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?

Further development of the currently agricultural areas around Little Wakering and Barling is entirely impracticable on the grounds of traffic congestion alone. Add to that the loss of quiet green space for leisure and activity, wildlife, food production etc, and it is clear that the whole concept is fundamentally flawed.

I would Like to register my serious concerns regarding the development you are considering undertaking in the area of Little Wakering and surrounding areas, i.e., schools, public transport, doctors surgeries, and road infrastructure and flood plains. Also, will you be demolishing our properties to make way for your planned potential regional park?

New Proposed Housing Project at the rear of Our Property
With regard to the proposed housing development which you are considering building at the rear of our back garden, I wish to register a very bad disagreement to it.
I feel that consideration should be given to the fact that we have a very poor bus service to this area. They run about every hour to hour and a half. Not everybody has cars.
Only one road in and but which is chaos at times because only one side of the road is in use as people use the other side for parking cars. We do not have sufficient schools and doctors surgeries for a big influx of people to the neighbourhood. The hospital foe this area is quite a long way away and the wait for ambulances is too long!!
As you know there are flood plaines here in the village. I dread to think what will happen if you put more houses here. There are land fill sites here, will you build on these and possibly cause sink holes!!
Also, I am concerned that you may be demolishing our houses to form a park area!! There are an awful lot of elderly people in this village what is to become of them (me included).

Local Plan CFS192
With regards to the Land West of Little Wakering Road (Reference CFS192) I would like the following points to be considered in relation to any future development on this site:-
- Potential future sustainability of the area
- The area is a "surface water" flood plain
- Lack of infrastructure to support the site
- This is currently Green Belt site, at the moment housing horses stables and livery
- Mains gas supply running through this site which I understand needs to remain a certain distance from any residential properties
- Impact it would have to my existing standard of living.

Local Plan CFS192
With regards to the Land West of Little wakering Road, Ref:CFS192, I would like the following points considered in relation to any future development on this site:
- Potential future sustainability of the area
The area is a "surface water" flood plain
- Lack of infrastructure to support the site
- his is currently green belt site, at the moment housing horses stables and livery
- Mains gas supply running through this site which I understand needs to remain a certain distance for any residential properties
- Impact it would have to my existing standard of living.

Local Plan - CFS192
With regards to the Land West of Little Wakering road (Reference CFS192) I would like the following points to be considered in relation to any future development of the site;
- Potential future sustainability of the area
- The area is a 'surface water' flood plain
- This is currently a green belt site (at the moment housing a horses stables and livery)
- Lack of infrastructure to support the site
- Mains gas supply running through the area which I understand needs to remain a certain distance from any residential properties
- Impact it would have to my existing standard of living.

Local Plan CFS192
With regards to the Land West of Little Wakering Road, Ref:CFS192, I would like the following points considered in relation to any future development on this site.
- Potential future sustainability of the area
- This area is a "surface water" flood plain
- Lack of infrastructure to support the site
- This is currently green belt site, at the moment housing horses stables and livery
- Mains gas supply running through this site which I understand needs to remain a certain distance for any residential properties
- Impact it would have to my existing standard of living.

I wish to give comments to the recent local plan for new housing.

As a resident of Great Wakering I would ask that when decisions are being made that thought should be given not only to the lack of infrastructure in this area (doctors and schools, buses) but also to congestion getting out of this area. At present it is congested enough trying to get anywhere - Southend and Rochford cause huge bottle necks of traffic - to add further housing east of Southend would make this current problem even worse.

Great Wakering was, and I would like to think, would remain, semi rural. Already many new houses built - hopefully this is enough.

Further to meeting at the Rec in Gt wakering I would like to repeat my comments about the infrastructure in the village. We already have a problem with booking at the doctors, the primary school and the amount of buses going to the secondary school.
There is also a problem with the amount of traffic at rush hour getting in & out of the village and surrounding area plus the lack of shop's.

Hawkwell Parish Council - Official Response to RDC's Local Plan Spatial Options Consultation

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 full infrastructure assessment should be conducted,
to include a local highway study/up to date traffic
assessment. This study needs to be undertaken prior
to deciding the best option to deliver the new Local
Plan. The cumulative effect of the development of the
present District Plan on Hawkwell’s road system; the
Christmas Tree farm, Rectory Road, Hall Road and Brays
Lane sites, without the impact of Sapwoods site yet to
be developed.
It would also be important to obtain some
statistics/reports from schools & doctor surgery and
drainage capacity. All these areas appear to be at or
near capacity already.
Comprehensive air quality testing is a necessity, with
the increase in traffic volumes (34.5%) there must have
also been increased air pollution, which is dangerous to
the health of residents and must not be overlooked.
With reports of government already struggling to meet
their climate change targets and the extremely
worrying IPCC report it is essential that we start to
consider the consequences of the rising temperatures,
therefore a Flood Risk assessment should be provided.
There are many areas in our District that are predicted
to be under flood level by 2050 and the areas that
aren’t in the flood risk zone are already suffering from
surface flooding problems when we have torrential
downpours. (A very high proportion of
Hawkwell/Hockley sites are rated 2 for flood risk)
Perhaps a windfall report? It would be good to know
how many houses have already been built over the
course of the last Local Plan that couldn’t be included.
This could potentially be used for challenging
government for a reduction in the housing target,
which is something we would like to see.
We find it very difficult to respond to this consultation
without having the above technical evidence.

