Rochford District Council

Rural Settlement Areas Supplementary Planning Document

Strategic Environmental Assessment

And Sustainability Appraisal

Environmental Report

Prepared for Rochford District Council

By

Essex County Council

Contents

Non Technical Summary

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 Rural Settlement Areas Supplementary Planning Document 8 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)

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 Rural Settlement Areas Supplementary Planning Document 8 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 Rural Settlement Areas Supplementary Planning Document 8 aims to set out the key elements of the planning framework for the area. The Rural Settlement Areas Supplementary Planning Document outlines the following principle objectives; Reference Objective

1 Within built up areas of the Green Belt, consider modest extensions in

a similar way to that applied to residential areas. Chapter 3 - SEA Objectives and Baseline and Context Review of the Plans and Programmes The relationship between various plans and programmes and sustainability objectives may influence the Rochford District Council Rural Settlement Areas Supplementary Planning Document 8 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 Rural Settlement Areas Supplementary Planning Document 8.

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 Rural Settlement Areas Supplementary Planning Document 8 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.

Chapter 4 - Rural Settlement Areas Supplementary Planning Document 8 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 appraisal of the significant social, environmental and economic effects and any relevant recommendations arising from the Appraising Plan Policy assessment for the Rochford District Council Rural Settlement Areas Supplementary Planning Document 8. Chapter 5 - Supplementary Planning Document 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 Rural Settlement Areas Supplementary Planning Document 8. Chapter 6 - Monitoring Implementation of the 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 Rural Settlement Areas Supplementary Planning Document 8 The monitoring of the Rural Settlement Areas 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 Rural Settlement Areas Supplementary Planning Document 8 will aid in the identification of any problems that may arise during the Rural Settlement Areas Supplementary Planning Document 8 implementation.

Chapter 1 - Methodology

Chapter 1 1. Methodology 1.1 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.

1.2 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 Rural Settlement Areas Supplementary Planning Document 8 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 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 Rural Settlement Areas Supplementary Planning Document 8. 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 • 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.

1.3 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 Rural Settlement Areas Supplementary Planning Document 8; SEA objectives and the sustainability issues throughout Rochford

District Council Rural Settlement Areas Supplementary Planning Document 8 and the key issues that need to be addressed;

Rural Settlement Areas Supplementary Planning Document 8 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; An outline of the proposed mitigation measures, for those where these

impacts are negative.

1.4 Methodology Adopted in the SEA

The approach adopted in this Sustainability Appraisal (SA) and Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) of the Rochford District Council Rural Settlement Areas Supplementary Planning Document 8 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 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 Rural Settlement Areas Supplementary Planning Document 8 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 Planning Panel Members from Rochford District Council were consulted on the Rural Settlement Areas Supplementary Planning Document 8and views and representations were also welcome from the Rochford District Council Officers. 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).

Chapter 2 - Background

Chapter 2 2. Background 2.1 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 Rural Settlement Areas Supplementary Planning Document 8 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 Rural Settlement Areas Supplementary Planning Document 8.

2.2 Rochford District Council Rural Settlement Areas Supplementary Planning Document 8 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. The Core Strategy is one of the fundamental documents that form an integral part of the Local Development Framework. The Rochford District Council Rural Settlement Areas Supplementary Planning Document 8 aims to set out the key elements of the planning framework for the area. It outlines the spatial vision and strategic objectives for the area; a spatial strategy; core policies; and a monitoring and implementation framework. The first section of the Rural Settlement Areas Supplementary Planning Document 8 seeks to provide a brief overview of the planning system. The portrait of the Rochford District Council is the next section ultimately this section aims to provide a general summary of the community. The information utilised to provide a summary includes population, environmental, economic and social issues. The Rural Settlement Areas Supplementary Planning Document 8 also lists the relevant plans and programmes at the local, county, regional and national level and how these are relevant to the strategic vision for Rochford District

Council. The options for the Rural Settlement Areas Supplementary Planning Document 8 are also highlighted, these options relate to jobs, land allocated for employment use, housing, town and village development, affordable housing and transportation. Finally the document outlines a series of core policies which have been derived from the existing Local Plan. The Rural Settlement Areas Supplementary Planning Document contains one overarching objective outlined in table 1.

Table 1 – Rochford District Council Rural Settlement Areas Supplementary Planning Document 8 Objectives Reference Objective

1 Within built up areas of the Green Belt, consider modest extensions in

a similar way to that applied to residential areas.

An important part of the assessment involves the testing of the Rural Settlement Areas Supplementary Planning Document Objectives against the sustainability objectives which will be outlined later in the Environmental Report.

Chapter 3 - SEA Objectives and Baseline and Context

Chapter 3 3. SEA Objectives and Baseline and Context 3.1 Review of the Plans and Programmes

The relationship between various plans and programmes and sustainability objectives may influence the Rochford District Council Rural Settlement Areas Supplementary Planning Document 8 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 Rural Settlement Areas Supplementary Planning Document 8.

Engaging in this process enables Rochford District Council Rural Settlement Areas Supplementary Planning Document 8 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 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.

Table 2 – Plans and Programmes Considered as part of the Review International European Spatial Development Perspective (May, 1999) European Community Biodiversity Strategy Environment 2010: Our Future, Our Choice National Planning Policy Statement 1; Creating Sustainable Communities Planning Policy Guidance Note 2; Green Belts Planning Policy Statement 7; Sustainable Development in Rural Areas Planning Policy Guidance Note 24; Planning and Noise (1994)

Regional / County Draft Regional Spatial Strategy for the East of England Plan (RSS14) (December, 2004) Essex and Southend-on-Sea Replacement Structure Plan (Adopted April, 2001) Local Rochford District Local Plan (First Review) (1995)

The plans and programmes reviewed provided the following:

A basis for establishing sustainability objectives as part of the SA process. An influence over the Rural Settlement Areas

Supplementary Planning Document 8 preparation and a higher level policy context. A basis for identifying potential cumulative effects of the

Rochford District Council Rural Settlement Areas Supplementary Planning Document 8.

4. 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 Rural Settlement Areas Supplementary Planning Document 8. 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 Rural Settlement Areas Supplementary Planning Document 8 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.

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

Agricultural Land Classification

Air Quality

Road Traffic

Biodiversity – Flora and Fauna

5. 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.

Map 1: Illustrating the Location of the Rochford District

(Sources; Rochford District Council Online, 2005 and National Statistics Online, 2005)

Population

The following section has relevance to the SPD as it predicts the expected changes in population within Rochford. The population can be seen to be growing over the next 20 years and this could have substantial implications for the provision of housing within the Green Belt and therefore Rural Settlement Areas. The age profiles predict a significant rise in older people living within the district and this could have ramifications for ground floor housing extensions in order to aid mobility.

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 District of Rochford 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.

Graph 1: The 2001 and projected population change in Rochford District

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.

Graph 2: Total and projected population for Essex County 2001-2021

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, as well as the amount of sheltered housing that may be required for senior citizens. 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.

Graph 3: Total age composition 2001-2021

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 4 illustrates the population within the local authorities that comprise the

Thames Gateway South Essex and the projected population growth from 2001-2021. 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: Population and projected- TGSE area 2001-2021

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 o

f Per

sons 2001

2006201120162021

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. These population figures are important in determining potential housing needs and densities for future developments which directly influences the need and scope for the possible extension of those dwellings highlighted in SPD8 and Policy R2 of the Replacement Local Plan.

Graph 5: Percentage of total population composition TGSE area 2001

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 As already stated, the population of Rochford District is predicted to increase over the next 20 years. This is likely to result in an increase in population densities and average household sizes which could possibly result in the need to extend and make alterations to those dwellings set out in SPD8.

Table 4: 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. Annual Incomes of the population of Rochford District

The section below details the percentage breakdown in annual income for the population of Rochford District. This is of relevance to the SPD as it suggests that a high proportion of residents of Rochford District are likely to have sufficient disposal income which could be re-invested in their property.

