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

If people wanted these facilities they’d move to an area that had them.

Stambridge already had two estates built, ruining local park facilities.

Stambridge will loose it’s identity and become another noisy place to live.

Non of the above leave it as it is....Outrageous proposal. Completly object and so will the whole of the community. A beautiful countryside of stambridge. Leave greenery and the fields and countryside and wildlife alone. Rochford is too busy already on the roads in the doctors and at schools how will more housing benefit or help our community. It will worsen it massively.

In summary, no I don’t think any of the sites should be made available for any kinds of development. The only one that might be appropriate is community infrastructure such as a doctors surgery so that our older residents do not have to travel by public transport into Rochford for those facilities. But even then, I don’t think that will be wholly welcomed by residents.

The area of Great Stambridge and the surrounding meadow and marshlands should be protected and preserved for future generations and for the advancement of the rare and protected species that inhabit it. With the worlds eyes on how we treat our own environment, to destroy this with developments, traffic and commerce wold do irreversible damage to our own biodiversity and would be a disgrace and black mark on us as a district .

Rural, pastoral or arable use land (particularly flood plains of stambridge) should never be considered for massive housing developments. Use brownfield sites.

no more housing our roads and school cannot take anymore people and traffic. also this is a quiet area and is the reason i live here. we do not even have a shop and we have no regular public transport so will have many more cars around the area

Housing would be a complete travesty. This is flood plain, agricultural green belt. With global warming set to raise river levels over the next decade, to build over soil that can absorb 20x its own weight in water, would leave our older homes at serious risk. The wildlife around the marsh and meadowlands is 2nd to none & we regularly watch everything from hawks, badgers, pipistrelles, herons & more. This river flooding over the centuries has produced some of the most fertile agricultural land in England. It is the bread basket of the country & should be kept as such

This is an area of huge environmental impact in terms of the wildlife, flora and fauna of Essex
There are many unique and protected species here and we have a duty of care not to disrupt, destroy or disturb this unique habitat

See answer for Question 62a.
1) unstable ground surrounded by flood plain
2) destruction of local flora and fauna
3) the roads going into Great Stambridge are not in the best condition nor very safe for pedestrians.

No further development should take place on greenbelt land. All green belt sites should be removed from the local plan.

There should be no further building in the district without the necessary infrastructure being in place. The Council should be pushing back to national government for their investment in roads, schools, gps, hospital before agreeing to further development.

The plots are on farm land and two are on flood plains. We have problems with the rain water drainage along Stambridge Road. The impact of extra houses will result in many more cars (as our public transport links are poor), which will reduce the number of cyclists using the area - as the roads are very narrow here.
With the current fields, we have a large amount of wildlife, bats, marsh harriers, barn owls, badgers, voles who live in the local area - additional building will drive them out.
Additional housing will stop the small village feel of Stambridge.

None of the plots of land suggested for Stambridge should be used for either housing or commercial properties. Building additional housing would increase the demand on drains and water run-off into loccal rivers, increasing the risk of flooding

Plot CFS141 could be used to increase woodland in the village. It would provide multiple benefits such as wildlife habitats, store carbon to help support climate change and soak up water in its roots to reduce the risk/impact of flooding. Bridal paths and public footpaths could be added to encourage more residents to exercise and enjoy outdoor spaces

Sorry I dont agree that the community is set up to support more people. We'd lose valuable biodiversity, important farming land and the character of the village that the residents treasure. I fear the road and water runoff capacity could not meet extra demand and that unless there was significant growth we couldn't justify new facilities like a bigger school or healthcare. The village is happy to share the environment with other district residents but has little to offer any new residents especially younger families or youths and young people.

Open space would benefit residents but also visitors. We are members at RHS Hyde hall, could land CFS141 be used for something similar? There is an abundance of wildlife surround the village, in our little corner of cagefield we often see hedgehogs, pheasants, badgers, hares and birds of prey, yearly we have the Brent geese migrate here for several weeks. During lockdown we had numberous visitors to the village for exercise, having areas for parking, designated walking routes, better explained public footpaths, children’s playgrounds, could benefit the wider community.

Building more housing will destroy wildlife habitats.

The area is also on a flood plain so all of Stambridge will be at increased risk of flooding, including the existing housing.

The traffic in the local area is already bad. Increasing housing will make this worse.

A new children’s playground would be beneficial, it would also be a nice place for people to visit.

As a resident of Great Stambridge, I am deeply concerned, disheartened and upset at the proposal of building 550 houses in and around Great Stambridge.

The impact on the residents of Great Stambridge and all the surrounding population would be devastating. The traffic would double on a road that is not built for the traffic that travels on it now, the increase in population would put a strain on the already struggling infrastructure, doctors, schools etc and people’s mental health would be affected by the restrictions in the beautiful green space that we have - a reason my family purchased our house in this area. At present there are no ways to monitor speeds on the roads and people already speed through the village dangerously - this would increase the risks of serious accidents and collisions on the road. I also note that no plan has been made for extra schools or facilities such a leisure’s centres in the area despite the huge increase in population the development would bring - again disheartening.

The objection where the natural environment is concerned should be obvious, the proposed developments would DESTROY local meadows, marshland and therefore habitats of the beautiful birds wildlife that live in this area. I question why this has not been thought of that given the drive for the protection of animals going extinct worldwide??

The village is also built almost entirely on a flood plain and the proposed developments would present numerous issues, you only need to visit in high tide to see this....

As the mother of a young baby I hoped to provide a safe and tranquil environment for them to grow up in but would consider if this was possible given these proposals......

A. Stonebridge
Comments relate to the sites around Stonebridge, as far as CFS260AD, CFS26AB and CFS260AE to the west and CFS260L, CFS260Tand CFS260K to the east.
Sites commented upon: CFS260B; CFS260H ; CFS260C; CFS260J; CFS260F; CFS260L; CFS260T; CFS260K ; CFS260I; CFS071; CFS103; CFS260G; CFS260AH; CFS260AF; CFS260AE; CFS260AB; CFS260AD
Development on these sites is objected to on the following grounds:
• 76% (13) of the 17 sites have parts of the site in a critical drainage area.
• In all sites, development would result in high harm to the Green Belt.
• For all sites, based on the Landscape Character, Sensitivity and Capacity Study, the majority of the site falls within only the medium capacity category for accommodating development.
• In 76% (13) of the sites part of the site falls within a minerals safeguarding area.
• The DEFRA provisional agricultural land classification (ALC) Natural England Open Data maps updated April 2017 show the area as almost entirely Grade 1 agricultural land. All sites are described in the Rochford DC Site Appraisal Paper as containing Grade 1-3 agricultural land in the majority of the site.
• In terms of the impact of development on archaeology and built heritage, the Rochford District Council ‘Rochford District Historic Environment Characterisation Project’, March 2006 describes the area as characterised by known dispersed medieval farms and associated fields, with potential likelihood of extensive archaeological deposits. It states that the coherence of dispersed settlement and structure of the historic landscape, together with potential buried deposits, would suffer if significant change occurred.
• Access to bus services is graded by the Transport Assessment as 1 for all sites, indicating transport sustainability as low, with no bus services received at stops within 400m.
• Access to train services is graded by the Transport Assessment as ‘2’ for 15 of the 17 sites – with access at least 2.3 km from a train station (2 sites are graded 1 – more than 5km from a train station).
• 4 sites are graded in the bottom 40% of site options close to junctions onto the strategic road network; 11 are not in the top 40% of site options closest to junctions onto the strategic road network.
• There is a significant amount of land being promoted in Stonebridge and Sutton, the vast majority not adjacent to existing communities. Stonebridge should remain an independent hamlet with its own character and sense of community. Any development should be strictly in keeping with the character of the hamlet and take inspiration from its individual rural and low-density character. The existing community of Stonebridge has very low need for new services such as education, healthcare, retail and jobs, which are easily accessible to inhabitants in Southend and further afield.