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]

No. The Council believes that Hawkwell Parish should
not be split with West Hawkwell joined with Hockley
and East Hawkwell joined with Rochford in this study.

Q3. Do you agree that we should develop a range
of separate visions for each of our settlements to help guide decision-making? [Please state reasoning]

Yes. As explained above each settlement has its own
unique needs and characteristics and it is only by
working with Parish Councils and residents that their views can be reflected in the Plan to ensure the unique
character of each settlement is protected.

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]

Strategic Option 2 fails to address the problems of the
aging population within the District, partly due to the
failure to provide low rent social housing. The strategy
should provide council housing stock in small local
exception sites.

STRATEGY OPTIONS

Q5. Do you agree with the settlement hierarchy
presented? If not, what changes do you think
are required? [Please state reasoning]

No. Council does not agree in splitting Hawkwell Parish
into West and East and joining these areas with Hockley
and Rochford/Ashingdon respectively. Hawkwell is the
largest Parish in the Rochford District, except for
Rayleigh Town Council, yet doesn’t feature as a
complete settlement in the hierarchy.

Q6. Which of the identified strategy options do you consider should be taken forward in the Plan? [Please state reasoning]

Option 3a is Council’s preferred option. This seems the
least disruptive option and a new village to the west of
Rayleigh has the advantage of being close to exiting
road hubs (A127 and A130) which would enable good
transport links to Wickford, Basildon, Chelmsford,
Thurrock and Southend (the main employment routes).
Option 3a would attract Section 106 funding for
infrastructure, rather than adding to existing villages
and hoping for S106 funding afterwards towards
schools, community centres, medical centres and
shopping parades.
The Council promoted this option in the last Local Plan.
Option 3b would put even more pressure on existing
roads and erode the green belt and current separation
between Rochford District and Southend.
Option 3c would only lead to demands for a Southend
Bypass, promoted by developers which would lead to
further developments alongside the bypass.

Q7. Are there any reasonable alternatives to
these options that should be considered
instead? [Please state reasoning]

Yes. A combination of Option 1 and Option 3a after
utilising all available brownfield sites and infrastructure
improvements have been planned and/or completed.

SPATIAL THEMES

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

Council is concerned that the whole character of the
District will change with the urbanisation of the District.
Accessibility to some of the consultation documents
has been very problematic and Council has concerns
that residents, particularly those without access to a
computer, are not realistically able to view or respond
to the consultation.

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]

We agree that it is essential that both flood risk and
coastal change be considered when developing a suitable plan and development sites. A plan needs to
focus on limiting flooding, protecting people, wildlife
and properties.
According to the climate central coastal risk screening
tool, the land projected to be below annual flood level
in 2050 includes a large part of the district (areas
affected include Foulness, Wakering, Barling,
Paglesham, Stambridge, South Fambridge, Hullbridge,
Canewdon and Rochford).
The main route out of Rochford between the train
station and the airport is also affected, roads leading to
for example, Watery Lane, Lower Road etc and
including the A130 & A1245.
Large retail areas such as Purdeys Industrial Estate may
also be affected which would affect employment. As
would employment areas such Battlesbridge, Rawreth
& Shotgate.
As the sea levels rise further other complications may
include:
• People unable to get mortgages and insurance,
therefore they may not be able to live in those
areas.
• People wanting to migrate to areas of lower
flood risk.

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]

The Coastal Protection Belt only lasts to 2025 and
needs to be extended for many years. All development
in flood plains must be resisted as the danger of
flooding will increase. Hockley Woods and Cherry
Orchard Country Park must be protected from
development. The fields around St. Mary’s church in
Hawkwell and the network of footpaths around
Clements Hall and Glencroft Open Space need to be
protected for its contribution to wildlife habitat.

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?

The way forward is renewable energy, wind farms and
solar panel farms, provided they are not in places with
impact on sensitive areas.
The area does not have enough free land to support
wind or Solar P.V farms to create enough energy. These
farms have a massive impact on the community as
large trenches have to be dug over great distances to
lay the cables to Sub Stations, that have to be built.
Other sources of producing Zero Carbon energy should
be selected, before covering every piece of land with
P.V panels or Wind turbines.

