View
3
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Rochford District Council
Playing Pitch Strategy Supplementary Planning Document
Strategic Environmental Assessment
And Sustainability Appraisal
Environmental Report
Prepared for Rochford District Council
By
Essex County Council
April 2006
Contents Chapter Page
Number Non Technical Summary
3-9
Chapter 1 Methodology
10 - 15
Chapter 2 Background
16 - 18
Chapter 3 SEA Objectives and Baseline Context
19 – 65
Chapter 4 SPD Policy Appraisal
66 – 78
Chapter 5 SPD Issues and Alternatives
79 – 87
Chapter 6 Monitoring Implementation of the SPD
88 -92
Appendices
93 – 121
Appendix 1 – Review of Plans and
Programmes
94 – 116
Appendix 2 - Summary of the SPD
Policies Appraised
117 - 121
2
Non Technical Summary
3
Non Technical Summary Non Technical Summary Chapter 1 - Methodology Introduction to Sustainable Development Sustainable development is defined as ‘development that meets the needs of the
present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own
needs’ (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987). The UK
Government has adopted 5 principles of for sustainable development they include;
• Living within environmental limits,
• Ensuring a strong, healthy and just society,
• Achieving a sustainable economy,
• Promoting good governance,
• Using sound science.
Sustainability Appraisal and Strategic Environmental Assessment The European Directive 2001/42/EC (EC, 2001) ensures that a Strategic
Environmental Assessment of a wide range of plans and programmes shall be
conducted. The Rochford District Council Playing Pitch Strategy Supplementary
Planning Document therefore requires a Strategic Appraisal that incorporates the
dual statutory requirement of both Sustainability Appraisal (SA) and Strategic
Environmental Assessment (SEA).
This report has been prepared in accordance with the following Office of the Deputy
Prime Minister (ODPM) guidance;
• A ‘Practical Guide to the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive’
(September, 2005).
• ‘Sustainability Appraisal (SA) of Regional Spatial Strategies and Local
Development Frameworks’ (November, 2005)
4
Methodology Adopted in the SEA
The Scoping stage of the SEA/SA involves investigation into the relevant plans,
programmes and environmental protection objectives. The Scoping Report also
outlines the baseline information which provides the basis for predicting and
monitoring environmental effects, aids in the interpretation of environmental problems
and allows identification of possible mitigation measures. A list of Sustainability
objectives is also outlined in the Scoping Report.
The Rochford District Council Playing Pitch Strategy Supplementary Planning
Document was consulted for a 5 week period. The second part of the SEA approach
involves the development and refinement of alternatives and assessing the effects of
the plan.
The third stage is the development of the Environmental Report. The structure of the
Environmental Report is very similar to the suggested structure outlined in ‘A
Practical Guide to the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive’ (September,
2005).
Chapter 2 - Background
The Rochford District Council Playing Pitch Strategy Supplementary Planning
Document aims to set out the key elements of the planning framework for the area.
The Plan outlines the following principle objectives;
Reference Objective
1 Ensure adequate provision of playing pitches throughout the District
that seek to meet local needs.
2 To ensure that new development does not adversely affect existing
sports fields
Chapter 3 - SEA Objectives and Baseline and Context
5
Review of the Plans and Programmes The relationship between various plans and programmes and sustainability
objectives may influence the Rochford District Council Playing Pitch Strategy
Supplementary Planning Document in various ways. The relationships are analysed
to;
• Identify any external social, environmental or economic objectives that
should be reflected in the SA process;
• Identify external factors that may have influenced the preparation of the
plan; and
• Determine whether the policies in other plans and programmes might lead
to cumulative effects when combined with policies in the Playing Pitch
Strategy Supplementary Planning Document.
Baseline Characteristics
The SEA Directive requires an analysis of the ‘relevant aspects of the current state of
the environment and the likely evolution thereof without implementation of the plan’
(Annex 1b) and ‘the environmental characteristics of areas likely to be significantly
affected’ (Annex 1c).
The baseline data for the SEA/SA of the Rochford District Council Playing Pitch
Strategy Supplementary Planning Document includes existing environmental and
sustainability information from a range of sources.
SEA Objectives, Targets and Indicators Sustainability Objectives The utilisation of sustainability objectives is a recognised methodology for
considering the environmental effects of a plan and programme and comparing the
effects of the alternatives. The sustainability objectives are utilised to show whether
the objectives of the plan and programme are beneficial for the environment, to
compare the environmental effects of the alternatives or to suggest improvements.
6
Chapter 4 - Plan Policy Appraisal
Significant Social, Environmental and Economic Effects of the Preferred Policies
The SEA Directive states that ‘where an Environmental Assessment is required
under Article 3 (1), and Environmental Report shall be prepared in which the likely
significant effects on the environment of implementing the plan and programme, and
reasonable alternatives taking into account the objectives and the geographical
scope of the plan or programme, are identified, described and evaluated’ (SEA
Directive, Article 5). This chapter seeks to outline a summary of the significant
social, environmental and economic effects and the recommendations arising from
the Appraising Plan Policy assessment for the Rochford District Council Playing Pitch
Strategy Supplementary Planning Document. The summary reflects the SEA
Directive Annex 1(f). The table below highlights the outcome of the assessment.
Rochford District Replacement Local Plan (2004) – LT2 – Synthetic Sports Pitch
Objective Recommendation
(1) Provide improved access
and opportunities for all to open
space, sports and recreation.
The level of standard would need to be subject to
ongoing review to take account of changes in the
demographic profile of areas and capacity of
provision.
Appraising Plans Policy 1
(1) Provide improved access
and opportunities for all to open
space, sports and recreation.
It is recommended that monetary obligations are
sought from both allocated and windfall sites,
including sites of residential development of less
than 10 dwellings.
Appraising Plans Policy 2 - Greenbelt
(2) Improve quality of public
realm and open spaces in urban
and rural areas.
It is recommended that the SPD provides further
detail as to what is considered a ‘significant club
house’.
Appraising Plans Policy 3 – Design
(2) Improve quality of public That the policy states that only in exceptional
7
realm and open spaces in urban
and rural areas.
(4) To ensure that new
development contributes to
enhancing the character,
appearance, recreational and
biodiversity value.
(5) To promote efficient use of
land and re-use of previously
developed sites.
(6) To preserve and enhance
the historic environment.
(7) To preserve and enhance
the cultural environment.
circumstances Sport England Design and
Technical Guidelines would not be applicable.
Appraising Plans Policy 6 – Drainage
(2) Improve quality of public
realm and open spaces in urban
and rural areas.
In order to address facilities with insufficient
drainage priority should be given to the pitches
highlighted in table 12.3 of the “Assessment of the
Playing Pitches in the Rochford District” (2002)
document.
Chapter 5 - SPD Issues and Alternative
The SEA Directive states that ‘where an Environmental Assessment is required
under Article 3 (1), and Environmental Report shall be prepared in which the likely
significant effects on the environment of implementing the plan and programme, and
reasonable alternatives taking into account the objectives and the geographical
scope of the plan or programme, are identified, described and evaluated’ (SEA
Directive, Article 5). This chapter outlines the appraisal of the alternatives within the
Playing Pitch Strategy Supplementary Planning Document.
Chapter 6 - Monitoring Implementation of the SPD
The SEA Directive states that “Member States shall monitor the significant
environmental effects of the implementation of plans and programmes in order, inter
alia, to identify at an early stage unforeseen adverse effects, and to be able to
undertake appropriate remedial action” (Article.10.1). Furthermore the
8
Environmental Report shall include “a description of the measures envisaged
concerning monitoring” (Annex 1 (i)). This Chapter aims to outline the monitoring
framework for the Rochford District Council Playing Pitch Strategy Supplementary
Planning Document
The monitoring of the Playing Pitch Strategy Supplementary Planning Document
“allows the actual significant environmental effects of implementing the plan or
programme to be tested against those predicted” (Office of the Deputy Prime
Minister, 2005, 39). The monitoring of the Playing Pitch Strategy Supplementary
Planning Document will aid in the identification of any problems that may arise during
the Playing Pitch Strategy Supplementary Planning Documents implementation.
9
Chapter 1 - Methodology
10
Chapter 1
Methodology Introduction to Sustainable Development
The widely utilised international definition for sustainable development is
“development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of
future generations to meet their own needs” (World Commission on Environment and
Development, 1987). In 1992 at the Rio Summit Government’s worldwide committed
themselves to the delivery of sustainable development. Following this convention the
UK Government formulated the first national Sustainable Development Framework in
1999. In the UK Sustainable Development Framework (1999) the UK Government
clearly outlined the meaning of Sustainable Development placing greater emphasis
on attaining a better quality of life for everyone now and for the future. The UK
Government updated the Sustainable Development Strategy in 2005, and adopted 5
principles for sustainable development they include;
* Living within environmental limits,
* Ensuring a strong, healthy and Just Society,
* Achieving a sustainable economy,
* Promoting good governance,
* Using sound science.
An important component of sustainable development is weighing up the
environmental, social and economic factors, and this is fundamental to Sustainability
Appraisal and Strategic Environmental Assessment.
Sustainability Appraisal and Strategic Environmental Assessment The European Directive 2001/42/EC (EC, 2001) ensures that a Strategic
Environmental Assessment of a wide range of plans and programmes shall be
conducted. The Rochford District Council Playing Pitch Strategy Supplementary
Planning Document therefore requires a Strategic Appraisal that incorporates the
dual statutory requirement of both Sustainability Appraisal (SA) and Strategic
Environmental Assessment (SEA). The purpose of SEA/SA is to promote
11
environmental protection and contribute to the integration of environmental, social
and economic considerations into the preparation and adoption of plans, with a view
to promote sustainable development.
This report has been prepared in accordance with the following Office of the Deputy
Prime Minister (ODPM) guidance:
• ‘A Practical Guide to the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive’
(September 2005)
• ‘Sustainability Appraisal (SA) of Regional Spatial Strategies and Local
Development Frameworks’ (November 2005)
The requirement for SEA/SA emanates from a high level of international and national
commitment to sustainable development and this has been incorporated into EC
Directives, laws, guidance, advice and policy.
The purpose of this sustainability appraisal is to promote sustainable development
through better integration of sustainability considerations into the adoption of the
Rochford District Council Playing Pitch Strategy Supplementary Planning Document.
The requirements to undertake a SA and SEA are distinct. The principle difference
between SEA and SA is that SEA is baseline led, focusing primarily on environmental
effects, whereas SA is objectives led. The SEA directive defines the environment in
a broad context and includes:
• Biodiversity
• Population
• Human Health
• Fauna
• Flora
• Soil
• Water
• Air
• Climatic factors
• Material Assets
• Cultural Heritage including architectural and archaeological heritage
12
• Landscape
SA goes further by examining all the sustainability-related effects of plans, whether
they are social environmental or economic.
Despite these differences it is possible to meet both requirements through a single
appraisal process. In order to minimise duplication and time, ECC has applied this
approach. Throughout the remainder of this document where reference is made to
sustainability appraisal (SA) it should be taken to include the requirements of the
SEA Directive (2001/42/EC) as incorporated into English Law by virtue of the
Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programme Regulations (2004).
This report and SA process has been led by Essex County Council’s environmental
assessment team. Diverse expertise has been drawn upon across the County
Council’s service areas and appropriate partnership forums. This arrangement
conforms to guidance recommendations in respect of a need for taking a balanced
view; a good understanding of the local circumstances; understanding the issues,
and drawing on good practice elsewhere to evaluate the full range of sustainability
issues.
Scope of the Report
The final Environment Report comprises of;
Non-Technical Summary;
An outline of the methodology adopted;
Background setting out the purpose of the SEA and the objectives of
the Rochford District Council Playing Pitch Strategy Supplementary
Planning Document;
SEA objectives and the sustainability issues throughout Rochford
District Council Playing Pitch Strategy Supplementary Planning
Document and the key issues that need to be addressed;
Playing Pitch Strategy Supplementary Planning Document options
considered and environmental effects of the alternatives outlined;
An assessment of the contribution of the plan policies to social,
economic and environmental objectives within the district;
13
An outline of the proposed mitigation measures, for those where these
impacts are negative.
Methodology Adopted in the SEA
The approach adopted in this Sustainability Appraisal (SA) and Strategic
Environmental Assessment (SEA) of the Rochford District Council Playing Pitch
Strategy Supplementary Planning Document is based on the process outlined in the
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Guidance – A Guide to the Strategic
Environmental Assessment Directive (September 2005). The methodology adopted
seeks to meet the requirements of both SA and SEA for the environmental
assessment of plans.
The SA Framework is based on the initial criteria and proposed approaches set out in
the scoping report produced in November 2005. The aim of the scoping report is to
ensure a focused yet comprehensive SA, addressing all relevant issues, objectives
and allow input from consultation bodies at an early stage of the process.