B. Stambridge
Comments relate to sites CFS072; CFS073; CFS141.
Development on these sites is objected to on the following grounds:
• All sites have parts of the site in a critical drainage area.
• In all sites, development would result in high harm to the Green Belt.
• For sites CFS072 and CFS073, based on the Landscape Character, Sensitivity and Capacity Study, the majority of each site falls within the low-medium capacity category for accommodating development. Site CFS141 falls in the medium capacity category.
• Part of each site falls within a minerals safeguarding area.
• The DEFRA provisional agricultural land classification (ALC) Natural England Open Data maps updated April 2017 show the area as Grade 2 agricultural land. All sites are described in the Rochford DC Site Appraisal Paper as containing Grade 1-3 agricultural land in the majority of the site.
• In terms of the impact of development on archaeology and built heritage, the Rochford District Council ‘Rochford District Historic Environment Characterisation Project’, March 2006 describes the area as characterised by archaeological deposits and features of multi-period date with a number of medieval moated sites. There is a focus of prehistoric and Roman activity centred on the settlement of Great Stambridge, which itself possesses a church of Saxon origin. World War II and Cold War Military remains lie on the periphery of the built-up area of Rochford. Historic dispersed settlement, with known medieval farms and associated fields and an overall structure of tracks and roads survives well. There is a potential likelihood of extensive archaeological deposits, and the coherence of the dispersed settlement and the structure of historic landscape, together with potential buried deposits would suffer if significant change occurred.
• Access to bus services is graded by the Transport Assessment as ‘2’ for all sites, indicating transport sustainability as low, with only 1-3 bus services received at stops within 400m.
• Access to train services is graded by the Transport Assessment as ‘2’ for all sites – with access between 2.3 km and 5 km from a train station.
• All sites are graded in the bottom 20% of site options closest to junctions onto the strategic road network.
• The draft vision statement for Great Stambridge states that in 2050, it should remain an independent village with its own character and sense of community. It should benefit from improved accessibility to wider services in Rochford town, but any development should be strictly in keeping with the character of the village and be of a form and type that responds to the individual needs of the village. We do not believe that significant development of any of the above three sites would achieve these aims.

Site No CFS072 – 167 houses proposed (field to the right looking up Cagefield Rd)
Site No CFS073 – 74 houses proposed (field on the left looking up Cagefield Rd)
Site No CFS141 – 231 houses proposed (fields at Stewards Elm Farm)
Site No CFS113 – Mill Lane – 39 houses proposed
Site No CFS114 – Behind the Cherry Tree – 39 houses proposed

In terms of objections to the proposals to build 550 homes in and around the area of Great Stambridge, Rochford…where to begin as there are so many!!

With three generations of my family having lived in Great Stambridge since 1982 (and many others here able to say the same) I can vouch for the fact that this is a very tight knit rural community with strong ties to the surrounding countryside. A countryside that they rely on for work, for equilibrium of the environment and for mental health and that they will defend and protect to their last breath

To quote the Council’s own information –

“The Village of Great Stambridge lies on the north bank of the River Roach. On its northern and western boundary, Little Stambridge. It has numerous creeks and inlets interspersed with saltings and old oyster pits. With its water meadows, landscapes and riverside walks, Stambridge is one of the most picturesque areas of Rochford Hundred – tranquil, and in parts – lonely and desolate, its scenes of natural beauty untouched by time”

This quote speaks for itself and people who live here know well that the village is built almost entirely on a flood plain and therefore building any further dwellings would be the utmost folly and present numerous issues. Should the Council be in any doubt, then a visit to the river bank at high tide or a view of the flood scarring on Google maps should be enough to convince you. If not a conversation with local farmers on the need to dig double ditches at times of inclement weather to cope with the enormity of “run off” from the very fields being proposed for new housing should be in order.

The objection where the natural environment is concerned should therefore also be obvious given the nature of the surrounding countryside. The proposed housing and accompanying population increase, pet predator increase, traffic increase, construction works etc would decimate the local flora and fauna. As well as the beautiful and unique meadow and marshland landscapes, we have many species of wading and marshland birds and mammals who’s populations would be destroyed, some of which are rare and protected.

Only a couple of miles down river the RSPB have the Wildlife Project for just this very reason and throughout my time here, badgers, foxes, herons, swallows, swifts, woodpeckers of all shapes and sizes, water voles, pipistrel bats and even on rare occasions the odd muntjac deer have been seen in the surrounding copses and meadows. Their survival and that of their environment is of even more importance given the current Environmental awareness.....data from the RSPB Wildlife Project, the Essex Field Club and numerous other environmental organisations would bear this out

The impact on the residents of Stambridge and all the surrounding population would be equally as devastating. More than double the traffic on the rural roads not designed for such loads, the increase of population on the infrastructure such as Doctor’s surgeries, dentists, schools etc would further compound already straining facilities and this does not take into account the individual affects to mental health that the additional noise, crime and decimation of their views, way of life and tranquillity would bring…… (often the reason for purchasing in such a secluded setting in the first place)

With the current nationwide push to preserve our heritage and the natural environment, I find it bewildering that despite there being evidence that Stambridge has survived as a village from as far back as the Iron Age, through the Saxons and down through the ages via numerous conquests, it will now be the Conservative Council and Government which begins its destruction and decline as it is gradually absorbed into an ever expanding building site that has become Rochford which is fast becoming a local disgrace.

Please rethink the options that are available to us to become a beacon of Environment awareness and protection. This is not only prime agricultural land (with Essex being the bread basket of the country) but is so rich and diverse in its heritage and wildlife because of its proximity to the Roach, that to do anythng more with this land that protect it would be an utter travesty

I and many of my fellow villagers have always been lifelong Conservative voters, but should proposals to build move any further, it will be the very last time my cross will be seen next to a Conservative candidate and I know I speak for many others here.

