Rochford Core Strategy Development Plan Document - Schedule of Changes

Please provide dates for Public Hearings. I wish to participate in said Public Hearings. In your general assessment have you considered all the Risk assessments in respect to Environment, Infrastructure, Flood, drainage and sewerage, main utility services, roads, transport, health, transport, council services, health & safety, housing, commercial, industrial, employment issues and economic issues. For housing I am interested to know who the occupants are likely to be and where from. With respect to the gypsy sites, what and how were these assessments made and who will sup[port the financial burden in all cases.

Having observed the Rochford Core Strategy Development Plan document - 'Schedule of Changes' I would like to have the opportunity to discuss my own observations.

To make a proper analysis of the changes is it possible to have a copy of the original document for comparison purposes.

Reference
Page 7 para 1.2 Do we have the opportunity to visit or have a copy of the 'Sustainable Community Strategy and Council's Corporate Plan', in accordance with the new 'openness' government policy.

Page 29, para 2.29 Please explain the meaning of this paragraph under the heading of 'The east of England Plan has been Revoked', but goes on to explain this represents 'Option 1' and does not indicate the actual 'revocation'.
In briefly scanning this document, I am unable to see what other 'options' were taken into consideration and does not provide any information regards the methods or reasons for the adoption of 'Option 1'.
Please explain your meaning of the word 'Sustainability' as mentioned in this paragraph.
What reasons were given for the change of 'development years' from 2001 - 2021 to 2011 - 2031, and I presume that the 'additional' 810 and 618 units (para 2.31) are included in the 2001 to 2011 appraisal.

Page 29, para 2.31 The revoked E of E Plan states 810 and 618 dwellings were completed between 2001 and 2008, are these figures included in the overall 3800 dwellings mentioned above.

Page 30, para 2.35 The phrase indicates additional 131 dwelling per annum to be developed, I can only presume the total number over and above the 190 dwelling planned will be 321, please explain. This figure equates to 6420 dwellings over 20 years (2011 - 2031). The Thames Gateway South Essex Strategic Housing market Assessment notes a need for at least 35% of these developments need to be 'affordable' which equates to 2247, is this correct?

Page 38 - Objectives. This clause ensures that the developments meet the 'District's Population', I hope this is meaningful and 'Highlighted' to mean the 'existing population'. What is the meaning of 'balanced with sustainability considerations' and 'environmental constraints in the district'.

Page 39, para 4.2 The E of E Plan (2008) having been revoked, why does RDC insist that 'Option 1' is deemed to be the most appropriate, without providing any information on alternatives that may have been considered.

Page 39, para 4.3 RDC allocation is based on meeting 'current and future' needs, but the repetition of the words 'balanced with sustainability considerations' needs explanation, in my view the words are vague, and according to your population figures you indicate an increase of 5,700 (87,000-81,300) by 2021. However if we consider the figure of 3800 units x average of 2 persons = 7,600, so how have you calculated your increased population figures?

Page 39, 40, para 4.4 and 4.6 and Table Can you explain why there is a change in years from 2001 - 2021 to 2011 - 2031 and whether the units stated on page 29, para 2.31 are included in the overall 3,800 units.
Allocation of land - please explain the distribution of units between 'brown field land', 'white land' and 'Greenbelt land' and the density of development per acre/hectare in accordance with the types of development, I am unable to find reference to this distribution.
Has the utilisation of derelict and abandoned land been taken into consideration in the above Plan.
The encroachment on green belt land will be approximately 105% on 1243 units, how is this justified.

Page 42 para 4.17 How are we to know that any green belt land allocation is being used as a 'last resort' and in accordance with all the applicable Local Government by-laws in relation to the Green belt land.

Pages 44 to 46 Clause 4.25 makes reference to 'contribution through windfall', please explain where I can observe the meaning of this in the Consultation document.

Page 46 para 4.30 The indicative aim for the district as a whole is set at 35% in the Viability Study Report and is not considered impractical, can you explain or justify the reasoning for this?

Pages 49 to 50 para 4.46 & 4.47 & Policy H7 Can you explain the justification for any requirement for gypsy and traveller accommodation, especially in respect to the financial constraints we are required to maintain in the forth coming years, and to whom will the financial burdens fall.
Where can I find the written matter explaining Policy H7.

Other business
In my observing the document I am unable to find any references to 'Risk assessment' made for the following:

The Environment
Infrastructure
Flood (Watery Lane in regular flood- featured on the National News).
Density
Drainage.
Main services
Roads
Access- (e.g. to and from Hullbridge).
Schools.
Doctors/ Medical services.
Council services, including Fire and police.
Health and Safety.
Employment
Local Financial Economy and Investment
Commercial and Industrial development.

Investment
Please explain how you are trying to attract 'investment' in this area, and how a Domestic Development will have the capacity to attract 'investment'.

I wonder how 'Social Affordable Housing' will be purchased, or indeed, will not be only made available for 'economic migrants'. Particularly in light of difficulty in obtaining mortgages.

Thank you for this opportunity to raise my concerns, and if I can be of assistance in this matter I will be pleased to help.