Rochford District Council

Playing Pitch Strategy Supplementary Planning Document

Strategic Environmental Assessment

And Sustainability Appraisal

Environmental Report

Prepared for Rochford District Council

By

Essex County Council

April 2006

Contents Chapter Page

Number Non Technical Summary

3-9

Chapter 1 Methodology

10 - 15

Chapter 2 Background

16 - 18

Chapter 3 SEA Objectives and Baseline Context

19 – 65

Chapter 4 SPD Policy Appraisal

66 – 78

Chapter 5 SPD Issues and Alternatives

79 – 87

Chapter 6 Monitoring Implementation of the SPD

88 -92

Appendices

93 – 121

Appendix 1 – Review of Plans and

Programmes

94 – 116

Appendix 2 - Summary of the SPD

Policies Appraised

117 - 121

2

Non Technical Summary

3

Non Technical Summary Non Technical Summary Chapter 1 - Methodology Introduction to Sustainable Development Sustainable development is defined as ‘development that meets the needs of the

present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own

needs’ (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987). The UK

Government has adopted 5 principles of for sustainable development they include;

• Living within environmental limits,

• Ensuring a strong, healthy and just society,

• Achieving a sustainable economy,

• Promoting good governance,

• Using sound science.

Sustainability Appraisal and Strategic Environmental Assessment The European Directive 2001/42/EC (EC, 2001) ensures that a Strategic

Environmental Assessment of a wide range of plans and programmes shall be

conducted. The Rochford District Council Playing Pitch Strategy Supplementary

Planning Document therefore requires a Strategic Appraisal that incorporates the

dual statutory requirement of both Sustainability Appraisal (SA) and Strategic

Environmental Assessment (SEA).

This report has been prepared in accordance with the following Office of the Deputy

Prime Minister (ODPM) guidance;

• A ‘Practical Guide to the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive’

(September, 2005).

• ‘Sustainability Appraisal (SA) of Regional Spatial Strategies and Local

Development Frameworks’ (November, 2005)

4

Methodology Adopted in the SEA

The Scoping stage of the SEA/SA involves investigation into the relevant plans,

programmes and environmental protection objectives. The Scoping Report also

outlines the baseline information which provides the basis for predicting and

monitoring environmental effects, aids in the interpretation of environmental problems

and allows identification of possible mitigation measures. A list of Sustainability

objectives is also outlined in the Scoping Report.

The Rochford District Council Playing Pitch Strategy Supplementary Planning

Document was consulted for a 5 week period. The second part of the SEA approach

involves the development and refinement of alternatives and assessing the effects of

the plan.

The third stage is the development of the Environmental Report. The structure of the

Environmental Report is very similar to the suggested structure outlined in ‘A

Practical Guide to the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive’ (September,

2005).

Chapter 2 - Background

The Rochford District Council Playing Pitch Strategy Supplementary Planning

Document aims to set out the key elements of the planning framework for the area.

The Plan outlines the following principle objectives;

Reference Objective

1 Ensure adequate provision of playing pitches throughout the District

that seek to meet local needs.

2 To ensure that new development does not adversely affect existing

sports fields

Chapter 3 - SEA Objectives and Baseline and Context

5

Review of the Plans and Programmes The relationship between various plans and programmes and sustainability

objectives may influence the Rochford District Council Playing Pitch Strategy

Supplementary Planning Document in various ways. The relationships are analysed

to;

• Identify any external social, environmental or economic objectives that

should be reflected in the SA process;

• Identify external factors that may have influenced the preparation of the

plan; and

• Determine whether the policies in other plans and programmes might lead

to cumulative effects when combined with policies in the Playing Pitch

Strategy Supplementary Planning Document.

Baseline Characteristics

The SEA Directive requires an analysis of the ‘relevant aspects of the current state of

the environment and the likely evolution thereof without implementation of the plan’

(Annex 1b) and ‘the environmental characteristics of areas likely to be significantly

affected’ (Annex 1c).

The baseline data for the SEA/SA of the Rochford District Council Playing Pitch

Strategy Supplementary Planning Document includes existing environmental and

sustainability information from a range of sources.

SEA Objectives, Targets and Indicators Sustainability Objectives The utilisation of sustainability objectives is a recognised methodology for

considering the environmental effects of a plan and programme and comparing the

effects of the alternatives. The sustainability objectives are utilised to show whether

the objectives of the plan and programme are beneficial for the environment, to

compare the environmental effects of the alternatives or to suggest improvements.

6

Chapter 4 - Plan Policy Appraisal

Significant Social, Environmental and Economic Effects of the Preferred Policies

The SEA Directive states that ‘where an Environmental Assessment is required

under Article 3 (1), and Environmental Report shall be prepared in which the likely

significant effects on the environment of implementing the plan and programme, and

reasonable alternatives taking into account the objectives and the geographical

scope of the plan or programme, are identified, described and evaluated’ (SEA

Directive, Article 5). This chapter seeks to outline a summary of the significant

social, environmental and economic effects and the recommendations arising from

the Appraising Plan Policy assessment for the Rochford District Council Playing Pitch

Strategy Supplementary Planning Document. The summary reflects the SEA

Directive Annex 1(f). The table below highlights the outcome of the assessment.

Rochford District Replacement Local Plan (2004) – LT2 – Synthetic Sports Pitch

Objective Recommendation

(1) Provide improved access

and opportunities for all to open

space, sports and recreation.

The level of standard would need to be subject to

ongoing review to take account of changes in the

demographic profile of areas and capacity of

provision.

Appraising Plans Policy 1

(1) Provide improved access

and opportunities for all to open

space, sports and recreation.

It is recommended that monetary obligations are

sought from both allocated and windfall sites,

including sites of residential development of less

than 10 dwellings.

Appraising Plans Policy 2 - Greenbelt

(2) Improve quality of public

realm and open spaces in urban

and rural areas.

It is recommended that the SPD provides further

detail as to what is considered a ‘significant club

house’.

Appraising Plans Policy 3 – Design

(2) Improve quality of public That the policy states that only in exceptional

7

realm and open spaces in urban

and rural areas.

(4) To ensure that new

development contributes to

enhancing the character,

appearance, recreational and

biodiversity value.

(5) To promote efficient use of

land and re-use of previously

developed sites.

(6) To preserve and enhance

the historic environment.

(7) To preserve and enhance

the cultural environment.

circumstances Sport England Design and

Technical Guidelines would not be applicable.

Appraising Plans Policy 6 – Drainage

(2) Improve quality of public

realm and open spaces in urban

and rural areas.

In order to address facilities with insufficient

drainage priority should be given to the pitches

highlighted in table 12.3 of the “Assessment of the

Playing Pitches in the Rochford District” (2002)

document.

Chapter 5 - SPD Issues and Alternative

The SEA Directive states that ‘where an Environmental Assessment is required

under Article 3 (1), and Environmental Report shall be prepared in which the likely

significant effects on the environment of implementing the plan and programme, and

reasonable alternatives taking into account the objectives and the geographical

scope of the plan or programme, are identified, described and evaluated’ (SEA

Directive, Article 5). This chapter outlines the appraisal of the alternatives within the

Playing Pitch Strategy Supplementary Planning Document.

Chapter 6 - Monitoring Implementation of the SPD

The SEA Directive states that “Member States shall monitor the significant

environmental effects of the implementation of plans and programmes in order, inter

alia, to identify at an early stage unforeseen adverse effects, and to be able to

undertake appropriate remedial action” (Article.10.1). Furthermore the

8

Environmental Report shall include “a description of the measures envisaged

concerning monitoring” (Annex 1 (i)). This Chapter aims to outline the monitoring

framework for the Rochford District Council Playing Pitch Strategy Supplementary

Planning Document

The monitoring of the Playing Pitch Strategy Supplementary Planning Document

“allows the actual significant environmental effects of implementing the plan or

programme to be tested against those predicted” (Office of the Deputy Prime

Minister, 2005, 39). The monitoring of the Playing Pitch Strategy Supplementary

Planning Document will aid in the identification of any problems that may arise during

the Playing Pitch Strategy Supplementary Planning Documents implementation.

9

Chapter 1 - Methodology

10

Chapter 1

Methodology Introduction to Sustainable Development

The widely utilised international definition for sustainable development is

“development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of

future generations to meet their own needs” (World Commission on Environment and

Development, 1987). In 1992 at the Rio Summit Government’s worldwide committed

themselves to the delivery of sustainable development. Following this convention the

UK Government formulated the first national Sustainable Development Framework in

1999. In the UK Sustainable Development Framework (1999) the UK Government

clearly outlined the meaning of Sustainable Development placing greater emphasis

on attaining a better quality of life for everyone now and for the future. The UK

Government updated the Sustainable Development Strategy in 2005, and adopted 5

principles for sustainable development they include;

* Living within environmental limits,

* Ensuring a strong, healthy and Just Society,

* Achieving a sustainable economy,

* Promoting good governance,

* Using sound science.

An important component of sustainable development is weighing up the

environmental, social and economic factors, and this is fundamental to Sustainability

Appraisal and Strategic Environmental Assessment.

Sustainability Appraisal and Strategic Environmental Assessment The European Directive 2001/42/EC (EC, 2001) ensures that a Strategic

Environmental Assessment of a wide range of plans and programmes shall be

conducted. The Rochford District Council Playing Pitch Strategy Supplementary

Planning Document therefore requires a Strategic Appraisal that incorporates the

dual statutory requirement of both Sustainability Appraisal (SA) and Strategic

Environmental Assessment (SEA). The purpose of SEA/SA is to promote

11

environmental protection and contribute to the integration of environmental, social

and economic considerations into the preparation and adoption of plans, with a view

to promote sustainable development.

This report has been prepared in accordance with the following Office of the Deputy

Prime Minister (ODPM) guidance:

• ‘A Practical Guide to the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive’

(September 2005)

• ‘Sustainability Appraisal (SA) of Regional Spatial Strategies and Local

Development Frameworks’ (November 2005)

The requirement for SEA/SA emanates from a high level of international and national

commitment to sustainable development and this has been incorporated into EC

Directives, laws, guidance, advice and policy.

The purpose of this sustainability appraisal is to promote sustainable development

through better integration of sustainability considerations into the adoption of the

Rochford District Council Playing Pitch Strategy Supplementary Planning Document.

The requirements to undertake a SA and SEA are distinct. The principle difference

between SEA and SA is that SEA is baseline led, focusing primarily on environmental

effects, whereas SA is objectives led. The SEA directive defines the environment in

a broad context and includes:

• Biodiversity

• Population

• Human Health

• Fauna

• Flora

• Soil

• Water

• Air

• Climatic factors

• Material Assets

• Cultural Heritage including architectural and archaeological heritage

12

• Landscape

SA goes further by examining all the sustainability-related effects of plans, whether

they are social environmental or economic.

Despite these differences it is possible to meet both requirements through a single

appraisal process. In order to minimise duplication and time, ECC has applied this

approach. Throughout the remainder of this document where reference is made to

sustainability appraisal (SA) it should be taken to include the requirements of the

SEA Directive (2001/42/EC) as incorporated into English Law by virtue of the

Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programme Regulations (2004).

This report and SA process has been led by Essex County Council’s environmental

assessment team. Diverse expertise has been drawn upon across the County

Council’s service areas and appropriate partnership forums. This arrangement

conforms to guidance recommendations in respect of a need for taking a balanced

view; a good understanding of the local circumstances; understanding the issues,

and drawing on good practice elsewhere to evaluate the full range of sustainability

issues.

Scope of the Report

The final Environment Report comprises of;

Non-Technical Summary;

An outline of the methodology adopted;

Background setting out the purpose of the SEA and the objectives of

the Rochford District Council Playing Pitch Strategy Supplementary

Planning Document;

SEA objectives and the sustainability issues throughout Rochford

District Council Playing Pitch Strategy Supplementary Planning

Document and the key issues that need to be addressed;

Playing Pitch Strategy Supplementary Planning Document options

considered and environmental effects of the alternatives outlined;

An assessment of the contribution of the plan policies to social,

economic and environmental objectives within the district;

13

An outline of the proposed mitigation measures, for those where these

impacts are negative.

Methodology Adopted in the SEA

The approach adopted in this Sustainability Appraisal (SA) and Strategic

Environmental Assessment (SEA) of the Rochford District Council Playing Pitch

Strategy Supplementary Planning Document is based on the process outlined in the

Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Guidance – A Guide to the Strategic

Environmental Assessment Directive (September 2005). The methodology adopted

seeks to meet the requirements of both SA and SEA for the environmental

assessment of plans.

The SA Framework is based on the initial criteria and proposed approaches set out in

the scoping report produced in November 2005. The aim of the scoping report is to

ensure a focused yet comprehensive SA, addressing all relevant issues, objectives

and allow input from consultation bodies at an early stage of the process.