Proposal Objection
Site No CFS141 – 231 houses proposed (fields at Stewards Elm Farm)
Site No CFS072 – 167 houses proposed (field to the right looking up Cagefield Rd)
Site No CFS073 – 74 houses proposed (field on the left looking up Cagefield Rd)
Site No CFS113 – Mill Lane – 39 houses proposed
Site No CFS114 – Behind the Cherry Tree – 39 houses proposed
Having found it very hard to navigate your Spatial Options website in order to object (not everyone is IT literate enough to understand your objection site……but many residents are of the opinion that was precisely the intention!) I though it best to email my objections to your proposals to build on the above listed sites

I am sure by now you have heard all the obvious objections…..yes, our homes are built on an existing flood plain. Therefore to any sensible thinking person, it would be extremely unwise to build anything further on it. The farmers help to minimise risk during bad weather with double ditches etc to help run off and the open land around us helps too as the rate of water soak up is 20 times what it would be if the area was built on.

However, the Environmental Report released only this week should give us all cause to rethink how we are doing things. The sea and river levels are predicted to rise over the next two decades, making living in coastal or river flood plains even more risky. Large scale weather events resulting in flooding are set to become more and more frequent (our own summer so far being an obvious sign and set to get worse) and the only defence we have against our homes being destroyed in the future, is the large expanses of open land around us. Take that away and you leave us and any future residents open to disaster, huge insurance bills and misery

The contractors are only interested in buying cheap agricultural land, throwing up as many houses as possible and making as much money as possible. The councils priority appears to be fulfilling Government housing quotas however they possibly can, with the Government giving little thought to the disastrous impact heir actions may have on the people that already live here….places that they themselves have never visited, don’t live in and are just a blue patch on their map

Our way of life is simple, with no amenities or frills but our community is strong, historic and beautiful and we are very proud of our roots here which for many of us go back over generations. The information you have for us seems very inaccurate. Even your documents covering the 1-5 ratings for access to facilities out here is wrong, with Primary school rating as a 4 (good) Anyone who knows this village well would know we have one primary school….difficult to access unless you drive and with the capacity for only 84 pupils and already has 95!!! Just how many of these 550 homes are likely to have children wanting to go to an already over subscribed village school!!!!

I could go on listing the ways in which this proposal is utter folly and how your rating system is inaccurate but I think the Council is well aware
I would urge you therefore to look to build on more suitable sites, brown sites, old commercial sites and spend money on getting old unoccupied property up to scratch and inhabited. Building on Greenbelt should always be prohibited lest this “green and pleasant land” become nothing more that concrete. Leave the Ward Council some credibility with its voting public

Proposal Objections
I am emailing to register my objections to the following site proposals as a resident of Great Stambridge but wasn’t able to navigate your objections website Im afraid. Therefore it is being emailed from work and my personal email address is at the bottom

Site No CFS141 – 231 houses proposed (fields at Stewards Elm Farm)
Site No CFS072 – 167 houses proposed (field to the right looking up Cagefield Rd)
Site No CFS073 – 74 houses proposed (field on the left looking up Cagefield Rd)

I have spent the best part of my whole life in this village and what you are suggesting will destroy it completely
At the moment we are a small but very tight community, with most of my neighbours having lived here for generations. I understand people don’t like change but in this instance the proposed change would most definitely not be progress…..it would be destruction and devastation.

Destruction of the wildlife that surrounds us, their habitats and breeding grounds, the quiet country walks and solitude that made this place so valuable to all the surrounding residents during the last couple of years of Lockdowns.

Especially now, more than ever before, our Greenbelt and open spaces need to be protected and we, as the people who live here (and our councillors as our elected representatives) have a duty of care to this area, to recognise its value and that we have a chance to do our part to help the environment by protecting it for future generations.

This should be a wildlife preserve where herons, hawks, woodpeckers, pipistrelles, voles, dormice, hedgehogs, badgers and all the amazing things that are seen here on a daily basis can be encouraged to multiply and their species logged, counted and encouraged, away from the ravages of building contractors who are only looking to make money. They don’t know us, care about our lives and jobs here or worry about the environmental impact of their greed. As the people we voted for to be our voice, you need to listen to what is being said. There is only one chance to get this right or go down in history as the Government who accelerated the destruction of many of our native species and the rural way of life, ignoring the environmental and historical impact in favour of money and housing

Great Stambridge - Objection
Re -
Site No CFS141 – 231 houses proposed (fields at Stewards Elm Farm)
Site No CFS072 – 167 houses proposed (field to the right looking up Cagefield Rd)
Site No CFS073 – 74 houses proposed (field on the left looking up Cagefield Rd)

I am a resident of Cagefield Road, Great Stambridge and have asked my neighbour to email my objection as I do not have internet access but feel it is important for those who do not live here to understand this village before making decisions for its future.

My parents moved here in the late 50's with me and four siblings being born here during the 60's. Myself and one brother are now the only ones that remain but both of us have bought up families here. My brother had two children, whilst myself and my wife raised a family of four. The village provides a very safe environment for small children, who were able to play in the street together and on their bikes without fear of traffic or strangers, in and out of each others houses, with all the parents keeping an eye open for each other's children and really bringing to life the saying "It takes a village"...... Sounds idyllic?

However, there was always the issue that the village lacked facilities, with a very infrequent bus service, no shops, doctors or police close at hand, few pavements to make walking into town or to the local primary school safely possible and no amenities for the children. This became exacerbated as they grew older, with many having to travel considerable distances to school, via several buses and trains, unable to have friends from outside the village as transport was so difficult and inclement weather events like snow, cutting the village off entirely. In short their lives become very insular as they grow up, which often then leads to trouble. Some became involved in vandalism or anti social behaviour, whilst others became depressed and withdrawn. By todays standards, a mental health disaster.

In short, living in the village without transport of your own, or the time to continuously ferry your children out of the village for social outlets, education or extra curricular activity to keep them busy and entertained makes life for all generations out here extremely difficult and during school holidays, almost impossible. Compound that with the youth from 550 further houses in this area, without a considerable amount of money spent on transport, sports, educational and entertainment facilities, doctors, shops, pavements etc, would be inviting a disastrous social situation. The local primary school is already oversubscribed, with 95 pupils instead of the 84 that they were built to house, so building without massive investment in the infrastructure is an extremely short sighted undertaking. Having bought up four children here, who now have children of their own, I speak from experience.

Even from an adult point of view, during Lockdown, it has been impossible for many to work from home, as whilst BT boast superfast broadband running along the main road, they have neglected to upgrade the lines to our homes from the original aluminium lines to copper. This means that whilst we can sign up for this apparent "upgrade", our lines are unable to take the data capacity, resulting in extremely slow speed, buffering, lagging and freezing continuously. An issue we have begged BT to rectify for many years now, with no success as they are not willing to invest the finances.....a situation I fear will be repeated by many who simply want to make instant money from the housing, without the necessary investment. Hence many of us dont even bother with the expense of an internet which is not fit for purpose. Mobile phone reception here is non existent, so whilst we can marvel at satellites that enable Chris Hadfield to sing Ground Control to Major Tom from the Space Station, we are unable to phone an neighbour 5 doors down without sitting on the front doorstep and not moving a muscle.......again, everyone wants to make money without it costing them anything.

