Q60b. With reference to Figure 48 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the land edged blue should be made available for any of the following uses?

We would like to preface everything we are about to say with the following. Our district cannot take
any more housing. We do not have the infrastructure. Government targets, or no government targets,
what you are allowing to happen to our communities is permanently destroying what has made this
area such a beautiful place to live for many, many generations. Council officers and councillors need
to have much more integrity when carrying out these consultations and making planning decisions.
There needs to be more determination to stop this endless destruction. There are many stories from
around the country of councils and councillors that are being creative and taking a few more risks in
order to save and preserve their communities and their heritage. I expect to see more of this from
Rochford District council in the years ahead - be more tenacious - we are counting on you. The
residents in Ashingdon have shown us this can be done with their successful campaign against SER8
- now it's time for the Council to step up to the plate. It's time to start representing your residents and
the people that pay your wages!
We strongly object to any development on green belt land. We are in the middle of an environmental
crisis - the evidence of which is all around us. The council must immediately cease to approve any
further development on green belt sites and only brown belt sites must be considered. With this in
mind, all proposed green belt sites must be removed from the local plan in order to make green belt
development as difficult as possible.
Furthermore, we would add that the local infrastructure simply cannot cope. Medical facilities are all
vastly over-subscribed. There is a lack of doctors and NHS dental places, not enough school places
and already over-sized classes. The County Council have proved how utterly inept they are at even
attending to the most basic repairs on some of our most dangerously damaged roads. We simply
cannot allow more traffic to go through the district's roads until all outstanding repairs have been
addressed and a proper strategy has been drafted, presented, and agreed with the residents of our
district for how the roads will be managed and maintained proactively going forwards. The county
council have clearly demonstrated they cannot be trusted to get on with this and now need to be put
under pressure by district councils and their residents.
Road capacity is another serious issue. This can be evidenced if you try and travel anywhere by car
on a Monday to Friday during rush hour or on a Saturday (if, heaven forbid, you try and go anywhere
to possibly try and enjoy your spare time away from your home). This view is clearly widespread
among many residents and councillors based on the events surrounding the recent rejection of SER8.
Any further development that is approved (for example, on brown belt sites) must have ample
infrastructure included within the proposals. This must also factor-in the infrastructure deficit we are
already running due to existing developments having been allowed to go ahead without adequate
controls and safeguards being in place to ensure that supporting infrastructure is also delivered.
Therefore, any new developments must deliver not only their own infrastructure needs but also help
'pay down' some of the deficit that has been built up. The council must (we repeat - MUST) make sure
the infrastructure is secured and committed to. Furthermore, the infrastructure must (we repeat -
MUST) be delivered before any housing is allowed to be developed. This must be a prerequisite. The
council must not allow another Hall Road situation to materialise. It is actually beyond a joke that Hall
Road still does not have a school, with no sign of one appearing anytime soon. The word
incompetence just doesn't cut it.
In addition to the above, we would like to add the following specific objections to the following sites:
CFS074 - Land south of Mount Bovers Lane, Hockley
This land must be removed from the Local Plan. The house building would ruin the landscape and
views that are available from Hawkwell Chase, Hawkwell Common and from Main Road Hawkwell
(looking towards Gusted Hall). This land should be kept out of the local plan and (when the
opportunity allows) used to extend the natural areas around Cherry Orchard and Gusted Hall.
CFS045 - Belchamps Scout Site, Holyoak Lane, Hawkwell
CFS251 - Land at Peartree Cottage, Holyoak Lane, Hockley
CFS191 - Land at Mount Bovers Lane, Hawkwell
CFS074 - Land south of Mount Bovers Lane, Hockley
CFS160 - Northlands Farm, 65 High Road, Hockley
CFS161 - 57 High Road, Hockley, Essex, SS5 4SZ
CFS083 - Land south of Hall Road and west of Ark Lane, Rochford
CFS078 - Land west of Cherry Orchard Way and south of Cherry Orchard Lane, Rochford
CFS079 - Land west of Cherry Orchard Way and east of Cherry Orchard Lane, Rochford
CFS135 - Land at Flemings Farm Road, Eastwood
CFS059 - Land at Sandhill Road, Eastwood
CFS037 - The Ramblers & Dahlia Lodge, Eastwood Rise, Leigh
CFS134 - Land between Eastwood Rise and Rayleigh Avenue, Eastwood
CFS027 - Land north of Bull Lane, Rayleigh
CFS029 - Land at Turrett Farm, Napier Road, Rayleigh
CFS098 - Land north of Napier Road, Rayleigh
CFS053 - Land south of 38 and 39 Wellington Road, Rayleigh
We would like to request that this land is removed from the Local Plan. The location falls within, or
very close to, the Upper Roach Valley Special Landscape Area. This area has been afforded a
special status for good reason and therefore these sites must be removed from the Local Plan. We
would also request for the Special Landscape Area to be extended to encompass the land in the
above sites. Losing any land within, or close to, the Special Landscape Area would result in a
permanent loss or deterioration of very special green spaces - these must be protected for
environmental and wildlife reasons as well as to be enjoyed by future generations.
CFS064 - Land north and east of Folly Chase, Hockley
This land must be removed from the Local Plan. This field offers a unique home for wildlife and is one
of the few remaining rural landscapes and walks for residents living on Betts Farm. Hockley Primary
school would also not stand any chance of catering for the number of places a development of this
size would require. Even with a possible extension, the school, surrounding roads and facilities were
simply not built/designed to cater for the number of residents this would require. There are also
significant issues with road access from Folly Lane which is already an extremely hazardous road.
CFS264 - Land at Greenacres Nursery, Hockley
CFS040 - Eastview House and Haslemere, Church Road, Hockley
These sites must be removed from the local plan due to the damage to wildlife, the environment, and
the effect on the landscape within the area. There are also already significant road safety issues with
Church Road, Folly Lane, and Fountain Lane. All these roads are very dangerous to navigate based
on current traffic levels and this would be made significantly worse with any/all of these developments
taking place. There are also regular flooding issues on Church Road which would only get worse with
further building on surrounding land.
CFS082 - Land between Ironwell Lane and Hall Road, Hawkwell
CFS081 - Land at Stroud Green, north of Hall Road, Rochford
CFS002 - Land at Nursery Corner, between Rectory Road and Hall Road, Hawkwell
These sites must be removed from the local plan due to the total number of new dwellings that they
could represent (in particular CFS082 and CFS081). The area is already unable to cope with traffic
and infrastructure demand. The views from Ironwell Lane out onto these sites have been enjoyed for
hundreds of years. They have already been permanently compromised by the Hall Road development
and no further destruction of the area can be allowed to take place.
CFS132 - Ivanhoe Nursery, Ironwell Lane, Hawkwell
CFS219 - Ivanhoe, Ironwell Lane, Hockley, Essex, SS5 4JY
CFS240 - Old Parsonage, Ironwell Lane, Hawkwell, Essex, SS5
CFS118 - The Paddock by Clements Hall Way, Rectory Road, Hawkwell
CFS140 - Old Nursery, Ironwell Lane, Hawkwell
CFS018 - Land between The Grange and Red Roof in Ironwell Lane SS5 4JY
CFS036 - Land adjacent to Rectory Terrace off Rectory Road, Hawkwell
These sites must all be removed from the local plan due to the surrounding roads already being
significantly over-subscribed thanks for the Clements Gate development. They are nowhere near any
schools (resulting in yet more traffic) and will also detract from the otherwise beautiful countryside that
can be enjoyed when walking up Ironwell Lane.
CFS194 - Land North of Rectory Road, Hawkwell
CFS169 - Meadowlands, Victor Gardens, Hockley, SS5 4DY
CFS020 - Land rear of St Marys Church, Rectory Road, Hawkwell
These sites must be removed from the local plan due to their proximity to St Mary's church. The
surrounding landscape has always been farmers’ fields and countryside and it must stay this way.
The area is already unable to cope with traffic and infrastructure demand. The views from St Mary's
and the public footpaths out onto these sites have been enjoyed for hundreds of years. They must
continue to be left as green belt countryside.
CFS093 - Greenacres and adjacent land, Victor Gardens, Hawkwell
CFS017 - Greenacres, Victor Gardens, Hawkwell
CFS093 - Greenacres and adjacent land, Victor Gardens, Hawkwell
These sites must be removed from the local plan in order to protect the amount of green space
around a densely populated area. The surrounding landscape has always been farmers’ fields and
countryside and it must stay this way. The area is already unable to cope with today's traffic and
infrastructure demands. The views from Clements Hall and the public footpaths out onto these sites
have been enjoyed for hundreds of years. They must continue to be left as green belt countryside.
CFS216 - Land at Fambridge Road, Ashingdon
This site must be removed from the local plan due to the potential number of houses (which the
surrounding roads and local infrastructure cannot support) and the fact the land is within the Coastal
Protection Belt Special Landscape Area. The Coastal Protection Belt Special Landscape Area must
be protected and enlarged.
CFS121 - Land north of A127, Rayleigh
CFS261 - Land east of Oxford Road, Rochford
CFS222 - Land at Dollymans Farm, Doublegate Lane, Rawreth
CFS163 - Land at Lubards Lodge Farm, Hullbridge Road, Rayleigh, SS6 9QG
CFS164 - Land at Lubards Lodge Farm, Hullbridge Road, Rayleigh, SS6 9QG
CFS148 - Land north of Rawreth Lane, Rawreth
CFS171 - Land to the North of Rawreth Lane, Rawreth
CFS146 - Land at Rawreth Hall Farm, Rawreth Lane, Rawreth
CFS147 - Land north of London Road, Rayleigh
CFS099 - Land to the west of Hullbridge
CFS149 - Lane Field and Hullbridge Hill, Watery Lane, Hullbridge
CFS172 - Land At Cracknells Farm, Hullbridge
CFS265
CFS067 - Three Ashes, land to the south of Tinkers Lane, Rochford
These sites must be removed from the local plan due to the potential number of houses - which the
surrounding roads and local infrastructure cannot support.
COL27 - Freight House Car Park, Rochford
COL13 - The Freight House, Bradley Way, Rochford
These sites must be removed from the local plan and retained in their current form. They should
continue to be made available to the residents of the district as community facilities.
COL07 - The Mill, Bellingham Lane, Rayleigh
This site must be removed from the local plan and retained in its current form. It should continue to be
made available to the residents of the district as a community facility.
CFS063 - Land south of Watts Lane, Rochford
CFS067 - Three Ashes, land to the south of Tinkers Lane, Rochford
Sector D (All references)
These sites must be removed from the local plan due to the inadequate roads in the area. Even with
new or enlarged roads the existing roads already struggle with the volumes of traffic that they need to
cater for today.
We respectfully ask you to make sure our views and those of our family (including our two sons –
Roland and Gordon Harwood) are fully represented in this process and during the subsequent stages
of the local plan being written and implemented.

Please include the following comments in your summary of responses to the current consultation on proposed development plan for Rochford District.

Hullbridge does not have the infrastructure to support further housing development - there is essentially only one road through the village (so only 2 routes in and out). Water pressure is already borderline too low and significant investment in water supply and sewerage infrastructure is required if any additional house building is to occur.

All proposed development in Hullbridge is on Greenbelt land - which is highlighted as not preferred in all previous consultations and in the current interim impact assessment.

Any development to the West of Hullbridge will effectively join it to Rawreth - again this goes against the Impact Assessment position to avoid creating a metropolis.

Development to the East of Hullbridge will be on an area where previous flooding has occurred. Building houses will increase the surface run-off and greatly increase flood risks to both these new houses and all the existing houses nearby.

Hullbridge does not have sufficient school provision, doctors surgery or local shops to cater for more housing, not does it have capacity to expand its existing shopping provision - this directly disadvantages children and those with disabilities/elderly - not acceptable under an Equality Impact Assessment

Transport links from Hullbridge consist of irregular buses only - making the village undesirable for anyone who must work or travel to education. New build homes will have to rely on private cars to work, learn and shop which will greatly increase pollution in the village - against environmental risk assessment guidelines.

Finally, there are more favourable sites for large scale development in the district such as alongside Sutton Road in Rochford (near the airport) which, if a requirement to improve the Purdeys Estate roundabout was included, would actually allow a reduction in pollution levels, have close mass transport links (within minutes of a mainline station and good bus routes) and close to Southend shops and amenities and also secondary school provision in Rochford.

Having looked at the proposals for the new local plan, the Hullbridge area is totally over developed already, with appalling insufficient infrastructure, chaos and gridlock occur regularly. The pollution levels in this region have already been proven to be unacceptably high and a danger to health, due to thousands of extra cars on our badly maintained roads that were built for a very small population decades ago. If just half the proposed developments go ahead, it will be wilful neglect of the present and future populations by RDC.
That's without even taking the flood risk into account.

I do not think the local towns and villages can sustain any more housing,the area is totally gridlocked at present the roads cannot cope with the volume of cars at present let alone adding more housing to the area.
Southend hospital is overwhelmed as are the doctor surgerys and schools,infrastructure must be addressed before any more homes are built,and not just a couple of new roundabouts as we have seen done in Hullbridge.
I have lived in Hullbridge since 1962 and am using the same roads as of then to enter and exit the village the amount of cars on the narrow old roads cannot cope anymore,also the amount of gas and water leaks on these roads lately from high volumes of traffic and heavy lorries is ridiculous .
Hullbridge has endured nearly 4 years of traffic lights,dust,noise and disruption from all the new housing estates in the area it is not fair on the local residents in the area enough is enough !!!!
I appreciate the need for more housing but do not see affordable housing at present with houses being sold at £400,00 plus,the only winners at present are the large building firms such as Barretts etc.
A whole new town needs to be built such as we had before like Basildon and south Woodham,where shops ,doctors and services are put into place to service the expanding population,unlike as is happening at present where 500 plus homes attached to existing towns with nothing more than a new roundabout is put in to service the area.
Rochford council is appalling in their handling of the housing being allowed at present without sorting the bigger problems out that the area has,any car journey is taking twice as long nowadays and to get a hospital or doctors appointment is getting longer by the day.
The whole area has reached saturation point essex needs green space and less traffic if we are to combat, climate change and give our kids and grandkids a future,please look at one new big town to give the housing and AFFORDABLE housing the area needs rather than keep tagging new housing estates onto already over stretched areas as is happening at present.

Re: Spatial Options consultation – Nevendon, 190 Lower Road, Hullbridge Essex. CFS100

I refer to your spatial options consultation document in which the Local Planning Authority are seeking views that will form the basis of the Local Plan going forward to 2040.

I would be grateful if your office would kindly note that this practice acts on behalf Amherst Homes, the developers of the above site.