The scoping stage of the SEA/SA involves investigation into the relevant plans,

programmes and environmental protection objectives. The scoping report also sets

out the baseline information which provides the basis for predicting and monitoring

environmental effects, aids in the interpretation of environmental problems and

allows identification of possible methods for mitigation. A range of information aids in

the identification of potential environmental problems including, earlier issues

identified in other plans and programmes, baseline information, tensions between

current and future baseline information and consultation with the consultation bodies.

The scoping report also contains a list of SEA objectives. SEA objectives are not a

specific requirement of the Directive but they are recognised as a method for

considering the environmental effects of a plan and comparing the effects of

alternatives.

“The Directive creates the following requirements for consultation;

Authorities which, because of their environmental responsibilities, are

likely to be concerned by the effects of implementing the plan or

programme, must be consulted on the scope and level of detail of the

information to be included in the Environmental Report. These

14

authorities are designated in the SEA Regulations as the Consultation

Bodies.

The public and the Consultation Bodies must be consulted on the draft

plan or programme and the Environmental Report, and must be given

an early effective opportunity within appropriate time frames to

express their opinions” (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, 2005, 16).

The Rochford District Council Playing Pitch Strategy Supplementary Planning

Document was consulted for a 5 week period, whereby the statutory Consultation

Bodies and other relevant persons were consulted. The statutory Consultation

Bodies include;

Countryside Agency,

English Heritage,

English Nature,

And the Environment Agency.

The second part of the SEA approach involves the development and refinement of

alternatives and assessing the effects of the plan. The objectives of the plan are

therefore tested against the SEA objectives identified at the scoping stage.

The third stage of the process is the development of the Environmental Report. The

SEA Directive states that “the environmental report shall include information that may

reasonably be required taking into account current knowledge and methods of

assessment, the contents and level of detail in the plan or programme, (and) its stage

in the decision-making process” (Article 5.2). The structure for the Environmental

Report is very similar to the suggested structure outlined in ‘A Practical Guide to the

Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive’ (September, 2005).

15

Chapter 2 - Background

16

Chapter 2

Background Purpose of this Sustainability Appraisal/Strategic Environmental Assessment This Environment Report has been devised to meet European Directive 2001/42/EC

which requires a formal strategic assessment of certain plans and programmes which

are likely to have a significant effect on the environment. The Directive has been

incorporated into English Law by virtue of the Environment Assessment of Plans and

Programmes Regulations (2004). In accordance with the provisions set out in the

SEA Directive and the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (2004), a SA/SEA of

the Rochford District Council Playing Pitch Strategy Supplementary Planning

Document must be undertaken and consulted on prior to the adoption.

This Environment Report outlines the appraisal methodology, sustainability

objectives, review of plans and programmes, baseline information used in the

appraisal process, and the assessment of the Rochford District Council Playing Pitch

Strategy Supplementary Planning Document

Rochford District Council Playing Pitch Strategy Supplementary Planning Document and the Objectives The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (2004) introduced alterations to the

planning system; the fundamental aim of these changes was to promote a proactive

and positive approach to managing development. The Local Development

Framework forms a fundamental element in the new planning system.

Local Development Frameworks will be comprised of Local Development

Documents, which include Development Plan Documents, that are part of the

statutory development plan and Supplementary Planning Documents which expand

on policies set out in a development plan document or provide additional detail.

Assessment of Playing Pitches in Rochford District is a Supplementary Planning

Document and is therefore one of the fundamental documents that form an integral

part of the Local Development Framework.

17

The Assessment of Playing Pitches in Rochford District Supplementary Planning

Document is an approach adopted by Rochford District Council towards a more

sustainable to the development of pitch sports and the provision of sports pitches

within Rochford District.

The Playing Pitch Strategy Supplementary Planning Document objectives are

demonstrated in table 1.

Table 1 – Rochford District Council Playing Pitch Strategy Supplementary Planning Document Objectives

Reference Objective

1 Ensure adequate provision of playing pitches throughout the District

that seek to meet local needs.

2 To ensure that new development does not adversely affect existing

sports fields

An important part of the assessment involves the testing of the Playing Pitch Strategy

Supplementary Planning Document Objectives against the sustainability objectives.

18

Chapter 3 - SEA Objectives and Baseline Context

19

Chapter 3

SEA Objectives and Baseline Context Review of the Plans and Programmes The relationship between various plans and programmes and sustainability

objectives may influence the Rochford District Council Playing Pitch Strategy

Supplementary Planning Document in various ways. The relationships are analysed

to;

• identify any external social, environmental or economic

objectives that should be reflected in the SA process;

• identify external factors that may have influenced the

preparation of the plan; and

• Determine whether the policies in other plans and programmes

might lead to cumulative effects when combined with policies

in the Playing Pitch Strategy Supplementary Planning

Document.

Engaging in this process enables Rochford District Council Playing Pitch Strategy

Supplementary Planning Document to take advantage of any potential synergies and

to attend to any inconsistencies and constraints. The plans and programmes that

need to be considered include those at an international, national, regional and local

scale.

The preparatory work for the Rochford District Council Playing Pitch Strategy

Supplementary Planning Document has considered a number of planning policies

and guidance documents, however to meet the SA’s requirements a broader range

were considered, in particular those outlining issues of environmental protection and

sustainability objectives. Table 2 shows a summary list of plans and programmes

that were reviewed as part of the SA. Appendix 1 contains the outcome of the

review.

20

Table 2 – Plans and Programmes Considered as part of the Review

International

European and International Sustainability Development Strategy

European Spatial Development Perspective (May, 1999)

European Community Biodiversity Strategy

Environment 2010: Our Future, Our Choice

National

Planning Policy Statement 1; Creating Sustainable Communities (2005)

Planning Policy Guidance 2 – Greenbelt (1995)

Planning Policy Guidance Note 3; Housing (2000)

Planning Policy Statement 6; Planning for Town Centres (2005)

Planning Policy Statement 7; Sustainable Development in Rural Areas

Planning Policy Guidance Statement 9 – Biodiversity and Geological Conservation

(2006)

Planning Policy Statement 12; Local Development Frameworks

Planning Policy Guidance 13; Transport (1994)

Planning Policy Guidance Note 14; Development on Unstable Land (1990)

Planning Policy Guidance Note 15; Planning and Historic Environment (1994)

Planning Policy Guidance Note 16; Archaeology and Planning (1990)

21

Planning Policy Guidance Note 17; Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation

(1991)

Planning Policy Guidance Note 20; Coastal Planning (1992)

Planning Policy Guidance Note 24; Planning and Noise (1994)

Planning Policy Guidance Note 25; Development and Flood Risk (2001)

Securing the Future Delivering the UK Sustainable Development Strategy (2005)

Regional

Regional Planning Guidance 9; Regional Guidance for the South East (1994)

Draft Regional Spatial Strategy for the East of England Plan (RSS14) (December,

2004)

County

Essex and Southend-on-Sea Replacement Structure Plan (Adopted April, 2001)

Local

Rochford District Local Plan First Review, 1995.

Rochford District Second Deposit Replacement Local Plan, 2004

The plans and programmes reviewed provided the following:

A basis for establishing sustainability objectives as part of

the SA process.

22

An influence over the Playing Pitch Strategy

Supplementary Planning Document preparation and a

higher level policy context.

A basis for identifying potential cumulative effects of the

Rochford District Council Playing Pitch Strategy

Supplementary Planning Document.

Baseline Characteristics The SEA Directive requires an analysis of the “relevant aspects of the current state of

the environment and the likely evolution thereof without implementation of the plan”

(Annex 1b) and “the environmental characteristics of areas likely to be significantly

affected” (Annex 1c). The baseline information will form the basis for predicting and

monitoring the effects of the adoption of the Rochford District Council Playing Pitch

Strategy Supplementary Planning Document Furthermore the baseline data allows

sustainability problems to be identified and aids the formulation of appropriate

mitigation measures and/or proposals for suitable alternatives.

The baseline data for the SA/SEA of the Rochford District Council Playing Pitch

Strategy Supplementary Planning Document includes existing environmental and

sustainability information from a range of sources, including national Government,

agency websites, the 2001 Census, Rochford District Council and Essex County

Council. The information the baseline data aimed to highlight is outlined below;

• the latest data for Rochford District Council,

• comparators: national, regional, sub-regional, and local level data

against which the status of the Rochford District Council may be

evaluated;

• identified targets;

• established trends; and

• Environmental or sustainability problems.

Table 3 outlines the comprehensive list of the baseline data sources for both the

quantitative and the qualitative information.

23

The baseline data topics and whether they are of economic, social or environmental

significance are outlined in table 3.

Table 3 – Illustrating the Baseline Topics and whether they are of Economic, Environmental and Social Significance

Theme

Topic

Social Economic

Environmental

Population

Crime

Health

Education

Deprivation

Economic Activity

Income

Commercial Floorspace

Cultural Heritage and Material Assets

Listed Buildings

Conservation Areas

Land Utilisation

Water

24

Agricultural Land Classification

Air Quality

Road Traffic

Biodiversity – Flora and Fauna

Key Trends and Predicting Future Baseline The following section describes fundamental social, economic and environmental

elements of the Rochford District Council.

Location

Rochford District is situated to the south of Essex, and covers an area of 168.35 sq

km (65 square miles). The district of Rochford is situated within a peninsula between

the River Thames and Crouch, and is bounded by the North Sea. The district has

land boundaries with Basildon, Castle Point and Southend on Sea Districts and

Marine Boundaries with Maldon and Chelmsford Districts. Rochford District is

predominately rural with many surrounding villages; the main urban centres in the

district include the historic towns of Rochford and Rayleigh. Map 1 illustrates the

location of the Rochford District.

25

Map 1 Illustrating the Location of the Rochford District

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

Population

The resident population of Rochford district, as measured in the 2001 Census, was

78,489 of which 49 per cent were male and 51 per cent were female. The sex

composition of Rochford District is similar to that of Essex County Council in 2001

with 48.8% of the Essex population male and 51.2% female. In 2001, 20 per cent of

the resident population were aged under 16, 57 per cent were aged between 16 and

59, and 23 per cent were aged 60 and over. The mean average age was 40. This

compared with an average age of 39 within England and Wales.

In analysing the social, economic and environmental characteristics of the Rochford

District it is important to be aware of the projected population change anticipated for

the district. This will provide an understanding as to the amount of population

change likely to be experienced within the district of Rochford. Graph one illustrates

the 2001 and the future projected population change for the District of Rochford.

26

Graph 1

Graph Illustrating the 2001 and Projected Population Change for the Borough of Rochford

77000

77500

78000

78500

79000

79500

80000

80500

81000

81500

2001 2006 2011 2016 2021

Year

Pop

ulat

ion

Tota

l

Source; Total Regional Planning Guidance 14 Submission, 29th March 2005 (Note the

population projection assumes dwelling provision will be implemented at the annual average

rate of provision set out in policy H2 of the Regional Spatial Strategy 14.)

Graph 1 demonstrates the population within the Rochford District in 2001 and the

projected alterations in the population size assuming the dwelling provision outlined

in the Draft East of England Plan (2004) will be implemented within Rochford. In

2001 the population of Rochford was 78, 400 persons, it is anticipated that by 2021

the population within the District will be 81, 000 persons. The total population within

Rochford District is therefore expected to increase by 3.2% throughout the period

2001-2021. Graph two illustrates the total population change anticipated for Essex

allowing comparison between the total growth rate for Essex and that of the District

of Rochford.

27

Graph 2

Graph Illustrating the Total Population and Projected Population for Essex County in 2001, 2006, 2011, 2016 and 2021

1540000

1560000

1580000

1600000

1620000

1640000

1660000

1680000

1700000

1720000

1740000

2001 2006 2011 2016 2021

Year

Num

ber o

f Per

sons

Source; Total Regional Planning Guidance 14 Submission, 29th March 2005 (Note the

population projection assumes dwelling provision will be implemented at the annual average

rate of provision set out in policy H2 of the Regional Spatial Strategy 14.)

Graph 2 demonstrates that the population within the County of Essex in 2001 was

161, 4400 persons and is anticipated to increase by 2021 to 172, 9400 persons. The

total population increase for Essex from 2001-2021 is 6.6%, therefore the projected

population increase for the District of Rochford is 50.1% less than the anticipated rise

in population throughout Essex.

Population Age Composition

The age composition of the population within the District of Rochford is important as

it will facilitate in measuring the demand for educational institutions, most notably

primary and secondary schools. Graph 3 outlines the percentage age composition of

the persons in 2001 and 2021 within the District of Rochford compared to the County

of Essex and the East of England region.

28

Graph 3

Graph Illustrating the 2001 and 2021 Percentage Total Age Composition for the District of Rochford, Essex County and East of England Region

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

0--4

5--9

10--14

15--19

20--24

25--29

30--34

35--39

40--44

45--49

50--54

55--59

60--64

65--69

70--74

75--79

80--84

85+

Age Cohort

Perc

enta

ge T

otal

Rochford 2001

Rochford 2021

Essex County (incUnitary Authorities)2001Essex County (incUnitary Authorities)2021East of EnglandRegion 2001

East of EnglandRegion 2021

Source; Total Regional Planning Guidance 14 Submission, 29th March 2005 (Note the

population projection assumes dwelling provision will be implemented at the annual

average rate of provision set out in policy H2 of the Regional Spatial Strategy 14.)