I appreciate these sites have to be proposed but would ask that without the experience of actually bringing up families out here, that the council listen whole heartedly to those who have. We love village life, the rural jobs, the solitude and amazing wildlife but for the younger generations, this is not a life to condemn them to without being prepared to accept the negative consequences of these actions..............and there will be many. What will be easy money for a construction company and the landowner, will prove to be a future money pit and social dilemma for the council and the residents.

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


OBJECT

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

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

I live in Ashtree house, ashtree court. It is a farmhouse that dates back to 1840 There are barely any foundations due to its age. This property is showing as 9ft above sea level and is built on a high flood risk. Building on land prone to flooding is a risk to new homeowners and compounds the danger for surrounding areas.

The whole of Ashtree court range from the measurements of 9ft - 15ft above sea level which is seriously low and a high flood risk.

My neighbour in Mille Fleurs has a storm drain in her garden of which we are also connected and they overflow.
Due to the age of Ashtree house, all our waste and water flows into one drain of which overflows 2-3 times a year from heavy rain of which is mixed with sewage.

Our direct neighbour Holly Cottage has a colony of Common pipistrelle bats residing in their loft of which will be disturbed by the noise of new developments and the removal of tress and hedgerows.

Our house - Ashtree house, Holly cottage and Mille fleurs overlook beautiful peaceful fields of which were the primary reason of purchasing and we would become overlooked with a loss of privacy, and loss of daylight.
The schools in the area are already oversubscribed and Stambridge road and Ashingdon road is already at a standstill with traffic at peak times

1.0 Introduction

1.1 These representations are submitted to the Rochford Local Plan Spatial Options (RLPSO) on behalf of Generator Group and in respect of Stewards Elm Farm, Great Stambridge (‘the Site’).

1.2 The Site has previously been submitted in response to the Council’s Call for Sites, and is reference CFS141 in the Council’s plan-making process.

1.3 The Site is being promoted for residential development to form a sustainable and proportionate extension to the village of Great Stambridge.

1.4 Detailed proposals have yet to be prepared for the Site, instead, we would welcome further discussions with the Council regarding what scale of development is considered appropriate to help sustain the vitality of the village, and what other benefits to the community are sought which development of the Site could assist in delivering.



 
2.0 Response to Local Plan Spatial Options Consultation Questions

Q4. Do you agree with the strategic priorities and objectives we have identified? Is there anything missing from the strategic priorities or objectives that you feel needs to be included?

2.1 The RLPSO recognises that affordability of housing is an issue in the District, stating on page 12:

“The affordability of all housing is an issue constraining the ability for residents to afford homes in the area. The average house costs around ten times the average annual income of a Rochford resident, which has increased significantly from around five times 20 years ago and is significantly above the national average”.

2.2 The ONS reports that the median house price in the District in 2020 was 11.57 times the median gross annual workplace-based earnings (‘the affordability ratio’). This suggests affordability of housing in the District is significantly worse than the national average.

2.3 The affordability of housing has worsened significantly in recent years – and to a much greater extent than the national average. In 2000, the affordability ratio for the District was 5.08 – only slightly worse than the national average of 4.13. By 2020, the national affordability ratio had increased to 7.69 – significantly below the District’s 11.57.

2.4 Additionally, and whilst empirical data is currently limited, the longer term impact on housing demand resulting from the Covid-19 pandemic may well impact significantly on Rochford’s housing market and affordability of homes for local people. Early indications are that there has already been an increased desire to move from more urban to less urban areas; and for homes with larger garden areas and home offices, better access to open space, and within less densely populated areas.

2.5 At the same time, the situation has forced many employers (although not within all sectors) to adapt and enable home-working. Whilst it is largely anticipated that there will be a degree of return to office-working, it is expected that the need for employees to be physically present within a particular office will be substantially reduced.

2.6 As a consequence, it is anticipated that many more people will be prepared to live considerably further from their place of work. This is of particular relevance to Rochford, as London is accessible via railway services from parts of the District; and house prices are relatively affordable when compared to other areas in and around London.
2.7 As a consequence, the area could prove an increasingly popular destination for those migrating out of higher density areas in and around London. This in turn is likely to put considerable pressure on the housing market. If insufficient homes are provided, it is also likely to result in a significant worsening of affordability, particularly for the District’s more rural communities.

2.8 We support Strategic Objective 4:

“To facilitate accelerated growth in our local economy through supporting the delivery of suitably located land which meets businesses needs at each stage of their lifecycle (including delivering grow-on space to enable local businesses to flourish), the continued functioning of London Southend Airport as a thriving regional airport, serving London and the South East, as well as supporting the continued growth and innovation at the Airport Business Park”

2.9 We suggest that, in addition, this objective should recognise the critical role house-building plays in supporting the local economy, and the economic benefits house building would have for the District.

2.10 As the RLPSO recognises on page 26, areas within which new homes are built have the potential to see significant additional expenditure and job creation.

2.11 Employment relating directly to the construction of the development will have positive economic and social impacts; as will jobs relating to the supply chain which will be supported. Construction is an important part of the local economy in the District: the 2011 Census recorded that 10.5% of employed residents in Rochford District were working in the construction industry.

2.12 Development of additional homes in the District will also engender sustained local economic benefits relating to additional local expenditure, with additional expenditure on goods and services by future occupiers of new homes on first occupation, on home set up cost, and on an ongoing basis in local shops and services in the area.

2.13 Conversely, failure to deliver sufficient homes for the District would not only result in a failure to support the local construction industry and failure to realise the potential opportunities outlined above, it would also likely significantly deter inward investment by potential employers, if insufficient, affordable accommodation was not available locally to provide a local workforce.
Q6. Which of the identified strategy options do you consider should be taken forward in the Plan?

2.14 Given the market and affordable housing needs, affordability issues and heritage and environmental constraints in the District, it is important that the overall strategy seeks to provide a wide range of housing options throughout the Plan period in suitable locations. As such, the strategy should utilise a range of different sites to maximise options to bring forward these new homes and associated infrastructure. It will be important that, for whichever spatial strategy is ultimately chosen, the Local Plan directs a proportion of growth to the District’s smaller settlements.

2.15 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) calls on policies to enable smaller settlements to grow and thrive, and for growth to be located in rural areas where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities.

2.16 In order for the Local Plan to promote sustainable development, it is necessary for it to direct a proportion of the District’s housing growth to its smaller settlements – the NPPF is clear that planning should support smaller rural communities, and allow them to thrive.

2.17 Great Stambridge is an established rural community with a population of 700 (as per Census 2011). As such, it is important that the Local Plan allows it to grow and thrive, including by directing some growth to the village.

2.18 The RLPSO recognises Great Stambridge as an important settlement for its key centre of population. It benefits from a good level of services / provision facilities / service provision for a settlement of its size, noting that it has a primary school, church and village hall. In addition, it also benefits from a public houses and bus services to larger nearby centres, including Rochford and Southend. It is important for the village and its existing community that such facilities are sustained, and the provision of some growth to the village will greatly assist in this regard. The danger is that, if the Local Plan fails to direct any growth towards such smaller settlements, then like many villages in recent years, it will struggle to retain the services it does have. The loss of such facilities / services would of course be of significant detriment to existing residents, as well as the vitality and sustainability of the remaining community.