The purpose of this letter is to assist the Local Planning Authority with its consultation process and provide additional information which may assist officers of the council when reviewing individual sites which are most appropriate for residential development. There does appear to be a number of errors within the site assessment already conducted by the Local Planning Authority. This letter along with the additional reports that have been undertaken will provide some assistance.

Firstly, my clients fully endorse the Local Planning Authority’s interim policies with regard to sites that are identified as brownfield, part brownfield, and contaminated land should be brought forward for development first. This of course follows government guidelines and recent appeal decisions that have been issued by the Planning Inspectorate.

In the case of the above site, this has a long history of various mixed uses on the site including commercial, retail, light industrial, residential and sui generis uses. Many of the uses operate under a lawful use category having been in operation prior to the 1st of July 1948. Crucially, there is a statutory grant of planning permission here, in acted by virtue of the 1947 Planning Act.

In essence, the fallback position on this site is that the total site area can be used as a scrap yard without the consent of the Local Planning Authority. Please note as per 1985 caselaw, an abandonment use cannot occur with a statutory grant of planning permission.

In addition, there is substantial built form on the site, along with large areas of concrete hardstand; therefore the site complies with the National Planning Policy Guidance, annex one in terms of previously developed land.

Although the site is currently identified within the Rochford District Local Plan as Green Belt, it must be a matter of common ground that the site does not meet the objectives of the Green Belt which are as follows:

Green Belt serves 5 purposes:

(a) to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;
(b) to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another;
(c) to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;
(d) to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and
(e) to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.

In view of the site not meeting any of the above Green Belt criteria, the Local Planning Authority are encouraged to remove this site from the Green Belt.

With regard to other areas that have been highlighted within the initial assessment, my clients have already conducted extensive survey work which have included highways, ecology, flood, and strategic drainage, all of which have concluded there are no issues of concern, and these have been confirmed by statutory consultees.

In terms of sustainability, the site is highly sustainable being on a major bus route and within a five-minute walk of a major food store, A primary school is a 15-minute walk and secondary education is within easy access. In addition, Rayleigh town is also within easy reach either by bus or by walking. The site is also well served by open space and parks are within a 5-minute walk.

Development delivery has been mapped out by my clients with a planning application already before the Local Planning Authority. Therefore, delivery of this much needed housing could be delivered within two years.

Please could you provide me with a definition of ‘ a promoted site’ what does this mean in relation to development?

After pursuing a leaflet that was delivered through my door regarding spatial options, I would also like to request more Information regarding the site CFS265 next to Shéepcotes farm as I use this space frequently to access the footpath.

As a hullbridge resident of many years, I truly hope that the council considers the huge impact to our wonderful village. And especially the green land, as with the current climate crisis and recent building within the local areas bringing more noise, pollution and demand on our infrastructure, I feel it would be ludicrous to consider any more and a huge disappointment on the councils behalf.

Strategy Options.
Q6. Option 3a should be the preferred option as it naturally produces the required supporting infrastructure and is the least likely of all options to increase pressure on the existing infrastructure in the rest of the district. It could possibly be combined with a small amount of development elsewhere but that should be restricted to providing local employment opportunities and the housing needs of an ageing population, both of which should have less effect on infrastructure than general housing. However, it should be remembered that most of that ageing population are owner-occupiers who have spent their lives in houses with gardens and may not wish to move to apartments. If there were no bungalows developed for them with at least minimal gardens, they may be likely to stay where they are and so not free up family homes for others. This problem has already been exacerbated by the conversion of many bungalows in the district to chalets or houses.

Transport and Connectivity.
Q51. Option 1 is clearly the only way to minimise environmental damage.
Q53. The A127 should be the main East-West route and there may be potential to widen it from 4 to 6 lanes from the M25 to as far East as The Bell without major impact on more than a few adjoining properties. Additional traffic should not be encouraged on Lower Rd due to congestion at Hullbridge and the previously-suggested Rochford Outer Bypass or any similar proposal should continue to be rejected as it would increase pressure for development in greenbelt along its route, particularly where it linked to local routes.

Planning for Complete Communities.
Hullbridge.
Q60a. While I generally agree with the vision, I do not consider it practical for Hullbridge to be more accessible by river-based transport or for the coastline to be opened up without damage to the river’s environmental importance.
Q60b. It might be possible to develop a small business park for offices and light industrial uses on that part of site CFS100 on the West side of Burlington Gardens as that is a brownfield site, albeit in greenbelt.
Q60c. No other sites are considered suitable as most put forward are wholly or largely outside walking distance of the majority of services and are extremely unlikely to provide any additional services.
Q60d. If High Elms is included, Hullbridge will already have seen a20%+ increase in dwellings over the last 10-15 years so all other areas should be protected. Of the sites put forward, many are at least partly at risk of flooding, notably in Northern areas and along Watery Lane and its junction with Lower Rd/Hullbridge Rd and also Pooles Lane/Kingsmans Farm Rd. Those Northerly sites should also be rejected due to their proximity to the environmentally sensitive and protected River Crouch. Other sites should be rejected as they reduce the greenbelt distance between Hullbridge and Rayleigh/Hockley or are to the West of the High Elms development which RDC described as providing a ‘defensible greenbelt boundary’.

Plan for more houses in and around Hullbridge
I live in Burnham road
1)
We already have horrendous traffic build up nearly every day and some days cannot even get out of our village . The pressure these extra houses would cause is unacceptable
2) It is pretty impossible to get a doctors appointment now and no infrastructure appears to be being put in to accommodate the new houses already being built let alone more.
3 the local schools are overflowing are new schools being built?
4 more green belt land being built will turn what was once a lovely village into a concrete jungle
4) water pressure is now a problem since The new houses have been built, numerous burst water pipes already- even more houses and the pipes will not cope at all
5) Hullbridge has had enough disruption already with traffic lights springing up daily .
6 ). Please stick to brownfield sites

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?
We feel strongly that a local highways study needs to take place. The document only refers to a study of the main roads in the south Essex infrastructure position statement. This states in 4.2.4 that much of the main road network which leads to our district is operating at, or near, capacity in peak periods.
We cannot understand why Rochford District Council (RDC) would base its planning upon the 2025 flood risk area when developments could reasonably be expected to be in place for more than 100+ years. All evidence from the IPCC and other scientific institutions demonstrate that global sea level rise is a real and presently accelerating threat. In addition, the British Geological survey shows that the Eurasian tectonic plate is tilting along an axis between the Wash and the Bristol Channel, this means that Essex is sinking at a rate of 0.4 to 0.7mm per year (ref. research carried out at Durham University and published in the Journal ‘GSA Today’). These projections are not the worst-case scenario, and the sea level rise could be much worse if climate change continues raising temperatures beyond 1.5 degrees centigrade.
The map generated by Coastal Climate Central for 2050 shows that all of the promoted sites to the west of Hullbridge will be in the flood risk area, and that those to the North East of Hullbridge are also in the flood risk area. RDC needs to ensure that no site at risk of flooding by 2050 is developed.
The Coastal Climate Central 2050 map shows large part of Rochford including Hullbridge below flood levels:
https://coastal.climatecentral.org/map/15/0.6252/51.6246/?theme=sea_level_rise&map_ type=year&basemap=roadmap&contiguous=true&elevation_model=best_available&fo recast_year=2050&pathway=rcp45&percentile=p50&refresh=true&return_level=return_ level_1&slr_model=kopp_2014

Q2. Do you agree with our draft vision for Rochford District?


We believe that the vison should take into consideration the differences in towns and villages; for example, Rayleigh or Rochford may have a more business focus, whereas Hullbridge may be more of a rural community with a greater need to cater for its older population who do not need employment but do need more health services. In principle, the results of this consultation need to feed into it to make specific plans for each settlement.
Q3. Do you agree that we should develop a range of separate visions for each of our settlements to help guide decision-making?


We agree that there should be separate visions for each settlement, however, these should be determined by each Parish Council working with its own residents - this is the appropriate level of localisation. Whilst agreeing with the principle of the localisation approach, it is not visible in the document as a whole. As we have already covered, there should be separate visons for each settlement. In this way it will support planning decisions at a local and district level to ensure the unique character of each distinct settlement remains rather than developing into one indistinct mass.


Q4. Do you agree with the strategic priorities and objectives we have identified?


Strategic Option 2 fails to address the problem of the aging population within the district. This is in large part due to the failure to provide adequate low rent social housing to enable young people to remain in the district and to develop stable family units. The failure of Housing Associations to meet this need is well documented nationally, and locally the largest Housing Association (Sanctuary) has a poor record of maintaining properties and honouring contractual promises made when the RDC’s housing stock transferred. The strategy should provide council housing (preferably directly managed) with genuinely affordable rents and secure tenancies in small local exception sites. There also needs to be provision within these sites for social housing accommodation for elderly residents.
With regard to objective 12 we are concerned that Rayleigh tip has been put forward for development. If so there still needs to be a site for waste disposal close to Rayleigh. The restrictions on vans needs to be lifted to prevent fly tipping.
We believe that sufficient primary school places should be provided within local communities, and steps should be taken to minimise the use of cars to transport children to schools; we are concerned that this is currently not the case.
Strategy Options

Q5. Do you agree with the settlement hierarchy presented?


Yes, the hierarchy seems logical. We feel the strategy should take into account that many more people are working from home, reducing the need to commute to employment centres.
Q6. Which of the identified strategy options do you consider should be taken forward in the Plan?


It seems that some elements of option 1 and 3 will be required but given the requirement to build more homes the least disruptive option preferred by us would be to go for option 3a. Option 3a has the advantage of being close to the existing road hubs (A127 and A130) and services. It would also be of a sufficient scale to attract section 106 funding for vital infrastructure. 3a would also be close to employment opportunities in Wickford and Basildon.

Option 3b would create considerable pressure on the existing road network and would erode the green belt separation of Southend and Rochford.

Option 3c would place development within the flood risk area and not be sustainable without the need for major road building that would open up the green belt to considerable development in the Crouch Valley.

The building of a major bypass road (as promoted by landowners in the past) to deal with congestion caused by 3b and 3c would destroy the green environment of Rochford and generate further development within the green belt. Development in the villages should be small scale and focussed on providing homes for young families and the elderly.

Small ‘exception’ housing developments added to the village settlements could provide council housing, sheltered housing and bungalows to meet the needs of low-income young families and the elderly. Such provision for the elderly could free up existing houses for younger residents and families to purchase.

Q7. Are there any reasonable alternatives to these options that should be considered instead?


Using option 3a as a starting point, other areas could be developed in future using option 1 when the infrastructure is planned and/or in place.
Restrict overdevelopment in rural and village communities to protect the character of village life.

Spatial Themes

Q8. Are there any key spatial themes that you feel we have missed or that require greater emphasis?


We are concerned about the fact that access was denied to the topic papers, and wholeheartedly believe that the existing lifestyle of the area should be protected from overdevelopment.


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?
We agree that it is imperative that both flood risk and coastal change should be central to any development plans going forward; for us in Hullbridge, many of the proposed sites to the west of the existing settlement are projected to be deep within flooding territory by 2050, as are numerous ones in the east as well. With 2050 now less than three decades away, and no sign of any imminent alteration in the path of climate change, development in any of the areas identified to be in potential flood plains today and in the near future must not be considered.


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?


The main concern that we have about the Coastal Protection Belt is that it only extends up until 2025 – other areas would need to be included past this date because, as we have mentioned previously, the flood plains across the Rochford district will be vastly different by 2050. It is our view that any and all housing developments proposed in flood plains, current and near future, must not be approved and those that are approved should be given the assurance of protection from flooding over the coming decades. Closer to home, we believe that the river front in Hullbridge should equally be protected for its special landscape character. We would also like to make it known we are very supportive and enthusiastic about the Central Woodlands Arc and the Island Wetland proposals.


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?


Providing that the development is affordable and deliverable, and the cost is not lumped onto the buyer for many years to come then this is the right decision as the future rests in renewable energy. A solar farm in a place that will not impact its surroundings to solar panels ought to be considered and/or wind turbines on Foulness Island.


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?


Ideally BREEAM Very Good or Good, as long as the brunt of the cost is not rested on the shoulders of the buyer and that these homes are affordable.

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?


The installation of wind and solar power generators, in locations such as Foulness, would certainly assist in supporting the local generation of low-carbon and renewable energy which is a necessity in the modern day.

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?
Yes, these should be settlement specific, to allow for the maintenance of the integrity and specific characteristics of each area, sufficiently detailed to avoid confusion, and widely distributed.

Q15. Are the principles set out in the draft place-making charter the right ones? Are there other principles that should be included?


Yes, provided individual settlements are consulted and these are adhered to.

Q16a. Do you consider that new design guides, codes or masterplans should be created alongside the new Local Plan?
Yes, providing that each individual settlement is at the heart of it and considered as their own entities with their own individual characteristics. It is imperative that certain areas are protected completely, and that any future developers are aware of the identified characteristics of each area.

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?


Design guides should be area specific under one singular guide which is inclusive to the whole district – providing it remains flexible to local conditions.

Q16c. What do you think should be included in design guides/codes/masterplans at the scale you are suggesting?

As long as the character and aesthetic are maintained concurrently with necessary growth, nothing else needs to be included.

Housing for All

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?


Meet the need for different types, sizes and tenures of housing (including Affordable, Social, Council and Specialist Housing) by requiring a standard non-negotiable mix of housing to be provided on all housing developments.
New homes should meet the standards set out in Parts M4(2) or M4(3) of Building Regulations.

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?

There is too much focus currently across the district on the provision of 4/5 bedroom properties. This focus needs to shift towards 2/3 bedroom properties which would benefit more local residents/families in search of their first home. "Affordable" homes should not only be flats/apartments but other property types also.
1/2 bed bungalows (or similar) should be a priority, as with an ageing population, there will be increasing demand for such properties when elderly residents are looking to downsize. RDC should actively discourage bungalows being converted into larger properties. Additional provision for residential care is also a priority.
These can all be accommodated within Strategy Option 3a.

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?


Affordable homes and social housing to enable single persons or families buy or rent their own home.
Specialist homes for the disabled.
Smaller dedicated properties for the older generation, to enable them to downsize from larger properties, thereby freeing-up larger properties for younger families.

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?


The failure to provide traveller sites has led to many unauthorised sites within the green belt being granted planning permission on appeal. With Michelin Farm no longer being an option, RDC needs to identify an alternative appropriate site(s) either from within its ownership or purchased specifically for the purpose. This site(s) should be located so that it (they) does not cause difficulties with established communities; fly-tipping and the impact on nearby residents being just one example. Perhaps, particular consideration of a contained site(s) within the Green Belt, so as to obviate the likelihood of unplanned, piecemeal and unauthorised sites fragmenting the green belt.
Consideration also needs to be given to the fact that there are different groups within the Traveller communities who do not want to be placed together and perhaps ways can be found to integrate these into everyday life and housing.

