Q59d. Are there areas that require protecting from development? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]

Yes! The wildlife will suffer, increasing a carbon footprint is detrimental to all, and I cannot state this enough - we live here for the peace and quite. Please stop cramming in housing.

A lot of the proposed sites require protecting from development. This area is a rural village location, if we replace our green belt areas with housing developments then the whole feel and heritage of the area changes. A few of the locations also have agricultural uses which are key to protect, we cannot simply replace all our agricultural sites with housing and expect healthy development of the area. The changes risk a complete overhaul of the feel of the area and threaten the existence of Great Wakering village.

CFS153 for my reasons stated in the first questions Q59b

For the reasons given in previous response there should be no further development indeed the backfill of CFS 192 and CSF060 is undesirable.

The villages provide a infrastructure for wildlife such as badgers and hedgehogs both of which are protected species I believe. Whilst I appreciate their homes may not be built on their roaming space in which they survive will be if all proposed sites are gone.

I see form your plans that the old mummeries nursery is once again be considered for development, the first time owners asked for three bungalows the council refused permission, the land was then sold to a developer and they asked for 24 houses and again it was refused, now your plan says its suitable for 96 houses. Has no one learnt any lessons fro developments like star lane, there is insufficient parking, cars are parked indiscriminately causing major blockages, deliveries are virtually impossible all so a developer can cram as many houses in as they can to make as much profit with no concern for those who end up living there. Tell me where are the vehicle for 96 houses going to park

Yes all flood planes to protect homes. And example is shoebury garrison, they wish to build on a flood plane but it continues to flood for drainage which is exactly what it was designed to do

Little Wakering and Barling are outstanding areas of natural beauty, covered with agricultural and green belt land. Any development (aside from single/double dwellings) should be rejected for these and many other significant reasons.

Green belt should not be built on.

As already mentioned, the agricultural and green space areas in Great Wakering should be protected from further development so the areas marked in blue should be protected and not used for housing and commercial development.

All green belt sites should be protected from development to stop any further irreversible damage to the environment. The whole of Rochford District is already at capacity.

No further development unless the infrastructure is fit for purpose. The council should be pushing back to national government with expectations that the roads etc. to cope with increased traffic and take it away from the town centres are funded.

Promoted Site CFS057 Land east of Star Lane and north of Poynters Lane, Great Wakering
The western section of promoted site CFS057, that lays south of Starlane Pits Wildlife Site should not be a promoted site for housing development, for the following reasons:
1) The Water’s Edge development by Taylor Wimpey that runs adjacent to the north of Starlane Pits Wildlife Site has had a detrimental impact on the Wildlife Site. What reassurances can be given that any further development to the south of the Wildlife Site on promoted site CFS057 will not have similar consequences? This is not a risk worth taking given the high volume of other promoted sites available for development.
2) The western section of promoted site CFS057 that lays south of Starlane Pits Wildlife Site should be promoted as an Open Space or Potential Wildlife Site or Regional Park. This would provide a natural extension to the existing Starlane Pits Wildlife Site, which is already teeming with wildlife and is ongoing works to improve the habitability of wildlife on the site even further. Therefore, by promoting this section of CFS057 that lays adjacent to an existing Starlane Pits Wildlife Site for Open Space / Regional Park / Wildlife site, it can provide a significant net biodiversity benefit as well as protecting and allowing enhancement of the Starlane Pits Wildlife Site.

We need to protect our fields as not only are they working fields which our local farmers rely on, but they also house much of the local wildlife. By destroying their homes you will essentially be destroying them too.

Area CFS057
The North east field in this area appears to be linked with the water levels in the Local wildlife sites and fishing lakes south of High street and east of Starlane
The development has altered underground water courses and the lake and fish becoming depleted The environment agency are managing te situation Sept 2021 to preserves mature fish and nature in the area
Further development of this area which naturally becomes very boggy in winter could worsen the devastaion that current development in the same location is having to the lakes making the the wildlife area non recoverable

The land marked CFS260B (area between Shopland Road and Barling Road) is a field to which four grade two listed buildings are adjacent. By allowing any development to this land would be detrimental to the character and setting of these historic dwellings. This land is currently in the green belt and as such should not be added to the approved sites, inline with your current policies. Stonebridge is a historic hamlet which is distinct and separate to the other areas of Wakerings and Barling. Any additional dwellings constructed in CFS260B or it's surrounding fields would blur the current boundaries and landscapes to the Roche valley. Additionally, there are ongoing problems with drainage in this area and therefore the current structure would not cope with any further strain through additional dwellings.

Brick Earth removal
Land south of the High Street has brick earth removed and so is lower than the surrounding land. Taylor Wimpey put drainage in which attempts to channel the water to Shoebury via open ditches. If this is not maintained then the properties will become damp or flood with the consequential damage to people’s health. It is not being maintained at present, the trench dug to access the ditch to Shoebury is overgrown. This was cleared out a but is now overgrown again.
Local Wildlife site R35 is contaminated with sewerage, fish are dying and wildlife are affected.

all locations between Sutton Road and the Wakerings - these are workable arable land today, and create a green buffer between the Urban areas of Southend on Sea and the villages.

All the farm land should be protected due to decline in British Farming and will affect local habitats of an abundant wildlife. As an example in my garden I have hedgehogs, pheasants, very active bird visitors. Step out the back gate to mole hills, rabbits etc. Building up the area and destroying their habitats will have a negative affect.

All fields currently used for farming. The parry behind Little Wakering Road.

Whole village needs protecting from over development - 61 High Street will only gain 5 houses - poked into a tiny area all overlooking others. More cars will be on the roads.
This is in the conservation area

School playing field - should never be used

All land on the outskirts of the village - this just makes the village spread into a town BUT without all the facilities of a town

Having viewed the online Spatial Options Consultation I am writing to make my feelings and opinions known to you.