Graph 3 demonstrates that the proportion of persons aged 0-19 years in 2001 within

the District of Rochford, and the comparators will be less in 2021. Furthermore the

percentage of persons in Rochford aged 30-49 years in 2021 is anticipated to decline

most substantially from the 2001 rate. Within the district of Rochford there is likely to

be an increase in the number of retired people in 2021, most notably for persons 70

and above.

Thames Gateway South Essex Sub Regional

The Thames Gateway South Essex sub-region comprises of the five authorities of

Basildon, Castle Point, Rochford, Southend-on-Sea and Thurrock and it forms the

largest urban area within the East of England. It comprises of a mix of urban and

natural environments and at 2001 the population total for the sub region was 633,800

representing approximately 12% of the East of England regional total.

Graph 3 illustrates the population within the local authorities that comprise the

Thames Gateway South Essex and the projected population growth from 2001-2021.

29

The population growth figures are based on the number of housing anticipated to be

constructed as outlined in the Draft East of England Plan (2004).

Graph 4

Graph Illustrating the Population within the Local Authorities that Comprise the Thames Gateway South Essex in 2001 and the Projected Population Totals

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000

180000

Basildon Castle Point Rochford Southend-on-Sea Thurrock

Local Authority

Num

ber

of P

erso

ns 20012006201120162021

Source; Total Regional Planning Guidance 14 Submission, 29th March 2005 (Note the

population projection assumes dwelling provision will be implemented at the annual

average rate of provision set out in policy H2 of the Regional Spatial Strategy 14.)

Graph 4 demonstrates that the District of Rochford is anticipated to continue to have

the lowest population total of all the Thames Gateway South Essex districts.

Furthermore the increase in population throughout this period is expected to remain

fairly constant as the total population is predicted to increase by 3.2%. Clearly

Thurrock is expected to experience the greatest increase in population throughout

this period. Graph 5 illustrates the proportion of the population within Thames

Gateway South Essex that live within each district authority.

30

Graph 5

Graph Illustrating the Percentage of the Total Population Composition in 2001 of the Local

Authorities within Thames Gateway South Essex

Basildon 26%

Castle Point14%

Rochford12%

Southend-on-Sea25%

Thurrock23%

Source;

Adapted from Total Regional Planning Guidance 14 Submission, 29th March 2005 (Note the

population projection assumes dwelling provision will be implemented at the annual average

rate of provision set out in policy H2 of the Regional Spatial Strategy 14.)

Graph 5 illustrates that in 2001 Rochford (12%) contains the least proportion of the

population within Thames Gateway South Essex, whilst the neighbouring authorities

of Basildon (26%) and Southend-on-Sea (25%) have the greatest proportion of the

population in the sub region.

Population Density

Table 4 shows the number of persons per hectare and the average household size

within the District of Rochford, Essex County, the East of England region and

England and Wales in 2001.

31

Table 4 Table Illustrating the Population Density within Rochford District, the County of Essex, the east of England region and England and Wales in 2001

Density

Rochford District

Essex County East of England Region

England & Wales

Number of People Per Hectare

4.6 3.8 2.8 3.4

Average Household Size

2.44 2.38 2.37 2.36

Source: Office for National Statistics, 2001

Table 4 clearly demonstrates that the District of Rochford contains more persons per

hectare than the County of Essex (3.8 persons), the East of England region (2.8

persons) and England and Wales (3.4 persons). The average number of persons per

hectare within the East of England region is of greatest divergence to the trend

displayed by the District of Rochford in 2001. Table 4 also outlines the average

household size and indicates that in 2001 the District of Rochford contained a

marginally greater average household size than Essex County, the East of England

Region and England and Wales.

Deprivation

The Index of Multiple Deprivation 2004 (IMD 2004) is a measure of multiple

deprivation at the small area level, known as the Lower Super Output Areas. The

IMD 2004 is based on the idea that there are clear dimensions of deprivation which

are recognisable and may be measured. The deprivation is therefore measured in

terms of the domain. The IMD 2004 comprises of seven domains including;

Income deprivation; Employment deprivation; Health deprivation & disability; Education, skills and training deprivation; Barriers to housing and services;

32

Crime; and the Living environment deprivation.

There are also 6 measures that comprise the large area level these are available for

district and unitary council level areas. The large area measure for IMD 2004 is an

important source of information for interpreting the overall level of deprivation

experienced within the Rochford District. The large area measures include;

• Four are formulated from the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) for

small area;

Average Score – overall deprivation measure, retains range of scores;

Average Rank - overall deprivation measure, dampens the impact of

areas with extreme scores;

Extent Score - proportion of people living in serious deprived small

areas.

Local Concentration Score - represents the severity of deprivation in

‘hotspots’ (average IMD rank of worst-off areas with 10% of people)

• Two are absolute numbers, drawn from data underlying the IMD:

o Income Scale - number of income employment deprived

people;

o Employment Scale - number of employment deprived people.”

(Essex County Council, 2004)

Table 5 illustrates the large area Index of Multiple Deprivation scores for all the

Districts within Essex.

33

Table 5

Rank Essex

Average Score Average Rank Extent Local Concentration

1 Tendering 103

Tendering 98 Basildon 106 Tendering 111

2 Harlow 120

Harlow 101 Tendering 127 Basildon 116

3 Basildon 132

Basildon 142 Harlow 180 Colchester 189

4 Colchester 217

Colchester 221 Colchester 193 Harlow 207

5 Epping Forest

234

Braintree 228 Braintree 263 Epping Forest 243

6 Braintree 237 Epping Forest

232

Epping Forest

246

Braintree 247

7 Castle Point

245

Castle Point 243 Castle Point 273 Castle Point 258

8 Maldon 280

Maldon 280 Rochford 271 Chelmsford 286

9 Brentwood 312

Brentwood 312 Maldon 298 Rochford 299

10 Rochford 316

Rochford 319 Brentwood 295 Maldon 301

11 Chelmsford

320

Chelmsford 321 Chelmsford 274 Brentwood 307

12 Uttlesford 341

Uttlesford 342 Uttlesford 298 Uttlesford 352

Source; Essex County Council, 2004

Table 5 demonstrates that out of the 12 Essex local authorities Rochford performs

well compared to the remaining Essex Authorities, as the index of deprivation is

predominately within the lower quartile.

34

“Chelmsford, Rochford and Brentwood score fairly low in terms of overall

deprivation, in the 88-91% most deprived range” (Essex County Council,

2004, 8). The Extent Scores for the Essex Districts are outlined below;

* Basildon - 18%

* Tendering - 14%

* Harlow - 5%

* Colchester - 4%

* Braintree, Castle Point, Epping Forest, Rochford - all 1%

* Brentwood, Chelmsford, Maldon, Uttlesford - all 0%

(Source; Essex County Council, 2004, 9)

Clearly the results demonstrate that the District of Rochford has relatively few people

living in serious deprivation compared to the majority of the Essex Districts.

Essex contains 40 Super Output Areas in the most deprived 20% in England. These

seriously deprived areas are in Basildon, Clacton, Harwich, Colchester (5 areas) and

Harlow. Rochford does not contain any Super Output Areas in the most deprived

20%.

To fully understand the character of the deprivation it is essential to outline the

domain scores. Table 6 shows the percentage of small areas that are seriously

deprived on each domain score for Rochford District, the County of Essex and the

average for the Essex Districts.

Table 6 Authority IMD Income Employment Health and

Disability Education, Skills and Training

Barriers to Housing and Services

Living Environment

Crime No of Small Areas

Rochford

0 1.9 1.9 0 1.9 5.7 0 0 53

Essex

4.6 6.4 3.5 2.0 15.6 20.7 1.2 6.5 863

Essex District Average

3.3 4.8 2.7 1.4 13.7 24.1 1.0 5.1 71.9

Source, National Statistics Online, 2004 Indices of Multiple Deprivation

35

To aid interpretation of the results graph 8 has been formulated, highlighting the

percentage score for the small areas that are seriously deprived in the Rochford

District and the average for the Essex districts.

Graph 6

Graph Illustrating the Proportion of Small Areas that are 'Seriously Deprived' within the District of Rochford, the County of Essex and the Average for the

Essex Districts

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

IMD

Inco

me

Empl

oym

ent

Hea

lth a

ndD

isab

ility

Edu

catio

n,Sk

ills

and

Trai

ning

Barr

iers

toH

ousi

ng a

ndS

ervi

ces

Livi

ngEn

viro

nmen

t

Crim

e

Deprivation Domain

Prop

ortio

n of

Sm

all A

reas

Rochford

Essex

EssexDistrictAverage

Source, National Statistics Online, 2004 Indices of Multiple Deprivation

Graph 6 clearly demonstrates that the District of Rochford has less deprivation than

the average for the Essex Districts, and Essex County. However similarly to the

trend displayed by Essex and the average for the Essex Districts the greatest small

areas deprivation experienced within the District of Rochford is related to Barriers to

Housing and Services.

The Indices of Deprivation domains that are of particular importance to Open Space

include the Living Environment and Health Deprivation and Disability domains.

The Living Environment domain “focuses on deprivation with respect to the

characteristics of the living environment. It comprises two sub-domains: the indoor

living environment which measures the quality of housing and the outdoor which

contains two measures about air quality and road traffic accidents” (Office of the

Deputy Prime Minister, 2004, 4). Graph 6 illustrates that there are no small areas

36

within the District of Rochford that experience ‘serious living environment deprivation,

however the average for the Essex districts and the County total marginally exceeds

Rochford. It is important that the District of Rochford continues to display a good

quality living environment. This Domain comprises two sub-domains: the 'indoors'

living environment which measures the quality of housing and the 'outdoors' living

environment which contains two measures about air quality and road traffic

accidents.

Sub-Domain: The 'indoors' living environment

• Social and private housing in poor condition (2001)

• Houses without central heating (2001)

Sub-Domain: The 'outdoors' living environment

• Air quality (2001)

• Road traffic accidents involving injury to pedestrians and cyclists

(2000-2002)

Within each sub-domain the indicators were standardised, transformed to the normal

distribution and combined with equal weights. Then the two sub-domains were

standardised, transformed to the exponential distribution and combined into the

domain using a weight of 66.6% for ‘indoors’ living environment and 33.3% for

‘outdoors’ living environment to reflect the time people spend in each arena.

The second Indices of Deprivation domain that is of particular importance to the

Open Space Standards Supplementary Planning Document is the Health Deprivation

and Disability domain. This “domain identifies areas with relatively high rates of

people who die prematurely or whose quality of life is impaired by poor health or who

are disabled” (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, 2004, 3). This domain identifies

areas with relatively high rates of people who die prematurely or whose quality of life

is impaired by poor health or who are disabled, across the whole population.

Indicators include:

• Years of Potential Life Lost (1997-2001)

• Comparative Illness and Disability Ratio (2001)

• Measures of emergency admissions to hospital (1999-2002)

• Adults under 60 suffering from mood or anxiety disorders

(1997-2002)

37

Shrinkage is used on the indicators, and then they are combined using factor

weights. Similarly to the trends displayed by the Living Environment domain there are

no small areas within the District of Rochford that experience serious health

deprivation, while the Essex District average (1.4) and Essex County (2.0) marginally

exceeds this.

Health

The 2001 Census invited collected information regarding the respondents’ general

state of health. Graph 7 illustrates the health of persons within England and Wales,

the East of England region and the District of Rochford.

Graph 7

Graph Illustrating the Health of the Population within Rochford District, East of England Region and England and Wales

02468

101214161820

Limiting Long TermIllness

General Health 'notgood'

People Providing UnpaidCare

Providing Unpaid Care50 or More Hours/Work

Perception of Health

Perc

enta

ge o

f Per

sons

England andWales

East of England

Rochford

Source, National Statistics Online, 2004

Graph 7 demonstrates that within the District of Rochford 15.8% of people have a

limiting or long term illness, this level of persons is marginally lower than the regional

proportion of 16.2% and the national level (18.2%). Similarly to the percentage of

persons that have a limiting long term illness the proportion of the population that are

generally not in good health within the District of Rochford (7.2%) is similar to the

regional proportion (7.6%), but differs more greatly from the national level (9.2%).

The proportion of persons classified as ‘providing unpaid care’ within Rochford is

similar to the regional and national proportions.

38

Health measures can provide valuable indicators of the general health of the

population and the prevalence of illness within it. As can be seen in graph 8, the vast

majority of Rochford District residents (71.1%) class themselves as being in ‘good’

health.