9% of households have incomes below £10,000, well below the corresponding UK figure (28%). 41.4% of households in the District have incomes above £30,000 well above the UK average (30%). Graph 6: Annual income percentage breakdown for the population of Rochford District

Annual Income Percentage Breakdown For The Population Of Rochford District

Below £10,00016%

£10,001 - £15,00114%

£15,001 - £20,00010%

£20,001 - £25,0008%

£25,001 - £30,00011%

£30,001 - £40,00014%

£40,001 - £50,00011%

£50,001 - £75,00011%

Above £75,0005%

Source: Rochford District Council Housing Needs Survey 2004

Car Ownership The following figures tell us that 41.42% of Rochford District residents have access to at least 2 cars or vans. It is therefore possible that residents within Rural Settlement Areas will seek planning permission for an additional garage or other forms of parking amenities.

As shown in graphs 7 and 8, car ownership within Rochford District is similar to trends in ownership at a county level, with the majority of households owning 1 car/van (42.18% of households in the District and 43.30% within Essex). The percentage of Rochford’s population travelling to work by public transport is 19.25%, which is slightly higher than the Essex figure of 13.00%. However, the preferred mode of transport is by car (driver and passengers), with 63.37% of the Rochford District population and 69.00% of Essex’s population travelling to work in this way. Graph 7: Rochford District Car Ownership

Rochford District Car Ownership

16.40%2.59%7.27%

31.56% 42.18%

Households with no cars/vansHouseholds with 1 car/vanHouseholds with 2 cars/vansHouseholds with 3 cars/vansHouseholds with 4 cars/vans

Source: 2001 Census Statistics Online, 2003

Graph 8: Essex Car Ownership

Essex Car Ownership

19.31%

43.30%

28.78%

6.40% 2.21%Households with no cars/vansHouseholds with 1 car/vanHouseholds with 2 cars/vansHouseholds with 3 cars/vansHouseholds with 4 cars/vans

Source: 2001 Census Statistics Online, 2003 Concealed Households

Rising house prices and increases in population within the District of Rochford is likely to result in an increase of concealed households. This problem can be exacerbated by a lack of affordable housing. If household owners are making provisions for a concealed householder, they will be perhaps more likely to seek approval to extend their dwelling.

Concealed households are people who could not afford to be in the housing market and are living within another household. We found that around 5.3% of households contained one or more households seeking independent accommodation giving a total of 1,717 cases over the next three years to 2007. 93.8% are the adult children of existing District residents. In the concealed households group: - 64.0% of the people in these concealed households are between 20 and 29 years of age and 15.5% are over 30. 729 (45.0%) of households are being formed with a partner living in a separate household elsewhere in the District. 33.0% of those concealed households needing social rented housing were registered on a housing waiting list, 91.0% being on the Rochford District Housing Needs Register. 69.3% (1,190 implied) of the concealed households want to owner occupy, 17.0% (292 implied) preferred Council rented and 3.2% (55 implied) prefer private rent. 4.5% (77 implied) want HA shared ownership accommodation and 6.0% Housing Association rent (103 implied). Essex Rural Strategy (The Essex Rural Partnership- Partnership priorities for the future of Rural Essex) July 2005: The 2001 census shows that substantial numbers of people continue to move from urban areas into the countryside, villages and rural towns. Nevertheless, rural services are still in decline. As regards the rural economy, the structure of rural employment and business continues to shift away from traditional rural enterprises to the service and other sectors. More than 80% of the rural workforce is employed in distribution, wholesale, retail, hotels, catering, public administration, health, education, manufacturing, property and business/financial services (Paragraph 5.3 p.11). Rural Essex (Adapted from Essex Rural Strategy pages 18-30) Essex, undoubtedly, is an area of great diversity. Certainly, in terms of land area, it is predominantly rural with 72% of the land used for agriculture. The relationship between countryside and town is complex and symbiotic so that rural development may depend upon opportunities that arise in towns (and vice-versa). Consequently, this strategy does not attempt to delineate ‘rural’ Essex. In attempting to draw a profile of rural Essex difficulties are immediately apparent. Published statistics do not generally distinguish between urban and rural areas but utilise local authority boundaries. This merging of urban and rural disguises trends that are happening in each. Community The following paragraphs further reinforce the fact that population in rural areas is rising despite a number of identified problems with service provision. This suggests that rural areas are likely to remain popular places to live and will experience land use problems. Most Essex villages exude an air of prosperity. For many rural residents appearance and reality are at one. However, prosperity and well-being depend, at least in part, upon access to opportunities – shops, hospitals, schools, employment, recreational facilities etc. Increasingly, declining usage and rising thresholds of provision are removing basic services from villages.

The 2000 Countryside Agency survey of parish services showed that, in Essex, 40% of parishes were without a Post Office. Even more, 67% lacked a general store, whilst 63% did not have a public house. There were 79% of parishes without a Doctor’s surgery but only 19% without a village hall. For 2004, an update shows that around 12% of rural households are more than 4km from a doctor’s surgery; 22% more than 4km from a supermarket and 29% from a bank or building society. Despite the lack of services, rural areas continue to be popular as places to live. Between 1981 and 2001, the rural population in the East of England as a whole increased by 17.8% to 2.35 million. In contrast to towns, rural areas offer green surroundings, space, peace and quiet. Consequently, rural house prices tend to be higher than those in urban areas. Median house prices for rural East of England rose by 24% during 2001 / 02 to £123,654, and were slightly above the median for rural England in 2002 (£121,468). Undoubtedly, house price inflation since then will have taken rural prices far out of reach of many young people brought up in the countryside. At the same time, the rural population is ageing. In the East of England, 43.9% of the rural population are aged 45 and over compared to 38.8% of the urban population. Residential Permissions and Completions in Metropolitan Green Belt at 1 April 2005 The following tables highlight the number of developments that are occurring within the Metropolitan Green Belt of Rochford District. We can see that there is an overall projected increase in the number of dwellings that exist in the Green Belt, suggesting that the projected rise in population is being addressed to some degree. Table 5: Residential Permissions and Completions in Metropolitan Green Belt of Rochford District at 1 April 2005

Residential Completions in Green Belt at 1 April 2005

(Gross) 7

Residential Demolitions in Green Belt at 1 April 2005 8

Total Residential Completions -1

Outstanding Residential

Permissions in Green Belt at 1 April 2005 (Gross)

40

Potential Residential Demolitions in Green Belt at

1 April 2005 16

Net Outstanding Dwellings in Green Belt 24

Taken from Rochford District Council Annual Monitoring Report Submitted Version December 2005

Performance Relative To Targets In Respect Of Previously Developed Land The following tables and graphs highlight current performance against the existing target of protecting Green Belt land. Table 6: Performance Relative To Targets In Respect Of Previously Developed Land

Dwellings completed on Previously Developed Land

2004/05 Target 60% Actual 61%

Dwellings approved on Previously

Developed Land Target 60% Actual 69%

Taken from Rochford District Council Annual Monitoring Report Submitted Version December 2005 Graph 9:

Proportion Of All New Dwellings Completed 2004-2005 On PDL / Greenfield Land

39%

61%

Greenfield

Previously DevelopedLand

Graph 10:

Proportion Of All New Dwellings Granted Planning Permission 2004 - 2005 On PDL / Greenfield Land

31%

69%

Greenfield

Previously DevelopedLand

Graphs 9 & 10 taken from Rochford District Council Annual Monitoring Report Submitted Version December 2005

Sites Developed Without Planning Permission Table 7: Sites Developed Without Planning Permission

Area (Ward) Greenfield Site

Previously Developed

Land Total

Ashingdon & Canewdon 0 0 0Barling & Sutton 0 2 2Foulness & Great Wakering 2 3 5Hawkwell North 3 0 3Hawkwell South 4 12 16Hawkwell West 0 0 0Hockley Central 4 0 4Hockley North 0 0 0Hockley West 1 0 1Hullbridge CP 1 3 4Paglesham CP 0 0 0Rochford CP 4 0 4Stambridge CP 0 0 0Sutton CP 0 0 0Downhall & Rawreth 3 0 3Grange & Rawreth Ward 2 0 2Lodge Ward 0 3 3Rayleigh Central Ward 1 0 1Sweyne Park 2 5 7Trinity Ward 3 2 5Wheatley Ward 5 2 7Whitehouse Ward 9 0 9Grand Total 44 32 76

Taken from Rochford District Council Annual Monitoring Report Submitted Version December 2005 Conservation Policy CS2 within the Rochford District Replacement Local Plan (Rochford District Council, December 2005) is part of the core strategy, highlighting the importance of protecting and enhancing the built and natural environment. It states that the local planning authority will protect, sustain and enhance the District's natural resources and cultural heritage through the application of the policies and proposals in the Plan for future generations to enjoy, and to ensure that new development contributes to environmental quality, relating to the protection, conservation and enhancement of the landscape character and quality, and the safeguarding of visually and historically important trees and woodland. Special Landscape Areas (SLAs (map 2)) are areas of high quality landscape resulting from a combination of features such as vegetation cover and landform. Their conservation is important to the county’s natural heritage and there is a presumption against development unless it accords with the character of the area concerned.