We are all aware that there is a housing shortage in this country and that there is an urgent need for affordable housing around the entire country. However, seeing the quotas which the Westminster government are insisting be shouldered by this area and the rest of Essex, there is no question we are being expected to shoulder an unfair and unreasonable share of the burden, due to our convenient proximity to London. Since the government have committed to ‘Levelling Up’ the country I consider this most hypocritical. The South East is already far too congested, our infrastructure in terms of roads, schools and hospitals is at bursting point and there is no doubt that expanding infrastructure in the area will not keep pace with the proposed expansion.

Your Vision Statement for Wakering:
In 2050, the Wakerings and Barling should have retained their rural village character and sense of relative tranquillity. More services should have developed locally to reduce its reliance on neighbouring towns, whilst any new services introduced should be located so that those located on the edges of the settlement are able to access them sustainably. The villages should have become more self-sufficient when it comes to homes, jobs and community facilities, including education. Development that takes place should be locally-responsive and aimed at meeting the ongoing housing and employment needs of local residents.

It is obvious that it is impossible to live up to this statement and at the same time press forward with the level of development proposed in the Rochford area.

At the moment Wakering and Barling are beautiful rural villages. However if an area so close to Southend and London has not been developed more in the past, we can assume there are solid reasons and that the land here does not offer a friendly environment for too much housing. We are on the Creek, close to marshland and with rainfall predicted to rise due to climate change it is imperative the water table is maintained to prevent serious flooding. This means leaving open land for adequate drainage not only for proposed developments but for the residents already in situ. The current roads are single lane and many of the residents have to park street side because older houses do not have off road parking. This reduces traffic flow still further for most of the time (Little Wakering Rd is particularly susceptible to this.)

Much of the proposed building would be on currently agricultural land. It may well be that the encumbant farmers are tempted to sell up and retire on the proceeds but whereas this may suit them individually it would be criminally negligent of the authorities to allow this land to switch use because once it has done so, it will never return to the original purpose. We are living in times of global upheaval. Brexit means the UK will have to consider producing far more of our own food if we are to maintain present standards of living at minimal cost. Furthermore, combatting climate change (already officially recognised as affecting Britain) means we need to be sourcing food locally as possible and paying far more attention to ecology and our wildlife. Destroying the agricultural benefits of Wakering would be cutting off our noses to spite our faces.

I will finish by pointing out that one of the main ways to access Wakering is via Shopland, which feeds into Sutton Rd and thus into Ashingdon Rd. It is no secret that the traffic flow in these areas is close to gridlock for a lot of the time and further traffic feeding in from the Wakering area would be unworkable.

I am aware that Basildon and Southend councils are lodging objections and resisting the pressures from government to overdevelop their respective areas. It is obvious if they are successful the onus will simply be slope shouldered and further pressure put on surrounding councils like Rochford. Please, stand up for our area and join them in resisting these directives. The greenbelt was conceived for a reason and I can think of no time when we have needed to commit to this principle more!

Be loyal to Rochford, not to party politics.

