New Local Plan: Spatial Options Document 2021

The best strategy for blue and green infrastructure would be for green and blue corridors as they are most successful at sustaining and increasing biodiversity. This would need to be implemented at a district-wide scale across multiple developments sharing parts of the corridor, or on larger strategic sites.

All options. Option 4 would be beneficial to multiple parties (users and providers of space) if there is a community need where the school or existing facility already is. Many academy schools already hire out their 3G pitches.

4 – Ensuring our qualitative and quantitative open space and recreational needs are met within our area through the plan, and any supporting infrastructure delivery plan, by:
(a) Requiring new developments to make suitable on-site provision for new open and green spaces, and/or sports recreation facilities; or
(b) Requiring new developments to contribute to improving the quality and accessibility of existing open spaces and recreation facilities in the locality or contributing to enhancing open space or recreation facilities at existing hub sites and key centres.

2 – The option to update the local list and protect and enhance assets through policy seems much simpler.

1 – Producing new dedicated masterplans/ area action plans for Rayleigh, Rochford, and Hockley, updating these to reflect local and national changes and providing a new positive vision for uses within these centres.

2 – Incorporating town specific policies for Rayleigh, Rochford, and Hockley, within the new Local Plan, reflecting local and national changes and providing a new positive vision for uses within these centres.

6 – Ensuring any large-scale new housing or employment developments create new neighbourhood centres to serve them, or alternatively provide for sustainable connections to existing centres.

2 – Prepare an infrastructure and delivery plan alongside the plan to ensure new development delivers meaningful improvements to transport networks, including cycling, walking, public transport, and road.

4 – Work with government, Highways England, ECC and neighbouring LAs to deliver meaningful new transport options, such as rapid transit.

Under NPPF guidance, (para 79) the government encourage Local Authorities to meet the need of rural communities through the provision of sustainable housing, such as rural exemption sites. The most sustainable rural exemption sites will be adjacent to existing settlements.

As explained in question 18, Hullbridge has a specific unmet affordable housing need in the region of 1000 people. This community need could be partially addressed through the provision of rural exception sites, by bringing forward sites within the greenbelt that serve a limited role to the wider greenbelt function and purpose. These sites could provide up to 100% affordable dwellings. Such proposals have already been submitted on CFS 100.

Yes, if future development can be locally responsive to ongoing housing needs of the residents, particularly that of the older population, Hullbridge can be a sustainable and attractive area with useable spaces.

CFS 100 should be made available for housing, as under a balanced approach to strategy options, the small/ medium size of the site would offer secure and immediate housing completions at the start to medium term of the new Local Plan period. To further this, CFS 100 has been put forward for 100% affordable provision, which would drastically help the community needs of Hullbridge by providing some of the district’s most vulnerable people with new homes.

CFS 100 (Nevendon Salvage Yard) is currently within the greenbelt boundary, so an application to amend the greenbelt boundary or bring the site forward as a rural exception site with 100% affordable housing would be made. However, the current site’s function and purpose within the greenbelt has come under scrutiny in recent years.

For example, the housing estate on the eastern boundary of the site along Central and First Avenue are within the greenbelt, so it is questionable how well a housing estate can perform the 5 purposes of the greenbelt (as per paragraph 138 of the NPPF) with an urban settlement within it. Therefore, it is arguable that the greenbelt boundary around this site (CFS 100) already needs amending to run along Lower Road, around the existing development.

The site’s own ability to perform the 5 purposes of the greenbelt, both on its own and for the greater benefit for the district, are severely restricted.
(a) To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas – CFS 100 has built development on all boundaries. There is built form and residential developments within the greenbelt. The greenbelt is not performing this function in Hullbridge, so needs addressing.
(b) To prevent neighbouring towns merging – CFS 100 has no impact on the relationship to Ashingdon, Rayleigh, Rawreth, etc.
(c) To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment – the same point as purpose A.
(d) To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns – the closest listed buildings/ heritage assets are within Vicarage Farm (around a mile away) and have many residential estates and commercial facilities in between them.
(e) To assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land – the site is part brownfield (with historical military use on the greenfield proportion of the site, which has been confirmed by many residents), so is suitable for housing allocation. Under both NPPF guidance and government policy, brownfield sites should be the first to be bought forward for housing.

To add to this, this site could promote sustainable development if it were to be allocated for residential development, as there is a bus stop on Lower Road on the boundary of the site. This would provide a sustainable service into larger settlements such as Rayleigh and Wickford on the 20 service. Discussions about walking and cycle routes can be had.

Any areas within Hullbridge that are within the current greenbelt boundary that are bounded by existing residential development. This land clearly is unable to perform the 5 purposes of the greenbelt for the district due to the neighbouring residential land, so should be released.