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?


Some Traveller Groups tend to make their own arrangements to use owned land on a temporary basis. RDC needs to identify a site(s) either from within its ownership or purchased specifically for this purpose. It (they) would need to be sufficiently away from residences that they would not be disturbed or troubled by vehicles/caravans arriving or leaving. Perhaps a pre-payment/booking system could be introduced for this purpose and at the same time, reducing the likelihood of over-crowding.

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?
Locate sites close to main roads to enable easy access for large vehicles, so that residential roads are not congested and nearby residents are not disturbed. Allow a little room for expansion and limit the likelihood encroachment onto neighbouring land.
Locate away from spaces of national, regional, local or community interest or recreation, so as not to spoil the visual amenity of the landscape.
The sites should not be closed and available to the whole Traveller community.

Employment and Jobs

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?


In addition to employment option 11 which states: Working with neighbouring authorities to identify land for higher or further education facilities where this would address current and future skills shortages, information should be collected and made available on where there are shortages or opportunities coming up. Offer advice to adults wishing to or needing to reskill. Provide local affordable adult education courses on the skills needed. Work with employers, education centres and Essex County Council.

With reference to employment option 4 that states: Meeting future needs by prioritising the delivery of new employment space alongside any new strategic housing developments. This should apply to the larger scale developments described in spatial strategy option 3. Employment option 4 goes on to specify live work units as an option. This would help with increasing numbers of people working from home. Also start up business centres and co-working spaces would be useful and there are many self-employed people and small businesses in this area. A sympathetic attitude is required towards people running a business from home provided that the impact on the surrounding area is minimal.

In all of this we need to be mindful of paragraph 83 of the NPPF which requires policies and decisions to accommodate local business needs in a way which is sensitive to the surroundings and prioritises the reuse of existing sites and buildings.

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?


Consider any brownfield site for employment use these are currently mainly getting used for housing. There needs to be employment opportunities even in the smaller settlements if we are going to be greener and cut down on transport use. Employment option 6 states: Meeting future needs by prioritising the regularisation of informal employment sites such as those shown on figure 30. This would make employment accessible to people living in the rural communities especially if other farms able to do this could also be identified. Most of the sites are in the western half of the district it would be useful to identify a few more sites in the east to make this a policy that serves the whole district.

Any use that is not heavily disruptive to the surrounding area should be permitted. Planning officers should be able to permit reasonable adjustments requested by residents to make extensions and adaptations to their homes to accommodate working from home or running a business from home.

Q25. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to deliver new employment facilities or improvements to existing employment facilities?


Our preferred spatial strategy option is 3a. Concentrated growth is required to bring the necessary infrastructure to make business and employment growth viable. There needs to be links to main roads to accommodate the commercial traffic required to service industry. Improvements to public transport to employment sites are needed.

Employment option 4 which states: Meeting future needs by prioritising the delivery of new employment space alongside any new strategic housing developments, could be delivered by strategy 3a.

Employment Strategy 6, which meets future needs by prioritising the regularisation of informal employment sites, would help deliver more businesses and employment. Employment option 3 refers to Saxon Business Park, Michelin Farm and Star Lane; we should continue to expand and improve these sites. However this needs to be done in conjunction with other options not as a stand-alone policy. These two strategies are needed and can be included in any of the spatial options.

Q26. Are there any particular types of employment site or business accommodation that you consider Rochford District is lacking, or would benefit from?


Sites set aside for education and health uses in addition to the services they provide, they also provide good employment opportunities. Sites also for High and Low Technology. Foulness would be ideal for green industries.

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?


Provide appropriate schools and colleges to serve the increase in population due to high development, but locate with public transport links and accessibility by walking or cycling in mind. Also work with neighbouring authorities to identify land for higher or further education facilities where this would address current and future skills shortages as stated in employment option 11.

Work with bus companies and Essex County Council to make our existing employment sites as accessible as possible. Improve footpaths and cycle tracks using government funding applied for by Rochford District Council. Move away from planning employment sites in places that are designed to be accessed by car use. Some employment is going to have to be close to settlements. This of course would have to be take into account paragraph 83 of the NPPF which requires policies and decisions to accommodate local business needs in a way which is sensitive to the surroundings and prioritises the reuse of existing sites and buildings.

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?


Protect the airport and encourage airport linked transport adjacent or close to the airport eg, existing airport industrial park and Saxon Business Park. Both airport growth and industry will promote jobs.

The transport system both road network and public transport needs to be improved to make these growing opportunities accessible for all.

Biodiversity

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?


YES

While Hockley Woods does not seem to be mentioned here, we would have thought this ancient woodland (and similar woodland), and its important wildlife habitat should be included as it provides for a number of rare species including lesser spotted woodpeckers and hawfinches.

The lower Crouch Valley, the River Crouch and its banks are important habitats for fauna including birds that are on the endangered species red list. This includes curlews, whimbrels, and other wading birds. The pasture land flanking the Crouch towards Battlesbridge is an important habitat for skylarks and other species; these areas should be protected.
Restrict development in all other green belt areas, in order to protect nature. Alongside this, provide protection for nature reserves, parkland and areas fronting rivers.

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


Yes, as we have already stated, many areas provide habitats for endangered or rare wildlife and therefore are more than worthy of protection.

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?

Onsite reduced developments in general will assist moving new developments to high unemployment areas.
We agree with the central woodlands arc and island wetlands proposals.

Green and Blue Infrastructure

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?


More investment is required in many areas of infrastructure, from roads to general services. It would be beneficial to green ideals to restrict or ban development in or near green belt sites and to keep development in the rural areas to a minimum.

Q33. 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?


By lobbying central government to allow revision of RDC plans to support a quality green and blue infrastructure.
Q34. With referene to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to help deliver new strategic green and blue infrastructure?


Concentrate on brownfield and town sites in order to protect rural communities and the green belt – as previously alluded, options 3 or 4 mean less development in rural areas and are therefore more accommodating to the needs of smaller rural areas like Hullbridge, hence our choice of option 3a.

Community Infrastructure

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?


Build property where there is existing infrastructure or where infrastructure can be expanded without encroaching on green belt etc.
A survey needs to be carried out on local roads to determine what is needed to be upgraded to achieve any sustainable way for traffic, both domestic and that which uses these as through roads.
With reference to Hullbridge much of it is unadopted roads and cannot support any development, let alone be able to accommodate the use of these roads as through roads for both building access and ultimate through road access to any development.

Provide schools for development areas and provide transport links to these schools. Local schools, both primary and secondary, are already struggling with the increase in pupil numbers coupled with limited capacity.

Q36. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to deliver new or improved community infrastructure?


Funds were given via section 106 to expand Hullbridge Healthcare Centre and provide more school places - neither of these has happened. The section 106 money from the existing Malyons Farm development urgently needs to be made available to both the Hullbridge Healthcare Centre and the Hullbridge Primary School.
More development would make the situation untenable, particularly if further section 106 monies were withheld by RDC and not allocated to benefitting the local community where new developments are built.

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?

Even with section 106 grants, if made available, healthcare facilities in Hullbridge are severely restricted, especially since the pandemic due to doctor shortage. Further development in Hullbridge would worsen healthcare provision and, even with section 106 grants if released by RDC, will not improve the situation.
Whilst this is outside the control of RDC, developments would cause serious issues particularly as Hullbridge traditionally has an ageing population - one which is obviously more reliant on healthcare, alongside the inevitability of new patients from current and any new developments.
There are currently inadequate or no existent bus and footpath links to areas east of Hullbridge, such as the Dome Area. Any development to the east of Hullbridge would have transport difficulty and also the impact on Lower Road would be unacceptable; this would be the case even bus links were improved.
The same approach needs to be taken with schools and highways and new residents could be short- changed without easy access to schools, healthcare and employment.
Open Spaces and Recreation

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?


With reference to open spaces and recreation option 5, we should improve and maintain what we already have, using section 106 money for improvements. We should ensure that any section 106 money does get spent how and where it was intended. No section 106 money should end up being unused.

We should improve bus links to existing facilities in the district, for example Clements Hall where buses used to run in the past (at least in the school holiday periods). There should be an aim to provide permanent all year-round bus services to our main leisure sites.

The Hockley ‘Park Run’ is very popular. Should the proposed Central Woodlands Arc come into being it would be ideal for a park run. Orienteering could be an interesting additional activity; local scouting groups, and schooling groups too, would certainly benefit from this.

Q39. Are the potential locations for 3G pitch investment the right ones? Are there other locations that we should be considering?


We should ensure that any proposal for a 3G pitch has the backing of local residents. For reference, in 2016 a 3G pitch was applied for planning permission by The Fitzwimarc School but turned down by Rochford District Council due the objections of local residents.
The Hullbridge Recreation Ground would be ideal for a new 3G pitch.

Q40. Are the listed potential hub sites and key centres the right ones? Are there other locations that we should be considering?


Primary Schools should also be considered along with any site that could host a hockey or a 5 a side pitch.

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?


Our preferred spatial strategy option is 3a. The section 106 money that comes with the larger developments has more chance of providing good sustainable new facilities.
A bus service needs to be run to facilities like Clements Hall, at least during half term and school holidays, to enable young people to access it from areas where it is currently difficult to access by public transport; this has been done in the past to access sports and in particularly swimming facilities which are not available in Hullbridge or Rawreth.
Swimming facilities were excluded from the Rawreth Lane sport facility.

Q42. Are there particular open spaces that we should be protecting or improving?


Hullbridge Recreation Ground. Our nature reserves, parks and woodlands to promote walking and other appropriate exercising activities.

Heritage

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?


Protect village and rural areas from over or inappropriate development through careful planning considerations.

Compose a list of sites with local consultation. Then look maintain them with local residents and organisations.


Q44. Are there areas of the District we should be considering for conservation area status beyond those listed in this section?


Villages fronting riversides: Hullbridge, Paglesham, Canewdon, South Fambridge.

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?


As with protected sites a consultation needs to be done for each locality. With reference to Hullbridge, in addition to the old school, Shell Cottage and River Cottage are already listed. We would add the school house next to the school, Brick Cottages, Tap's Cottage and the Anchor Cottages if they are not already listed/locally listed buildings.

Town Centres and Retail

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]


Market forces are moving purchases online so town centres need to be more accessible and convenient to encourage day shopping, and also increase night time business where appropriate to take up capacity lost from retail.

Improve transport links to town shopping and amenities. There is no transport link from the Dome that would take their residents into nearby Hockley for example. There are no easy transport links from Hullbridge to Hockley or Rochford.

Q47. Do you agree with the local centre hierarchy set out in Figure 36? If not, what changes would you make? [Please state reasoning]


Protecting businesses generally will not work as commercially if they are not profitable, they will close and we will have empty shops. Rochford District Council needs to encourage business with free parking and reduced business rates.

Businesses should be encouraged to work together with a co-operative nature, or a number of shops all open a little later one night of the week to make it worth shoppers coming out in the early evening. Local eateries could offer special deals on those nights.

Community events that encourage shops and businesses to join in – fairs, celebrations, etc.

Q48. With reference to Figures 38, 39 and 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]


Keep streets clean and tidy, and repair and repaint street furniture regularly. Conserve the character of the town centres by avoiding high rise development and buildings that are at odds with the street scene.

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]


Some existing ok but links to, e.g., Clements Hall from Hullbridge non-existent.

Businesses cannot be forced into staying unless benefits outlined in Q47 are adhered to which may encourage some business opportunities and current business to remain.

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]


Spatial strategy 3a will give the most opportunity to expand retail both in terms of including retail space and bringing customers into the town centres nearest to the new developments. The document mentions a cinema. The best site for this would be Saxon Business Park. A bowling alley would work well with this alongside some eateries.

Transport and Connectivity

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?


Certainly, prepare an Infrastructure Delivery Plan that would deliver meaningful improvement to transport networks, including but not exclusively, cycle routes, walking pathways, public transport and roads. However, all these modes are currently completely stretched; modernisation and improvements to all need to happen before future housing developments are built. It should be noted that following the last developments in the Core Strategy, as far as Hullbridge is concerned (and almost certainly elsewhere also), the promised improvements have either not materialised, been completed or proven to be inadequate.
The plan needs to deliver improvements to public transport by working with bus companies to re-establish bus routes to isolated communities that have been either been terminated or severely curtailed. For example, ‘The Dome’ has a bus service twice a week. Residents regularly complain that they are isolated from everywhere else. It is also claimed that Hullbridge has its own bus service that runs 4 - 7 times a day. This is not the experience of Hullbridge residents and it only needs the slightest issue along Hullbridge Road for the service to either be even further curtailed or suspended entirely.
RDC need to continue to work with Government, Highways England, Essex CC etc to deliver meaningful road improvements to both the main road arteries and to the local road network. However, any large-scale bypass scheme such as the "Southend Outer Bypass" scheme needs to be opposed. Not only would it cut directly through the Green Belt but it would increase development along its course, which in turn would have enormous negative impact on the Green Belt itself, natural habitats and the environment generally.

Q52. Are there areas where improvements to transport connections are needed?


Whilst some improvements are shortly to commence at the Fairglen Interchange and A130, further improvements are needed to the Junction of Rawreth Lane and the A1245. Perhaps also the A127 could be widened along its length from four lanes to six lanes.
Additionally, the bus service between Hullbridge and Rayleigh can be cut with the slightest issue along Hullbridge Road and this needs to be addressed urgently. When this happens it consequently results in more vehicles using Hullbridge road, which in turn exacerbates traffic congestion and leads to other problems such as pollution.
A bus service between Rochford and Rayleigh via Hullbridge and Hockley and Rayleigh via Hullbridge would serve to reduce traffic congestion along Lower Road, especially at "rush" hours. This would benefit residents of the Dome as well as properties along the length of Lower Road. It would also serve to provide access for Hullbridge students to access the Greensward Academy that does not exist currently.

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.]
Improvements to existing road networks. Large scale bypass schemes, such as the “Southend Outer” bypass would be unacceptable because of the hugely detrimental impact on the Green Belt and its physical and natural environment.
Small low top busses to link smaller communities with larger ones. Trams not a viable option for the more rural areas as roads are too narrow and winding; additionally, would increase congestion on existing roads.
Improvements to the cycle path network, extending and linking the network as and where appropriate and safe.

Green Belt and Rural Issues

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?


Yes, but not within the Green Belt and Rural and Village life must be safeguarded.
Any such sites must be small scale and have developments that prioritise genuinely "Affordable" homes and/or Social Housing that would benefit local residents/families most.

