Coombes Farm NEW HOUSING PLANS 2026

Are you concerned about the loss of Green Belt land at Coombes Farm, Rochford?

Are you worried that your walk along a footpath with far reaching views across farmland and direct access to the King Charles 3rd national coastal path could become a walk through a traffic infested housing estate? (including at least a fivefold increase in traffic along Rocheway which would be the only access to the estate)

Coombes Farm is under threat again from ICENI Projects with a Planning Application (reference 26/00106/OUT) for at least 230 homes and a residential home.  It's envisaged that if permission was granted that ultimately more houses on the same site would follow (previously plans were aiming for 320)

Please object by commenting on the plans here:

OBJECT TO PLANS.  ASAP 

This purpose of this webpage is to inform and involve the community in fighting the latest plans to develop land at Coombes Farm. See link here to plans

https://planningdocs.rochford.gov.uk/Planning/planning-documents?SDescription=26/00106/OUT

WHY ARE WE HERE AGAIN?

We've been here before, which is why we know the community will come out in strength as it did more than 15 years ago. A local campaign group has been formed under the banner of "Save Coombes Farm".

For 4 years between 2009 and 2012 Rochford residents came together to protest against plans to concrete over this much loved and used green lung on the edge of the town. After a number of official hearings, appeals and Court battles we thought a High Court decision in 2012 supporting Rochhford's Local Plan at the time (which was opposed to Coombes Farm) would be the end of the matter. We thought a useful precendent has been set so it is desperately disappointing to see ICENI Projects take advantege of the current hazy planning environment and try again.

WHAT HAPPENED PREVIOUSLY?

There have been previous attempts at development, most notably in 2009 when the plans were emphatically refused by Rochford District Council (RDC) see here https://planningdocs.rochford.gov.uk/my-requests/document-viewer?DocNo=795529

A Government Inspector upheld RDC's decision particularly citing largely unacceptable development on green belt.

Unfortunately this wasn't the end of the matter and the Developer (along with another Developer) took the matter to the High Court, focusing on the weaknesses in Rochford's core strategy/local plan (which hadn't been in place when the plans were originally rejected in 2009 but by 2011 a plan had been adopted by the Council after statutory sign off) And because the Plan was finally in place and considered "sound" the High Court appeal ultimately failed at the time.

COMMENT ON COOMBES FARM IN THE COUNCIL's EMERGING LOCAL PLAN

Coombes Farm is incluided in the Council's Site Assessment Methodology (regulation 18).  This is the Council's review of possible sites that could be developed for housing in the future and their judgement whether it's likely to be viable.  This is a key part of the Council's local plan. There are different categories attaching to possible sites, eg "clear omission" means the Council is clear it doesn't think the site is viable.  Coombes Farm is a "Marginal Omission" which potentially levaes the door open to development (see below)

People can let the Council know that they feel strongly that this site shouldn't be developed, that it should be a clear omission - by following this link https://tinyurl.com/4826chb5  . For exmaple commenting that it was a site that's already been refused by the Council, a decision supported by a Governement Inspector. This was due to inapporopriate development on the green belt. You need to create a log in to be able comment.  It's also important to quote the site reference which is CFS116 (a)

Coombes Farm is referenced in the Local Plan:

The Trashing of the Roach Valley Way

Calls to Rochford District Council to prevent the worsening Environmental blight alongside the River Roach are not being taken seriously.  We want residents, users of the 23 mile Roach Valley Way route and all those who care about the Environment to be aware of what's happening.

Most importantly, we want the Roach Valley Way to be a source of pride and enjoyment for all and protected for future generations.

Watts Lane 1932 (Hubert George Allnutt 1886 -1960)

This picture, unrecognizable today, is where many people begin the 23 mile Roach Valley Way at Watts Lane, near the Horse and Groom Pub in Rochford. If you're unfamiliar with the location please see link here The AA recommended "Peculiar People" walk 

It doesn't really require much imagination to guess what the Painter's reaction would be if he was still around to visit the area in 2016.

The photos below were taken along the stretch of The Roach Valley path running alongside Purdeys Industrial Estate and clearly show the rubbish and waste that continues to accumulate. Some of the waste is believed to contain ASBESTOS and through the dogged and determined efforts of a nearby Resident, the Council has agreed to clear the offending material only.  It is a small victory but we need the Council to take action to throroughly clear the path and prevent the problem recurring going forward.  

Essex Wildlife has confirmed that the Roach is incorporated into the Marine Conservation Zone and is also designated as a Special Area of Conservation, one of the highest environmental designations available for a coastal area. So why is the Council seemingly so apathetic in protecting this area? We know that pollution has been a problem along the Roach in the past year  Roach Pollution  Admittedly it is a challenging location to protect with the Industrial Estate bearing down on the River with its towering waste recycling, car scrapage and other noisy, messy operations.  The Council may point to a number of litter picking exercises that have taken place over the years - both voluntary (by local residents) and involuntary (community "payback" teams have been involved) but, whilst welcome, they will never properly address the source of the problem.