Dear Sir/Madam
Rochford District New Local Plan: Spatial Options: Consultation Paper 2021
Thank you for providing the opportunity for Southend Borough Council (SBC) to comment on
the above consultation plan. Set out below are officer level comments that relate principally
to cross-boundary issues and potential strategic scale developments.
SBC and Rochford District Council (RDC) should continue to co-operate on cross-boundary
issues, including through the Rochford and Southend Member Working Group and via the
Association of South Essex Local Authorities (ASELA).
The effectiveness of joint working between the two authorities should continue to be
documented and as we continue to work together under the duty to co-operate, Statements
of Common Ground should be prepared and agreed in line with Government guidance.
General Approach
The Borough Council broadly welcomes the publication of the Consultation Paper and its
general approach to setting out the potential options for meeting Rochford District’s future
development needs, whilst delivering sustainable development and protecting the local
environment. Given Southend Borough’s acute challenge in finding sufficient land within the
Borough to meet its own development needs, it also particularly welcomes the recognition of
the importance of liaising with neighbouring local authorities to ensure wider cross-boundary
issues and development needs are fully addressed.
Coordination of Plans
SBC would wish to emphasise the crucial ongoing importance of coordinating the
preparation of the Rochford New Local Plan with the Southend New Local Plan, which has
reached a similar stage of consultation (the Southend New Local Plan also currently being
out to public consultation at a second Regulation 18 stage, ‘Refining the options’).
Progressing the plans in a collaborative, coordinated and timely manner will be essential to
the effective and sustainable planning for this part of south-east Essex.
As was identified in consultation paper, where it summarises feedback from the Rochford
New Local Plan Issues and Options Document (December 2017 – March 2018), ‘an
infrastructure-first approach to planning is required as there are existing issues with
infrastructure capacity’. (Rochford Local Plan Spatial Options Consultation Paper, page 102)
In seeking to meet future development needs for this part of south-east Essex, it will be
essential that infrastructure provision, particularly in relation to transport, is planned in such a
way to ensure that infrastructure improvements are clearly identified, are realistic and
achievable. In our view, this requires an effective coordinated, sub-regional and cross-
boundary approach, both through our inputs to ongoing ASELA work and through continued
duty of co-operate cross-boundary arrangements.
Question 1 (page 21): 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?
- Given the number of important strategic cross-boundary issues already recognized
between our two authorities (e.g. housing needs, employment needs, transport
infrastructure, environmental protection, strategic green infrastructure provision,
climate change mitigation/adaption, the future of London Southend Airport etc.), we
strongly advocate that both authorities must continue to work closely together on the
preparation of evidence studies and other technical work to support our plan making.
Draft Strategic Priorities and Objectives (pages 40 – 43)
Question 4: 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? – Inclusion of reference to a new Country Park facility north-east of
Southend should be considered and potentially included as part of Strategic
Objective 15.
It has long been an ambition to deliver a new Country Park facility to the north-east of
Southend, as identified in the adopted Southend Core Strategy. If enabled through our local
plans, it would complement similar facilities at Hadleigh Castle and Cherry Orchard and
provide a much needed addition to informal recreation opportunities for the residents of and
visitors to south east Essex.
It is therefore recommended that the words ‘including a new Country Park facility to the
north-east of Southend’ are inserted after the word ‘coastline’. The revised Strategic
Objective would then read as follows:
‘To protect and enhance leisure, sport, recreation and community facilities and to support the
delivery of a multi-functional green infrastructure network across our district and along the
coastline including a new Country Park facility to the north-east of Southend, connecting to
neighbouring areas in South Essex and beyond, to promote healthy and active lifestyles, and
improve physical and mental health and well-being into old age’.
Growth Scenarios (pages 46 – 50)
The ‘Southend New Local Plan - Refining the Options’ consultation document (2021) sets
out that Southend is unable to meet all identified housing needs, as calculated using the
Government’s Standard Methodology, up to 2040. Even if Southend’s remaining Green Belt
was developed there would be a calculated shortfall of around 4,000 new homes. This rises
to around 9,000 new homes if Green Belt land within Southend Borough is not developed.
It is therefore appropriate that Rochford District Council should continue to explore the
options within its area to accommodate a level of housing development which is higher than
necessary to meet its own housing needs (as calculated by Government’s Standard
Methodology), so it is able to consider the potential, and possibly address at least some of
the unmet housing need evident from plan preparation to date in Southend, in line with the
requirements of Government policy.
Spatial Strategy Options (pages 51 to 62)
Question 6: Which of the identified strategy options do you consider should be taken
forward in the Plan? - Strategy Option 4 Balanced Combination. (Strategy Options listed
in footnote 1 below)
It is our view that Strategy Option 4: Balanced Combination, appears to offer the most
appropriate strategic approach, balancing Strategy Option 1 and 3. This option appears to
provide the best opportunity to provide sustainable communities that afford the critical mass
needed to secure transformational new infrastructure whilst seeking to make the best
possible use of existing brownfield sites. It also allows for a continuous supply of
development land to come forward over the plan period.
In supporting this approach, it is recognized that as part of Strategy Option 4, Strategy
Option 1: Urban Intensification must take priority and every effort should be made to ensure
new economic and housing growth is being optimized where this would lead to sustainable
development within urban areas (i.e. the use of brownfield land) before looking at
development in the Green Belt.
Subject to Green Belt considerations, the Borough Council welcomes the identification of
Option 3a: concentrated growth west of Rayleigh and Option 3b: concentrated growth north
of Southend within the consultation as possible sites for comprehensive development noting
that may provide the potential critical mass for achieving infrastructure improvements.
It should be noted that land west of Rayleigh is well served by the strategic highway network
(A130 and A127) whilst land to the north of Southend is less so. The potential for this option
to come forward well served by the strategic highway network would be dependent therefore
on a coordinated and planned approach with land to the south in Southend Borough and the
provision of a new highway and sustainable transport link partly on land within Rochford
District.
The consultation document also omits to note that Option 3c, concentrated growth to the
east of Rochford, would also be strongly dependent on new highway provision to the east of
Rochford, the existing Ashingdon Road being of an inadequate capacity to cope with the
increase in transport movements.
In this respect Figure 23 (Sustainability Appraisal of Strategy Options (AECOM, 2021))
which identifies Options 3a, 3b, 3c and 4 as providing a positive return in terms of transport
and movement is misleading.
Rochford District Council and Southend Borough Council would need to co-operate
effectively to explore the potential opportunity of comprehensive development to the north of
Southend (Option 3b) if this option were to be considered further. This joint work can then
inform both Councils’ next stage of plan making.
Any growth in this location is well placed to meet some of Southend’s unmet housing need,
however, if it were to come forward it must deliver significant new infrastructure which
ensures it’s development is sustainable and delivers advantages to neighbouring
communities, including neighbourhoods in Southend, which could benefit for example from
the close proximity of new accessible parkland, education, community and leisure facilities
delivered as part of development in this locality. It is also crucial that any development
provides for the additional road, active travel and public transport capacity necessary to
serve the development and mitigate fully any impacts which might arise.
A comprehensive development in this area appears to include most of the land necessary to
deliver the new road links necessary to facilitate development within both authority areas
and provide relief to the existing network. Development of this scale also has greater
potential to deliver the level of development finance required to help provide for those links.
SBC would not support development to the east of Rochford or south of river Roach without
significant mitigation and transport improvements both within Rochford District and Southend
Borough. SBC has delivered a rolling program of junction improvements along the A127 over
the last 20 years, however further improvements to increase capacity at pinch points are
likely to be required to facilitate growth. There are however constraints in increasing capacity
along the A127 given its urban context. As such, both Councils, along with Essex County
Council should explore strategic transport opportunities and funding mechanisms, including
a potential new link road/ sustainable transport corridor to the north of Southend, the option
of a new transport hub at Southend Airport Railway Station with improved access and further
improvements along the A127.
Strategy Option 2: Urban Extensions is unlikely to deliver the required transport
improvements necessary to facilitate accommodate the growth in trips on the network within
this area.
Spatial Themes
Question 8: Are there any key spatial themes that you feel we have missed or that require
greater emphasis? – Yes. Transport and Connectivity.
As a general rule, all the themes listed are self-contained in that they relate to specific
sites/areas of land and uses of land. The exception is ‘Transport and Connectivity’.
Transport infrastructure provision has a wider impact that relates to a range of transport
modes and is cross-boundary and sub-regional in its impact. As such the theme is
considered to require greater emphasis in the Plan.
Climate Change and Resilient Environments (pages 65 – 68)
Questions 9, 11 and 12 relating to whether a sequential approach to flood risk should be
taken, for development to source a percentage of their energy from low carbon and
renewable sources, and the provision of higher energy efficiency standards are supported.
Question 10: 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? – Yes.
These areas also provide important areas for informal recreation for the residents of southeast Essex including Southend.
Place Making and Design (pages 69 – 72)
Question 16a: Do you consider that new design guides, codes or masterplans should be
created alongside the new local plan? – Yes.
Question 16b: 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? – To have design guides/masterplans for individual growth areas.
It will be essential that any identified concentrated growth sites (Options 3a and 3b) are