Policy NR1 in the replacement local plan identifies three SLAs within the district. The SLA at Hockley Woods has specific interest to SPD 8:

• Hockley Woods – a large unspoilt area, containing a complex of ancient woodlands and farmland on undulating ground between Hockley and Southend-on-Sea.

Map 2: Special Landscape Areas within Rochford District

Source: Unrecorded Essex Landscape Character Assessment – Crouch and Roach Farmland The Essex Landscape Character Assessment was produced by Chris Blandford Associates on behalf of Essex County Council and Southend-on-Sea Borough Council to provide an insight into the character of the landscape throughout the area covered by the Replacement Structure Plan. The following information following information provides a summary of characterisation of the landscape character evident throughout the Rochford District. Key Characteristics The estuaries of the Crouch and Roach rivers are long and narrow with bands of flat low lying marshlands Frequent long views across the farmland to the estuaries from higher ground Small villages, a scattering of hamlets, farmsteads, and newer suburban properties are concentrated along the lanes on higher ground. (Chris Bland Associates, 2002)

Overall Character The coastal character of the area is defined by narrow estuaries which penetrate far inland, with associated mudflats, saltmarsh and reclaimed marshlands. The land between the estuaries and their immediate margins is gently and strongly undulating farmland. Moderate to steep sided estuary valley sides provide a distinctive backdrop either side of the Crouch. Thick hedgerows dominated by scrub elm follow the field boundaries. There has been significant loss to these hedgerows, especially to the South, and this, coupled with the general loss of elm, has resulted in a fairly open character. The settlement pattern is sparse along the edge of the estuaries and takes the form of mostly small settlements which tend to hug the slightly higher drier land. Large parts of the area have a tranquil character (Chris Bland Associates, 2002) . Landform / Coastal Form Mostly very gently undulating landform Low moderate to steep to estuary / valley sides around Canewdon / near Hockley and to the north of the Crouch estuary. Incised narrow estuaries of the Rivers Crouch and Roach. Narrow margins of flat low lying marshland and salt marshes next to the Roach, broader areas adjacent to the Crouch. (Chris Bland Associates, 2002) Woodland / Tree Cover Very widely dispersed small copses. Some small woodland on the ridge near Hockley. Scattered hedgerow oak and ash trees. Occasional elms, but these have been largely lost. (Chris Bland Associates, 2002) Settlement Pattern and Built Form Absence of settlement within the marshlands apart from a very small number of isolated farmsteads. Small hamlets, farmsteads and early 20th Century houses along roads on the higher ground. A few small villages, some with a suburban character at the edges. Local vernacular of black and white weatherboarding, colour washing and red brick. (Chris Bland Associates, 2002) Communications Narrow lanes with right angled bands following the field boundaries. Lack of roads within the marshlands other than farm tracks. Main A130 crosses the landscape in the west. Otherwise few major roads in the area. (Chris Bland Associates, 2002) Other Landscape Features Church towers and spires are often visually prominent in the landscape. Some wet gravel pits.

Scattered ponds and small reservoirs. Small caravan / mobile home parks Occasional marinas, pontoons and river moorings. (Chris Bland Associates, 2002) Landscape Condition Many hedgerows are fragmented. The condition of the small settlements is very mixed, often including out of character modern infill. (Chris Bland Associates, 2002) Past, Present and Future Trends For Change There has been significant loss of grazing marsh as a result of agricultural intensification since the Second World War. Loss of elm trees from the farmland in the 1960s and 1970s made the character of the area more open. There is likely to be demand for additional boat moorings and marina facilities along the estuaries. Flood protection measures may also be a likely future issue. (Chris Bland Associates, 2002) Flood Risk Flood risk implications within Rochford District are important to SPD8 due to the fact that specific dwellings stipulated within it lie in the ‘High Flood Risk Area’ zone as highlighted in Map 3. This can have further implications for the type and scale of potential extension to these dwellings. Planning objective N6 within the Rochford District Replacement Local Plan (Rochford District Council, December 2005) relates to a reduction in the risk of flooding of development. Policy NR11 similarly states that applications for development within flood risk areas will be accompanied by full flood risk assessments to enable the Local Planning Authority to properly consider the level of risk posed to the proposed development throughout its lifetime, and the effectiveness of flood mitigation and management measures. Within developed parts of the flood risk area development may be permitted, subject to the conclusions of the flood risk assessment and the suitability of the flood mitigation and management measures recommended. Within sparsely developed and undeveloped areas of the flood risk area, commercial, industrial and new residential development will not be permitted apart from in exceptional cases.

Map 3: High Flood Risk Areas in Rochford District

Source: Unrecorded List of specific properties contained in SPD 8- Rural Settlement Areas The following list of properties within the SPD is as Policy R2 of the Replacement Local Plan. The policy is applied individually to each dwelling, which are in turn not subject to the restrictive policies relating to extensions that are applied elsewhere in the Green Belt. The properties listed are allowed greater scope for extension, whilst still maintaining Green Belt control in all other aspects.

CENTRAL AVENUE / PEVENSEY GARDENS, HULLBRIDGE AREA

Central Avenue Nos. 2 - 32 even numbers inclusive Pevensey Gardens Nos. 2 – 16 even numbers inclusive, 18 (Charlamy), 20, 22, 24, 26 (Des Gralias), 28, 30 Nos. 1, 3, 5, 7 (Sinhala), 9 - 27 odd numbers inclusive Lower Road Nos. 238 - 250, 256, 260 - 264 even numbers inclusive

POOLES LANE, HULLBRIDGE Clovelly, Tawny Lodge, Sharon, Lyenda, Riverdale, The Lytchgate, Autumntide

WINDSOR GARDENS, HAWKWELL AREA Rectory Road Nos. 186 (Honeysuckle Cottage) – 204 (Clematis Cottage) even numbers inclusive, 206, 208, 208A, 210, 210A, 212, 212A, 214 Windsor Gardens Shangri-La, Willow Croft Nos. 1, 3 (Southview), 5, 7, 9, 11 and 15 - 29 odd numbers inclusive Nos. 2 (Edelweiss) - 10 even numbers inclusive

RECTORY ROAD/HALL ROAD, HAWKWELL AREA Rectory Road Nos. 382, 384, 384A, 386, 386A, 388 - 400 even numbers inclusive Nos. 393 - 401 odd numbers inclusive Hall Road Potash Cottage, High Hedges Main Road Nos. 1 and 3 Foxhunters Nos. 4, 6 (Woodview), 8 (Wayside), 10, 12 (Whispers), 14 (Birch Farm), 20, 22, 24 (Dragon Willow). Thorpe Road Nos. 82 - 88 even numbers inclusive The Bramleys, Charnwood, Twin Oaks

BARLING ROAD/REBELS LANE, GREAT WAKERING AREA Barling Road Smithcroft Bungalow; 2, 4 (Highview House), 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16 (Langdale), 18, 20 (Moonrakers), 22, 24, 26 (Melodies), 28 (Edis), 30 (The Chimes), 32 (Ferndale), 34, 38 (Whitelands), 40, 42, 44, 46, 48, 50, 52 (Melrose), 54 (Kelmscott), 56 (Isabelle), 58, 60, 62, 64, 66, 68 (Elizabeth Ann), 70 (The Elms), 72 - 82 even numbers inclusive; 21 (Breenagh Lodge), 23 (Bovington House), 25, 27 (Mallards), 31 (Orchard House), 33 - 39, and 63 - 85 odd numbers inclusive.

