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?

Subject: Fwd: New Allocations Development Plan - CFS192, CFS004, CFS060, CFS071, CFS103, CFS115, CFS142, CFS258
Dear Rochfotd council,
I am beyond belief at the proposed building plans for property development in little Wakering as above. It feels like this has been sneaked under the radar with no correspondence from the council. I only found out from a neighbour.

The infrastructure is at breaking point and cannot take any further development.
I recently had to wait 61 minutes to get through to the Great Wakering Medical Centre as I was 5th in the queue, the situation will
Only worsen if further property development takes place without a proper infrastructure.

Total chaos has arisen whilst just two new homes have been built next to Little Wakering church, the contractors vehicles park on the pavement on the bend daily restricting access to our disabled community, and can be as many as 15 at times.
There is insufficient school places on a constant basis with parents being forced to drive outside of Wakering to educate their children, a terrible burden on our carbon footprint.
Which leads me to the lack of tip facility, it’s a 12 mile drive to my Rayleigh facility, it’s an absolute joke, another carbon footprint disaster by The council. The monthly refuse vehicles will only take black sacks which is of little use.
I purchased this property in the village 30 years ago backing onto farmland, I have even tried to purchase part of this field with neighbours to preserve the environment for our precious wildlife which includes woodpeckers, badgers, pheasants.
Its currently used for horses and stables where will they go?
Please reconsider the decision to build further homes in Wakering we have already suffered enough damage to our village with the building on properties in barrow hall road.
I had to seek approval to have a roof extension, how come such major development has been kept so quiet.
We were apparently going to have a golf course in Wakering, the construction company tore down the listed war time building on it then disappeared, how was this allowed to happen?
Thank you in advance reading and logging this appeal

My thoughts and definite objections particularly to plot cfs057 plus all others affecting great wakering

The lack of infrastructure,is by far the biggest issue, doctors unable to cope, school over overflowing, no areas for children to play .

In addition only 2 roads in and out if this area so in event if an emergency evacuation of the village,this would cause severe issues and probable deaths .

flooding, both surface and tidal issues, I can’t even pave my driveway without special permission yet you want to cover acres in buildings patios and access roads

the environment bill, with climate change will only get worse the drains can’t cope as it is .

People live in a village community because of the way of life. So health and well-being will be detrimentally affected. We chose to buy in a village not a town .

The Impact on the environment will be highly detrimental to the biodiversity and wildlife. Without bees we will not survive !!!

The increase in traffic will increase accidents. This area is a peninsula-people have to travel to work. No nearby station or public transport to facilitate this.

For these reasons I am totally against any of the proposed plots being agreed for future building within great wakering and would strongly suggest looking at building a purpose built town towards Rayleigh which has the space and capacity to support new homes and custom infrastructure

To whom it concern,
I would like to write to oppose the planning of the housing by star lane.
The infrastructure isn’t planned for this amount of housing and I feel that this is a rushed choice to fill a directive the council has been given rather than a thought or consultation of the village

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Sir/Madam,
I refer to the Rochford District Council Spatial Options Consultation. As part of the Ministry of Defence (MOD), the Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO) is the
estate expert for defence, supporting the armed forces to enable military capability by planning, building, maintaining, and servicing infrastructure.

Background
The MOD has significant land interests within the district of Rochford, known as MOD Shoeburyness. MOD Shoeburyness is owned by the MOD and operated by
QinetiQ Ltd under a Long-Term Partnering Agreement (LTPA). MOD Shoeburyness offers a broad array of weapon and military equipment test, evaluation and training over land and firm tidal areas.
The Range covers a land area of 7,500 acres with 35,000 acres of tidal sands. MOD Shoeburyness consists of 21 operational firing areas and unique capabilities for Demilitarisation and Environmental Testing of Live and Inert stores. This unique terrain enables the over-water recovery of munitions up to a range of 22km, groundto-ground firings of up to 27km, long-range direct fire up to 3.5km, sea danger areas
up to 35km, and large radial safety areas for explosives trials.
MOD Shoeburyness is a centre of excellence for environmental testing of Ordnance, Munitions and Explosives (OME) and houses the largest Environmental Test Centre in the UK for the testing of Live stores as well as some unique demilitarisation facilities.
60% of MOD Shoeburyness’s 7,500 acres is made up of eight farms and 74 residential properties (let to civilians) in two hamlets and is required to support the operational areas and outputs through the provision of a safe area in which Test & Evaluation activities can be conducted. The site is only accessible through Landwick Gate which is a secured access point.
All access to MOD Shoeburyness is on a formally permitted basis (other than to the public highways and byways) through the Landwick Gate security gate.

National Planning Policy Framework
The Council will be aware of the requirements of paragraph 97 of the National Planning Policy (NPPF) as quoted below:
“97. Planning policies and decisions should promote public safety and take into account wider security and defence requirements by:
b) recognising and supporting development required for operational defence and security purposes, and ensuring that operational sites are not affected adversely by the impact of other development proposed in the area.”

Spatial Options: Existing Open Space
It is acknowledged that there is an area of existing open space within MOD Shoeburyness defined within the current adopted plan and this area of land is proposed to continue to be defined as open space within the Spatial Options Report.
In studying this piece of land (to the west of Bridge Road), we wonder whether there has been a drafting error as this appears to be an isolated area of land unconnected to any existing community. Instead we question whether the intention was to define the fenced play area between no.s 4a and 19 Churchend?
It is important to note that due to access to the site being on a permitted basis only, it should be acknowledged that this fence play area would not be available for use by
the wider population.

Spatial Options: Other Open Space
It is noted on the interactive map that an area of land to the west of 2 Churchfields is proposed to defined as other open space within the new local plan and has been
informed by the Council’s emerging work on open spaces. The MOD does not consider this area of land meets the criteria to be considered as open space as
defined within the NPPF and National Planning Practice Guidance. This land is a grass field that is not subject to any regular mowing schedule by the landowner, there are no formal pathways or paraphernalia. Residents under their tenancy agreements are not permitted to access this area. It is noted that the existing fenced play area between no. 4a and 19 Churchend is within easy walking distance from the existing community.
Therefore, it does not appear to us that the land is demonstrably special to the local community, provides particular beauty or holds a particular local significance, has recreational value, tranquillity or a richness of wildlife to be defined as open space.

Spatial Options: Promoted sites
There are a number or parcels of land immediately abutting and in close proximity to the MOD boundary that are being promoted for development. The Council will be
aware of the provisions of The Town and Country Planning (safeguarded aerodromes, technical sites and military explosives storage areas) Direction 2002
(Circular 01/2003). Safeguarding zones have been designated at MOD Shoeburyness to safeguard its capacity as a military technical site/explosive storage
area and maps have previously been issued by Ministry of Housing Communities and Local Government to the Council. Within these designated areas the MOD is a
statutory consultee and would expect to be consulted on planning applications. For the avoidance of doubt please find attached the latest safeguarded areas (a copy of
the GIS data can be provided upon request). In accordance with Circular 01/2003 the outer boundary of safeguarded areas should be indicated on proposals maps accompanying local plans and the plan should state why the area has been safeguarded.
It is noted that a number of the promoted sites fall within the safeguarding zones and therefore development within this area could be at risk of harm from MOD activities.
In addition, potential development of these sites could require a change to MOD activities so that MOD can continue to be a good neighbour. This could include, as a
result of a third party development, restricting operations in certain facilities, requiring the implementation of additional engineered safeguards, constraining the ability to manage any future change and restricting the potential of future development requirements – all to the cost of the public purse. In such circumstances this operational defence site could be affected adversely by the impact of development proposed in the area, contrary to paragraphs 97 and 187 of the NPPF.
The Council may consider it prudent (considering paragraph 97 of the NPPF) to include a further Strategic Objective within Strategic Priority 4 to specifically
recognise and support development required for operational defence and security purposes, and ensuring that operational sites are not affected adversely by the
impact of other development proposed in the area.
The Council may also wish to propose a specific planning policy for MOD Shoeburyness that provides and protects both on-going and future operational defence needs for the site and serves to ensure that any neighbouring development does not adversely impact upon these operations or, in turn, would be affected by
the established use. For example, any policy could include that proposals associated with defence and military operations at this existing site will be supported where they would enhance or sustain operational capabilities. The MOD will be seeking to modernise buildings and facilities across the site to improve their energy efficiencies, ensure they are resilient to climate change, contribute to climate change objectives and for residential buildings make sure they are fit for modern living. It would be beneficial for any policy to support these environmental improvements. Any policy should also ensure that for any non-military or non-defence related development within or in the areas of a defence or military site will not be supported where it would
adversely affect military operations or capability.

Spatial Options: Regional Parkland
Large parts of the proposed Regional Park includes land within MOD ownership. The South Essex Green and Blue Infrastructure Strategy (SEGBIS) says that Regional
Parks are lands reserved to protect and conserve areas in natural or modified landscapes but are also suitable for sustainable public recreation and enjoyment.
Due to the ongoing operational need of the estate and the associated activities the landholding would not be suitable for any public access over and above that
currently permitted by the existing public rights of way. The MOD is aware that part of the estate is either directly within or adjacent to Foulness SSSI, Foulness Ramsar
and Foulness SPA designated sites and recognise that restricted public access assists with conservation of these areas. The MOD is cognisant of its stewardship
obligations in regard to the management of these designated sites and it works closely with Natural England, the Environment Agency, tenant farmers, the RSPB, Foulness Area Bird Survey, and other members of the MOD Shoeburyness Conservation Group to ensure that key habitats and species on the site are monitored, maintained, and where appropriate, enhanced.
It is important to recognise that the landholding is required for the purpose of national defence and the planning process serves to protect such national infrastructure. The MOD’s land holding would not provide public recreation or enjoyment to meet the criteria of a Regional Park. In addition, the proposed boundary to this designation does not follow easily identifiable and physical features on the ground for the boundaries of the Regional Park to be permanent and to endure throughout and beyond the plan period. For assistance a copy of the MOD ownership boundary has been included. We would strongly recommend that the proposed boundary is
amended to avoid any of the MOD ownership.

Flood Zone
Whilst the site is within Flood Zone 3 it does have the benefit of a flood defence which would need to be considered within any planning applications within the area as mitigation.

I hope the above is of assistance and reflects the MODs position at the time of this letter. Should you need any further clarification please do not hesitate to contact me.
We would be pleased to be included within any further consultation events as the plan progresses

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.

To whom it may concern,

Please take this email as a formal objection to

Site reference: CFS258
Address: Little Wakering Road
Initial site assessment indicates a potential for x11 houses

My reasons for this, first and foremost is the infrastructure of our village. It cannot cope with more housing developments. With the increase in housing in Shoplands and Barrow Hall (once they are fully occupied) our schools and nurseries will be full (Nurseries and Great Wakering school already full). Our Doctors are already buckling, and the roads and parking (especially around the schools and nurseries) will be absolutely manic.

Further consideration is also split into the following:

Connectivity i.e. public transport
Current public transport options are limited, schedules and availability worse. With this being the case, it means that more people will HAVE to use their cars in order to drop children at their school or pre-school care options. Consideration must be made into safe access for all residents across the village, and the road infrastructure in this village is poor. It seems to be becoming a through road but is not big enough to handle the congestion that we are already experiencing. Walking will also be difficult where possible due to the number of roads without pavements.
Traffic and pinch points/congestion
Already exist areas of concern due to traffic and congestion as well as safety due to blind bends, existing parking, pedestrians, horses, speed etc. There are limited roads in and out of the village, as many of us have experienced when road works are in place, problems very quickly arise.
Parking
Roadside parking often leaves limited space with reports of access concerns for emergency services and safety risks. The impact around schools result in tension and concerns for children’s safety. Consideration must also be taken for those with disabilities or wheelchair users who often find footpaths blocked by poor parking and few suitable access points/pathways.
Doctors and medical
As previously mentioned, the Doctors surgery appears to already be under pressure. Limited local medical services i.e. dentist.
Wildlife and nature
There is great beauty in the local area, and Barling and Great Wakering has always prided itself on the wildlife that thrives in this area. Some rare species have been observed and we would like this to continue..
Drainage
Problems are already widely reported within this area, especially Kimberly Road and next to the Rascals nursery (very close to this proposed site).
Flood risk
Risk from the existing creek should water levels continue to rise as expected, considerations must be taken into future viability.

I hope you look at all of the replies that you receive and decide to leave our village as exactly that or to at least pump in a lot of money in order for our infrastructure to survive your plans. This has always been a place of beauty, please keep it that way.

Kind regards

Jenny White

My reasons for this, first and foremost is the infrastructure of our village. It cannot cope with more housing developments. With the increase in housing in Shoplands and Barrow Hall (once they are fully occupied) our schools and nurseries will be full (Nurseries and Great Wakering school already full). Our Doctors are already buckling, and the roads and parking (especially around the schools and nurseries) will be absolutely manic.