2.19 The RLPSO suggests that the vision for Great Stambridge includes that it should remain an independent village with its own sense of community. To achieve this, we suggest it will be important to direct some housing growth to the village over the plan period.
2.20 Any strategy which seeks to ensure any additional housing is directed to Great Stambridge would require alterations to the Green Belt boundary, which is currently drawn tightly around the existing residential envelope in the current Development Plan.

2.21 The NPPF confirms (paragraph 140) that Local Plans are the appropriate vehicle through which the make alterations to the Green Belt boundary, provided there are exceptional circumstances which are fully evidenced and justified.

2.22 Exceptional circumstances are not defined in national policy or guidance.

2.23 However, there is case law which provides a basis for the consideration of the issue. In particular, the judgment in Calverton Parish Council v Nottingham City Council & Ors [2015] EWHC 1078 (Admin) suggests (paragraph 51) that the following matters are relevant in the consideration of whether exceptional circumstances exist to justify alterations to the Green Belt:

• The scale of the objectively assessed need;
• Constraints on supply/availability of land with the potential to accommodate sustainable development;
• Difficulties in achieving sustainable development without impinging on the Green Belt;
• The nature and extent of the harm to the Green Belt; and
• The extent to which impacts on the purposes of the Green Belt may be mitigated as far as practicable.

2.24 The District is subject to an acute local housing need. The existing Green Belt boundary is drawn tightly around the District’s existing settlements, and opportunities to meet development needs are severely restricted without alterations to the Green Belt boundary. This is clearly demonstrated through Spatial Option 1, which sets out that around 4,300 homes could be provided without releasing land from the Green Belt, being a shortfall of around 3,000 homes compared to the identified need. Furthermore, only 800 of these are expected to be affordable homes. With an affordable need of up to 296 homes per year, this would only meet 2.7 years of the need.

2.25 To meet both market and affordable housing needs, it is clear that the District can only feasibly achieve this through the release of Green Belt land.

2.26 Given the scale of objectively assessed need faced by the District, and the lack of potential alternatives to releasing Green Belt in order to sustainably meet such needs, it is evident that there are exceptional circumstances that justify alteration to the Green Belt through the Rochford Local Plan.

Q62a. Do you agree with our vision for Great Stambridge? Is there anything you feel is missing?

2.27 We support the broad thrust of the propose vision for Great Stambridge, but suggest it would benefit from making specific reference to seeking to ensure the existing facilities and services in the village are sustained and, where possible, enhanced; and that the vitality of the community is also supported.

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

2.28 National policy is clear on the importance of promoting thriving rural communities. The NPPF states at paragraph 79 that:

“Planning policies should identify opportunities for villages to grow and thrive, especially where this will support local services”.

2.29 In addition, the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) notes that housing in rural settlements can be important in ensuring their sustainability, and that villages in rural areas often face issues relating to housing supply and affordability. It states:

“People living in rural areas can face particular challenges in terms of housing supply and affordability, while the location of new housing can also be important for the broader sustainability of rural communities”.

2.30 Great Stambridge is considered an established rural community. Within the Settlement Role and Hierarchy Study (2021) Great Stambridge is categorised as ‘Tier 4: Other Villages’. However, as stated within the RLPSO, the ‘Tier 2’ Rochford and Ashingdon Town is less than a mile from the western edge of the village and provides an important service base for the population of Great Stambridge.

2.31 Such locations that already benefit from infrastructure and services with easy connectivity to higher scoring settlements are the type of rural settlement the NPPF encourages new housing to, to support the vitality of the area. As such, we consider it important that the Local Plan ensures the sustainable, proportionate growth of Great Stambridge as part of any option taken forwards.

2.32 To take advantage of the existing services and facilities, it will be important for any development to be well located in relation to the existing developed area of Great Stambridge. Such an approach also allows development to commence quickly given that significant infrastructure is not required to be delivered, which will be important to help meet housing need in the short and medium term.

2.33 In relation to Great Stambridge, Land at Stewards Elm Farm (reference CFS141) is located immediately adjacent to the existing developed area and is a logical extension to the settlement. It should, therefore, be utilised to provide new market and affordable homes to help meet identified needs and maintain the vitality of the rural area.

2.34 The Site comprises Stewards Elm Farm and surrounding grassland located to the west of Great Stambridge. It measures approximately 11.2 hectares in total and is relatively flat and featureless, with the exception of ponds and trees in the north-west; and trees / hedgerows around the site boundary.

2.35 The Site is not subject to any additional landscape-related policies that seek to restrict development other than the Green Belt, which is pertinent given the Coastal Protection Belt to the east.

2.36 Together with the Green Belt designation, parts of the Site are identified as being within Flood Zones 2 and 3. As stated above, detailed proposals are yet to be prepared for the Site but we are confident that development can be accommodated with suitable mitigation where necessary.

2.37 In terms of the designation of the Site within the Green Belt, it is important to consider the contribution it makes towards the Green Belt purposes. Rochford District and Southend-on-Sea Borough Joint Green Belt Study February 2020 (‘the Green Belt Study (2020)’) considered the Site as part of Parcel 79 in the Stage 1 Assessment. Parcel 79 is a large area of land covering the entire eastern side of Rochford and Ashingdon. Clearly an assessment of this size parcel of land has limited use when assessing specific sites given that the characteristics are very different. We would caution the Council against giving this weight in the assessment process. Instead, as identified through the Welwyn Hatfield Local Plan Examination, it is important that Green Belt is considered at a sufficient fine grain. In the Examination of the Welwyn Hatfield Local Plan, the Inspector advised as follows:

“The phase 1 Green Belt Review was at such a strategic level as to render its findings on the extent of the potential harm to the purposes of the Green Belt, caused by development within the large parcels considered as a whole, debatable when applied to smaller individual potential development sites adjacent to the urban areas. It goes without saying that a finer grained approach would better reveal the variations in how land performs against the purposes of the Green Belt. Such an approach is also more likely to reveal opportunities as well as localised constraints, both of which might reasonably be considered further”.

2.38 The Green Belt Study (2020) Stage 2 assessment did not consider the Site specifically in detail, with it considered as part of assessment area AA126. However, only a brief assessment was provided with an overall conclusion on the level of harm rather than a detailed assessment against each purpose of the Green Belt.

2.39 The Green Belt Study (2020) found that the Site makes a strong contribution to preventing encroachment on the countryside as it was considered predominantly uncontained, open and undeveloped and to have a strong relationship with the wider countryside due to a lack of significant boundary features. However, it should be noted that the Site does contain an existing dwelling and numerous large agricultural buildings. Further, it must be recognised that for any site not already within a built up area, these conclusions are highly likely to be similar.

2.40 The Site is bounded by existing residential development to the east, with formal tree lined and fenced boundaries to the south and west. As such, the boundaries of the Site are currently defined and through the development of the Site, these could be enhanced through new planting. As such, it is considered to have low potential to lead to unrestricted urban sprawl when considered against purpose 1 of the Green Belt.