planned and designed individually so that the sites can be effectively planned in a
sustainable manner that takes into full account their setting and local environment and
provides for well-designed places and spaces.
Employment and Jobs (pages 84 – 90)
Question 25: With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for
growth to deliver new employment facilities or improvements to existing employment
facilities? – Yes, land north of Temple Farm Industrial Estate.
Land north of the existing Temple Farm Industrial Estate provides the opportunity for an
extension of the estate to meet future employment needs as part of strategy option 3b:
concentrated growth north of Southend.
Future of London Southend Airport (pages 91 – 93)
Question 28: With reference to the options (listed as footnote 2 below), or your own options,
how do you feel we can best manage the Airport’s adaptations and growth through the
planning system?
SBC is currently consulting on options within its Local Plan ‘Refining the Plan Options’
document on how to continue to plan for London Southend Airport and would welcome
continued co-operation with RDC to ensure an effective policy framework remains up-to-date
to manage future development at the Airport, this could include consistent policies included
within respective Local Plans. It is crucial that any future growth that is facilitated, if that is
indeed the right course of action, should fully consider the environmental impacts of that
growth. It should also be noted that the existing planning permission allows a level of growth
beyond the level of operations being experienced pre-Covid, in 2019 and that level of
operation was in itself leading to local complaints associated with aircraft noise, airport
operations, on street car parking locally and night-flying in particular.
Green and Blue Infrastructure (pages 98 – 101)
Question 33: 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? – Yes. See comments relating to question
34 below.
Question 34: With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for
growth to help deliver new strategic green and blue infrastructure? – Yes. Option 3b:
concentrated growth north of Southend.
The identified option of seeking concentrated growth north of Southend offers clear
opportunities to deliver new accessible green space including the provision of a new subregional scale Country Park facility aligning with the River Roach and incorporating land
within flood Zone 2 (Figure 8). A new Country Park in this location would provide informal
countryside opportunities to the benefit of residents within the eastern peninsula of southeast Essex and would complement the facilities at Hadleigh Castle Country Park and Cherry
Orchard Jubilee Country Park and the broader South Essex Regional Park concept.
Community Infrastructure (pages 102 – 105)
Question 36: With reference to your preferred strategy option, are there opportunities for
growth to deliver new or improved community infrastructure? – Yes. Option 3b:
concentrated growth north of Southend.
The identified option of seeking concentrated growth north of Southend offers the potential
to provide for a range of community infrastructure, including new school, leisure and health
facilities.
Transport and Connectivity (pages 123 – 126)
Question 51: With reference to the options (listed as footnote 3 below), or your own options,
how do you feel we can best address our transport and connectivity needs through the plan?
All four options need to be pursued as part of an integrated approach in partnership
with South Essex Local Authorities, Essex County Council and the Government.
As stated in the Rochford Local Plan consultation document: ‘it is clear that a more
ambitious approach is required to connectivity if we are to keep growing.’ A step change in
improving connectivity and accessibility is needed to accommodate growth if the local
economy is to remain attractive to investors, and highway congestion and air quality issues
are to be addressed.
The plan needs to recognise that significant volumes of traffic that have their origin or
destination in Rochford District will utilise highways within Southend Borough, particularly the
A127. A coordinated partnership approach to infrastructure provision is therefore essential.
The Rochford Local Plan should seek to ensure that the approval of any large development
proposals are subject to infrastructure triggers where developments are not permitted to
proceed until such time as the necessary infrastructure is committed. Individual development
sites cannot continue to be treated in isolation, the cumulative impact of development
schemes has and will continue to have significant impacts on the existing highway
infrastructure, which has impacts beyond Rochford District.
Question 52: Are there any areas where improvements to transport connections are
needed? What could be done to help improve connectivity in these areas?
Yes. A comprehensive integrated partnership approach to improving transport
connections is required across the whole sub-region.
Question 53: 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?
Yes. Option 3b: concentrated growth north of Southend.
The identified option of seeking concentrated growth north of Southend appears to offer the
potential to provide for improved transport connectivity. Such a development scheme would
be dependent on the provision of a new link road from east Southend to the A127 via
Warners Bridge, utilising land within the administrative district of Rochford, as well as a new
transport hub at Southend Airport Train Station.
Any such link road should also give consideration to the potential for a Rochford bypass to
the east of the town particularly if Option 3c: concentrated growth to the east of Rochford
were to be taken forward. This could provide the first phase in a potential opportunity to
deliver an outer strategic highway route linking to the A130 between Rayleigh and
Hullbridge.
Planning for Complete Communities
• Rayleigh (pages 133 – 134)
Question 56b: 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 (housing,
commercial, community infrastructure)? Yes. Option 3a: concentrated growth west of
Rayleigh.
The identified option of seeking concentrated growth west of Rayleigh offers the potential to
meet a variety of housing needs, mixed use developments and community infrastructure.
• Rochford and Ashingdon (pages 136 – 137)
Question 57e: 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? Yes.
Edwards Hall Park
Edwards Hall Park serves the informal recreational needs of residents of Eastwood in
Southend Borough and provides an important pedestrian/equestrian gateway into the Cherry
Orchard Jubilee Country Park.
Question 57d: Are there any areas that require protecting from development? Why these
areas? Yes.
In considering the identified option 3b: concentrated growth north of Southend any future
development scheme that may be justified as constituting exceptional circumstances and
sustainable development should be carefully planned so as to avoid the coalescence of the
Rochford with Southend.
Wakerings and Barling (pages 142 – 143)
Question 59b: 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 (housing,
commercial, community infrastructure)? Yes. Option 3b: concentrated growth north of
Southend.
The identified option of seeking concentrated growth north of Southend offers the potential
to provide for improved community infrastructure, transport and access improvements and
provision of public open green space.
Question 59d: Are there any areas that require protecting from development? Why these
areas? Yes. Preventing the direct coalescence of Great Wakering/Little Wakering with
Southend.
In considering the identified option 3b: concentrated growth north of Southend any future
development scheme that may be justified as constituting exceptional circumstances and
sustainable development should be carefully planned so as to avoid the direct coalescence
of the Great and Little Wakering with Southend.
Stonebridge and Sutton (pages 160 – 161)
Question 64b: 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 (housing,
commercial, community infrastructure)? Yes. Option 3b: concentrated growth north of
Southend.
The identified option of seeking concentrated growth north of Southend offers the potential
to provide for improved community infrastructure, transport and access improvements and
public open green space.
Other Minor Comments
There are one or two typing and cartographical errors in the consultation document as
follows:
- Page 65 last paragraph, the third sentence is incomplete.
- Page 98 Figure 32: Map of Key Green and Blue Infrastructure Assets includes
land within the Southend Borough south of Great and Little Wakering. This should be
deleted from the map.
- Page 135 Figure 45: Map of Rochford and Ashingdon
should read Figure 44: Map of Rayleigh. In addition, the blue horizontal lines
defined on the map are not interpreted in the key.
Kind Regards
Mark Sheppard
Team Leader Strategic Planning
Southend Borough Council
_________________________________________________________________
Footnotes
Footnote 1: Page 51 summarises the 4 strategy options as follows:
• Strategy Option 1: Urban Intensification
• Strategy Option 2: Urban Extensions
- » Option 2a: Focused on main towns
- » Option 2b: Dispersed to all settlements based on Settlement Hierarchy
• Strategy Option 3: Concentrated growth
- » Option 3a: Focused west of Rayleigh
- » Option 3b: Focused north of Southend
- » Option 3c: Focused east of Rochford
• Strategy Option 4: Balanced Combination
Footnote 2: Question 28 refers – Options for planning for the future of London Southend
Airport (page 93)
Given the ongoing uncertainty surrounding the impact of Covid-19 on the aviation industry, it is not
currently possible to identify precise land use requirements for the airport’s growth. Nevertheless,
there are considered to be a number of options available relating to planning for the future of London
Southend Airport. These are:
1. To work alongside Southend-on-Sea Borough Council to prepare a new joint Area Action Plan, or
masterplan, alongside each authority’s respective new Local Plan, that contains a consistent policy
approach to managing the Airport’s long-term growth ambitions
2. To work alongside Southend-on-Sea Borough Council to ensure that policies contained within both
authority’s respective Local Plans maintain a consistent policy approach, as far as is practicable, to
managing the Airport’s long-term growth ambitions
3. To prepare a new Area Action Plan, or masterplan, to manage the Airport’s long-term growth
ambitions, with suitable partner engagement but without the status of a statutory document
4. To continue to make decisions based on the existing JAAP for the time being, but to consider
developing a new Area Action Plan, or masterplan, after the new Local Plan is adopted or when the
need arises
Footnote 3: Question 51 refers – Options for addressing Transport and Connectivity (page 125)
Non-exclusive options for addressing transport and connectivity through the plan are to:
1. Embed a sustainable movement hierarchy into the plan to ensure sustainable modes of transport
are prioritised in favour of private vehicles
2. Prepare an Infrastructure Delivery Plan alongside the plan to ensure new development delivers
meaningful improvements to transport networks, including to cycling, walking, public transport and
road
3. Prepare a Local Walking and Cycling Infrastructure Plan or Cycling Delivery Plan alongside the
plan to identify and deliver specific improvements to our walking and cycling networks, including
costed schemes highlighted in the Rochford Cycling Action Plan
4. Work with Government, Highways England, Essex County Council and neighbouring local
authorities to deliver meaningful new transport options, such as rapid transit solutions and a long-term
solution to the A12