Graph 8 Perception of Health in Resident Population

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Health: Good Health: Fairly good Health: Not good People with a limitinglong-term illness

People of working agewith a limiting long-

term illness

Households with oneor more person with a

limiting long-termillness

Peception of General Health

Perc

enta

ge o

f Res

iden

t Pop

ulat

ion

RochfordEast of EnglandEngland and Wales

Source: National Statistic Online 2001

39

Table 7 Perception of Health

Rochford East of England

England and Wales

General health: Good 71.1 70.4 68.6

General health: Fairly good 21.7 22.1 22.2

General health: Not good 7.2 7.6 9.2

People with a limiting long-term illness 15.8 16.2 18.2

People of working age with a limiting long-term illness 10.5 11.4 13.6

Households with one or more person with a limiting long-term illness 31.2 30.8 34.1

Source: National Statistic Online 2001

Essex residents class themselves as being healthy (see graph 8 and table 7 above),

a higher percentage than the average for England and Wales. Very few members of

the population regard themselves as having poor health; however there is a high

level of households in both Rochford and Essex that have more than one person with

a long term illness; however this is still lower than the England and Wales average

percentage.

Primary Care Trust (PCT)

Castle Point and Rochford Primary Care Trust (PCT) delivers healthcare services to

approximately 170,000 people in the borough of Castle Point and district of Rochford.

Together with GPs, dentists, pharmacist and opticians, they steer the planning and

provision of these services for the population. They directly provide services from 10

health clinics and they employ approximately 360 staff including district nurses,

40

health visitors, specialist nurses (such as continence and diabetes), therapists and

support staff.

Table 8 Health Services within Rochford District and surrounding area

Health Services Rochford District Surrounding District’s under same PCT (Benfleet, Canvey, Rayleigh and Hadleigh.)

Doctor 4 32

Dentist 1 22

Optician 1 16

Pharmacist 2 32

Source: www.nhs.co.uk

Disability The 2001 Census of Population provides data on the number of households with at

least one person with a limiting long-term illness for Essex in table 30. Rochford is in

line with Essex in that roughly one-third of households have one or more people with

a limiting long-term illness.

Table 9

Households with one or more person with a limiting long term illness

As % of all households All households

Basildon 33% 69,207

Braintree 29% 54,332

Brentwood 28% 28,767

Castle Point 33% 35,279

Chelmsford 27% 64,564

Colchester 31% 63,706

Epping Forest 30% 50,590

Harlow 31% 33,185

Maldon 30% 24,189

41

Rochford 31% 31,952

Southend 34% 70,978

Tendering 41% 61,411

Thurrock 32% 58,485

Uttlesford 27% 27,519

Essex 32% 674,164

Source: 2001 Census of Population, Office for National Statistics

When analysing Rochford 31,952 (31%) of all the households has a person with a

limiting long term illness, this is lower then the Essex figure of 674,164 and

considerably lower than districts such as Tendering. Material Assets and Cultural Heritage

Conservation Areas

Details on Conservation areas are set out in Appendix 3.

Participation in Sport

Figures are available for the participation in sport across the government regions,

however there is no information on participation figures for Essex County, or

Rochford District as no data has been collected.

42

Table 10 ‘Top five’ sports, games and physical activities: participation rates in the 4 weeks before interview by Government Office Region

Source: National Statistics Online, 2002

As can be seen in table 10, adults living in the South West were more likely than

those in other regions to have participated in at least one activity excluding walking

(50% compared with 37% to 46% for other regions in England). The East of England

percentages were similar to those of England as a whole. The percentage of those

who participated in walking is 35%, whilst the England average is 34%. However

percentages for swimming, keep fit/yoga and snooker/pool/billiards are all 1% lower

than the England percentage. However, the East of England had the highest

percentage of cycling any government region within England with 12%, as can be

seen in graph 9 below. However, is unfortunate that there are no figures available on

a local or county scale to compare with this data; as a result we are unable to look at

it in any greater detail.

43

Graph 9

'Top five' sports, games and physical activities: participation rates

05

1015202530354045

North East

North W

est

Yorkshire

and Humber

East Midlands

West Midlands

East of E

ngland

London

South East

South W

est

England

Government Office Region

Perc

enta

ge

Walking

swimming

KeepFit/YogaSnooker/Pool/BilliardsCycling

Source: National Statistics Online, 2002

Table 11 illustrates the use of different types of facility across the country. Nearly a

quarter of adults in the East of England (22%) had used an indoor facility which was

mainly used for sport (for example, a sports centre or indoor swimming pool) and

13% had used an outdoor facility which was mainly used for sport (e.g. playing field

or outdoor swimming pool). Sporting activities also took place in indoor facilities not

mainly used for sport such as community facilities, like village halls (12%) and at

home (4%).

44

Table 11 Use of different types of facility by Government Office Region

Source: National Statistics Online, 2002

When compared to the average percentages for England, the East of England

percentage for ‘indoor mainly for sport’ and ‘indoor other community facility’ are

slightly lower. However, The percentages for ‘outdoor mainly used for sport’, ‘outdoor

natural setting’ and ‘other – including roads and pathways’ are all higher than the

average percentage for England.

45

Table 12 Planning Applications Relating to Playing Fields

Year 2002/03 2003/04 Total number of applications 1297 1413

Number of applications resulting in net

gain to, or no loss of, playing fields 472 36 % 590 42%

Number of applications resulting in no

change to playing fields (and withdrawn

or rejected applications)

407 31 % 439 31%

Number of applications which were

deemed to be detrimental to playing

fields and would result in a non-sporting

development or one of little sporting

benefit

76 6 % 52 4%

Applications yet to be decided 342 27 % 332 23% Total 1297 100 % 1413 100%

Source: Department for Culture, Media and Sport, July 2005

Table 12 explores the total number of planning applications across the country

relating to playing fields. As can be seen, there has been an increase in the number

of applications resulting in either a net gain or net loss of playing fields from 36% of

the applications relating to playing fields in 2002/03 to 42% in 2003/04. Fewer

applications were regarded as having a detrimental effect upon playing fields, with a

drop from 6% in 2002/03 to 4% in 2003/04.

46

Table 13 Approved applications involving redevelopment

Year 2002/03 2003/04 Number of sites where approved

applications will involve redevelopment

to provide new or improved sports

facilities

212 26% 310 32 %

Applications that will improve the use of

playing fields through new or

refurbished changing rooms added

floodlighting or improved access to the

site.

153 19 % 148 15 %

Playing fields provided as like for like

replacements. 107 13% 132 14 %

Cases where the site was too small or

the wrong shape to accommodate a

playing pitch.

257 31% 314 33 %

Cases where a careful assessment of

supply and demand against a playing

field strategy showed that there was a

strong case for releasing the land for a

different use.

2 1 % 3 1 %

Cases where Sport England maintained

an objection, but where the Deputy

Prime Minister's Office concluded that

national planning considerations had

not been overlooked.

36 5 % 31 3 %

Applications where Sport England is

statutory consultee but where the

provisions of the 1998 Direction does

not apply (privately owned fields)

40 5% 21 2%

Total 807 100% 959 100%

Note: '%' figures in this table refer to the percentage of total approved applications)

Source: Department for Culture, Media and Sport, July 2005

The statistics in table 13 show that of the 959 applications that were approved for

development, 590 involved projects that would greatly improve the quality of sport on

offer at the site. These included new sports centres, tennis courts, athletics tracks

47

and Astroturf pitches as well as changing rooms and floodlights. They also include

132 cases where like-for-like replacement playing fields were provided.

Of the 959 approved applications, just 52 (4%) were deemed to be detrimental to

sporting provision – 31 of which were owned by local authorities and 21 owned

privately. This is against a backdrop of some 44,000 playing pitches across 21,000

sites in England, and the creation in 2003-04 of 72 additional new playing fields. 314

applications were approved for development on sites, which were too small to

accommodate playing pitches. In two cases was there a complete loss of a playing

field.

Playing Pitches

Table 14 Playing pitches within Rochford District:

Name/location of facilities Type of Provision

Ashingdon Playing Field

Ashingdon Road,

Ashingdon,

Essex SS4 3HF

6 Football pitches (adult)

Basketball ring

Play space

Great Wakering

Recreation Ground,

High Street,

Great Wakering,

Essex SS3 0HX

4 Football pitches (2 adult,

2 mini)

2 basketball rings

Licking wall

Cycle speedway track

Play space

Cupids Country Club,

Cupids Chase,

Great Wakering,

Essex, SS3 0AX

5 Football pitches

(adult)

Rochford Recreation

Ground,

Stambridge Road,

Rochford,

Essex SS4 3JA

3 Football pitches

(2 adult, 1 mini)

1 Hockey pitch

Bowling green

2 Basketball rings

5-a-side football

Play space

48

Rawreth Recreation

Ground,

Rawreth Lane,

Rawreth,

Essex

4 Football pitches

(4 adult)

Rayleigh Town Sports

and Social Club

3 Football pitches

(3 adult)

Castle Point and Rochford

Adult Community College,

Roche Way,

Rochford

Essex, SS14 2EQ

4 Football pitches

(1 adult, 1 junior and

2 mini pitches)

Fairview Playing Fields

Victoria Road,

Rayleigh

4 Football pitches

(adult)

4 Tennis courts

(hard surface)

5-a-side football

Basketball court

Play space

Grove Road Playing

space, Grove Road,

Rayleigh, Essex

4 Football pitches ( 1

adult, 2 junior, 2 mini)

2 Play spaces, BMX track

King Georges Playing

Field, Websters Way,

Rayleigh, Essex

3 Football pitches

(1 adult, 1 junior, 1

mini) Bowling green

Play space

BMX/Skateboarding area

Pooles Lane Recreation

Ground, Pooles Lane,

Hullbridge,

Essex, SS5 6PU

1 Football pitch (adult)

BMX track

2 Basketball rings

5-a-side football

Play space

Skateboarding area

Hullbridge Sports and

Social Club

6 Football pitches

(4 adult, 2 junior)

Canewdon Recreation

Ground, Althorne Way,

Canewdon,

Essex SS4 3PS

1 Football pitch (adult)

2 Basketball rings

Play space

Skateboarding area

Laburnham Grove 1 Basketball ring

49

Magnolia Road Playing

Space

BMX track

Basketball Ring

Play space

Morrins Close,

Great Wakering

2 Basketball rings

Play space

John Fisher Playing

Field 2 Football pitches (adult)

Hockley Community

Centre,

Westminster Drive,

Hockley, Essex 1 Football pitch (junior)

School/College Football Pitches:

• Canewdon Endowed Primary School (1 junior)

• Doggetts County Primary School, Rochford (1 junior)

• Downhall County Primary School, Rayleigh (1 junior)

• Great Wakering Primary School (2 junior)

• Hockley Primary School (1 junior)

• Holt Farm Infants & Junior School, Rochford (1 junior)

• Plumberow Primary School, Hockley (2 junior)

• Rayleigh County Primary School (1 junior)

• Rochford Adult Community College (1 adult; 1 junior; 2 mini)

• St Nicholas C of E Primary School, Rawreth (1 mini)

• Westerings Primary School, Hockley (1 junior)

As can be seen in table 6, Rochford District has a large supply of football pitches,

both adult and junior. The data available does not give any details on the provision of

rugby pitches/facilities.

The local planning authority has adopted a general policy of providing 2.5 hectares of

open space per 1000 population, and in all urban settlements all residential areas

should be within half a kilometre of a large open space (at least 2 hectares) or within

one-fifth of a kilometre of a small open space (at least 0.4 hectares.

50

Attention will also be paid to the National Playing Fields standard for the provision

of playing pitches which is approximately 1.8 heactares of pitches, courts, greens etc.

per 1000 population, including at least 1.2 hectares of pitches.

Table 15

Source: Rochford District Council, 2002

A user survey of recreation grounds and playing fields was undertaken by the

grounds maintenance contractors, Service team in summer 2005 with results are

expected in mid 2006.

There are currently 3 leisure or sports centres operating within Rochford District. 2 of

these 3 leisure centres are owned by Rochford District Council, and run by Holmes

Places Leisure Management this includes Great Wakering Sports Centre and

Clements Hall Leisure Centre. Rayleigh Leisure Centre, currently under construction

is being built on a disused school site of 3.2 acres. This will also under local authority

control with Holmes place running it and it is due to open in May 2006. The

Warehouse Centre is run by a charitable Christian organisation.

Leisure Centres within Rochford District:

• Great Wakering Sports Centre, High Street, Great Wakering, Essex,

SS3 0HX

51

• Clements Hall Leisure Centre, Clements Hall Way, Hawkwell, Essex,

SS5 4LN

• The Warehouse Centre, 7 Brook Road, Rayleigh, Essex, SS6 7UT.

There are currently no usage figures available for private sports centres such as The

Warehouse Centre. However, figures for Great Wakering Sports Centre show that

visitor numbers have increased with a two year period from 12,385 in 2003/04 to

17,895 in 2004/05; an increase on 42%. The sports centre had previously been

vandalised repeatedly, and the introduction of better security measures may have

helped increase usage. Figures for Clements Hall show that in 2003/04 the leisure

centre received 536,012 visitors and in 2004/05 this increased to 581,196, a rise of

8%.

