Rochford Core Strategy Development Plan Document - Schedule of Changes

AMENDED CORE STRATEGY - OCTOBER 2010


The Parish Council recognises that some provision of housing may be necessary in future years but welcomes the government's revocation of the East of England Plan. This should have given the District Council the opportunity to reassess comprehensively the Core Strategy and the proposed distribution of development across the district but that opportunity has not been taken.

To simply extend the period for provision for 3,800 new homes from 2026 to 2031 does not address the problem of the siting the majority of the housing in H2 in the centre of the district. The concentration of development in south Hawkwell, west Rochford and east Ashingdon will add significantly to the congestion already experienced in Ashingdon Road, Rectory Road and Hall Road. There is no evidence that the consolidated impact of these various developments on the highway network has been assessed and no consideration has been given to mapping highway improvements to the proposed house phasing. As with other environmental issues the capacity of the highway network should be assessed formally with consideration of the cumulative effects on other developments.

The appraisal of sustainability of Rochford District states that Rayleigh has the best access to services, the highway network provides good links to London, Chelmsford, Basildon and Thurrock. Yet no housing is proposed for Rayleigh till post 2026.

H3. The use of windfall sites to reduce the numbers of houses in the green belt is to be welcomed, however it will not help Hawkwell as all the proposed housing is in the first phase and it will be too late to prevent the loss of green belt once the land is developed.

The Core Strategy states that most of Rochford District lies within the green belt and very little will be lost. We regard this as, at best misleading and at worst disingenuous. The majority of open space in the district is on Foulness Island, Wallasea Island, Pagglesham, Canewdon and Wakering. To imply that use of such a small percentage of greenbelt is acceptable fails to recognise the concentration of development that is being proposed. There is very little open space in the centre of the district yet some 67% of the housing plus employment sites in London Southend Airport and Rayleigh are in the green belt and concentrated in the centre.

We are unconvinced of the fairness of the arguments put forward and retain the view that the location of proposed housing is as a result of political pressure from Members who represent the west of the district. Therefore for all these reasons the Parish Council considers the Core Strategy as amended in October 2010 to be unsound.

The Parish wishes to be represented at the examination in public in the New Year.

AMENDED CORE STRATEGY - OCTOBER 2010


The Parish Council recognises that some provision of housing may be necessary in future years but welcomes the government's revocation of the East of England Plan. This should have given the District Council the opportunity to reassess comprehensively the Core Strategy and the proposed distribution of development across the district but that opportunity has not been taken.

To simply extend the period for provision for 3,800 new homes from 2026 to 2031 does not address the problem of the siting the majority of the housing in H2 in the centre of the district. The concentration of development in south Hawkwell, west Rochford and east Ashingdon will add significantly to the congestion already experienced in Ashingdon Road, Rectory Road and Hall Road. There is no evidence that the consolidated impact of these various developments on the highway network has been assessed and no consideration has been given to mapping highway improvements to the proposed house phasing. As with other environmental issues the capacity of the highway network should be assessed formally with consideration of the cumulative effects on other developments.

The appraisal of sustainability of Rochford District states that Rayleigh has the best access to services, the highway network provides good links to London, Chelmsford, Basildon and Thurrock. Yet no housing is proposed for Rayleigh till post 2026.

H3. The use of windfall sites to reduce the numbers of houses in the green belt is to be welcomed, however it will not help Hawkwell as all the proposed housing is in the first phase and it will be too late to prevent the loss of green belt once the land is developed.

The Core Strategy states that most of Rochford District lies within the green belt and very little will be lost. We regard this as, at best misleading and at worst disingenuous. The majority of open space in the district is on Foulness Island, Wallasea Island, Pagglesham, Canewdon and Wakering. To imply that use of such a small percentage of greenbelt is acceptable fails to recognise the concentration of development that is being proposed. There is very little open space in the centre of the district yet some 67% of the housing plus employment sites in London Southend Airport and Rayleigh are in the green belt and concentrated in the centre.

We are unconvinced of the fairness of the arguments put forward and retain the view that the location of proposed housing is as a result of political pressure from Members who represent the west of the district. Therefore for all these reasons the Parish Council considers the Core Strategy as amended in October 2010 to be unsound.