Q55. Are there any other ways that you feel the plan should be planning for the needs of rural communities?
Support changes that would require developers of 10 units or less to pay something akin to s.106/CIL monies, that would go towards infrastructure improvements, particularly those affecting rural communities.

Planning for Complete Communities

Q56a. Do you agree with our vision for Rayleigh? Is there anything you feel is missing?


N/A


Q56c. Are there areas in Rayleigh that development should generally be presumed appropriate?


N/A


Q56d. Are there areas that require protecting from development?


N/A


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?


N/A

Q57a. Do you agree with our vision for Rochford and Ashingdon?



N/A

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


N/A


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


N/A


Q57d. Are there areas that require protecting from development?


N/A



Q57e. Do you agree that the local green spaces shown on Figure 45 hold local significance?

N/A

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

N/A

Q58b. With reference to Figure 46 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the land edged blue should be made available for any of the following uses?

N/A

Q58c. Are there areas in Hockley and Hawkwell that development should generally be presumed appropriate?


N/A

Q58d. Are there areas that require protecting from development?


N/A



Q57e. 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?


N/A


Q59a. Do you agree with our vision for the Wakerings and Barling? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]

N/A

Q59b. With reference to Figure 47 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the land edged blue should be made available for any of the following uses?


N/A




Q59c. Are there areas in the Wakerings and Barling that development should generally be presumed appropriate? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]


N/A





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


N/A


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]


N/A


Q60a. Do you agree with our vision for Hullbridge?


We do not agree with the wording or the aims of the provided vision statement for Hullbridge and have instead drafted our own (see below). We were sceptical about the suggestion that the river could be used for transport without consideration on the viability or environmental impact of this proposal.

Hullbridge will have expanded on its already self-reliant nature, boasting impressive local businesses and amenities – providing a perfect space for those who wish to enjoy their retirement as well as those with young families. Through small, localised and respectable developments, the thriving community and riverside aesthetic of the village remains as strong as ever; all of this has been achieved through the transparency and openness of different local authorities, residents, businesses and developers on any and all developments going forward.

Q60b. With reference to Figure 48 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the land edged blue should be made available for any of the following uses?


The biggest issue with further development in Hullbridge is the distinct lack of infrastructure – whether that be roads, schools, transport and other general services – and so, without even mentioning the fact that many sites lay within the projected 2050 flood plains, the suggestion that further development can take place on any considerable scale is untenable. Any consideration of commercial or community infrastructure, such as youth services, care facilities, or local businesses would equally need to be subject to the same discussion and scrutiny.

Q60c. With reference to Figure 48 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the land edged blue should be made available for any of the following uses?


All of the areas lie within the green belt, and many will be within the projected 2050 flood plains, and so general appropriateness is not met with any; numerous promoted sites are outside walking distance of the majority of services and as such would increase residents using vehicles and increase reliance on our already stretched local infrastructure.

Q60d. Are there areas in Hullbridge that development should generally be presumed appropriate?


Significant portions of Hullbridge remain vital for local wildlife, its habitats, and the natural environment. As such, any and all developments along the River Crouch, the surrounding areas of Kendal Park and those that lie north of Lower Road should be protected from development.

Q60e. Do you agree that the local green spaces shown on Figure 48 hold local significance? Are there areas that require protecting from development?


Yes, all of those identified as such in Figure 48 are definitely areas of local significance and are correct to be identified as such. Other areas that should be outlined include the Rose Garden, the banks of the River Crouch and the upcoming green space and Memorial Gardens provided as part of the recent Malyons Farm development.

Q61a. Do you agree with our vision for Canewdon? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]


N/A


Q61b. With reference to Figure 49 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the land edged blue should be made available for any of the following uses? How could that improve the completeness of Canewdon?


N/A


Q61c. Are there areas in Canewdon that development should generally be presumed appropriate? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]


N/A


Q61d. Are there areas that require protecting from development? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]

N/A

Q61e. Do you agree that the local green spaces shown on Figure 49 hold local significance? Are there any other open spaces that hold particular local significance? [Please state reasoning]

N/A



Q62a. Do you agree with our vision for Great Stambridge? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]


N/A


Q62b. With reference to Figure 50 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the land edged blue should be made available for any of the following uses? How could that improve the completeness of Great Stambridge?


N/A


Q62c. Are there areas in Great Stambridge that development should generally be presumed appropriate? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]

N/A



Q62d. 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]

N/A



Q63a. Do you agree with our vision for Rawreth? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]


N/A





Q63b. With reference to Figure 51 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the land edged blue should be made available for any of the following uses?


N/A


Q63c. Are there areas in Rawreth that development should generally be presumed appropriate? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]


N/A


Q63d. Are there areas that require protecting from development? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]


N/A


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]


N/A


Q64a. Do you agree with our vision for Paglesham? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]


N/A


Q64b. With reference to Figure 52 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the land edged blue should be made available for any of the following uses?


N/A


Q64c. Are there areas in Paglesham that development should generally be presumed appropriate? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]


N/A

Q64d. Are there areas that require protecting from development? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]


N/A


Q65a. Do you agree with our vision for Sutton and Stonebridge? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]


N/A


Q65b. With reference to Figure 53 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the land edged blue should be made available for any of the following uses?


N/A


Q65c. Are there areas in Sutton and Stonebridge that development should generally be presumed appropriate? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]


N/A


Q65d. Are there areas that require protecting from development? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]


N/A


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]


N/A






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]


No - All communities should have their own individual, locally determined vision statements, especially the more rural ones. Each settlement has its own distinct character and the vision statement would serve to aid the planning process in safeguarding their individual character.

Q67. Do you agree with our vision for our rural communities? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]


Yes in the broadest terms. We would want it to re-iterate that the individual character and seeming uniqueness of our rural communities needs to be, and will be, safeguarded. By extension, we would like to see more activity in this regard from all tiers of Government.

Q68. Are there other courses of action the Council could take to improve the completeness of our rural communities?


Respect the green belt that surrounds our rural communities and our higher tier settlements; thereby ensuring a buffer ("defensible boundary") that would actively prevent communities merging into one conglomeration.

Create a Country Park to the west of Hullbridge.

Improve village roads, transport, educational and utility infrastructure. All of which are already in desperate need of improvement and renovation. For example, it is questionable whether the sewerage system in Hullbridge could cope with any further development without expansion and upgrading.

Regarding the proposal to develop land around Hullbridge.

The council need to appreciate that not every constituent wants to live in a concrete jungle surrounded by buildings with no sign of nature or the countryside.

We moved to Hullbridge three years ago because it is a peaceful rural village and a good location to help with our mental well being and medical needs. This location has proved essential over the past 18 months with COVID and lock downs adding extra stress and anxiety. To include this area in the plan is not taking into account people’s well being and has no consideration for why people move to rural locations.

The proposal to build on Green belt between Keswick Avenue, Pooles Lane and Long Lane would also cause distress to [REDACTED - PERSONAL INFORMATION] who suffers from a neurological disorder which is exacerbated by vibration, which would be caused by building works. Also Green belt and farm land should not be destroyed by buildings but left to help combat global warming and food shortages.

On a more general view, the infrastructure is not sufficient to handle the proposed number of new homes in the Rockford district. The roads are not suitable as has been proved many times when there is an incident on either the A127, Rawreth Lane, Beeches Road/Watery Lane or Lower Road the whole area is brought to a stand still.
Then there is medical facilities, schools and transport. It’s ok saying more schools, transport and medical facilities will be provided but you have to get staff to man them and with the news saying there is a shortage of trained staff this is easier said the done.

I hope you take our views into consideration.

We wish to make the following comments on RDC New Local Plan.
1. It is well known that the Government has set targets for moving to zero carbon housing in this country by 2025. This was being realised in 3 steps firstly in 2010 a 25% improvement was made in the energy/carbon performance outlined in the Building Regulations then secondly in 2013 a 44% improvement was made and finally in 2025 we need to achieve zero carbon. This means that energy needed for heating lighting hot water and all electrical appliances in the house such as TVs and computers must be attained from renewable sources ie no burning of fossil fuels.
The main source of climate change is the human influence for emission of greenhouse gases. The UK produced more than 365 million tonnes of carbon dioxide in 2019. Almost half of these emissions were accounted for in energy use in buildings and more than a quarter came from the energy we use to heat light and run our homes and this does not include the massive amount of emissions produced by manufacturers in the production of most of the current building materials.
A draft Planning Policy Statement was published on climate change which expects Planning strategies to be examined in providing for new homes and it expects that all Local Planning Authorities should have an input in delivering the Governments climate change programme in facilitating any provision of new homes and infrastructure. Local Authorities therefore have a responsibility in leading their communities in dealing with climate change. Therefore the subject of housing supply needs to be looked at alongside the reduction of carbon emissions surely the best way of reducing these emissions is to limit the number of new homes being built and not by increasing the numbers year on year.
2. The NPPF states that developments should be directed away from areas of highest risk of flooding with developments not to be allocated if there are reasonably available sites appropriate for development in areas with a lower probability of flooding. Where development is necessary it should be safe without increasing levels of flood elsewhere.
South Essex Surface Water Management Plan statement includes consideration of flooding from sewers drains groundwater and runoff from land small watercourses /ditches that occurs from heavy rainfall. It appears that none of this was taken into account in the current development in Hullbridge the southern end of which is in the flood plain and should not have been built on. What was originally proposed on this site was the provision of underground attenuation tanks this was subsequently changed to attenuation basins together with an additional basin in the centre of the site which eventually discharges into an existing watercourse in Watery Lane. these basins will no doubt be full for the majority of time especially when calculated for a min of 1 in 1 year annual probability storm together with the amount of additional surface water runoff due to the extra impermeable surfaces from this development especially as DEFRA have now bottled out on introducing Sustainable Drainage Systems SUDS compulsory legislation. Baseline Review for Climate Change Adaption states that in addition to flood risk from tidal sources fluvial systems also pose a risk to parts of the district. The impermeable underlying geology and seasonable wet deep clay soils in the western parts of the district leads to rapid runoff of surface water into local watercourses which inevitably will only get worse with climate change.
3. In connection with Climate Change Mitigation it is stated that it has been demonstrated that Rochford District has a lower per capita transport emissions when compared to Essex as a whole yet BBC Look East recently reported that dangerous levels of nitrous oxide caused by diesel fumes are being found in and around the Rayleigh area. Also in a recent national news report it stated that record amounts of carbon dioxide have been recorded and is on the rise the highest in the past 4 years.
So why are we contemplating building more and more houses on Green Belt land creating more emissions and more traffic adding to this major problem.
4. Regarding Landscape and Historic Environment the NPPF states that Local Authorities planning system should recognise that heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource and preserve them in a manner appropriate to their significance. Again this was totally ignored for the current development striding Rawreth and Hullbridge. As stated in the Archaeological Assessment for this development the Local Authorities archaeological advisor at Essex County Council required archaeological mitigation measures in advance of any development impacts occurring and noted that the historical field boundaries within the site comprise undesignated heritage assets of local significance and recommended that the orientation and preservation of these historic boundaries should be encouraged within the detail of the development proposals. This has not been incorporated within this scheme especially the Ward Boundary between Rawreth and Hullbridge. It is also stated that any new development has potential to lead to incremental changes in landscape and townscape character and quality in and around the district. This includes through inappropriate design and layout.
But once again RDC granted planning Approval for the Hullbridge site which indicated the majority of the future dwellings being 2.5/3storey in an area consisting of mainly bungalows and chalet bungalows.
5. In connection with Population and Communities. Local Authorities should/must ensure that there is sufficient choice of school places which is of great importance. Yet recently at a local workshop meeting in Hullbridge it was pointed out that the local primary school had a few available spaces these children would eventually have to attend the surrounding secondary schools who have all confirmed that they are over subscribed. But according to RDC because these are not actually located in Hullbridge this is not an issue.
6. Regarding Safety Rochford is maintaining that it has a relatively low crime rate and is one of the lowest in Essex. At a recent meeting with the police at the Rochford Parish Rooms the majority of the large number of people who attended all had the same complaint which was that most crimes are not being reported due to the fact that there is hardly any or no response from the police who stated that this was mainly due to severe cutbacks. So the statement made by Rochford cannot be taken seriously.
7. In connection with the Green Belt the Government has stated that the fundamental aim of the Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. The majority of this Districts land mass is designated as Green Belt and should only be released under exceptional circumstances. When we recently asked a RDC Planning Officer what is meant by exceptional circumstances he confirmed that this has not been defined. The Green Belt is supposed to serve five purposes 1. To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas 2. To prevent neighbouring towns/villages merging into one 3. To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment 4. To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns/villages 5. To assist in urban in urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and
other urban land
RDC have already released large areas of Green Belt for development all over the district. With regard to the New Local Plan the submitted map for the local Hullbridge area shows the majority of the proposed larger sites are Green Belt with the exception of a portion of CFS 100 Brownfield Site being a lorry/heavy goods breakers yard which is obviously highly contaminated.
8. Regarding Health the NPPF states that health and well-being and health infrastructure should be considered in local plans and the NPPG states that Local Planning Authorities should ensure that health and well-being and health infrastructure are considered in local and neighbourhood plans and in planning decision making.
But once again this has been totally ignored by RDC on the western side of the current Hullbridge development site there are three existing Telecommunication Masts.
According to the Guide to Mobile Phone Masts. Independent scientists and doctors these are a major health hazard. Cancer clusters have been found around Mobile Phone Masts up to 400metres from a mast which in this case encompasses the majority of these new dwellings. People living near each other and close to a mast have ended up with rare cancers at the same time as each other. This has been the case in Devon Lincolnshire and Staffordshire. Many doctors are now so concerned that they have all signed petitions to demand that Governments take the health concerns over Mobile Phone Masts seriously.
Forecasts suggest that the number of people aged 85 and over in the District will increase in the future. An ageing population has the potential to increase pressures on healthcare services in the District. We do not agree that any future developments will not as stated will not result in increased pressure on existing primarary healthcare facilities. As stated by the NHS any future developments are likely to have an impact on the NHS funding program and these need to be fully addressed not by just making financial contributions only which in itself does not solve the shortage of doctors nurses dentists hospital beds and appointment times.

As stated above it is shown that RDC have not addressed previously any of the alternatives in terms of major impacts and sustainability especially with the current major development in Hullbridge and we therefore have no confidence that this will change in any future emerging New Local Plan for this District.
RDC need to take into account further carbon emissions overcrowding traffic congestion flooding and further drains on the existing infrastructure.