Q12. Do you agree we should require new development to achieve energy efficiency standards higher than building regulations?
What level should these be set at? [Please state reasoning].

Yes, providing the cost is not passed to the house buyer
making the cost prohibitive. Local building control
inspections should only be carried out by the Council’s
Inspectors.

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]

Foulness Island could be a good location for a Solar
Farm and wind turbines off the shore.
The plan cannot support local low carbon generation
and renewable energy. The only way this can be
achieved by all the Districts or Counties is if the grid is
de-centralised and smaller power stations are sited in
places like Foulness, where impact to the Community
would be kept to a minimum.

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]

Yes. They should be settlement specific to allow for
individual characteristic of each area, sufficiently
detailed to avoid confusion.

Q15. Are the principles set out in the draft placemaking charter the right ones? Are there other principles that should be included? [Please state reasoning]

Yes, provided that individual settlements are consulted,
and they are adhered to.

Q16.
a. Do you consider that new design guides, codes or masterplans should be created alongside the new Local Plan?

Yes. Each individual settlement should be at the centre
of it and considered as their own entities, with their own individual characteristics identified.

b. If yes, do you think it is more appropriate to have a single design guide/code for the whole District, or to have design guides/codes/masterplans for individual
settlements or growth areas? [Please state reasoning]

Design guides should be area specific under one single
guide covering the whole district.

c. What do you think should be included in design guides/codes/masterplans at the scale you are suggesting? [Please state reasoning].

The Design Guides must reflect the character of the
settlements while allowing for some growth.

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? [Please state reasoning]

Meet the needs for different types of tenures of
affordable, social, council and specialist housing by
requiring all types are provided on all new
developments.

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]

There is a need for more flats, bungalows, 2 bed
houses. These can be accommodated in Option 3a. In
addition, the Council has a long-held view that
bungalows should not be converted into houses as this
depletes the bungalow stock which are required for an
ageing population.

According to the strategy options/growth scenarios, the house price to local earning ratios, suggest our area is the least affordable in the country. It also states that our housing registers has grown by 20% in the last year.
With house prices going up it would mean that younger
generations are priced out of the area. If they leave the
area it would create more of a retirement settlement
than before, therefore requiring less employment & retail space etc.
Focus on building smaller properties (e.g. 1-3 bedrooms) and tailored towards singles/couples/first time buyers/young adults who are still living at home with parents.
Other priorities should be for ground level properties,
suitable for the aging and disabled residents, we should
be safeguarding existing bungalows which are rapidly
disappearing. Providing these options would ‘free up’
the larger properties within the district, meaning we
shouldn’t require so many larger (4/5 bedroom) homes.
It is important to note that first time buyers, buying a
property in the area will more than likely already live in
the district and own a vehicle. This means that no new
traffic is created, however for larger, more expensive
properties that attract buyers from outside the area
will also bring additional vehicles onto the already
congested roads.
Social housing and homes for homeless and vulnerable
residents also needs better consideration.

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]

Affordable housing for the disabled and starter homes
should be planned for.

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]

Possible need a permanent traveller site which could be
controlled in terms of site population exceeding capacity.

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

Sites need to be away from residents but also close
enough to schools. Also needs to be near main roads to accommodate large vehicles and caravans.

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

See answer to Q21. In addition, sensitive green belt
areas should not be considered as potential locations.

EMPLOYMENT & JOBS

Q23. With reference to the options listed above, or your own options, how do you feel we can best ensure that we meet our employment and skills needs through the plan? [Please state reasoning]

Ensure that Essex Education Authority provides evening
and afternoon classes to offer affordable, local adult
education to address skill shortages and allow
opportunities to support residents to get back into
work or upskill/retrain. Work with local colleges, as
well as businesses, job centres and Essex County
Council to assess what sustainable employment is
needed in the District.
Large retail areas such as Purdey’s Industrial Estate may
be affected by flooding in the future, which would
affect employment. Current businesses within the flood
risk area may possibly need to be relocated or they
could lose employment opportunities.

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]

Greenbelt sites must be controlled by regularisation of
informal sites. Brownfield sites should be used first and
protected from housing development if they have a
current or future potential to provide employment
opportunities. There is a need for employment in local
communities as this is a greener option as it reduces
transport use.

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

Council’s preferred option 3a provides many
employment opportunities to establish the new
infrastructure over many years. Various types of
employment facilities, i.e. industrial units, hospitality,
retail and other employment could be included in
option 3a. This option satisfies the ‘Employment
Option 4’ which states “meeting future needs by
prioritising employment space alongside any new
strategic housing developments.”

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

Yes, lacking in ‘green’ industries. Sites for ‘sustainable
living’ businesses e.g. refill stores, market type sites for
locally grown or manufactured foods or crafted items,
small holdings, upcycling or repair & restore facilities.