The scoping stage of the SEA/SA involves investigation into the relevant plans,
programmes and environmental protection objectives. The scoping report also sets
out the baseline information which provides the basis for predicting and monitoring
environmental effects, aids in the interpretation of environmental problems and
allows identification of possible methods for mitigation. A range of information aids in
the identification of potential environmental problems including, earlier issues
identified in other plans and programmes, baseline information, tensions between
current and future baseline information and consultation with the consultation bodies.
The scoping report also contains a list of SEA objectives. SEA objectives are not a
specific requirement of the Directive but they are recognised as a method for
considering the environmental effects of a plan and comparing the effects of
alternatives.
“The Directive creates the following requirements for consultation;
Authorities which, because of their environmental responsibilities, are
likely to be concerned by the effects of implementing the plan or
programme, must be consulted on the scope and level of detail of the
information to be included in the Environmental Report. These
14
authorities are designated in the SEA Regulations as the Consultation
Bodies.
The public and the Consultation Bodies must be consulted on the draft
plan or programme and the Environmental Report, and must be given
an early effective opportunity within appropriate time frames to
express their opinions” (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, 2005, 16).
The Rochford District Council Playing Pitch Strategy Supplementary Planning
Document was consulted for a 5 week period, whereby the statutory Consultation
Bodies and other relevant persons were consulted. The statutory Consultation
Bodies include;
Countryside Agency,
English Heritage,
English Nature,
And the Environment Agency.
The second part of the SEA approach involves the development and refinement of
alternatives and assessing the effects of the plan. The objectives of the plan are
therefore tested against the SEA objectives identified at the scoping stage.
The third stage of the process is the development of the Environmental Report. The
SEA Directive states that “the environmental report shall include information that may
reasonably be required taking into account current knowledge and methods of
assessment, the contents and level of detail in the plan or programme, (and) its stage
in the decision-making process” (Article 5.2). The structure for the Environmental
Report is very similar to the suggested structure outlined in ‘A Practical Guide to the
Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive’ (September, 2005).
15
Chapter 2 - Background
16
Chapter 2
Background Purpose of this Sustainability Appraisal/Strategic Environmental Assessment This Environment Report has been devised to meet European Directive 2001/42/EC
which requires a formal strategic assessment of certain plans and programmes which
are likely to have a significant effect on the environment. The Directive has been
incorporated into English Law by virtue of the Environment Assessment of Plans and
Programmes Regulations (2004). In accordance with the provisions set out in the
SEA Directive and the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (2004), a SA/SEA of
the Rochford District Council Playing Pitch Strategy Supplementary Planning
Document must be undertaken and consulted on prior to the adoption.
This Environment Report outlines the appraisal methodology, sustainability
objectives, review of plans and programmes, baseline information used in the
appraisal process, and the assessment of the Rochford District Council Playing Pitch
Strategy Supplementary Planning Document
Rochford District Council Playing Pitch Strategy Supplementary Planning Document and the Objectives The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (2004) introduced alterations to the
planning system; the fundamental aim of these changes was to promote a proactive
and positive approach to managing development. The Local Development
Framework forms a fundamental element in the new planning system.
Local Development Frameworks will be comprised of Local Development
Documents, which include Development Plan Documents, that are part of the
statutory development plan and Supplementary Planning Documents which expand
on policies set out in a development plan document or provide additional detail.
Assessment of Playing Pitches in Rochford District is a Supplementary Planning
Document and is therefore one of the fundamental documents that form an integral
part of the Local Development Framework.
17
The Assessment of Playing Pitches in Rochford District Supplementary Planning
Document is an approach adopted by Rochford District Council towards a more
sustainable to the development of pitch sports and the provision of sports pitches
within Rochford District.
The Playing Pitch Strategy Supplementary Planning Document objectives are
demonstrated in table 1.
Table 1 – Rochford District Council Playing Pitch Strategy Supplementary Planning Document Objectives
Reference Objective
1 Ensure adequate provision of playing pitches throughout the District
that seek to meet local needs.
2 To ensure that new development does not adversely affect existing
sports fields
An important part of the assessment involves the testing of the Playing Pitch Strategy
Supplementary Planning Document Objectives against the sustainability objectives.
18
Chapter 3 - SEA Objectives and Baseline Context
19
Chapter 3
SEA Objectives and Baseline Context Review of the Plans and Programmes The relationship between various plans and programmes and sustainability
objectives may influence the Rochford District Council Playing Pitch Strategy
Supplementary Planning Document in various ways. The relationships are analysed
to;
• identify any external social, environmental or economic
objectives that should be reflected in the SA process;
• identify external factors that may have influenced the
preparation of the plan; and
• Determine whether the policies in other plans and programmes
might lead to cumulative effects when combined with policies
in the Playing Pitch Strategy Supplementary Planning
Document.
Engaging in this process enables Rochford District Council Playing Pitch Strategy
Supplementary Planning Document to take advantage of any potential synergies and
to attend to any inconsistencies and constraints. The plans and programmes that
need to be considered include those at an international, national, regional and local
scale.
The preparatory work for the Rochford District Council Playing Pitch Strategy
Supplementary Planning Document has considered a number of planning policies
and guidance documents, however to meet the SA’s requirements a broader range
were considered, in particular those outlining issues of environmental protection and
sustainability objectives. Table 2 shows a summary list of plans and programmes
that were reviewed as part of the SA. Appendix 1 contains the outcome of the
review.
20
Table 2 – Plans and Programmes Considered as part of the Review
International
European and International Sustainability Development Strategy
European Spatial Development Perspective (May, 1999)
European Community Biodiversity Strategy
Environment 2010: Our Future, Our Choice
National
Planning Policy Statement 1; Creating Sustainable Communities (2005)
Planning Policy Guidance 2 – Greenbelt (1995)
Planning Policy Guidance Note 3; Housing (2000)
Planning Policy Statement 6; Planning for Town Centres (2005)
Planning Policy Statement 7; Sustainable Development in Rural Areas
Planning Policy Guidance Statement 9 – Biodiversity and Geological Conservation
(2006)
Planning Policy Statement 12; Local Development Frameworks
Planning Policy Guidance 13; Transport (1994)
Planning Policy Guidance Note 14; Development on Unstable Land (1990)
Planning Policy Guidance Note 15; Planning and Historic Environment (1994)
Planning Policy Guidance Note 16; Archaeology and Planning (1990)
21
Planning Policy Guidance Note 17; Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation
(1991)
Planning Policy Guidance Note 20; Coastal Planning (1992)
Planning Policy Guidance Note 24; Planning and Noise (1994)
Planning Policy Guidance Note 25; Development and Flood Risk (2001)
Securing the Future Delivering the UK Sustainable Development Strategy (2005)
Regional
Regional Planning Guidance 9; Regional Guidance for the South East (1994)
Draft Regional Spatial Strategy for the East of England Plan (RSS14) (December,
2004)
County
Essex and Southend-on-Sea Replacement Structure Plan (Adopted April, 2001)
Local
Rochford District Local Plan First Review, 1995.
Rochford District Second Deposit Replacement Local Plan, 2004
The plans and programmes reviewed provided the following:
A basis for establishing sustainability objectives as part of
the SA process.
22
An influence over the Playing Pitch Strategy
Supplementary Planning Document preparation and a
higher level policy context.
A basis for identifying potential cumulative effects of the
Rochford District Council Playing Pitch Strategy
Supplementary Planning Document.
Baseline Characteristics The SEA Directive requires an analysis of the “relevant aspects of the current state of
the environment and the likely evolution thereof without implementation of the plan”
(Annex 1b) and “the environmental characteristics of areas likely to be significantly
affected” (Annex 1c). The baseline information will form the basis for predicting and
monitoring the effects of the adoption of the Rochford District Council Playing Pitch
Strategy Supplementary Planning Document Furthermore the baseline data allows
sustainability problems to be identified and aids the formulation of appropriate
mitigation measures and/or proposals for suitable alternatives.
The baseline data for the SA/SEA of the Rochford District Council Playing Pitch
Strategy Supplementary Planning Document includes existing environmental and
sustainability information from a range of sources, including national Government,
agency websites, the 2001 Census, Rochford District Council and Essex County
Council. The information the baseline data aimed to highlight is outlined below;
• the latest data for Rochford District Council,
• comparators: national, regional, sub-regional, and local level data
against which the status of the Rochford District Council may be
evaluated;
• identified targets;
• established trends; and
• Environmental or sustainability problems.
Table 3 outlines the comprehensive list of the baseline data sources for both the
quantitative and the qualitative information.
23
The baseline data topics and whether they are of economic, social or environmental
significance are outlined in table 3.
Table 3 – Illustrating the Baseline Topics and whether they are of Economic, Environmental and Social Significance
Theme
Topic
Social Economic
Environmental
Population
Crime
Health
Education
Deprivation
Economic Activity
Income
Commercial Floorspace
Cultural Heritage and Material Assets
Listed Buildings
Conservation Areas
Land Utilisation
Water
24
Agricultural Land Classification
Air Quality
Road Traffic
Biodiversity – Flora and Fauna
Key Trends and Predicting Future Baseline The following section describes fundamental social, economic and environmental
elements of the Rochford District Council.
Location
Rochford District is situated to the south of Essex, and covers an area of 168.35 sq
km (65 square miles). The district of Rochford is situated within a peninsula between
the River Thames and Crouch, and is bounded by the North Sea. The district has
land boundaries with Basildon, Castle Point and Southend on Sea Districts and
Marine Boundaries with Maldon and Chelmsford Districts. Rochford District is
predominately rural with many surrounding villages; the main urban centres in the
district include the historic towns of Rochford and Rayleigh. Map 1 illustrates the
location of the Rochford District.
25
Map 1 Illustrating the Location of the Rochford District
(Sources; Rochford District Council Online, 2005 and National Statistics Online, 2005)
Population
The resident population of Rochford district, as measured in the 2001 Census, was
78,489 of which 49 per cent were male and 51 per cent were female. The sex
composition of Rochford District is similar to that of Essex County Council in 2001
with 48.8% of the Essex population male and 51.2% female. In 2001, 20 per cent of
the resident population were aged under 16, 57 per cent were aged between 16 and
59, and 23 per cent were aged 60 and over. The mean average age was 40. This
compared with an average age of 39 within England and Wales.
In analysing the social, economic and environmental characteristics of the Rochford
District it is important to be aware of the projected population change anticipated for
the district. This will provide an understanding as to the amount of population
change likely to be experienced within the district of Rochford. Graph one illustrates
the 2001 and the future projected population change for the District of Rochford.
26
Graph 1
Graph Illustrating the 2001 and Projected Population Change for the Borough of Rochford
77000
77500
78000
78500
79000
79500
80000
80500
81000
81500
2001 2006 2011 2016 2021
Year
Pop
ulat
ion
Tota
l
Source; Total Regional Planning Guidance 14 Submission, 29th March 2005 (Note the
population projection assumes dwelling provision will be implemented at the annual average
rate of provision set out in policy H2 of the Regional Spatial Strategy 14.)
Graph 1 demonstrates the population within the Rochford District in 2001 and the
projected alterations in the population size assuming the dwelling provision outlined
in the Draft East of England Plan (2004) will be implemented within Rochford. In
2001 the population of Rochford was 78, 400 persons, it is anticipated that by 2021
the population within the District will be 81, 000 persons. The total population within
Rochford District is therefore expected to increase by 3.2% throughout the period
2001-2021. Graph two illustrates the total population change anticipated for Essex
allowing comparison between the total growth rate for Essex and that of the District
of Rochford.
27
Graph 2
Graph Illustrating the Total Population and Projected Population for Essex County in 2001, 2006, 2011, 2016 and 2021
1540000
1560000
1580000
1600000
1620000
1640000
1660000
1680000
1700000
1720000
1740000
2001 2006 2011 2016 2021
Year
Num
ber o
f Per
sons
Source; Total Regional Planning Guidance 14 Submission, 29th March 2005 (Note the
population projection assumes dwelling provision will be implemented at the annual average
rate of provision set out in policy H2 of the Regional Spatial Strategy 14.)
Graph 2 demonstrates that the population within the County of Essex in 2001 was
161, 4400 persons and is anticipated to increase by 2021 to 172, 9400 persons. The
total population increase for Essex from 2001-2021 is 6.6%, therefore the projected
population increase for the District of Rochford is 50.1% less than the anticipated rise
in population throughout Essex.
Population Age Composition
The age composition of the population within the District of Rochford is important as
it will facilitate in measuring the demand for educational institutions, most notably
primary and secondary schools. Graph 3 outlines the percentage age composition of
the persons in 2001 and 2021 within the District of Rochford compared to the County
of Essex and the East of England region.