Waste running into Roach

Rubbish and Waste on Roach Valley Way

Flooding

Remains of Stambridge Mill adjacent to the Roach

Industrial Waste alongside the Roach

We urge you to take a walk to see the extent of the problem for yourself.  If you can ignore all the rubbish and waste it's a good time of year to vist.  Trees are blossoming and wildlife is breeding. Watch out for the Ducks and Swan activity near the Mill as they continue life as normal ignoring the shopping trolley and other discarded waste in the River.

And if what you see annoys you, please let the Council's Environmental Health know Rochford District Council Report Fly Tipping.

Rocheway College's Uncertain Past and Future

On 9th November 1959 MP for Essex, South East - Bernard Braine -stood up in the House of Commons and spoke about the "the serious lack of provision for secondary education in Rochford; and, secondly, the inadequacy of present proposals to remedy that situation in the future". (At the time, with a far smaller population than now, MPs' constituencies covered far greater areas - the future Sir Bernard Braine's stretching to Thundersley).

In Rochford the problem was due to the massive post war population explosion, it had doubled since 1945. At the time, Rochford's primary Secondary School was at what is now the Adult Education Centre in Rocheway and it had run out of space. The result was that around 600 children were being taught in the local British Legion Hall, The Congregation Church (which he described as a "slum school out of Dickens") and other temporary accommodation.  

The existing situation was made worse for the existing school, Bernard Braine explained, by the expanding Southend Airport; "every fifteen minutes of the school's working day an aircraft takes off or comes in directly over the school building, making teaching difficult and sometimes intolerable for both staff and pupils. I know this myself, because I have attempted to speak in the school at such a time with aircraft overhead."

He explained that the situation was likely to worsen due to the proposed increase in airport movements.  

A year earlier an extension to the school had been proposed to deal with the situation.  However, the Ministry of Transport decided that, with Southend Airport's intended expansion, it was inappropriate to site any expansion directly beneath the take off and landing path.

Bernard Braine's appeal to the Commons, therefore, was for a brand new school to cope with the existing and projected new numbers for the District.

Mr Kenneth Thompson, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education, responded that the build of what is now known as Greensward Academy was underway and, additionally, referred to the future King Edmund school by saying that "The local education authority is trying at the present time to complete negotiations for the acquisition of the Oxford Road site to which my hon. Friend referred. Negotiations are almost completed. There are only one or two minor details to finalise and that school will be in the building programme for 1960–61". And so it was. Parliament keeping its word...

In recent years, the old School has continued to play its role in the centre of the community as a centre for Adult Education, a Nursery school and HQ for a local football club.  Now, all that is under threat as Essex County Council has given notice that it is centralising Rochford area Adult Education provision to Rayleigh.  

As the future for the College hangs in the balance, while Essex CC and Rochford DC establish whether the College can still play a role serving Rochford, Mini Marvels, the pre-school nursery, and others, are considering their options.  It is surely ironic that the expensive and controversial Disability Essex Centre next door may have been an ideal tenant and precious green belt need not have been sacrificed.  The worst case scenario is that no further use is found and this attractive and historic building is put up for Auction by Essex County Council as an Asset no longer required.  But that is not the case as I write, discussions to secure its future continue, so let's hope for the best and watch this space!

UPDATE 22nd May 2014

The Centre will still have a role to play until, at least, the end of the year as "Mini Marvels" has secured an extension on its lease until that time.

UPDATE 29th February 2016

Rochford District Council are holding discussions about the future use of this site.  Unfortunately no information is likely to be made public until, or if, a planning application is formally made.

Transport Issues discussed at JAAP Inquiry

I attended a short (just over an hour) session this afternoon where the Government Inspector led a discussion on Transport issues arising from the JAAP plans.

There were 13 round the table, representatives from both Rochford and Southend Councils, as well as Essex Highways.  Also two from Friends of the Earth ("FOE") but no resident participation this time.  Interestingly, Cogent (think "Coombes Farm") were absent.  They had raised better East/West transport connectivity across the District as their requirement for supporting JAAP but I guess they did not feel that strongly about it after all.

The main points to come out from the discussions were the focus on required improvements to the local road network to support forecast traffic growth.  All agreed that the intention was for the A127 to take the brunt of the additional load and junction improvements, particularly at Kent Elms and The Bell junctions were discussed as essential, with work planned to start in the near future.

The new Saxon Business Park will have a main access from Cherry Orchard Way.  When discussing this, there was disagreement between Southend, Essex Highways (supported by a Consultant from "Atkins") and Rochford.  Atkins had undertaken traffic modelling to support a new roundabout  in Cherry Orchard Way to provide access to the Business Park.  They claimed that by doing so, there would no adverse impact on traffic flows on Hall Rd.  However, Rochford Councillor, Keith Hudson (who holds a Planning remit), supported by his Planning team, argued that, regardless of the traffic modelling, a "no right turn" (towards Rochford) would be their preference.  He made a strong case, saying that drivers always prefer the "easy option" and if it was easy for them to head East through Rochford (which a Roundabout would provide) then more would do so.  He wanted the JAAP plans to discourage traffic flowing through the centre of Rochford as far as possible.  This presents the Government Inspector with a dilemma, he has authoritative evidence from Atkins that a roundabout wouldn't worsen the situation versus reliable local knowledge that it would.  I know whose side I'm on!

