Core Strategy Submission Document

Rochford District Residents is a Registered Political Party
Councillor John Mason, Representing the Hawkwell West Ward

This is a representation that the Submission Version of the Rochford Core Strategy is UNSOUND because the location of South Hawkwell and a quantum of 175 houses does not meet the principles and conditions set out in the Core Strategy and that the development is not deliverable in terms of the sustainability criteria of PPS12 and Policy PPS3.

I would like to participate at the oral examination.

The "Location" name of South Hawkwell chosen in the Core Strategy throughout the whole process of consultation has been seriously misleading to the public because the whole of South Hawkwell is included within the District Council Electoral Ward of Hawkwell West which is recognised whilst South Hawkwell is not and can be easily confused with the District Ward of Hawkwell South. I have made representations about this and the Council has declined to make the appropriate change to the Core Strategy.

The Core Strategy specifically refers to protecting the character of existing settlements and specifically 'seeks to take advantage of development opportunities that will provide social, economic and environmental benefits'. No such benefits apply to this Location and development would be materially detrimental to the character of the existing rural settlement in Hawkwell West.

It also states 'there is a limit to how much infilling and intensification existing settlements can sustain without their character being adversely affected'. This proposal will adversely affect the character of the existing rural settlement in Hawkwell West.

"The character, layout and form of groups of buildings, streets and spaces make a significant contribution to providing a sense of place and adding to the quality of life in town and country. Residents have a strong sense of identity with their own settlement" Source: RDC, Statement of Place 2008

The Core Strategy says that it is to 'locate development in areas where alternatives to car use are more viable', 'reduce the requirement to travel', and 'accompany any development with requisite highway infrastructure to 'mitigate their impact on the existing network'. It is not possible to do this in Hawkwell West as there is no significant space for development of local roads, especially in Rectory Road, and any development here would increase the requirement to travel, especially by car.

Moving on to Public Transport the Core Strategy states that 'planning should be well related to existing public transport where possible'. There is just one bus route which runs during the daytime (there is no evening service) to and from Southend/Rayleigh with one per hour with no prospect of Arriva providing an appropriate service in the long term. Long term is emphasised because a temporary or fixed period contract/service is not a sustainable service.

This Location is one where the Portfolio Holder has now acknowledged at a Central Area Committee, District Council Meeting that development is "difficult".

It should, therefore, not have been included in the Core Strategy as a Preferred Option and does not warrant the designation of Tier 1 or 2.

Here is a very brief summary of these issues and because of this development at this quantum is not deliverable in terms of the sustainability criteria of PPS12 or under PPS3.

Travel
- limited public transport
- increased car use causing heavy congestion
- inability to improve highways
- distance from shops
- distance from rail stations

Environment
- semi rural location unsuitable for large development
- complete loss of character
- loss of green belt
- loss of wildlife

- NO social, economic or environmental benefits whatsoever

Having set out a summary I now wish to extend my representation to the detail which is necessary for the Planning Inspector to review the proposal against PPS12 and PPS3.

This letter also represents the collective views of the strong opposition that has been expressed by residents of my Ward through the many letters and emails that have been sent to me and what they have said at four public meetings.

As a Ward Councillor I did not support the proposal of 330 houses in South Hawkwell previously put forward in the Core Strategy and nor do I support 175 because the infrastructure to sustain the development under PPS12 still has been grossly underestimated. Yes, it is difficult to justify the development of a housing estate in this Location. A housing estate under the Government requirements of PP12 expects "mixed use and high density development". This cannot be achieved in this Location. I shall explain why.

"Rochford District is predominantly rural with three larger urban areas and a number of smaller settlements." Source: RDC, Statement of Place 2008

Hawkwell West (South Hawkwell) is not one of the three larger urban areas and is a smaller semi rural settlement which under PPS3 is where "the mix of housing should contribute to the creation of mixed communities having regard to the proportions of households that require market or affordable housing and the existing mix of housing in the locality".

The population profile of Hawkwell West is as follows: Source: Office of National Statistics

0-16 22%
16-24 6.5%
24-30 4%
30-44 23%
45-59 22%
60-90 21%

Lone parent families only account for 5% in Hawkwell West as against other Wards which are double that. Source: RDC, Statement of Place 2008.

"The District is one with an ever increasing percentage of older residents." "The percentage of older people aged over 65-84 is predicted to increase by 53%" "The population of Rochford is expected to age, as the table below shows the fastest growing section of the population is the over 65's." Source: RDC, Statement of Place 2008.

All of these statements directly reflect the situation in Hawkwell West and the effect on the population profile is expected to be at least proportionate.

The position is that this community of South Hawkwell does not have need for a "mixed use and high density development" and the evidence for this is that the proportions of households indicate that 66% are unlikely to require market or affordable housing based on the population profile and projected needs.

There is further evidence for such a conclusion from the Thames Gateway South Essex, Strategic Housing Market Assessment.

"In Rochford, the greatest pressures are for larger properties with three and four bedrooms."

"The majority of household growth is expected to result from increasing single person households. However a high proportion of these are existing older households who already have housing."

"Mainstream housing in both public and private sectors is likely to remain the main means of meeting demand from a growing older population."

"Some vulnerable individuals will however require support or bespoke housing solutions. The levels of support which older households will require will depend on their fitness and mobility and to a degree their age." This means that development to meet such needs must be in the existing centres and the three main urban areas and not places like Hawkwell West which is on the urban fringe and too far away from necessary services.

Furthermore the existing mix of housing in the locality is as follows:

"44% are detached households, 50% are semi-detached households, 3% are terraced houses, 2% are flats and 1% are purpose built flats." Source: Office of National Statistics

Applying PPS3 "the mix of housing should contribute to the creation of mixed communities having regard to the existing mix of housing in the locality it is evident that the mix of a housing estate under PPS12 and PPS3 would be vastly different to the existing mix. This is a further reason why the proposal for a mixed use and high density housing estate is UNSOUND because it does not follow the policies in PPS12 or PPS3.

One of the most important aspects of sustainability are roads and traffic. There is no space for strategic development of local roads to the level required to support this proposal and other development proposals nearby put forward in the Core Strategy, which will also use roads in Hawkwell West, especially in Rectory Road, where any development here would significantly increase the requirement to travel, especially by car.

What you can readily see from data that I am presenting later in this letter is that there is already a significantly greater flow of traffic, 34% or 10,000 more vehicle movements, in Rectory Road, Hawkwell than even on the B1013.

It is not appropriate for an unclassified road to have to suffer greater traffic flows than even the B1013 and it is not a sustainable option to even consider adding even more traffic from a new housing estate of 175 houses. I believe that the reason for this is that Rectory Road has already become a link road to the B1013 from East Hockley, Hullbridge, Ashingdon and Canewdon to, more importantly, the A127. In addition a large quantum of additional houses planned to be built in the Hullbridge and Brays Lane area will put yet more unacceptable volumes of traffic on to Rectory Road in both directions during a day and this too needs reconsideration.

The traffic jams that are caused on the entry of the B1013 to Southend Borough from Rochford District are legendary and such a development will add to an already unacceptable situation. I have often been assured that the re-development of London - Southend Airport will improve this particular bottleneck but having seen the Planning Application submitted on 13 October it is clear that there are to be no improvements to the traffic flows from Rochford wishing to enter the A127.

The same issue applies in Hall Road at entry to Rochford.

Furthermore ECC has acknowledged concern about the other bottleneck at the railway bridge at St. Mary's Church, Hawkwell where it is not only the add