Q27. Are there other measures we can take through the plan to lay the foundations for long-term economic growth, e.g., skills or connectivity?

Better road networks and public transport links to serve
new schools and colleges required as result of the
increase in population linked to development. Also
improve footpaths and cycle path access. Consider
higher or further education facilities and availability of
apprenticeships and training for all ages, to address the
current and future skills shortages.

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]

Careful consideration should be given to the growth of
the airport; it would bring additional jobs and business
opportunities, but it would also put more strain on the
existing transport network and would bring additional noise and air pollution. It would also require more land.
Improvements to the public transport system and road
network would be required to enable growth and jobs
linked to the airport industry. Airport linked transport
adjacent to both the existing airport industrial park and
Saxon Business Park should be included in the strategy.
Given the ongoing uncertainty surrounding the impact
of Climate Change on the aviation industry (e.g., urgent
carbon reduction), we should continue to make
decisions based on the existing JAAP for the time being,
but to consider developing a new Area Action Plan, or
masterplan, after the new Local Plan is adopted or
when the need arises.

BIODIVERSITY

Q29. Do you agree that the plan should designate and protect areas of land of locally important wildlife value as a local wildlife site, having regard to the Local Wildlife Sites review? Are there any other sites that you feel are worthy of protection? [Please state reasoning]

Yes. Gusted Hall Wood, Hockley Woods (ancient
woodland). The upper Roach Valley, the lower Crouch
Valley. The rivers Roach and Crouch.
All local Nature Reserves and ancient woodland sites
must be protected at all costs. Magnolia Nature reserve
is home to protected Great Crested Newts.
We should avoid building on green belt, park land and
coastal locations, to protect wildlife and habitats.
Evidence suggests that society is losing its connection
to nature, we must not allow this to continue and must
ensure that future generations have a legacy. New
wildflower meadow creation would also be very
valuable as our insects and pollinators are in decline.

Q30. Do you agree that the plan should designate and protect areas of land of locally important geological value as a local geological site, having regard to the Local Wildlife Sites review? Are there any other sites that you
feel are worthy of protection? [Please state reasoning]

Yes. Many areas provide important wildlife habitats for
protected, endangered or rare wildlife and fauna. It is
important that these areas are protected for future
generations.

Q31. Do you consider net gains for biodiversity are best delivered on-site or off-site? Are there specific locations or projects where net gain projects could be delivered?

On-site.

GREEN AND BLUE INFRASTRUCTURE

Q32. With reference to the options above, or your own options, how do you feel we can best deliver a quality green and blue infrastructure network through the plan?
[Please state reasoning]

By retaining what is already in existence by ensuring
the links are in place to join as many locations as
possible. Additionally, ensuring that Public Rights of
Way (ProW) are free from land-owner obstructions and
that they are kept free from any debris. Also, paths
need to be made accessible to the disabled to ensure
all- inclusive facilities.

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]

By lobbying central government to allow revision of
RDC plans to support a quality green and blue
infrastructure; additionally, Parish Councils could
maintain paths such as costal paths with funds from
Section 106 agreements.

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]

Our choice of Option 3a, Council believes there should
be concentration on brownfield and town sites to
protect rural communities and the Green Belt.
Alternative options 3 or 4 mean less development in
rural areas and are therefore more accommodating to
the needs of smaller rural areas.

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? [Please state reasoning]

It is important to assess the shortfall of facilities and
networks before plans are approved to ensure
adequate planning and funding can be secured before
any building takes place.
Options could be considered to get people across the
road without the need to stop the traffic, such as a
walking bridge/flyover on Ashingdon Road where there
are 3 crossings within close proximity to each to other,
which is a significant cause of traffic and congestion.

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

Any section 106 monies should be legally
specified/described in the plans to state that it must be
allocated to the development area stated within the
plans and not used for other sites elsewhere.

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]

Ashingdon Road is gridlocked most days and has a
severe congestion problem. There should be public
transport links that allow residents to easily travel
between parishes within the district (for example:
Ashingdon to Hullbridge, or even travelling from East to
West Hawkwell would currently require 2 buses). Even
if Section 106 grants were made available, healthcare
facilities in Hawkwell are currently severely restricted,
especially since the pandemic due to doctor shortage;
those grants are unlikely to improve the situation.
Further development in Hawkwell would put further
burden on the healthcare provision.
A new site for the waste recycling site should be
located; the tip in Rayleigh seems to be insufficient
now.

OPEN SPACES & 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? [Please state reasoning]

Permanent all year-round bus services to our main
leisure sites.
Section 106 monies, if available, should help fund the
improvement of the football pitches at Clements Hall. It
is important to safeguard, improve and maintain
existing open spaces and recreational sites.