East/West Connectivity was also discussed briefly, though the JAAP states that this is not an urgent requirement.  The Inspector asked, however, where a proposed route was intended to go.  Southend Council explained that the focus was on extending the newly built St Laurence Way towards Warners Bridge.  However, it was admitted that this would be a challenging project and require substantial demolition of existing housing, etc.  I think it's worth reiterating that there appeared to be no appetite by the Councils for making this a priority and, thankfully, the outer Southend bypass wasn't raised.

I was interested to hear about the provision of cycle routes through Rochford, given the District has barely any. JAAP provides for new routes to Saxon Business Park but Southend and Rochford advised that they are currently discussing additional routes, not already included in the plans.  I'll be following any developments in this area keenly. My personal wish is for the Prittle Brook route from Priory Park towards Rochford to be be invested in, and I know that this is on Sustrans "wish list" as well.

New bus routes were also discussed but Southend Council admitted that these were aspirational and nothing concrete had been agreed with the bus operators.  There was an admittance that this Country has a long standing history of minimum public funding for public transport.

Other items that came out of the afternoon included the fact that the Airport believes it has sufficient car parking capacity to support growth up to 2m passengers, so I don't know what will happen if growth ever exceeds this figure.

Southend Council stated that it did not believe there was a big problem with on street parking by Airport users at present and therefore no requirement for a Residents Parking Scheme or similar at this time.  The situation is reviewed annually, around August time however.

Park and Ride arrangements were initially included in an earlier iteration of JAAP.  Southend Council, however, admitted that such plans have now been withdrawn as the site identified for such plans falls within the Public Safety Zone, where no new building would be permitted.

The JAAP hearing continues next week and all relevant documents can be found from the home page of Rochford Council's home page.

Residents question Airport development plans at Government Inquiry

I attended the first session of the Joint Area Action Plan (JAAP) Examination today at the Civic Centre. JAAP is Rochford and Southend's plan for future expansion of the Airport, as well as Employment and Econmic growth and environmental proposals.

Chaired by a Government Inspector and attended by representatives from both Rochford and Southend Councils, and Interested parties, including Friends of the Earth, Residents, and Cogent (the Developer behind the Coombes Farm proposals), the purpose was to help the Inspector come to a decision on the "soundness" of the JAAP proposals.  This includes legal compliance to various Planning Laws and Environmental regulations.  The public were permitted to attend, though not speak, and it was a great opportunity to see how our Planning process works and, even more interestingly, democracy in action.

My initial reason for attending was to hear what Cogent had to say, particularly interested as I am about any developments on the green belt land that is Coombes Farm and which Cogent remain keen to develop for housing.  However, I found the whole session interesting and many facts were disclosed that dealt with some of the myths and misunderstandings that always seem to accompany major developments of this nature.

Very early on the impact of any new Airport at the Isle of Grain was discussed.  The Airport Commission will decide next Summer on where future Airport growth will take place and, if Kent is chosen, it's likely to lead to Southend's closure.  The Inspector therefore questioned whether the progress of JAAP should be suspended until the outcome of the Airport Commission's report is known.  Both Rochford and Southend Councils were adamant that their proposals were well developed (both have had their local development plans or "core strategies" as they're formally known signed off by the Government) and did not believe a Thames Estuary Airport would be chosen over Southend.  They also made the point that JAAP was not solely about the Airport but also to bring Saxon Business Park to fruition, as well as other developments.

Representatives from Friends of the Earth ("FOE") and Residents spoke throughout the session about poor communication from the Councils about the JAAP Proposals and restricted opportunities for the Public to participate in the decision making process. Whilst attention was drawn to the "Airports Consultative Committee" as the forum for the Public (as well as Councillors and other interested parties) to contribute to issues arising from Airport operation and development, FOE and Residents advised that some had been barred from participation due to being categorized as "vexatious" complainers, even though the number of complaints were minimal.  FOE pointed out that the Campaign Group "SAEN" (Stop Airport Expansion Now) had been prevented from joining the Committee altogether.

The issue of "Compulsory Purchases" was raised by one resident concerned about the possible loss of her home adjacent to Jubilee Country Park.  Rochford's Head of Planning, Mr.Scrutton, assured her that "over my dead body will Jubilee Park be bought by the Airport" and a member from Southend's planning team advised that there was no provision or reference to compulsory purchases in the JAAP proposals.  This last comment caused some uproar from some members of the Committee and Audience who were adamant that JAAP did include such references. The Inspector, however, noted that this issue was really beyond his terms of reference.

The threat of pollution, in particular to the River Roach, was a great concern and participating Residents drew attention to instances where the Airport had already been responsible for sewage deposits directly into the River.  The Councils, however, claimed that the Environment Agency had not flagged up any problems and the water quality was regularly monitored.  From my viewpoint, I felt FOE and Residents made a strong argument on this point, especially as the Airport wants to grow the numbers from 2 to 5m passenger per annum eventually. (On this point it's worth noting, and the Inspector made a specific mention of this, that JAAP only deals with a possible growth to 2m pa.  If the Airport grows to a point where 2m looks likely to be exceeded, it's back to the drawing board with the planning process).