Further consideration is also split into the following:

Connectivity i.e. public transport
Current public transport options are limited, schedules and availability worse. With this being the case, it means that more people will HAVE to use their cars in order to drop children at their school or pre-school care options. Consideration must be made into safe access for all residents across the village, and the road infrastructure in this village is poor. It seems to be becoming a through road but is not big enough to handle the congestion that we are already experiencing. Walking will also be difficult where possible due to the number of roads without pavements.
Traffic and pinch points/congestion
Already exist areas of concern due to traffic and congestion as well as safety due to blind bends, existing parking, pedestrians, horses, speed etc. There are limited roads in and out of the village, as many of us have experienced when road works are in place, problems very quickly arise.
Parking
Roadside parking often leaves limited space with reports of access concerns for emergency services and safety risks. The impact around schools result in tension and concerns for children’s safety. Consideration must also be taken for those with disabilities or wheelchair users who often find footpaths blocked by poor parking and few suitable access points/pathways.
Doctors and medical
As previously mentioned, the Doctors surgery appears to already be under pressure. Limited local medical services i.e. dentist.
Wildlife and nature
There is great beauty in the local area, and Barling and Great Wakering has always prided itself on the wildlife that thrives in this area. Some rare species have been observed and we would like this to continue..
Drainage
Problems are already widely reported within this area, especially Kimberly Road and next to the Rascals nursery (very close to this proposed site).
Flood risk
Risk from the existing creek should water levels continue to rise as expected, considerations must be taken into future viability.

I hope you look at all of the replies that you receive and decide to leave our village as exactly that or to at least pump in a lot of money in order for our infrastructure to survive your plans. This has always been a place of beauty, please keep it that way.

Please take this email as a formal objection to

Site reference: CFS192
Address: Little Wakering Road
Initial site assessment indicates a potential for x423 houses

My reasons for this, first and foremost is the infrastructure of our village. It cannot cope with more housing developments. With the increase in housing in Shoplands and Barrow Hall (once they are fully occupied) our schools and nurseries will be full (Nurseries and Great Wakering school already full). Our Doctors are already buckling, and the roads and parking (especially around the schools and nurseries) will be absolutely manic.

Further consideration is also split into the following:

Connectivity i.e. public transport
Current public transport options are limited, schedules and availability worse. With this being the case, it means that more people will HAVE to use their cars in order to drop children at their school or pre-school care options. Consideration must be made into safe access for all residents across the village, and the road infrastructure in this village is poor. It seems to be becoming a through road but is not big enough to handle the congestion that we are already experiencing. Walking will also be difficult where possible due to the number of roads without pavements.
Traffic and pinch points/congestion
Already exist areas of concern due to traffic and congestion as well as safety due to blind bends, existing parking, pedestrians, horses, speed etc. There are limited roads in and out of the village, as many of us have experienced when road works are in place, problems very quickly arise.
Parking
Roadside parking often leaves limited space with reports of access concerns for emergency services and safety risks. The impact around schools result in tension and concerns for children’s safety. Consideration must also be taken for those with disabilities or wheelchair users who often find footpaths blocked by poor parking and few suitable access points/pathways.
Doctors and medical
As previously mentioned, the Doctors surgery appears to already be under pressure. Limited local medical services i.e. dentist.
Wildlife and nature
There is great beauty in the local area, and Barling and Great Wakering has always prided itself on the wildlife that thrives in this area. Some rare species have been observed and we would like this to continue..
Drainage
Problems are already widely reported within this area, especially Kimberly Road and next to the Rascals nursery (very close to this proposed site).
Flood risk
Risk from the existing creek should water levels continue to rise as expected, considerations must be taken into future viability.

I hope you look at all of the replies that you receive and decide to leave our village as exactly that or to at least pump in a lot of money in order for our infrastructure to survive your plans. This has always been a place of beauty, please keep it that way.

Kind regards

Jenny White

My reasons for this, first and foremost is the infrastructure of our village. It cannot cope with more housing developments. With the increase in housing in Shoplands and Barrow Hall (once they are fully occupied) our schools and nurseries will be full (Nurseries and Great Wakering school already full). Our Doctors are already buckling, and the roads and parking (especially around the schools and nurseries) will be absolutely manic.

Further consideration is also split into the following:

Connectivity i.e. public transport
Current public transport options are limited, schedules and availability worse. With this being the case, it means that more people will HAVE to use their cars in order to drop children at their school or pre-school care options. Consideration must be made into safe access for all residents across the village, and the road infrastructure in this village is poor. It seems to be becoming a through road but is not big enough to handle the congestion that we are already experiencing. Walking will also be difficult where possible due to the number of roads without pavements.
Traffic and pinch points/congestion
Already exist areas of concern due to traffic and congestion as well as safety due to blind bends, existing parking, pedestrians, horses, speed etc. There are limited roads in and out of the village, as many of us have experienced when road works are in place, problems very quickly arise.
Parking
Roadside parking often leaves limited space with reports of access concerns for emergency services and safety risks. The impact around schools result in tension and concerns for children’s safety. Consideration must also be taken for those with disabilities or wheelchair users who often find footpaths blocked by poor parking and few suitable access points/pathways.
Doctors and medical
As previously mentioned, the Doctors surgery appears to already be under pressure. Limited local medical services i.e. dentist.
Wildlife and nature
There is great beauty in the local area, and Barling and Great Wakering has always prided itself on the wildlife that thrives in this area. Some rare species have been observed and we would like this to continue..
Drainage
Problems are already widely reported within this area, especially Kimberly Road and next to the Rascals nursery (very close to this proposed site).
Flood risk
Risk from the existing creek should water levels continue to rise as expected, considerations must be taken into future viability.

I hope you look at all of the replies that you receive and decide to leave our village as exactly that or to at least pump in a lot of money in order for our infrastructure to survive your plans. This has always been a place of beauty, please keep it that way.

Please take this email as a formal objection to

Site reference: CFS153
Address: Common Road
Initial site assessment indicates a potential for x67 houses

My reasons for this, first and foremost is the infrastructure of our village. It cannot cope with more housing developments. With the increase in housing in Shoplands and Barrow Hall (once they are fully occupied) our schools and nurseries will be full (Nurseries and Great Wakering school already full). Our Doctors are already buckling, and the roads and parking (especially around the schools and nurseries) will be absolutely manic.

Further consideration is also split into the following:

Connectivity i.e. public transport
Current public transport options are limited, schedules and availability worse. With this being the case, it means that more people will HAVE to use their cars in order to drop children at their school or pre-school care options. Consideration must be made into safe access for all residents across the village, and the road infrastructure in this village is poor. It seems to be becoming a through road but is not big enough to handle the congestion that we are already experiencing. Walking will also be difficult where possible due to the number of roads without pavements.
Traffic and pinch points/congestion
Already exist areas of concern due to traffic and congestion as well as safety due to blind bends, existing parking, pedestrians, horses, speed etc. There are limited roads in and out of the village, as many of us have experienced when road works are in place, problems very quickly arise.
Parking
Roadside parking often leaves limited space with reports of access concerns for emergency services and safety risks. The impact around schools result in tension and concerns for children’s safety. Consideration must also be taken for those with disabilities or wheelchair users who often find footpaths blocked by poor parking and few suitable access points/pathways.
Doctors and medical
As previously mentioned, the Doctors surgery appears to already be under pressure. Limited local medical services i.e. dentist.
Wildlife and nature
There is great beauty in the local area, and Barling and Great Wakering has always prided itself on the wildlife that thrives in this area. Some rare species have been observed and we would like this to continue..
Drainage
Problems are already widely reported within this area, especially Kimberly Road and next to the Rascals nursery (very close to this proposed site).
Flood risk
Risk from the existing creek should water levels continue to rise as expected, considerations must be taken into future viability.

I hope you look at all of the replies that you receive and decide to leave our village as exactly that or to at least pump in a lot of money in order for our infrastructure to survive your plans. This has always been a place of beauty, please keep it that way.

Kind regards

Jenny White

My reasons for this, first and foremost is the infrastructure of our village. It cannot cope with more housing developments. With the increase in housing in Shoplands and Barrow Hall (once they are fully occupied) our schools and nurseries will be full (Nurseries and Great Wakering school already full). Our Doctors are already buckling, and the roads and parking (especially around the schools and nurseries) will be absolutely manic.

Further consideration is also split into the following:

Connectivity i.e. public transport
Current public transport options are limited, schedules and availability worse. With this being the case, it means that more people will HAVE to use their cars in order to drop children at their school or pre-school care options. Consideration must be made into safe access for all residents across the village, and the road infrastructure in this village is poor. It seems to be becoming a through road but is not big enough to handle the congestion that we are already experiencing. Walking will also be difficult where possible due to the number of roads without pavements.
Traffic and pinch points/congestion
Already exist areas of concern due to traffic and congestion as well as safety due to blind bends, existing parking, pedestrians, horses, speed etc. There are limited roads in and out of the village, as many of us have experienced when road works are in place, problems very quickly arise.
Parking
Roadside parking often leaves limited space with reports of access concerns for emergency services and safety risks. The impact around schools result in tension and concerns for children’s safety. Consideration must also be taken for those with disabilities or wheelchair users who often find footpaths blocked by poor parking and few suitable access points/pathways.
Doctors and medical
As previously mentioned, the Doctors surgery appears to already be under pressure. Limited local medical services i.e. dentist.
Wildlife and nature
There is great beauty in the local area, and Barling and Great Wakering has always prided itself on the wildlife that thrives in this area. Some rare species have been observed and we would like this to continue..
Drainage
Problems are already widely reported within this area, especially Kimberly Road and next to the Rascals nursery (very close to this proposed site).
Flood risk
Risk from the existing creek should water levels continue to rise as expected, considerations must be taken into future viability.

I hope you look at all of the replies that you receive and decide to leave our village as exactly that or to at least pump in a lot of money in order for our infrastructure to survive your plans. This has always been a place of beauty, please keep it that way.

Please take this email as a formal objection to

Site reference: CFS115
Address: Little Wakering Road
Initial site assessment indicates a potential for x120 houses

My reasons for this, first and foremost is the infrastructure of our village. It cannot cope with more housing developments. With the increase in housing in Shoplands and Barrow Hall (once they are fully occupied) our schools and nurseries will be full (Nurseries and Great Wakering school already full). Our Doctors are already buckling, and the roads and parking (especially around the schools and nurseries) will be absolutely manic.

Further consideration is also split into the following:

Connectivity i.e. public transport
Current public transport options are limited, schedules and availability worse. With this being the case, it means that more people will HAVE to use their cars in order to drop children at their school or pre-school care options. Consideration must be made into safe access for all residents across the village, and the road infrastructure in this village is poor. It seems to be becoming a through road but is not big enough to handle the congestion that we are already experiencing. Walking will also be difficult where possible due to the number of roads without pavements.
Traffic and pinch points/congestion
Already exist areas of concern due to traffic and congestion as well as safety due to blind bends, existing parking, pedestrians, horses, speed etc. There are limited roads in and out of the village, as many of us have experienced when road works are in place, problems very quickly arise.
Parking
Roadside parking often leaves limited space with reports of access concerns for emergency services and safety risks. The impact around schools result in tension and concerns for children’s safety. Consideration must also be taken for those with disabilities or wheelchair users who often find footpaths blocked by poor parking and few suitable access points/pathways.
Doctors and medical
As previously mentioned, the Doctors surgery appears to already be under pressure. Limited local medical services i.e. dentist.
Wildlife and nature
There is great beauty in the local area, and Barling and Great Wakering has always prided itself on the wildlife that thrives in this area. Some rare species have been observed and we would like this to continue..
Drainage
Problems are already widely reported within this area, especially Kimberly Road and next to the Rascals nursery (very close to this proposed site).
Flood risk
Risk from the existing creek should water levels continue to rise as expected, considerations must be taken into future viability.

I hope you look at all of the replies that you receive and decide to leave our village as exactly that or to at least pump in a lot of money in order for our infrastructure to survive your plans. This has always been a place of beauty, please keep it that way.

Please take this email as a formal objection to

Site reference: CFS097
Address: Thithe Park, Poynters Lane
Initial site assessment indicates a potential for x749 houses

My reasons for this, first and foremost is the infrastructure of our village. It cannot cope with more housing developments. With the increase in housing in Shoplands and Barrow Hall (once they are fully occupied) our schools and nurseries will be full (Nurseries and Great Wakering school already full). Our Doctors are already buckling, and the roads and parking (especially around the schools and nurseries) will be absolutely manic.

Further consideration is also split into the following:

Connectivity i.e. public transport
Current public transport options are limited, schedules and availability worse. With this being the case, it means that more people will HAVE to use their cars in order to drop children at their school or pre-school care options. Consideration must be made into safe access for all residents across the village, and the road infrastructure in this village is poor. It seems to be becoming a through road but is not big enough to handle the congestion that we are already experiencing. Walking will also be difficult where possible due to the number of roads without pavements.
Traffic and pinch points/congestion
Already exist areas of concern due to traffic and congestion as well as safety due to blind bends, existing parking, pedestrians, horses, speed etc. There are limited roads in and out of the village, as many of us have experienced when road works are in place, problems very quickly arise.
Parking
Roadside parking often leaves limited space with reports of access concerns for emergency services and safety risks. The impact around schools result in tension and concerns for children’s safety. Consideration must also be taken for those with disabilities or wheelchair users who often find footpaths blocked by poor parking and few suitable access points/pathways.
Doctors and medical
As previously mentioned, the Doctors surgery appears to already be under pressure. Limited local medical services i.e. dentist.
Wildlife and nature
There is great beauty in the local area, and Barling and Great Wakering has always prided itself on the wildlife that thrives in this area. Some rare species have been observed and we would like this to continue..
Drainage
Problems are already widely reported within this area, especially Kimberly Road and next to the Rascals nursery (very close to this proposed site).
Flood risk
Risk from the existing creek should water levels continue to rise as expected, considerations must be taken into future viability.

I hope you look at all of the replies that you receive and decide to leave our village as exactly that or to at least pump in a lot of money in order for our infrastructure to survive your plans. This has always been a place of beauty, please keep it that way.