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

All-weather facilities should be considered where
appropriate.

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]

The potential sites seem acceptable.

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?

There could be improvements made to Clements Hall,
including public transport links to and from the leisure
centre. Council’s preferred option 3a. would enable
delivery of new open space and sports facility provision
and S106 monies from larger developments could help
fund appropriate new 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]

Magnolia Nature Reserve and all other Reserves, green
spaces, parks, woodlands and the reservoir must be
protected.

HERITAGE

Q43. With reference to the options listed in this section, or your own options, how do you feel we can best address heritage issues through the plan? [Please state reasoning]

Villages and rural areas need to be protected from over
and/or inappropriate development through careful
planning considerations. A list of sites should be
composed with local consultation and those sites
maintained with local residents and organisations.

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

Areas of precious woodland should not be taken 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]

The updated Local List needs to be made available for
an answer on this section.

TOWN CENTRES AND RETAIL


Q46. With reference to the options listed above, or your own options, how do you think we can best plan for vibrant town centres in Rochford, Rayleigh and Hockley? How can we also ensure our village and neighbourhood
centres remain vibrant? [Please state reasoning]

People need to ‘want’ to visit towns. People’s habits
have changed and therefore entertainment and shop
offerings need to reflect this. If nightlife is going to be
improved then consideration needs to be given to
security; people need to feel safe, especially in areas
that are prone to Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) already.
Transport links to town shopping and amenities need to
be improved. For example, there are no easy transport
links from Hullbridge to Hockley, Hawkwell or Rochford.

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

Rochford District Council (RDC) needs to encourage
business with free parking and reduced business rates.
Businesses should be encouraged to work together, or
a number of shops have extended opening hours to
encourage shoppers coming out in the early evening.

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]

N/A

Q49. Should we continue to restrict appropriate uses within town centres, including primary and secondary shopping frontages within those centres? If yes, what uses should be restricted? [Please state reasoning]

Yes, a selection of retailers is essential. There needs to
be a balance of outlets that keeps the area viable.
Consideration should also be given to the restriction of
chain stores as these tend to be the first to go in a
crisis.

Q50. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to deliver improved retail and leisure services in the District? [Please state reasoning]

Spatial strategy option 3a will allow the most
opportunity to expand retail both in terms of including
retail space and bringing customers into the town
centres, nearest to new developments. Depending on
the development size, in a new development there
would be scope to add a small, medium, or large retail
precinct.

TRANSPORT & 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? [Please state reasoning]

Development should not be seen without seeing
infrastructure first. Prepare an Infrastructure Delivery
Plan to deliver meaningful improvement to transport
networks, including cycle routes, walking pathways,
public transport and roads. It is worth noting these
modes are currently completely stretched and
therefore modernisation and improvements
need to occur before future housing developments are
built. (An electric scooter scheme could also be
introduced.) RDC need to work with Government,
Highways England, Essex County Council etc to deliver
meaningful road improvements to both the main and
local road network. However, the Southend Bypass
scheme which will destroy a large green belt area
should be opposed.

Q52. Are there areas where improvements to transport connections are needed? What could be done to help improve connectivity in these areas?

There needs to be an extensive review of the area with
highways and transport revisions.

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 bypass scheme that would only incorporate cycling,
walking and scooters etc around the outskirts would
help with congestion issues on the overcrowded roads.

GREEN BELT AND RURAL ISSUES

Q54. Do you feel that the plan should identify rural
exception sites? If so, where should these be located and what forms of housing or employment do you feel need to be provided? [Please note you may wish to comment on the use of specific areas of land in the next section]

Green belt and farmland / agricultural sites must be
protected. Rural and village life must also be
safeguarded.

Q55. Are there any other ways that you feel the plan should be planning for the needs of rural communities? [Please stare reasoning]

There should be support for the requirement of
developers of 10 units or less to pay something akin to
s.106/CIL monies. That would go towards infrastructure
improvements, particularly those affecting rural
communities.

PLANNING FOR COMPLETE COMMUNITIES

Q56.
a. Do you agree with our vision for Rayleigh? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]

N/A

b. With reference to Figure 44 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the promoted sites should be made available for any of the following uses?

N/A

How could that improve the completeness of Rayleigh?

N/A

i. Housing [market, affordable, specialist, traveller, other]

N/A

ii. Commercial [offices, industrial, retail, other]

N/A

iii. Community infrastructure [open space, education, healthcare, allotments, other]

N/A

iv. Other

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

N/A

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

N/A

e. Do you agree that the local green spaces shown on Figure 44 hold local significance? Are there any other open spaces that hold particular local significance?