Spatial Options Consultation The Wakerings & Barling
Having viewed the online Spatial Options Consultation I am writing to make my feelings and opinions known to you.

We are all aware that there is a housing shortage in this country and that there is an urgent need for affordable housing around the entire country. However, seeing the quotas which the Westminster government are insisting be shouldered by this area and the rest of Essex, there is no question we are being expected to shoulder an unfair and unreasonable share of the burden, due to our convenient proximity to London. Since the government have committed to ‘Levelling Up’ the country I consider this most hypocritical. The South East is already far too congested, our infrastructure in terms of roads, schools and hospitals is at bursting point and there is no doubt that expanding infrastructure in the area will not keep pace with the proposed expansion.

Your Vision Statement for Wakering:
In 2050, the Wakerings and Barling should have retained their rural village character and sense of relative tranquillity. More services should have developed locally to reduce its reliance on neighbouring towns, whilst any new services introduced should be located so that those located on the edges of the settlement are able to access them sustainably. The villages should have become more self-sufficient when it comes to homes, jobs and community facilities, including education. Development that takes place should be locally-responsive and aimed at meeting the ongoing housing and employment needs of local residents.

It is obvious that it is impossible to live up to this statement and at the same time press forward with the level of development proposed in the Rochford area.

At the moment Wakering and Barling are beautiful rural villages. However if an area so close to Southend and London has not been developed more in the past, we can assume there are solid reasons and that the land here does not offer a friendly environment for too much housing. We are on the Creek, close to marshland and with rainfall predicted to rise due to climate change it is imperative the water table is maintained to prevent serious flooding. This means leaving open land for adequate drainage not only for proposed developments but for the residents already in situ. The current roads are single lane and many of the residents have to park street side because older houses do not have off road parking. This reduces traffic flow still further for most of the time (Little Wakering Rd is particularly susceptible to this.)

