Issues and Options Document

We welcome the approach that there are 'many accessible and high quality open spaces and significant stretches of coastline providing attractive and accessible leisure opportunities...' However, we would like to see this expanded further to include ALL users within the Plan - walkers, cyclists, equestrians and the disabled - and we feel this should be reflected within the Vision and embedded throughout the Plan document. This could be reworded thus: '...many accessible and high quality open spaces and significant stretches of coastline providing attractive leisure opportunities accessible to as many users as possible...'

Strategic Objective 15: we note the aim to protect and enhance multi-functional green infrastructure and that this links in with health and wellbeing. We would like to see embedded within this Strategic Objective the aim to ensure such infrastructure is accessible to as many user groups as possible, including equestrians who are often overlooked when such infrastructure is planned. We would like to see this reworded thus: '...and to support the delivery of a fully-accessible multi-functional green infrastructure network...'

Paragraph 6.4: we note the aim to look at rural diversification opportunities and to explore the merits of green tourism. It would follow that if more green spaces within the District are more accessible to both equestrians and cyclists (for example increasing access for cyclists and equestrians on the coastal path and other areas) there would be a good opportunity for expanding green tourism. The Wallasea Island project is a case in point - the area is intended to be only accessible by foot or cycle, thereby missing out on the potential tourism impact of equestrians who contribute a great deal to the local economy. This is also alluded to in paragraph 6.122 on page 68 - the fact that Wallasea Island is not going to be accessible to equestrians but only to walkers and cyclists is discriminatory and the opportunity for increased tourism here is being missed. The Policy on Rural Diversification and Tourism should be expanded to consider the importance of including access for all, including equestrians, where possible within such open spaces.

Paragraph 6.122: the fact that Wallasea Island is not going to be accessible to equestrians but only to walkers and cyclists is discriminatory and the opportunity for increased tourism here is being missed. The Policy on Rural Diversification and Tourism should be expanded to consider the importance of including access for all, including equestrians, where possible within such open spaces.

Paragraphs 8.27/8.28 Sustainable Travel: we note the aim to increase safe cycling routes and that it is noted that the network of safe routes is fragmented; however, it should also be noted that such access for equestrians is even more fragmented. Therefore, we would like to see the inclusion of equestrians where possible when considering new off-road routes for vulnerable users - after all if a new route is going to be constructed, then why not make it accessible for all? Again, paragraph 8.36 alludes to the safety of cyclists yet no mention is made of equestrians, who face similar road safety issues - with a fatality in the Canewdon area not long ago. The issue of off-road access for all users needs to be embedded within the Local Plan.

Paragraph 9.2: we note the link between the delivery of a network of green infrastructure and the effect that this can have on health and wellbeing, but we would wish to see the aspiration for access for all user groups being embedded within this Plan. It is far better to create a network useable by all rather than discriminating against any user group.

Paragraph 9.3: this paragraph mentions the need to encourage residents to take part in physical activity. It should be noted that horse riding is most often the exercise of choice for women and children, two groups who are most frequently targeted to increase their uptake of exercise. It therefore follows that by increasing the availability of off-road riding this will benefit residents' health and wellbeing. This paragraph states quite correctly that '...overall it is about ensuring the right conditions are in place to improve the health of communities through planning for an enabling the right type and quality of infrastructure to be put in place at the right time...'. It is important to note what the 'right type' of infrastructure is - and we feel that the 'right type' is that which is accessible to ALL user groups, including equestrians. This is supported by the NPPF as the following paragraph confirms, but if a Plan is to be found sound by an Inspector, then access for all user groups needs to be the norm.

Paragraph 9.40 states that the Council are updating their sports recreation and open space evidence within the district and identifying potential future needs. We would be willing to have an input into this report as we are well aware of the need for the 'joining up' of the fragmented network which is accessible to walkers, cyclists, equestrians and the disabled and would welcome working with the Council to look at this.

Paragraph 9.41 notes that the Council will be looking to improve connectivity between green spaces and request that such connectivity is available to all users, including equestrians.

Paragraph 10.29 relates to options identified in relation to greenways and we are disappointed to note that the option relating to Core Strategy Policy T7 only mentions walking and cycling. For this Plan to be fully inclusive, access for equestrians and the disabled should also be mentioned, and this Policy updated to reflect this need.

Paragraph 10.30 refers to the Wallasea Island project, and as previously stated, it is extremely disappointing that the RSPB have decided to discriminate against equestrians and not include their access on this nature reserve, despite allowing access by cyclists. There is a great potential for tourism in the area and it is a shame that such an opportunity is not being taken by the RSPB.