28
Graph 3
Graph Illustrating the 2001 and 2021 Percentage Total Age Composition for the District of Rochford, Essex County and East of England Region
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
0--4
5--9
10--14
15--19
20--24
25--29
30--34
35--39
40--44
45--49
50--54
55--59
60--64
65--69
70--74
75--79
80--84
85+
Age Cohort
Perc
enta
ge T
otal
Rochford 2001
Rochford 2021
Essex County (incUnitary Authorities)2001Essex County (incUnitary Authorities)2021East of EnglandRegion 2001
East of EnglandRegion 2021
Source; Total Regional Planning Guidance 14 Submission, 29th March 2005 (Note the
population projection assumes dwelling provision will be implemented at the annual
average rate of provision set out in policy H2 of the Regional Spatial Strategy 14.)
Graph 3 demonstrates that the proportion of persons aged 0-19 years in 2001 within
the District of Rochford, and the comparators will be less in 2021. Furthermore the
percentage of persons in Rochford aged 30-49 years in 2021 is anticipated to decline
most substantially from the 2001 rate. Within the district of Rochford there is likely to
be an increase in the number of retired people in 2021, most notably for persons 70
and above.
Thames Gateway South Essex Sub Regional
The Thames Gateway South Essex sub-region comprises of the five authorities of
Basildon, Castle Point, Rochford, Southend-on-Sea and Thurrock and it forms the
largest urban area within the East of England. It comprises of a mix of urban and
natural environments and at 2001 the population total for the sub region was 633,800
representing approximately 12% of the East of England regional total.
Graph 3 illustrates the population within the local authorities that comprise the
Thames Gateway South Essex and the projected population growth from 2001-2021.
29
The population growth figures are based on the number of housing anticipated to be
constructed as outlined in the Draft East of England Plan (2004).
Graph 4
Graph Illustrating the Population within the Local Authorities that Comprise the Thames Gateway South Essex in 2001 and the Projected Population Totals
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
160000
180000
Basildon Castle Point Rochford Southend-on-Sea Thurrock
Local Authority
Num
ber
of P
erso
ns 20012006201120162021
Source; Total Regional Planning Guidance 14 Submission, 29th March 2005 (Note the
population projection assumes dwelling provision will be implemented at the annual
average rate of provision set out in policy H2 of the Regional Spatial Strategy 14.)
Graph 4 demonstrates that the District of Rochford is anticipated to continue to have
the lowest population total of all the Thames Gateway South Essex districts.
Furthermore the increase in population throughout this period is expected to remain
fairly constant as the total population is predicted to increase by 3.2%. Clearly
Thurrock is expected to experience the greatest increase in population throughout
this period. Graph 5 illustrates the proportion of the population within Thames
Gateway South Essex that live within each district authority.
30
Graph 5
Graph Illustrating the Percentage of the Total Population Composition in 2001 of the Local
Authorities within Thames Gateway South Essex
Basildon 26%
Castle Point14%
Rochford12%
Southend-on-Sea25%
Thurrock23%
Source;
Adapted from Total Regional Planning Guidance 14 Submission, 29th March 2005 (Note the
population projection assumes dwelling provision will be implemented at the annual average
rate of provision set out in policy H2 of the Regional Spatial Strategy 14.)
Graph 5 illustrates that in 2001 Rochford (12%) contains the least proportion of the
population within Thames Gateway South Essex, whilst the neighbouring authorities
of Basildon (26%) and Southend-on-Sea (25%) have the greatest proportion of the
population in the sub region.
Population Density
Table 4 shows the number of persons per hectare and the average household size
within the District of Rochford, Essex County, the East of England region and
England and Wales in 2001.
31
Table 4 Table Illustrating the Population Density within Rochford District, the County of Essex, the east of England region and England and Wales in 2001
Density
Rochford District
Essex County East of England Region
England & Wales
Number of People Per Hectare
4.6 3.8 2.8 3.4
Average Household Size
2.44 2.38 2.37 2.36
Source: Office for National Statistics, 2001
Table 4 clearly demonstrates that the District of Rochford contains more persons per
hectare than the County of Essex (3.8 persons), the East of England region (2.8
persons) and England and Wales (3.4 persons). The average number of persons per
hectare within the East of England region is of greatest divergence to the trend
displayed by the District of Rochford in 2001. Table 4 also outlines the average
household size and indicates that in 2001 the District of Rochford contained a
marginally greater average household size than Essex County, the East of England
Region and England and Wales.
Deprivation
The Index of Multiple Deprivation 2004 (IMD 2004) is a measure of multiple
deprivation at the small area level, known as the Lower Super Output Areas. The
IMD 2004 is based on the idea that there are clear dimensions of deprivation which
are recognisable and may be measured. The deprivation is therefore measured in
terms of the domain. The IMD 2004 comprises of seven domains including;
Income deprivation; Employment deprivation; Health deprivation & disability; Education, skills and training deprivation; Barriers to housing and services;
32
Crime; and the Living environment deprivation.
There are also 6 measures that comprise the large area level these are available for
district and unitary council level areas. The large area measure for IMD 2004 is an
important source of information for interpreting the overall level of deprivation
experienced within the Rochford District. The large area measures include;
• Four are formulated from the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) for
small area;
Average Score – overall deprivation measure, retains range of scores;
Average Rank - overall deprivation measure, dampens the impact of
areas with extreme scores;
Extent Score - proportion of people living in serious deprived small
areas.
Local Concentration Score - represents the severity of deprivation in
‘hotspots’ (average IMD rank of worst-off areas with 10% of people)
• Two are absolute numbers, drawn from data underlying the IMD:
o Income Scale - number of income employment deprived
people;
o Employment Scale - number of employment deprived people.”
(Essex County Council, 2004)
Table 5 illustrates the large area Index of Multiple Deprivation scores for all the
Districts within Essex.
33
Table 5
Rank Essex
Average Score Average Rank Extent Local Concentration
1 Tendering 103
Tendering 98 Basildon 106 Tendering 111
2 Harlow 120
Harlow 101 Tendering 127 Basildon 116
3 Basildon 132
Basildon 142 Harlow 180 Colchester 189
4 Colchester 217
Colchester 221 Colchester 193 Harlow 207
5 Epping Forest
234
Braintree 228 Braintree 263 Epping Forest 243
6 Braintree 237 Epping Forest
232
Epping Forest
246
Braintree 247
7 Castle Point
245
Castle Point 243 Castle Point 273 Castle Point 258
8 Maldon 280
Maldon 280 Rochford 271 Chelmsford 286
9 Brentwood 312
Brentwood 312 Maldon 298 Rochford 299
10 Rochford 316
Rochford 319 Brentwood 295 Maldon 301
11 Chelmsford
320
Chelmsford 321 Chelmsford 274 Brentwood 307
12 Uttlesford 341
Uttlesford 342 Uttlesford 298 Uttlesford 352
Source; Essex County Council, 2004
Table 5 demonstrates that out of the 12 Essex local authorities Rochford performs
well compared to the remaining Essex Authorities, as the index of deprivation is
predominately within the lower quartile.
34
“Chelmsford, Rochford and Brentwood score fairly low in terms of overall
deprivation, in the 88-91% most deprived range” (Essex County Council,
2004, 8). The Extent Scores for the Essex Districts are outlined below;
* Basildon - 18%
* Tendering - 14%
* Harlow - 5%
* Colchester - 4%
* Braintree, Castle Point, Epping Forest, Rochford - all 1%
* Brentwood, Chelmsford, Maldon, Uttlesford - all 0%
(Source; Essex County Council, 2004, 9)
Clearly the results demonstrate that the District of Rochford has relatively few people
living in serious deprivation compared to the majority of the Essex Districts.
Essex contains 40 Super Output Areas in the most deprived 20% in England. These
seriously deprived areas are in Basildon, Clacton, Harwich, Colchester (5 areas) and
Harlow. Rochford does not contain any Super Output Areas in the most deprived
20%.
To fully understand the character of the deprivation it is essential to outline the
domain scores. Table 6 shows the percentage of small areas that are seriously
deprived on each domain score for Rochford District, the County of Essex and the
average for the Essex Districts.
Table 6 Authority IMD Income Employment Health and
Disability Education, Skills and Training
Barriers to Housing and Services
Living Environment
Crime No of Small Areas
Rochford
0 1.9 1.9 0 1.9 5.7 0 0 53
Essex
4.6 6.4 3.5 2.0 15.6 20.7 1.2 6.5 863
Essex District Average
3.3 4.8 2.7 1.4 13.7 24.1 1.0 5.1 71.9
Source, National Statistics Online, 2004 Indices of Multiple Deprivation
35
To aid interpretation of the results graph 8 has been formulated, highlighting the
percentage score for the small areas that are seriously deprived in the Rochford
District and the average for the Essex districts.
Graph 6
Graph Illustrating the Proportion of Small Areas that are 'Seriously Deprived' within the District of Rochford, the County of Essex and the Average for the
Essex Districts
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
IMD
Inco
me
Empl
oym
ent
Hea
lth a
ndD
isab
ility
Edu
catio
n,Sk
ills
and
Trai
ning
Barr
iers
toH
ousi
ng a
ndS
ervi
ces
Livi
ngEn
viro
nmen
t
Crim
e
Deprivation Domain
Prop
ortio
n of
Sm
all A
reas
Rochford
Essex
EssexDistrictAverage
Source, National Statistics Online, 2004 Indices of Multiple Deprivation
Graph 6 clearly demonstrates that the District of Rochford has less deprivation than
the average for the Essex Districts, and Essex County. However similarly to the
trend displayed by Essex and the average for the Essex Districts the greatest small
areas deprivation experienced within the District of Rochford is related to Barriers to
Housing and Services.
The Indices of Deprivation domains that are of particular importance to Open Space
include the Living Environment and Health Deprivation and Disability domains.
The Living Environment domain “focuses on deprivation with respect to the
characteristics of the living environment. It comprises two sub-domains: the indoor
living environment which measures the quality of housing and the outdoor which
contains two measures about air quality and road traffic accidents” (Office of the
Deputy Prime Minister, 2004, 4). Graph 6 illustrates that there are no small areas
36
within the District of Rochford that experience ‘serious living environment deprivation,
however the average for the Essex districts and the County total marginally exceeds
Rochford. It is important that the District of Rochford continues to display a good
quality living environment. This Domain comprises two sub-domains: the 'indoors'
living environment which measures the quality of housing and the 'outdoors' living
environment which contains two measures about air quality and road traffic
accidents.
Sub-Domain: The 'indoors' living environment
• Social and private housing in poor condition (2001)
• Houses without central heating (2001)
Sub-Domain: The 'outdoors' living environment
• Air quality (2001)
• Road traffic accidents involving injury to pedestrians and cyclists
(2000-2002)
Within each sub-domain the indicators were standardised, transformed to the normal
distribution and combined with equal weights. Then the two sub-domains were
standardised, transformed to the exponential distribution and combined into the
domain using a weight of 66.6% for ‘indoors’ living environment and 33.3% for
‘outdoors’ living environment to reflect the time people spend in each arena.
The second Indices of Deprivation domain that is of particular importance to the
Open Space Standards Supplementary Planning Document is the Health Deprivation
and Disability domain. This “domain identifies areas with relatively high rates of
people who die prematurely or whose quality of life is impaired by poor health or who
are disabled” (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, 2004, 3). This domain identifies
areas with relatively high rates of people who die prematurely or whose quality of life
is impaired by poor health or who are disabled, across the whole population.
Indicators include:
• Years of Potential Life Lost (1997-2001)
• Comparative Illness and Disability Ratio (2001)
• Measures of emergency admissions to hospital (1999-2002)
• Adults under 60 suffering from mood or anxiety disorders
(1997-2002)
37
Shrinkage is used on the indicators, and then they are combined using factor
weights. Similarly to the trends displayed by the Living Environment domain there are
no small areas within the District of Rochford that experience serious health
deprivation, while the Essex District average (1.4) and Essex County (2.0) marginally
exceeds this.
Health
The 2001 Census invited collected information regarding the respondents’ general
state of health. Graph 7 illustrates the health of persons within England and Wales,
the East of England region and the District of Rochford.
Graph 7
Graph Illustrating the Health of the Population within Rochford District, East of England Region and England and Wales
02468
101214161820
Limiting Long TermIllness
General Health 'notgood'
People Providing UnpaidCare
Providing Unpaid Care50 or More Hours/Work
Perception of Health
Perc
enta
ge o
f Per
sons
England andWales
East of England
Rochford
Source, National Statistics Online, 2004
Graph 7 demonstrates that within the District of Rochford 15.8% of people have a
limiting or long term illness, this level of persons is marginally lower than the regional
proportion of 16.2% and the national level (18.2%). Similarly to the percentage of
persons that have a limiting long term illness the proportion of the population that are
generally not in good health within the District of Rochford (7.2%) is similar to the
regional proportion (7.6%), but differs more greatly from the national level (9.2%).
The proportion of persons classified as ‘providing unpaid care’ within Rochford is
similar to the regional and national proportions.
38
Health measures can provide valuable indicators of the general health of the
population and the prevalence of illness within it. As can be seen in graph 8, the vast
majority of Rochford District residents (71.1%) class themselves as being in ‘good’
health.