Land Utilisation

Planning Policy Guidance note 3 entitled Housing outlines that central Government is

“committed to maximising the re-use of previously developed land and empty

properties and the conversion of non- residential buildings for housing” (Office of

Deputy Prime Minister, 2000, 8.) The objective of the government’s aim is to promote

regeneration and minimise the amount of Greenfield land being utilised for

development. The Planning Policy Guidance note 3 sets out a national target that by

“2008, 60% of additional housing should be provided on previously developed land

and through conversions of existing buildings” (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister,

2000.8). The target allows the assessment of Local Authority Performance to

development on previously developed land.

A service level agreement between Essex County Council and Rochford District

Council exists whereby the County Council undertakes residential and non-

residential land monitoring. The information formulated by the County Council is

further verified by Rochford District Council. Graph 10 utilises this information and

illustrates the percentage of residential development that has occurred on previously

developed land from 2001-2004 in the Rochford District and throughout Essex.

52

Graph 10

Graph Illustrating the Prportion of Residential Dwellings Constructed on Brownfield Land

0%10%20%

30%40%50%60%

70%80%90%

2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005

Year

Perc

enta

ge o

f Res

iden

tial

Dev

elop

men

t on

Brow

nfie

ld

Land

Rochford

Essex

Source; Essex County Council Monitoring Statistics, 2004.

Graph 10 illustrates that since 2003-04 the District of Rochford has achieved the

Government’s target of 60% of new residential developments upon previously

developed land. However Essex County (excluding Southend-on- Sea and Thurrock)

has continually exceeded the number of residential development constructed on

previously developed land. The intensification of existing and future development is

an important aspect of residential dwelling design and may impact on the quantity of

Greenfield land required for development.

Windfall Sites

A total of 199 windfall developments have become available between 2001 and

2005. 16 of these were built on Greenfield sites, whilst the vast majority (183) were

built on previously developed land. 2002/2003 saw the highest number of small site

developments build on previously developed land – 64, whilst there were 15

developments on Greenfield sites, compared to 26 on previously developed land in

2003/2004. By 2004/2005, 46 small scale developments were built on previously

developed land, with no development of Greenfield sites at all (Rochford District

Statement of Land Availability April 2005).

53

Flooding Appendix 4 illustrates flood risk with Rochford District.

Air Quality

The quality of our air affects both human health and life quality, and the natural

environment. Poor air quality can also affect the health of our ecosystems, and can

adversely affect our built cultural heritage.

Local air quality is affected by emissions from industrial activity, airports, power

stations and natural sources, but road transport accounts for around 40% of UK

Nitrogen dioxide emissions. Additionally, diesel vehicles are a significant source of

the emissions of fine particulates.

The implementation of Air Quality Review and Assessment requirements by the

Environmental Health department at Rochford District Council has led to the

identification of 7 potentially significant junctions with a daily flow of greater than

10,000 vehicles. These are as follows:

1) A129/A127 Rayleigh Weir Underpass

2) A127/A130 Junction

3) Rawreth Lane/A130 Chelmsford Road Junction

4) High Street/Eastwood Road Junction, Rayleigh

5) Hockley Road/High Street A129 Junction, Rayleigh

6) Hall Road/West Street Junction, Rochford

7) Southend Road/Sutton Road Junction, Rochford

At all of these junctions the predicted 2005 annual mean Nitrogen dioxide

concentration, 2004 PM10 concentration and exceedence all meet the National Air

Quality Strategy (2000) standards (Rochford District Council: Local Air Quality

Management – Updating and Screening Assessment, October 2003). The highest

predicted Nitrogen dioxide concentration in 2005 is at the High Street/Eastwood

Road junction, with a predicted annual mean concentration of 39.3 μg/m3. However,

this is only a modelled prediction. The maximum predicted annual mean PM10

concentration in 2004 is 30.5 μg/m3, at the aforementioned junction, which is below

54

the annual average objective of 40 μg/m3. The estimated number of exceedence of

the daily mean objective is 30, which is below the 35 exceedence allowed in a year.

As a result of this the High Street/Eastwood Road junction has become a site for

Nitrogen dioxide diffusion tube monitoring. The actual 2004 and 2005 Nitrogen

dioxide concentrations at 3 roadside sites have been found to exceed or almost

exceed the annual mean objective value of 40 μg/m3. These measurements range

from 38.1 μg/m3 to 42.8 μg/m3. The other diffusion tube monitoring sites, at Rochford

Market Square and Bedloes Corner have been found to have Nitrogen dioxide

concentrations well below the annual mean objective in 2004 and 2005, ranging from

27.4 μg/m3 to 30.9 μg/m3.

PM10 monitoring was undertaken from May to August 2004 at the Rawreth Industrial

Estate. The site chosen was to the east of the estate in closest proximity to the T J

Cottis site, which has been the main source of reported dust complaints. Monitoring

was undertaken under worse case conditions during the summer months. During the

3 months of monitoring, there were 7 days where the 24-hour mean objective of 50

μg/m3 was exceeded. The range of concentrations measured during the monitoring

period was 11.3 μg/m3 to 57.6 μg/m3, with a period mean of 31.4 μg/m3 (Rochford

District Council: Local Air Quality Management – Detailed Assessment Report,

November 2004). This site is due to be monitored for PM10 in the summer of 2006.

55

Map 2 - Potentially Significant Junctions in Rochford District

57

Rochford District has one road of concern regarding congestion (with a ratio of flow to

congestion reference flow of <0.79), the A130.

Compliance with targets National Air Quality Strategy (2000) objectives are predicted to be met at all significant

junctions identified within the District.

The actual 2004 and 2005 Nitrogen dioxide concentration at 3 roadside sites at the High

Street/Eastwood Road junction has been found to exceed or almost exceed the annual

mean objective value of 40 μg/m3.

At the Rochford Market Square and Bedloes Corner, Nitrogen dioxide concentrations

have been found to be well below the annual mean objective in 2004 and 2005, ranging

from 27.4 μg/m3 to 30.9 μg/m3.

During the monitoring of Rawreth Industrial Estate for PM10 in summer 2004, there were

7 days where the 24-hour mean objective of 50 μg/m3 was exceeded.

It is therefore necessary that the District of Rochford continues to monitor the air quality

throughout the area, and seek to promote the utilisation of more sustainable

transportation modes.

58

SEA Objectives, Targets and Indicators

Sustainability Objectives:

The utilisation of sustainability objectives is a recognised methodology for considering

the environmental effects of a plan and programme and comparing the effects of the

alternatives. They serve a different purpose to the objectives of the Rochford District

Council Playing Pitch Strategy Supplementary Planning Document. The sustainability

objectives are utilised to show whether the objectives of the plan and programme are

beneficial for the environment, to compare the environmental effects of the alternatives

or to suggest improvements.

The sustainability objectives have been derived from a review of the plans and

programme at the European, national, regional, county and local scale and a strategic

analysis of the baseline information. The assessment of the baseline data allows the

current state of the environment to be evaluated to determine if significant effects are

evident.

Annex 1 (f) of the SEA Directive states that ‘the likely significant effects on the

environment, including on issues such as biodiversity, population, human health, fauna,

flora, soil, water, air, climatic factors, material assets, cultural heritage including

architectural and archaeological heritage, landscape and the interrelationship between

the above factors’ should be analysed. The sustainability objectives identified for the

assessment of the Rochford District Council Playing Pitch Strategy Supplementary

Planning Document are outlined in table 16. Table 16 also highlights the relationship

with the SEA Directive, the source of the objectives and the related issues.

59

Table 16

SEA Directive Significant Effects

SEA/SA Objective Source

Population Human Health Material Assets Cultural Heritage

(1) Provide improved access and opportunities

for all to open space, sport and recreation.

Office of the

Deputy Prime

Minister,

Planning Policy

Statement 1 –

Delivering

Sustainable

Development,

2005

Office of the

Deputy Prime

Minister,

Planning Policy

Guidance 3 –

Housing, 2000

Office of the

Deputy Prime

Minister,

Planning Policy

Guidance 17 –

Planning for

Open Space

and Recreation,

1991

Population Human Health

(2) Improve quality of public realm and open

spaces in urban and rural areas.

Planning Policy

Statement 6 –

Town centres,

60

Material Assets Cultural Heritage Landscape Biodiversity inc, Fauna/Flora

2005

Rochford

District Council,

Replacement

Local Plan,

2004

Population Human Health Material Assets Cultural Heritage Landscape Fauna/Flora

(3) To deliver safe, healthy and attractive

places to live.

Office of the

Deputy Prime

Minister,

Planning Policy

Statement 1 –

Delivering

Sustainable

Development,

2005

Material Assets Cultural Heritage Landscape Biodiversity inc, Fauna/Flora

(4) To ensure that new development

contributes to enhancing the character,

appearance, recreational and biodiversity

value.

East of England

Regional

Assembly, Draft

East of England

Regional Plan,

Regional

Spatial Strategy

14, 2004

Population Human Health

(5) To support the promotion of health and well-

being.

East of England

Regional

Assembly, Draft

61

Material Assets Cultural Heritage Landscape Fauna/Flora

East of England

Regional Plan,

Regional

Spatial Strategy

14, 2004

Population Material Assets Landscape Biodiversity inc Fauna/Flora

(6) To promote efficient use of land and re-use

of previously-developed sites.

Office of the

Deputy Prime

Minister,

Planning Policy

Guidance 3 –

Housing, 2000

Population Human Health Material Assets Cultural Heritage Landscape

(7) To preserve and enhance the historic

environment.

Office of the

Deputy Prime

Minister,

Planning Policy

Guidance 15,

Planning and

the Historic

Environment,

1994

Office of the

Deputy Prime

Minister,

Planning Policy

Guidance 16,

Archaeology

and Planning,

62

1990

Population Human Health Material Assets Cultural Heritage Landscape Fauna/Flora

(8) To preserve and enhance the cultural

environment.

Office of the

Deputy Prime

Minister,

Planning Policy

Guidance 15,

Planning and

the Historic

Environment,

1994

Office of the

Deputy Prime

Minister,

Planning Policy

Guidance 16,

Archaeology

and Planning,

1990

Assessing the Compatibility of the Objectives A balance of social, economic and environmental objectives has been selected. To test

the internal compatibility of the sustainability objectives a compatibility assessment was

undertaken to identify any potential tensions between the objectives. Matrix 1 illustrates

the compatibility appraisal of the sustainability objectives.

63

Matrix 1 Matrix Illustrating the Compatibility Appraisal of the Sustainability Objectives

2 VC

3 VC VC

4 VC VC VC

5 VC VC VC VC

6 C C C VC C

7 C VC VC VC C C

8 C VC VC VC C C VC Sust

aina

bilit

y O

bjec

tives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Sustainability Objectives

Key Symbol

Very Compatible VC

Compatible C

No Impact N

Incompatible I

Very Incompatible VI

Uncertain U

A second compatibility test was undertaken to determine whether the aims of the Playing

Pitch Strategy Supplementary Planning Documents were compatible with the

sustainability objectives. Matrix 2 outlines the compatibility of the sustainability

objectives and the Playing Pitch Strategy Supplementary Planning Document aims.

Prior to conducting the Appraisal of the Plans Policies it was decided that objective 5

related to health would be adequately addressed using objective 3, therefore this

objective was deleted from the appraisal.

64

Matrix 2 - Compatibility of the Sustainability Objectives and the Core Strategy Aims

Rochford District SEA Objectives 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1 VC VC VC VC VC C VC VC Playing Pitches SPD Objectives 2 VC VC VC VC C VC VC VC

Key Symbol

Very Compatible VC

Compatible C

No Impact N

Incompatible I

Very Incompatible VI

Uncertain U

65

Chapter 4 - SPD Policy Appraisal

66

Chapter 4 SPD Policy Appraisal Significant Social, Environmental and Economic Effects of the Preferred Policies

Annex 1 (f) of the SEA Directive (2001) states that information should be provided on

“the likely significant effects on the environment, including on issues such as

biodiversity, population, human health, fauna, flora, soil, water, air, climatic, material

assets including architectural and archaeological heritage, landscape and the

interrelationship between the above factors” (Annex 1(f). It is recommended in the

guidance by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister that the significance of the effect of

a policy or plan needs to consider the probability, duration, frequency and reversibility of

the effects. To aid in this evaluation the SA Framework adopted is comparable to that

delineated in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister’s Guidance entitled ‘Sustainability

Appraisal of Regional Spatial Strategies and Local Development Documents’

(November, 2005). The SA Framework aims to ensure that the policies outlined in the

Rochford District Council Playing Pitch Strategy Supplementary Planning Document

Issues and Options are beneficial to the community and sustainable (Office of the

Deputy Prime Minister, 2005).