Much of the proposed building would be on currently agricultural land. It may well be that the encumbant farmers are tempted to sell up and retire on the proceeds but whereas this may suit them individually it would be criminally negligent of the authorities to allow this land to switch use because once it has done so, it will never return to the original purpose. We are living in times of global upheaval. Brexit means the UK will have to consider producing far more of our own food if we are to maintain present standards of living at minimal cost. Furthermore, combatting climate change (already officially recognised as affecting Britain) means we need to be sourcing food locally as possible and paying far more attention to ecology and our wildlife. Destroying the agricultural benefits of Wakering would be cutting off our noses to spite our faces.

I will finish by pointing out that one of the main ways to access Wakering is via Shopland, which feeds into Sutton Rd and thus into Ashingdon Rd. It is no secret that the traffic flow in these areas is close to gridlock for a lot of the time and further traffic feeding in from the Wakering area would be unworkable.

I am aware that Basildon and Southend councils are lodging objections and resisting the pressures from government to overdevelop their respective areas. It is obvious if they are successful the onus will simply be slope shouldered and further pressure put on surrounding councils like Rochford. Please, stand up for our area and join them in resisting these directives. The greenbelt was conceived for a reason and I can think of no time when we have needed to commit to this principle more!

Be loyal to Rochford, not to party politics.

Introduction

The purpose of this letter is to provide my feedback to your current public consultation .

I appreciate the hard work that you have put in at the time of the pandemic in putting this together.

I also appreciate the difficulties that the District Planners face, given the current hiatus in the governments new approach to planning, plus given the difficulties in predicting what our economic future will be post-pandemic.


Comments on the Consultation itself

For a public consultation it seemed very technical and full of planning jargon, rather than being written in plain English.

In my view there were far too many questions. At times these read more like a set of examination questions about Spatial Planning rather than a public consultation.

Questions written by experts for experts to answer, with lots of references to “showing your reasoning”. This gave them an off-putting rather than engaging appearance.

Please note therefore that in providing this response I have followed specific Section / Chapter headings rather than reply to each individual question asked.


District Profile

Population Statistics = a strange change of approach.

Population growth statistics are probably the most important single metric in the whole planning document, yet you have chosen to abandon the parish based method shown in the current plan (2011) and the previous options paper (2018), replacing instead with the vaguely defined Settlements table.

Presenting a confusing and contradictory picture

I found your approach here very confusing.

You have rolled parishes up and/or split them into different units making comparison difficult, compromising the consistency of the information provided, thereby making understanding the figures significantly more difficult.

For example your 2018 paper showed the population of Great Wakering as 5587 and Barling Magna as 1740, giving an total of 7327.

Yet your current stats show a rolled up total of 6225. These imply that the population has shrunk by over 1000 people, which is definitely not the case. Such shifting sands provide no firm basis for robust and rigorous analysis or decision making.

Use proper hard credible metrics

The current table is confusing and not based on a solid administrative foundation = the Civil Parishes.

I suggest you return to using a standard consistent basis for showing population change by using the current administrative parishes for these figures, splitting them below Parish as you think necessary to show specific locations (Stonebridge/Sutton, Little Wakering)

By all means use this in addition to Parish statistics but not instead of the Parish ones, because they are the unit of financial disbursement of Council tax precepts.

And here as a starting point instead of using estimated growth, you should have solid figures for every year up to the current one, based on the disbursement of precept year-on-year from the District to each Civil Parish which I understand is based on the population for each Parich.

A suggested alternative

I would produce a table as suggested below showing figures for each Civil Parish within the District

2011 census figures 2018 Precept figures estimated precept figures, , for 2023*
* to reflect position as at 2023 = the start of the new plan.

Figures should include known and agreed developments already taking place and likely to be completed by that date, for example in Great Wakering = Star Lane Brickworks (100+ dwellings), land South of High Street / West of Little Wakering Road = 250 dwellings =

= an overall village population increase of some 500+ residents.


Presenting your figures in this way should give you, your council members, and the residents a much clearer, more rigorous, more robust, less abstract, more understandable and more justifiable and defensible basis for this particular round of the new District Plan, than using only the table as currently shown.


Spatial Strategy Options

Option 3a = the best strategic solution

Option 3a based to west of Rayleigh is the only sensible place to put the bulk of the new dwellings, based on its proximity to the A127 / A130 corridor, the ONLY major road links into / out of the District.

This option assumes that ECC can actually start doing something about improving the Fairglen interchange rather than just talking about it.

Here it can be noted that since the date of the last local plan in 2011, Southend Unitary Authority has done 3 significant changes to the A127 junctions (Cuckoo Corner, Kent Elms and currently The Bell ), while the County seems to have done little for the road users in the District at all. Certainly nothing of note to the roads between Rochford and GW.

Unless a major new road is built into the District to relive the increasing pressure on East / West travel in / out of the District, and this is a highly unlikely development in the next 20 years at least, then approving new developments away from the two major arterial routes referred to above, to elsewhere in the District, just places further burdens on the already over-stretched and over-stressed largely minor road network in the rest of the District, and the further east you go the worse it gets.

Such poor travel links as well as being a burden on residents also compromises the ability to attract into and keep business in the area.

Option 2 is tactical not strategic

Option 2 of just “bolting-on” more and more developments at the tactical level on the side of existing locations is not the answer because this approach delivers none of the benefits that a strategic solution, with planned-in transport, digital, education, health and other essential infrastructure, would bring.


Spatial Themes - suggested additions

Waste and Recycling

I didn’t see many specific references to this subject.

It is strange because the District has much to be proud of in promoting recycling through the weekly bin collection.

In comparison the County provision is poor. For GW residents with items to recycle, a 20mile+ round trip to the Rayleigh tip is the only option. The monthly "in village" collection only covers non-recyclables.

If districts are to deliver on their agendas it is time the County did it’s bit to improve and extend such facilities. Make it easy to recycle and people will recycle, as the District has successfully proved, time and again


Digital Infrastructure

Given its importance to every aspect of modern life, I would add a specific subject here i.e. the need to upgrade digital facilities and telecommunications capability across the district, especially for existing remoter areas.