Please take this email as a formal objection to

Site reference: CFS060
Address: Little Wakering Road
Initial site assessment indicates a potential for x27 houses
My reasons for this, first and foremost is the infrastructure of our village. It cannot cope with more housing developments. With the increase in housing in Shoplands and Barrow Hall (once they are fully occupied) our schools and nurseries will be full (Nurseries and Great Wakering school already full). Our Doctors are already buckling, and the roads and parking (especially around the schools and nurseries) will be absolutely manic.

Further consideration is also split into the following:

Connectivity i.e. public transport
Current public transport options are limited, schedules and availability worse. With this being the case, it means that more people will HAVE to use their cars in order to drop children at their school or pre-school care options. Consideration must be made into safe access for all residents across the village, and the road infrastructure in this village is poor. It seems to be becoming a through road but is not big enough to handle the congestion that we are already experiencing. Walking will also be difficult where possible due to the number of roads without pavements.
Traffic and pinch points/congestion
Already exist areas of concern due to traffic and congestion as well as safety due to blind bends, existing parking, pedestrians, horses, speed etc. There are limited roads in and out of the village, as many of us have experienced when road works are in place, problems very quickly arise.
Parking
Roadside parking often leaves limited space with reports of access concerns for emergency services and safety risks. The impact around schools result in tension and concerns for children’s safety. Consideration must also be taken for those with disabilities or wheelchair users who often find footpaths blocked by poor parking and few suitable access points/pathways.
Doctors and medical
As previously mentioned, the Doctors surgery appears to already be under pressure. Limited local medical services i.e. dentist.
Wildlife and nature
There is great beauty in the local area, and Barling and Great Wakering has always prided itself on the wildlife that thrives in this area. Some rare species have been observed and we would like this to continue..
Drainage
Problems are already widely reported within this area, especially Kimberly Road and next to the Rascals nursery (very close to this proposed site).
Flood risk
Risk from the existing creek should water levels continue to rise as expected, considerations must be taken into future viability.

I hope you look at all of the replies that you receive and decide to leave our village as exactly that or to at least pump in a lot of money in order for our infrastructure to survive your plans. This has always been a place of beauty, please keep it that way.

Please take this email as a formal objection to

Site reference: CFS056
Address: Stewards Yard, Great Wakering
Initial site assessment indicates a potential for x33 houses

My reasons for this, first and foremost is the infrastructure of our village. It cannot cope with more housing developments. With the increase in housing in Shoplands and Barrow Hall (once they are fully occupied) our schools and nurseries will be full (Nurseries and Great Wakering school already full). Our Doctors are already buckling, and the roads and parking (especially around the schools and nurseries) will be absolutely manic.

Further consideration is also split into the following:

Connectivity i.e. public transport
Current public transport options are limited, schedules and availability worse. With this being the case, it means that more people will HAVE to use their cars in order to drop children at their school or pre-school care options. Consideration must be made into safe access for all residents across the village, and the road infrastructure in this village is poor. It seems to be becoming a through road but is not big enough to handle the congestion that we are already experiencing. Walking will also be difficult where possible due to the number of roads without pavements.
Traffic and pinch points/congestion
Already exist areas of concern due to traffic and congestion as well as safety due to blind bends, existing parking, pedestrians, horses, speed etc. There are limited roads in and out of the village, as many of us have experienced when road works are in place, problems very quickly arise.
Parking
Roadside parking often leaves limited space with reports of access concerns for emergency services and safety risks. The impact around schools result in tension and concerns for children’s safety. Consideration must also be taken for those with disabilities or wheelchair users who often find footpaths blocked by poor parking and few suitable access points/pathways.
Doctors and medical
As previously mentioned, the Doctors surgery appears to already be under pressure. Limited local medical services i.e. dentist.
Wildlife and nature
There is great beauty in the local area, and Barling and Great Wakering has always prided itself on the wildlife that thrives in this area. Some rare species have been observed and we would like this to continue..
Drainage
Problems are already widely reported within this area, especially Kimberly Road and next to the Rascals nursery (very close to this proposed site).
Flood risk
Risk from the existing creek should water levels continue to rise as expected, considerations must be taken into future viability.

I hope you look at all of the replies that you receive and decide to leave our village as exactly that or to at least pump in a lot of money in order for our infrastructure to survive your plans. This has always been a place of beauty, please keep it that way.

Please take this email as a formal objection to

Site reference: CFS057
Address: Star Lane/Poynters Lane
Initial site assessment indicates a potential for x1001 houses

My reasons for this, first and foremost is the infrastructure of our village. It cannot cope with more housing developments. With the increase in housing in Shoplands and Barrow Hall (once they are fully occupied) our schools and nurseries will be full (Nurseries and Great Wakering school already full). Our Doctors are already buckling, and the roads and parking (especially around the schools and nurseries) will be absolutely manic.

Further consideration is also split into the following:

Connectivity i.e. public transport
Current public transport options are limited, schedules and availability worse. With this being the case, it means that more people will HAVE to use their cars in order to drop children at their school or pre-school care options. Consideration must be made into safe access for all residents across the village, and the road infrastructure in this village is poor. It seems to be becoming a through road but is not big enough to handle the congestion that we are already experiencing. Walking will also be difficult where possible due to the number of roads without pavements.
Traffic and pinch points/congestion
Already exist areas of concern due to traffic and congestion as well as safety due to blind bends, existing parking, pedestrians, horses, speed etc. There are limited roads in and out of the village, as many of us have experienced when road works are in place, problems very quickly arise.
Parking
Roadside parking often leaves limited space with reports of access concerns for emergency services and safety risks. The impact around schools result in tension and concerns for children’s safety. Consideration must also be taken for those with disabilities or wheelchair users who often find footpaths blocked by poor parking and few suitable access points/pathways.
Doctors and medical
As previously mentioned, the Doctors surgery appears to already be under pressure. Limited local medical services i.e. dentist.
Wildlife and nature
There is great beauty in the local area, and Barling and Great Wakering has always prided itself on the wildlife that thrives in this area. Some rare species have been observed and we would like this to continue..
Drainage
Problems are already widely reported within this area, especially Kimberly Road and next to the Rascals nursery (very close to this proposed site).
Flood risk
Risk from the existing creek should water levels continue to rise as expected, considerations must be taken into future viability.

I hope you look at all of the replies that you receive and decide to leave our village as exactly that or to at least pump in a lot of money in order for our infrastructure to survive your plans. This has always been a place of beauty, please keep it that way.

Please take this email as a formal objection to

Site reference: CFS076
Address: Sutton Road
Initial site assessment indicates a potential for x191 houses

My reasons for this, first and foremost is the infrastructure of our village. It cannot cope with more housing developments. With the increase in housing in Shoplands and Barrow Hall (once they are fully occupied) our schools and nurseries will be full (Nurseries and Great Wakering school already full). Our Doctors are already buckling, and the roads and parking (especially around the schools and nurseries) will be absolutely manic.

Further consideration is also split into the following:

Connectivity i.e. public transport
Current public transport options are limited, schedules and availability worse. With this being the case, it means that more people will HAVE to use their cars in order to drop children at their school or pre-school care options. Consideration must be made into safe access for all residents across the village, and the road infrastructure in this village is poor. It seems to be becoming a through road but is not big enough to handle the congestion that we are already experiencing. Walking will also be difficult where possible due to the number of roads without pavements.
Traffic and pinch points/congestion
Already exist areas of concern due to traffic and congestion as well as safety due to blind bends, existing parking, pedestrians, horses, speed etc. There are limited roads in and out of the village, as many of us have experienced when road works are in place, problems very quickly arise.
Parking
Roadside parking often leaves limited space with reports of access concerns for emergency services and safety risks. The impact around schools result in tension and concerns for children’s safety. Consideration must also be taken for those with disabilities or wheelchair users who often find footpaths blocked by poor parking and few suitable access points/pathways.
Doctors and medical
As previously mentioned, the Doctors surgery appears to already be under pressure. Limited local medical services i.e. dentist.
Wildlife and nature
There is great beauty in the local area, and Barling and Great Wakering has always prided itself on the wildlife that thrives in this area. Some rare species have been observed and we would like this to continue..
Drainage
Problems are already widely reported within this area, especially Kimberly Road and next to the Rascals nursery (very close to this proposed site).
Flood risk
Risk from the existing creek should water levels continue to rise as expected, considerations must be taken into future viability.

I hope you look at all of the replies that you receive and decide to leave our village as exactly that or to at least pump in a lot of money in order for our infrastructure to survive your plans. This has always been a place of beauty, please keep it that way.

Please take this email as a formal objection to

Site reference: CFS103
Address: Barrow Hall Road
Initial site assessment indicates a potential for x94 houses

My reasons for this, first and foremost is the infrastructure of our village. It cannot cope with more housing developments. With the increase in housing in Shoplands and Barrow Hall (once they are fully occupied) our schools and nurseries will be full (Nurseries and Great Wakering school already full). Our Doctors are already buckling, and the roads and parking (especially around the schools and nurseries) will be absolutely manic.

Further consideration is also split into the following:

Connectivity i.e. public transport
Current public transport options are limited, schedules and availability worse. With this being the case, it means that more people will HAVE to use their cars in order to drop children at their school or pre-school care options. Consideration must be made into safe access for all residents across the village, and the road infrastructure in this village is poor. It seems to be becoming a through road but is not big enough to handle the congestion that we are already experiencing. Walking will also be difficult where possible due to the number of roads without pavements.
Traffic and pinch points/congestion
Already exist areas of concern due to traffic and congestion as well as safety due to blind bends, existing parking, pedestrians, horses, speed etc. There are limited roads in and out of the village, as many of us have experienced when road works are in place, problems very quickly arise.
Parking
Roadside parking often leaves limited space with reports of access concerns for emergency services and safety risks. The impact around schools result in tension and concerns for children’s safety. Consideration must also be taken for those with disabilities or wheelchair users who often find footpaths blocked by poor parking and few suitable access points/pathways.
Doctors and medical
As previously mentioned, the Doctors surgery appears to already be under pressure. Limited local medical services i.e. dentist.
Wildlife and nature
There is great beauty in the local area, and Barling and Great Wakering has always prided itself on the wildlife that thrives in this area. Some rare species have been observed and we would like this to continue..
Drainage
Problems are already widely reported within this area, especially Kimberly Road and next to the Rascals nursery (very close to this proposed site).
Flood risk
Risk from the existing creek should water levels continue to rise as expected, considerations must be taken into future viability.

I hope you look at all of the replies that you receive and decide to leave our village as exactly that or to at least pump in a lot of money in order for our infrastructure to survive your plans. This has always been a place of beauty, please keep it that way.

Please take this email as a formal objection to

Site reference: CFS071
Address: Barling Road
Initial site assessment indicates a potential for x111 houses

My reasons for this, first and foremost is the infrastructure of our village. It cannot cope with more housing developments. With the increase in housing in Shoplands and Barrow Hall (once they are fully occupied) our schools and nurseries will be full (Nurseries and Great Wakering school already full). Our Doctors are already buckling, and the roads and parking (especially around the schools and nurseries) will be absolutely manic.

Further consideration is also split into the following:

Connectivity i.e. public transport
Current public transport options are limited, schedules and availability worse. With this being the case, it means that more people will HAVE to use their cars in order to drop children at their school or pre-school care options. Consideration must be made into safe access for all residents across the village, and the road infrastructure in this village is poor. It seems to be becoming a through road but is not big enough to handle the congestion that we are already experiencing. Walking will also be difficult where possible due to the number of roads without pavements.
Traffic and pinch points/congestion
Already exist areas of concern due to traffic and congestion as well as safety due to blind bends, existing parking, pedestrians, horses, speed etc. There are limited roads in and out of the village, as many of us have experienced when road works are in place, problems very quickly arise.
Parking
Roadside parking often leaves limited space with reports of access concerns for emergency services and safety risks. The impact around schools result in tension and concerns for children’s safety. Consideration must also be taken for those with disabilities or wheelchair users who often find footpaths blocked by poor parking and few suitable access points/pathways.
Doctors and medical
As previously mentioned, the Doctors surgery appears to already be under pressure. Limited local medical services i.e. dentist.
Wildlife and nature
There is great beauty in the local area, and Barling and Great Wakering has always prided itself on the wildlife that thrives in this area. Some rare species have been observed and we would like this to continue..
Drainage
Problems are already widely reported within this area, especially Kimberly Road and next to the Rascals nursery (very close to this proposed site).
Flood risk
Risk from the existing creek should water levels continue to rise as expected, considerations must be taken into future viability.

I hope you look at all of the replies that you receive and decide to leave our village as exactly that or to at least pump in a lot of money in order for our infrastructure to survive your plans. This has always been a place of beauty, please keep it that way.

Please take this email as a formal objection to

Site reference: CFS070
Address: Conway Ave/Shoebury Road
Initial site assessment indicates a potential for x125 houses

My reasons for this, first and foremost is the infrastructure of our village. It cannot cope with more housing developments. With the increase in housing in Shoplands and Barrow Hall (once they are fully occupied) our schools and nurseries will be full (Nurseries and Great Wakering school already full). Our Doctors are already buckling, and the roads and parking (especially around the schools and nurseries) will be absolutely manic.