The Parish wishes to be represented at the examination in public in the New Year.

AMENDED CORE STRATEGY - OCTOBER 2010


The Parish Council recognises that some provision of housing may be necessary in future years but welcomes the government's revocation of the East of England Plan. This should have given the District Council the opportunity to reassess comprehensively the Core Strategy and the proposed distribution of development across the district but that opportunity has not been taken.

To simply extend the period for provision for 3,800 new homes from 2026 to 2031 does not address the problem of the siting the majority of the housing in H2 in the centre of the district. The concentration of development in south Hawkwell, west Rochford and east Ashingdon will add significantly to the congestion already experienced in Ashingdon Road, Rectory Road and Hall Road. There is no evidence that the consolidated impact of these various developments on the highway network has been assessed and no consideration has been given to mapping highway improvements to the proposed house phasing. As with other environmental issues the capacity of the highway network should be assessed formally with consideration of the cumulative effects on other developments.

The appraisal of sustainability of Rochford District states that Rayleigh has the best access to services, the highway network provides good links to London, Chelmsford, Basildon and Thurrock. Yet no housing is proposed for Rayleigh till post 2026.

H3. The use of windfall sites to reduce the numbers of houses in the green belt is to be welcomed, however it will not help Hawkwell as all the proposed housing is in the first phase and it will be too late to prevent the loss of green belt once the land is developed.

The Core Strategy states that most of Rochford District lies within the green belt and very little will be lost. We regard this as, at best misleading and at worst disingenuous. The majority of open space in the district is on Foulness Island, Wallasea Island, Pagglesham, Canewdon and Wakering. To imply that use of such a small percentage of greenbelt is acceptable fails to recognise the concentration of development that is being proposed. There is very little open space in the centre of the district yet some 67% of the housing plus employment sites in London Southend Airport and Rayleigh are in the green belt and concentrated in the centre.

We are unconvinced of the fairness of the arguments put forward and retain the view that the location of proposed housing is as a result of political pressure from Members who represent the west of the district. Therefore for all these reasons the Parish Council considers the Core Strategy as amended in October 2010 to be unsound.

The Parish wishes to be represented at the examination in public in the New Year.

AMENDED CORE STRATEGY - OCTOBER 2010


The Parish Council recognises that some provision of housing may be necessary in future years but welcomes the government's revocation of the East of England Plan. This should have given the District Council the opportunity to reassess comprehensively the Core Strategy and the proposed distribution of development across the district but that opportunity has not been taken.

To simply extend the period for provision for 3,800 new homes from 2026 to 2031 does not address the problem of the siting the majority of the housing in H2 in the centre of the district. The concentration of development in south Hawkwell, west Rochford and east Ashingdon will add significantly to the congestion already experienced in Ashingdon Road, Rectory Road and Hall Road. There is no evidence that the consolidated impact of these various developments on the highway network has been assessed and no consideration has been given to mapping highway improvements to the proposed house phasing. As with other environmental issues the capacity of the highway network should be assessed formally with consideration of the cumulative effects on other developments.

The appraisal of sustainability of Rochford District states that Rayleigh has the best access to services, the highway network provides good links to London, Chelmsford, Basildon and Thurrock. Yet no housing is proposed for Rayleigh till post 2026.

H3. The use of windfall sites to reduce the numbers of houses in the green belt is to be welcomed, however it will not help Hawkwell as all the proposed housing is in the first phase and it will be too late to prevent the loss of green belt once the land is developed.

The Core Strategy states that most of Rochford District lies within the green belt and very little will be lost. We regard this as, at best misleading and at worst disingenuous. The majority of open space in the district is on Foulness Island, Wallasea Island, Pagglesham, Canewdon and Wakering. To imply that use of such a small percentage of greenbelt is acceptable fails to recognise the concentration of development that is being proposed. There is very little open space in the centre of the district yet some 67% of the housing plus employment sites in London Southend Airport and Rayleigh are in the green belt and concentrated in the centre.

We are unconvinced of the fairness of the arguments put forward and retain the view that the location of proposed housing is as a result of political pressure from Members who represent the west of the district. Therefore for all these reasons the Parish Council considers the Core Strategy as amended in October 2010 to be unsound.

The Parish wishes to be represented at the examination in public in the New Year.