Listed below are some key issues that we feel need to be addressed in any New Local Plan A. Infrastructure is paramount to all Planning Applications including the provision of all services especially the condition of the existing road network being capable of accepting the increase in traffic numbers. Just providing a new roundabout to provide access to any new large development should not be taken as providing adequate infrastructure as this does not reduce the amount of traffic.
B. The density for outer suburbs should be as stated 20–40 dph with very few apartments and more bungalows. Local Authorities are currently using 30-60 dph which causes more overlooking/overcrowding more 3 storey dwellings and less amenity space. Density should be allocated for actual dwelling plots and should not include open space play areas access roads and space required for attenuation basins which should all be omitted from overall site areas.
C. Approval for development sites that merge with neighbouring villages/parishes especially striding across Ward Boundaries should not be allowed.
D. Brownfield sites are being totally ignored and Local Authorities should not be allowed to re -designate Green Belt without at least applying for a Change of Use in order to for local residents to submit their valid objections.
E. Developers should not be allowed to provide financial contributions for off site provision instead of providing the required numbers of affordable homes.
F. All Local Authorities should ensure that all Planning Applications take into account current Building Regulations for example the style of windows to comply with means of escape ventilation requirements and the use of certain types of external cladding materials G. A minimum number of Lifetime Homes with full wheelchair accessibility should be required to all new developments.
H. All developments should have all required energy generated by on-site renewable and low carbon sources.
I. Not enough amenity space is provided for apartment complexes. Drying areas and bin storage should not be included as part of the amenity space together with balcony areas. Balconies should not be allowed to provide for additional storage and clothes drying.
J. DEFRA should reintroduce Sustainable Drainage Systems SUDs as compulsory legislation to stop flooding.
K. Transport carbon emissions should be taken into account in and around the local areas.
L. Provision of youth facilities should not be by providing football pitches alone.
M. Developers should not be allowed to remove trees and hedgerows prior to the granting of Planning Consent.
N. All developments should be made to comply with their Local Design Guide especially car parking arrangements.
O. All developments should comply with Secure by Design with no back alleys.
P. No Planning Approvals should be granted for any housing development to be constructed near or adjacent to existing Telecommunication Masts.
Q. The awarding of the New Homes Bonus issued to Local Authorities by Government should not be a reason for granting Planning Permission.

1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 These representations have been prepared by Pegasus Group on behalf of Penland Estates Limited in respect of their land interests in Rochford District Council (RDC).
1.2 These representations are submitted in response to the current Rochford Local Plan Regulation 18 ‘Spatial Options' consultation, which sets out the different growth
strategy options that could be pursued by the Council in the emerging Local Plan. The evidence base accompanying the Spatial Options document includes a Site Appraisal Paper which identifies the suitability of potential sites for allocation, including Penland Estate Limited's interests at:
• Site Reference CFS190: Land South of Pooles Lane, Hullbridge
1.3 The purpose of these representations is primarily to respond to the questions raised by the consultation to ensure there is a sound basis for emerging policies, as well as to support the most sustainable growth options of those set out in the consultation. These representations also confirm the deliverability of the above site and the exceptional circumstances in support of a minor revision to the Green Belt alongside the provision of a site-specific policy that allocates Land South of Pooles Lane, Hullbridge, for residential development in the emerging Local Plan. The representations are supported by high-level technical assessments and an indicative Framework Plan.
1.4 These representations should be read in conjunction with the enclosed high-level technical assessments and an Illustrative Framework Plan, which explain further
the opportunities available to create a high-quality and sustainable residential development with the ability to contribute positively towards the District’s significant housing needs.