2.41 In relation to purpose 2, the Site is some distance from the nearest other settlement, being approximately 1 mile from the edge of Rochford to the south west. Its development would not have any risk of either actual or perceived coalescence of Great Stambridge with any other settlement.

2.42 In respect of purpose 3, there is no existing, strong defensible boundary between the urban area and adjoining countryside. There are tree lined and fenced boundaries to the south and west but no dominant landscape features. Existing development is present and visible within the landscape, with the Site providing an opportunity to reframe this edge. The Site is not currently considered to strongly assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.

2.43 The Site is not subject to any heritage or ecological designations, but is in proximity to a Grade II listed building to the south east. This listed building is nestled amongst the existing built up residential area and separated from the Site by numerous existing buildings. Therefore, redevelopment of the Site would not be harmful to its immediate or wider setting. The Site makes no contribution towards preserving the setting and special character of historic towns in respect of purpose 4.

2.44 In respect of purpose 5, this is only applicable where development needs can be met in full on previously developed land. For Rochford District, this is not an option as the amount of market and affordable homes that could be delivered is significantly below the identified need.

2.45 Overall it is considered that the Site makes limited contribution towards the purposes of the Green Belt, and its residential development would not undermine the strategic purposes of the Green Belt.

2.46 The Council’s SHELAA 2017 considered that the Site is available and achievable, with the suitability dependent on an assessment of the Green Belt purposes. It was considered suitable in other regards subject to flood risk mitigation. As set out above, the Site is considered to make limited contribution towards the Green Belt purposes and detailed proposals for the Site would identify suitable flood risk mitigation where necessary. It should, therefore, be considered suitable, available and achievable.

2.47 The Site can deliver homes early in the Plan period to meet local and wider needs, whilst providing an important role in helping to maintain the vitality of the rural area and provide choice and new homes for local residents.

2.48 Overall, we consider that a balanced combination of utilising appropriate small scale and larger sites, on both brownfield and greenfield sites is the best approach to seek to meet identified housing needs within the District. This balanced approach provides opportunities to deliver housing close to existing communities, making use of existing sustainable locations whilst providing new homes for people in their local community.
 
3.0 Comments on Integrated Impact Assessment

Assessment Framework

3.1 At Table 1.1 of the Integrated Impact Assessment (IIA), the assessment framework is set out. This explains that the objectives of the population and communities theme are 1) to cater for existing and future residents’ needs as well as the needs of different groups in the community; and 2) maintain and enhance community and settlement identify.

3.2 In respective of objective 1, Table 1.1 explains that assessment questions relate to the following:

• Meet the identified objectively assessed housing needs, including affordable, for the plan area?
• Ensure an appropriate mix of dwelling sizes, types and tenures to meet the needs of all sectors of the community?
• Improve cross-boundary links between communities?
• Provide housing in sustainable locations that allow easy access to a range of local services and facilities?
• Promote the development of a range of high quality, accessible community facilities, including specialist services for disabled and older people?

3.3 We support the above decision-aiding question, but suggest that, in addition to meeting the District’s housing needs (including affordable housing), the Local Plan should seek to improve the affordability of housing for local residents.

3.4 The median house price in the District is 11.57 times the median gross annual workplace-based earnings (‘the affordability ratio’). The affordability of housing has worsened significantly in recent years – and to a much greater extent than the national average. In 2000, the affordability ratio for the District was 5.08 – only slightly worse than the national average of 4.13. By 2020, the national affordability ratio had increased to 7.69 – significantly below the District’s 11.57.

3.5 In addition, affordability is a concern in more rural areas of the District where limited housing growth and often ageing populations further exacerbate affordability issues.

3.6 The NPPF recognises the important of providing housing in rural areas, being clear that housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities and that policies should identify opportunities for villages to grow and thrive (paragraph 79).

3.7 The NPPF further recognises that housing growth in rural areas can support services, both in the local area and in nearby villages. The RLPSO recognises Great Stambridge as an important settlement for its key centre of population, benefiting from a good levels of services for its size. As recognised by the NPPF, it is important for the Local Plan to reflect the importance of these services and assist in maintaining their viability in the longer term. Providing additional housing to Great Stambridge provides an opportunity to do this, encouraging existing residents needing new housing and/or new residents to live in the area and spend money in the local economy.

3.8 The assessment questions in respect of objective 1 should therefore include recognition of the importance of providing housing in rural areas, to provide choice for residents, improve affordability and to support the vitality of services.

3.9 In respect of the assessment of the spatial strategy options within the IIA, under the population and communities theme it does not mention supporting rural communities. It refers to using brownfield land under option 1 and ‘transformative’ opportunities under options 2 and 3, referring to larger scale development. It does not consider or reflect that small scale development could be undertaken in rural areas and the importance of this for areas such as Great Stambridge.

3.10 The importance of providing housing in existing settlements and not relying on large allocations was highlighted in the recent examination of the Uttlesford Local Plan. The letter from the Inspectors highlighted that the proposed strategy of relying upon large Garden Communities could restrict housing delivery in the short to medium term and ‘would be likely to adversely affect the vitality and viability of services in existing towns and villages and result in a lack of housing choice in the market’ . This highlights the need to plan for housing in existing settlements, including smaller areas like Great Stambridge. Such considerations should be included in the assessment of spatial strategy options to be able to understand their impact across the District as a whole.

I believe any large site to the east of Ashingdon Road would put an unbearable strain on the surrounding roads. Access to these areas of Rochford are already restricted by poor road infrastructure. Crossing Ashingdon Road to head towards the A127 often requires that in you have to pass via pinch points created by narrow railway bridges in Hall Road & Rectory Road. The Ashingdon Road is already heavily congested with through traffic to and from Southend, at commuter times traffic often tails back from the Anne Boleyn pub to Rectory Road. Any roadworks, accidents or bin collections along the Ashingdon Road, Southend Road or Bradley Way results in Rochford town being grid locked with traffic queuing back to Stambridge Road/ Malting Villas Road junction.

We object to the proposed development of the following sites
CFS261 4447 Homes Land East of Oxford Road
CFS141 231 Homes Stewards Elm Farm Great
Stambridge
CFS116 411 Homes Land South Coombes Farm

CFS111 104 Homes Land North Coombes Grove

CFS124 63 Homes Land East Little Stambridge
Hall

I object to all the above sites as all would increase existing traffic problems on access routes via Ashingdon Road, Bradley Way the Rochford One Way system Stambridge Road and would have a negative impact to those living in these areas due to increase noise pollution and added inconvenience of negotiating more congested roads.

In addition the site CFS116 is not suitable for housing due to close proximity with the Purdeys Industrial estate any homes on Coombes with suffer from the industrial noises and odours of materials that are handled on the site. Should homes be built on Combes site said properties would be under the flight path to Southend Airport and as a result residents would be plagued by aircraft noise too.

I also raise objection to the any further development to areas
COL83 Millview Meadows
CFS050 Land Of Former Adult Community College
These areas are much used safe amenity for the local community and any loss of this green space would have a negative impact to all that enjoy use of this land.