Finally, and the whole reason for me attending, Cogent's contribution.  There will be a later session dedicated to Transport issues and this is Cogent's theme.  They do not believe the JAAP plans can be sound unless there is better access to the Airport from the East of the District.  The fact that this would also provide better access to their wished for development at Coombes Farm is entirely coincidental, of course.  At present Coombes Farm falls outside of the JAAP area and Cogent also, funnily enough, believe it should fall within it as it would probably increase their chances of obtaining a review of planning permission.

Stambridge Mill's dereliction

What remains of Stambridge Mill is a building site of half demolished structures and the derelict former office building.  Yesterday, walking past, I was surprised to see that the Developers have not secured the area and it's possible to walk around and into the skeleton of the buildings' remains. What a mess. Upturned and smashed up office furniture, including filing cabinets with spilled guts of reams of Allied Mills headed invoices from the 1980s, and before.  Graffiti everywhere.

I hope the site is secured before an accident, or yet another fire, occurs.  Eventually it'll be a new housing development, though I wouldn't be surprised if local residents have to endure this ugly reminder of Stambridge's heritage for a while longer.  The Developer, Inner London Group ("ILG"), is obliged to bear the cost of improved flood defences.  This will benefit their own scheme, of course, but also nearby properties - including homes in Mill Lane and Broomhill Nursing Home.

To undertake the scheme requires ILG to work with other land owners, including Cogent Land - owners of land at Coombes Farm and also the Environment Agency.  As it stands, it appears there are both technical and commercial obstacles preventing the flood defence scheme moving forward - for example ILG will require access to land that is owned by Cogent, and this is subject to commercial terms being agreed.  No doubt Rochford Council will come under pressure from the Public, complaining about the state of Mill site, in much the same way as nearby Esplanade House in Eastern Esplanade, Southend, has been left resembling a bomb site.

Robert Leonard, the Developer of Esplanade House, appear to be using that as a negotiating ploy to allow their own housing scheme to be agreed by Southend Council.  I hope ILG are not planning to use the same bargaining chip, threatening to allow the Mill to remain an eyesore for years, to try to force their redevelopment scheme to move forward with amended terms in their favour.  If this is the case, legislation is available to the Council to force the site to be cleared up and Rochford should not hesitate to consider using this if this becomes a protracted stand off.

Summer 2013 - Coombes Farm won't go away

Despite the Council's plans for future growth of the district being signed off by a Government Inspector, they are subject to ongoing review.  In fact, Hearings are taking place in September to discuss, amongst other things, whether housing schemes are going to plan - particularly that homes are being built in the numbers and timeframe set out by the Council.

Cogent Land, Owner of Coombes Farm, will be attending the Hearings.

It seems to me that those interested in ensuring that development does not take place at Coombes Farm should never rest easy, unfortunately.

Cogent Land own the land at Coombes Farm and they will be constantly looking to exploit any gaps or shortcomings in the Council's growth plans for Rochford.  If, for example, housing schemes fall behind schedule and the Council can be challenged that they are not complying with their own Plan, Cogent will be quick to step in with what they regard as an easily deliverable scheme for 250 homes plus...

See link below for Attendees at Hearings in September

http://www.rochford.gov.uk/sites/rochford.gov.uk/files/all_drafthearings_0.pdf

East Community Forum - 16th October

I attended the local Community Forum last night, in theory a great opportunity to put questions to representatives from both the local Council and Essex County Council.  Representatives were also available from the Police and Health Services.

Rochford Life has posted a summary of the meeting here;

http://www.rochfordlife.com/ForumOct12.html

I agree that it was a pity that there was such a poor attendance from the Public.  As an estimate, I reckon there were perhaps a dozen or so there at maximum.  I wonder how many people were actually aware the meeting was taking place?  Not everyone has the opportunity to regularly check the Council's website or read "Rochford Matters". That said, is also partly a case of public apathy?

Some of the questions raised, including by this writer, did indeed cover old ground.  Issues like youth nuisance in and around the Square, and the ongoing problem of traffic queuing to park in the Square blocking traffic, particularly buses, trying to pass through.

However, the reasons that questions like these are raised repeatedly are that the Council and other bodies are not properly responding to residents' concerns.  If issues are not addressed, the problems do not vanish.  So, as boring as it appeared to be for some of the members of the Form panel last night, people should keep holding the Council to account.  We pay our Council Tax and expect our reasonable concerns about local services to be listened to, and where possible, resolved.

Essex Highways had planned to reconfigure vehicle access to the Square so that entry and exit points were swapped around.  However, for a number of reasons, this appears to have been abandoned and any solution now lies years away for re-consideration as part of the "Rochford Area Action Plan".  At least this is what I was told by the Leader of the Council last night.  In the short term, the Council and the Police do not seem overly concerned about the frequent traffic chaos that occurs in the area.

And don't expect any resolution to the Youth nuisance any time soon either.  Because they are not committing any actual "crime" they will be allowed to congregate in as large a group as they wish, and to shout and swear as much as they like, causing grief to local residents and businesses alike.