Graph 8 Perception of Health in Resident Population
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Health: Good Health: Fairly good Health: Not good People with a limitinglong-term illness
People of working agewith a limiting long-
term illness
Households with oneor more person with a
limiting long-termillness
Peception of General Health
Perc
enta
ge o
f Res
iden
t Pop
ulat
ion
RochfordEast of EnglandEngland and Wales
Source: National Statistic Online 2001
39
Table 7 Perception of Health
Rochford East of England
England and Wales
General health: Good 71.1 70.4 68.6
General health: Fairly good 21.7 22.1 22.2
General health: Not good 7.2 7.6 9.2
People with a limiting long-term illness 15.8 16.2 18.2
People of working age with a limiting long-term illness 10.5 11.4 13.6
Households with one or more person with a limiting long-term illness 31.2 30.8 34.1
Source: National Statistic Online 2001
Essex residents class themselves as being healthy (see graph 8 and table 7 above),
a higher percentage than the average for England and Wales. Very few members of
the population regard themselves as having poor health; however there is a high
level of households in both Rochford and Essex that have more than one person with
a long term illness; however this is still lower than the England and Wales average
percentage.
Primary Care Trust (PCT)
Castle Point and Rochford Primary Care Trust (PCT) delivers healthcare services to
approximately 170,000 people in the borough of Castle Point and district of Rochford.
Together with GPs, dentists, pharmacist and opticians, they steer the planning and
provision of these services for the population. They directly provide services from 10
health clinics and they employ approximately 360 staff including district nurses,
40
health visitors, specialist nurses (such as continence and diabetes), therapists and
support staff.
Table 8 Health Services within Rochford District and surrounding area
Health Services Rochford District Surrounding District’s under same PCT (Benfleet, Canvey, Rayleigh and Hadleigh.)
Doctor 4 32
Dentist 1 22
Optician 1 16
Pharmacist 2 32
Source: www.nhs.co.uk
Disability The 2001 Census of Population provides data on the number of households with at
least one person with a limiting long-term illness for Essex in table 30. Rochford is in
line with Essex in that roughly one-third of households have one or more people with
a limiting long-term illness.
Table 9
Households with one or more person with a limiting long term illness
As % of all households All households
Basildon 33% 69,207
Braintree 29% 54,332
Brentwood 28% 28,767
Castle Point 33% 35,279
Chelmsford 27% 64,564
Colchester 31% 63,706
Epping Forest 30% 50,590
Harlow 31% 33,185
Maldon 30% 24,189
41
Rochford 31% 31,952
Southend 34% 70,978
Tendering 41% 61,411
Thurrock 32% 58,485
Uttlesford 27% 27,519
Essex 32% 674,164
Source: 2001 Census of Population, Office for National Statistics
When analysing Rochford 31,952 (31%) of all the households has a person with a
limiting long term illness, this is lower then the Essex figure of 674,164 and
considerably lower than districts such as Tendering. Material Assets and Cultural Heritage
Conservation Areas
Details on Conservation areas are set out in Appendix 3.
Participation in Sport
Figures are available for the participation in sport across the government regions,
however there is no information on participation figures for Essex County, or
Rochford District as no data has been collected.
42
Table 10 ‘Top five’ sports, games and physical activities: participation rates in the 4 weeks before interview by Government Office Region
Source: National Statistics Online, 2002
As can be seen in table 10, adults living in the South West were more likely than
those in other regions to have participated in at least one activity excluding walking
(50% compared with 37% to 46% for other regions in England). The East of England
percentages were similar to those of England as a whole. The percentage of those
who participated in walking is 35%, whilst the England average is 34%. However
percentages for swimming, keep fit/yoga and snooker/pool/billiards are all 1% lower
than the England percentage. However, the East of England had the highest
percentage of cycling any government region within England with 12%, as can be
seen in graph 9 below. However, is unfortunate that there are no figures available on
a local or county scale to compare with this data; as a result we are unable to look at
it in any greater detail.
43
Graph 9
'Top five' sports, games and physical activities: participation rates
05
1015202530354045
North East
North W
est
Yorkshire
and Humber
East Midlands
West Midlands
East of E
ngland
London
South East
South W
est
England
Government Office Region
Perc
enta
ge
Walking
swimming
KeepFit/YogaSnooker/Pool/BilliardsCycling
Source: National Statistics Online, 2002
Table 11 illustrates the use of different types of facility across the country. Nearly a
quarter of adults in the East of England (22%) had used an indoor facility which was
mainly used for sport (for example, a sports centre or indoor swimming pool) and
13% had used an outdoor facility which was mainly used for sport (e.g. playing field
or outdoor swimming pool). Sporting activities also took place in indoor facilities not
mainly used for sport such as community facilities, like village halls (12%) and at
home (4%).
44
Table 11 Use of different types of facility by Government Office Region
Source: National Statistics Online, 2002
When compared to the average percentages for England, the East of England
percentage for ‘indoor mainly for sport’ and ‘indoor other community facility’ are
slightly lower. However, The percentages for ‘outdoor mainly used for sport’, ‘outdoor
natural setting’ and ‘other – including roads and pathways’ are all higher than the
average percentage for England.
45
Table 12 Planning Applications Relating to Playing Fields
Year 2002/03 2003/04 Total number of applications 1297 1413
Number of applications resulting in net
gain to, or no loss of, playing fields 472 36 % 590 42%
Number of applications resulting in no
change to playing fields (and withdrawn
or rejected applications)
407 31 % 439 31%
Number of applications which were
deemed to be detrimental to playing
fields and would result in a non-sporting
development or one of little sporting
benefit
76 6 % 52 4%
Applications yet to be decided 342 27 % 332 23% Total 1297 100 % 1413 100%
Source: Department for Culture, Media and Sport, July 2005
Table 12 explores the total number of planning applications across the country
relating to playing fields. As can be seen, there has been an increase in the number
of applications resulting in either a net gain or net loss of playing fields from 36% of
the applications relating to playing fields in 2002/03 to 42% in 2003/04. Fewer
applications were regarded as having a detrimental effect upon playing fields, with a
drop from 6% in 2002/03 to 4% in 2003/04.
46
Table 13 Approved applications involving redevelopment
Year 2002/03 2003/04 Number of sites where approved
applications will involve redevelopment
to provide new or improved sports
facilities
212 26% 310 32 %
Applications that will improve the use of
playing fields through new or
refurbished changing rooms added
floodlighting or improved access to the
site.
153 19 % 148 15 %
Playing fields provided as like for like
replacements. 107 13% 132 14 %
Cases where the site was too small or
the wrong shape to accommodate a
playing pitch.
257 31% 314 33 %
Cases where a careful assessment of
supply and demand against a playing
field strategy showed that there was a
strong case for releasing the land for a
different use.
2 1 % 3 1 %
Cases where Sport England maintained
an objection, but where the Deputy
Prime Minister's Office concluded that
national planning considerations had
not been overlooked.
36 5 % 31 3 %
Applications where Sport England is
statutory consultee but where the
provisions of the 1998 Direction does
not apply (privately owned fields)
40 5% 21 2%
Total 807 100% 959 100%
Note: '%' figures in this table refer to the percentage of total approved applications)
Source: Department for Culture, Media and Sport, July 2005
The statistics in table 13 show that of the 959 applications that were approved for
development, 590 involved projects that would greatly improve the quality of sport on
offer at the site. These included new sports centres, tennis courts, athletics tracks
47
and Astroturf pitches as well as changing rooms and floodlights. They also include
132 cases where like-for-like replacement playing fields were provided.
Of the 959 approved applications, just 52 (4%) were deemed to be detrimental to
sporting provision – 31 of which were owned by local authorities and 21 owned
privately. This is against a backdrop of some 44,000 playing pitches across 21,000
sites in England, and the creation in 2003-04 of 72 additional new playing fields. 314
applications were approved for development on sites, which were too small to
accommodate playing pitches. In two cases was there a complete loss of a playing
field.
Playing Pitches
Table 14 Playing pitches within Rochford District:
Name/location of facilities Type of Provision
Ashingdon Playing Field
Ashingdon Road,
Ashingdon,
Essex SS4 3HF
6 Football pitches (adult)
Basketball ring
Play space
Great Wakering
Recreation Ground,
High Street,
Great Wakering,
Essex SS3 0HX
4 Football pitches (2 adult,
2 mini)
2 basketball rings
Licking wall
Cycle speedway track
Play space
Cupids Country Club,
Cupids Chase,
Great Wakering,
Essex, SS3 0AX
5 Football pitches
(adult)
Rochford Recreation
Ground,
Stambridge Road,
Rochford,
Essex SS4 3JA
3 Football pitches
(2 adult, 1 mini)
1 Hockey pitch
Bowling green
2 Basketball rings
5-a-side football
Play space
48
Rawreth Recreation
Ground,
Rawreth Lane,
Rawreth,
Essex
4 Football pitches
(4 adult)
Rayleigh Town Sports
and Social Club
3 Football pitches
(3 adult)
Castle Point and Rochford
Adult Community College,
Roche Way,
Rochford
Essex, SS14 2EQ
4 Football pitches
(1 adult, 1 junior and
2 mini pitches)
Fairview Playing Fields
Victoria Road,
Rayleigh
4 Football pitches
(adult)
4 Tennis courts
(hard surface)
5-a-side football
Basketball court
Play space
Grove Road Playing
space, Grove Road,
Rayleigh, Essex
4 Football pitches ( 1
adult, 2 junior, 2 mini)
2 Play spaces, BMX track
King Georges Playing
Field, Websters Way,
Rayleigh, Essex
3 Football pitches
(1 adult, 1 junior, 1
mini) Bowling green
Play space
BMX/Skateboarding area
Pooles Lane Recreation
Ground, Pooles Lane,
Hullbridge,
Essex, SS5 6PU
1 Football pitch (adult)
BMX track
2 Basketball rings
5-a-side football
Play space
Skateboarding area
Hullbridge Sports and
Social Club
6 Football pitches
(4 adult, 2 junior)
Canewdon Recreation
Ground, Althorne Way,
Canewdon,
Essex SS4 3PS
1 Football pitch (adult)
2 Basketball rings
Play space
Skateboarding area
Laburnham Grove 1 Basketball ring
49
Magnolia Road Playing
Space
BMX track
Basketball Ring
Play space
Morrins Close,
Great Wakering
2 Basketball rings
Play space
John Fisher Playing
Field 2 Football pitches (adult)
Hockley Community
Centre,
Westminster Drive,
Hockley, Essex 1 Football pitch (junior)
School/College Football Pitches:
• Canewdon Endowed Primary School (1 junior)
• Doggetts County Primary School, Rochford (1 junior)
• Downhall County Primary School, Rayleigh (1 junior)
• Great Wakering Primary School (2 junior)
• Hockley Primary School (1 junior)
• Holt Farm Infants & Junior School, Rochford (1 junior)
• Plumberow Primary School, Hockley (2 junior)
• Rayleigh County Primary School (1 junior)
• Rochford Adult Community College (1 adult; 1 junior; 2 mini)
• St Nicholas C of E Primary School, Rawreth (1 mini)
• Westerings Primary School, Hockley (1 junior)
As can be seen in table 6, Rochford District has a large supply of football pitches,
both adult and junior. The data available does not give any details on the provision of
rugby pitches/facilities.
The local planning authority has adopted a general policy of providing 2.5 hectares of
open space per 1000 population, and in all urban settlements all residential areas
should be within half a kilometre of a large open space (at least 2 hectares) or within
one-fifth of a kilometre of a small open space (at least 0.4 hectares.
50
Attention will also be paid to the National Playing Fields standard for the provision
of playing pitches which is approximately 1.8 heactares of pitches, courts, greens etc.
per 1000 population, including at least 1.2 hectares of pitches.
Table 15
Source: Rochford District Council, 2002
A user survey of recreation grounds and playing fields was undertaken by the
grounds maintenance contractors, Service team in summer 2005 with results are
expected in mid 2006.
There are currently 3 leisure or sports centres operating within Rochford District. 2 of
these 3 leisure centres are owned by Rochford District Council, and run by Holmes
Places Leisure Management this includes Great Wakering Sports Centre and
Clements Hall Leisure Centre. Rayleigh Leisure Centre, currently under construction
is being built on a disused school site of 3.2 acres. This will also under local authority
control with Holmes place running it and it is due to open in May 2006. The
Warehouse Centre is run by a charitable Christian organisation.
Leisure Centres within Rochford District:
• Great Wakering Sports Centre, High Street, Great Wakering, Essex,
SS3 0HX
51
• Clements Hall Leisure Centre, Clements Hall Way, Hawkwell, Essex,
SS5 4LN
• The Warehouse Centre, 7 Brook Road, Rayleigh, Essex, SS6 7UT.
