Sir or Madam

ROCHFORD DISTRICT COUNCIL'S CORE STRATEGY - PREFERRED OPTIONS

Do we need to cover the ever diminishing land area in the UK with more sterile concrete and tarmac? Yes is the Government's directive...NO is my emphatic response.

Government's basic argument is that more homes are needed for a growing population but I understand the birth-rate is actually falling in the UK at this moment in time. This represents to me a very sophisticated signal that the Government intends to allow uncontrolled immigration into the UK should such a policy be allowed to proceed unchecked we will all suffer...black, brown, yellow or white.

The Revd. Thomas R Malthaus (1766-1835) commented at the time of the Napoleonic Wars that if the population was allowed to increase unchecked it would lead to misery, disease and vice. What's changed? Since 1951 there has been a massive increase in anti-social behaviour, gratuitous street violence, drug abuse etc etc. and Government's proposals can only make matters worse to the point of the increased possibility of public disorder.

The 'consultation process' is nothing more than a gigantic sham.

As a result of past housing, industrial and retail developments within Rochford District Council's area between 1 January 1959 and 31 December 2008 we have already reached unacceptable levels of population growth, therefore even a small addition would place an even greater strain on our limited basic services such as health provision, educational establishments, transport etc...not forgetting the impact such proposed developments would have on our 'quality of life'.

Rochford District could become a 'hell hole' or a 21st century slum!

Yes the council must examine all opportunities to build on degraded land ie brownfield sites, also checking out empty properties for habitation plus space above retail outlets. There appears to be some 'wasted space' around the districts railway stations which could be utilised for housing development...the council should approach Network Rail to ascertain the possibilities.

I repeat NO development on Green belt land nor on non designated open spaces within the area.

With regard to the provision of health services. Covert rationing of health services to an even greater extent than exists today...the over 60's will be section targeted as they are not a viable economic unit. NHS speak for a person not between the ages of 5 and 55. A Government Economist will instantly recognise this as an ideal solution to eradicate the 'Pensions Bombshell'. The Treasury don't have to provide funding to pay pensions to deceased persons. Problem solved for the Government.

Public transport provision. All road and rail services have been privatised and operate primarily for profit not as a public service. The current load factor on services 7 and 8 serving Hockley is dismal therefore the service provider will cut services to meet demand and reduce financial losses.

What is not provided is a local bus service within Hockley to connect all outlying housing estates with the central area...shops, library, bank, doctors etc...the viability of providing such a bus service or services should be undertaken by the Council. In addition such a review should include a 'park and ride' element to reduce unnecessary car journeys within the district...one car one driver is uneconomic and a polluting nuisance.

Car fumes KILL more people than car crashes. This, coupled with increased road congestion means that 'road pricing' schemes must be on the agenda. Highly contentious maybe but becoming ever more necessary when you consider all these new dwellings when or if built.

Food security. It's not just a global problem it's banging away at our backdoor. The proposals to build more dwellings in the area without a food plan could result in serious problems. Think about it. Diminishing soil and water resources plus the proposed population growth present an unprecedented threat to local food security.

Malthaus also said that unchecked population growth would lead to famine. Some key facts. In 1900, 40% of the UK population was involved in farming; now it's less than 1%...90% of all fruit and 50% of our vegetables are imported.

Today the pound is losing value that means these imports will cost more. For information I attach an article which appeared in 'The Observer' Sunday 16 November 2008.

A final fact. The complacent UK Government's official food policy is to rely on global imports and intensive farming practice to ensure supply. Meanwhile, a range of threats such as climate change, peak oil, resource depletion, and possible growing prosperity in other parts of the world mean serious questions need to be asked whether this policy will remain sustainable over the long term.

Food security is not only a problem for developing countries...it's our problem as well when you take into account our current economic woes.

In conclusion who will pay for all the necessary infrastructure should this strategy be implemented...all council tax payers another gloomy fact.

I apologies for being 'off message'.