That said, the Police did encourage anyone who felt a crime was being committed to contact them immediately.  A member of the Public complained that he and his neighbours had been regularly kept awake until the early hours by gangs congregating outside their properties.  Far more seriously than the usual shouting and screaming, he complained that urination in public, under age drinking, etc, was taking place.  It appeared, however, that this was the first time he had raised the issue with the Police.

Rochford Sorting Office - What's happening?

The Evening Echo recently reported that Rochford Delivery Office may close as the Post Office looks to save money by centralising operations at Short Street.  There is the potential jobs to be lost and the inconvenience caused by having to travel into Southend to pick up missed deliveries.  Whilst this isn't a "definite" yet, it does seem to be a genuine threat to a much cherised local service.  I am confident that the local community will fight this, however, and already some neighbours have designed some posters to raise awareness.

There is an opportunity to find out more about this, or any other local issue that concerns you, at the next Community Forum at 7pm on Tuesday, 16th October at The Hawthorn Centre, Rochford Hospital, Union Lane.  Follow this link for more info http://www.rochford.gov.uk/council_and_democracy/your_council/community_forums

Pay to park outside your home?

Living close to the centre of Rochford has many advantages, but one of the irritations for many residents - especially those without off street parking - is the challenge in finding a parking space.  Commuters, Purdeys Industrial Estate, office and shop workers all compete with residents for the few unrestricted parking spots that are within a walk of the station and centre.  It's not that there isn't parking available.  Both at the station and in Back Lane there always seem to be chargeable spaces available.  But I guess you can hardly blame people for trying to grab a freebie if it's available!  And the old argument that you don't own the road in front of your house still applies of course.  But it is definitely an increasing problem, and I have heard tales of residents almost coming to blows with owners of vehicles carelessly parking and blocking driveways, etc.

The Council is considering introducing some form of residents parking in the worst affected roads - including Rocheway.  50% or residents in the affected road have to support any such measures through responding to a Council Questionnaire which will be arriving shortly.  It's likely to include three options - no change, some form of residents permit, or, maybe a traffic order, for example restricting parking for an hour or more a day to deter those who are liable to leave their car for long periods.  It will be interesting to see how this proceeds.  Historically, Rochford has gone down the traffic order route but I understand a residents permit scheme is seriously on the agenda - if it garners enough support.  Of course there are pros and cons with all options - what happens with a residents scheme when family or relatives visit, etc - but a potential advantage for the Council in these cash stapped times would be the opportunity to make this a revenue earner.  Would, for example, a young family who constantly struggle to find a free parking space outside their home be willing to pay a relatively modest £2 or £3 monthly to have one fairly substantial source of stress removed.  I think the answer is obvious.

Coombes Farm saved in High Court ruling (updated)

It's over three years ago that residents and neighbours first came together to form a Group "Residents Against Coombes Expansion" but a High Court ruling on Friday, September 21st finally signalled the successful end to a long battle.

Two days later on a wet and windy Sunday just a handful of us gathered at the entrance to Coombes Farm in Rocheway to pose for a "victory" photograph for Monday's "Evening Echo".

The Court rejected Cogent's  (the Developer behind Coombes Farm, formerly Colonnade) challenge to the Local Development Plan or Core Strategy.  Ruling in Rochford Council's favour, the Judge stated that sufficient work had been undertaken to compare the pros and cons of various sites put forward for consideration for development, this being Cogent's main contention.

The decision means that, aside from the eventual redevelopment of Stambridge Mill, future growth in Rochford will take place to the west of the district, sadly kicking off with 600 houses at Hall Road with further commercial development along Cherry Orchard Way in the pipeline.

In some ways it was a pyrrhic victory as the District has still sacrificed green belt, something Basildon/Billericay has avoided in their own Development Plan.

"Green Belt" trips off the tongue easily but I think it is fair to say that not all green belt is equal. Listening at the first Government Inquiry into the Developer's appeal against Rochford Council's refusal to allow development on Coombes Farm I heard an "Expert" representing Colonnade effectively describing the land as an eyesore.  The implication being that it was land that wouldn't be missed and could easily be sacrificed.  I readily admit that "Natural England" is unlikely to be troubled with a request for designation of "Land of Outstanding Beauty".

In fact, the "Expert" was right.  It isn't a particularly attractive site. Purdeys Industrial Estate is located along one border and the sight of towering, stacked cars awaiting breakage greets you as you the enter the field along with the various noises emanating from the cement works, refuse disposal site and various other heavy industrial businesses.  Then there is the abandoned Stambridge Mill.  Slowly rotting away, it awaits some form of residential redevelopment, eventually.  Ironically it is the definitive footpath that crosses the field that was the original "Mill Lane" ,the main pedestrian route for many of its workers.  These days the path remains intensively used and that is what the Campaign was largely about.


Of course no one really wants a sprawling housing estate on their doorstep where previously existed toiled farmland but the battle to save Coombes Farm was much more than small town "nimbyism".