There are currently no usage figures available for private sports centres such as The
Warehouse Centre. However, figures for Great Wakering Sports Centre show that
visitor numbers have increased with a two year period from 12,385 in 2003/04 to
17,895 in 2004/05; an increase on 42%. The sports centre had previously been
vandalised repeatedly, and the introduction of better security measures may have
helped increase usage. Figures for Clements Hall show that in 2003/04 the leisure
centre received 536,012 visitors and in 2004/05 this increased to 581,196, a rise of
8%.
Land Utilisation
Planning Policy Guidance note 3 entitled Housing outlines that central Government is
“committed to maximising the re-use of previously developed land and empty
properties and the conversion of non- residential buildings for housing” (Office of
Deputy Prime Minister, 2000, 8.) The objective of the government’s aim is to promote
regeneration and minimise the amount of Greenfield land being utilised for
development. The Planning Policy Guidance note 3 sets out a national target that by
“2008, 60% of additional housing should be provided on previously developed land
and through conversions of existing buildings” (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister,
2000.8). The target allows the assessment of Local Authority Performance to
development on previously developed land.
A service level agreement between Essex County Council and Rochford District
Council exists whereby the County Council undertakes residential and non-
residential land monitoring. The information formulated by the County Council is
further verified by Rochford District Council. Graph 10 utilises this information and
illustrates the percentage of residential development that has occurred on previously
developed land from 2001-2004 in the Rochford District and throughout Essex.
52
Graph 10
Graph Illustrating the Prportion of Residential Dwellings Constructed on Brownfield Land
0%10%20%
30%40%50%60%
70%80%90%
2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005
Year
Perc
enta
ge o
f Res
iden
tial
Dev
elop
men
t on
Brow
nfie
ld
Land
Rochford
Essex
Source; Essex County Council Monitoring Statistics, 2004.
Graph 10 illustrates that since 2003-04 the District of Rochford has achieved the
Government’s target of 60% of new residential developments upon previously
developed land. However Essex County (excluding Southend-on- Sea and Thurrock)
has continually exceeded the number of residential development constructed on
previously developed land. The intensification of existing and future development is
an important aspect of residential dwelling design and may impact on the quantity of
Greenfield land required for development.
Windfall Sites
A total of 199 windfall developments have become available between 2001 and
2005. 16 of these were built on Greenfield sites, whilst the vast majority (183) were
built on previously developed land. 2002/2003 saw the highest number of small site
developments build on previously developed land – 64, whilst there were 15
developments on Greenfield sites, compared to 26 on previously developed land in
2003/2004. By 2004/2005, 46 small scale developments were built on previously
developed land, with no development of Greenfield sites at all (Rochford District
Statement of Land Availability April 2005).
53
Flooding Appendix 4 illustrates flood risk with Rochford District.
Air Quality
The quality of our air affects both human health and life quality, and the natural
environment. Poor air quality can also affect the health of our ecosystems, and can
adversely affect our built cultural heritage.
Local air quality is affected by emissions from industrial activity, airports, power
stations and natural sources, but road transport accounts for around 40% of UK
Nitrogen dioxide emissions. Additionally, diesel vehicles are a significant source of
the emissions of fine particulates.
The implementation of Air Quality Review and Assessment requirements by the
Environmental Health department at Rochford District Council has led to the
identification of 7 potentially significant junctions with a daily flow of greater than
10,000 vehicles. These are as follows:
1) A129/A127 Rayleigh Weir Underpass
2) A127/A130 Junction
3) Rawreth Lane/A130 Chelmsford Road Junction
4) High Street/Eastwood Road Junction, Rayleigh
5) Hockley Road/High Street A129 Junction, Rayleigh
6) Hall Road/West Street Junction, Rochford
7) Southend Road/Sutton Road Junction, Rochford
At all of these junctions the predicted 2005 annual mean Nitrogen dioxide
concentration, 2004 PM10 concentration and exceedence all meet the National Air
Quality Strategy (2000) standards (Rochford District Council: Local Air Quality
Management – Updating and Screening Assessment, October 2003). The highest
predicted Nitrogen dioxide concentration in 2005 is at the High Street/Eastwood
Road junction, with a predicted annual mean concentration of 39.3 μg/m3. However,
this is only a modelled prediction. The maximum predicted annual mean PM10
concentration in 2004 is 30.5 μg/m3, at the aforementioned junction, which is below
54
the annual average objective of 40 μg/m3. The estimated number of exceedence of
the daily mean objective is 30, which is below the 35 exceedence allowed in a year.
As a result of this the High Street/Eastwood Road junction has become a site for
Nitrogen dioxide diffusion tube monitoring. The actual 2004 and 2005 Nitrogen
dioxide concentrations at 3 roadside sites have been found to exceed or almost
exceed the annual mean objective value of 40 μg/m3. These measurements range
from 38.1 μg/m3 to 42.8 μg/m3. The other diffusion tube monitoring sites, at Rochford
Market Square and Bedloes Corner have been found to have Nitrogen dioxide
concentrations well below the annual mean objective in 2004 and 2005, ranging from
27.4 μg/m3 to 30.9 μg/m3.
PM10 monitoring was undertaken from May to August 2004 at the Rawreth Industrial
Estate. The site chosen was to the east of the estate in closest proximity to the T J
Cottis site, which has been the main source of reported dust complaints. Monitoring
was undertaken under worse case conditions during the summer months. During the
3 months of monitoring, there were 7 days where the 24-hour mean objective of 50
μg/m3 was exceeded. The range of concentrations measured during the monitoring
period was 11.3 μg/m3 to 57.6 μg/m3, with a period mean of 31.4 μg/m3 (Rochford
District Council: Local Air Quality Management – Detailed Assessment Report,
November 2004). This site is due to be monitored for PM10 in the summer of 2006.
55
Map 2 - Potentially Significant Junctions in Rochford District
57
Rochford District has one road of concern regarding congestion (with a ratio of flow to
congestion reference flow of <0.79), the A130.
Compliance with targets National Air Quality Strategy (2000) objectives are predicted to be met at all significant
junctions identified within the District.
The actual 2004 and 2005 Nitrogen dioxide concentration at 3 roadside sites at the High
Street/Eastwood Road junction has been found to exceed or almost exceed the annual
mean objective value of 40 μg/m3.
At the Rochford Market Square and Bedloes Corner, Nitrogen dioxide concentrations
have been found to be well below the annual mean objective in 2004 and 2005, ranging
from 27.4 μg/m3 to 30.9 μg/m3.
During the monitoring of Rawreth Industrial Estate for PM10 in summer 2004, there were
7 days where the 24-hour mean objective of 50 μg/m3 was exceeded.
It is therefore necessary that the District of Rochford continues to monitor the air quality
throughout the area, and seek to promote the utilisation of more sustainable
transportation modes.
58
SEA Objectives, Targets and Indicators
Sustainability Objectives:
The utilisation of sustainability objectives is a recognised methodology for considering
the environmental effects of a plan and programme and comparing the effects of the
alternatives. They serve a different purpose to the objectives of the Rochford District
Council Playing Pitch Strategy Supplementary Planning Document. The sustainability
objectives are utilised to show whether the objectives of the plan and programme are
beneficial for the environment, to compare the environmental effects of the alternatives
or to suggest improvements.
The sustainability objectives have been derived from a review of the plans and
programme at the European, national, regional, county and local scale and a strategic
analysis of the baseline information. The assessment of the baseline data allows the
current state of the environment to be evaluated to determine if significant effects are
evident.
Annex 1 (f) of the SEA Directive states that ‘the likely significant effects on the
environment, including on issues such as biodiversity, population, human health, fauna,
flora, soil, water, air, climatic factors, material assets, cultural heritage including
architectural and archaeological heritage, landscape and the interrelationship between
the above factors’ should be analysed. The sustainability objectives identified for the
assessment of the Rochford District Council Playing Pitch Strategy Supplementary
Planning Document are outlined in table 16. Table 16 also highlights the relationship
with the SEA Directive, the source of the objectives and the related issues.
59
Table 16
SEA Directive Significant Effects
SEA/SA Objective Source
Population Human Health Material Assets Cultural Heritage
(1) Provide improved access and opportunities
for all to open space, sport and recreation.
Office of the
Deputy Prime
Minister,
Planning Policy
Statement 1 –
Delivering
Sustainable
Development,
2005
Office of the
Deputy Prime
Minister,
Planning Policy
Guidance 3 –
Housing, 2000
Office of the
Deputy Prime
Minister,
Planning Policy
Guidance 17 –
Planning for
Open Space
and Recreation,
1991
Population Human Health
(2) Improve quality of public realm and open
spaces in urban and rural areas.
Planning Policy
Statement 6 –
Town centres,
60
Material Assets Cultural Heritage Landscape Biodiversity inc, Fauna/Flora
2005
Rochford
District Council,
Replacement
Local Plan,
2004
Population Human Health Material Assets Cultural Heritage Landscape Fauna/Flora
(3) To deliver safe, healthy and attractive
places to live.
Office of the
Deputy Prime
Minister,
Planning Policy
Statement 1 –
Delivering
Sustainable
Development,
2005
Material Assets Cultural Heritage Landscape Biodiversity inc, Fauna/Flora
(4) To ensure that new development
contributes to enhancing the character,
appearance, recreational and biodiversity
value.
East of England
Regional
Assembly, Draft
East of England
Regional Plan,
Regional
Spatial Strategy
14, 2004
Population Human Health
(5) To support the promotion of health and well-
being.
East of England
Regional
Assembly, Draft
61
Material Assets Cultural Heritage Landscape Fauna/Flora
East of England
Regional Plan,
Regional
Spatial Strategy
14, 2004
Population Material Assets Landscape Biodiversity inc Fauna/Flora
(6) To promote efficient use of land and re-use
of previously-developed sites.
Office of the
Deputy Prime
Minister,
Planning Policy
Guidance 3 –
Housing, 2000
Population Human Health Material Assets Cultural Heritage Landscape
(7) To preserve and enhance the historic
environment.
Office of the
Deputy Prime
Minister,
Planning Policy
Guidance 15,
Planning and
the Historic
Environment,
1994
Office of the
Deputy Prime
Minister,
Planning Policy
Guidance 16,
Archaeology
and Planning,
62
1990
Population Human Health Material Assets Cultural Heritage Landscape Fauna/Flora
(8) To preserve and enhance the cultural
environment.
Office of the
Deputy Prime
Minister,
Planning Policy
Guidance 15,
Planning and
the Historic
Environment,
1994
Office of the
Deputy Prime
Minister,
Planning Policy
Guidance 16,
Archaeology
and Planning,
1990
Assessing the Compatibility of the Objectives A balance of social, economic and environmental objectives has been selected. To test
the internal compatibility of the sustainability objectives a compatibility assessment was
undertaken to identify any potential tensions between the objectives. Matrix 1 illustrates
the compatibility appraisal of the sustainability objectives.
63
Matrix 1 Matrix Illustrating the Compatibility Appraisal of the Sustainability Objectives
2 VC
3 VC VC
4 VC VC VC
5 VC VC VC VC
6 C C C VC C
7 C VC VC VC C C
8 C VC VC VC C C VC Sust
aina
bilit
y O
bjec
tives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Sustainability Objectives
Key Symbol
Very Compatible VC
Compatible C
No Impact N
Incompatible I
Very Incompatible VI
Uncertain U
A second compatibility test was undertaken to determine whether the aims of the Playing
Pitch Strategy Supplementary Planning Documents were compatible with the
sustainability objectives. Matrix 2 outlines the compatibility of the sustainability
objectives and the Playing Pitch Strategy Supplementary Planning Document aims.
Prior to conducting the Appraisal of the Plans Policies it was decided that objective 5
related to health would be adequately addressed using objective 3, therefore this
objective was deleted from the appraisal.
64
Matrix 2 - Compatibility of the Sustainability Objectives and the Core Strategy Aims
Rochford District SEA Objectives 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 VC VC VC VC VC C VC VC Playing Pitches SPD Objectives 2 VC VC VC VC C VC VC VC
Key Symbol
Very Compatible VC
Compatible C
No Impact N
Incompatible I
Very Incompatible VI
Uncertain U
65
Chapter 4 - SPD Policy Appraisal
66
Chapter 4 SPD Policy Appraisal Significant Social, Environmental and Economic Effects of the Preferred Policies
Annex 1 (f) of the SEA Directive (2001) states that information should be provided on
“the likely significant effects on the environment, including on issues such as
biodiversity, population, human health, fauna, flora, soil, water, air, climatic, material
assets including architectural and archaeological heritage, landscape and the
interrelationship between the above factors” (Annex 1(f). It is recommended in the
guidance by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister that the significance of the effect of
a policy or plan needs to consider the probability, duration, frequency and reversibility of
the effects. To aid in this evaluation the SA Framework adopted is comparable to that
delineated in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister’s Guidance entitled ‘Sustainability
Appraisal of Regional Spatial Strategies and Local Development Documents’
(November, 2005). The SA Framework aims to ensure that the policies outlined in the
Rochford District Council Playing Pitch Strategy Supplementary Planning Document
Issues and Options are beneficial to the community and sustainable (Office of the
Deputy Prime Minister, 2005).