N/A

Q57.
a. Do you agree with our vision for Rochford and Ashingdon? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]

Hawkwell Parish shares the Ashingdon Road with both
Ashingdon and Rochford Parish so any development
has an impact on East Hawkwell, which is not
mentioned in the consultation. Development not only
affects our Primary Schools and Doctors Surgeries but
also the road network. The proposed sites (some 5,000
properties) accessing onto Brays Lane leading onto the
Ashingdon Road and Rectory Road, onwards to Cherry
Orchard Way plus developments proposed in West
Hawkwell (some 1,280 properties) would lead to the
majority of the total development being concentrated
in this part of the District and would result in complete
urbanisation.

b. 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?

Council’s preferred Option 3a would alleviate the
pressure on the villages of Hockley, Hawkwell,
Ashingdon and Rochford.

i. Housing [market, affordable, specialist, traveller, other]

N/A

ii. Commercial [offices, industrial, retail, other]

N/A

iii. Community infrastructure [open space, education, healthcare, allotments, other]

N/A

iv. Other

N/A

c. Are there areas in Rochford and Ashingdon that development should generally be presumed appropriate? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]

N/A

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

N/A

e. 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]

N/A

Q58.
a. Do you agree with our vision for Hockley and Hawkwell? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]

The vision “In 2050, Hockley and Hawkwell should be
the District's gateway to the green lung of the Upper
Roach Valley, making the most of its access to ancient
woodland and a network of nature reserves. Its town
and neighbourhood centres should be vibrant places
with an emphasis on independent businesses and
providing for a diverse range of jobs. Deprivation should
continue to be largely absent from Hockley and
Hawkwell however housing affordability should have
been addressed to ensure that local first-time buyers
can greater afford to live locally.”
Firstly, it will not be a green lung if houses are built
within it. To be the ‘gateway to the green lung’, it
needs to be protected. Some of the proposed areas for
Hockley & Hawkwell contain ancient woodland. A
gateway also presumes by its nature that throughfare
of traffic is required, which could be interpreted as
traffic problems.
Also, Hockley has a village centre whereas Hawkwell is
mainly residential and comprised of green spaces
rather than leisure/social facilities, except for Clements
Hall, so the term vibrant would only be appropriate for
Hockley. As answered in Questions 2 and 5, Council
believe that there should be separate visions for
Hockley and Hawkwell as they are very different.
We agree that: “deprivation should continue to be
largely absent from Hockley and Hawkwell however
housing affordability should have been addressed to
ensure that local first-time buyers can greater afford to
live locally.”

b. 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

Most of the sites listed for Hockley & Hawkwell are
marked as severe/mildly severe harm when it comes to
the green belt. There are also a number of sites that
contain ancient woodland.
Hawkwell & Hockley are already at capacity and
therefore would require infrastructure improvements
before even considering any further development. Any
sites that create traffic through Rochford, Hockley or
Hullbridge would be opposed, in particular those that
need to utilise Ashingdon Road, Spa Road & Lower
Road, and those that empty traffic onto the B1013, due
to already being over capacity.

c. Are there areas in Hockley and Hawkwell that
development should generally be presumed appropriate? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]

No, we feel it is not possible to comment on any sites
regarding their suitability without the full infrastructure
delivery plan being provided beforehand.
No green belt sites would be appropriate.
Development should be on brownfield sites only.
If the land would be of no use to agriculture and that
infrastructure had current capacity to absorb the extra
homes/residents. This would need to be evidenced.

c. Are there areas in Hockley and Hawkwell that
development should generally be presumed appropriate? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]

No, we feel it is not possible to comment on any sites
regarding their suitability without the full infrastructure
delivery plan being provided beforehand.
No green belt sites would be appropriate.
Development should be on brownfield sites only.
If the land would be of no use to agriculture and that
infrastructure had current capacity to absorb the extra
homes/residents. This would need to be evidenced.

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

Yes, green belt needs to be protected for biodiversity
reasons and agriculture sites must be protected, as one
of the consequences of climate change could mean we
would have to look at growing produce locally. Ancient
woodlands must not be touched as they are
irreplaceable. Any sites containing wildlife must also be
protected, even those that serve as a barrier from
human life to wildlife as this creates a safe zone and
habitat.

e. 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]

They would hold local and national significance, as they
are green spaces and therefore hold significance,
especially in mitigating the effects of climate change.