Adjacent to the edge of the town, Coombes Farm provides a rural respite that is extremely popular with dog walkers, leisure walkers accessing the Roach Valley Way towards Stambridge and Paglesham, cyclists, metal detector enthusiasts, horses and their owners, and so on.  All manner of Bird and Wildlife lives on Coombes Farm, including Badger Setts which at one time we thought could offer the field protection. But, who knows, with the Government allowing their slaughter in some areas,  maybe a less certain future awaits.  It really is a feast for the senses and we would be the poorer without it.  Fortunately, and finally, that is a worry that for the forseeable future is removed.  Time, finally, to move on and consider Rochford's many other attributes...

Rochford - September 2012

This photo was taken a couple of days ago, a sunny afternoon and a tranquil, rural view overlooking what will be the 600 home Hall Road Estate.  The famous Rochford "chimney" is in the distance.  This could be the nostalgic "before" photo and maybe we'll publish an "after" in a year's time as it looks like Bellway Homes are undertaking preliminary work in the site in readiness for this landscape to be eternally destroyed.

There is still no news on when the High Court will rule following Cogent's (Coombes Farm) challenge to the Soundness of Rochford's Core Strategy.  I've spoken to a few people, including local Councillors and our local MP, Mark Francois and no one appears to know why it is taking so long, and all the time the Government appears to be shifting more and more to a position which may allow yet more of our Green Belt to be ripped up.

UPDATED 7th June: Stambridge Mill, Coombes Farm, Core Strategy update

I'm conscious that there hasn't been a post for a while. This Blog is definitely still live. In brief, the challenge to Rochford's Core Strategy by Cogent, the Developers behind the Coombes Farm scheme has now been heard at the High Court in Cardiff. The Judge has "reserved Judgment" which basically means he will consider the evidence presented and make a written Judgment in 6/7 weeks.  If the ruling goes against Rochford the ramifications could be significant, as Cogent will be encouraged to appeal the Council's decision to refuse the second attempt to build on Coombes Farm at a recent Development Committee.

The redevelopment of Stambridge Mill seemed to have stalled until a couple of weeks ago, when an application for the demolition of this historic and famous local structure was put to the Parish Council.  It seems the Diggers will be moving in shortly after all...

Southend Airport - first impressions

We took our first flight with Easyjet, from the new terminal at Southend Airport, over the Easter weekend. With one significant caveat, our overall experience was positive.

Arriving an hour and a half before our flight, we bypassed the short queue at the ground floor check in desk as we'd printed off our boarding cards at home, and ascended to the first floor departures area. Clearing security in a couple of minutes we then descended back down to the ground floor departures lounge and that was where we experienced the weak link with the Airport. There wasn't sufficient space for the passengers awaiting to board the three flights due to depart. It seemed that the lounge area was a similar size to a single gate area at Stansted. In fact, it was so crowded that it wasn't worthwhile attempting to buy a coffee or newspaper at the new retail outlets. People had to push and negotiate an exit from the Stobart Duty Free Shop. I appreciate it was Easter weekend and one of the three flights was delayed which added to the volumes of people waiting but, for some, it was quite a claustrophobic and uncomfortable experience. On balance, however, I also have to bear in mind that it was the first week of operation and some of the Easyjet staff were obviously unfamilar with the Airport lay out and procedures. Queuing to board was a little chaotic, but isn't it always with the budget airlines, and I suspect our short departure delay was due to this. I'm sure as the staff become more familiar with their surroundings the situation will improve but it's obvious that there is no capacity for additional flights until, or if, more space is created.

The real bonus was on return. The plane landed and after a short taxi to the stand we were soon disembarking en route to the new passport control area. With 4 Immigration Officers working there were no delays and we were on our short journey home within 5 minutes of leaving the Aircraft. Excellent.

So, overall, generally positive but not, at present, an Airport you can comfortably pass hours if you arrive too early for your flight.

Latest Coombes Farm plans unanimously rejected

At the Development Committee last night, Cogent/Colonnades's latest attempt to develop land at Coombes Farm was unanimously rejected by Councillors. This is not the end of the matter, as Cogent is behind the legal challenge to the Council's core strategy which will be heard at a High Court hearing at the end of May. Interestingly, the Council was asked (by Cogent's legal team) to defer any decision of the planning application in view of the pending legal hearing. The Council refused to oblige.

No one knows how the High Court hearing will go but new policy guidance issued this week by the Government, the National Planning Policy Framework, appears to support the Council's position. Local Authorities should have a Development Plan in place (Rochford has) and new development should be both sustainable and environmentally sensitive. Situated under the flight path (which is likely to change in the near future, to the detriment of any new development at Coombes) and adjacent to the ever expanding Purdeys Industrial estate surely does not meet that criteria. This is before you even consider the traffic and green belt impacts.

So, good news for the protection of Coombes Farm but with an eye to the next stage of the legal proceedings...

Rochford's Green Belt remains under threat

Tucked away in the meetings and agendas schedule for Rochford Council is the unexcitingly titled "Local Development Framework Sub-Committee". The meeting will take place on Wednesday, 21st March 2012 at 7.30pm at The Civic Suite in Hockley Road, Rayleigh. The public are welcome to attend but, given the lack of publicity, I doubt many will.