2. SPATIAL OPTIONS DOCUMENT
2.1 This section responds to questions posed by the Spatial Options consultation that are relevant to Penland Estate Limited's interests in Rochford.
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?
2.2 The technical evidence that has been prepared and is yet to be prepared by the Council is supported as being required to inform the production of a sound Local
Plan in accordance with the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF 2021).
Q2. Do you agree with our draft vision for Rochford District?
2.3 Penland Estates Limited considers that the Draft Vision for Rochford District Council provides a sound basis for preparing a spatial strategy. Land to South of Pooles Lane, Hullbridge, will deliver upon the draft vision of Rochford District by providing a high-quality, well-designed development in a sustainable location with good
access to services and facilities which will foster vibrant and healthy communities.
Q3. Do you agree that we should develop a range of separate visions for each of our settlements to help guide decision-making?
2.4 Penland Estates Limited broadly agree with the importance of adopting a range of separate visions for each of the District's settlements to help apply the district-wide vision and objectives at more localised settings. Nevertheless, there is likely to be considerable cross-over between the specific visions for individual settlement, and
as such, the benefits of this approach might not be fully realised.
2.5 Furthermore, this is likely to be quite a time-consuming exercise for the Council's Planning Policy Team to create separate visions for each of the District's
settlements. The Draft Local Development Scheme (2021-23) anticipates that the Local Plan could be submitted to the Secretary of State for independent
examination by Spring 2023, thus providing a short timescale to prepare and submit the emerging Local Plan. Therefore, it is considered that the resource of the
Planning Policy team is likely to be better deployed in other more pressing aspects of the emerging Local Plan process.
Q4. Do you agree with the strategic priorities and objectives we have identified? Is there anything missing from the strategic priorities or objectives that you feel needs to be included?
2.6 The Spatial Options document identifies five ‘Strategic Priorities.' Strategic Priorities one (meeting the need for homes and jobs in the area) and five (making suitable and sufficient provision for climate change mitigation and adaptation, conservation, and enhancement of the natural and historic environment, including landscape) are of particular interest to our client's site.
2.7 Our client is promoting Land South of Pooles Lane, Hullbridge, for the allocation of residential development through the emerging Rochford District Council Local Plan (RDCLP). It is estimated that the site is capable of delivering up to 226 new homes towards meeting the housing need target for the RDCLP. In addition to delivering much-needed market and affordable housing, the site will deliver upon the draft strategic priorities of the RDCLP as follows:
2.8 Meeting the need for homes (Strategic Priority 1 and 2) – Penland Estates Limited prides itself on working with developers that deliver well-designed, highquality, and sustainable homes for all to enjoy. Any scheme delivered on the site would provide a range of housing types and tenures to meet local needs and the needs of the wider District. This would include affordable housing provision which would be tenure blind in terms of design and well-integrated into the scheme to enhance social cohesion and generate community spirit. It is agreed that the
delivery of new homes sufficient to meet local housing need should be assigned great importance.
2.9 Climate change (Strategic Priority 5) – Any scheme would provide modern high-quality living with housing that meets the latest Building Regulation requirements in respect of energy and water consumption. In addition, the site is located in a highly sustainable settlement, within walking distance of a range of shops, services and pre and primary schools. The site’s location and proximity to
the local service provision in Hullbridge would assist in reducing travel by car and thus assist in reducing carbon emissions.
2.10 Natural environment (Strategic Priority 5) – Any scheme brought forward would aim to achieve a net gain in biodiversity through the retention, protection and enhancement of any on-site habitats, provision of extensive new public open space and high-quality landscaped areas. Existing vegetation at the site would be retained and enhanced through new planting to enhance the potential for habitat creation. In addition, drainage attenuation basins, required as part of the surface water drainage strategy, offer further potential to boost on-site biodiversity.
2.11 Furthermore, whilst the site is currently located in the Green Belt, the evidence provided in our representations and accompanying Green Belt Appraisal demonstrate that the site performs poorly against the five purposes of Green Belt as set out in the NPPF and is capable of coming forward for development without unduly damaging the integrity of the Green Belt. The evidence gathered by the Council clearly illustrates that the District's housing need cannot be sufficiently met
through urban and previously developed land only. Some release of Green Belt land in appropriate locations should be recognised as being necessary where 70% of the
District is designated as Green Belt. The release of Green Belt sites such as Land South of Pooles Lane, Hullbridge, will allow the continued sustainable growth of existing settlements, and would be consistent with the NPPF.
2.12 Historic environment (Strategic Priority 5) – The evidence provided in our representations, the accompanying Heritage Appraisal (see attached at Appendix A) and the Council's Initial Heritage Assessment of Submitted Sites (October 2020)
demonstrates that the site does not adversely impact any nearby heritage assets either directly or indirectly.
Q5. Do you agree with the settlement hierarchy presented? If not, what changes do you think are required?
2.13 The Options Spatial Paper includes a draft settlement hierarchy based on the 2021'Settlement Role and Hierarchy Study,' which uses various factors (including population size, availability and range of services and transport accessibility) to assess the relative sustainability of the District's multiple settlements.
2.14 The Adopted Core Strategy (2011) categorises Hullbridge (and Great Wakering) as a second-tier (out of four) settlement, where there is considered to be a more
limited range of services and access to public transport is judged to be relatively poor. The Spatial Options paper shifts Hullbridge into tier three (out of four) of its
draft settlement hierarchy. This appears to be due to the sub-division of Tier 1 of the Adopted Core Strategy into Tier 1 and 2 of the draft settlement hierarchy, with
Rayleigh remaining in Tier 1 and Rochford (including Ashingdon) and Hockley (including Hawkwell) shifting down into Tier 2 2.15 In addition to Hullbridge, the new proposed Tier 3 includes Great Wakering and
Canewdon. Penland Estates Limited, as outlined below, considers that Hullbridge is better related to the Tier 2 settlement of Hockley in terms of access to services,
population, geographical size, and transport accessibility, compared to the Tier 3 village Canewdon:
2.16 Population – according to the Parish Council website, Hullbridge's population is approximately 7,300, which is markedly greater than that of Canewdon (Tier 3) at circa 1,100. The other Tier 3 settlement of Great Wakering (including Little Wakering and Barling) has a similar population to Hullbridge at circa 7,200.
However, it is recognised that Hullbridge has a growing population, particularly through strategic allocations, such as the 500 unit Lower Road development in southwest Hullbridge (adopted Policy SER6 – South West Hullbridge). It is also anticipated that Hullbridge's population will continue to grow through strategic
allocations in the emerging Local Plan, given the sustainability of the settlement and its ability to support continued growth. This means that the population of
Hullbridge is anticipated to move closer to the suggested Tier 2 population threshold of 10,000.
2.17 Access to public transport – Hullbridge is serviced by the frequent no. 20 bus route operated by Frist Group (every 30 minutes between 7.00 to 21.00 Monday
to Saturday) to Southend via Rayleigh, where wider connectivity into London via the Greater Anglia train service is available. Great Wakering is similarly wellconnected as Hullbridge to public transport links; however, Canewdon is only serviced every two hours by the 60 bus route to Southend via Rochford. It is
recognised that neither Hullbridge nor Great Wakering includes rail links, as available in the Tier 2 settlements. Nevertheless, the frequent bus journeys to these rail station destinations from Hullbridge (and Great Wakering) provide accessible sustainable transport options for residents of these settlements.
2.18 Range of services and facilities – the village of Hullbridge has a good range of services and community facilities capable of meeting the everyday needs of
residents. These include three convenience stores, a dentist, GP surgery, library, pharmacy, a pre-school and primary school and public houses, fast food outlets
and restaurants. In comparison, Canewdon does not possess any such range of services facilities, with only a primary school, a convenience store, and a public
house. Great Wakering has a few more facilities, including a primary school, medical centre, and pharmacy and two public houses, albeit not to the extent found
in Hullbridge.
2.19 It is recognised that Hullbridge does not include a secondary school. Nevertheless, the no. 20 bus route provides a regular service (every 30 minutes) to the
settlements of Rayleigh and Hockley, which contain secondary schools as well as higher order retail services.
2.20 Access to jobs – several small-scale businesses are positioned around Hullbridge and at the various facilities and services mentioned above, which could
accommodate some local employment opportunities. It is considered that such employment opportunities would not be available at the Tier 3 settlement of Canewdon.
2.21 On the above basis, it is considered that the range of existing services and facilities available in Hullbridge mean that the village is better related to Tier 2 of the
settlement hierarchy than Tier 3. It is important that the Council has due consideration of the sustainability of Hullbridge when determining what level of growth is appropriate. The designation of Hullbridge as a Tier 3 settlement should not in itself be taken as a reason for allocating a certain level of growth. This is especially important as the Spatial Options document recognises that Hullbridge (and Great Wakering) are larger settlements than Canewdon; the scale of new
growth that would be appropriate for the settlements would therefore differ.
Q6. Which of the identified strategy options do you consider should be taken forward in the Plan?
2.22 Penland Estates Limited strongly agree with the identification of a housing requirement of 7,200 homes based on the standard method, which is in accordance
with paragraph 61 of the NPPF. The acknowledgement that this housing requirement forms the minimum housing needs for the District is also strongly agreed with; the Council must explore all opportunities available to accommodate additional growth above the minimum requirement and take on unmet need from neighbouring authorities that are constrained in the level of housing growth they are able to deliver.
2.23 The Spatial Options Document recognises that there is potential for Rochford District to accommodate unmet need from neighbouring authorities. The District's
neighbours are burdened with constraints to identifying sufficient land for housing, such as significant areas of Green Belt land which envelops existing urban areas
and areas of high flood risk. The authorities located within the same housing market area as Rochford have also struggled with maintaining sufficient levels of housing
delivery, further highlighting the importance of this matter. We therefore consider it to be highly likely that there will be unmet need arising from neighbouring authorities. In particular, early evidence issued for the Southend-on-Sea Local Plan preparation has indicated that Southend will require some of their housing requirement to be delivered in Rochford District (Issues and Options consultation,
April 2019). It is therefore vitally important that Rochford District pursues a growth strategy that includes a buffer in excess of the minimum housing required to meet local needs.
2.24 On the basis of the above, Growth Option 1 should be discounted as the strategy would not secure the level of housing required to meet the identified minimum
housing requirement. A sound Local Plan could not therefore be produced following this strategy.
2.25 Of the remaining options which would deliver sufficient housing growth, Penland Estates Limited is strongly supportive of Option 2 (Urban Extensions), particularly Option 2b 'Urban extensions dispersed to settlements based on hierarchy.'
2.26 Firstly, it is recognised that Rochford District Council have had a historic record of housing under-delivery, which in 2020 resulted in the Council having to publish a
Housing Delivery Test Action Plan as their 2019 Housing Delivery Test (HDT) was calculated at 77%. The 2020 Action Plan noted that the delayed delivery of several
strategic sites was a key factor. In particular, this was due to prolonged landowner and developer negotiations, delays at the planning application stage, and the time
taken to discharge pre-commencement conditions. The growth strategy for the Local Plan should therefore limit any over-reliance on large-scale strategic urban
extensions for delivering the required amount of housing.
2.27 Consequently, our client considers that the Council should identify available and deliverable small and medium-sized sites (10 and 1,500 homes) dispersed to
settlements based on hierarchy. This approach would be consistent with Paragraph 69 of the NPPF (2021), which states that "small and medium sized sites can make
an important contribution to meeting the housing requirement of an area, and are often built-out relatively quickly." The delivery of sites at this scale also helps to
ensure sustainable growth can take place across the District in a dispersed manner that allows all settlements to grow organically. 2.28 The NPPF allows for revisions to be made to the Green Belt boundary through the
Local Plan process where there are exceptional circumstances. As explained earlier, release of Green Belt land is required if the Local Plan is to deliver sufficient housing to meet the local housing needs for the District. This forms the exceptional circumstances required for the release of land from the Green Belt in appropriate locations. The delivery of small and medium-scale sites released from the Green Belt, such as Land South of Pooles Lane, will also play an important role in the Council meeting their five-year housing land supply as required by paragraph 68 of the NPPF.
2.29 Land South of Pooles Lane, Hullbridge, is available and deliverable within the Local
Plan period and should be considered further by the Council. Secondly, Option 2b will support existing services by directing further growth to villages like Hullbridge to support the vitality of local services. This approach is consistent with NPPF 79 of the NPPF (2021), which outlines that "planning policies should identify opportunities for villages to grow and thrive, especially where this will support local services."
Consequently, sites in sustainable locations with good access to a range of services and facilities (generally Tier 2 and 3 settlements) should be selected to ensure the
sustainable and effective growth of settlements across the District.
2.30 The Council's Settlement Role and Hierarchy Study assesses the relative sustainability of individual settlements by considering its 'completeness'. The
theory is that the more services a place has, and the easier to access those services are, the more complete that place is. The 'completeness' assessment is shown in
the form of a heatmap, and for Hullbridge, this is shown on Page 82 of the Spatial Options Paper. Land to the South of Pooles Lane adjoins the north-eastern
settlement boundary of Hullbridge, which benefits from a 'walking completeness score' of between 11 and 13, which is the highest score in Hullbridge and is in the
second-highest category overall.
2.31 This is because the north-eastern section of Hullbridge includes Hullbridge preschool and Riverside Primary School, Hullbridge Community Centre, and a bus stop providing a frequent bus service to Southend and Rayleigh (one bus every 30 minutes). These services and facilities are less than a five-minute walk from Land
to the South of Pooles Lane. Additional services and facilities, including convenience stores, a dentist, GP surgery, library, pharmacy, and other fast food outlets and
restaurants, are within a 10-minute walk from the site. By affording sustainable levels of growth to sites such as these, it will assist in safeguarding existing services, public transport links and infrastructure which local people currently rely upon and support vibrant rural communities.
2.32 For the reasons set out above, Penland Estates Limited strongly supports the pursuance of Growth Option 2b, with concentrated growth dispersed to settlements based on hierarchy. This includes allocating growth in high performing and sustainable Tier 3 settlements, such as Hullbridge.
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?
2.33 Penland Estates Limited supports the Council's ambition of ensuring future growth takes place in a manner that is aligned with the national objective of transitioning towards a zero-carbon economy. Penland Estates Limited intends to work with developers that will create high-quality, energy-efficient buildings, which could
incorporate energy generation and conservation technologies, in line with the Council's strategy to reduce carbon emissions.
2.34 Notwithstanding this, there needs to be a balancing act in order to meet this target against the need to deliver a viable scheme. It is clear that further consideration is
required regarding the expected capital uplifts in the emerging Local Plan to ensure that energy efficiency is considered alongside viability. In doing so, the guidance
should consider the Government's figures in their Draft Future Homes Standard which will be in place by the time homes allocated by the new Local Plan are likely to be built. Any policy brought forward on this matter should therefore be supported by appropriate evidence that has investigated potential impacts on viability. The policy itself should include wording to reflect the importance of considering the overall viability of a scheme when determining the application of energy efficiency
initiatives over and above that required by Building Regulations
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?
2.35 The Council should be consistent with the Government's Draft Future Homes Standard that proposes to remove the ability of local planning authorities to set higher energy efficiency standards than those in the Building Regulations. This is because the Government considers the situation confusing, particularly as the application of energy efficiency standards across local authority boundary lines often means that homes need to be built to different technical specifications. This inconsistency creates inefficiencies in supply chains, labour and potentially the quality of outcomes.
2.36 Nevertheless, Future Homes Standard outlines that changes to the Building Regulations are expected to mean that between 75- 80% fewer carbon emissions
are released into the atmosphere from new development compared to ones built to the 2013 Part L requirement. Requiring new developments to achieve energy
standards higher than the proposed changes to the Building Regulations would need robust evidence identifying the need for such a requirement.
13. How do you feel the plan can help to support the local generation of lowcarbon and renewable energy? Are there locations where you feel energy generation should be supported?
2.37 The Council should promote the idea of the Local Plan supporting renewable energy developments by designating appropriate locations within the District for lowcarbon and renewable energy generation projects. The Council could consider a
'call for sites' process for potential low carbon and renewable sites submitted by landowners, site promoters or developers. The Council could then assess the suitability of submitted sites using relevant criteria.
Q15. Are the principles set out in the draft place-making charter the right ones? Are there other principles that should be included?
2.38 Penland Estates Limited broadly supports the principles contained in the draft place-making charter, which sets out a number of key principles for how new
development is expected to be delivered in a way that contributes positively to their setting and wider environment. In taking this charter forward however, it should be made clear what weight will apply to the principles contained in the charter at the development management stage, as well as how the charter will interface with development management policies.
2.39 Penland Estates Limited prides itself on working with developers that deliver welldesigned, high-quality and liveable schemes for all to enjoy. Place-making and
creating a sense of identity is at the heart of the scheme design shown on the enclosed Development Framework Plan (see attached at Appendix B), with a
consideration of the opportunities and constraints of the site (see plan attached at Appendix C). New dwellings would be modern but sensitively designed to complement the character of the local area, and public open space would be delivered to a high standard to stimulate on-site recreation and interaction between residents. The development would be a positive and environmentally friendly place to live, work and play.
Q16a. Do you consider that new design guides, codes or masterplans should be created alongside the new Local Plan?
2.40 The production of new design guides, codes or masterplans alongside the new Local Plan could provide applicants with clarity about design expectations at an early stage. However, there are two important considerations to take into account.
Firstly, site-specific design guidance is likely to be useful only in cases where the development proposed is at a strategic scale or there are unique constraints which
design guidance would help to overcome. For the majority of small and mediumscale development, development management policies relevant to urban design and placemaking are sufficient in securing a high-quality design.
2.41 Additionally, the production of design guidance requires time and staffing resources. The Council should consider the level of detail required in a design code
and the possible impacts of delays due to detailed discussions and negotiations between applicants regarding a scheme's compliance with a design code. Given the Council's historic under-delivery of strategic housing sites, which has in part been attributed to delays at the planning application stage, it is considered that with the preparation of design guides and masterplans is likely to slow housing delivery rates further if required for all sites.
2.42 The suggestion that design guidance is produced alongside the Local Plan preparation would also potentially delay the Local Plan process; which would mean further delaying the delivery of much-needed homes, given the delays experienced in the Local Plan process thus far. It would also require developers to invest in upfront work with no certainty that their particular site would be allocated in due course.
2.43 As such, Penland Estates Limited considers the preparation of design codes, guides or masterplans should be limited to large-scale strategic sites or sites with particularly complex delivery strategies only. All other developments can be brought forward appropriately without specific design guidance, as development
management policies related to design will ensure the correct design principles are followed.
4 Q17. With reference to the options listed above, or your own options, how do you feel we can best plan to meet our need for different types, sizes and tenures of housing?
2.45 Penland Estates Limited recognises the importance of providing a mix of homes to meet the identified local housing needs. Option 2 is supported as providing a logical and flexible approach to ensuring that each new development provides a mix of housing that is appropriate to its location, taking into account all relevant sitespecific factors. This would ensure schemes can provide a range of housing types and tenures to meet local needs and the needs of the wider District. This would include an element of affordable housing provision which would be tenure blind in terms of design and be well integrated into the scheme to enhance social cohesion and generate community spirit.
Q31. Do you consider net gains for biodiversity are best delivered on-site or offsite? Are there specific locations or projects where net gain projects could be delivered?
2.46 National guidance outlines that biodiversity net gain can be achieved on-site, offsite or through a combination of on-site and off-site measures. Schemes should come forward with the aim of achieving a net gain in biodiversity through the retention, protection and enhancement of any on-site habitats, provision of extensive new public open space and high-quality landscaped areas wherever
possible. However, the option of achieving net gain through off-site contributions or habitat creation should not be discounted, as there may be site constraints such
as viability which limit a site's ability to provide net gain on-site.
2.47 Existing vegetation at Land South of Pooles Lane site would be retained and enhanced through woodland belt planting to enhance the potential for habitat creation, as shown on the illustrative Development Framework Plan (Appendix B). In addition, surface water detention basins, required as part of the surface water drainage strategy, offer further potential to boost on-site biodiversity. All opportunities will therefore be taken to enhance the biodiversity of the 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?
2.48 National policy outlines that strategic plans should take a strategic approach to green and blue infrastructure to help promote active and healthy lifestyles, combat climate change and alleviate air quality issues. Well-designed green infrastructure can provide a sustainable alternative to car use through a connected network of
public rights of way and greenways. Proposed option 3 is supported, as the delivery of new and enhanced green infrastructure on new development sites will assist in
creating an improved network of green infrastructure throughout the District.
2.49 In reference to Option 2b ('Urban extensions dispersed to settlements based on hierarchy'), the Council should select sites that are in close proximity to the existing and proposed green and blue infrastructure networks to ensure that future residents have a sustainable alternative to car use. Land to the South of Pooles Lane is located within the Option 2b strategic area, and there is an existing 'secondary greenway' (ref PROW 287_6) approximately 300m to the east of the
site, running in a north-south direction as indicated on Figure 32 of the Spatial Options Document. To the north, this greenway connects to a network of existing and proposed coast paths along the River Crouch, which is less than a 5-minute walk from the site. To the south, this 'secondary greenway' connects to a network of primary greenways circulating Hockley.
2.50 The Land South of Pooles Lane, Hullbridge, promoted by our client Penland Estates Limited, is well placed to encourage a shift away from the private car. As shown by the submitted Framework Plan, any development at the Pooles Lane site will integrate into the existing highway network by providing vehicular, pedestrian and cycle access points. The Council's Site Appraisal (2021) recognises the accessibility of the site to existing walking and cycling infrastructure, as Land South of Pooles Lane (ref CFS03) is scored at level 5 (highest category), as the site is within 400m of an existing cycle or footway.
2.51 In contrast however, the Site Appraisal (2021) scores the site at level 2 for accessibility to public rights of way (the second-lowest category), as there are
adjudged to be no PROWs with 400m. However, a PRoW (ref 287_12) does indeed run along part of the site's eastern boundary, as indicated on the submitted Framework Plan and connects to the 'secondary greenway' (ref PROW 287_6), further to the south. Future residents of the site will significantly benefit from the existing and proposed green and blue infrastructure, which is directly connectable from the site. This inaccuracy within the Council's site assessment should be rectified to correctly reflect the sites accessibility in all ways, including to the PRoW network.
Q36. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to deliver new or improved community infrastructure?
2.52 There is the potential for new development to contribute towards the upgrade and maintenance of existing facilities. Penland Estates Limited would welcome the opportunity to engage with the Council and local stakeholders in Hullbridge to understand local community needs.
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?
2.53 In reference to Strategy Option 2b ('Urban extensions dispersed to settlements based on hierarchy'), the Council should support sites that can help improve open space or sports facility accessibility or provision. This would be in line with proposed option 4 for meeting open space needs through the Local Plan, which proposes requiring new developments to provide on-site open space or contribute towards improving existing recreational facilities.
2.54 Land South of Pooles Lane is located in the Option 2b settlement of Hullbridge. As identified in the 2009 Rochford District Council Open Space Study, Hullbridge has deficits against the local minimum standards of natural and semi-natural greenspaces (-2.05ha), amenity green space (-0.11ha) and children's play space (-0.01ha). Incidentally, Hullbridge has the second-highest deficit in the District for the provision of natural and semi-natural greenspaces. The provision of sports facilities is 0.53ha above the local minimum standards. It is recognised that the Open Space Study informing the evidence base is slightly dated. Nevertheless, it is
expected that the settlement's deficits (or low provision levels) of semi-natural greenspace and amenity green space, and children's play space are likely to still
exist in the village.
2.55 Taking this information into account, Land South of Pooles Lane has the potential to provide around 3ha of open space throughout the site, serving a range of
different purposes. Open space will be landscaped with a variety of natural and semi-natural areas, such as new woodland belt planting and mixed grassland areas
to promote biodiversity. Circular walking routes are provided, integrated into the wider network of public rights of way in the area. A centrally located locally equipped area for play (LEAPS) can also be provided. The open space would be delivered to a high standard to stimulate on-site recreation and interaction between residents. The development would be a positive and environmentally friendly place to live, work and play.
2.56 Land South of Pooles Lane achieves the highest score for access to public open space in the Council's Site Appraisal (2021) paper, given that Hullbridge Playing
Field is located directly opposite the site. Hullbridge Playing Field contains various existing sports facilities, including a BMX track, skate park, basketball court, sports pitch, as well as play equipment. Furthermore, Hullbridge Yacht Club, located on the River Crouch, is less than a five-minute walk, providing future residents with a wider range of sports and leisure facilities. The Council should consider allocating sites, such as Land South of Pooles Lane, in the emerging Local Plan that are well placed to provide accessible open space and sports facilities, either on-site or within
close walking distances.
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?
2.57 Paragraph 104 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) identifies that transport issues should be considered from the earliest stages of plan-making,
which includes opportunities to promote walking, cycling and public transport. The importance of encouraging a shift towards more sustainable modes of transport is
recognised as this will assist in reducing climate change and congestion levels on roads.
2.58 The four options set out in the Spatial Option document are considered to be logical approaches to take in addressing transport and connectivity issues. The Rochford Local Plan should also promote sustainable forms of transport by allocating housing sites in sustainable locations in established settlements which possesses good quality public transport links, including; bus services, footways and cycleways. The preparation of an Infrastructure Delivery Plan or Cycling Delivery Plan would provide clear evidence of the infrastructure improvements that may be required to further support and achieve sustainable development.
2.59 The Land South of Pooles Lane, Hullbridge, is exceptionally well placed to encourage the shift away from the private car. As shown by the submitted
Framework Plan (Appendix B), any development at the Land South of Pooles Lane site will integrate into the existing highway and pedestrian infrastructure by
providing vehicular, pedestrian and cycle access points in appropriate locations. 2.60 By utilising the proposed access points, residents of the scheme will have
convenient and sustainable access (via walking or cycling) to education, a range of shops, and services capable of serving their day-to-day needs. The public transport links available to residents of a scheme at Land South of Pooles Lane are summarised in the schedule below. Access to these services could be further
improved through new development resulting in an increased level of users.
Public Transport Links
Bus stops outside Riverside School, Ferry Road:
No 20 bus service from Hullbridge to Southendon-Sea via Rayleigh:
Monday to Saturday- every 30 minutes
between 7.00 to 21.00, and hourly between
22.15 and 23.15
Sundays- every 30 minutes between 9.00 to
21.30
(0.3km – to bus stop, 3-10 minute walk)
Hockley train station,
Station Approach Hockley SS5 4BG
(6.2 km, 19 minute cycle, 10 minute car)
Rayleigh train station, 1 Castle Dr, Rayleigh, SS6 7HT
5.1 km
(18 minute cycle, 9 minute car,15 minute bus)
Q60a. Do you agree with our vision for Hullbridge?
2.61 Penland Estates Limited broadly support the draft vision of Hullbridge becoming self-sufficient and accessible by sustainable means and to make the most of its location by opening up its coastline as a more attractive and usable space for both residents and visitors. Any development should respond to meeting the housing needs of local residents, and it should be acknowledged that the aims of meeting housing needs and Hullbridge becoming self-sufficient are interlinked. The growth of service provision would be supported by new housing and new customers, which would encourage new businesses as well as support the vitality of existing
businesses.
2.62 The vision currently references the need to provide suitable housing for the elderly, which our client supports. However, the vision should be expanded to incorporate
the needs of young families and parishioners seeking local and affordable housing to ensure a diverse and sustainable settlement can be maintained.
2.63 Land South of Pooles Lane would seek to provide a range of housing types and tenures to meet local needs and the needs of the wider District. This would include
a provision of affordable housing which would be tenure blind in terms of design and be well integrated into the scheme to enhance social cohesion and generate
community spirit.
Q60b. With reference to Figure 48 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the land edged blue should be made available for any of the following uses?
Housing [market, affordable, specialist, traveller, other]
Commercial [offices, industrial, retail, other]
Community infrastructure [open space, education, healthcare, allotments, other]
Other
2.64 As mentioned in answer to question 6 above, Penland Estates Limited supports Growth Strategy Option 2b. This strategy would provide new development in
sustainable locations across the settlement hierarchy, of a scale that is suitable to the services provision in the relevant settlement. Land South of Pooles Lane (ref
CFS190), promoted by Penland Estates Limited to provide a medium-sized housing scheme, is exceptionally well placed in this regard. It would adjoin the north-western boundary of Hullbridge and lead to the natural extension of this sustainable settlement. The site is incredibly well related to existing services as illustrated on
the walking completeness score replicated below. Development of the site offers the potential to increase permeability within this part of the village, improving
access for existing residents located north of Pooles Lane. 2.65 This accessibility has been reflected in the Council's Site Appraisal Paper (2021), which aims to provide an indication of the relative sustainability and suitability of potential housing sites. For example, the site scores in the highest accessibility (category five) for access to a primary school (less than 400m), a bus (more than 10 bus services provided per hour within 400m), and walking and cycling infrastructure (less than 400m from existing footway and cycle paths). This assessment is strongly supported as reflecting the location of the site in relation to services and facilities, as illustrated in the summary table below.
[see document for table]
2.66 However, the site scores poorly in the following categories: green belt impact (level two), agricultural land classification (level one), access to a train station (level one), access to a secondary school (level one), town centre (level one) and employment site (level one). Additional information is outlined below to provide a more robust assessment of the site's credentials against its poorly performing categories from the Site Appraisal Paper and demonstrate the deliverability of the site.
Green Belt
2.67 Given the extent of the Green Belt across the District and drawn tightly around sustainable settlements such as Hullbridge, it is vital that specific parcels of Green
Belt land adjacent to settlement boundaries are subject to a detailed Green Belt review process. Notwithstanding its Green Belt designation, this land will often provide a sustainable location for growth by virtue of its proximity to the local service provision and public transport links. We consider that this is the case of Hullbridge, where our client is promoting Land South of Pooles Lane, Hullbridge.
Indeed, this is recognised in the Rochford District and Southend-on-Sea Borough Joint Green Belt Study (February 2020) undertaken by the Council, which at paragraph 3.9 states that the most sustainable sites for allocation may be located in areas that make a strong contribution to Green Belt purposes.
2.68 As explained earlier in these representations, the exceptional circumstances required to justify the release of land from the Green Belt are considered to exist
by virtue of the evidence base demonstrating there is insufficient non-Green Belt land available to accommodate the growth required during the Local Plan period. Paragraph 130 of the NPPF readily acknowledges that the plan making process can incorporate the review of existing Green Belt boundaries in exceptional
circumstances. Penland Estates Limited believe that exceptional circumstances exist to warrant such a review and consider that a modification is required in order
to deliver economic and housing growth which is recognised by the Government to be of national and potentially international importance.
2.69 Central to this review should be an assessment of specific parcels of land with development potential against the five purposes of Green Belt as set out in the
NPPF. Sustainable sites for housing growth which are found to not contribute to the five purposes of the Green Belt should be released and subsequently allocated for
development. It is strongly contested that this is the case for the Land South of Pooles Lane. The evidenced and justified release of this land from the Green Belt will allow development to come forward which will meet the objectives of achieving sustainable development as set out in paragraph 8 of the NPPF and assist in
delivering growth of regional and national importance.
2.70 In respect of Land South of Pooles Lane, an independent Green Belt Assessment of the site has been commissioned. The Assessment, produced by Pegasus Group, is appended to these representations (Appendix D). The Green Belt Assessment draws on the recently published Green Belt Study (February 2020) but applies a
finer-grain assessment in order to provide a comprehensive and robust, yet concise
assessment. The conclusions in respect of Land South of Pooles Lane contribution to the Green Belt purposes, is outlined below:
• Purpose 1: To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas. Site Contribution is assessed as Low/weak.
• Purpose 2: To prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another. Site Contribution is assessed as Low/Weak.
• Purpose 3: To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. Site Contribution is assessed as Moderate.
• Purpose 4: To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns. Site Contribution is assessed as Low/Weak.
• Purpose 5: To assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. Site Contribution is assessed as n/a.
2.71 The detail underpinning the above listed conclusions is evidenced in the Pegasus Group report. In light of the specific assessment against each Green Belt purpose,
the Green Belt Appraisal provides an overarching conclusion which confirms that Land South of Pooles Lane provides a low contribution to the NPPF Green Belt
purposes. In respect of bringing forward development at the site, the Appraisal concludes that:
2.72 “the Council agree that there are exceptional circumstances to justify the release of land from the Green Belt to accommodate development needs, then the Green Belt land immediately around Hullbridge – the site, would be suitable for such release.”
2.73 It is strongly recommended that the Council review the Green Belt Assessment alongside the other submitted evidence from their Site Appraisal Paper and Green
Belt Review study. The results of the Green Belt Assessment have strongly influenced the formulation
of the Framework Plan, in particular with regard to the incorporation of landscape mitigation measures. These take the form of a substantial landscape buffer along
the length of the eastern boundary, which will comprise new woodland planting and will integrate with and enhance existing vegetation. The landscaping strategy for
the site will aid in creating a strong defensible Green Belt boundary, as well as create a scheme that responds sensitively to the countryside character, with a soft
transition from built development to rural countryside.
Agricultural Land Classification
2.74 The Site Appraisal Paper (2021) scores Land South of Pooles Lane (ref CFS190) level one (the lowest category), as the majority of the site is adjudged to contain Grade 1-3 agricultural land (best most versatile or BMV). The other sites in Hullbridge also mostly score level 1, with a few scoring level 2 (i.e. any part of the site contains Grade 1-3 agricultural land). The assessment is based on Natural England Agricultural Land Classification mapping. However, the Natural England maps' scale is intended for strategic use and is not sufficiently accurate for the assessment of individual fields. Given that the site is currently used for arable grazing, it is unlikely that the land will be classified as BMV agricultural land.
Nevertheless, it is clear that the loss of some agricultural land will be necessary if Hullbridge is to continue growing in a sustainable manner. The sites available for
development in this area are of a similar agricultural value, and it is considered the benefits of sustainable development would be sufficient to outweigh the loss of
agricultural land.
Drainage
2.75 The site is located within Flood Zone 1 (lowest risk) as defined by the Environment Agency. The site is therefore considered sequentially preferable for residential development in flood risk terms.
2.76 The score of level two for 'critical drainage risk' appears to have been informed by a high-level review of the surface water flood risk for the site. Mapping on the
Environment Agency long term flood risk website illustrates that the majority of the site is in an area of low or very low surface water flood risk. There are small,
localised areas of medium and high surface water flood risk, associated with low spots within the site or near watercourses. 2.77 This is a matter that can be suitably addressed through any future planning application, which would be supported by a surface water drainage strategy
incorporating Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SuDS). The Framework Plan which has been produced has been informed by a high-level Flood Risk and
Drainage Constraints Plan (Appendix E) which illustrates how surface water flood risk can be appropriately mitigated through the inclusion of detention basins in
appropriate locations. The location and design of the basins will be subject to further detailed drainage assessment, however it is considered that a scheme can
be designed that effectively mitigates the risk of surface water flooding.
Access to a train station
2.78 The nearest train station to Land South of Pooles Lane (ref CFS190) is located in Rayleigh approximately 5.2km, which is just over the 5km threshold for a level one score. However, the assessment should take into account where opportunities exist for linked trips via other sustainable modes of transport such as by cycle or public
bus. Land South of Pooles Lane is located less than two minutes' walk from the nearest bus stop, where there is a frequent bus service (every 30 minutes) to Rayleigh railway station, with the journey taking approximately 15 minutes (including walking to the bus stop). This provides a very sustainable option for future residents of this site, and the Council should consider this factor when
assessing the site's sustainability.
Access to secondary school
2.79 It is recognised that Hullbridge does not include a secondary school, and as a result, the site scores level one in the Site Appraisal Paper. However, as mentioned above, the frequent no. 20 bus route (every 30 minutes between 7.00 to 21.00 Monday to Saturday) between Hullbridge and FitzWimarc School, in Rayleigh takes
approximately 15-20 minutes. This is considered to be an acceptable distance for secondary-aged pupils who often travel by bus, bike or even train to get to school.
The Council should therefore consider the accessibility of secondary schools by modes of public transport when assessing the relative sustainability of a site.
Access to a town centre
2.80 The nearest town centre of Rayleigh is around 6.2km from Land South of Pooles
Lane (ref CFS190), which is therefore within level one threshold, as the site is more than 2.3km from the town centre. However, it should be recognised that Hullbridge
contains a range of services, which could be found on a high street, with three convenience stores, medical centre, a pharmacy and other facilities. These services
are therefore capable of supporting the day-to-day needs of residents within Hullbridge, limiting the need to travel beyond the village on a frequent basis.
2.81 The site is also less than two minutes' walk from the nearest bus stop, where there are frequent bus services (every 30 minutes) to Rayleigh town centre, with the
journey taking approximately 15 minutes. This provides a very sustainable option for future residents of this site. Furthermore, due to the impacts of the COVID-19
pandemic, there has been a greater focus on online retail shopping; thus, it is considered that the 2.3km threshold is unjustified adopted by the Site Appraisal Paper, particularly where residents of Land South of Pooles Lane could either access retail facilities by public transport or online.
Employment site
2.82 The nearest designated employment (Imperial Park) area is 4km from Land South of Pooles Lane in Rayleigh, which is just over the level one threshold of 2.3km.
However, this employment site can be accessed by frequent bus service (every 30 minutes), with the journey taking approximately 20 minutes, providing a
sustainable option for future residents of this site. The Council should also consider the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic with increased levels of working from home
practices when considering the relevant proximity of employment sites.
Conclusion
2.83 Penland Estates Limited consider that Land South of Pooles Lane, is suitable, available and achievable for development, taking into account the evidence that it
has prepared to support the site’s promotion so far. The site should be allocated in order to achieve a sustainable and deliverable development strategy for Hullbridge,
consistent with the Local Plan strategy as a whole.