A comprehensive assessment of all policies against all SA/SEA objectives has been

undertaken and is a technical annex to this report. Furthermore a summary of the

policies appraised is outlined in Appendix 2. A summary of the significant social,

environmental and economic effects, spatial extent, temporal extent and

recommendations arising from the Appraising Plan Policy assessment is outlined below.

The assessment is of potential positive, negative, direct and indirect effects. The

summary outlines the Playing Pitch Strategy Supplementary Planning Documents

performance against the sustainability objectives. The objectives have been subdivided

to reflect the specific social, economic and environmental dimensions of sustainability as

outlined in the SEA Directive Annex 1(f).

67

Relationship with SEA Directive

SEA Objective

Population Human Health Material Assets Cultural Heritage

(1) Provide improved access and opportunities for all to open

space, sport and recreation.

Rochford District Council Replacement Local Plan (2004) LT2 – Public Playing Pitch Provision Significant Effect – Minor negative in the short – long term. Geographical Spatial Extent – Throughout the District of Rochford.

Justification – Accessibility of playing pitches throughout the District of Rochford is

dependent upon location. Table 6.3 which is also set out in the SPD (table 1) outlines

the suggested local standards for playing pitches throughout the districts sub areas,

including; Rayleigh, Hockley, Hullbridge, Canewdon, Rochford and Great Wakering.

These areas have varying standards of provision some exceeding the National Playing

Field Association standard of 1.20ha per thousand of the population for instance Great

Wakering 1.77ha, Canewdon 1.68ha, Rochford 1.36ha and Hullbridge 1.34ha per

thousand of the population. Other sub areas throughout the district have a level of

playing pitch accessibility that is below the minimum standard including Rayleigh 1.15ha

and most notably Hockley 0.7ha per thousand of the population. The justification for the

lower standards is because of the demographic profile of the local population and the

surplus capacity.

Recommendation – The level of standard would need to be subject to ongoing review

to take account of changes in the demographic profile of areas and capacity of provision.

68

Appraising Plans Policy 1

Significant Effect – Minor positive in the short – long term.

Geographical Spatial Extent – Throughout the District of Rochford, and more

specifically communities that are in close proximity to new residential development.

Justification – Improved access and opportunities to open space, sport and recreation

will be improved however it does not take account of cumulative demands generated by

developments of less than 10 units. The baseline evidence from the number of windfall

residential dwellings that have been granted planning permission from 2001 to present

day suggests that there were a total of 199 dwellings (including Greenfield and

brownfield land). This therefore indicates that the threshold of 10 dwellings may be

detrimental to accessibility to open space, sport and recreation. Planning Obligations

Circular 2005/05 states that local planning obligations policies should “cover both

allocated and windfall sites as well as setting out the principles for general application”

(Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, 2005, Para B28).

The approach adopted seeks to promote the utilisation/enhancement of existing playing

pitch provision. It also takes into account local community demand for improved access

to sports and recreational facilities.

It is therefore considered that the overall impact is positive.

Recommendation – It is recommended that monetary obligations are sought from both

allocated and windfall sites, including sites of residential development of less than 10

dwellings.

Appraising Plans Policy 2 – Greenbelt Significant Effect – Major positive in the short – long term.

Geographical Spatial Extent – Communities throughout the District of Rochford, but

most notably existing and new persons in close proximity to the greenbelt.

69

Justification – The Essex and Southend Replacement Structure Plan (2001) Policy C2

entitled Development Within the Metropolitan Greenbelt and the provisions set out in

Planning Policy Guidance 2 – Greenbelt, state that “the construction of new buildings

inside a Greenbelt is inappropriate unless it is for the … essential facilities for outdoor

sport and outdoor recreation … which preserve the openness of the Greenbelt and

which do not conflict with the purposes of including land in it” (Office of the Deputy Prime

Minister, 1995, Para 3.4). It is therefore considered that the criterion within this policy is

adequate to ensure the appropriate access to open space, sport and recreational

facilities for communities within the greenbelt.

Recommendation – Not relevant.

Appraising Plans Policy 5 – Transport Infrastructure

Significant Effect – Major positive in the short – long term.

Appraising Plans Policy 6 (APP6) Significant Effect – Major positive effect in the short – long term.

Geographical Spatial Extent – Throughout the District of Rochford.

Justification: Through ensuring that provision is well drained and suitable for use will

increase the opportunity that it provides for use.

Drainage mechanisms need to be considered because well drained soil encourages

grass growth which will lead to the possibility of the pitch being more heavily utilised. For

example, many poorly drained grass pitches can only accommodate under 2 hours of

adult use per week compared to 3-6 hours for pipe and silt drained pitches (Rochford

District Council, 2002 [supporting text]).

Recommendation: Not relevant.

70

Relationship with SEA Directive

SEA Objective

Population Human Health Material Assets Cultural Heritage Landscape Biodiversity inc, Fauna/Flora

(2) Improve quality of public realm and open spaces in urban and

rural areas.

Appraising Plans Policy 2 (APP2) – Greenbelt Significant Effect – Minor positive in the short – long term.

Geographical Spatial Extent – Communities throughout the District of Rochford, but

most notably existing and new persons in close proximity to the greenbelt. Justification – The policy aims to ensure that where development on the greenbelt is

required it should be of the appropriate scale and type. To ensure high quality public

realm and open spaces within the greenbelt it is deemed appropriate that the SPD

defines what is meant by a ‘significant club house’. Planning Policy Guidance 17 defines

‘core facilities’ as “those facilities that require large, bulky buildings and are intended to

generate high levels of use, this groups includes swimming pools, indoor sports halls

and leisure facilities, indoor bowls centres, indoor tennis centres and ice rinks” (Office of

the Deputy Prime Minister, 1991, Para 2.9). The parameters for development outlined

by Sport England Design and Technical Guidelines are deemed appropriate for outlining

the appropriate size for development within the greenbelt. Central Government

71

guidance suggests that where appropriate local authorities may develop typologies

(Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, 1991).

Recommendation - It is recommended that the SPD provides further detail as to what is

considered a significant club house.

Appraising Plans Policy 3 – Design Significant Effect – Minor positive in the short – long term.

Geographical Spatial Extent – Throughout the District of Rochford.

Justification – “Quality depends on two things: the needs and expectations of users, on

the one hand, and design, management and maintenance on the other…

…many open spaces are in practice multi-functional. Most grass pitches are probably

used for the purposes of children’s’ play, kite flying, exercising dogs or jogging as well as

sport. This can create problems when analysing an audit of provision and determining

whether local needs are satisfied.”

PPG 17.

The policy positively contributes to this objective and overall the requirement to assess

provision against Sport England Guidance will ensure improved quality of public realm

and open spaces. However the policy statement that “proposed schemes will normally

be assessed …” reduces certainty over the standards being adhered to.

Recommendation – That the policy states that only in exceptional circumstances Sport

England Design and Technical Guidelines would not be applicable.

Appraising Plans Policy 5 – Transportation Infrastructure

Significant Effect – Major positive in the short – long term.

Geographical Spatial Extent – Throughout the District of Rochford.

72

Justification – Quality public realm will be delivered by the implementation of this

policy. Access by a range of sustainable transportation modes is a significant

determinant in the quality of the open space provision.

Recommendation – Not relevant.

Appraising Plans Policy 6 – Drainage Significant Effect – Major positive in the short – long term.

Geographical Spatial Extent – Throughout the District of Rochford.

Justification: Sufficient drainage facilities will improve the quality of the facilities.

Recommendation – In order address facilities with insufficient drainage priority should

be given to the pitches highlighted in table 12.3 of the “An Assessment of the Playing

Pitches in Rochford District October 2002” document.

Relationship with SEA Directive

SEA Objective

Population Human Health Material Assets Cultural Heritage Landscape Fauna/Flora

(3) To deliver safe, healthy and attractive places to live.

Appraising Plans Policy 1

73

Significant Effect – Major positive in the short – long term. Geographical Spatial Extent – Throughout the District of Rochford, and more

specifically communities that are in close proximity to new residential development.

Justification – To ensure the delivery of sustainable communities throughout the

Rochford District an important component is that it is ‘active, inclusive and safe’ (Office

of the Deputy Prime Minister, 2005). The offering of opportunities for cultural, leisure,

sport and other activities throughout the District is deemed adequate to achieve an

active, inclusive and safe community (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, 2005). It is

also important that the District of Rochford features a ‘quality built natural environment’

(Office of the Deputy Prime Minster, 2005). APP3 (Design) addresses this.

Recommendation – Not relevant. Appraising Plans Policy 5 – Transportation Infrastructure Significant Effect – Major positive in the short – long term. Geographical scope – Throughout the District of Rochford.

Justification – Access by a range of sustainable transportation modes is a significant

determinant in the delivery of safe, health and attractive places to live.

Recommendation – Not relevant.

Relationship with SEA Directive

SEA Objective

Material Assets Cultural Heritage Landscape

(4) To ensure that new development contributes to enhancing the

character, appearance, recreational and biodiversity value.

74

Biodiversity inc, Fauna/Flora

Rochford District Council Replacement Rochford Local Plan (2004) – Policy LT2 – Public Playing Pitch Provision Significant Effect – Major positive in the short – long term. Geographical Spatial Extent – Throughout the District of Rochford.

Justification - The policy seeks to ensure that the effect on the amenity of the

surrounding area and nature conservation interests is taken into consideration.

Recommendation – Not relevant.

Appraising Plans Policy 3 – Design Significant Effect – Major positive in the short – long term.

Geographical Spatial Extent – Throughout the District of Rochford.

Justification – The policy positively contributes to this objective and overall the

requirement to assess provision against Sport England Guidance will ensure that new

development contributes to enhancing the character, appearance, recreational and

biodiversity value. However the policy statement that “proposed schemes will normally

be assessed …” reduces certainty over the standards being adhered to.

Recommendation – That the policy states that only in exceptional circumstances Sport

England Design and Technical Guidelines.

75

Relationship with SEA Directive

SEA Objective

Population Material Assets Landscape Biodiversity inc Fauna/Flora

(5) To promote efficient use of land and re-use of previously-

developed sites.

Appraising Plans Policy 3 – Design Significant Effect – Minor positive in the short – long term.

Geographical Spatial Extent – Throughout the District of Rochford.

Justification – The policy positively contributes to this objective and overall the

requirement to assess provision against Sport England Guidance will ensure that

efficient use is made of land, with regard to the layout and design of facilities. However

the policy statement that “proposed schemes will normally be assessed …” reduces

certainty over the standards being adhered to.

Recommendation – That the policy states that only in exceptional circumstances Sport

England Design and Technical Guidelines would not be applicable.

Appraising Plans Policy 4 – Size of Pitches Significant Effect – Major positive in the short – long term.

Geographical Spatial Extent – Rochford District.

Justification – Through setting standards the policy will ensure that land is used

efficiently in accordance with the land area needed for different types of sporting activity.

76

Recommendation – Not relevant.

Relationship with SEA Directive

SEA Objective

Population Human Health Material Assets Cultural Heritage Landscape

(6) To preserve and enhance the historic environment.

Appraising Plans Policy 3 – Design Significant Effect – Minor positive in the short – long term.

Geographical Spatial Extent – Throughout the District of Rochford.

Justification – The policy positively contributes to this objective and overall the

requirement to assess provision against Sport England Guidance will ensure the

preservation and enhancement of the historic environment. However the policy

statement that “proposed schemes will normally be assessed …” reduces certainty over

the standards being adhered to.

Recommendation – That the policy states that only in exceptional circumstances Sport

England Design and Technical Guidelines would not be applicable.

77

Relationship with SEA Directive

SEA Objective

Population Human Health Material Assets Cultural Heritage Landscape Fauna/Flora

(7) To preserve and enhance the cultural environment.

Appraising Plans Policy 3 – Design Significant Effect – Minor positive in the short – long term.

Geographical Spatial Extent – Throughout the District of Rochford.

Justification – The policy positively contributes to this objective and overall the

requirement to assess provision against Sport England Guidance will ensure the

preservation and enhancement of the cultural environment... However the policy

statement that “proposed schemes will normally be assessed …” reduces certainty over

the standards being adhered to.

Recommendation – That the policy states that only in exceptional circumstances Sport

England Design and Technical Guidelines would not be applicable.

78

Chapter 5 - SPD Issues and Alternatives

79

Chapter 5

SPD Issues and Alternatives The SEA Directive states that ‘where an Environmental Assessment is required under

Article 3 (1), and Environmental Report shall be prepared in which the likely significant

effects on the environment of implementing the plan and programme, and reasonable

alternatives taking into account the objectives and the geographical scope of the plan or

programme, are identified, described and evaluated’ (SEA Directive, Article 5). Outlined

below are the main options that have been subject to assessment. These are as

follows:

Playing Pitch Provision options:

• Option 1 – No Policy within the Local Plan outlining a strategy

towards playing pitch provision.