Q59.
a. Do you agree with our vision for the Wakerings and Barling? Is there anything QUESTIONS you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]

N/A

b. 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

N/A

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

N/A

d. Are there areas that require protecting from
development? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning] Q59e. Do you agree that the local green spaces shown on Figure 47 hold local significance? Are there any other open spaces that hold particular local significance? [Please state reasoning]

N/A

Q60.
a. Do you agree with our vision for Hullbridge? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]

N/A

b. 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

N/A

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

N/A

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

N/A

e. Do you agree that the local green spaces shown on Figure 48 hold local significance? Are there any other open spaces that hold particular local significance? [Please state reasoning]

N/A

Q61.
a. Do you agree with our vision for Canewdon? Is there anything you feel is QUESTIONS missing? [Please state reasoning]

N/A

b. 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

N/A

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

N/A

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

N/A

e. Do you agree that the local green spaces shown on Figure 48 hold local significance? Are there any other open spaces that hold particular local significance? [Please state reasoning]

N/A

Q62.
a. Do you agree with our vision for Great Stambridge? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]

N/A

b. 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?
N/A

i. Housing [market, affordable, specialist, traveller, other]
ii. Commercial [offices, industrial, retail, other]
iii. Community infrastructure [open space, education, healthcare, allotments, other]
iv. Other

N/A

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

N/A

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

N/A

e. Do you agree that the local green spaces shown on Figure 50 hold local significance? Are there any other open spaces that hold particular local significance? [Please state reasoning]

N/A

Q63.
a. Do you agree with our vision for Rawreth? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]

N/A

b. 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

N/A

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

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

N/A

e. Do you agree that the local green spaces shown on Figure 51 hold local significance? Are there any other open spaces that hold particular local significance? [Please state reasoning]

N/A

Q64.
a. Do you agree with our vision for Paglesham? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]

N/A

b. 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

N/A

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

N/A

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

N/A

e. 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]

N/A

Q65.
a. Do you agree with our vision for Sutton and
Stonebridge? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]

N/A

b. 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

N/A

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

N/A

e. Do you agree that the local green spaces shown on Figure 53 hold local significance? Are there any other open spaces that hold particular local significance? [Please state reasoning]

N/A

Q66. Do you agree that our rural communities do not require individual vision statements? Are there communities that you feel should have their own vision? [Please state reasoning]

N/A

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

N/A

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

N/A

Comments on Land Allocated
RE: CFS192 / CFS260D / CFS260T

I strongly object to the above areas being allocated for housing under the spatial plan.
This area is part of a small village which has existed since the days of the Doomsday book with a Saxon church.
1. There is a tip road and tip servicing Southend across the area.
2. The complete lack of infrastructure is obvious. The roads in this area are 'unclassified', narrow in places and some have no pavements. This would not support the amount of traffic in any new development.
Several full school buses take children to the nearest secondary school in Rochford approximately 10 miles away. The local public transport is abysmal, nothing on Sundays and only 2 hourly during the day. There is no train service or 'A' roads in this area to get anywhere quickly for work etc. Any development would jam up this road. It is a country road not designed for this.
3. These fields lie on a FLOOD PLAIN with drainage problems already. The pumping station in Kimberley Road has already caused flooding problems as it can't cope.
4. The areas has had 400 houses built right on its borders in the past few years (Barrow Hall Road and Star Lane estates) with no infrastructure improvements. There are no doctors or dentists, minimal shops, no social outlet except the pub in this area.
5. There is already a lack of primary school provision. Great Wakering and Barling schools are full and the latter is a small country school.
6. This is a loss of A1 farming land and GREEN BELT. Any building would cause grievous harm to the wildlife and environment.
7. There is no real employment except farming. Most residents need a car to drive to work so these houses would cause mayhem on the small narrow road.

In summary, anymore building would ruin the village way of life and character forever. It would double the population and is unsustainable. It would cause environmental and flooding problems being built on a flood plain too close to rivers and water. This is too much development in a small village and too many for local peoples needs anyway as there is no employment for the young therefore forcing more vehicles onto country roads and harming the environment.

This is totally the wrong area for any development.

I object to the proposed planning proposals in the spacial plan for Barling and Sutton/Shopland because:

1. The areas are all green belt and should be protected.

2. The areas are in the Flood Plan.

3. Our beautiful area would be spoiled and would not be a village/hamlet but would become an extension of the town of Rochford, which covers a large enough housing estate already. We are gradually losing all our green areas and becoming a concrete jungle especially if Southend's plan from Star Lane, Great Wakering to the Rose Inn goes ahead. This area would become just one huge estate. If I had wanted to live in a town I would have moved to one.

I object completely with the proposed sites of development. ALL OF THE AREAS are green belt which in turn will dessimate the flora and fauna of the whole area, link up developments proposed by Southend Council, and join Shoebury, The Wakerings, Barling Magna and Sutton/Shopland making a huge conurbation extending almost to Basildon. A private individual is UNABLE to build on green, and has difficulty with development on brown field sites, yet Councils permit large developers to carry on regardless. A DEFINITE NO TO THESE SITES.