I would support the following developments
CFS084 251 Homes Land South of Hall Road
CFS078 360 Homes Land West of Cherry Orchard

These sites will have little impact on the congested roads of Rochford Town, said sites would also have good access onto the A127 and the train station is easily walkable from these sites.

Of all the sites proposed we believe the sites closest to the A127 would be the best location for development
CFS121 1347 Homes Land North of A127
CFS222 3491 Homes Land Dollymans Farm

I feel these large developments in close proximity of A127 could provide new neighbourhoods built with all essential services like Schools Retail and Healthcare each neighbourhood could have its own unique identity.


I note the report states Rochford has an ageing population, we would hope that due consideration would be given to providing more homes suitable for the retired including bungalows and possibly retirement villages. At present it seems the only retirement properties being built in the area are in the form of blocks of flats, retirees may want a smaller property to suit their changing needs but not all want to give up a garden and be left with just a balcony, building homes suitable for the senior market would give opportunity for those occupying large family homes to move to more suitable accommodation and free up larger homes for young families.

I believe any large site to the east of Ashingdon Road would put an unbearable strain on the surrounding roads. Access to these areas of Rochford are already restricted by poor road infrastructure. Crossing Ashingdon Road to head towards the A127 often requires that in you have to pass via pinch points created by narrow railway bridges in Hall Road & Rectory Road. The Ashingdon Road is already heavily congested with through traffic to and from Southend, at commuter times traffic often tails back from the Anne Boleyn pub to Rectory Road. Any roadworks, accidents or bin collections along the Ashingdon Road, Southend Road or Bradley Way results in Rochford town being grid locked with traffic queuing back to Stambridge Road/ Malting Villas Road junction.

We object to the proposed development of the following sites
CFS261 4447 Homes Land East of Oxford Road
CFS141 231 Homes Stewards Elm Farm Great
Stambridge
CFS116 411 Homes Land South Coombes Farm

CFS111 104 Homes Land North Coombes Grove

CFS124 63 Homes Land East Little Stambridge
Hall

I object to all the above sites as all would increase existing traffic problems on access routes via Ashingdon Road, Bradley Way the Rochford One Way system Stambridge Road and would have a negative impact to those living in these areas due to increase noise pollution and added inconvenience of negotiating more congested roads.

In addition the site CFS116 is not suitable for housing due to close proximity with the Purdeys Industrial estate any homes on Coombes with suffer from the industrial noises and odours of materials that are handled on the site. Should homes be built on Combes site said properties would be under the flight path to Southend Airport and as a result residents would be plagued by aircraft noise too.

I also raise objection to the any further development to areas
COL83 Millview Meadows
CFS050 Land Of Former Adult Community College
These areas are much used safe amenity for the local community and any loss of this green space would have a negative impact to all that enjoy use of this land.

I would support the following developments
CFS084 251 Homes Land South of Hall Road
CFS078 360 Homes Land West of Cherry Orchard

These sites will have little impact on the congested roads of Rochford Town, said sites would also have good access onto the A127 and the train station is easily walkable from these sites.

Of all the sites proposed we believe the sites closest to the A127 would be the best location for development
CFS121 1347 Homes Land North of A127
CFS222 3491 Homes Land Dollymans Farm

I feel these large developments in close proximity of A127 could provide new neighbourhoods built with all essential services like Schools Retail and Healthcare each neighbourhood could have its own unique identity.


I note the report states Rochford has an ageing population, we would hope that due consideration would be given to providing more homes suitable for the retired including bungalows and possibly retirement villages. At present it seems the only retirement properties being built in the area are in the form of blocks of flats, retirees may want a smaller property to suit their changing needs but not all want to give up a garden and be left with just a balcony, building homes suitable for the senior market would give opportunity for those occupying large family homes to move to more suitable accommodation and free up larger homes for young families.

I believe any large site to the east of Ashingdon Road would put an unbearable strain on the surrounding roads. Access to these areas of Rochford are already restricted by poor road infrastructure. Crossing Ashingdon Road to head towards the A127 often requires that in you have to pass via pinch points created by narrow railway bridges in Hall Road & Rectory Road. The Ashingdon Road is already heavily congested with through traffic to and from Southend, at commuter times traffic often tails back from the Anne Boleyn pub to Rectory Road. Any roadworks, accidents or bin collections along the Ashingdon Road, Southend Road or Bradley Way results in Rochford town being grid locked with traffic queuing back to Stambridge Road/ Malting Villas Road junction.

We object to the proposed development of the following sites
CFS261 4447 Homes Land East of Oxford Road
CFS141 231 Homes Stewards Elm Farm Great
Stambridge
CFS116 411 Homes Land South Coombes Farm

CFS111 104 Homes Land North Coombes Grove

CFS124 63 Homes Land East Little Stambridge
Hall

I object to all the above sites as all would increase existing traffic problems on access routes via Ashingdon Road, Bradley Way the Rochford One Way system Stambridge Road and would have a negative impact to those living in these areas due to increase noise pollution and added inconvenience of negotiating more congested roads.

In addition the site CFS116 is not suitable for housing due to close proximity with the Purdeys Industrial estate any homes on Coombes with suffer from the industrial noises and odours of materials that are handled on the site. Should homes be built on Combes site said properties would be under the flight path to Southend Airport and as a result residents would be plagued by aircraft noise too.

I also raise objection to the any further development to areas
COL83 Millview Meadows
CFS050 Land Of Former Adult Community College
These areas are much used safe amenity for the local community and any loss of this green space would have a negative impact to all that enjoy use of this land.

I would support the following developments
CFS084 251 Homes Land South of Hall Road
CFS078 360 Homes Land West of Cherry Orchard

These sites will have little impact on the congested roads of Rochford Town, said sites would also have good access onto the A127 and the train station is easily walkable from these sites.

Of all the sites proposed we believe the sites closest to the A127 would be the best location for development
CFS121 1347 Homes Land North of A127
CFS222 3491 Homes Land Dollymans Farm

I feel these large developments in close proximity of A127 could provide new neighbourhoods built with all essential services like Schools Retail and Healthcare each neighbourhood could have its own unique identity.


I note the report states Rochford has an ageing population, we would hope that due consideration would be given to providing more homes suitable for the retired including bungalows and possibly retirement villages. At present it seems the only retirement properties being built in the area are in the form of blocks of flats, retirees may want a smaller property to suit their changing needs but not all want to give up a garden and be left with just a balcony, building homes suitable for the senior market would give opportunity for those occupying large family homes to move to more suitable accommodation and free up larger homes for young families.