The meeting is to discuss options for an early review of the core strategy - the development plan for the local area for the next 15 years. The same core strategy that was signed off by a Government Inspector in December 2011 and which should have protected the Council against rogue housing development schemes. It was supposed to give control to local planning officials regarding where housing will be located (including the highly controversial Hall Road 600 house "scheme").

However, what many people probably didn't realise, due to the delay in getting the core strategy finalised (due largely to Government bungling) it was already out of date by the time it was signed off. Accordingly, the Council has had to commit to an early review of its development plan to ensure it is still relevant and can, amongst other things, meet housing targets for the next 15 years.

One of the options on the table is to effectively start again with the core strategy. This would mean that areas that people thought would be protected against development would, again, have uncertainty as a new 4 year process reviewed everything that had previously been reviewed over the past 4 years! Even one of the least worst options include exploring whether areas already identified, eg Hall Road, could take more housing than already agreed. It's almost a case of death is no option, just a question of what form it will take.

The Council has been forced into a corner by a number of opponents. The Government in its dictate to force Councils to build more housing (so much for the pre-election promise to allow "Localism" to allow Councils more control over what happens on their doorstep) but also by housing developers who are sulking because their particular plan to destroy green belt has been refused. Here I am particularly referring to Cogent and its ongoing attempts to concrete over Coombes Farm. This includes their legal challenge to parts of the core strategy at a High Court hearing on the 31st May and 1st June in Cardiff.

I suspect, therefore, that the meeting on 21st March, whilst required as part of the sign off the core strategy last December, is also being quickly convened with a mind to matters due to take place in Wales.

This looks likely to run for some time yet. Lawyers, Solicitors, and Policymakers, and maybe house builders will all benefit. And we will all ultimately pay for their services, one way or another.

Managing Rochford's retail offering

It's sadly unrealistic to have expected that Rochford would have escaped the effects of economic stagnation. Like many other shopping centres across the country, the scars of a downturn in retail spending are all too evident.

Walking along many of the empty and boarded up shop fronts of West Street can make you feel wistful of "better times" in years gone by, but some retailers have struggled to earn a living in Rochford for many years.

What's to be done?

Planning permission has recently been granted to convert one of the former shops in West Street back to residential use. Perhaps this is part of an acceptance that there are too many shops for modern day Rochford and the retail space needs to shrink? A smaller and leaner offering, more closely focused around the Square may give shopkeepers a better chance to trade profitably and may in the longer term attract more visitors. How so? Less empty units and a closer match between supply and demand may reduce the risk of every spare unit being replaced by yet another charity shop, and will create a more attractive and diverse shopping and leisure environment. Already we are seeing the growth of the food and dining scene in Rochford. A new Italian restaurant opens at the bottom of West Street shortly and plans appear to be afoot to see the Conservative Club ("The Old Ship") reopen as a restaurant shortly.

I don't want to be too downbeat however. Living in Rochford, you have the luxury of still being able to buy most of what you need, and more, on your doorstep. There is often a queue outside the independent Butchers. There are gift shops, two Bakers, several places to grab a cup of tea and a piece of cake, two supermarkets, Newsagents, Chemist, several Beauticians and Hair Dressers, a dry cleaners, a Jewellers, a shop catering for those keen "divers" out there, and numerous others. (I haven't even mentioned the many pubs - another post) So, if you're reading this and thinking about whether to pay a visit or not, let me reassure you, you will not be disappointed. I just want it to be even better than it already is!

In the meantime, I wonder if some imagination could be used with the empty shops. Could, for example, the Council and the Landlords get together and arrange for some form of local artwork to be displayed. It's a scheme that's working well in many another areas.

When I walk down West Street, I want to marvel at the beautiful, historic architecture, not feel sad about yet another boarded up or grilled window, shielding broken glass.

Coombes Farm 2 - The Answer's still No! (updated 20th February)

UPDATED 20th February: Brightly coloured posters and newsletters have now been delivered. Objection letters will be accepted right up to the day the application is discussed by the Council (regardless of what it says on the notice of planning application). No date has been set for this yet. It's unlikely to be for at least several weeks, especially so given the, separate, legal challenge to the Core Strategy will not be heard until 31st May.

Notifications of a new planning application for Coombes Farm have been delivered by Rochford District Council.

With minor amendments, it still represents the concreting over of Coombes Farm and I anticipate the strength of feeling against these plans will be undiminished.

You can make objections online and clicking on the title of this post will take you straight to the relevant page on the Council's website. You will need to enter reference 11/00781/OUT.

Colonnade have tried to disguise this as a different scheme - referring to it as "Land South of Stambridge Road" instead of Coombes Farm, and Colonnade have even changed their name - to Cogent. But it is the same scheme and the same Company. Surely they didn't think we would be so easily fooled?

The Council recently adopted their core strategy - their development plan for the area for the next 15 years and beyond. Whilst it did not detail specific, detailed locations for new housing, it did, generally, rule out East Rochford and Coombes Farm, with the notable exception of Stambridge Mill.