I have just looked into the above document. Firstly I would like to start by saying that the vision statement for Hullbridge should’ve been put together by Hullbridge, as this in no way reflects the Hullbridge community and what there vision for Hullbridge is!
I do not feel that Hullbridge is a candidate for Yet even more housing development. Hullbridge is already trying to deal with the impact of approx 500 new homes which has had an impact on traffic in and out of the area and affecting local amenities.
I am also concerned that the proposed areas within Hullbridge listed are on Green belt land which is going to hugely impact natural habitat and wildlife whilst posing a flood risk to an area which is already a flood plane. Since moving into the area a year ago the impact of the ongoing new builds has already had ongoing effects with travelling in and out of the area whilst causing the water pressure to be low. I do not feel that having even more development to this area would be beneficial for anyone and feel that there are alternative areas which would be better suited and not have such a negative impact to neighbouring areas.
West of Raleigh would be a much better option to build in one location whilst enabling residents easy access to commute whilst providing amenities in the area to cope with the increasing population.

I felt it necessary to email in with my concerns after hearing of the new local plan. It concerns me that you are proposing to build yet more houses within a village that is already suffering from the already increase in property that is currently being done. The roads are constantly gridlocked and there is concern of flooding with the natural flood drainage being turned into yet more houses. Your vision for Hullbridge does not reflect local residents vision at all.
>
> Would it not be more appropriate to increase housing in Raleigh west ( one of the proposed sights) where you would be able to increase amenities along with the population. This would also give residents a more sufficient commute when using public transport i.e trains, buses.
> This would also be less of an impact on habitat.
>

SITE ASSESSMENT PROFORMA: CFS172
In relation to the ‘spatial options consultation’, I would like to request you go back to government to politely tell them where they can place their housing targets!
Not sure if you have heard about the IPCC report but WE ARE IN A CLIMATE EMERGENCY, humanity would be grateful if you would start taking action towards that instead, as it is a much bigger priority than a new local plan!
We may need our greenbelt and agricultural land to grow crops if food supplies become affected, it is madness to consider covering them in concrete! Our roads are constantly gridlocked through infrastructure neglect and surely must be at dangerous pollution levels already. Not to mention the fact that a lot of the district is expected to be under water by 2050!
In light of the above, here are my reasons for objecting to this site:

Critical Drainage Risk
2
Green Belt Harm
1
Impact on Agricultural Land
1

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


OBJECT

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

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

I have been to a meeting held by our local councillors to explain your unrealistic vision for housing development in this area. We do not have the infrastructure to support these extravagant proposals. I strongly object to any further developments in this area. The current housing development has had an devastating effect on our surroundings and it would be ridiculous to impose any more development in this area.
I suggest that you build a new town, similar to that recently built at Beaulieu near Chelmsford, schools, shops , doctors were built within the new estate so there was minimum strain and impact on surrounding towns snd villages.