Rebels Lane West Hayes, Woodbridge, Lamorna, St Gilgen, Bramble Lodge Silchester Corner, Southend Road Nos. 1 - 12 all numbers consecutive

STONEBRIDGE BARLING AREA Barling Road White Oak, Little Orchard Cottage, Rosemarie, Oak Ridge, Stonebridge House, Greenways, Firstone Cottage, Foxhill, Wyldings, Magna View House, Magna Point, Chad, Cu Nim, Silver Birches, The Poplars, The Beeches, The Oaks, Brookfields, Viewfield, The Firs, High Pines, Tanglewood, Newtor, Nos. 1 and 2 Florence Villas, Magna Croft, New Horizons, The Cedars, Adelaide Lodge, Grosvenor Lodge, The Nook, Lamorna, Ye Olde Shoulderstick Barrow Hall Road Nos. 1 and 2 Rosedene Nurseries, Mareng, Fintry, Clematis, Fowey, Coppins, Andrellos, Montana, Broadlands, Wakefield, Autumn, Kimbas, Idlewild, Foxgloves, Tinkers Patch, Treetops, Cheldon House, Quinta Rosa, Junatison, White Lodge, Edgecombe Lodge, Rutland Lodge, Elm Lodge, Kilburn Lodge

HALL ROAD, ROCHFORD Rochford Hall Cottages, Nos. 1 – 6 all numbers consecutive Tilneys, Nicholas House, Talgarth, Avalon, Elm Lodge, Birches, High Trees, Westfield, White Cottage, Green Shutters, Longbridge, Nortonbury, Rookwood, Knaresboro, Glade House, Greenways

KINGSMANS FARM ROAD, HULLBRIDGE The Crouch, Browhead, Riverside, Twin Oaks, Mandalay, 7, Highwood, Cariads, 10 (Llamedos), Freshwinds, Cedar Lodge, 14, 15 (Crouch End), 16 (Even Keel), 17 (Spring Tide), 20, Water's Edge, The Loft, The Chalet, River Nook

BULLWOOD HALL LANE AND HIGH ROAD, HOCKLEY Bullwood Hall Lane Fremlins, St. Nicholas, Windrush, Maryon House High Road Odd Numbers: 57 (Greensleeves), 63 (Towerside), 67 (Northlands Farm), 69 (The Priory), 71, 71A (Magnolia House), 73, 73A (High Ridge Lodge), 75 (Hillcrest), 75A (Casa Mia), 77 (North Lodge), Whitbreds. Even Numbers: 48 (Hockley House), 54 (Rookery Lodge), 56 (Rose Cottage), 58 (Cresta), 60, 64, 66, 68 (Foxholes), 70 (Bounty Hunters), 70A (Spinners), 72 (Honey End), 74, 76 (The Gables), 78 (The Croft), 80, 84 (Drovers Hill House), 86 (Barton House) The above properties are shown in appendix 2 accompanying this document by infilling the property and its boundaries in red and are numbered 1-14. For the

purposes of reference the numbers on the maps represent subsequent properties above and can be matched in the table below.

Hullbridge 1 Central Avenue 2 Pevensey Gardens 3 Pooles Lane 4 Kingsmans Farm Road

Hawkwell 5 Hall Road/Main Road 6 Rectory Road 7 Thorpe Road/Main Road 8 Windsor Gardens

Great Wakering 9 Barling Road/Rebels Lane

Stonebridge Barling Area 10 Barling Road 11 Barrow Hall Road Rochford 12 Hall Road Hockley 13 Bullwood Hall Lane 14 High Road

SEA Objectives, Targets and Indicators 8. SEA Objectives: 8.1 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 Rural Settlement Areas Supplementary Planning Document 8. 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 Rural Settlement Areas Supplementary Planning Document are outlined in table 21. Table 21 also highlights the relationship with the SEA Directive, the source of the objectives and the related issues. Following consultation with the statutory consultess it was deemed important that the Sustainability framework that seeks to provide an insight into the appraisal of the SPD was outlined. As a result it was perceived that the SEA objectives should be outlined, alongside the headline indicator, detailed decision making criteria and a detailed indicator.

38

Table 21 – Sustainability Framework

Headline Objective Headline Indicator Detailed Decision Making Criteria

Detailed Indicator

Loss or damage to listed buildings and their settings Loss or damage to scheduled ancient monuments and their settings. Loss or damage to historic landscapes and their settings. Percentage of designated landscape areas demolished or otherwise lost.

1. Protect and enhance the natural and historic environment and character.

Number of traditional building materials available.

Will the development seek to protect and enhance sites, features, and areas of historical, archaeological and cultural value?

Loss or damage to historic view lines and vistas

Affordable housing (house price/earnings affordability ratio) Affordable housing completion figures.

2. Provide a decent home for everyone and affordable housing for all those on low incomes.

Availability of good quality housing for all social groups including low income households, lone parent households, ethnic minorities, disabled and young people.

Will it increase the range and affordability of housing for all social groups?

Number of adults in concealed households.

3. Ensure high design quality to create attractive living

Percentage of residents who are satisfied with their neighbourhood as a place to live.

Will the proposed development be of an innovative, high quality design in order to

Percentage of residents who are satisfied with their neighbourhood as a place to live.

39

Percentage of residents surveyed who consider their neighbourhood is getting worse.

environments where people will chose to live.

create vibrant townscapes and yet still be in keeping with the context of its setting?

Monitor the amount of development that takes place in existing built up areas. A measure of the space allocated to private gardens in the new development. A measure of the dimensions of existing build around the site of the proposed development. A measure of the total area of each plot within the vicinity of the Rural Settlement Area.

4. Ensure that in Rural Settlement Areas the mass of the building shall be in scale and harmony with adjoining buildings and the area as a whole.

Number of planning applications with conditions related to the mass and scale of the proposed development.

Will the proposed development be in keeping with the existing historic townscape?

Monitor the size, scale, density, design and layout of developments, including mixed use development that compliments the distinctive character of the community.

40

8.1 Assessing the Compatibility of the Objectives

An appropriate balance of social, economic and environmental objectives has been selected. To test the internal compatibility of the SEA objectives a compatibility assessment was undertaken to identify any potential tensions between the objectives. Matrix 1 illustrates the compatibility appraisal of the SEA objectives.

Matrix 1 Matrix Illustrating the Compatibility Appraisal of the Sustainability Objectives

2 VC 3 VC VC 4 VC C VC

1 2 3 4

SEA

Obj

ectiv

es

SEA 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 Rural Settlement Areas Supplementary Planning Document were compatible with the SEA objectives. Matrix 2 outlines the compatibility of the sustainability objectives and the Rural Settlement Areas Supplementary Planning Document objectives.

41

Matrix 2 - Compatibility of the Sustainability Objectives and the SPD Objectives

SPD

O

bjec

tive

1 C C VC VC

1 2 3 4 SEA Objective

Key Symbol Very Compatible VC Compatible C No Impact N Incompatible I Very Incompatible VI Uncertain U

42

Chapter 4 - Supplementary Planning Document Policy Appraisal

43

Chapter 4 9. Supplementary Planning Document Policy Appraisal 9.1 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 Rural Settlement Areas Supplementary Planning Document 8 Issues and Options are beneficial to the community and sustainable (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, 2005). A comprehensive assessment of the policy against all SA/SEA objectives has been undertaken and is outlined in table 22. 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.