Further consideration is also split into the following:

Connectivity i.e. public transport
Current public transport options are limited, schedules and availability worse. With this being the case, it means that more people will HAVE to use their cars in order to drop children at their school or pre-school care options. Consideration must be made into safe access for all residents across the village, and the road infrastructure in this village is poor. It seems to be becoming a through road but is not big enough to handle the congestion that we are already experiencing. Walking will also be difficult where possible due to the number of roads without pavements.
Traffic and pinch points/congestion
Already exist areas of concern due to traffic and congestion as well as safety due to blind bends, existing parking, pedestrians, horses, speed etc. There are limited roads in and out of the village, as many of us have experienced when road works are in place, problems very quickly arise.
Parking
Roadside parking often leaves limited space with reports of access concerns for emergency services and safety risks. The impact around schools result in tension and concerns for children’s safety. Consideration must also be taken for those with disabilities or wheelchair users who often find footpaths blocked by poor parking and few suitable access points/pathways.
Doctors and medical
As previously mentioned, the Doctors surgery appears to already be under pressure. Limited local medical services i.e. dentist.
Wildlife and nature
There is great beauty in the local area, and Barling and Great Wakering has always prided itself on the wildlife that thrives in this area. Some rare species have been observed and we would like this to continue..
Drainage
Problems are already widely reported within this area, especially Kimberly Road and next to the Rascals nursery (very close to this proposed site).
Flood risk
Risk from the existing creek should water levels continue to rise as expected, considerations must be taken into future viability.

I hope you look at all of the replies that you receive and decide to leave our village as exactly that or to at least pump in a lot of money in order for our infrastructure to survive your plans. This has always been a place of beauty, please keep it that way.

Please take this email as a formal objection to

Site reference: CFS065
Address: Shoebury Road/New Road
Initial site assessment indicates a potential for x335 houses

My reasons for this, first and foremost is the infrastructure of our village. It cannot cope with more housing developments. With the increase in housing in Shoplands and Barrow Hall (once they are fully occupied) our schools and nurseries will be full (Nurseries and Great Wakering school already full). Our Doctors are already buckling, and the roads and parking (especially around the schools and nurseries) will be absolutely manic.

Further consideration is also split into the following:

Connectivity i.e. public transport
Current public transport options are limited, schedules and availability worse. With this being the case, it means that more people will HAVE to use their cars in order to drop children at their school or pre-school care options. Consideration must be made into safe access for all residents across the village, and the road infrastructure in this village is poor. It seems to be becoming a through road but is not big enough to handle the congestion that we are already experiencing. Walking will also be difficult where possible due to the number of roads without pavements.
Traffic and pinch points/congestion
Already exist areas of concern due to traffic and congestion as well as safety due to blind bends, existing parking, pedestrians, horses, speed etc. There are limited roads in and out of the village, as many of us have experienced when road works are in place, problems very quickly arise.
Parking
Roadside parking often leaves limited space with reports of access concerns for emergency services and safety risks. The impact around schools result in tension and concerns for children’s safety. Consideration must also be taken for those with disabilities or wheelchair users who often find footpaths blocked by poor parking and few suitable access points/pathways.
Doctors and medical
As previously mentioned, the Doctors surgery appears to already be under pressure. Limited local medical services i.e. dentist.
Wildlife and nature
There is great beauty in the local area, and Barling and Great Wakering has always prided itself on the wildlife that thrives in this area. Some rare species have been observed and we would like this to continue..
Drainage
Problems are already widely reported within this area, especially Kimberly Road and next to the Rascals nursery (very close to this proposed site).
Flood risk
Risk from the existing creek should water levels continue to rise as expected, considerations must be taken into future viability.

I hope you look at all of the replies that you receive and decide to leave our village as exactly that or to at least pump in a lot of money in order for our infrastructure to survive your plans. This has always been a place of beauty, please keep it that way.

Please take this email as a formal objection to

Site reference: CFS004
Address: Land on Little Wakering Road next to Barling Magna School
Initial site assessment indicates a potential for x26 houses

My reasons for this, first and foremost is the infrastructure of our village. It cannot cope with more housing developments. With the increase in housing in Shoplands and Barrow Hall (once they are fully occupied) our schools and nurseries will be full (Nurseries and Great Wakering school already full). Our Doctors are already buckling, and the roads and parking (especially around the schools and nurseries) will be absolutely manic.

Further consideration is also split into the following:

Connectivity i.e. public transport
Current public transport options are limited, schedules and availability worse. With this being the case, it means that more people will HAVE to use their cars in order to drop children at their school or pre-school care options. Consideration must be made into safe access for all residents across the village, and the road infrastructure in this village is poor. It seems to be becoming a through road but is not big enough to handle the congestion that we are already experiencing. Walking will also be difficult where possible due to the number of roads without pavements.
Traffic and pinch points/congestion
Already exist areas of concern due to traffic and congestion as well as safety due to blind bends, existing parking, pedestrians, horses, speed etc. There are limited roads in and out of the village, as many of us have experienced when road works are in place, problems very quickly arise.
Parking
Roadside parking often leaves limited space with reports of access concerns for emergency services and safety risks. The impact around schools result in tension and concerns for children’s safety. Consideration must also be taken for those with disabilities or wheelchair users who often find footpaths blocked by poor parking and few suitable access points/pathways.
Doctors and medical
As previously mentioned, the Doctors surgery appears to already be under pressure. Limited local medical services i.e. dentist.
Wildlife and nature
There is great beauty in the local area, and Barling and Great Wakering has always prided itself on the wildlife that thrives in this area. Some rare species have been observed and we would like this to continue..
Drainage
Problems are already widely reported within this area, especially Kimberly Road and next to the Rascals nursery (very close to this proposed site).
Flood risk
Risk from the existing creek should water levels continue to rise as expected, considerations must be taken into future viability.

I hope you look at all of the replies that you receive and decide to leave our village as exactly that or to at least pump in a lot of money in order for our infrastructure to survive your plans. This has always been a place of beauty, please keep it that way.

We are instructed on behalf of Mr. Francesco Vasile (our client) to submit representations to the Spatial Options Document which is currently the subject of consultation to inform the preparation of the New Rochford Local Plan.

Our client owns the freehold ownership interest in land situated to the east of Shoebury Road and south of New Road, Great Wakering (extending to approximately 14.96 hectares), which is referenced on the Interactive Spatial Options Map as Site CFS065 and identified in the accompanying Site Assessment Proforma as being both ‘available’ and ‘deliverable’ for housing development (with a potential housing capacity of 335 dwellings). The full extent of this land is outlined in red on the attached site location plan.

The proforma assessment categorises the site as a ‘Potential Plan Strategy Option 2’, which is predicated on meeting the growth strategy requirements of the New Local Plan through a combination of urban extensions focused in the main towns (Option 2a) and urban extensions dispersed to settlements based on hierarchy (Option 2b). The other growth options being contemplated are ‘urban intensification’ (Strategy Option 1), ‘concentrated growth’ (Strategy Option 3) and ‘balanced combination’ (Strategy Option 4). The Spatial Options Document acknowledges that the Strategy Options 2, 3 & 4 would all be dependent on releasing Green Belt land across a number of locations and/or a significant redrawing of the Green Belt boundary. In this respect, it is instructive that approximately 70% of the land in the district is currently protected by Green Belt designation.

Site CFS065 is situated within the Green Belt and therefore referenced on the Site Assessment Proforma as being ‘deliverable – subject to policy’. The current evidence base for the emerging New Local Plan includes a Green Belt Study (specifically the ‘Rochford District and Southend-on-Sea Borough Joint Green Belt Study) that was undertaken by LUC and published (as a final report) in February 2020. The Study takes the form of a Stage 1 assessment (assessing how strongly the different areas of the Rochford District contribute to the five stated purposes of Green Belts set out in national planning policy) and a Stage 2 assessment (examining the relative merits of land for development that have previously been promoted to the Council).

Site CFS065 is situated within the Stage 2 Assessment Area AA145 and is referenced as Site 65. The assessment concludes that the loss of this site to development could potentially result in significant harm to the remaining Green Belt land to the east, which would be contained on three sides by inset development. The assessment further concludes that releasing an area of land to the south of Great Wakering (and west of Shoebury Road), identified as Site 57 would potentially result in the creation of a more regular Green Belt boundary. Notwithstanding this, it is acknowledged that there are no ‘readily recognisable boundaries to mark this area’ and hence an arbitrary line has been drawn to define the area that could be released from the Green Belt. In our view, this is surprising as Site CFS065 has clearly defined boundaries to the north (New Road), west (Shoebury Road), south (housing area and which also extends partly to the east of the site), while to the east (and beyond the part housing areas) the existing Green Belt openness would continue to be maintained. Furthermore, the site could potentially deliver a significant amount of housing (in both numerical and percentage terms) relative to the objectively assessed need and so we would contend that there are strong and convincing reasons to justify releasing this land from the Green Belt to help the Council deliver its future growth strategy. Additionally, on the Council’s own assessment criteria, the site is sustainable and there are no known constraints to development in terms of topography and the related issues of tree, ecology and flood risk impact. The site is available and deliverable and would contribute positively towards short-term housing need.

Significantly, our client would also be keen to promote a housing development predicated on modern methods of construction (MMC) in the form of a modular build which would be highly sustainable and carbon efficient. This would result in significantly reduced delivery and construction times relative to a traditional build and the format is also being championed by Homes England as a solution that would speed up the delivery of affordable housing around the country. Our client has an established business relationship with one of the leading modular housing firms in the country, which has expressed a strong interest in the site.

Hence, our client would strongly support a housing land-use allocation on this site and to that end we would welcome the opportunity of engaging the Council further on the merits of this proposition in due course.

In the meantime, we trust these representations are helpful and if we can be of any further assistance in this respect, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spatial Options Consultation
We are concerned about the amount of land identified throughout the district that is agricultural rather than brown field sites. While we realise that it was a central government requirement to produce these options we would question the need for development on the scale proposed onwhat is mostly prime agricultural land.
The areas on the map of specific concern to us as they will have a direct impact on the area we live are :-
CF192, CF260D & CFS004
while adjacent sites including CFS060, CFS060, CFS260T & CFS260K will aso have an adverse effect.
Our concerns are that the infrastructure can barely cope with existing properties and would certainly be unable to support this level of development. Developers never sufficiently upgrade the necessary infrastructure to support new developments and do everything in their power to avoid honouring undertakings to provide money towards new schools, doctors, community buildings etc. given at the planning stage
For the 3 areas (CF192, CF260D & CFS004 ) we are most concerned about

1) The sewers and pumping station are inadequate. There has been surface flooding several times over recent years caused by the overloaded system with foul water running down the road and getting into gardens. Further development would swamp it. While the pumps have apparently been upgraded by Anglian Water there is a limit to how much can be passed through the pipes and we are at the limit.
2) Gas & Water pressure is low, particularily at peak times. Further development would make it worse.
3) The roads are narrow and already at capacity. For the most part it would be impossible to widen them. Many houses do not have off street parking so the free flow of traffic is impossible, and due to inconsiderate parking on pavements is dangerous to both pedestrian and road users.
4) Schools are already at full capacity. The traffic and inconsiderate parking at 'school run' times causes major problems and is dangerous. Any increase in the size of the schools would make matters worse
5) The health centre already has insufficient permanent GP's, the majority being locums. It will be impossible to get an appointment with a further influx of patients.
6) There are very few facilities for residents – a minimal number of shops, very little of anything for teens or elderly and poorly equipped sports and play areas.
7) In my opinion, the 'site assessment proforma' downplays some of the adverse effects on the area.
I hope you will take our justified concerns into account when reaching your decision on the plan.

I wish to raise specific objections to the potential house building around Little Wakering and Great Wakering, covered in the Rochford Spatial Options Consultation:

1. I am concerned at further building along Little Wakering Road because of the adverse impact on drainage and potential for greater flooding. The council will already be aware of drainage issues in Little Wakering and Barling and the measures taken to resolve them. Further housing in the area will add to this unresolved problem.
2. Any new housing must be matched by an appropriate increase in infrastructure - GP's, Schools, Policing, Care Services etc. This is true of even limited housing numbers. Failing to do so will deteriorate the existing services for the community. And the council need to carefully consider the increase in traffic and congestion in the area - along with associated pollution.
3. With Climate Change a very real threat, loss of Green Belt and habitat is a concern. We need to be protecting this land - not seeking to build on it. We need to concentrate any building on brownfield sites. And we need to look at re-purposing commercial sites - which is what is happening along Victoria Avenue in Southend, where offices are being converted into apartments. And with an increase in sea levels expected, why would we be considering building houses on lowland areas where flooding is more likely in the future?
4. We need to ensure the villages of Great Wakering, Little Wakering and Barling retain their identities and remain physically separate from other communities. This will not happen if building takes place which joins us to Rochford, Shoebury or Southend. Eventually we will simply become a part of the Southend municipal borough.
5. The South East is already overbuilt and densely populated - we simply cannot keep building here. Clearly housing needs to be built in areas of the country that are less populated - with incentives for businesses to develop in those areas. This would fit with the governments aims to even up the country and see more investment in the north. Whilst the government may have specified housing numbers for councils, for these reasons I think Rochford District Council must resist them.

Development of Building on Farmland
Housing and infrastructure of village life as it is - lack of doctors surgeries, schools, bus services, roads too narrow to take heavy traffic, more cars per household and farmland south of Shoebury Road sits on a flood plain not suitable for house builds, and farm land producing food for market.
More housing would put a heavy strain on life in the environment and the demise of village communities.

I have been reviewing the plans from the leaflet we received and also on the website and must voice my concerns and disappointment at these plans.

I live in Great Wakering and one of the reasons moving here was the fantastic countryside, field views, picturesque walks etc. and to see possible new infrastructure which would completely destroy this is heart-breaking.

Not only that, currently Great Wakering cannot cope with an influx of people due to lack of space at the doctors, schools, not enough shops, not enough for children to do as it is just to name a few.

Great Wakering has always been a village, a pretty close-knit one and I am sure I speak for the vast majority of people who reside here, we do not want it being turned into a small town.

