Soundness

The development is detrimental to Community Cohesion
The site is not properly integrated with the existing village of Hullbridge. A "green buffer" is to exist "in perpetuity between new and existing developments".
The 3.6 hectares of natural green space will only be directly accessible from the new development.
A significant part of the development will take place in Rawreth, the neighbouring Parish and Ward. Although these dwellings will be "in Hullbridge", as there is no other built up area surrounding Hullbridge (it being Green Belt Land) they will actually be in Rawreth under a separate Parish Council and District Councillors.
This development as proposed, evidenced above, will not promote community cohesion but will in fact be creating a separate village to Hullbridge destroying the current community feeling that exists.

Highways
Although mention of limited highway improvements is in the report no detail is given as there is no Transport Assessment from Essex County Council in the Core Strategy. The only Transport Impact Assessment required will be developer funded and relate only to SER6, without taking into account either highway issues or other developments (e.g. SER1) elsewhere in the District. No assessment of road improvements required has been made and Ferry Road, onto which much of the new traffic will go, has not been mentioned in the report.
Hullbridge has one bus scheduled every 20 minutes which goes to Southend via Rayleigh, there is no Railway Station and most people travelling by train would use Rayleigh. Most employment is outside of the village with people mainly working in Rayleigh, Southend, Chelmsford and London. As Southend Airport is the main driver for employment in the area this to will be a key employment area as evidenced by the JAAP (Joint Area Action Plan) with Southend. From this evidence it can be seen most people living in Hullbridge of a working age will travel out by car to other areas or towns.
Traffic through Hullbridge at the Southern end of the village along Lower Road, Hullbridge Road and Watery Lane is already very high and carries vehicles driving from and to the west and central areas of the District, most vehicles using this route are from outside of Hullbridge. Watery Lane is itself is single carriageway for most of its length and is subject to flooding causing its closure on a significant number of days each year, as I type the road had had water across its entire carriageway for over a month and although passable with care has had road closed signs up for all of that time. Such closures cause problems with the traffic as vehicles using Watery Lane on a daily basis divert along Hullbridge Road to Rawreth Lane. This causes severe traffic delays with queues stretching back along the Hullbridge Road through Hullbridge for at least 2 miles. These vehicles are then queuing along Rawreth Lane to reach the A1245 junction for a further 2 miles.
As there is also a development (SER1) proposed along Rawreth Lane this will further exacerbate the existing and future traffic problems as at present Rawreth Lane is at or near capacity as evidenced by a recent traffice survey
The secondary School to which most students go to from Hullbridge, Sweyne Park, has advised me that Hullbridge Pupils are late on mass when there are problems with the road and the policy is to mark them as on time whenever the buses arrive, such regular lateness is detrimental to the students..
In addition no impact on the district roads has been made with regard to the Fairglen Interchange (A127/A130/A1245 junction) which lies just outside the District but which has a profound knock on effect when flooded with vehicles moving to either London Road or Rawreth Lane, two roads affected by SER6 and also, more directly by SER1.
It is stated that highway improvements should be made to accompany the development of the site, this will be to late as improvements must be made first given the current state of the highways network.
An individual traffic assessments for SER6, as proposed, and separately for each development will not be effective as they will not take into account the knock on effects of other developments in the District such as SER1. There is a token mention in SER6 of contributing towards improvements to the highway network at the western part of the network there is no definition of what is "western" and why other developments in the "Western" part of the district have no such requirement.

Flooding
There are two parts of this.
Firstly the road network is subject to flooding with, as already mentioned, Watery Lane being closed a significant number of times each year due to it being under water. The reasons for its flooding are twofold.
It is below sea level meaning that at high tide the river running alongside it and then under it cannot drain to sea at high tide causing the water to back up and flood the road.
The water table is above the level of the road, the water could be pumped away but it will just come back.
Secondly the southern part of the site is subject to flooding. It is not shown as a flood risk zone as flood risk is based on insurance claims, no claims have been made as it is agricultural land. Again the water table is at or very close to the surface and any pumping to alleviate the problem would not be effective.
The proposed "ponds to take the excess water along Watery Lane are not shown on the plans and will further erode the Green Belt boundary.
Part of the site is within the Coastal Protection belt as evidenced on maps. It appears that the Coastal Protection belt has been "moved" to accommodate this development.

Rawreth
Approximately one third, or around 6.2 hectares, of development SER6b (the second phase, will be in Rawreth, not Hullbridge. This also relates to the point above about community cohesion.
If the residents of the housing in SER6b live in Rawreth they will not be a part of Hullbridge, they will be represented by Rawreth Parish Council and Downhall & Rawreth District Councillors. They will pay a Parish Precept to Rawreth but get the facilities of Hullbridge.
Such a separation will again not foster Community Cohesion and does more to encourage the new development as a separate community.

Youth
Hullbridge has a Youth Centre which is currently underused; additional investment should be made to facilities there or at the Skate Park in the recreation ground rather than have additional facilities which will be underutilised.
No impact on school places appears to have been considered, with 600 dwellings proposed in SER1 and 500 at SER6 and currently 100 being built in the same road as the school I have been told the school will not have the capacity to meet demand physically it cannot get bigger)

Neighbourhood Shops
The suggestion that additional neighbourhood shops are required suggests a proper review has not been done of A1 use in Hullbridge, which then gives a concern about the report as a whole. With a population of around 7,300 Hullbridge has three (3) supermarkets; The Co-op, One Stop (owned by Tescos) and Budgens) as well as a number of other independent shops including a butcher and a greengrocer etc. Hullbridge is more than adequately served by shops, in fact the site was chosen for its proximity to the existing shops in Hullbridge.
Hullbridge is short of other business premises such as office or studio facilities and this has not been considered.
Other
The impact on the local doctors has not been assessed. The doctors are at or near capacity and would be physically unable to extend the practice to take on 1,500 patients (we have been told by the doctors this is the ration of patients to dwellings they would expect).

Legal Compliance

Consultation
I believe the consultation has not been carried out as required. The Council has a commitment to consult with Community Groups. In fact the Council has communicated with Community Groups in respect of other areas such as Hawkwell Residents Association, Hockley Residents Association, Hockley Parish Plan Group etc, but in Hullbridge they have failed to consult with either The Hullbridge Action Group or the Hullbridge Parish Plan Group. In the Sustainability Appraisal/Strategic Environmental Assessment Core Strategy Adoption Statement table 5 it was stated that "The Council has advised there will be considerable community involvement in the preparation. As no such involvement or consultations took place the plan cannot be legally compliant.