• Option 2 – Policy in the Local Plan (LT2) outlining the

approach for playing pitch provision throughout the District of

Rochford.

• Option 3 – Policy in the Local Plan (LT2) outlining the

approach for playing pitch provision throughout the District of

Rochford and a Supplementary Planning Document elaborating on

the detail of the policy.

80

Rochford District Council – Supplementary Planning Document – Playing Pitch Strategy Supplementary Planning Document (2006) Comparison of the Options Table 17

Option 1 – No Policy within the Local Plan outlining a strategy towards playing pitch provision.

Option 2 – Policy in the Local Plan (LT2) outlining the approach for playing pitch provision throughout the District of Rochford.

SEA Objective

Performance Short, Medium and Long Term

Commentary/ Explanation

Performance Short, Medium and Long Term

Commentary/ Explanation

1) Provide

improved

access and

opportunities

for all to

open space,

sport and

? ? ? Without a policy there would be no local

statutory mechanism to ensure that there is

an adequate and sustainable provision of

playing pitches throughout the District of

Rochford. It is important that a coherent

approach to playing pitch provision is

developed and adhered to, to ensure that the

? ? ? Without SPD the following would be

unclear:

• Where obligations would be

required for playing pitch

provision;

• The design measures deemed

appropriate for playing pitches.

81

recreation.

2) Improve

quality of

public realm

and open

spaces in

urban and

rural areas.

3) To deliver

safe, healthy

and attractive

places to

live.

4) To ensure

that new

development

contributes to

enhancing

the

existing and future generation have adequate

access to playing pitches locally within the

District of Rochford. Furthermore it is

considered that the quality of design may be

poorer due to a lack of framework. It is

therefore concluded that the impact would be

uncertain.

• The expected size of playing

pitches.

• Infrastructure required for

playing pitches.

Without a clear framework to inform

negotiations this would result in less

certainty in enhancing and proving

playing pitches to meet the needs of the

resident community and therefore could

impact upon capacity and the ability of

the population to access playing

pitches.

82

character,

appearance,

recreational

and

biodiversity

value.

5) To

promote

efficient use

of land and

the re-use of

previously-

developed

sites.

6) To

preserve and

enhance the

historic

environment.

83

7) To

preserve and

enhance the

cultural

environment.

Option 3 – Policy in the Local Plan (LT2) outlines the approach for playing pitch provision throughout the District of Rochford and a Supplementary Planning Document elaborating on the detail of the policy.

SEA Objective

Performance Short, Medium and Long Term

Commentary/ Explanation

1) Provide

improved

access and

opportunities

for all to

open space,

The combination of the policy with

supplementary planning document provides

the clearest framework for ensuring that the

need of the existing and future community is

met.

84

sport and

recreation.

2) Improve

quality of

public realm

and open

spaces in

urban and

rural areas.

3) To deliver

safe, healthy

and attractive

places to

live.

4) To ensure

that new

development

contributes to

enhancing

However it is considered that the draft SPD

could be improved – see appraising policies

section.

85

the

character,

appearance,

recreational

and

biodiversity

value.

5) To

promote

efficient use

of land and

the re-use of

previously-

developed

sites.

6) To

preserve and

enhance the

historic

environment.

86

7) To

preserve and

enhance the

cultural

environment.

87

Chapter 6 - Monitoring Implementation of Core Strategy

Chapter 6 Monitoring Implementation of Playing Pitch Strategy Supplementary Planning Document The SEA Directive states that “Member States shall monitor the significant

environmental effects of the implementation of plans and programmes in order, inter alia,

to identify at an early stage unforeseen adverse effects, and to be able to undertake

appropriate remedial action” (Article.10.1). Furthermore the Environmental Report shall

include “a description of the measures envisaged concerning monitoring” (Annex 1 (i)).

This Chapter aims to outline the monitoring framework for the Rochford District Council

Playing Pitch Strategy Supplementary Planning Document

The monitoring of the Plan “allows the actual significant environmental effects of

implementing the plan or programme to be tested against those predicted” (Office of the

Deputy Prime Minister, 2005, 39). The monitoring of the Playing Pitch Strategy

Supplementary Planning Document will aid in the identification of any problems

that may arise during the Playing Pitch Strategy Supplementary Planning Documents

implementation.

The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister published ‘Sustainability Appraisal of Regional

Spatial Strategies and Local Development Documents’ (November, 2005). This

guidance demonstrates that the monitoring framework should consider the following;

• the time, frequency and geographical extent of monitoring (e.g. link to

timeframes for targets, and monitoring whether the effects is predicted to

be short, medium or long term);

• Who is responsible for the different monitoring tasks, including the

collection processing and evaluation of social, environmental and

economic information; and

• How to present the monitoring information with regard to its purpose and

the expertise of those who will have to act upon the information (e.g.

89

information may have to be presented in a form accessible to non-

environmental specialists).

(Source; Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, 2005, 149)

The table 18 outlines the SEA monitoring framework for the Playing Pitch Strategy

Supplementary Planning Documents significant effects.

Table 18

Monitoring Activity

Targets Responsible Authority

Temporal Extent (Frequency of Monitoring)

Presentation Format

Any Issues with the Monitoring

To monitor

playing pitch

sizes to

determine

whether they

comply with

the criterion

outlined in

policy LT2

and table 1

of the SPD.

Context Rochford

District

Council

Annual Tabulated May not be

currently

monitored.

To monitor

the number

of playing

pitch

planning

applications

with

conditions

related to

Context Rochford

District

Council

Annual Tabulated May not be

currently

monitored.

90

the Sport

England

Design and

Technical

Guidelines.

To monitor

the number

of playing

pitch

planning

applications

within the

Greenbelt.

Context Rochford

District

Council

Annual Tabulated/mapped May not be

currently

monitored.

To monitor

planning

obligations

sought for

playing

pitches and

related

facilities

throughout

the District

of Rochford.

Context Rochford

District

Council

Annual Tabulated May not be

currently

monitored.

To monitor

the extent to

which

priorities for

drainage

outlined in

table 12.3

(Assessment

of Playing

Pitches’

Context Rochford

District

Council

Annual Tabulated None

91

October

2002) are

being

addressed.

The following information highlights contextual effects that may be monitored to provide

an indication of the general state of the environment and determine the effect the

Playing Pitch Strategy Supplementary Planning Document is having upon the Rochford

District Council as a whole.

92

Appendices

93

Appendix 1

94

Appendix 1 Review of the Plans and Programmes – Assessment of Playing Pitches in Rochford District

Plan/ Programme

Key objectives relevant to the plan and SA

Key targets and indictors relevant to plan and SA

Implications for SA

International

European and

International

Sustainability

Development

Strategy

• Limit climate change and increase

the use of clean energy.

• Address threats to public health.

• Manage natural resources more

responsibly.

• Improve the transport system and

land use management.

• Each of the objectives has a set

of headline objectives and also

measures at the EU level.

Headline Objectives;

• The EU will meet its Kyoto

commitment. Thereafter, the

EU should aim to reduce

atmospheric greenhouse gas

emissions by an average of 1%

per year over 1990 levels up to

2020.

• By 2020, ensure that chemicals

are only produced and used in

ways that do not pose

significant threats to human

Need to address human health.

Access to playing pitches in terms of

opportunity and transportation accessibility.

95

health and the environment.

• Protect and restore habitats

and natural systems and halt

the loss of biodiversity by 2010.

European

Spatial

Development

Perspective

(May, 1999)

Spatial development policies promote

sustainable development of the EU

through a balanced spatial structure;

• Development of a balanced and

polycentric urban system and a

new urban-rural relationship;

• Securing parity of access to

infrastructure and knowledge; and

• Sustainable development,

prudent management and

protection of nature and cultural

heritage.

Accessibility of playing pitches in terms of

transportation and location.

European

Community

Biodiversity

Strategy

• Anticipate, prevent and attack the

causes of significant reduction or

loss of biological diversity at the

source.

• No relevant targets. Preserve the biodiversity.

96

Environment

2010: Our

Future, Our

Choice

The Sixth Environment Action Programme of the European Community

• Tackle climate change,

• Protect nature and wildlife,

• Address environment and health

issues,

• Preserve natural resources and

manage waste.

• Reduce greenhouse gas

emissions by 8% compared

with 1990 levels by 2008 – 12

(as agreed at Kyoto);

• Reduce global emissions by

approximately 20-40% on 1990

levels 2020;

• Tackle the long term goal of a

70% reduction in emissions set

by the Intergovernmental Panel

on Climate Change.

• Reduce the quantity of waste

going to final disposal by 20%

on 2000 levels by 2010 and in

the order of 50% by 2050.

Need to address human health.

National

PPS1; Delivering

Sustainable

Development

Development plans should promote

development that creates socially

inclusive communities, including

suitable mixes of housing. Plan

policies should:

• address accessibility (both in

Indicator;

• Accessibility for all members of

the community to jobs, health,

housing, education, shops,

leisure and community facilities.

Target;

Ensure opportunity and accessibility for all

persons throughout the District of Rochford

to playing pitches.

Ensure that playing pitches are designed to

a high quality promoting a safe and

attractive environment.

97

terms of location and physical

access) for all members of the

community to jobs, health,

housing, education, shops,

leisure and community facilities

• deliver safe, healthy and attractive

places to live

• support the promotion of health

and well being by making

provision for physical activity.

Planning should seek to maintain and

improve the local environment and

help to mitigate the effects of

declining environmental quality

through positive policies on issues

such as design, conservation and the

provision of public space

Development plan policies should

take account of environmental issues

such as:

• Development policies should

avoid unnecessary detail and

should concentrate on guiding

overall scale, density, massing,

height, landscape, layout and

access of new development in

relation to neighbouring buildings.

Encourage healthy living through the

provision of opportunities to playing pitches.

98

• the need to improve the built and

natural environment in and

around urban areas and rural

settlements, including the

provision of good quality open

space;

• High quality and inclusive design

should be the aim of all those

involved in the development

process and should create well-

mixed and integrated

developments which avoid

segregation and have well-

planned public spaces that bring

people together and provide

opportunities for physical activity

and recreation

PPG2; Green

Belt • Once Green Belts have been

defined, the use of land in them

has a positive role to play in

Role of the greenbelt regarding sports

provision and facilities.

99

providing opportunities for

outdoor sport and outdoor

recreation near urban areas.

• The construction of new buildings

inside a Green Belt is

inappropriate unless it is providing

essential facilities for outdoor

sport and outdoor recreation, for

cemeteries, and for other uses of

land which preserve the

openness of the Green Belt and

which do not conflict with the

purposes of including land in it.

Possible examples of such

facilities include small changing

rooms or unobtrusive spectator

accommodation for outdoor sport,

or small stables for outdoor sport

and outdoor recreation

PPG3; Housing • Local planning authorities should

have clear policies for the

protection and creation of open

space and playing fields, and new

• National Playing Fields

standard for the provision of

playing pitches which is

approximately 1.8 hectares of

Standards for playing pitch provision.

100

housing developments should

incorporate sufficient provision

where such spaces are not

already adequately provided

within easy access of the new

housing.

pitches, courts, greens etc. per

1000 population, including at

least 1.2 hectares of pitches.

PPS 7;

Sustainable

Development in

Rural Areas

• Planning authorities should aim to

secure environmental

improvements and maximise a

range of beneficial uses of land,

whilst reducing potential conflicts

between neighbouring land uses.

This should include improvement

of public access (e.g. through

support for country parks and

community forests) and facilitating

the provision of appropriate sport

and recreation facilities

• Regional planning bodies and

local planning authorities should

recognise through RSS and LDDs

that tourism and leisure activities

Accessibility and provision of playing

pitches and sporting facilities within rural

environments.

101

are vital to many rural economies.

As well as sustaining many rural

businesses

PPS 9;

Biodiversity and

Geological

Conservation

• To promote sustainable

development by ensuring that

biological and geological diversity

are conserved and enhanced as

an integral part of social,

environmental and economic

development;

• To contribute to rural renewal and

urban renaissance, ensuring that

developments take account of the

role and value of biodiversity in

supporting economic

diversification and contributing to

a high quality environment; and

• Plan policies should promote

opportunities for the incorporation

of beneficial biodiversity and

geological features within the

design of development.

• The location of designated sites

of importance for biodiversity and

geodiversity, making clear

distinctions between the hierarchy

of international, national, regional

and locally designated sites;

• Identify areas or sites for

restoration or creation of new

priority habitats which contribute

to regional targets;

• Quantity of use of previously

developed land for new

development (previously

developed land makes a major

contribution to sustainable

development by reducing the

amount of courtside and

undeveloped land that needs to

be used); and

• Number of planning obligations

Maintenance and enhancement of biological

diversity.

The contribution that playing pitches can

make towards rural renewal and urban

renaissance.

102

used to ‘building-in beneficial

biodiversity or geological features

as part of good design’.