A comprehensive assessment of all policies against all SA/SEA objectives has been
undertaken and is a technical annex to this report. Furthermore a summary of the
policies appraised is outlined in Appendix 2. A summary of the significant social,
environmental and economic effects, spatial extent, temporal extent and
recommendations arising from the Appraising Plan Policy assessment is outlined below.
The assessment is of potential positive, negative, direct and indirect effects. The
summary outlines the Playing Pitch Strategy Supplementary Planning Documents
performance against the sustainability objectives. The objectives have been subdivided
to reflect the specific social, economic and environmental dimensions of sustainability as
outlined in the SEA Directive Annex 1(f).
67
Relationship with SEA Directive
SEA Objective
Population Human Health Material Assets Cultural Heritage
(1) Provide improved access and opportunities for all to open
space, sport and recreation.
Rochford District Council Replacement Local Plan (2004) LT2 – Public Playing Pitch Provision Significant Effect – Minor negative in the short – long term. Geographical Spatial Extent – Throughout the District of Rochford.
Justification – Accessibility of playing pitches throughout the District of Rochford is
dependent upon location. Table 6.3 which is also set out in the SPD (table 1) outlines
the suggested local standards for playing pitches throughout the districts sub areas,
including; Rayleigh, Hockley, Hullbridge, Canewdon, Rochford and Great Wakering.
These areas have varying standards of provision some exceeding the National Playing
Field Association standard of 1.20ha per thousand of the population for instance Great
Wakering 1.77ha, Canewdon 1.68ha, Rochford 1.36ha and Hullbridge 1.34ha per
thousand of the population. Other sub areas throughout the district have a level of
playing pitch accessibility that is below the minimum standard including Rayleigh 1.15ha
and most notably Hockley 0.7ha per thousand of the population. The justification for the
lower standards is because of the demographic profile of the local population and the
surplus capacity.
Recommendation – The level of standard would need to be subject to ongoing review
to take account of changes in the demographic profile of areas and capacity of provision.
68
Appraising Plans Policy 1
Significant Effect – Minor positive in the short – long term.
Geographical Spatial Extent – Throughout the District of Rochford, and more
specifically communities that are in close proximity to new residential development.
Justification – Improved access and opportunities to open space, sport and recreation
will be improved however it does not take account of cumulative demands generated by
developments of less than 10 units. The baseline evidence from the number of windfall
residential dwellings that have been granted planning permission from 2001 to present
day suggests that there were a total of 199 dwellings (including Greenfield and
brownfield land). This therefore indicates that the threshold of 10 dwellings may be
detrimental to accessibility to open space, sport and recreation. Planning Obligations
Circular 2005/05 states that local planning obligations policies should “cover both
allocated and windfall sites as well as setting out the principles for general application”
(Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, 2005, Para B28).
The approach adopted seeks to promote the utilisation/enhancement of existing playing
pitch provision. It also takes into account local community demand for improved access
to sports and recreational facilities.
It is therefore considered that the overall impact is positive.
Recommendation – It is recommended that monetary obligations are sought from both
allocated and windfall sites, including sites of residential development of less than 10
dwellings.
Appraising Plans Policy 2 – Greenbelt Significant Effect – Major positive in the short – long term.
Geographical Spatial Extent – Communities throughout the District of Rochford, but
most notably existing and new persons in close proximity to the greenbelt.
69
Justification – The Essex and Southend Replacement Structure Plan (2001) Policy C2
entitled Development Within the Metropolitan Greenbelt and the provisions set out in
Planning Policy Guidance 2 – Greenbelt, state that “the construction of new buildings
inside a Greenbelt is inappropriate unless it is for the … essential facilities for outdoor
sport and outdoor recreation … which preserve the openness of the Greenbelt and
which do not conflict with the purposes of including land in it” (Office of the Deputy Prime
Minister, 1995, Para 3.4). It is therefore considered that the criterion within this policy is
adequate to ensure the appropriate access to open space, sport and recreational
facilities for communities within the greenbelt.
Recommendation – Not relevant.
Appraising Plans Policy 5 – Transport Infrastructure
Significant Effect – Major positive in the short – long term.
Appraising Plans Policy 6 (APP6) Significant Effect – Major positive effect in the short – long term.
Geographical Spatial Extent – Throughout the District of Rochford.
Justification: Through ensuring that provision is well drained and suitable for use will
increase the opportunity that it provides for use.
Drainage mechanisms need to be considered because well drained soil encourages
grass growth which will lead to the possibility of the pitch being more heavily utilised. For
example, many poorly drained grass pitches can only accommodate under 2 hours of
adult use per week compared to 3-6 hours for pipe and silt drained pitches (Rochford
District Council, 2002 [supporting text]).
Recommendation: Not relevant.
70
Relationship with SEA Directive
SEA Objective
Population Human Health Material Assets Cultural Heritage Landscape Biodiversity inc, Fauna/Flora
(2) Improve quality of public realm and open spaces in urban and
rural areas.
Appraising Plans Policy 2 (APP2) – Greenbelt Significant Effect – Minor positive in the short – long term.
Geographical Spatial Extent – Communities throughout the District of Rochford, but
most notably existing and new persons in close proximity to the greenbelt. Justification – The policy aims to ensure that where development on the greenbelt is
required it should be of the appropriate scale and type. To ensure high quality public
realm and open spaces within the greenbelt it is deemed appropriate that the SPD
defines what is meant by a ‘significant club house’. Planning Policy Guidance 17 defines
‘core facilities’ as “those facilities that require large, bulky buildings and are intended to
generate high levels of use, this groups includes swimming pools, indoor sports halls
and leisure facilities, indoor bowls centres, indoor tennis centres and ice rinks” (Office of
the Deputy Prime Minister, 1991, Para 2.9). The parameters for development outlined
by Sport England Design and Technical Guidelines are deemed appropriate for outlining
the appropriate size for development within the greenbelt. Central Government
71
guidance suggests that where appropriate local authorities may develop typologies
(Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, 1991).
Recommendation - It is recommended that the SPD provides further detail as to what is
considered a significant club house.
Appraising Plans Policy 3 – Design Significant Effect – Minor positive in the short – long term.
Geographical Spatial Extent – Throughout the District of Rochford.
Justification – “Quality depends on two things: the needs and expectations of users, on
the one hand, and design, management and maintenance on the other…
…many open spaces are in practice multi-functional. Most grass pitches are probably
used for the purposes of children’s’ play, kite flying, exercising dogs or jogging as well as
sport. This can create problems when analysing an audit of provision and determining
whether local needs are satisfied.”
PPG 17.
The policy positively contributes to this objective and overall the requirement to assess
provision against Sport England Guidance will ensure improved quality of public realm
and open spaces. However the policy statement that “proposed schemes will normally
be assessed …” reduces certainty over the standards being adhered to.
Recommendation – That the policy states that only in exceptional circumstances Sport
England Design and Technical Guidelines would not be applicable.
Appraising Plans Policy 5 – Transportation Infrastructure
Significant Effect – Major positive in the short – long term.
Geographical Spatial Extent – Throughout the District of Rochford.
72
Justification – Quality public realm will be delivered by the implementation of this
policy. Access by a range of sustainable transportation modes is a significant
determinant in the quality of the open space provision.
Recommendation – Not relevant.
Appraising Plans Policy 6 – Drainage Significant Effect – Major positive in the short – long term.
Geographical Spatial Extent – Throughout the District of Rochford.
Justification: Sufficient drainage facilities will improve the quality of the facilities.
Recommendation – In order address facilities with insufficient drainage priority should
be given to the pitches highlighted in table 12.3 of the “An Assessment of the Playing
Pitches in Rochford District October 2002” document.
Relationship with SEA Directive
SEA Objective
Population Human Health Material Assets Cultural Heritage Landscape Fauna/Flora
(3) To deliver safe, healthy and attractive places to live.
Appraising Plans Policy 1
73
Significant Effect – Major positive in the short – long term. Geographical Spatial Extent – Throughout the District of Rochford, and more
specifically communities that are in close proximity to new residential development.
Justification – To ensure the delivery of sustainable communities throughout the
Rochford District an important component is that it is ‘active, inclusive and safe’ (Office
of the Deputy Prime Minister, 2005). The offering of opportunities for cultural, leisure,
sport and other activities throughout the District is deemed adequate to achieve an
active, inclusive and safe community (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, 2005). It is
also important that the District of Rochford features a ‘quality built natural environment’
(Office of the Deputy Prime Minster, 2005). APP3 (Design) addresses this.
Recommendation – Not relevant. Appraising Plans Policy 5 – Transportation Infrastructure Significant Effect – Major positive in the short – long term. Geographical scope – Throughout the District of Rochford.
Justification – Access by a range of sustainable transportation modes is a significant
determinant in the delivery of safe, health and attractive places to live.
Recommendation – Not relevant.
Relationship with SEA Directive
SEA Objective
Material Assets Cultural Heritage Landscape
(4) To ensure that new development contributes to enhancing the
character, appearance, recreational and biodiversity value.
74
Biodiversity inc, Fauna/Flora
Rochford District Council Replacement Rochford Local Plan (2004) – Policy LT2 – Public Playing Pitch Provision Significant Effect – Major positive in the short – long term. Geographical Spatial Extent – Throughout the District of Rochford.
Justification - The policy seeks to ensure that the effect on the amenity of the
surrounding area and nature conservation interests is taken into consideration.
Recommendation – Not relevant.
Appraising Plans Policy 3 – Design Significant Effect – Major positive in the short – long term.
Geographical Spatial Extent – Throughout the District of Rochford.
Justification – The policy positively contributes to this objective and overall the
requirement to assess provision against Sport England Guidance will ensure that new
development contributes to enhancing the character, appearance, recreational and
biodiversity value. However the policy statement that “proposed schemes will normally
be assessed …” reduces certainty over the standards being adhered to.
Recommendation – That the policy states that only in exceptional circumstances Sport
England Design and Technical Guidelines.
75
Relationship with SEA Directive
SEA Objective
Population Material Assets Landscape Biodiversity inc Fauna/Flora
(5) To promote efficient use of land and re-use of previously-
developed sites.
Appraising Plans Policy 3 – Design Significant Effect – Minor positive in the short – long term.
Geographical Spatial Extent – Throughout the District of Rochford.
Justification – The policy positively contributes to this objective and overall the
requirement to assess provision against Sport England Guidance will ensure that
efficient use is made of land, with regard to the layout and design of facilities. However
the policy statement that “proposed schemes will normally be assessed …” reduces
certainty over the standards being adhered to.
Recommendation – That the policy states that only in exceptional circumstances Sport
England Design and Technical Guidelines would not be applicable.
Appraising Plans Policy 4 – Size of Pitches Significant Effect – Major positive in the short – long term.
Geographical Spatial Extent – Rochford District.
Justification – Through setting standards the policy will ensure that land is used
efficiently in accordance with the land area needed for different types of sporting activity.
76
Recommendation – Not relevant.
Relationship with SEA Directive
SEA Objective
Population Human Health Material Assets Cultural Heritage Landscape
(6) To preserve and enhance the historic environment.
Appraising Plans Policy 3 – Design Significant Effect – Minor positive in the short – long term.
Geographical Spatial Extent – Throughout the District of Rochford.
Justification – The policy positively contributes to this objective and overall the
requirement to assess provision against Sport England Guidance will ensure the
preservation and enhancement of the historic environment. However the policy
statement that “proposed schemes will normally be assessed …” reduces certainty over
the standards being adhered to.
Recommendation – That the policy states that only in exceptional circumstances Sport
England Design and Technical Guidelines would not be applicable.
77
Relationship with SEA Directive
SEA Objective
Population Human Health Material Assets Cultural Heritage Landscape Fauna/Flora
(7) To preserve and enhance the cultural environment.
Appraising Plans Policy 3 – Design Significant Effect – Minor positive in the short – long term.
Geographical Spatial Extent – Throughout the District of Rochford.
Justification – The policy positively contributes to this objective and overall the
requirement to assess provision against Sport England Guidance will ensure the
preservation and enhancement of the cultural environment... However the policy
statement that “proposed schemes will normally be assessed …” reduces certainty over
the standards being adhered to.
Recommendation – That the policy states that only in exceptional circumstances Sport
England Design and Technical Guidelines would not be applicable.
78
Chapter 5 - SPD Issues and Alternatives
79
Chapter 5
SPD Issues and Alternatives The SEA Directive states that ‘where an Environmental Assessment is required under
Article 3 (1), and Environmental Report shall be prepared in which the likely significant
effects on the environment of implementing the plan and programme, and reasonable
alternatives taking into account the objectives and the geographical scope of the plan or
programme, are identified, described and evaluated’ (SEA Directive, Article 5). Outlined
below are the main options that have been subject to assessment. These are as
follows:
Playing Pitch Provision options:
• Option 1 – No Policy within the Local Plan outlining a strategy
towards playing pitch provision.