The maps were misleading – they overlap each other and the name of ‘stonebridge and sutton’ includes parts of Great Wakering and Barling yet there was a separate map? So my comments refer to both these areas as a whole:

Roads cannot cope as it is – even if you built a larger or new road the country lanes will still have an increase in traffic which they cannot already cope with. Cars are often in ditches and that is now so would only get worse. Heavy lorries cause blocked roads so emergency vehicles often have trouble getting in and out of the village.

Sutton road is gridlocked every day most of the day so totally unsuitable for any more development. The chaos and disruption the barrow hall estate has on residents already.
In 1953 wakering was flooded – this will happen again, and will increase with global warming so unsuitable for development. Many homes here suffer already from surface water flooding and if more development were to come forward this will only get worse.

Loss of open space, increase in poor air quality, loss of wildlife, impact on eco-system, loss of farmland (at a time when we may need more local produce) loss of farming employment.

More people will mean more crime, more anti-social behaviour, more noise, more car emissions which will all have a negative impact on residents and their health.
If you have to build it needs to be somewhere north of the district near the A127 or rail links – not in a village or where roads cannot already cope (can cannot be improved)

Q59a, b, c, d, e

Map reference CFS192 and CFS260D

Little Wakering sites
There is not enough infrastructure now without more development. We NEED open space to slow climate change not more concrete. We need MORE trees - not a loss of habitat. We need our Green Belt. We need to retain our villages and hamlets - not destroy them. These sites are not suitable for development.

CFS260D, CFS192, CFS260O

I live in Havenside backing onto one of the fields currently under consideration. There is a large amount of wildlife in the hedgerow and field there. These include various birds from wood pigeons, pheasant etc., right down to wrens. I also have sighted sparrow hawks, kestrels and a buzzard over that field. There are also foxes and possibly badgers too.

There is no access from Little Wakering Road to that field apart from a driveway along the side of the Castle Pub and Havenside is far too narrow to provide any access via there. My end of that field is also prone to flooding in winter.

The developments proposed along Barrow Hall Road is far too much for a narrow country lane to cope with. There are places along there where it would be impossible to widen it even if you wanted too. My car has been hit along there destroying a door mirror and those that do use it seen to think its a race track. It is far too narrow for 2 large cars to pass each other and if you meet a lorry etc then its impossible to pass.

The village simply does not have the infrastructure to support all these new houses. Each house potentially has 2 plus children requiring school places. Each house potentially has 4 plus people requiring a doctor, and each house potentially has 2 cars clogging up our very narrow roads in and out of the village.

That's not forgetting the sewage system only has, I believe, 1 main pipe out of the village.

Barling Magna gets flooded every winter due to drains not being able to cope with wet weather. Indeed, last winter my daughter who lives there was unable to use her toilet as the waste in the sewers was backed up and she ended up with sewage in her front garden. Not a healthy state for a family of 5. I earnestly request you look further into other sites with better infrastructure than here.

I also feel that there has been no consideration for the environment or the local community.

All I can see is landowners out for the money they can get if their land has planning permission which will in no doubt double its value from farmland. The developers make big fat profits and the local community gain nothing as the village will no longer be a village.

Also, if the farmland is sold off then that will have an effect on the ability of this country to produce enough food here in the UK to feed the population. If we have to import more then our carbon footprint will be higher, contributing to the escalation of climate change. This is a time when we should be thinking of reducing it by producing more food here in the UK so as no to import so much, thus reducing our carbon footprint.

The pollination, i.e., bees etc., are dying off as we strip the land of natural habitats.

Are we going to end up in a concrete jungle living off synthetically produced food as we have built on all our land and destroyed our natural wildlife habitats?

You need to seriously think of its long term effect on the environment and not just the money for building all these homes!!!

CFS057 Plot on Rear of Alexandra Road

I own some land behind Alexandra Road and the surrounding area is frequently used by badgers and as a protected animal, prohibits building nearby.
Alexandra Road has had more than its fair share of development lately. As a landowner I was interested in what land had been relisted as building and went to the planning officers to enquire as to what was happening. I was shown maps of what was to be used. This was about 3-4 years ago and was assured that no more would be built on for 10 years. Since then 25 dwellings have been approved behind the houses opposite and now a plot has been put forward for release. This parcel of land is next to mine and, unless roads etc are put in, would have to use Alexandra Road, already overloaded, for access. The land the other side of this plot has already been designated as not to be built on (site at the brick works tried and was not allowed) so to build on this plot would interfere with the wildlife which lives there. there are also bats in the area and these are protected. Has Alexandra Road done something to upset the powers that be as all they want to do is build on it?
This is all wildlife but what about humans i.e., doctors (try to get an appointment), shops and public transport.

Spatial Option Consultation

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 i.e. 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 space

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
CFS142
CFS071
CFS103

Spatial Options Consultation

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 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 i.e., 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

Spatial Options Consultation

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 i.e., 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