We do not need/want more houses.

No to the proposal for the land at the end of Lindsey Rd. We live here and it was so difficult and expensive to get insurance due to its proximity to flood plain land. Seriously, don't be stupid, stop building on or near to flood plains! We all know developers will promise this and that to help make things safe but 1/ it won't work, the only thing that prevents or helps against floods are large areas of natural land and 2/ Whatever they propose won't happen anyway.

Also this is right next to the common which has become more and more of a wildlife haven and the surrounding areas. Human encroachment into natural areas has to stop, but the key thing here is seriously stop building near flood plains when sea levels are rising!

Great Wakering - Housing Developments
I am writing to you to share my opinions on the land proposed for housing developments in the village of Great Wakering. I know I am not alone with these views and most of the village are feeling the same way.

As I’m sure you’re aware, Great Wakering has already seen a number of large housing developments in recent years, if we continue with this residents feel the village will lose its character, there are also concerns with increased traffic and potentially a strain on local services i.e the medical centre and Great Wakering primary school (which is already full year on year with children being placed on waiting lists).

I have read the development proposals and three things stand out, firstly it states it’s evidence based, where is the evidence that the residents want this, secondly, who wrote the vision statements not somebody who lives in the area that for sure, it mentions about us wanting more shops, more transport links more industry when for most residents the opposite is true, lastly the document then talks about villages and hamlets retaining their character- how can we retain the character of a small village if we continue to build houses, residents love Great Wakering because it is a “small village” community.

Great wakering builds
I am horrified at the amount of land being earmarked for development We cannot get our children into local schools now or have appointments at our doctors The roads are always busy and our lives are being being made harder because of too much thoughtless development and not enough planning or police to ensure living isn’t downgraded Surely 400 new houses are more than enough for our small area.

I would like to add to my previous objections and comments submitted on the Spatial Options consultation.

1. Old Mummeries Nursery in barrow hall Road - When the old nursery finished trading the owners asked for permission to build three bungalows which was refused by the council as it was green belt. The land was then sold to Dedman Gray and they sort permission for 24 houses which thankfully was once again refused being green belt. We now find in this consultation document that the council have suggested this plot could in fact hold 95 dwellings. So the council have now told the owners they would consider such a build with no consideration for the local residents and the effect this would have. If there were 95 dwellings that would mean for example probably around 150 cars, where would they all park? there would not be enough room on the site so the only open would be on the pavement in barling road behind the plot as Barrow Hall is too narrow, So this presumably means the council would be condoning illegal parking, or has this not been considered?

A sensible application for 5/6 houses would not be objected to in my view

2. The consultation document makes three statements of importance A) It would be evidence based, B) villages/hamlet retaining their character C) Local communities want more infrastructure, more road links more industry more shops etc. So my comments on these statements are How can a local village/hamlet retain its character if C were true and where is the evidence such requirements are sort by residents. I know of not one resident who want sany of these things so why is the council suggesting they do. People move to these areas for the complete opposite in my view, which is not represented in the document anywhere, why not, if the document were evidence based then the views of the existing residents would be reflected rather than statements made by staff members. Any development in this area on the scale suggested would ruin the local community and its character.

3. What is the actual demand for more housing in this area, just because a farmer can see an opportunity to make money surely doesn't mean the Council needs to accept. Housing numbers in the district have rocketed over recent years and all quotas have been met as I understand it so why doesn't the document reflect that and suggest a period little development for the next 10 years for example.

4. I note with interest that the areas where members of the planning committee live are those areas least affected.

Rochford New Local Plan/Great Wakering
We are very pleased to see from the new Local Plan that the Council’s vision is that “in 2050 the Wakerings and Barling should have retained their rural village character and sense of relative tranquility” but are concerned that any further development will lead to over-development and, therefore, the opposite of the Council’s vision and that these villages will become more like towns, losing their current character. It is also concerning that agricultural and green belt land might be used for development as these areas are enjoyed not just by Wakering residents but also by people from other parts of Rochford and the Southend Borough. Keeping such green land is important for many reasons, including wild life, plants and the environment as well as for the well-being of the population. We also feel that Great Wakering has had enough development recently with approximately 250 homes built or being built on the Star Lane brickworks site, on Barrow Hall Road and also in Red Lion Court. Any further development will put great strain on Wakering’s resources, such as the primary school and the doctors’ surgery. Any development to the eastern side of Great Wakering will put additional strain on the High Street and Poynters Lane, two single carriageway roads with the latter being narrow, windy and with no pavement.

We also understand that there will be a new housing development on the land from the Rose Inn up to Great Wakering and this also will affect the nature of the Wakerings.

From the recent surveys it seems that there is little appetite from local residents for further development in the Wakerings so we would urge the Council to ensure that green belt and agricultural land is protected and that there are no further developments to these villages.

Please consider my thoughts on further builds within Great Wakering.

We have had many houses built within the last few years and continuing to build, whilst not having any increased community spaces, shops, or businesses.

People living here need to leave the village to access shops, schools, healthcare, sports, work, thus increasing traffic in the already busy roads. Adding more houses will only increase the traffic on the roads, and also increase already strained school and healthcare requirements.

I have a child in the village school and have spoken to mothers who have not managed to get their second child into the same school, due to the catchment area including the star lane builds and therefore reducing the remaining area for catchment, regardless of keeping siblings together, this to me is very worrying. As it feels the village is expanding beyond its capacity.

I have concerns about increased numbers of children with nowhere to go, as we have nothing within the village to offer them. This could well then result in anti-social behaviour as an example. Currently the village has a community feeling, and safety and behaviour wise, it feels like a safe place to be. I don’t feel this will be the case the more we expand, due to it being impossible to know who everyone is.

There are other spaces within the area that can accommodate additional houses, with all the facilities available, in my opinion it would be better to build there.

I am writing with regards to the above consultation to provide my views as a resident of this
area. I understand that Rochford Council has to put forward proposals for land to be used
for housing but it appears that local land owners have basically just put all of their
agricultural land forward for consideration with no thought about the wishes of the local
residents. There is land that has been put forward that would be suitable for housing
because of its location, but in my view the following sections of land are wholly inappropriate
because their development would have huge negative impacts on the villages of Barling,
Wakering and Foulness.
There should be no attempt to develop the following pieces of land for housing due to the
following reasons;
• It would be an ‘inappropriate development’ in Green Belt
• conflict with character of Conservation area
• harmful to the setting of Listed Buildings ie Barrow Hall Farm
• excessive bulk or scale
• introducing unnatural features
• spoiling natural or existing contours
• incompatible with the design of existing buildings
• loss of important trees, hedge or other vegetation
• threatening a public right of way
• insufficient parking spaces
• failure to meet council’s access and on-site turning standards
• loss of important wildlife habitats
• destroying traditional field patterns
• loss of high-quality agricultural land
• public sewers inadequate
• visually damaging in the landscape or in the setting
• conflict with the character of the area
• environmental damage caused by vehicles
• road system is inadequate and would prejudice highway safety
• loss of open spaces
Any development of the following sites would have the above mentioned impacts on the
local environment and community and there are clearly better alternative sites available.
I oppose development of the following land:
CFS260O
CFS260D
CFS260A
CFS260M
CFS260K
CFS260T
CFS260L
CFS260F
CFS260C
CFS260B
CFS260H
CFS260I
CFS260G
CFS260AK
CFS260AF
CFS260AH
CFS260AE
CFS260AB
CFS260AD
CFS260AC
CFS260Z
CFS260AG
CFS142
CFS071
CFS103

New Allocations Development Plan - CFS192, CFS004, CFS060, CFS071, CFS103, CFS115, CFS142, CFS258

If one of our local Councillors had not made us aware of the Spatial Options Development, we would not know that these meetings have already been carried out with an incredibly vast area of Great & Little Wakering, Barling and Rochford etc having far too many new development areas already! We have received no information via post or email to have our say? How come? That means virtually no one is likely to be aware and have their say before 8th September? Is it already a given this will happen without local residents input as to why these cannot go ahead? Not everyone has the time to keep up on Facebook posts about these proposals! If a neighbour wishes to put a loft conversion in or an outbuilding they have to ask permission beforehand. However, in the event no neighbour wants it... they don’t get to go ahead! So why have we not been made aware earlier that so many of these proposals are already agreed without our knowledge or permission?

I cannot begin to imagine to be honest! The development alone at Star Lane increased a second time and now a further development off Barrow Hall lane makes it ridiculously busy to move around our wonderful village and forget trying to get an appointment at the Doctors, they are already overstretched! The Schools cannot take the current pupils as there are too many children in the area and it is unfair to send brothers and sisters to different schools as there is no room for them in “Our Catchment Schools”! That is not progress. What is in place for more doctors surgeries and schools. The current developments in Rochford will end up taking the spaces our children were destined for with King Edmund School... There are no plans for the infrastructure just more houses, houses and houses! Usually with only one or two car parking spaces... where are all these extra cars going to park. Little Wakering Road is already a race and rat trap, thanks to the developers.

I do understand that progress needs to happen, but enough is enough. We have sufficient already by choosing Wakering and Barling with only one route out of the village is beggars belief! I carry out deliveries for our company and there are so many more options further out that are not congested and lead directly to the main roads i.e. A127, A12 and A13. If these allocated plots go ahead. You will cause complete gridlock for the residents already living here, increase stress and mental health. We had our refuse tip taken away and now have to drive to Rayleigh, 12 miles away and already queue for several hours! The apparent privilege of the use of Southend was also taken away too, which is less than 3 miles away. This makes no environmental sense to increase fuel, sewage and water use. The two refuse lorries at the Rec, once a month, don’t have enough room for everyone and only take black sacks. The traffic backs up now; not to mention the fly tipping that happens because it is overloaded. The BT Station at the beginning of Star Lane is also overloaded! It literally needs to be completely replaced and updated. The new housing estate in Star Lane have better internet than the local houses with the increased boxes for them!!!!. It is utter madness to consider any further sites for development. The weekly refuse collections create merry hell and to increase more development... I actually have no words!

We are lucky to back onto fields and have seen them go from a turf company to stables and thoroughly enjoy watching the horses roam free. Where will they go? You will be putting another business out and leaving no green land... where will these horse have a home? Every year we have Green Woodpeckers come to the field we back on to and one pair nest in the area that backs onto our garden. The Pheasants and Partridge come in their pairs, families and sometimes 12 at a time. We have hedgehogs too. So are you really happy to make all these homeless, it was their home first? We paid a premium to live this side of the road and for this view, which has been our home for 20 years (we have lived in this village for 32 years). By building on these fields behind us, which I believe is plot CFS192 will also reduce the value of our lovely home and all those backing on to these fields. This is definitely not progress, this is destroying a village and wildlife we are accustomed to and peoples mental health and well being just to line the pockets of the land owners and developers who don’t live in the area. For years we have asked to purchase extra land along with all our neighbours and were told they will never sell! So why are they selling so much land to so called development now?

Please take this as mine and my families and neighbours say to NO more development of our Village. It literally cannot cope! Nor can I!

I have spent the weekend reviewing all the plans put forward for spatial options and I am actually shocked that every piece of green land is apparently “deliverable”. Little Wakering Road, where we live is one road and there are 5 separate plans with a total of 607 houses. 423 are planned in the fields behind us. Why so many? 818 in total for Little Wakering & Barling. We don’t even have 423 houses in this road to more than double! We will literally never get out of the village or off our driveways! This is listed as deliverable? We pay a high premium for our Home Insurance because it is high risk flood area, because it is was flooded with most of the road and fields so how can these now be deliverable? Two houses are being built just up the road to us on a previous plot that the houses burned down. That alone caused havoc with traffic lights for all the gas, electricity and water to be put in and that was just two houses. Barrow Hall caused road closures and inane amount of time spent with traffic lights while their services were put in!

Little Wakering - 818 houses, 8 Plan No's
Great wakering - 2,456 houses, 11 Plan No's
Rochford & Ashingdon - 10,707 houses, 63 Plan No's
North Southend (our exit out of Wakering & Barling!!!) All land North of Bournes Green Chase, 19,512 houses, 29 Separate Plan No's
All these are from small B roads too!!!

Between Barling, Great & Little Wakering, Rochford & Ashingdon, Rayleigh & Rawreth, Hockley & Hawkwell, Hullbridge, Stambrdige, Paglesham, & Canewdon there is a whopping 55,926 houses proposed with around 2,000 not deliverable. So many are on the same plots with different plan numbers. This most likely means it is a way of getting around not having to put a new school or more infrastructure in place. There will be no green land left. What will happen to the farms, we are being recommended to eat more plant based. That will never happen if all the green land goes!

What are the plans for new infrastructure? Doctors, Schools, services etc? There is no mention of this at all? Nor is there any details of when these plans are scheduled to go ahead and I would like to know when and if the ones I have mentioned above will/ will not be going ahead with dates etc.

Sorry to harp on, but this really is madness not progress!

To whom this may concern.

As the homeowner of [redacted - house number] Little Wakering Road, Barling Magna, Essex SS3 0LN I write to express my serious concerns about the council’s proposals of the Spatial Options Consultation, beginning with the communication to local residents and administration of process. The online consultation portal and supporting documents, reports, interactive maps etc. I consider to be deliberately designed to confuse even the most educated of local residents. The sheer volume of supporting documents and their size makes it almost impossible for the average local resident to respond objectively and succinctly outline their thoughts – good or bad.

For this reason I have not responded through the portal as simply put I am struggling to navigate it. Instead, by cc’ing in one of our local councillors I hope my thoughts are duly considered by the council.