• Option 2 – Policy in the Local Plan (LT2) outlining the
approach for playing pitch provision throughout the District of
Rochford.
• Option 3 – Policy in the Local Plan (LT2) outlining the
approach for playing pitch provision throughout the District of
Rochford and a Supplementary Planning Document elaborating on
the detail of the policy.
80
Rochford District Council – Supplementary Planning Document – Playing Pitch Strategy Supplementary Planning Document (2006) Comparison of the Options Table 17
Option 1 – No Policy within the Local Plan outlining a strategy towards playing pitch provision.
Option 2 – Policy in the Local Plan (LT2) outlining the approach for playing pitch provision throughout the District of Rochford.
SEA Objective
Performance Short, Medium and Long Term
Commentary/ Explanation
Performance Short, Medium and Long Term
Commentary/ Explanation
1) Provide
improved
access and
opportunities
for all to
open space,
sport and
? ? ? Without a policy there would be no local
statutory mechanism to ensure that there is
an adequate and sustainable provision of
playing pitches throughout the District of
Rochford. It is important that a coherent
approach to playing pitch provision is
developed and adhered to, to ensure that the
? ? ? Without SPD the following would be
unclear:
• Where obligations would be
required for playing pitch
provision;
• The design measures deemed
appropriate for playing pitches.
81
recreation.
2) Improve
quality of
public realm
and open
spaces in
urban and
rural areas.
3) To deliver
safe, healthy
and attractive
places to
live.
4) To ensure
that new
development
contributes to
enhancing
the
existing and future generation have adequate
access to playing pitches locally within the
District of Rochford. Furthermore it is
considered that the quality of design may be
poorer due to a lack of framework. It is
therefore concluded that the impact would be
uncertain.
• The expected size of playing
pitches.
• Infrastructure required for
playing pitches.
Without a clear framework to inform
negotiations this would result in less
certainty in enhancing and proving
playing pitches to meet the needs of the
resident community and therefore could
impact upon capacity and the ability of
the population to access playing
pitches.
82
character,
appearance,
recreational
and
biodiversity
value.
5) To
promote
efficient use
of land and
the re-use of
previously-
developed
sites.
6) To
preserve and
enhance the
historic
environment.
83
7) To
preserve and
enhance the
cultural
environment.
Option 3 – Policy in the Local Plan (LT2) outlines the approach for playing pitch provision throughout the District of Rochford and a Supplementary Planning Document elaborating on the detail of the policy.
SEA Objective
Performance Short, Medium and Long Term
Commentary/ Explanation
1) Provide
improved
access and
opportunities
for all to
open space,
The combination of the policy with
supplementary planning document provides
the clearest framework for ensuring that the
need of the existing and future community is
met.
84
sport and
recreation.
2) Improve
quality of
public realm
and open
spaces in
urban and
rural areas.
3) To deliver
safe, healthy
and attractive
places to
live.
4) To ensure
that new
development
contributes to
enhancing
However it is considered that the draft SPD
could be improved – see appraising policies
section.
85
the
character,
appearance,
recreational
and
biodiversity
value.
5) To
promote
efficient use
of land and
the re-use of
previously-
developed
sites.
6) To
preserve and
enhance the
historic
environment.
86
7) To
preserve and
enhance the
cultural
environment.
87
Chapter 6 - Monitoring Implementation of Core Strategy
Chapter 6 Monitoring Implementation of Playing Pitch Strategy Supplementary Planning Document The SEA Directive states that “Member States shall monitor the significant
environmental effects of the implementation of plans and programmes in order, inter alia,
to identify at an early stage unforeseen adverse effects, and to be able to undertake
appropriate remedial action” (Article.10.1). Furthermore the Environmental Report shall
include “a description of the measures envisaged concerning monitoring” (Annex 1 (i)).
This Chapter aims to outline the monitoring framework for the Rochford District Council
Playing Pitch Strategy Supplementary Planning Document
The monitoring of the Plan “allows the actual significant environmental effects of
implementing the plan or programme to be tested against those predicted” (Office of the
Deputy Prime Minister, 2005, 39). The monitoring of the Playing Pitch Strategy
Supplementary Planning Document will aid in the identification of any problems
that may arise during the Playing Pitch Strategy Supplementary Planning Documents
implementation.
The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister published ‘Sustainability Appraisal of Regional
Spatial Strategies and Local Development Documents’ (November, 2005). This
guidance demonstrates that the monitoring framework should consider the following;
• the time, frequency and geographical extent of monitoring (e.g. link to
timeframes for targets, and monitoring whether the effects is predicted to
be short, medium or long term);
• Who is responsible for the different monitoring tasks, including the
collection processing and evaluation of social, environmental and
economic information; and
• How to present the monitoring information with regard to its purpose and
the expertise of those who will have to act upon the information (e.g.
89
information may have to be presented in a form accessible to non-
environmental specialists).
(Source; Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, 2005, 149)
The table 18 outlines the SEA monitoring framework for the Playing Pitch Strategy
Supplementary Planning Documents significant effects.
Table 18
Monitoring Activity
Targets Responsible Authority
Temporal Extent (Frequency of Monitoring)
Presentation Format
Any Issues with the Monitoring
To monitor
playing pitch
sizes to
determine
whether they
comply with
the criterion
outlined in
policy LT2
and table 1
of the SPD.
Context Rochford
District
Council
Annual Tabulated May not be
currently
monitored.
To monitor
the number
of playing
pitch
planning
applications
with
conditions
related to
Context Rochford
District
Council
Annual Tabulated May not be
currently
monitored.
90
the Sport
England
Design and
Technical
Guidelines.
To monitor
the number
of playing
pitch
planning
applications
within the
Greenbelt.
Context Rochford
District
Council
Annual Tabulated/mapped May not be
currently
monitored.
To monitor
planning
obligations
sought for
playing
pitches and
related
facilities
throughout
the District
of Rochford.
Context Rochford
District
Council
Annual Tabulated May not be
currently
monitored.
To monitor
the extent to
which
priorities for
drainage
outlined in
table 12.3
(Assessment
of Playing
Pitches’
Context Rochford
District
Council
Annual Tabulated None
91
October
2002) are
being
addressed.
The following information highlights contextual effects that may be monitored to provide
an indication of the general state of the environment and determine the effect the
Playing Pitch Strategy Supplementary Planning Document is having upon the Rochford
District Council as a whole.
92
Appendices
93
Appendix 1
94
Appendix 1 Review of the Plans and Programmes – Assessment of Playing Pitches in Rochford District
Plan/ Programme
Key objectives relevant to the plan and SA
Key targets and indictors relevant to plan and SA
Implications for SA
International
European and
International
Sustainability
Development
Strategy
• Limit climate change and increase
the use of clean energy.
• Address threats to public health.
• Manage natural resources more
responsibly.
• Improve the transport system and
land use management.
• Each of the objectives has a set
of headline objectives and also
measures at the EU level.
Headline Objectives;
• The EU will meet its Kyoto
commitment. Thereafter, the
EU should aim to reduce
atmospheric greenhouse gas
emissions by an average of 1%
per year over 1990 levels up to
2020.
• By 2020, ensure that chemicals
are only produced and used in
ways that do not pose
significant threats to human
Need to address human health.
Access to playing pitches in terms of
opportunity and transportation accessibility.
95
health and the environment.
• Protect and restore habitats
and natural systems and halt
the loss of biodiversity by 2010.
European
Spatial
Development
Perspective
(May, 1999)
Spatial development policies promote
sustainable development of the EU
through a balanced spatial structure;
• Development of a balanced and
polycentric urban system and a
new urban-rural relationship;
• Securing parity of access to
infrastructure and knowledge; and
• Sustainable development,
prudent management and
protection of nature and cultural
heritage.
Accessibility of playing pitches in terms of
transportation and location.
European
Community
Biodiversity
Strategy
• Anticipate, prevent and attack the
causes of significant reduction or
loss of biological diversity at the
source.
• No relevant targets. Preserve the biodiversity.
96
Environment
2010: Our
Future, Our
Choice
The Sixth Environment Action Programme of the European Community
• Tackle climate change,
• Protect nature and wildlife,
• Address environment and health
issues,
• Preserve natural resources and
manage waste.
• Reduce greenhouse gas
emissions by 8% compared
with 1990 levels by 2008 – 12
(as agreed at Kyoto);
• Reduce global emissions by
approximately 20-40% on 1990
levels 2020;
• Tackle the long term goal of a
70% reduction in emissions set
by the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change.
• Reduce the quantity of waste
going to final disposal by 20%
on 2000 levels by 2010 and in
the order of 50% by 2050.
Need to address human health.
National
PPS1; Delivering
Sustainable
Development
Development plans should promote
development that creates socially
inclusive communities, including
suitable mixes of housing. Plan
policies should:
• address accessibility (both in
Indicator;
• Accessibility for all members of
the community to jobs, health,
housing, education, shops,
leisure and community facilities.
Target;
Ensure opportunity and accessibility for all
persons throughout the District of Rochford
to playing pitches.
Ensure that playing pitches are designed to
a high quality promoting a safe and
attractive environment.
97
terms of location and physical
access) for all members of the
community to jobs, health,
housing, education, shops,
leisure and community facilities
• deliver safe, healthy and attractive
places to live
• support the promotion of health
and well being by making
provision for physical activity.
Planning should seek to maintain and
improve the local environment and
help to mitigate the effects of
declining environmental quality
through positive policies on issues
such as design, conservation and the
provision of public space
Development plan policies should
take account of environmental issues
such as:
• Development policies should
avoid unnecessary detail and
should concentrate on guiding
overall scale, density, massing,
height, landscape, layout and
access of new development in
relation to neighbouring buildings.
Encourage healthy living through the
provision of opportunities to playing pitches.
98
• the need to improve the built and
natural environment in and
around urban areas and rural
settlements, including the
provision of good quality open
space;
• High quality and inclusive design
should be the aim of all those
involved in the development
process and should create well-
mixed and integrated
developments which avoid
segregation and have well-
planned public spaces that bring
people together and provide
opportunities for physical activity
and recreation
PPG2; Green
Belt • Once Green Belts have been
defined, the use of land in them
has a positive role to play in
Role of the greenbelt regarding sports
provision and facilities.
99
providing opportunities for
outdoor sport and outdoor
recreation near urban areas.
• The construction of new buildings
inside a Green Belt is
inappropriate unless it is providing
essential facilities for outdoor
sport and outdoor recreation, for
cemeteries, and for other uses of
land which preserve the
openness of the Green Belt and
which do not conflict with the
purposes of including land in it.
Possible examples of such
facilities include small changing
rooms or unobtrusive spectator
accommodation for outdoor sport,
or small stables for outdoor sport
and outdoor recreation
PPG3; Housing • Local planning authorities should
have clear policies for the
protection and creation of open
space and playing fields, and new
• National Playing Fields
standard for the provision of
playing pitches which is
approximately 1.8 hectares of
Standards for playing pitch provision.
100
housing developments should
incorporate sufficient provision
where such spaces are not
already adequately provided
within easy access of the new
housing.
pitches, courts, greens etc. per
1000 population, including at
least 1.2 hectares of pitches.
PPS 7;
Sustainable
Development in
Rural Areas
• Planning authorities should aim to
secure environmental
improvements and maximise a
range of beneficial uses of land,
whilst reducing potential conflicts
between neighbouring land uses.
This should include improvement
of public access (e.g. through
support for country parks and
community forests) and facilitating
the provision of appropriate sport
and recreation facilities
• Regional planning bodies and
local planning authorities should
recognise through RSS and LDDs
that tourism and leisure activities
Accessibility and provision of playing
pitches and sporting facilities within rural
environments.
101
are vital to many rural economies.
As well as sustaining many rural
businesses
PPS 9;
Biodiversity and
Geological
Conservation
• To promote sustainable
development by ensuring that
biological and geological diversity
are conserved and enhanced as
an integral part of social,
environmental and economic
development;
• To contribute to rural renewal and
urban renaissance, ensuring that
developments take account of the
role and value of biodiversity in
supporting economic
diversification and contributing to
a high quality environment; and
• Plan policies should promote
opportunities for the incorporation
of beneficial biodiversity and
geological features within the
design of development.
• The location of designated sites
of importance for biodiversity and
geodiversity, making clear
distinctions between the hierarchy
of international, national, regional
and locally designated sites;
• Identify areas or sites for
restoration or creation of new
priority habitats which contribute
to regional targets;
• Quantity of use of previously
developed land for new
development (previously
developed land makes a major
contribution to sustainable
development by reducing the
amount of courtside and
undeveloped land that needs to
be used); and
• Number of planning obligations
Maintenance and enhancement of biological
diversity.
The contribution that playing pitches can
make towards rural renewal and urban
renaissance.
102
used to ‘building-in beneficial
biodiversity or geological features
as part of good design’.