44

Appraising Plans Policy - Rochford District Council Rural Settlement Areas Supplementary Planning Document

Rural Settlement Areas Policy 1 Within the following rural settlement areas:- i. Central Avenue/Pevensey Gardens, Hullbridge; ii. Pooles Lane, Hullbridge; iii. Windsor Gardens, Hawkwell; iv. Rectory Road/Hall Road, Hawkwell; v. Barling Road/Rebels Lane, Great Wakering; vi. Stonebridge, Barling; vii. Hall Road, Rochford; viii. Kingsman Farm Road, Hullbridge; and, ix. Bullwood Hall Lane and High Road, Hockley, Proposals for extensions to dwellings in these areas as defined on the Proposals Map and in LPSPD8 will be permitted if the following criteria are met: a. The appearance of the extension is in keeping with the scale and character of the dwelling and with its setting; b. The extension will not be visually intrusive in the open character of the surrounding countryside; c. The extension would not harm the amenity of nearby residents.

45

Justification for assessment noting:

• Likelihood/certainty of effect occurring (High/Medium/Low) • Geographical scale of effect • Whether temporary or permanent. • Assumptions made.

Include recommendations for mitigation/improvement. Assessment of Effect (see key below

SEA Objective Summary baseline situation / targets

Indicator

Short term

Med term Long term

1) Protect and enhance the natural and historic environment.

Contained within 65 square miles, Rochford District is predominately green belt, with Unspoilt coastline and attractive countryside. It contains the historic market towns of Rayleigh and Rochford.

New development to contribute to environmental quality, relating to the protection, conservation and enhancement of the landscape character and quality, and the

Number of planning obligations used to ‘building-in beneficial biodiversity or geological features as part of good design

Geographical Spatial Extent – Effect – Policy RSA1 requires proposals for extensions to be in keeping with the character of the dwelling and its setting in appearance and not to the detriment of the open character of the surrounding countryside. This actively supports the objective of the protection and enhancement of the natural and historic environment. Within the rural settlement areas as documented within the SPD, numerous architectural features have been incorporated into developments so as to enhance the historic environment. Where newer buildings are located adjacent to more established properties,

46

safeguarding of visually and historically important trees and woodland. As much as 30% of the agricultural land in Rochford District is Grade 1 and 2, with the majority of remaining agricultural land is classed as Grade 3. The present dominant land use within the District is agricultural.

There are 2 RAMSARs (also designated as SPAs), the Crouch and Roach Estuaries and Foulness. The Rochford District coast is also designated as part of the Essex Estuaries SAC. In total there are 3 SSSIs and 175.87ha of ancient woodland, which is mostly semi-natural ancient woodland.

Loss or damage to nationally and regionally important historic sites and features Progress against East of England Regional Biodiversity targets

details such as casement windows, pitched rather than flat roof dormers and large chimney stacks are predominant and can be seen in areas such as Hockley in Appendix 3. Similarly, within these areas it is prevalent that properties are noticeably set back from the road, enabling off street parking and the potential for significant soft landscaping measures to be employed, such as in Hockley, Barling Road, Great Wakering and Hall Road, Rochford. The benefits of this include the presence of vehicles to be screened and the incorporation of green space in the street scene. Recommendation – Not relevant

47

There are 59 County Wildlife Sites (CWS) within the District, with a total area of 15969.30ha. There are also 4 LNRs, with the largest being Hockley Woods at 91.50ha. There are no NNRs or AONBs within the District. 2 out of the 3 SSSIs within the District are not meeting PSA targets - 90.25% of the SSSI area in the District is in an ‘unfavourable declining’ state, with the remaining area being classed as ‘unfavourable no change.’ Rochford District contains 59 CWSs of which 89.06% of the total area is coastal, 7.74% is grassland, 1.69% is mosaic habitat types, 1.20% is woodland and the remaining area is

Number/type of development permitted each year within identified Historic Landscape Sites contrary to policy in adopted development plans

48

classified as freshwater aquatic. The largest CWS is Foulness. In the East of England there are 57,643 listed buildings, 211 registered parks and gardens, a registered battlefield at Maldon, approximately 1,600 scheduled monuments and 1,100 areas of special architectural or historic interest, designated as Conservation Areas. There are approximately 150,000 archaeological sites currently recorded on County Sites and Monuments Records. Rochford contains a rich and varied heritage and archaeological resource of nearly 1500 records, including 327 listed buildings and 1126 archaeological records which includes 5 Scheduled

Number of Scheduled Ancient Monuments (SAMS) or other nationally important archaeological sites, which are damaged or destroyed each year

49

Monuments. Of the 327 listed buildings in the District. One of these is Grade I listed. There are 17 Grade II* listed buildings and 309 buildings designated as Grade II. There are 1126 archaeological records within the District, including five Scheduled Monuments.

The District has 1 registered village green, Norpits Beach at Canewdon, with an area of 2.30ha. There are also 3 commons, with the largest recorded at Great Wakering (5.86ha). In total the measured commons within the District have a hectarage of 6.48ha; a small area compared to the Essex total of 1154.24ha.

Number/type of Ramsars sites, SPAs, SACs, Marine SACs, SSSIs and NNRs designated or damaged each year

50

There are no registered parks/gardens within the District. There are a total of 10 Conservation Areas, with the largest being Rochford at 365,798m2. These sites are defined as having ‘special architectural or historical interest, the character of which it is desirable to preserve or enhance’.

In Rochford District, there were 10 Buildings at Risk in 2003, 8 in 2004 and 7 in 2005. There have been no new additions to the register labelled Newly at Risk

51

2) Provide a decent home for everyone and affordable housing for all those on low incomes.

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. 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% (50.1% less than the anticipated rise in population throughout Essex). The proportion of persons aged 0-19 years in 2001 within the District of Rochford, will be less in 2021. The percentage of persons

Target to reduce the number of deaths and serious injuries by 40% for all road accidents and by 50% for those involving children by 2010

Geographical Spatial Extent – Effect – PPG3 Housing documents that, “there should be greater choice of housing and that housing should not reinforce social distinctions. The needs of all in the community should be recognised, including those in need of affordable or special housing.” Despite this, policy RSA1 relates specifically to the extension of the buildings and areas listed in the policy and does not concern the building of new (or affordable) housing. Less stringent controls over extensions in these areas and to these properties actively enables the creation of better homes for relevant households. Housing quality indicators 2005, conclude that, “features such as generous space, good natural light, energy efficiency and good sound insulation can greatly improve the popularity of a home and the quality of life for the people who live in it” and similarly CABE 2005, quote that, “79 per-cent of homebuyers consider space to be the most important design feature in a home.” With this in mind, it is evident from Appendix 3 that the

52

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. 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). Rochford has a percentage of households inhabiting a semi detached dwelling house of 31.6%. The District of Rochford has a comparable number of detached dwellings (22.8%) to the average for England and Wales. The number of detached dwellings

vast majority of the properties specified in the SPD are detached and many of the areas’ single storey dwellings have the benefit of dormer windows, suggesting the adaptation of lofts for living space. Properties also have the benefit of substantial front and rear land, often in the form of a combination of hard and soft landscaping. This can create privacy for residents through screening and enhances the street scene by removing vehicles from the road and creating green space. Recommendation – Not relevant

53

within the region is greater. The District of Rochford has a similar proportion of terrace dwellings as the national average, while the region has a marginally lower proportion of terrace dwellings. Locally, the proportion of houses and bungalows (83.3%) is well above the national average of 54%. The supply of terraced properties is 6.9%, lower than the national average of 26%, and flats/maisonettes at 8.7% are below the national average of 20%. The total affordable housing need annually is for 393 units. Re-lets of the existing social stock average 102 units and is the major means of addressing the scale of need identified. Even after

Proportion of new residential dwellings taking the form of houses and bungalows, terraced properties and flats/maisonettes. Annual affordable housing re-lets in comparison to need.

54

allowing for this level of supply, there will still be an annual affordable housing shortfall of 291 units which projected over the seven year period to 2011 is a total of 2,037 units. A target of 35% of new units from the total of all sites in the District should form the basis for negotiation as subsidised affordable housing. Rochford District’s score of 5.7 in the Barriers to Housing and Services domain in the Indices of Multiple Deprivation, is less than Essex’s (20.7) and the Essex District Average (24.1). This domain contains two sub-domains: Wider Barriers and Geographical Barriers, the latter of these relating to road distances to a GP (2003), a supermarket

Annual affordable housing shortfall. Performance in the provision of subsidised affordable housing in comparison to the 35% target.