For example, you will only be able to deliver the digital health facilities you mention, if there is sufficient connectivity and bandwidth to do so. Yet much of GW’s telecoms infrastructure is still through copper wire carried by telegraph poles.

Integrating this infrastructure is much easier for new developments, but plans need also to be put in place to modernize the existing infrastructure throughout the District as well.



Green Belt Policy

Worryingly your paper talks about “less valuable Green Belt”. I’m not sure what this is or who decides which bits are more or less valuable.

Given that in West Great Wakering, the two major developments approved under the current plan, plus the proposed new business park, have already eroded this green belt buffer.

If you are serious about maintaining the character of the village, to ensure that GW remains “vibrant and distinctive’, to deliver on your excellently worded “Draft Vision", will require you to vigorously and robustly defend the village from further developmental incursions into the village’s surrounding Green Belt land. In particular, to ensure it is not subsumed into other neighbouring areas, especially North Shoebury, by avoiding the threat of such coalescence.


Bio-Diversity

Wildlife / natural environment pretty much goes hand in hand with a strong adherence to Green Belt policy. Your recognition of the valuable role played by Star Lane LWS / local Geological site is welcomed but it will be placed under considerable stress if what remains of the Green Belt in WGW is further eroded.


Spatial Themes - Flood Risk

Most of the flood prevention measures refers to maritime flooding, but recent climate events have shown increasing vulnerability to extreme pluvial flooding events as well.

Paving over more Green Belt especially in those areas where significant new building has already taken / is currently taking place, further increases this risk. This is especially so in low-lying areas, as precious soak-aways have been lost and it becomes a vicious circle = more building = less natural ground = more risk of flooding as previously robust and resilient locations lose that capability and become unable to cope with heavy rainfall.

Building more new homes on flood risk areas will just leave new residents unable to get flood insurance and puts existing residents at increased risk as well, as existing mains drainage of varying age and vintage is found to be inadequate.


Transport and Connectivity

Public Transport

A lot of fine words with virtually no chance of being delivered.

The inverted pyramid is fine in theory but fails in practice because the public transport links from/to GW are so poor.

Since the previous plan the foreign-owned Arriva Bus Company has got rid of the main service 4/4A, pretty much a dedicated service to and from the village to Southend, and replaced it by the much poorer extended 7 /8 service. This change seriously compromised its convenience, punctuality, reliability so much so that people have left the village because of it. I used to use the old service a lot, the replacement has sent me back to my car.

Put the 4 / 4A (or an equivalent) back on and see if it persuades private car drivers to get back on the bus, because although Stephenson’s 14 service is much better than Arriva's, = more reliable / punctual, it runs less frequently, So using a car is so much more convenient, comfortable and reliable than current public transport options.

And as for Sundays, the service has been cut it back to only a 2 hourly service = 4 buses for the whole day in each direction. This is no way to incentivise anyone to move from car to bus, unless you have absolutely no other means of transport at all.

Walking

Walking within the village is OK but to go beyond it, forget it, until significant upgrade to pavements and road crossings in the area are made.

For example, the Star Lane / Poynters Lane junction is a horror-show. To encourage more people to walk, they need to feel safe doing so. A significant upgrade to current pavements out of the village would be required to deliver on this agenda, but in the last 10 years under the current plan nothing has happened to improve this aspect at all.

This paper is full of fine words and aspirations. But as was the current plan, sadly it is just all words and no action, in spite of the fact that developments in the area which might have been expected to bring such improvements, but have so far not delivered them.


Conclusion

I trust this is satisfactory and you find these comments of use.

Thank you for providing residents with the opportunity to comment on the future of the District.

I look forward to receiving details of the future development of the plans for the District'


The following occurred to me at lunchtime today, for possible inclusion under the Spatial Themes heading.

Electronic Car Charging

The government has stated its intention to promote the adoption of electronic car use, by phasing out the building of new petrol and diesel based vehicles.

This initiative is due to come into effect during the lifetime of the new District plan.

To be succesful it will require the installation of potentially significant amounts of charging facilities and supporting infrastructure.

This will present the District with significant Planning challenges:

1. to ensure that ALL new developments have sufficient car charging facilities and capability, built-in from the very start of the Planning process for such developments

2 this will include ensuring that the requisite electrical supply and delivery capability exists for individual dwellings, shared dwellings, other types of premises e.g. garages, retail, business premises.

additional electrical supply infrastructure might also be needed to be planned in here.

3 consideration of the impact of these rerquirerments on the existing installed base of all types of residential, business, retail, community premises.

this will be easier in some places which have their own private driveways, parking facilities, etc.

but it will present a considerable challenge for older properties, especially residential premises with on-street parking in narrow car-crowded streets, where parking outside ones own property might be difficult.

4. this would argue for the development, location and installation of community charging facilities, all of which will need to be planned for.

Spatial Options - REF CFS260F
Re: BARLING ROAD - REF CFS260F

AGAINST ANY FORM OF HOUSING DEVELOPMENT IN GREENBELT / FARMERS FIELDS.

I do understand that housing developments are needed in the local area but brownfill sights should absolutely be the first port of call, not precious greenbelt fields in rural Rochford. It will lose its country feel and just become part of run down Southend. Areas nearer the towns can be used, not the countryside!

Once Southend has claimed most of the Shopland Road for building of the Stadium and housing, the roads will be at a standstill, it can not cope as it is. Rochford building over the Barling/wakering area would make things worse. It will become one huge housing estate with no green fields and no infrastructure to get out of the area. Barling represents one of the last green open areas in the locality. DON’T RUIN ROCHFORD/BARLING.

Here are some reasons why this greenbelt should be left in the Barling area:

• Rochford should maintain greenbelt/fields as once it has gone its gone forever
• No infrastructure such as main drain sewers, No Mains Gas to housing
• Not enough schools in the area to cope with the extra housing, children need to get a coach to secondary schools in Rochford at the moment which is an 8 MILE JOURNEY!
Once they have build the 4,447 extra homes near the Kind Edmund school there will be no space for the students there.