I am particularly concerned by the potential site CFS004 (next to Barling Magna School). I live on this extremely narrow stretch of Little Wakering Road just a few doors down from this site and regularly use this area with my wife and young children (under 3yrs) horse riding, walking, cycling and running. The pavements are too narrow in places to get our buggy through and the numerous parked cars make pulling out of our drive very difficult. We are regularly blocked in by other cars during school runs and are frequently woken up at night by cars speeding along this narrow section. I must disagree entirely with elements of the Initial Appraisal and question the methodology behind the ratings.

For example, the Existing Site Access Score is a 5, the highest rating. How can this be so? This is on the very narrow section of Little Wakering Rd and directly opposite our childrens nursery. This whole area frequently becomes gridlocked during school runs presenting a significant hazard to local residents, children at the nursery / preschool / primary school and their parents.

A second example – the rating for access to a Secondary School is 4. Yet slightly further down Little Wakering Road at site CFS192 (Land to West of Little Wakering) the rating for Secondary School is 1, the lowest possible. The sites are barely 1/2mile apart, are served by the same bus route, and only have pavements on the opposite side of the road. This high rating is surprising given that the access to bus services and train services are 1, presumambly this means the council are relying on student’s parents driving them to the secondary school? This isn’t exactly in keeping with current ‘green environmental policies’ that I am sure the council is bound to. I am sure that detailed review of all of the sites would present similar inconsistencies. Though perhaps isolated inconsistencies, it is this same data that is a major factor in determining which sites may be viable and proceed along the planning process. If either site were to be considered I would pursue a detailed response from the council evidencing their reasons for the different ratings.

Putting potentially 26 houses in this small area is so out of keeping with the local area. All of the houses along this section of Barling are detached or semi-detached, most with driveways and front gardens. There are fewer than 26houses in the entire SS3 0LN postcode. Should any houses be permitted at this plot they must be in keeping with Barling village. The architype of houses at the current Barrow Hall and Star Lane developments would be of detriment to our small and picturesque village.

I am unable to provide a detailed response to each of the local sites for the reasons outlined in the opening paragraph. I note the following general and specific points as bulleted below and strongly request that they are taken into consideration by the council.

• It is my understanding (based on page 28 of the Rochford and Southend Stage One and Two Green Belt Study 2020) that almost all of the potential sites from the south of Rochford to Little Wakering and south of Great Wakering are within Green Belt Land. It is my limited understanding that Green Belt Land is protected to prevent urban sprawl from connecting small villages and towns, to keep green space between them. I therefore cannot see how almost all of these sites can be even considered by the council due to their being located within the Green Belt. Many of them are scored the lowest 1 rating, the highest level of harm to the Green Belt. Disappointingly Site CFS004 receives a 2 rating for this. I perceive this as another inconsistency as detailed above and would request further information as to why this constitutes less harm than the site CFS192 below.
• The main roads into Barling and Little Wakering are 60mph national speed limit country roads. They are uneven, twisted, with no or limited street lighting, have uneven cambers and are exceedingly narrow for the most part. The section of Barrow Hall Road where it joins Barling Road is barely 4m, this means that 2 larger cars can’t pass one another without significant care or attention. There are regularly accidents along these roads and therefore I consider them to be wholly unsuitable for access to residential developments. I hope that the council has not set a precedence by allowing the developer of the Barrow Hall site to use this for access, Southend Road to the south would have been much more appropriate.
• Shopland Road is similar to Barrow Hall Road and Barling Road. What is most concerning is that the narrow bridge by Butlers Farm cannot safely accommodate much more vehicular traffic. There are regularly accidents at this bridge as 2 larger cars cannot pass each other in the same manner as described above. Any developments in this area must include a widening (and straightening) of this section of road to prevent further accidents.
• Public transport is very poor within Little Wakering and Barling. There are very limited bus services making it difficult to access local services and shops, plus Southend and Shoebury without having access to a private vehicle. Any developments in these villages will greatly increase the number of vehicles on these narrow roads with the usual negative effect on parking, driveway access, speeding and pollution.
• There is a lack of suitable footpaths within Little Wakering and Barling. Much of Barling only has a path on one side and this simply stops at Church Rd and a short distance where Little Wakering Road joins Barling Road. Where are the residents of this potential development (CFS004) supposed to walk to safely without being forced to walk into a national speed limit county road? The footpaths we have are narrow and steeply cambered in many places, I would hope that the council upgrades these should any of these developments be passed for planning.
• There are two main sections of Little Wakering Road that cause myself and other local residents concern.
o Opposite my house (between Barling Lodge and the Primary School) is very narrow. Cars are always parked on the east side meaning that there are very few areas that cars can safely pull in. With the volume of traffic noticeably increasing of late, particularly at school runs, there is frequently congestion, dangerous driving, and driveways including my own being blocked in. More cars on the road from any residential developments will only add to this. Only last month my neighbour (redacted - house number) had his van damaged by someone travelling at speed from the north end, this road is simply too narrow to support any more traffic without taking into account the dangers to the children using the school and nurseries.
o Between the Castle Pub and Kimberly Road. The north bound section of road is frequently almost entirely blocked by parked cars leaving little or no space for cars to pass each other. Many times I have witnessed dangerous & aggressive driving by irate drivers trying to navigate this stretch and blocking each other in. Any development plans to Little Wakering must mandate improvements to Little Wakering Road.
• Generally, I cannot see how this area (north of Southend to Rochford and the villages of Great Wakering, Little Wakering and Barling Magna) can support more houses without provisions for additional GP and other healthcare services. The GP at Great Wakering is almost impossible to get an appointment at, the same for many local NHS dentists. Little Rascals Nursery and the pre-school in Barling are already full. More houses will only make this worse.

To whom this may concern.

As the homeowner of [redacted - house number] Little Wakering Road, Barling Magna, Essex SS3 0LN I write to express my serious concerns about the council’s proposals of the Spatial Options Consultation, beginning with the communication to local residents and administration of process. The online consultation portal and supporting documents, reports, interactive maps etc. I consider to be deliberately designed to confuse even the most educated of local residents. The sheer volume of supporting documents and their size makes it almost impossible for the average local resident to respond objectively and succinctly outline their thoughts – good or bad.

For this reason I have not responded through the portal as simply put I am struggling to navigate it. Instead, by cc’ing in one of our local councillors I hope my thoughts are duly considered by the council.

I am particularly concerned by the potential site CFS004 (next to Barling Magna School). I live on this extremely narrow stretch of Little Wakering Road just a few doors down from this site and regularly use this area with my wife and young children (under 3yrs) horse riding, walking, cycling and running. The pavements are too narrow in places to get our buggy through and the numerous parked cars make pulling out of our drive very difficult. We are regularly blocked in by other cars during school runs and are frequently woken up at night by cars speeding along this narrow section. I must disagree entirely with elements of the Initial Appraisal and question the methodology behind the ratings.

For example, the Existing Site Access Score is a 5, the highest rating. How can this be so? This is on the very narrow section of Little Wakering Rd and directly opposite our childrens nursery. This whole area frequently becomes gridlocked during school runs presenting a significant hazard to local residents, children at the nursery / preschool / primary school and their parents.

A second example – the rating for access to a Secondary School is 4. Yet slightly further down Little Wakering Road at site CFS192 (Land to West of Little Wakering) the rating for Secondary School is 1, the lowest possible. The sites are barely 1/2mile apart, are served by the same bus route, and only have pavements on the opposite side of the road. This high rating is surprising given that the access to bus services and train services are 1, presumambly this means the council are relying on student’s parents driving them to the secondary school? This isn’t exactly in keeping with current ‘green environmental policies’ that I am sure the council is bound to. I am sure that detailed review of all of the sites would present similar inconsistencies. Though perhaps isolated inconsistencies, it is this same data that is a major factor in determining which sites may be viable and proceed along the planning process. If either site were to be considered I would pursue a detailed response from the council evidencing their reasons for the different ratings.

Putting potentially 26 houses in this small area is so out of keeping with the local area. All of the houses along this section of Barling are detached or semi-detached, most with driveways and front gardens. There are fewer than 26houses in the entire SS3 0LN postcode. Should any houses be permitted at this plot they must be in keeping with Barling village. The architype of houses at the current Barrow Hall and Star Lane developments would be of detriment to our small and picturesque village.

I am unable to provide a detailed response to each of the local sites for the reasons outlined in the opening paragraph. I note the following general and specific points as bulleted below and strongly request that they are taken into consideration by the council.

• It is my understanding (based on page 28 of the Rochford and Southend Stage One and Two Green Belt Study 2020) that almost all of the potential sites from the south of Rochford to Little Wakering and south of Great Wakering are within Green Belt Land. It is my limited understanding that Green Belt Land is protected to prevent urban sprawl from connecting small villages and towns, to keep green space between them. I therefore cannot see how almost all of these sites can be even considered by the council due to their being located within the Green Belt. Many of them are scored the lowest 1 rating, the highest level of harm to the Green Belt. Disappointingly Site CFS004 receives a 2 rating for this. I perceive this as another inconsistency as detailed above and would request further information as to why this constitutes less harm than the site CFS192 below.
• The main roads into Barling and Little Wakering are 60mph national speed limit country roads. They are uneven, twisted, with no or limited street lighting, have uneven cambers and are exceedingly narrow for the most part. The section of Barrow Hall Road where it joins Barling Road is barely 4m, this means that 2 larger cars can’t pass one another without significant care or attention. There are regularly accidents along these roads and therefore I consider them to be wholly unsuitable for access to residential developments. I hope that the council has not set a precedence by allowing the developer of the Barrow Hall site to use this for access, Southend Road to the south would have been much more appropriate.
• Shopland Road is similar to Barrow Hall Road and Barling Road. What is most concerning is that the narrow bridge by Butlers Farm cannot safely accommodate much more vehicular traffic. There are regularly accidents at this bridge as 2 larger cars cannot pass each other in the same manner as described above. Any developments in this area must include a widening (and straightening) of this section of road to prevent further accidents.
• Public transport is very poor within Little Wakering and Barling. There are very limited bus services making it difficult to access local services and shops, plus Southend and Shoebury without having access to a private vehicle. Any developments in these villages will greatly increase the number of vehicles on these narrow roads with the usual negative effect on parking, driveway access, speeding and pollution.
• There is a lack of suitable footpaths within Little Wakering and Barling. Much of Barling only has a path on one side and this simply stops at Church Rd and a short distance where Little Wakering Road joins Barling Road. Where are the residents of this potential development (CFS004) supposed to walk to safely without being forced to walk into a national speed limit county road? The footpaths we have are narrow and steeply cambered in many places, I would hope that the council upgrades these should any of these developments be passed for planning.
• There are two main sections of Little Wakering Road that cause myself and other local residents concern.
o Opposite my house (between Barling Lodge and the Primary School) is very narrow. Cars are always parked on the east side meaning that there are very few areas that cars can safely pull in. With the volume of traffic noticeably increasing of late, particularly at school runs, there is frequently congestion, dangerous driving, and driveways including my own being blocked in. More cars on the road from any residential developments will only add to this. Only last month my neighbour (redacted - house number) had his van damaged by someone travelling at speed from the north end, this road is simply too narrow to support any more traffic without taking into account the dangers to the children using the school and nurseries.
o Between the Castle Pub and Kimberly Road. The north bound section of road is frequently almost entirely blocked by parked cars leaving little or no space for cars to pass each other. Many times I have witnessed dangerous & aggressive driving by irate drivers trying to navigate this stretch and blocking each other in. Any development plans to Little Wakering must mandate improvements to Little Wakering Road.
• Generally, I cannot see how this area (north of Southend to Rochford and the villages of Great Wakering, Little Wakering and Barling Magna) can support more houses without provisions for additional GP and other healthcare services. The GP at Great Wakering is almost impossible to get an appointment at, the same for many local NHS dentists. Little Rascals Nursery and the pre-school in Barling are already full. More houses will only make this worse.

I wish to object strongly to the Councils local plan for any thought of any more development in Great Wakering. I have lived here for 50 years and have seen major housing new builds in the last few years.
Star lane = 180+78+20. Some completed others planning permitted West of Little Wakering Road = 120. In construction Alexandra Street = 25 planning permitted Red Lion =4 + 4 Apartments completed.
427 in total !
There has been no infrastructure to support this number all ready School already full Doctors overrun Traffic already causing problems ,possible 600 extra cars.
Existing extra people (not local)will increase village population by over 16% Council wants to build more houses ?

Rochford housing needs 7200 in next 20 years
4000 all ready identified (Hall Road, London road) Total 3200 Rochford population 3200➗87000 x 100 = 4.8% increase ,potential in 2040 Great Wakering population 427➗6000 x 100 =7.1% at present.
How can the Rochford Council Planning Dept. Even consider more development!
Many people have told me there’s no point in objections as the Rochford planners will agree to new builds, so what’s the point ,thinking they know what people who live here want, they don’t want a 100 houses in the High Street and Little Wakering Road with a rural view spoilt buy new builds.

Great Wakering is all ready over subscribed with new builds, no more please, we do not want to become Rochford’s dumping ground to make up the numbers.

ROCHFORD DISTRICT COUNCIL SPATIAL OPTIONS CONSULTATION (REGULATION 18) - BARRATT DAVID WILSON HOMES RESPONSE: LAND EAST OF STAR LANE AND NORTH OF POYNTERS LANE, GREAT WAKERING

On behalf of our client, Barratt David Wilson Homes (‘BDW’), please find enclosed representations to the
Spatial Options consultation currently being undertaken by Rochford District Council (‘the Council’).