55

(2002), a primary school (2001/02) and a Post Office (2003). The District of Rochford has no areas with serious crime deprivation however the average for the Essex Districts (6.5) and Essex County (5.1) exceeds Rochford. The crime rates per 1000 of the population for the District of Rochford marginally fluctuated (13.2 in Apr-Jun 2003 to 14.1 in Jan-Mar 2004), however the incidences of crime per 1000 of the population were considerably lower than Essex (23.1 in Apr-Jun 2003 to 22.3 in Jan-Mar 2004) and the East of England (23.7 in Apr-Jun 2003 to 23.4 in Jan-Mar 2004). Perceived Anti-Social Behaviour in Essex is higher than that for

Crime rates per 1000 population in new residential developments

56

Britain. On average approx. 34% of Essex’s population believe there is a problem compared to approx. 20% nationwide. The worst categories for the county in this domain are ‘Teenagers hanging around,’ (approx. 60% in Essex, 27% for Britain) and Vandalism (47% in Essex, 28% for Britain). In 2003 there were a total of 45 people killed or seriously injured in road accidents in Rochford. Within the East of England region as a whole there were 3,994 people killed or seriously injured, of whom 9 per cent were children. 10% of all units in a 25+ unit development must be designed, or easily adapted to being, housing for long term needs.

The proportion of units in a 25+ development that are

57

Developing an inclusive environment will have a substantial and positive effect on society as an estimated 20% of the adult population, some 11.7 million people, have a disability. UK demographics are shifting towards an increasingly elderly population. Indeed, over the next 40 years, the number of people over 65 is set to rise by 40%, while the population as a whole is set to increase by only 7%.

designed for housing for long term needs

58

3. Ensure high design quality to create attractive living environments where people will choose to live

The District has 1 registered village green, Norpits Beach at Canewdon, with an area of 2.30ha. There are also 3 commons, with the largest recorded at Great Wakering (5.86ha). In total the measured commons within the District have a hectarage of 6.48ha; a small area compared to the Essex total of 1154.24ha.

Shopfronts should be designed to complement the style and proportions of the affected building, and to those adjoining it. Shopfront designs should also incorporate any features necessary to ensure the security and contents of the premises. 60% of all new development built each year to be on

Annual percentage increase in

Geographical Spatial Extent – Effect – It is stated in ‘By Design, Urban design in the planning system’ that, “successful places tend to be those that have their own distinct identity. How a neighbourhood looks affects how residents feel about where they live.” The design implications that arise from policy RSA1 ensure that extensions to the properties in the given areas are in keeping with the existing dwelling and their individual settings. National guidance documented in PPS1 specifies that, “key objectives should include ensuring that developments respond to their local context and create local distinctiveness.” Referring to Appendix 3, many of the properties within the rural settlement areas follow certain design trends, such as being detached in form, set away from the road, and with prominent chimney stacks and pitched roof dormers. Also, the majority of properties documented within the SPD have the benefit of being set back from the road, creating privacy, safety and the possibility of incorporating green space into

59

either previously developed land or by re-use of existing buildings. At least 50% of all new development built each year to take place within existing built-up areas.

Locally, the proportion of houses and bungalows (83.3%) is well above the national average of 54%. The supply of terraced properties is 6.9%, lower than the national average of 26%, and flats/maisonettes at 8.7% are below the national average of 20%. With exception of flats, new housing should have at least 50 sqm of usable garden space which is not directly overlooked by neighbouring properties.

For new housing

new development taking place on previously developed land

Proportion

the street scene. This is predominately evident in the areas of Hockley and Hall Road, Rochford, both of which are located on established busy roads. Recommendation – Not relevant

60

developments housing densities of 30-50 dwellings per hectare ensure land is utilised efficiently. The LPA will require in developments of 25 or more dwellings that 10% of the units are designed, or capable of easy adaptation to, housing for long term needs.

of new developments complying with the 30-50 dph target Annual percentage increase of units designed for long term housing needs

61

4. Ensure that in Rural Settlement Areas the mass of the building shall be in scale and harmony with adjoining buildings and the area as a whole.

Rochford contains a rich and varied heritage and archaeological resource. The Essex Historic Environment Record (HER) maintained by Essex County Council contains nearly 1500 records including 327 listed buildings and 1126 archaeological records which includes 5 Scheduled Monuments There are ten conservation areas within the District of Rochford. Of these ten, conservation design appraisals have been carried out for Rayleigh and Rochford by Essex County Council. These design appraisals give an insight into the materials, detailing and design implications that are relevant to the District. The total size of the dwelling as extended will not exceed the original habitable floor space by more than 35 square metres in floor area;

Geographical Spatial Extent – Effect – Policy RSA1 states that “proposals for extensions to dwellings in these (rural settlement) areas…will be permitted if the following criteria are met: the appearance of the extension is in keeping with the scale and character of the dwelling and with its setting.” This directly addresses the objective of ensuring that in Rural Settlement Areas the mass of the building shall be in scale and harmony with adjoining buildings and the area as a whole. It is clear from photographic evidence in Appendix 3 that certain architectural details have been incorporated into properties in order to be in harmony with the area as a whole. The presence of chimney stacks at 73 (High Ridge Lodge), High Road, Hockley and 71 High Road are in keeping with nearby properties with similar stacks, such as at Hockley House. There is a similarly harmonious scale of buildings within High Road in Hockley, mainly large detached properties, and where garages and outbuildings are external from the main building,

62

they have been designed to appear as sympathetic outbuildings and are located suitably. Recommendation – Not relevant

63

64

Chapter 5 - Supplementary Planning Document

Issues and Alternatives

65

Chapter 5 10. Supplementary Planning Document 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:

• Option 1 – No Policy within the Local Plan related extensions to dwellings within Rural Settlement Areas.

• Option 2 – Policy in the Local Plan (R2) related to permitted extensions of existing dwellings within Rural Settlement Areas, with no accompanying Supplementary Planning Document.

• Option 3 – Policy in the Local Plan (R2) related to permitted extensions of existing dwellings within Rural Settlement Areas accompanied with a Rural Settlement Design Supplementary Planning Document.

66

Table 23 Rochford District Council – Supplementary Planning Document – Rural Settlement - Comparison of the Options 1 and 2

Option 1 – No Policy within the Local Plan related extensions to dwellings within Rural Settlement Areas.

Option 2 – Policy in the Local Plan (R2) related to permitted extensions of existing dwellings within Rural Settlement Areas, with no accompanying Supplementary Planning Document.

SEA Objective

Performance Short, Medium and Long Term

Commentary/ Explanation

Performance Short, Medium and Long Term

Commentary/ Explanation

1. Protect and enhance the natural and historic environment and character. 2. Provide a decent home for everyone and affordable housing for all those on low incomes. 3. Ensure high design quality to create attractive living environments where people will chose to live. 4. Ensure that in Rural Settlement Areas the mass of the building shall be in scale and harmony with adjoining buildings and the area as a whole.

? ? ? Without a policy there would be no local statutory mechanism to facilitate appropriate extensions to existing buildings within the Greenbelt. Therefore this may restrict the ability of persons residing in these areas from extending their properties. Alternatively the lack of policy guidance may also result in a lack of a coordinated response to identifying areas that may suitably accommodate extensions within the greenbelt. It is therefore concluded that in the short – long term the impact of adopting option one is uncertain.

? ? ? The current policy seeks to identify the Rural Settlement Areas that are not subject to restrictive policy relating to extensions in the Green Belt, but to a policy regime more similar to that applied in residential areas. The policy lacks detail with regards to the buildings that the policy applies, and therefore the effect may be a loss of the character evident within the Greenbelt. It is therefore concluded that the impact would be uncertain.

67

Table 24 - Rochford District Council – Supplementary Planning Document – Rural Settlement - Comparison of the Options 3

Option 3 – Policy in the Local Plan (R2) related to permitted extensions of existing dwellings within Rural Settlement Areas accompanied with a Rural Settlement Design Supplementary Planning Document.

