We are writing to object to the Rochford Core Strategy of allowing the construction of 175 houses in the ward of Hawkwell West, we consider that this strategy is unsound because the vital requirements of PPS 12 are not met in terms of sustainability, and that therefore the location of Hawkwell West should be removed by the Inspector and the allocation moved to a sustainable location.

You have invited comments in relation to the planning merits of this core strategy, a strategy that we believe the vast majority of local residents oppose due to the large number of dwellings proposed to be constructed on green belt land with resulting loss of natural wildlife habitat.

My wife was born in Hawkwell in the late 1940's and we have lived in either Hockley or Hawkwell for all of our married life, and for the last 29 years in Rectory Road at the above address.

Throughout all of that time housing developments of one sort or another have taken place within the Parish boundaries: Spencers on the site of the former Spencer Nursery, White Hart Lane, Victor Gardens, Hillside Avenue and at various locations in Main Road Hawkwell eg the site of the former Hawkwell Primary School, Hookers Garage and shops on White Hart Hill demolished with houses being built in their place.

What all of these residential developments have in common is that the number of homes being built were of a size that could be assimilated comfortably within the existing village community and in the main did not detract from the pleasant semi-rural environment of Hawkwell.

The core strategy proposal is for 175 homes to be built on an adjoining parcel of green belt land in Rectory Road thereby creating a huge new housing estate that will be approximately ¾ times larger than any other previous single development in Hawkwell.

The result - should this development be approved - will be the destruction of a natural nature reserve and the loss forever of the pleasant rural environment of Hawkwell which is the main reason that most current residents have chosen to live in the area.

Our specific objections to the proposal are briefly detailed as follows not necessarily in any order or importance:-

Building on existing green belt land.

A 175 home estate is far too large for a relatively small village

Infrastructure of Hawkwell is inadequate to cope with the demands of a development of this size.

175 new houses means at least another 300/400 daily cars on our already congested roads - B1013 is one of the busiest B roads in the country.

Doctors surgeries, Schools and Dentists are full to overflowing and our Fire Service is a retained one not permanently manned.

The proposed site for development is at a considerable distance from shops and railway stations.

The local bus service has been reduced giving few options to travel other than by private car.

Rectory Road from Clements Hall to Nursery Corner is very narrow with buses and lorries having great difficulty in passing.

In the morning rush hour the traffic down Rectory Road to Nursery Corner is already very congested often backing up way past the entrance to the Clements Hall Sports Centre.

The area proposed for development abounds with wildlife: muntjac deer, badgers, foxes and numerous birds currently reside on the land.

Trees and hedging would be lost to be replaced with a concrete jungle.

Living as we do opposite the Christmas Tree Farm we recognize that the charge of 'nimbyism' is likely to be levelled against us and it is obvious that we are one of the families most affected by this proposed development, however we understand that villages and communities evolve and that part of this process results in increased levels of housing.

Our main objection therefore is the size of the development on green belt land, a development that if permitted will destroy the rural ambience and character of Hawkwell for ever.

The Core Strategy talks about protecting the character of existing settlements and specifically 'seeks to take advantage of development opportunities that will provide social, economic and environmental benefits'. No such benefits would apply to this location and development would be materially detrimental to the character of the existing settlement in Hawkwell West. It also states 'there is a limit to how much infilling and intensification existing settlements can sustain without their character being adversely affected'. This limit has already been exceeded in Hawkwell West.

Finally we would question the demand eg a number of the flats built at the top of White Hart Hill remain unoccupied some 2 years after completion.