Background

BDW
BDW is the nation’s leading housebuilder, creating great new places to live throughout Britain. In 2019/20,
BDW delivered over 12,600 new homes.

BDW are experts in land acquisition, obtaining planning consents and building the highest quality homes in
places people aspire to live. This expertise has been shared with the Council in recent times through the
delivery of other schemes in the District – including the High Elms Park development in Hullbridge.

BDW is committed to being a sustainable housebuilder and continue to integrate sustainability into their
business practices, helping to create better homes and communities and a strong business for the longer term.

Land east of Star Lane and north of Poynters Lane, Great Wakering
BDW is currently promoting Land east of Star Lane and north of Poynters Lane, Great Wakering as an
allocation for housing in the emerging Local Plan. This land ownership covers two HELAA parcels: CFS057
and CFS070. These representations are supported by a Framework Plan which is appended to this letter,
alongside a site location plan.

BDW would like to make the following observations on the content of the Spatial Options consultation.

Vision, Priorities and Objectives
Q2: Do you agree with our draft vision for Rochford District?

Whilst BDW agree with the draft vision for Rochford District in principle, we would like to make the following
observations.

As currently drafted, no reflection of the purpose, aims and objectives of the emerging South Essex Joint Spatial Plan (JSP) is made. The Statement of Common Ground (SoCG) (2018) between the six constitutive Councils (plus Essex County Council) involves a commitment to work together on strategic planning matters, including meeting the housing needs of entire sub-region in full (our emphasis) (see Chapter 9). The relationship between Rochford and Southend-on-Sea is imperative to achieving this, as recognised by the current in-tandem production of new Local Plans in these areas – including the production of a joint evidence base (e.g. Green Belt, HELAA). The evidence base (see HELAA June 2020 Update) is clear that Southend will be unable to meet its objectively assessed housing need on deliverable sites within its administrative boundaries in both policy-on and policy-off scenarios (a shortfall of 6,671 dwellings from 2020-2040), whilst Rochford (in a policy-off scenario) contains deliverable sites to provide a surplus of 35,935 dwellings from 2020-2040 – including Land east of Star Lane and north of Poynters Lane, Great Wakering. Given the relationship between the two administrative areas, it is imperative that the Council works constructively with
Southend (and other Council’s within the South Essex JSP) to meet the commitment of the JSP to deliver
South Essex’s housing need in full. It is important that the commitment to working with the JSP Councils to meet the needs of the area in full is recognised in the development of a vision that looks further ahead than
just the Plan period (i.e. to at least 30 years) to ensure future generations have clarity on the growth of the
District in the context of the JSP area.

With regards to ‘Our Society’, the Council’s supporting text should be evolved to recognise that although
focussing on previously developed land may be the priority, the evidence base demonstrates there is
insufficient land within these categories to deliver its objectively assessed needs. The HELAA (June 2020
Update) demonstrates a total of 4,320 dwellings can be provided (including a 39dpa windfall) on previously
developed / currently approved sites – a shortfall of 2,880 dwellings. The Urban Capacity Study indicates that
this, at a maximum, can be increased to 5,000 dwellings, still leaving the Council with a shortfall. The Vision
needs to evolve to cover a longer period (as per Paragraph 22 of the NPPF) and recognise that growth on
greenfield sites (including Green Belt) must now take place under an appropriate strategy – which should allow
for a mix of sites and a range of homes to be delivered which can help combat affordability issues and support
Growth across the plan period (see our answer to Q6).

With regards to ‘Our Environment’, the Council’s pledge to retain an extensive Metropolitan Green Belt
designation is noted, but in light of the evidence regarding objectively assessed development needs it is
important that this is clearly defined to allow for future growth to be accommodated within the Green Belt
following Plan reviews.

Q3: Do you agree that we should develop a range of separate visions for each of our settlements to
help guide decision-making?

BDW agree with this approach, in principle, insofar as it allows for both the correct quantum and type of
development to be delivered within each settlement to meet the Council’s identified needs.
Please also see our response to Q5, Q6, Q7 and Q59.

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

BDW broadly agree to the strategic priorities and objectives identified in principle.

However, as set out in our response to Q1, BDW consider the Council should amend Strategic Priority 1,
Objective 1 to reflect the need to deliver its objectively assessed needs – as a minimum – including
consideration of the contribution that could be made to solving housing numbers across the South Essex JSP
area.

Strategy Options

Q5: Do you agree with the settlement hierarchy presented?

No.

We have reviewed the Council’s Settlement Role and Hierarchy Study (SRH) (2020) (undertaken by Troy
Planning for both Southend-on-Sea and Rochford) and the supporting Topic Paper 4: ‘Complete Communities’
(produced by Rochford District Council and focussing solely on Rochford District) to inform this view.
We do not wholly oppose the Council’s decision to consider the ‘completeness’ of settlements as a means of
both formulating the position of settlements within the hierarchy, as well as the likely level of development
required within these settlements to instigate their completeness. The latter is particularly beneficial with
regards to promoting sustainable development in rural areas, as required by Paragraph 79 of the NPPF.
We also welcome the elements of the conclusions with regard to ‘capacity for growth’ (see Paragraph 11.17 –
Paragraph 11.36 of the SRH) which aptly reflects that ‘significant growth’ would be suitable in Rayleigh,
Rochford (with Ashingdon) and Hockley (with Hawkwell); ‘some growth’ at Great Wakering and Hullbridge; and
‘sustained limited growth’ at Rawreth, Great Stambridge, Stonebridge, Paglesham, South Fambridge and
Canewdon – with the latter comparatively more ‘complete’ then the others.

However, BDW consider there are elements to the approach taken to the SRH Study could be improved and
given greater weight.

Firstly, we feel it is the presence of day-to-day facilities that is the most important consideration on the
sustainability / completeness of a settlement. Based on Table 2 of the Topic Paper (pg. 10), the settlements
can be ranked accordingly:

Settlement - Rayleigh
Total Facilities - 17
Green Infrastructure - 2/4
Education - 3/3
Civic - 5/5
Health - 3/3
Town Centre Uses - 3/5
Sport & Leisure - 2/2

Settlement - Rochford (including Ashingdon)
Total Facilities - 17
Green Infrastructure - 2/4
Education - 3/3
Civic - 5/5
Health - 3/3
Town Centre Uses - 3/5
Sport & Leisure - 2/2

Settlement - Hockley (including Hawkwell)
Total Facilities - 16
Green Infrastructure - 2/4
Education - 3/3
Civic - 5/5
Health - 3/3
Town Centre Uses - 2/5
Sport & Leisure - 2/2

Settlement - Wakerings and Barling
Total Facilities - 12
Green Infrastructure - 2/4
Education - 2/3
Civic - 3/5
Health - 2/3
Town Centre Uses - 1/5
Sport & Leisure - 2/2

Settlement - Hullbridge
Total Facilities - 12
Green Infrastructure - 2/4
Education - 1/3
Civic - 4/5
Health - 2/3
Town Centre Uses - 1/5
Sport & Leisure - 2/2

Settlement - Canewdon
Total Facilities - 7
Green Infrastructure - 2/4
Education - 1/3
Civic - 2/5
Health - 0/5
Town Centre Uses - 1/5
Sport & Leisure - 1/2

Settlement - Rawreth
Total Facilities - 6
Green Infrastructure - 1/4
Education - 1/3
Civic - 2/5
Health - 0/5
Town Centre Uses - 0/5
Sport & Leisure - 2/2

Settlement - Paglesham
Total Facilities - 3
Green Infrastructure - 1/4
Education - 0/3
Civic - 2/5
Health - 0/5
Town Centre Uses - 0/5
Sport & Leisure - 0/2

Settlement - Great Stambridge
Total Facilities - 0
Green Infrastructure - 0/4
Education - 0/3
Civic - 0/5
Health - 0/5
Town Centre Uses - 0/5
Sport & Leisure - 0/2

Settlement - South Fambridge
Total Facilities - 0
Green Infrastructure - 0/4
Education - 0/3
Civic - 0/5
Health - 0/5
Town Centre Uses - 0/5
Sport & Leisure - 0/2

Settlement - Stonebridge (including Sutton)
Total Facilities - 0
Green Infrastructure - 0/4
Education - 0/3
Civic - 0/5
Health - 0/5
Town Centre Uses - 0/5
Sport & Leisure - 0/2

The table above shows a clear hierarchy across the settlements. Rayleigh, Rochford (including Ashingdon)
and Hockley (including Hawkwell) are all equally as sustainable and have high / the highest levels of
completeness. Thereafter, the Wakerings and Barling, and Hullbridge, are the next most “complete”
settlements – with moderate levels of completeness. The rural settlements are comparably lower, with the
exception of Canewdon and Rawreth which are relatively more complete.

Whilst it is recognised that walking and active travel should be promoted, the SRH’s approach of using the %
of each space within a defined walking catchment of the services within the settlement fails to account for three
key points:

The areas of settlements with the highest completeness scores across the Districts are the central areas
of Rayleigh, Hockley (including Hawkwell), and Rochford (including Ashingdon). However, as the Council’s evidence base shows, the ability to locate new housing in these central areas is restricted by both capacity and its requirement to deliver dwellinghouses (rather than flats) – notwithstanding the aims to seek to support development in rural areas. Accordingly, this would require locating development in areas where walking completeness is not as high in peripheral areas, which as the data demonstrates, is equally issue across all settlements.

Secondly, and related to the above, the aggregated scores mask the most suitable sites within individual
settlements. For example, in Wakerings and Barling, the inclusion of the peripheral areas of the cluster
contribute predominantly to the settlement’s poorer walkability. BDW’s site at Land east of Star Lane and
north of Poynters Lane, Great Wakering is well related to the centre of Great Wakering – and would have a far greater walkability score than more peripheral edges.

Finally, and related to the above, the completeness of settlements can only be improved where sufficient
development is provided to add additional infrastructure. For example, BDW’s site in Great Wakering would allow sufficient justification for the expansion of the adjacent school – with land reserved for this purpose.

In regard of the SRH’s assessment of public transport services, it has only looked at the quantitative aspects
via the frequency of services. Paragraph 105 recognises that maximising sustainable transport solutions will
vary between urban and rural areas. Indeed, predominantly, this will be recognised as the frequency of
services – and therefore the qualitative aspect of these services is equally, if not, more important. In the case
of Great Wakering, 91% of the settlement has access to a non-frequent bus service. However, a number of
the available services (e.g. 8, 14) allow access to Southend – which the SRH recognises as the Tier 1
Settlement for both areas combined. With the exception of the most complete settlements in Rochford, Great
Wakering is a sustainably located settlement with (relatively) good transport access to Southend.

In light of our thoughts above, we consider the Council should retain its existing hierarchy – as set out at
paragraph 4.9 of the Core Strategy:

Tier 1: Rayleigh; Rochford (and Ashingdon); Hockley (and Hawkwell)
Tier 2: Hullbridge and Great Wakering
Tier 3: Canewdon
Tier 4: All other settlements

In accordance with the ‘capacity for growth’ conclusions, Tier 1 should seek to receive ‘significant growth’, Tier
2 ‘some growth’, and Tier 3 and 4 ‘sustained limited growth’ – although with recognition that Canewdon is far
more sustainable than other rural settlements. The Council should seek to distribute growth accordingly,
informed by the relative constraints of each site.

As an additional observation, the Council will have to consider how any extension North / North East of
Southend would be considered within the settlement hierarchy if this option is to be carried forward.

Q6: Which of the identified strategy options do you consider should be taken forward in the Plan?
We support Spatial Option 2B primarily, but also Option 4.

We have reviewed the supporting Topic Paper 11: ‘Strategy Options’ (produced by Rochford District Council) to inform this view.

As recognised by the Council, Option 1 would fail to deliver its development needs. The HELAA (June 2020
Update) and Urban Capacity Study (2020) have concluded that insufficient space exists within the existing urban areas and on previously developed sites to meet the Council’s identified need. Paragraph 61 of the
NPPF is clear that local housing need defined by the standard method determines “the minimum number of
homes needed […] unless exceptional circumstances justify an alternative approach”. In the absence of
exceptional circumstances required to justify an alternative approach, Option 1 cannot be reasonably
progressed by the Council.

Accordingly, the Council will be required to release Green Belt Land.

Option 2a would fail to promote sustainable development in rural areas, in order to enhance or maintain their
vitality – as required by paragraph 78 of the NPPF. As our answers to this consultation have demonstrated,
there are capable sites – such as Land east of Star Lane and north of Poynters Lane, Great Wakering – which
have the potential to deliver such growth, as well as to fund the additional infrastructure these communities
need.

Whilst Option 3a, 3b and 3c could instigate the delivery of large numbers of dwellings (notwithstanding the
potential to deliver development that meets cross-boundary issues – see below) the Council should have due regard to the fact that large strategic sites often have longer build-out times, and the requirement of Paragraph
69 to identify at least 10% of housing requirement on small- and medium-sites. Furthermore, as noted above,
there are clear opportunities for this delivery to be directed to existing settlements.

In light of the above, we consider Option 2B would provide a more dispersed growth strategy that provides
opportunities to balance housing trajectory across the District – on both small and large sites, brownfield and
greenfield sites, and across different settlements.

We loosely also support Option 4, which recognises that a combination of all listed strategies to deliver the
broad range of requirements of national policy and the development Rochford needs. Option 4 will be heavily
influenced by any decision of the Council to deliver housing in excess of its minimum. The evidence currently
demonstrates that Southend will require cross-boundary delivery due to insufficient land, and Rochford should
continue to work constructively with Southend (and other surrounding authorities) to ensure that housing
delivery is satisfied across the South Essex Housing Market Area.