SEA Objective

Performance Short, Medium and Long Term

Commentary/ Explanation

1. Protect and enhance the natural and historic environment and character. 2. Provide a decent home for everyone and affordable housing for all those on low incomes. 3. Ensure high design quality to create attractive living environments where people will chose to live. 4. Ensure that in Rural Settlement Areas the mass of the building shall be in scale and harmony with adjoining buildings and the area as a whole.

+ + + The combination of the policy with supplementary planning document provides the clearest framework to ensure well designed residential environments. The SPD seeks to ensure that dwellings not subject to the restrictive policies are appropriate in character and scale therefore contributing towards the construction of a decent home. However it is considered that the draft SPD could be improved – see appraising policies section.

68

Chapter 6 - Monitoring Implementation of Supplementary Planning Document

69

Chapter 6 11. Monitoring Implementation of Rural Settlement Areas Supplementary Planning Document 11.1 The SEA Directive states that “Member States shall monitor the significant environmental effects of the implementation of plans and programmes in order, inter alias, 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 Rural Settlement Areas Supplementary Planning Document 8 The monitoring of the Rural Settlement Areas Supplementary Planning

Document 8 “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 Rural Settlement Areas Supplementary Planning Document 8 will aid in the identification of any problems that may arise during the Rural Settlement Areas Supplementary Planning Document 8 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. 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 26 outlines the SEA monitoring framework for the Rural Settlement Areas Supplementary Planning Document significant effects.

70

Table 26 – Monitoring Framework

SEA Objectives

Monitoring Activity Targets Responsible Authority

Temporal Extent (Frequency of Monitoring)

Presentation Format

Any Issues with the Monitoring

1. Protect and

enhance the

natural and

historic

environment and

character.

Monitor the number of planning applications within the Rural Settlement Areas for extensions that contain conditions seeking to ensure development is sympathetic to the local context in the Greenbelt.

Context Local Authority Annual Tabulated May not be

currently

monitored.

To monitor the population

of Rochford District.

Context Office of National

Statistics

Annual Tabulated 2. Provide a

decent home for

everyone and

affordable

housing for all

those on low

incomes.

Monitor changes in the Index of Deprivation throughout the District, with particular emphasis on the Barriers to Housing and Services Domain (Sub domain: Wider barriers measures household overcrowding).

Context National Statistics

Online

Annual Tabulated

71

Monitor the number of residential dwellings that meet the decent homes standard by 2010.

Context Local Authority Annual Tabulated May not be

currently

recorded.

Monitor changes in the Index of Deprivation throughout Rochford District.

Context Local Authority 4 Years Tabulated 3. Ensure high

design quality to

create attractive

living

environments

where people will

chose to live.

To monitor the number and proportion of planning applications within the Rural Settlement Areas with conditions related to character, scale and mass of the extension.

Context Local Authority Annual Tabulated /

Mapped

May not be

recorded at

present.

4. Ensure that in

Rural Settlement

Areas the mass

of the building

shall be in scale

and harmony with

adjoining

buildings and the

area as a whole.

To monitor the number and proportion of planning applications within the Rural Settlement Areas with conditions related to character, scale and mass of the extension.

Context Local Authority Annual Tabulated /

Mapped

May not be

recorded at

present.

72

Appendix 1: Review of the Plans and Programmes Plan/ Programme

Key objectives relevant to the plan and SA

Key targets and indictors relevant to plan and SA

Implications for SA

International 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.

Despite the greater scope for the extension of the dwellings listed in the SPD, Green Belt control is still maintained in all other aspects including the protection of the natural environment.

European Community Biodiversity Strategy

* Anticipate, prevent and attack the causes of significant reduction or loss of biological diversity at the source.

* No relevant targets. Ensure that environmental mitigation measures form part of any development where relevant.

Environment 2010: Our Future, Our Choice

• Tackle climate change, • Protect nature and wildlife, • Address environment and health issues, Preserve natural resources and manage waste.

Any extension of the dwellings listed in the SPD should be designed with consideration of Green Issues and not be intrusive in the open character of the countryside.

National PPS 1: Delivering Sustainable Development

Planning policies should seek to protect and enhance the quality, character and amenity value of the countryside and urban areas as a whole. A high level of protection should be given to most valued townscapes and landscapes, wildlife habitats and natural resources. Those with national and international

Target; • 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

All development will need to protect or enhance the natural and historic environment where applicable. The extension to existing dwellings will also have to be integrated into the existing form concerning scale and character.

73

designations should receive the highest level of protection. The conservation and improvement of the natural and built environment brings social and economic benefit for local communities. 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. (paragraph 17 & 18)

buildings.

Planning should seek to maintain and improve the local environment and help to mitigate the effects of declining environmental quality.

PPG 2: Green Belts

There are five purposes of

including land in Green

Belts:

- to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;

- to prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another;

- to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;

- to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and

- to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban

100% of prospective development that could be considered harmful to the Green Belt must be accompanied by a statement from the applicant suggesting why development should be allowed to proceed.

Re-development of existing buildings must be in keeping with surroundings and constructed with local building materials. Any planned increase to the size of the development should not be disproportionate to the original building. Developments that appear harmful to the Green Belt are to be accompanied by a statement from the applicant as to why development should be allowed to

74

land.

Inappropriate development

is, by definition, harmful to

the Green Belt. It is for the

applicant to show why

permission should be

granted. In view of the

presumption against

inappropriate development,

the Secretary of State will

attach substantial weight to

the harm to the Green Belt

when considering any

planning application or

appeal concerning such

development. (paragraph

3.2)

Green Belt policies in

development plans should

ensure that any planning

applications for

inappropriate development

would not be in accord with

the plan. These exceptional

cases would thus be

treated as departures from

the development plan, to

be referred to the Secretary

of State under the Town

and Country Planning

(Development Plans and

Consultation) Directions

1992 (see DOE Circular

19/92). (paragraph 3.3)

All planning applications that would result in the visual amenity of the Green Belt being detrimentally affected should be refused.

proceed. All planning applications that could be considered to be a departure from the development plan are to be referred to the Secretary of State under the Town and Country Planning (Development Plans and Consultation) Directions 1992. Development situated on land outside of the Green Belt may be refused if they will detrimentally effect the visual amenity of the Green Belt. This will also apply to proposed extensions proposed for those dwellings highlighted in the SPD.

75

The visual amenities of the

Green Belt should not be

injured by proposals for

development within or

conspicuous from the

Green Belt which, although

they would not prejudice

the purposes of including

land in Green Belts, might

be visually detrimental by

reason of their siting,

materials or design.

(paragraph 3.5)

PPG3: Housing

Local planning authorities (LPAs)… should promote good design in new housing developments in order to create attractive, high-quality living environments in which people will choose to live. (Adapted from para 2; PPG3)

To offer everyone within the District of Rochford the opportunity of a decent home.

Ensuring people have decent places to live by improving the quality and sustainability of local environments and neighbourhoods.

PPS 7: Sustainable Development In Rural Areas.

The Government's

objectives for rural areas

that are relevant to this

Planning Policy Statement

(PPS) are:

(i) To raise the quality of

life and the environment

in rural areas through the

promotion of:

- thriving, inclusive and

sustainable rural

communities, ensuring

people have decent places

All rural developments need to be in keeping with the existing character and aesthetics.

Improve the quality and

76

to live by improving the

quality and sustainability of

local environments and

neighbourhoods;

ii) To promote more

sustainable patterns of

development:

- focusing most

development in, or next to,

existing towns and villages;

All development in rural

areas should be well

designed and inclusive, in

keeping and scale with its

location, and sensitive to

the character of the

countryside and local

distinctiveness.

The aim is to offer

everyone the opportunity of

a decent home, including

those in need of affordable

and accessible, special

needs housing in rural

areas.

Planning authorities should

ensure that

development…contributes

to a sense of local identity

and regional diversity and

be of local identity and

regional diversity and be of

appropriate design and

100% of all development in rural areas should be well designed and in keeping with its location. Planning regulations should be sympathetic to those developments which are designed to improve the quality of life for those with special needs.

sustainability of local environments and neighbourhoods.

Enable the continued protection of the open countryside for the benefit of all.

All rural developments need to be in keeping with the existing scale, character and aesthetics.