Therefore the only way Cogent/Colonnade stand any chance of progressing their plans is to mount a legal challenge to the Core Strategy, to try and find it unsound in the High Court. If they can undo the Core Strategy then they have a second chance to lay concrete at Coombes Farm. And that is exactly what they are attempting to do. The Court Hearing is scheduled to take place in Cardiff from 31st May to 1st June.

As my earlier post noted, in the nightmare scenario that they succeed, we lose not only the beautiful landscape at Hall Road but also Coombes Farm. We can't let that happen.

Whilst much of what happens in the next few months will be in the hands of High Court Judges, we can still show how passionately we feel about the prospect of losing a much loved and heavily used green open space, which of course is Green Belt land. We don't want our Councillors and other decision makers to think we've lost interest, we've given up, that it's something we don't care about anymore.

Posters and newsletters will be delivered over the next couple of weeks, and other publicity is planned. In the meantime, please make your objections - click on the title to this post. It will take just 2 minutes of your time.

Footnote: A photo shoot for the Echo to publicise the new Campaign was organised with less than 24 hours notice on Saturday, 28th. It wasn't possible to inform everyone, so apologies, but thank you to those who did turn out. A great example of the Community coming together that will make this campaign succeed.

This Blog will also be continually updated, and all constructive comments are welcome.

Rochford Core Strategy Challenged - Coombes Farm 2

It is ironic that within a week of the Council agreeing to the 600 housing development at Hall Road, Cogent Land, the developer behind Coombes Farm has, at the last possible moment, notified the Council that it intends to instigate a legal challenge to the core strategy.

This, frankly, is the only route open to Cogent if they want to stand any chance of progressing their plans to concrete over Coombes Farm.

"RACE" the campaign group has been reformed and will undertake a new publicity campaign in the weeks ahead.

I feel it is also worth pointing out that if Cogent Land are successful in their legal challenge then the Council's justification to destroy Grade 1 agricultural land at Hall Road is completely undermined, plus we lose another large swathe of green belt land into the bargain (at Coombes Farm).

Click on the title of this post to link to the Council's announcement.

The Hall Road Development and its implications

photo of Hall Rd when it was known as "The Avenue"

In an extraordinary meeting on Wednesday, 18th January 2012 Councillors will consider proposals to build 600 houses on land North of Hall Road.

Planning Officers have recommended the proposals which are in outline form only, the specific details will follow.

The pressure is now on to meet a target of 1250 new homes over the next few years following the Council's adoption of its core strategy - its development plan for our area .

Hall Road was identified as an ideal site in the plan because of its proximity to the town centre and its existing facilities - and 600 homes would make a massive dent in its housing commitments.

But 600 homes equals approximately another 2,000 residents - that's a big burden for the roads, schools, health services, etc - quite apart from the fact that we're talking about attractive green belt land which will be lost forever.

The houses will range from large detached properties, which will front Hall Road - presumably to not provide too much of a stark contrast to the existing homes, to one bed flats which will be buried mostly in the middle of the new "estate" along with the 35% affordable home quota. The density of housing varies considerably - as low as 12 homes per hectare, up to 40.

There will be two access points which will involve the construction of at least one new roundabout.

Plenty of open spaces are planned, including a "buffer zone" between the back of existing properties in Oak Road and the new estate. A new primary school will also be built on the site.

But the new open spaces will surely be poor compensation for the "upgrading" works which are suggested for Ironwell Lane, at least the stretch that runs from the new estate to the junction with Ashingdon Road. The Developers are being asked to fund new lighting and the provision of an improved path that is less prone to flooding, particularly in the area close to the railway bridge. Another footpath which runs North to South from Ironwell Lane to Hall Road will also dramatically lose its rural vista.

The Developers have also been asked to fund improvement works at the following road juctions;

Ashingdon Road/Hall Rd/ Bradley Way mini roundabout - improvement at this site is obviously constrained by the railway bridge but Essex Highways believe a minor alteration to this key junction can maintain or improve traffic flow.

Bradley Way/South Street - Southend Road to be widened at this roundabout junction.

Cherry Orchard Way/ Eastwoodbury Lane - both lanes will be right turn approaching Eastwoodbury Lane from Rochford.

Eastwoodbury Lane/Nestuda Way - improvement to roundabout.

Sutton Road/Purdeys Industrial Estate - Bellway have been asked to make a £150k contribution to improvement works at this roundabout junction - which may involve the introduction of traffic signals.

I would reiterate that nothing has been finalised, the Councillors will no doubt exercise their right to speak up at the meeting. This is a public meeting and I anticipate that this will be a full house. I'm sure emotions will run high as this has to be the largest residential housing scheme in the area since the Hospital?

If you want to read the planning document in detail you can link to it by clicking on the title of this post, but be warned it runs to 100 pages.

Footnote: This outline planning application was agreed at the Council meeting by majority. Notably, the ward Councillors for central Rochford, Gill-Lucas, James Cottis, and Keith Gordon joined independents and opposition party Councillors in voting against the application. It has now been referred to the Government to determine whether they want to have an involvement or are happy for the Council to proceed. I also wouldn't be surprised if we haven't had the last from local residents who I understand are exploring legal options to appeal this decision.