• Impact on wildlife, this will disappear, No pheasants, moorhens, newts, frogs, blackbirds, sparrows, sparrow hawks, gold finches, woodpeckers, owls, foxes, rabbits, mice, bats, dragonflys, squirrels, magpies and most importantly butterflies and insects.
• Close to Rubbish Dump infill site and hall roads
• Minimal public transport, bus is only a few times a day
• No public footpaths next to roads so will lead to more private car journey

• No shops for the local area so must drive to the nearest supermarket in Shoebury

If there are any housing developments Builders should pay for road infrastructure, schools and surgeries.
There will not be any large green belt green areas left, your proposals swallow up every inch of fields from Rochford to the Little watering area.
Please consider this carefully before you ruin the whole area

CFS260F BARLING ROAD
AGAINST ANY FORM OF HOUSING DEVELOPMENT IN GREENBELT/FARMERS FIELDS

I am writing to raise my concerns over the level of development which is currently being undertaken in areas of Essex Green Belt . Also planning proposals for thousands of housing in the near future on Greenbelt. At the moment the infrastructure to allow for the traffic to move freely has been compromised already. You cannot leave the house without getting stuck in traffic near Rayleigh Weir, bottle neck by Hadleigh, queuing at the Southend underpass and A127 by Priory Park. The housing estates which have recently gone up at Star Lane, Barrow Hall, Hullbridge, Rawreth have not taken into account the existing Schools or Doctors Surgeries. None of the developers have contributed into building new schools or clinics to allow for patients from the new housing estates to be serviced.

I fully understand the farmers cannot make ends meet if they find farming unprofitable. With Brexit and recent lockdown, there needs to be more UK farming so we can be self sufficient should the need arise that we cannot fulfil consumer needs in this country from the EU. Once you have built on all the farming land, we will be totally reliant on food supplies coming from abroad, which will cost more and will damage the environment.

The country roads in Barling Magna and Wakering do not even have curb sides so how would more traffic which will be generated by more housing cope? This would mean carving up more greenbelt for bigger roads and there will be no countryside left. Should the housing behind Daws Heath go ahead, how will Rayleigh Weir cope? It will be at a standstill. The offices which were once by Victoria Avenue have been developed into flats which is a very good idea, not using our precious greenbelt.

Even if you build on brownfil sites, where will all the extra traffic go? All these people moving down to the South East will have no Hospital to go to or doctors surgeries to register at as we are overloaded already.
Any intelligent person can see already the roads cannot cope and will get worse.

Also there was some talk of a Marina at Shoebury East Beach, Southend seafront is already at a standstill with traffic and I cannot see the traffic being diverted through Southend. Please do not make Rochford a City.

Please, please do not let our GREENBELT go to greedy developers who probably do not live in Essex and consider the future implications should these sites be built on.

Spatial Options Consultation The Wakerings & Barling
• All of our agricultural land and greenbelt is currently essential for their allotted purposes. To repurpose any of this land for building development would have a significant negative impact on the Rochford community going forward.
• Using any of the sites along Shopland would necessitate extra traffic feeding into Sutton Rd and thence into Ashingdon Rd. This road has already been confirmed as being seriously congested. Little Wakering Rd effectively functions as one lane only due to residents needing to park kerb side. It would not accommodate a substantial increase in traffic either.
• Wakering and Barling are situated on a creek. In Kimberley Rd there has already been flooding where the current drainage system has failed. According to Anglia Water, this flooding is largely a result of residents paving over their frontage for car parking. One can only imagine the negative impact of significant building over our fields which act as a natural soak away. And we are warned that due to climate change we can expect higher rainfall (something which has been evident the last 2 winters and now this summer too).
• Building 7200 more homes would necessitate additionally the building of new schools, medical centres, a hospital, more roads and rob us of even more of our green spaces. For the same reasons I have stated we cannot entertain this level of development.
• These targets are in opposition to the government’s commitment to bio diversity, zero carbon emissions and most significantly, levelling up the country! ECC and District Councils must all go back to Westminster and point out the direct contradiction between their alleged policies and these actions. Please ask them to reassess targets as they have done for other areas (York!). They must focus this development in the North of England!

If there is one thing we can do to improve our area radically in my opinion, it would be to make our roads more user friendly to cyclists, pedestrians and any local slow moving traffic.
Cycling is not only good for us, it is good for the planet and good for local economies. Studies have shown cyclists shop locally and make great use of local facilities for pit stops and refreshments. It needs to be actively encouraged in all areas of the community.

I am nothing short of horrified by the extent of these proposals.
Local residents of Great Wakering and Little Wakering Have seen unprecedented amounts of new build properties over recent years.
This has already had a detrimental impact on local roads due to increase in traffic flow, availability and access to GP services - already grossly over subscribed, and siblings being unable to gain places in the local schools - to name but a few issues!
Local roads and lanes are poorly maintained, and certainly not suitable for the increase in traffic flow which these proposals would have.
I have lived locally all of my life, generations of my family having been born in Wakering and Shoeburyness.
It would appear that the only options left to long term residents is that of moving away, which seems to be the only way of maintaining a degree of village life.
The thought of this is extremely disturbing, but the impact of these radical development projects is already impacting on the mental and physical wellbeing of the local residents.
In despair

Having looked at the proposals I am surprised Wakering is being considered for any further development.

We have increased by over 10% in dwelling numbers over a short period.

We have had limited visible investment in any infrastructure and from what I am aware a large chunk of s106 money did not get spent in Wakering.

The school does not have capacity by the people we know not getting places, the roads have seen lots more vehicles which are not served well by the limited road network we have, excessive antisocial parking, we have a small number of shops. Most of the footpaths and roads still need a lot of work. There is nothing for certain age groups socially in this area.

This is a village and by its nature should be avoided from further overdevelopment let alone the reasons noted about.

There are also areas of Wakering that have flooding risk from surface water and it has been seen that there are impacts to local roads from new developments. A vast amount of investment would be needed before more development could take place