HULLBRIDGE
There are 20 sites listed,equating to approximately 4,300 housing numbers.
NEGATIVE IMPACT
Harm to the Green Belt and Coastal Protection Belt
Critical Flood and drainage risks.(There's a high possibility that a significant proportion of this Village will be below sea level by 2040)
Impact on natural habitats
Proximity to public transport. (YOUR ASSESSMENT THAT THE NUMBER 20 BUS RUNS AT LEAST 4-7 TIMES AN HOUR ON FERRY ROAD IS INCORRECT).
Lack of accessible open spaces and amenities.
Loss of footpaths or Bridle ways.
Impact on Agricultural Land
Existing Community Infrastructure constraints-poor road links; few sustainable transport options; education;medical services;public transport;youth services;leisure facilities and so on.
Preservation of
our rural coastal village outlook.

A Couple of Potential Positive Impact Points
The potential for a regional park to the west of Hullbridge.
Protection for our local Wildlife Site(LoWS). Local Geological Site (LoGS). Site of Specific Scientific Interest (SSI)
Hullbridge Meadows ( north of Montefiore Avenue and Hullbridge Foreshores.

HULLBRIDGE
There are 20 sites listed,equating to approximately 4,300 housing numbers.
NEGATIVE IMPACT
Harm to the Green Belt and Coastal Protection Belt
Critical Flood and drainage risks.(There's a high possibility that a significant proportion of this Village will be below sea level by 2040)
Impact on natural habitats
Proximity to public transport. (YOUR ASSESSMENT THAT THE NUMBER 20 BUS RUNS AT LEAST 4-7 TIMES AN HOUR ON FERRY ROAD IS INCORRECT).
Lack of accessible open spaces and amenities.
Loss of footpaths or Bridle ways.
Impact on Agricultural Land
Existing Community Infrastructure constraints-poor road links; few sustainable transport options; education;medical services;public transport;youth services;leisure facilities and so on.
Preservation of
our rural coastal village outlook.

A Couple of Potential Positive Impact Points
The potential for a regional park to the west of Hullbridge.
Protection for our local Wildlife Site(LoWS). Local Geological Site (LoGS). Site of Specific Scientific Interest (SSI)
Hullbridge Meadows ( north of Montefiore Avenue and Hullbridge Foreshores.

After reading the Spatial Options on the Rochford website and attending the Hullbridge drop in organised by Michael Hoy I would like to express my concerns over the proposed plans.

After attending meetings before the first stage of building I feel as though the people of Hullbridge were completely ignored and it was a done deal before information was revealed to the village and we were notified very late in the day and feel this is the case again.

I know that extra housing is needed everywhere but I strongly feel that there is going to be too much building in Hullbridge etc. Our concerns about infrastructure upgrading, shops, doctors, transport seem to be ignored. We live in the village and for years there has been trouble getting in and out of the village as the roads are not adequate. When it rains Watery Lane gets flooded so alternate roads are used which causes traffic jams etc. more often or not the children who go to Sweyne Park are late, there is a lot of traffic through the village and it seems that global warming is on the increase so more rain. We seem to be completely forgotten by the council when things need upgrading or repairing but the first place to go to when extra houses are needed. The latest plans are proposing to build over 800 houses on CFS099 and also on CFS172 added to the other sites that is around an extra 4000 houses in the village but no adequate infrastructure proposals as Rochford keep saying that Hullbridge can cope with it, you don't live here on a day to day basis. CFS099 proposed site has always been a designated flood plain for years but now its not and ok to build on along with a lot of greenbelt land, There is a lot of open land that could be used to perhaps build a large estate for all the houses with the appropriate infrastructure and facitilies i.e. roads, bus stop, doctors and another school to accommodate the extra population. Why does it all have to be put on top of a village that cannot cope with it. Also, they are mainly big houses that are not readily affordable for younger people to buy so it is not helping the locals so more people further up the housing ladder will move in, this is not fair on the locals.

After reading the Spatial Options on the Rochford website I think before you go ahead with any of this proposal you definitely need to look at the infrastructure of the roads, 2 lorries passing each other cannot pass without going on the pavement at times on the Lower Road as it narrows.
Bus services do not exist on the Lower Road up by the breakers yard and beyond, only school buses.
Thought we were suppose to save the planet, but not able to if we all need our cars up this end.
Just needs one hip cup like Watery Lane being closed mostly for flooding etc. and the whole of Hockley , Rayleigh comes to a stand still can’t get in or out of village.
When heavy rain comes the drains at the new housing estate at the bottom of Lower Road/Watery Lane cannot cope with it, the rain comes up onto the road from the drains, no wonder sinkhole not so long ago chaos once again.
All these houses you now want to put in will not help any of us trying to get to work or school, maybe firms and schools can change hours to suit.
I know you can change the rules to suit yourselves especially as I doubt any of you live here, but do give some of us a bit of thought, or is it a done deal and your just going through the motions.
Do we really need another 4000 properties, and how many will be affordable for young families, will we ever be able to see a doctor again or do we get priority over the 12000 new people or perhaps even more that will come with these 4000 houses.
As I live CFS100 I am the only property on that site itself so will be in centre of it all that you decide to do, not against the houses being built, just the amount you want to build.

Potential development in Hullbridge promoted sites
This plan is ridiculous for many reasons some of which list below

Plans once again include development on green belt land Grade 1 agricultural land Transport assessment clearly wrong (likely done at quite time, school holidays etc.) Frequency of buses is wrong. Sometimes as few as 1 or two per hour No new schools No new health facilities This plan will bring gridlock to the area.
Local roads are often at a standstill on an average day are completely overwhelmed when the weather is bad This plan is nothing more or less than planning blight for the residents of Hullbridge The government has publicly stated their intent to balance up the north south divide, this is clearly an opportunity for them to do just that.
In particular Once green belt and grade 1 agricultural land is gone it is gone forever this cannot be allowed to happen There are areas (3a) west of Rayleigh and (3b) north of Southend where Development will have less of an effect on the local population.

Dear Sir/Madam

Re Spatial-Options Consultation

I wish to lodge my objections to your idea of allowing building development on the plot no CFS190 in Hullbridge.

I have lived in Keswick Avenue over 15 years and back on to the fields between Keswick Ave and Pooles Lane. I consider this area needs protecting as we have an abundance of wildlife in this area. We see foxes and badgers on a daily basis, and the badgers have a set within these fields. We see bats flying around of an evening and as both the bats and the badgers are protected animals this development should not be permitted.

Access to this site is extremely limited, as you know Pooles lane is single file at some points and Keswick Avenue only has access to the field at the end of the avenue and is also very tight which is why the farmer does not enter the fields for harvesting via Keswick Avenue.

Burnham Road is an unadopted road at the top, therefore only has a single track so is not suitable for a extra traffic or construction lorries as route into Keswick from Lower Road, therefore this whole area is not practical for development.

I wish to lodge my objections to your idea of allowing building development on the plot no CFS190 in Hullbridge.

I have lived in Keswick Avenue over 15 years and back on to the fields between Keswick Ave and Pooles Lane. I consider this area needs protecting as we have an abundance of wildlife in this area. We see foxes and badgers on a daily basis, and the badgers have a set within these fields. We see bats flying around of an evening and as both the bats and the badgers are protected animals this development should not be permitted. There are several Oak trees in these field which I know are now protected.

Access to this site is extremely limited, as you know Pooles lane is single file at some points and Keswick Avenue only has access to the field at the end of the avenue and is also very tight which is why the farmer does not enter the fields for harvesting via Keswick Avenue.

There is a ditch that runs at the bottom of our garden which has flooded on several occasions, there is also and a major Gas main also runs through these fields

Burnham Road is an un-adopted road at the top, therefore only has a single track so is not suitable for a extra traffic or construction lorries as route into Keswick from Lower Road, therefore I consider that this whole area is not practical or suitable for development.

Objections
These decisions have again be made without any consultations with the Hullbridge residents just like the last time plans were being looked st.Hullbridge is not big enough for all these new plans,Certainly not a further 4200 houses.
Children can't get into their local school,Doctors won't be able to cope with all new residents,Transport in and out of Hullbridge struggles now without more.Roads are a disgrace and badly need repairing.The natural habitats of our wild life will be devastated.Also all the green fields.None of the proposed sites are suitable for any of this.The inferstructure will be ruined.i.e School, transport Leisure facilities will all have to be drastically upgraded which would cost millions.It will ruin the coastal structure and absoloughty desimste Hullbridge.As a resident of 58 years in Hullbridge the council seem to do what they like and to hell with any one else.
Sent from my iPad

New local plan - potential impact on Hullbridge
I have been a resident in Hullbridge since 2009. During this time the addition of 500 houses in Hullbridge alongside the large housing estate being built just outside on Rawreth Lane has resulted in significant strain on the local road infrastructure. I commute to Chelmsford and this can often take over an hour (up to 2 when watery Lane is closed). Despite the existing houses there is repeated issues with the roads and often residents are trapped in the village. The potential for more houses in this area will need consideration to improve the roads. We have received additional houses which have already put strain on our GP surgery and small village school which will not be able to accommodate an increase in residents in the area.

The spatial options could lead to 20 sites in Hullbridge with over 4000 houses. I am particularly concerned about the extension to the new houses at the end of Grasmere Avenue. This area is liable to flooding and would destroy a vineyard which is creating business for the community. Access would also be down roads which are unmade and therefore not suitable for heavy machinery.

I have concerns with the impact on the impact on natural habits and destruction of wildlife. Hullbridge is a village with greenbelt which has already been built on. I am an avid walker/runner and the new proposed houses will mean the loss of footpaths.

I am unsure how the houses fit with preserving our rural costal village outlook because Hullbridge will effectively become a town but without the resources to support this. There is no youth centre in the village and there is a lack of amenities, this will worsen and likely lead to increased anti-social behaviour.

The plan provides inaccurate information regarding public transport. For example the bus service does not run 4-7 times per hour.

Looking at the local plan I would recommend focusing the houses in one area rather than destroying villages. The area towards the a130 near the back of wickford seems to he the most sensible option. It is close to main roads and the existing town.

Plans for the proposed new housing in the Hullbridge Rayleigh and Rochford areas.
We are horrified to hear of all the new housing designated for this area. As receivers of in excess of 500 new houses currently being built in Hullbridge and having to suffer the consequences of this building scheme we are horrified to hear of the further number being designated not only for us but also the outrageous quantity for our neighbouring towns.

Our infrastructure cannot take this!

Roads ,which are under stress at the normal time but in the frequent event of road works ,any repair works and improvements? The area comes to a standstill.

Hospital and health care which is under pressure and Covid has added to is going to take at least 5 years plus to get under control.

Our green spaces are disappearing fast farms and spaces for our horses to be stabled going.

Leisure facilities for our children and older residents and families are going fast.

The environment and habitats for wildlife is under serious threat. It seems our priorities are for ourselves only and we do not know how the disappearance of species will affect lives in the future

This is the turning point for our planet do not pay lip service to our problems we are the ones who will be judged in the future. You are supposed to be OUR representatives and OUR VOICES

To try and halt the destruction of our planet.

It seems we are trying to make things better with the pollution on things we have. or things we do but you are not considering the impact that all these house s which are

Adding at least 2 new cars and at least doubling the number of people to all of the above . It fills me with dread for mine and other families as to how their lives will be in years to come.

Education in this are is stretched and I wonder how it will cope with the extra children joining the system. New schools will have to be built with the extra cars as the parents take them to school.

| AM SURE I COULD LIST MANY MORE THOUGHTS AND OBJECTIONS BUT AT THE MOMENT IAM TOO UPSET AT THE THOUGHT OF SUCH FEW VOICES ARE SPEAKING FOR SO MANY OF US .(AS WINSTON CHURCHILL WOULD HAVE SAID)

I have reviewed the consultation and would like to make comments.
In relation to the following areas (cf5099, cf5149, cf5006, cf5172, cf5265, cf5163) I have strong concerns regarding the insufficient road infrastructure to support the development of more houses in Hullbridge. We were allocated 500 new houses without any additional resources to the village and further houses will add more strain. I want to know how the roads will cope? Three sites run along watery lane which is liable to flooding and also will destroy more protected greenbelt land. Hullbridge is not set up for more people. It is a rural village that is being turned into a town but our schools and Gp surgery cannot cope as it is.
The current development at lower road has destroyed wildlife and the additional proposed areas will have a further devastating effect. It will also lead to further loss of agricultural land and no doubt cause drainage and flooding issues.
I recognise the need for houses in the area but think these should be concentrated in one area to minimise the impact on villages such as Hullbridge. Although I think the number is high, the proposed site CFS222 looks like a better option with limited harm to existing villages.

I strongly object to any more building in this area (Hockley, Hawkwell, Ashingdon, Rochford, Hullbridge, Rayleigh).
In the UK there are over 600,000 (six hundred thousand) empty unused buildings. Why do councils not concentrate on bringing some of these buildings back into use.
My objections are probably the same as everyone else. Schools, doctors, hospital, wildlife, open spaces (small areas of green don’t count), large supermarket, roads, infrastructure, congestion etc.
Over 99% of meadows have been lost since the end of WW2. How can the council even consider building on land off of Greensward Lane (and other sites) some of the last remaining meadows around. A breathing space for people and animals.
Rochford mustn’t become like Westcliff, Leigh etc where there is no countryside.

Living in Hullbridge for many years, we have seen the green belt disappearing with alarming regularity.
Houses have and are still being built on what we know is a flood plain. Watery lane flooding, even with preventative measures in place.
The bus service often doesn’t run into Ferry Road owing to obstacles due to building and road works. We have been kept prisoner in Hullbridge, on many occasions for this reason.
The infrastructure we have would offer nothing to families in new builds, as the doctors surgery is full, the one primary school is full and all secondary school pupils have to get busses, the 820 to Sweyne school has just been cancelled, causing the parents and pupils much distress. How will they get to school.
There isn’t anywhere for the children to have fun. Pooled lanes has limited apparatus, which is mainly for small children.
This lack of amenities causes the children to get up to mischief with occasional damage to property.
The major problem is that a significant part of Hullbridge will be below sea level by 2040.
Madness to build here.
The better option is No 3
West of Rayleigh, North of Southend and East of Rochford.