e. Do you agree that the local green spaces shown on Figure 52 hold local significance? Are there any other open spaces that hold particular local significance? [Please state reasoning]
A: All green spaces hold significance, especially to those who use them for recreation, and have community value. They should be protected. Green belt borders should be protected from development in order to prevent urban sprawl.
Q65a. Do you agree with our vision for Sutton and Stonebridge? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]
A: Yes. These areas should remain low key but have better access to services.
Q65b. With reference to Figure 53 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the promoted sites should be made available for any of the following uses? How could that improve the completeness of Sutton and Stonebridge?
i. Housing [market, affordable, specialist, traveller, other]
ii. Commercial [offices, industrial, retail, other]
iii. Community infrastructure [open space, education, healthcare, allotments, other]
iv. Other
A: Don’t know, but mass development should not go ahead. The potential of building thousands of houses, retail etc would be devastating. If any form of development was to go ahead then this should be in the way of a nature reserve/woodland etc.
Q65c. Are there areas in Sutton and Stonebridge that development should generally be presumed appropriate? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
A: Don’t know.
Q65d. Are there areas that require protecting from development? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
A: Most of the area unless it is the creation of new woodland, ponds, meadows, etc.
Q65e. Do you agree that the local green spaces shown on Figure 53 hold local significance? Are there any other open spaces that hold particular local significance? [Please state reasoning]
A: All green spaces hold significance, especially to those who use them for recreation, and have community value. They should be protected. Green belt borders should be protected from development in order to prevent urban sprawl.
Q66. Do you agree that our rural communities do not require individual vision statements? Are there communities that you feel should have their own vision? [Please state reasoning]
A: At this time – yes, but I feel they should have some consideration in the future in order to protect them.
Q67. Do you agree with our vision for our rural communities? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]
A: Yes. Nothing missing I can think of.
Q68. Are there other courses of action the Council could take to improve the completeness of our rural communities?
A: Survey and listen to the residents to see where they would like to go next. See if they require anything specific (travel links, facilities, affordable housing, etc.)