Q7: Are there are any reasonable alternatives to these options that should be considered further?
See our response to Q6.

Spatial Themes

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

No.

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?

Yes.

Paragraph 162 of the NPPF confirms the aim of the sequential test is to steer new development to areas with
the lowest risk of flooding from any source, and that development should not be allocated or permitted if there
are reasonable available sites appropriate for the proposed development in areas at lowest risk of flooding.

The evidence provided by the South Essex Level 1 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (April 2018) confirms
Land east of Star Lane and north of Poynters Lane, Great Wakering is predominantly located in Flood Zone 1
(including accounting for climate change). As illustrated on the Framework Plan, it is possible for development
to be concentrated in these areas, with those small areas of Flood Zones 2/3 being kept free from development.

In accordance with Paragraph 162, this site should be a preferred option for allocation.

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?


BDW would expect these designations to be afforded the necessary weight in the emerging Local Plan and/or
at the planning application stage. Subject to the Council selecting either Option 2b or 4 as set out in the response to Q.6 above, BDW also suggests that sites which are unconstrained from such designations should be the focus of allocations in the emerging Local Plan.

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?

Whilst BDW support the principle of requiring a percentage of energy in developments to be from low-carbon and renewable sources, this should be subject to consideration of viability.

BDW is committed to being a sustainable housebuilder and continue to integrate sustainability into their
business practices, helping to create better homes and communities and a stronger business for the longer term. BDW has a proven track record as a sustainable housebuilder, including achieving a 22% reduction in
carbon emissions since 2015 and aims to be the country’s leading sustainable national housebuilder by
achieving net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2040 (the first major housebuilder to do so); in addition to 100% of their own electricity to be renewable by 2025; and new homes design to be net zero carbon from
2030.

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?

Whilst BDW support the principle of requiring energy efficiency standards of developments to be higher than
the building regulations, this should not be a requirement for all developments. The ability to achieve this will be subject to the viability of a scheme.

Therefore, to be acceptable in planning terms, developments should meet the energy efficiency standard set out by building regulations. If a scheme were to exceed building regulations, this should be recognised as a bespoke merit / positive of the scheme that should weigh favourably in the planning balance.

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?

BDW support the inclusion of a place-making charter and the listed standards, in principle.

Whilst broad objectives (e.g. aiming for carbon-neutrality; tackling air quality; promoting active travel) may help
achieve a collective Vision for the area, sufficient account and flexibility must be given for settlement / site-specific circumstances.

Please see our response to Q16 and Q59.

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

Please see our response to Q14.

Q16a: Do you consider that new design guides, codes or masterplans should be created alongside the new Local Plan?

Yes.

Following the recent update to the NPPF, paragraph 128 now requires all local planning authorities to prepare
design guides or codes consistent with the principles set out in the National Design Guide and National Model
Design Code.

Please see our detailed response to Q16b. and Q16c.

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?

BDW oppose the imposition of a single, broad design guide/code for the District. As the Council recognise,
this would fail to account for and preserve the mix of historic, natural, and urban environments that help to
create distinctive local vernacular and character. Conversely, BDW would also oppose the production of
specific, prescriptive design codes on a site-by-site basis which would not provide sufficient flexibility, restrict
the use of innovative methods and technologies, and frustrate artistic interpretation – all of which may impact
a development’s viability and contribution to “beauty”.

BDW support the imposition of broad strategic objectives (as set out in the place-making charter, as well as the National Design Guide and National Model Design Code) with sufficient flexibility for design to be responsive to circumstances of a site as they evolve. This might include more specific, but still broad objectives are settlement/area level.

Indeed, paragraph 129 of the NPPF advises that developers may also choose to prepare design codes in
support of planning application for sites they wish to develop. This option would give the freedom to provide
interpretation and sufficient resourcing from the private sector to develop appropriate design codes, in
accordance with the National Design Guide and National Model Design Code.

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

Please see also our response to Q16b.

BDW would expect the Council’s adopted design guides/codes to implement broad objectives (at District and Area level) that reflect the 10 characteristics of well-designed places, as set out in the National Model Design
Code. More site-specific design would be influenced by developer produced design codes at submission stage,
reflecting the broad aims.

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?

BDW support Option 4. This would involve taking a market-led approach to housing mix and not specifying
the types, tenures and sizes of houses that need to be delivered through a specific policy.

Option 4 would provide the flexibility required to address site-specific circumstances and respond to the types
of housing required as set out in the most up-to-date housing market assessments. This is the current approach to defining dwelling types, as set out in Policy H5 (Dwelling Types) of the adopted Core Strategy. Option 1 and 3 are too prescriptive and could lead to sites being unviable and not reflecting the needs of the local area. This in turn could delay allocated sites coming forward, leaving the Council facing problems with housing delivery.

If Option 4 was not preferred by the Council, and sufficient evidence was provided to justify such an Option, Option 2 would provide a suitable alternative, as it would factor in a level of negotiation on suitable housing mix (subject to market conditions and viability) – whilst seeking to take account of, and be responsive to, the type or location of development.

BDW support Option 5 in principle, requiring all new homes to meet the Nationally Described Space Standard
(NDSS). As recognised by the Council, the NDSS is currently an optional technical standard, and the Council
would be required to provide sufficient justification for implementing the standard – taking account of need and
viability.

With regard to Option 6 and 7, the requirement for new homes to meet Part M4(2) and Part M4(3) of the
Building Regulations is also an optional technical standard. PPG Paragraph 007 (Reference ID: 56-007-
20150327) confirms that, based on a housing needs assessment, it is for the local planning authority to set out
how it intends to approach demonstrating a need for this requirement, taking account of such information as
the likely future need for housing for older and disabled people (including wheelchair user dwellings), the
accessibility and adaptability of existing housing stock, and the overall impact on viability. In respect of Part
M4(3), Paragraph 009 (Reference ID: 56-009-20150327) is clear that where local plan policies requiring
wheelchair accessible homes are implemented, these should be applied only to dwellings where the local
planning authority is responsible for allocating or nominating a person to live within that dwelling. BDW would expect the appropriate evidence to be provided (within the updated SHMA or a Local Housing Needs
Assessment) to justify the inclusion of these bespoke policies.

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?

As set out in Figure 28 of the consultation document (taken from the South Essex SHMA) the overwhelming
need for dwellings in Rochford District are houses (85%), rather than flatted development (15%). BDW observe
the allocation of smaller, urban/previously developed sites will not satisfy the prevailing demand for
dwellinghouses, which typically require a greater extent of land.

In addition, whilst a strategy that focused development within and adjoining the main built-up areas with an
emphasis on the re-use of previously developed land would promote urban regeneration, it must be
emphasised that this strategy could result in the under delivery of affordable housing owing to viability issues.

It is well documented that the provision of affordable housing on brownfield land / urban sites is challenging
due to the expense associated with acquisition costs, remediation and/or higher than normal construction
costs. Given that market housing is required to subsidise the construction of the affordable housing, the
inevitable consequence is that Council’s targets for the delivery of affordable housing are seldom met when
such a growth strategy is adopted. This, in part, forms our reasoning for a more dispersed, mixed strategy
which includes the release of both underperforming areas of Green Belt which would allow the expansion of
existing towns and villages. Paragraph 73 of the NPPF states “the supply of large numbers of new homes can
often be best achieved through planning for larger scale development, such as new settlements or significant
extensions to existing villages and towns” should be supported.

Such a strategy will also ensure the required level of affordable housing is delivered as schemes on greenfield
sites can viably support delivery of affordable housing compared to brownfield land for the reasons referred to
above.

Utilising this strategy will also disperse the effects of development, rather than focus this predominantly on a
single area – which could ultimately lead to negative impacts such as traffic congestion, noise and air pollution
and stretched community resources/infrastructure – for example. Dispersal will allow a greater range of
housing choice and provide the right type of homes in the right areas to meet the needs of all communities – one of the key parts of the Council’s vision.

A more dispersed growth strategy also provides opportunities to balance housing trajectory across the District and the wider South Essex HMA – as greenfield sites typically have quicker lead-in times / build out rates
compared to those often associated with complex brownfield sites.

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?
No.

Biodiversity

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?

Whilst the Environmental Bill is still to receive Royal Assent, the intention of the policy to achieve biodiversity
net gains is clear and supported in principle by BDW.

This does not mean the Council should not seek to encourage developments to secure biodiversity net gain in
excess of the 10% set in the draft Environmental Bill – which of course will be a legal minimum. However, any
requirement to demonstrate a net gain in excess of 10% should be subject to a viability assessment and should
not be considered a requirement to make the development acceptable in planning terms (i.e. any provision in excess of the 10% figure should be considered an additional benefit of a proposed scheme).

PPG Paragraph 022 (Reference ID: 8-022-20190721) advises that biodiversity net gain can be achieved on-site, off-site or through a combination of both on-site and off-site measures. National guidance does not
explicitly state the percentage split between such provision, but Paragraph 023 (Reference ID: 8-023-
20190721) confirms such gain can be delivered entirely on-site or by using off-site gains where necessary.

Therefore, BDW would expect the Council to reflect the ambitions of the Environmental Bill and incorporate
the necessary level of flexibility in any allocation requirement and/or policy, providing opportunities to create networks to not just support biodiversity enhancement on-site, but also to encourage residents to have access to the natural environment on other sites (off-site) across the District. This would ensure improvements are both beneficial and viable.

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?

BDW support a combination of all Options identified by the Council in addressing the need for sufficient and
accessible community infrastructure through the plan.

Whilst the Council should seek to invest and protect existing community infrastructure, it should seek to first
locate development in areas with adequate proximity to existing infrastructure before seeking to promote sites
that are capable of facilitating the delivery of much needed community infrastructure in other areas. The latter
is evidence in the Land east of Star Lane and north of Poynters Lane, Great Wakering – which has reserved
land in order to deliver a new school in Great Wakering on the current Great Wakering Primary Academy site.

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

Yes.

The Council recognise a widespread lack of access to community facilities across the District. Where greater
access is more recognised in the major settlements, a concentration of development may put stress on these
existing facilities – whilst not delivering in more rural settlements.

Therefore, the implementation of Option 2b and/or Option 4 – both of which would permit urban extensions
across the settlement hierarchy – would permit the wider delivery of existing facilities whilst not creating
pressure spots.

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?

Yes – see our response to Q.36.

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?

BDW support Option 4.

Larger and strategic developments are capable of delivering areas for open space and recreation as part of a holistic development of a site. As evidenced in the Framework Plan, BDW consider a variety of public open
spaces, including strategic, local equipped areas of play (LEAPs) and a Multi-Use Games Areas (MUGAs) can
be incorporated into the proposals.

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

As set out in our response to Q38, BDW considers the Council should consider the potential for larger and
strategic-level development sites to deliver areas for open space and recreation as part of a holistic
development of a site.

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?

Yes.

Larger and strategic development sites are capable of delivering areas for open space and recreation as part
of a holistic development of a site.

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

No.

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?
BDW support a combination of all Options identified by the Council in addressing the need for sufficient and
accessible community infrastructure through the plan.

As set out in our response to Q5 and Q6, the Council should seek to incorporate a dispersed growth strategy.
A more dispersed growth strategy will provide a balance between utilising and optimising existing connections
in the more sustainable settlements, whilst providing improvements to less sustainable locations. A more
dispersed growth strategy will also work to avoid overuse and unnecessary congestion on more densely
populated areas, which bring with them problems of air quality and noise pollution.

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

Please also see our response to Q51.

As part of a more dispersed Growth Strategy, the Council should seek to ease congestion by locating
development in locations which can benefit from wider improvements – such as, as the Council recognise, bus
services to Great Wakering. This should be combined and recognised with the delivery of such infrastructure
through contribution and/or bespoke delivery in larger allocations.

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.]

Please see our response to Q52 / Q53.

Planning for Complete Communities

Wakerings and Barling

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

As per our response to Q4, through the lack of current alternative evidence, we consider the Wakerings and
Barling (in particular, Great Wakering) should remain a Tier 2 settlement.

BDW consider the restriction of Great Wakering to “development that […] is locally-responsive and aimed at
meeting the ongoing housing and employment needs of local residents” fails to account for the opportunity
provided by this comparatively sustainable settlement to provide a substantial contribution to the District’s
housing need with the proposed allocation at Land east of Star Lane and north of Poynters Lane, Great
Wakering.

The consultation document considers that the majority of Great Wakering has “reasonable walking access to
day-to-day services”, with BDW’s promoted site within the higher end of the walking completeness score (8-
10). In line with our Preferred Growth Strategy (Option 2b or 4), we consider this site has the potential to provide substantial growth at this settlement required to facilitate investment in infrastructure across the plan area, including the delivery of the school allocation and other infrastructure improvements – a key objective of the plan.

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

1. Housing [market, affordable, specialist, traveller, other]
2. Commercial [offices, industrial, retail, other]
3. Community infrastructure [open space, education, healthcare, allotments, other]
4. Other

BDW consider Land east of Star Lane and north of Poynters Lane, Great Wakering (HELAA Refs: CS057 and CS070) as suitable, available, and deliverable sites for approximately 800 dwellings.

Next Steps

We trust the above is clear and look forward to being notified as to the next steps with the emerging Local
Plan, and if you can please confirm receipt, it would be much appreciated.

Yours faithfully
David Churchill
Partner

RDC/Spatial Consultation 2021 Questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am strongly objecting to any development of the farm land to the west of Little Wakering Road, on numerous grounds, including the loss of agricultural land, wildlife, hedgerows etc, and the certain increase in traffic congestion, pollution etc.