PPS 12; Local

Development

Frameworks

*Objectives not relevant to SEA/SA No relevant targets. Provides an understanding as to the

important role planning plays in the delivery

of sustainable development.

PPG 13;

Transport • New development should help to

create places that connect with

each other sustainably, providing

the right conditions to encourage

walking, cycling and the use of

public transport. People should

come before traffic; and

• Reduce the need to travel,

especially by car.

• National parking standards are

outlined.

Accessibility by a choice of mode of

transportation.

PPG 14;

Development on

Unstable Land

• Ensure that development is

suitable and that the physical

constraints on the land are taken

into account.

• No relevant targets.

PPG 15;

Planning and the

Historic

Environment

• Local planning authorities should

protect registered parks and

gardens in preparing

development plans and in

• No relevant targets. Maintenance and protection of the historic

environment.

103

determining planning

applications. Planning and

highway authorities should also

safeguard registered parks or

gardens when themselves

planning new developments or

road schemes.

• The Register of Parks and

Gardens of Special Historic

Interest in England is maintained

by English Heritage, to whom all

enquiries about its compilation

should be made. Sites of

exceptional historic interest are

assessed as grade I, those of

great historic interest as grade II*

and those of special historic

interest as grade II. The grading

of these sites is independent of

the grading of any listed building

which falls within the area. The

Register is under review, with the

aim of extending its coverage of

104

parks and gardens deserving

protection.

PPG16;

Archaeology and

Planning

• Preserve, enhance and protect sites

of archaeological interest.

• Useful source for baseline data,

indicators and potential target

formation – Royal Commission

on the Historical Monuments of

England (RCHME).

• Preserve, enhance and protect sites

of archaeological interest.

PPG17;

Planning for

Open, Space,

Sport and

Recreation

• To ensure effective planning for

open space, sport and recreation

it is essential that the needs of

local communities are known.

• Existing open space, sports and

recreational buildings and land

should not be built on unless an

assessment has been undertaken

which has clearly shown the open

space or the buildings and land to

be surplus to requirements. For

open space, 'surplus to

requirements' should include

consideration of all the functions

that open space can perform. Not

This is of significant importance to the SEA.

105

all open space, sport and

recreational land and buildings

are of equal merit and some may

be available for alternative uses.

• The recreational quality of open

spaces can be eroded by

insensitive development or

incremental loss of the site. In

considering planning applications

- either within or adjoining open

space - local authorities should

weigh any benefits being offered

to the community against the loss

of open space that will occur.

• In rural areas those sports and

recreational facilities which are

likely to attract significant

numbers of participants or

spectators should be located in,

or on the edge of, country towns.

Smaller scale facilities will be

acceptable where they are

106

located in, or adjacent to villages

to meet the needs of the local

community.

• Planning obligations should be

used as a means to remedy local

deficiencies in the quantity or

quality of open space, sports and

recreational provision. Local

authorities will be justified in

seeking planning obligations

where the quantity or quality of

provision is inadequate or under

threat, or where new development

increases local needs.

PPG20; Coastal

Planning • To facilitate and enhance the

enjoyment, of heritage coasts by

improving and extending

opportunities for recreational,

educational, sporting and tourist

activities that draw on, and are

consistent with conservation of their

natural beauty and the protection of

• Baseline data regarding the

amount of development within

the coastline and size of coastal

sites.

• No targets.

107

their heritage features; and

• Protect and enhance the natural

character and landscape of the

undeveloped coastline.

PPG24;

Planning and

Noise

• Minimise the impact of noise

without placing unreasonable

restrictions on development;

• planning conditions should be

imposed to ensure that the

effects of noise are mitigated as

far as possible. For example,

intervening buildings or

structures (such -as garages)

may be designed to serve as

noise barriers.

• No targets.

• Contains Noise Exposure

Categories.

Noise impact and possible need for

mitigation.

PPG 25;

Development

and Flood Risk

• Reduce the risks to people and

the developed and natural

environment from flooding;

• Developers should fund the

provision and maintenance of

flood defences that are required

because of the development; and

• Contains baseline data for

Britain.

Appropriate development in areas of flood

risk.

108

• Development needs to be of a

design and with an appropriate

level of protection to ensure that

the risk of damage from flooding

is minimised, while not

increasing the risk of flooding

elsewhere.

Securing the

Future

Delivering UK

Sustainable

Development

Strategy (March,

2005)

Guiding principles for the 2005 UK

Sustainable Development Strategy;

• Living within environmental

limits;

• Ensuring a strong, healthy and

just society;

• Achieving a sustainable

economy;

• Promoting good governance; and

• Using sound science

responsibly.

• Very comprehensive list of

targets and indicators in

chapter 7 of the document.

Contribution that playing pitches and

sporting facilities may make towards

ensuring a strong and healthy society.

REGIONAL

Regional

Planning

Guidance for the

South East

The main principles that should govern

the continuing development of the Region

are;

• Very comprehensive list of

targets and indicators (Page

100-101).

Promoting green corridors, and a healthy

community.

109

(RPG9) (March,

2001) • the importance of maximise the

essential contribution made by

open spaces, green corridors and

trees in urban and rural areas in

terms of their benefits for wildlife

habitats, recreational and cultural

value and wider environmental

and social benefits.

• That health is affected by a range

of factors including the provision

of a safe, secure and sustainable

environment, reducing pollution,

adequate housing provision,

access to leisure and recreation,

reducing social exclusion and

increasing employment

opportunities.

• That throughout the Region the

countryside should fulfil a range

of needs including recreation,

farming, forestry, military uses

and the local economy, while

110

safeguarding landscape and

biodiversity.

Draft Regional

Spatial Strategy

for the East of

England

(RSS14)

(December,

2004)

Objectives include community strategies

to look at the role and function of a

settlement in a long-term context and

identify opportunities for enhancing its

development in a sustainable way, with

particular focus on:

• The provision of appropriate open

space, sport and recreation use

including the potential for the use

of the area surrounding the

settlement for formal and informal

recreation.

• Ensuring that new development

contributes to enhancing the

character, appearance,

recreational and biodiversity value

of the urban fringe.

• Comprehensive list of targets

and indicators are set out in

appendix D (page 237).

Need to provide sporting and recreational

facilities.

Ensuring that new development contributes

positively to green space and the local

character, such as playing pitches.

111

• The design of such development

will need to address any concerns

over adverse impacts on traffic

levels, social and community

facilities. Areas of open space will

need to be provided in new

housing development, to meet

recreational needs and to deliver

biodiversity, health and visual

amenity benefits.

County

Essex and

Southend-on-

Sea

Replacement

Structure Plan

(Adopted April,

2001)

Objectives :

To promote a wide range of opportunities

to take part in sport and recreation

through the provision of adequate and

accessible facilities, land and water

resources.

That sites for sport/leisure centres should

be located within or adjoining urban areas

identified in adopted local plans as such

Accessibility and opportunities for sporting

and recreational facilities.

112

locations minimising the need to travel,

and provide access for travel modes other

than car (e.g. cycling, walking etc.)

Local

Rochford District

Local Plan (First

Review), 1995

Objective:

To provide for and encourage the

provision of leisure and other community

facilities and to make good, where

possible, deficiencies that have arisen

from past high rates of housing

development.

The local planning authority has adopted

a general policy of providing 2.5 hectares

of open space per 1000 population, and in

all urban settlements all residential areas

should be within half a kilometre of a large

open space (at least 2 hectares) or within

one-fifth of a kilometre of a small open

space (at least 0.4 hectares.

Attention will also be paid to the National

The local planning authority has

adopted a general policy of providing

2.5 hectares of open space per 1000

population, and in all urban settlements

all residential areas should be within

half a kilometre of a large open space

(at least 2 hectares) or within one-fifth

of a kilometre of a small open space (at

least 0.4 hectares.

Attention will also be paid to the

National Playing Fields standard for the

provision of playing pitches which is

approximately 1.8 hectares of pitches,

courts, greens etc. per 1000 population,

including at least 1.2 hectares of

Ensure adequate provision of sporting and

recreational facilities to meet community

needs.

Playing pitch standards are outlined.

113

Playing Fields standard for the provision

of playing pitches which is approximately

1.8 heactares of pitches, courts, greens

etc. per 1000 population, including at

least 1.2 hectares of pitches.

The plan will seek to safeguard all

existing areas of Public Open Space and

include work sympathetic to nature

conservation. In appropriate cases, the

Council will be mindful of the possibility of

transferring the area concerned to the

NPFA to ensure it use as open space in

perpetuity.

Policy LT2

The local planning authority will

encourage the retention of existing private

playing fields, sports grounds and open

spaces

Policy LT3

The local planning authority will

encourage proposals for indoor and

outdoor sports clubs and similar facilities,

pitches.

114

but will have regard to:

• The likely noise and disturbance

resulting from the activities

• The need to limit the use of

building and site in the interest of

residential amenity

• The likely volume of traffic that

would be generated

• The adequacy of the transport

network and means of access to

the site

• The adequacy of off-street

parking

• The impact of the development

on the visual amenities in the

area

• The existence of similar facilities

with the locality.

Policy LT5

The local planning authority will

encourage the joint provision and multi-

use of recreation facilities in educational

and other establishments.

115

116

Appendix 2

117

Playing Pitches Strategy Supplementary Planning Document

Appraising Plans Policies – Policy Summary

Appraising Plans Policy 1 (APP1) The LPA will require contributions towards the provision of additional, or enhance

existing playing pitches in cases of development comprising 10 or more dwellings. A

contribution towards improvement or maintenance of existing facilities may be in some

cases considered in preference to the provision of a new facility.

Developer contributions will not be required when the proposed development

incorporates the adequate provision of leisure facilities or playing pitches, providing that

such leisure facilities can be secured for community use. The level of contribution

required will be dependent on the level of additional playing pitch demand generated,

together with the current costs of providing such playing pitches at the time of the

allocation.

Appraising Plans Policy 2 (APP2) – Greenbelt The use of land as a sports pitch may be considered as an appropriate land use within

the Green Belt. However, the construction of significant club houses or large scale car

parks is likely to be considered inappropriate in the Green Belt (subject to the criteria set

out in policy Lt2 of the Rochford Replacement District Local Plan).

118

Assessment of Playing Pitches – Changing Areas

In Areas of Green Belt, support buildings and changing facilities should not exceed the

minimum space requirements set in the Sport England Design and Technical Guidelines.

This recommended space per pitch should allow for two sports teams, officials and

storage:

Association Football - 40m²

Cricket - 38m²

Hockey - 40m²

Rugby (League & Union) - 48m²

Additional space for the provision of toilet and shower facilities may also be required.

Appraising Plans Policy 3 (APP3) – Design It is important that any facilities which are provided, whether as result of developer

contributions or otherwise, are of sufficient quality to ensure they are of maximum benefit

to the community. Proposed schemes will normally be assessed against the Sport

England design and technical guidelines.

119

Appraising Plans Policy 4 (APP4) – Size of Pitches Recommended Pitch Size for Association Football

Pitch dimensions (meters) Suggested pitch size (meters)

Suggested size of goal posts (meters) Length

Width

Length x

Width

Height x Width

Max

Min

Max

Min

Youth U17 - U18 and seniors

101 x 64 2.44 x 7.32 120 90 90 45.5

Mini Soccer U7 - U8

46 x 27 1.83 x 3.66 45.75 27.45 27.45 18.3

Mini Soccer U9 - U10

55 x 37 1.83 x 3.66 54.9 45.75 36.6 27.45

Youth U11 – U12

73 x 46 2.13 x 6.4 82 68.25 50.77 42

Youth U13 – U14

82 x 50 2.13 x 6.4 91 72.8 56 45.5

Youth U15- U16

91 x 55 2.44 x 7.32 100.6 82.3 64 45.5

Cricket Any proposed cricket pitch in Rochford District should be a rectangular area of 22

yards/20.12m in length and 10ft/3.05m in width, with the boundary line 50 to 90 yards

from the centre of the pitch, in accordance with the England Cricket Board and the

Marylebone Cricket Club.

Hockey A full size hockey pitch should measure 91.4 m in length and 55 m in width, with a mini

hockey pitch measuring 55 m in length and 43 m in width in accordance with the

England Hockey Association. However it is important to note that synthetic turf pitches

are required for competitive level hockey.

120

Rugby It is recommended that Rugby pitches be no more than 100m long and 70m wide, with

the possibility that they may also be used for association football.

Appraising Plans Policy 5 (APP5) – Transportation Infrastructure Any planning application for new playing pitch facilities should demonstrate an adequate

level of infrastructure on the site by sustainable forms of transport.

Appraising Plans Policy 6 (APP6) – Drainage

Any new playing pitch facilities should be designed to include good drainage. Developer

contributions will also be required, when appropriate, to improve drainage of existing

pitches in the district.

Appraising Plans Policy 6 (APP6) – Ensuring Pitches are Secured for Use by the Community Pitches and formal space is required by way of developer contributions and obligations,

to be secured for community use by way of legal agreement.

121