77

scale for its location,

having regard to the

policies on design

contained in PPS1 and

supported in ‘By Design.’

(Adapted from para 12;

PPS7)

PPG 20: Coastal Planning

Opportunities for development may be limited by physical circumstances, such as risk of flooding, erosion and land instability, and by conservation policies. (Adapted from PPG 20)

Policies should seek to minimise development in areas at risk from flooding, erosion and land instability. The degree of risk involved will have to be carefully considered and policies will specifically be needed to control or restrict development.(Adapted from PPG 20)

100% of planning applications to be accompanied with a flood risk assessment as well as suitable mitigation and management measures.

Planning consent will be harder to attain in areas limited by physical circumstances.

PPG 24: 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

* Contains Noise Exposure Categories. 100% of developments that have negative noise implications after completion will need to contain sufficient mitigation measures or practices.

Any new proposals should seek to mitigate, through measures such as noise barriers, any potential implications of noise that may arise from the development so as not to harm the amenity of nearby residents.

78

to serve as noise barriers.

Regional / County

79

East of England Plan (RSS14) Essex & Southend Replacement Structure Plan (2001)

Local development documents may make provision for development in the Greenfield if Greenfield represents the most sustainable option by virtue of: • existing access to good quality public transport, or where the development can assist new public transport provision • utilising existing physical and social infrastructure • having good access to housing, jobs, schools, shopping and leisure facilities • avoidance of adverse impact on environmental assets such as nature conservation and landscape character, historic features, mineral reserves, water resources and air quality. Greenfield land releases should be appropriate in scale to the adjoining urban area. Significant urban extensions should be large enough to provide a sustainable form of development, in relation to employment, public transport provision, and social, health, education, and community facilities provision. (Adapted from Policy SS3) The quality of the natural and built environment will be maintained and conserved by:- 3. Sustaining and enhancing the rural environment, including conserving the countryside character and the protection of the countryside for its own sake; 5. Enhancing and managing by appropriate

At least 60% of all new development in the region will take place in or using previously used land or buildings. Local development documents will identify and allocate suitable previously developed land and buildings for new development with a view to contributing to this target. (Policy SS4) 100% of dwelling extensions to make efficient land use and contribute to the character of the local area. There must be scope in all planning applications for sustaining and enhancing the rural environment.

There is provision within Local Development Document for development within the Green Belt so long as it represents the most sustainable option. The quality of the environment can be maintained by enhancing the land and managing appropriate use of the Metropolitan Green Belt. Planning permission for existing buildings within the Metropolitan Green Belt is unlikely to be granted unless it satisfies one of the criteria set out in Policy C2

80

use, land in the Metropolitan Green Belt and urban fringe. (Adapted from Policy CS2) Within the Metropolitan Green Belt there is a general presumption against inappropriate development. Except in very special circumstances, planning permission will not be granted unless for:- 3. Limited extension, alteration or replacement of existing dwellings; 6. The re-use of existing buildings in accordance with the criteria included under Policy RE2. Development which may be permitted should preserve the openness of the Green Belt and should not conflict with the main purposes of including land within it. Any development which is permitted should be of a scale, design and siting such that the character of the countryside is not harmed. (Adapted Policy C2) Development must respect its landscape setting and will not be permitted if it would cause permanent destruction or damage to the character of the landscape. Development will not be permitted which would have a material adverse impact, even of limited duration, on the character and appearance of the landscape, (Policy NR1)

Planning applications within Metropolitan Green Belt should be refused unless they address one of the criteria stipulated in Policy C2 Number/type of development permitted each year within the Metropolitan Green Belt contrary to Green Belt policy in adopted development plans. 100% of development permitted within the Green Belt should be of a scale, design and siting such that the character of the countryside is not harmed. All development that would cause permanent destruction or damage to the local landscape must be rejected. 100% of all development within the coastal protection belt shall not adversely affect the open and rural character, historic features or wildlife. 100% of Development will not be permitted in coastal areas which are at risk from flooding, erosion and land instability

Planning permission is significantly more likely to be granted if the proposed new development is similar in design, aesthetics and location to existing developments. Planning permission will be harder to attain in the Coastal Protection Belt where there are implications for affecting the local rural character of the area. Development is extremely unlikely to be permitted in areas where existing flood defences properly maintained would not provide an acceptable standard of safety over the lifetime of the proposed development, or where the construction of new coastal defences would be required.

81

Within the Coastal Protection Belt defined in adopted local plans there shall be the most stringent restrictions on development within the rural and undeveloped coastline situated outside existing built-up areas, and any development which is exceptionally permitted within this Belt shall not adversely affect the open and rural character, historic features or wildlife. (Policy CC1) Development will not be permitted in coastal areas which are at risk from flooding, erosion and land instability, particularly where existing flood defences properly maintained would not provide an acceptable standard of safety over the lifetime of the proposed development, or where the construction of new coastal defences would be required. (Policy CC2)

Local

Rochford

District

Replacem

ent Local

Plan

Second

REVIEW ,

May 2004

Within the Metropolitan Green Belt there is a general presumption against inappropriate development. Except in very special circumstances, planning permission will not be granted unless for:-

• the extension, alteration or replacement

No planning permission to be given for change of use or extension of existing buildings within the Green Belt unless the dwelling seeking planning permission is one of those stipulated in the SPD.

Other than in special circumstances, the change of use or extension of existing buildings will not be permitted within the Green Belt unless the dwelling is one of those highlighted in the SPD.

82

of existing dwellings in accordance with the criteria defined in Policies R2, R5 and R6

Within the Special Landscape Areas, development will not be allowed unless its location, size, siting, design, materials and landscaping accord with the character of the area in which the development is proposed.

Within developed areas of a flood risk area, development may be permitted subject to the conclusions of the flood risk assessment and the suitability of the flood mitigation and management measures recommended therein.

Within sparsely developed and undeveloped areas of a flood risk area, commercial, industrial and new

100% of planning applications seeking to extend a single storey dwelling to provide two storey accommodation shall be refused unless there are specific reasons against doing so. 100% of all development to be in keeping with the design, materials and scale of neighbouring buildings. 100% of planning applications to be accompanied by a flood risk assessment and details of suitable flood mitigation and management measures. 100% of planning applications to be accompanied by a flood risk assessment and details of suitable flood mitigation and management measures.

Planning applications seeking the conversion of existing single storey buildings to provide two storey accommodation will normally be refused. Proposed developments will need to be in keeping with local design characteristics in order to be successful. Within developed areas of a flood risk area development may be permitted, subject to the conclusions of the flood risk assessment and the suitability of the flood mitigation and management measures recommended therein. Commercial, industrial and new residential development will generally not be permitted within undeveloped and sparsely developed areas. Development approval will depend on the conclusions of the flood risk assessment and the suitability of the accompanying flood

83

residential development will not be permitted except in exceptional cases. Other applications (including applications for the replacement of existing dwellings on a one-for-one basis) will be considered on their merits, having regard to the conclusions of the flood risk assessment and the suitability of the flood mitigation and management measures recommended therein. (Adapted from Policy NR9- Development within Flood Risk Areas)

mitigation and management measures.

84

Appendix 2 – Rural Settlement Areas

85

Hullbridge and Hockley Areas

86

Great Wakering, Stonebridge and Barling Areas

87

Hawkwell and Rochford Areas

88

Key to Maps in Appendix 2

89

Appendix 3 – Visual Appraisal of the Rural Settlement Areas

90

Appendix 3 – Hullbridge Area – Central Avenue /

Pevensey Gardens

91

Appendix 3 – Hullbridge Area – Pooles Lane

92

Appendix 3 – Hawkwell Area – Windsor Gardens

93

Appendix 3 – Hawkwell Area – Rectory Road / Hall Road

94

Appendix 3 – Great Wakering Area – Barling Road /

Rebels Lane

95

Appendix 3 – Stonebridge Barling Area

96

Appendix 3 - Rochford – Hall Road

97

Appendix 3 - Hullbridge Area – Kingsmans Farm Road

98

Appendix 3 – Hockley – Bullwood Hall Lane and high

Road

99

100