Dear RDC Planners,
Whilst understanding the need for suitable areas for new housing purposes, Stambridge Parish Council
are opposed to the following sites put forward (except for item x) in the Stambridge Parish Council area:
i CFS072: Land South of Cagefield Road and East of Stambridge Road, Stambridge SS4 2
The Stambridge Parish Council are opposed because of the following:
A Greenfield and Greenbelt area consisting of agricultural land (6.84 Ha).
Constraints: SLA
Flood Risk: Zone 1 = m5.5 Ha / Zone 2 = 0.34 Ha / Zone 3 = 1 Ha.
The site falls within the Policy S8 of the Essex Mineral Plan
The site is located in the Metropolitan Green Belt and Coastal Protection Belt.
Not suitable as Employment Development potential
Has poor access to some basic services
Unknown suitability as it requires a Greenbelt Assessment and Landscape Character Assessment.
ii CFS073: Land North of Cagefield Road and East of Stambridge Road Stambridge SS4 2B
The Stambridge Parish Council are opposed because of the following:
A Greenfield and Greenbelt area consisting of agricultural land (2.63 Ha).
Constraints: SLA Other designations: AIR 45m, Air 15m.
Flood Risk: Zone 1 = 2.63 Ha.
The site falls within the Policy S8 of the Essex Mineral Plan
The site is located in the Metropolitan Green Belt and Coastal Protection Belt.
Not suitable as Employment Development potential
Has poor access to some basic services
Would be served by a narrow pavement-less, two lane country road.
Unknown suitability as it requires a Greenbelt Assessment and Landscape Character Assessment.
CLERK/RFO:
Mr B. Summerfield,
Stambridge Memorial Hall,
Stambridge Road,
Rochford, Essex. SS4 2AR.
clerk@stambridgepc.co.uk
01702 258566
Hm: bsummvint@hotmail.com
01702 549308
iii CFS111: Land North of Coombes Grove, Rochford. SS4 1DX
The Stambridge Parish Council are opposed because of the following:
A Greenfield and Greenbelt area consisting of agricultural land (3.99 Ha), power cables overhead.
Partially within the Flight Safety Area.
Constraints: None.
Flood Risk: Zone 1 = 3.99 Ha.
The site falls within the Policy S8 of the Essex Mineral Plan
The site is located in the Metropolitan Green Belt.
Not suitable as Employment Development potential
Legal constrains identified
Site abuts a narrow pavement-less, one lane private farm road,
Unknown suitability as it requires a Greenbelt Assessment
iv CFS112: Land to the West of Stambridge Mills, Mill Lane, Rochford. SS4 2AA
The Stambridge Parish Council are opposed because of the following:
A Greenfield and Greenbelt area consisting of agricultural land (3.17 Ha).
Constraints: None. Other designations: Partially within the Flight Safety Area.
Highways access required
Flood Risk: Zone 1 = 1.24 Ha. / Zone 2 = 0.68 Ha / Zone 3a or 3b = 1.25 Ha.
The site falls within the Policy S8 of the Essex Mineral Plan
Legal constrains identified and physical constraints re: density of development identified.
The site is located in the Metropolitan Green Belt.
Not suitable as Employment Development potential
Partially within the Flight Safety Area.
Would be served by a narrow pavement-less, one lane country road.
Unknown suitability as it requires a Greenbelt Assessment.
v CFS113: Land to the East of Mill Lane, Rochford. SS4 2A
The Stambridge Parish Council are opposed because of the following:
A Greenfield and Greenbelt area consisting of agricultural and grassed land (4.17 Ha), stream sub
divides in the north east.
Partially within the Flight Safety Area.
Constraints: None.
Flood Risk: Zone 1 = 0.97 Ha / Zone 2= 0.55 Ha / Zone 3a or 3b =2.65 Ha
The site falls within the Policy S8 of the Essex Mineral Plan
Legal constrains identified and physical constraints re: Flood risk above.
The site is located in the Metropolitan Green Belt and Coastal Protection Belt.
Not suitable as Employment Development potential
Would be served by a narrow pavement-less, one lane country road.
Unknown suitability as it requires a Greenbelt Assessment and Landscape Character Assessment.
vi CFS114: Land to the Rear of the Cherry Tree Pub, Stambridge Road, Rochford. SS4 2AF.
The Stambridge Parish Council are opposed because of the following:
A Greenfield and Greenbelt area consisting of Tree lined flat lawn area (1.35 Ha).
Constraints: None. Other designations: Impacted by Airport Flight Safety Zone.
Flood Risk: Zone 1 = 1.35 Ha
Proximity to a Grade 11 listed building.
The site falls within the Policy S8 of the Essex Mineral Plan
Legal constrains identified
The site is located in the Metropolitan Green Belt.
Airport Public Flight Safety Zone.
Not suitable as Employment Development potential
Unknown suitability as it requires a Greenbelt Assessment.
vii CFS116: Land South of Coombes Farm, Stambridge Road, Rochford. SS4 1
The Stambridge Parish Council are opposed because of the following:
A Greenfield and Greenbelt area consisting of agricultural land (20.45 Ha).
A single Pylon in place with associated power cables.
Constraints: None.
Flood Risk: Zone 1 = 20.45 Ha.
Highways access required
One TPO within site boundary
The site falls within the Policy S8 of the Essex Mineral Plan
The site is located in the Metropolitan Green Belt.
Not suitable as Employment Development potential
Legal constrains identified.
Unknown suitability as it requires a Greenbelt Assessment.
viii CFS124: Land East of Little Stambridge Hall Lane, Rochford. SS4 1EU.
The Stambridge Parish Council are opposed because of the following:
A Greenfield and Greenbelt area consisting of agricultural land (3.14 Ha).
Constraints: None. Other designations: Ancient Land, Airport Public Safety Zone, AIR all.
Highways access required
Flood Risk: Zone 1 = 3.14 Ha.
The site falls within the Policy S8 of the Essex Mineral Plan
Legal constrains identified
The site is located in the Metropolitan Green Belt.
Airport Public Flight Safety Zone.
Not suitable as Employment Development potential
Unknown suitability as it requires a Greenbelt Assessment.
ix CFS141: Stewards Elm Farm, Stewards Elm Farm Lane, Stambridge, Rochford. SS4 2BB.
The Stambridge Parish Council are opposed because of the following:
A Greenfield and Greenbelt area consisting of grazing land (9.8 Ha). with one dwelling and farm
buildings. Telegraph Poles Traversing the site.
Constraints: None. Other designations: Ancient Land.
Flood Risk: Zone 1 = 4.48 Ha / Zone 2 = 1.25 Ha / Zone 3a or 3b = 4.07 Ha.
The site falls within the Policy S8 of the Essex Mineral Plan
The site is located in the Metropolitan Green Belt.
Not suitable as Employment Development potential
Has mixed access to basic services.
Would be served by a narrow pavement-less, one lane country road.
Unknown suitability as it requires a Greenbelt Assessment.
x CFS104/BFR3: Stambridge Mills, Mill Lane, Stambridge. SS4 2AA
The Stambridge Parish Council agree with the proposed site development:
A Brownfield Site (1.8 Ha).
Constraints: None.
Flood Risk: Zone 2 = 0.44 Ha / 3a-3b = 1.36 Ha.
The site falls within the Policy S8 of the Essex Mineral Plan
Physical constraints re: density of development identified.
Not suitable as Employment Development potential
Would be served by a narrow pavement-less, one lane country road

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.)