PPS 12; Local
Development
Frameworks
*Objectives not relevant to SEA/SA No relevant targets. Provides an understanding as to the
important role planning plays in the delivery
of sustainable development.
PPG 13;
Transport • New development should help to
create places that connect with
each other sustainably, providing
the right conditions to encourage
walking, cycling and the use of
public transport. People should
come before traffic; and
• Reduce the need to travel,
especially by car.
• National parking standards are
outlined.
Accessibility by a choice of mode of
transportation.
PPG 14;
Development on
Unstable Land
• Ensure that development is
suitable and that the physical
constraints on the land are taken
into account.
• No relevant targets.
PPG 15;
Planning and the
Historic
Environment
• Local planning authorities should
protect registered parks and
gardens in preparing
development plans and in
• No relevant targets. Maintenance and protection of the historic
environment.
103
determining planning
applications. Planning and
highway authorities should also
safeguard registered parks or
gardens when themselves
planning new developments or
road schemes.
• The Register of Parks and
Gardens of Special Historic
Interest in England is maintained
by English Heritage, to whom all
enquiries about its compilation
should be made. Sites of
exceptional historic interest are
assessed as grade I, those of
great historic interest as grade II*
and those of special historic
interest as grade II. The grading
of these sites is independent of
the grading of any listed building
which falls within the area. The
Register is under review, with the
aim of extending its coverage of
104
parks and gardens deserving
protection.
PPG16;
Archaeology and
Planning
• Preserve, enhance and protect sites
of archaeological interest.
• Useful source for baseline data,
indicators and potential target
formation – Royal Commission
on the Historical Monuments of
England (RCHME).
• Preserve, enhance and protect sites
of archaeological interest.
PPG17;
Planning for
Open, Space,
Sport and
Recreation
• To ensure effective planning for
open space, sport and recreation
it is essential that the needs of
local communities are known.
• Existing open space, sports and
recreational buildings and land
should not be built on unless an
assessment has been undertaken
which has clearly shown the open
space or the buildings and land to
be surplus to requirements. For
open space, 'surplus to
requirements' should include
consideration of all the functions
that open space can perform. Not
This is of significant importance to the SEA.
105
all open space, sport and
recreational land and buildings
are of equal merit and some may
be available for alternative uses.
• The recreational quality of open
spaces can be eroded by
insensitive development or
incremental loss of the site. In
considering planning applications
- either within or adjoining open
space - local authorities should
weigh any benefits being offered
to the community against the loss
of open space that will occur.
• In rural areas those sports and
recreational facilities which are
likely to attract significant
numbers of participants or
spectators should be located in,
or on the edge of, country towns.
Smaller scale facilities will be
acceptable where they are
106
located in, or adjacent to villages
to meet the needs of the local
community.
• Planning obligations should be
used as a means to remedy local
deficiencies in the quantity or
quality of open space, sports and
recreational provision. Local
authorities will be justified in
seeking planning obligations
where the quantity or quality of
provision is inadequate or under
threat, or where new development
increases local needs.
PPG20; Coastal
Planning • To facilitate and enhance the
enjoyment, of heritage coasts by
improving and extending
opportunities for recreational,
educational, sporting and tourist
activities that draw on, and are
consistent with conservation of their
natural beauty and the protection of
• Baseline data regarding the
amount of development within
the coastline and size of coastal
sites.
• No targets.
107
their heritage features; and
• Protect and enhance the natural
character and landscape of the
undeveloped coastline.
PPG24;
Planning and
Noise
• Minimise the impact of noise
without placing unreasonable
restrictions on development;
• planning conditions should be
imposed to ensure that the
effects of noise are mitigated as
far as possible. For example,
intervening buildings or
structures (such -as garages)
may be designed to serve as
noise barriers.
• No targets.
• Contains Noise Exposure
Categories.
Noise impact and possible need for
mitigation.
PPG 25;
Development
and Flood Risk
• Reduce the risks to people and
the developed and natural
environment from flooding;
• Developers should fund the
provision and maintenance of
flood defences that are required
because of the development; and
• Contains baseline data for
Britain.
Appropriate development in areas of flood
risk.
108
• Development needs to be of a
design and with an appropriate
level of protection to ensure that
the risk of damage from flooding
is minimised, while not
increasing the risk of flooding
elsewhere.
Securing the
Future
Delivering UK
Sustainable
Development
Strategy (March,
2005)
Guiding principles for the 2005 UK
Sustainable Development Strategy;
• Living within environmental
limits;
• Ensuring a strong, healthy and
just society;
• Achieving a sustainable
economy;
• Promoting good governance; and
• Using sound science
responsibly.
• Very comprehensive list of
targets and indicators in
chapter 7 of the document.
Contribution that playing pitches and
sporting facilities may make towards
ensuring a strong and healthy society.
REGIONAL
Regional
Planning
Guidance for the
South East
The main principles that should govern
the continuing development of the Region
are;
• Very comprehensive list of
targets and indicators (Page
100-101).
Promoting green corridors, and a healthy
community.
109
(RPG9) (March,
2001) • the importance of maximise the
essential contribution made by
open spaces, green corridors and
trees in urban and rural areas in
terms of their benefits for wildlife
habitats, recreational and cultural
value and wider environmental
and social benefits.
• That health is affected by a range
of factors including the provision
of a safe, secure and sustainable
environment, reducing pollution,
adequate housing provision,
access to leisure and recreation,
reducing social exclusion and
increasing employment
opportunities.
• That throughout the Region the
countryside should fulfil a range
of needs including recreation,
farming, forestry, military uses
and the local economy, while
110
safeguarding landscape and
biodiversity.
Draft Regional
Spatial Strategy
for the East of
England
(RSS14)
(December,
2004)
Objectives include community strategies
to look at the role and function of a
settlement in a long-term context and
identify opportunities for enhancing its
development in a sustainable way, with
particular focus on:
• The provision of appropriate open
space, sport and recreation use
including the potential for the use
of the area surrounding the
settlement for formal and informal
recreation.
• Ensuring that new development
contributes to enhancing the
character, appearance,
recreational and biodiversity value
of the urban fringe.
• Comprehensive list of targets
and indicators are set out in
appendix D (page 237).
Need to provide sporting and recreational
facilities.
Ensuring that new development contributes
positively to green space and the local
character, such as playing pitches.
111
• The design of such development
will need to address any concerns
over adverse impacts on traffic
levels, social and community
facilities. Areas of open space will
need to be provided in new
housing development, to meet
recreational needs and to deliver
biodiversity, health and visual
amenity benefits.
County
Essex and
Southend-on-
Sea
Replacement
Structure Plan
(Adopted April,
2001)
Objectives :
To promote a wide range of opportunities
to take part in sport and recreation
through the provision of adequate and
accessible facilities, land and water
resources.
That sites for sport/leisure centres should
be located within or adjoining urban areas
identified in adopted local plans as such
Accessibility and opportunities for sporting
and recreational facilities.
112
locations minimising the need to travel,
and provide access for travel modes other
than car (e.g. cycling, walking etc.)
Local
Rochford District
Local Plan (First
Review), 1995
Objective:
To provide for and encourage the
provision of leisure and other community
facilities and to make good, where
possible, deficiencies that have arisen
from past high rates of housing
development.
The local planning authority has adopted
a general policy of providing 2.5 hectares
of open space per 1000 population, and in
all urban settlements all residential areas
should be within half a kilometre of a large
open space (at least 2 hectares) or within
one-fifth of a kilometre of a small open
space (at least 0.4 hectares.
Attention will also be paid to the National
The local planning authority has
adopted a general policy of providing
2.5 hectares of open space per 1000
population, and in all urban settlements
all residential areas should be within
half a kilometre of a large open space
(at least 2 hectares) or within one-fifth
of a kilometre of a small open space (at
least 0.4 hectares.
Attention will also be paid to the
National Playing Fields standard for the
provision of playing pitches which is
approximately 1.8 hectares of pitches,
courts, greens etc. per 1000 population,
including at least 1.2 hectares of
Ensure adequate provision of sporting and
recreational facilities to meet community
needs.
Playing pitch standards are outlined.
113
Playing Fields standard for the provision
of playing pitches which is approximately
1.8 heactares of pitches, courts, greens
etc. per 1000 population, including at
least 1.2 hectares of pitches.
The plan will seek to safeguard all
existing areas of Public Open Space and
include work sympathetic to nature
conservation. In appropriate cases, the
Council will be mindful of the possibility of
transferring the area concerned to the
NPFA to ensure it use as open space in
perpetuity.
Policy LT2
The local planning authority will
encourage the retention of existing private
playing fields, sports grounds and open
spaces
Policy LT3
The local planning authority will
encourage proposals for indoor and
outdoor sports clubs and similar facilities,
pitches.
114
but will have regard to:
• The likely noise and disturbance
resulting from the activities
• The need to limit the use of
building and site in the interest of
residential amenity
• The likely volume of traffic that
would be generated
• The adequacy of the transport
network and means of access to
the site
• The adequacy of off-street
parking
• The impact of the development
on the visual amenities in the
area
• The existence of similar facilities
with the locality.
Policy LT5
The local planning authority will
encourage the joint provision and multi-
use of recreation facilities in educational
and other establishments.
115
116
Appendix 2
117
Playing Pitches Strategy Supplementary Planning Document
Appraising Plans Policies – Policy Summary
Appraising Plans Policy 1 (APP1) The LPA will require contributions towards the provision of additional, or enhance
existing playing pitches in cases of development comprising 10 or more dwellings. A
contribution towards improvement or maintenance of existing facilities may be in some
cases considered in preference to the provision of a new facility.
Developer contributions will not be required when the proposed development
incorporates the adequate provision of leisure facilities or playing pitches, providing that
such leisure facilities can be secured for community use. The level of contribution
required will be dependent on the level of additional playing pitch demand generated,
together with the current costs of providing such playing pitches at the time of the
allocation.
Appraising Plans Policy 2 (APP2) – Greenbelt The use of land as a sports pitch may be considered as an appropriate land use within
the Green Belt. However, the construction of significant club houses or large scale car
parks is likely to be considered inappropriate in the Green Belt (subject to the criteria set
out in policy Lt2 of the Rochford Replacement District Local Plan).
118
Assessment of Playing Pitches – Changing Areas
In Areas of Green Belt, support buildings and changing facilities should not exceed the
minimum space requirements set in the Sport England Design and Technical Guidelines.
This recommended space per pitch should allow for two sports teams, officials and
storage:
Association Football - 40m²
Cricket - 38m²
Hockey - 40m²
Rugby (League & Union) - 48m²
Additional space for the provision of toilet and shower facilities may also be required.
Appraising Plans Policy 3 (APP3) – Design It is important that any facilities which are provided, whether as result of developer
contributions or otherwise, are of sufficient quality to ensure they are of maximum benefit
to the community. Proposed schemes will normally be assessed against the Sport
England design and technical guidelines.
119
Appraising Plans Policy 4 (APP4) – Size of Pitches Recommended Pitch Size for Association Football
Pitch dimensions (meters) Suggested pitch size (meters)
Suggested size of goal posts (meters) Length
Width
Length x
Width
Height x Width
Max
Min
Max
Min
Youth U17 - U18 and seniors
101 x 64 2.44 x 7.32 120 90 90 45.5
Mini Soccer U7 - U8
46 x 27 1.83 x 3.66 45.75 27.45 27.45 18.3
Mini Soccer U9 - U10
55 x 37 1.83 x 3.66 54.9 45.75 36.6 27.45
Youth U11 – U12
73 x 46 2.13 x 6.4 82 68.25 50.77 42
Youth U13 – U14
82 x 50 2.13 x 6.4 91 72.8 56 45.5
Youth U15- U16
91 x 55 2.44 x 7.32 100.6 82.3 64 45.5
Cricket Any proposed cricket pitch in Rochford District should be a rectangular area of 22
yards/20.12m in length and 10ft/3.05m in width, with the boundary line 50 to 90 yards
from the centre of the pitch, in accordance with the England Cricket Board and the
Marylebone Cricket Club.
Hockey A full size hockey pitch should measure 91.4 m in length and 55 m in width, with a mini
hockey pitch measuring 55 m in length and 43 m in width in accordance with the
England Hockey Association. However it is important to note that synthetic turf pitches
are required for competitive level hockey.
120
Rugby It is recommended that Rugby pitches be no more than 100m long and 70m wide, with
the possibility that they may also be used for association football.
Appraising Plans Policy 5 (APP5) – Transportation Infrastructure Any planning application for new playing pitch facilities should demonstrate an adequate
level of infrastructure on the site by sustainable forms of transport.
Appraising Plans Policy 6 (APP6) – Drainage
Any new playing pitch facilities should be designed to include good drainage. Developer
contributions will also be required, when appropriate, to improve drainage of existing
pitches in the district.
Appraising Plans Policy 6 (APP6) – Ensuring Pitches are Secured for Use by the Community Pitches and formal space is required by way of developer contributions and obligations,
to be secured for community use by way of legal agreement.
121
Recommended