Comment

Issues and Options Document

Representation ID: 34717

Received: 04/02/2018

Respondent: Anthony Bowley

Representation Summary:

Looking at the map of areas being considered for possible development around the Hullbridge village we question the suitability of area CFS099, land west of Hullbridge. Unless this site is separated in some way from the existing village then access to Ferry Rd. and all the amenities will be through unadopted roads which have to be maintained by local residents. The alternative will be through the Malyons Farm site, which from the drawings we've seen, doesn't show a road substantial enough to carry large amounts of traffic. Sites CFS149 And CFS006, also west of Hullbridge, would both have to be accessed via Watery Lane or the Malyons farm site.

Sites CFS033 and CFS101 have only one access through Pooles Lane which is extremely narrow at the community centre, where, being on a narrow blind bend the risk of accidents will increase. As a walk leader for the council run "walking for health" group, I, Mr. Bowley, am always anxious for the safety of the walkers at this part of Pooles Lane as the path is narrow and cars get very close to pedestrians. Traffic from both these sites will have to pass the Hullbridge infants and junior school in Ferry Rd.

Access into and out of site CFS015,adjacent to Hullbridge Rd. and Lower Rd., will have a major impact on traffic movement. We understand there are plans to modify the junction with Watery Lane/Lower Road/Hullbridge Road with an additional roundabout to create easier access into the Malyons farm site. Traffic on this particular stretch of road is already heavy with queues often backed up beyond Hullbridge towards Ashingdon and Hockley and along Hullbridge Road and Watery Lane at peak periods. If any of the sites CFS128,CFS151,CFS100,CFS041 or CFS042,to the east of Hullbridge, were to be developed the pressure on the Ferry Rd./Lower Rd. junction plus the junction at Watery Lane would no doubt be regularly gridlocked at peak times. Lower Road is being used by drivers from further east of Hullbridge to gain access to the north and west of the county and is considered a more direct route as opposed to Hockley Road and Rawreth Lane in an attempt to bypass traffic on the A127. Since the building of sites elsewhere in the area there has already been a huge increase in traffic through Lower Road. Further development within the peninsula will make matters worse and the drop in air quality which is already detectable will deteriorate even further.

Full text:

Looking at the map of areas being considered for possible development around the Hullbridge village we question the suitability of area CFS099, land west of Hullbridge. Unless this site is separated in some way from the existing village then access to Ferry Rd. and all the amenities will be through unadopted roads which have to be maintained by local residents. The alternative will be through the Malyons Farm site, which from the drawings we've seen, doesn't show a road substantial enough to carry large amounts of traffic. Sites CFS149 And CFS006, also west of Hullbridge, would both have to be accessed via Watery Lane or the Malyons farm site.

Sites CFS033 and CFS101 have only one access through Pooles Lane which is extremely narrow at the community centre, where, being on a narrow blind bend the risk of accidents will increase. As a walk leader for the council run "walking for health" group, I, Mr. Bowley, am always anxious for the safety of the walkers at this part of Pooles Lane as the path is narrow and cars get very close to pedestrians. Traffic from both these sites will have to pass the Hullbridge infants and junior school in Ferry Rd.

Access into and out of site CFS015,adjacent to Hullbridge Rd. and Lower Rd., will have a major impact on traffic movement. We understand there are plans to modify the junction with Watery Lane/Lower Road/Hullbridge Road with an additional roundabout to create easier access into the Malyons farm site. Traffic on this particular stretch of road is already heavy with queues often backed up beyond Hullbridge towards Ashingdon and Hockley and along Hullbridge Road and Watery Lane at peak periods. If any of the sites CFS128,CFS151,CFS100,CFS041 or CFS042,to the east of Hullbridge, were to be developed the pressure on the Ferry Rd./Lower Rd. junction plus the junction at Watery Lane would no doubt be regularly gridlocked at peak times. Lower Road is being used by drivers from further east of Hullbridge to gain access to the north and west of the county and is considered a more direct route as opposed to Hockley Road and Rawreth Lane in an attempt to bypass traffic on the A127. Since the building of sites elsewhere in the area there has already been a huge increase in traffic through Lower Road. Further development within the peninsula will make matters worse and the drop in air quality which is already detectable will deteriorate even further.

The question being asked by many Hullbridge residents is whether our doctors surgery and our local school will be able to cope with the population increase caused by the Malyons farm development, not forgetting the fact that Hullbridge has no senior school and the Schools in Rayleigh are oversubscribed with parents having to send their children outside their catchment area . Even Mark Francois MP has had to get involved(Evening Echo December 18th 2017).

My wife and I attended the meeting held 17th November where literature was available concerning future development. We were amazed by the way that finance is meant to be sourced (through rose tinted glasses). Given the current financial crisis, cut backs across the whole spectrum of government and developer's lust for profit, any infrastructural back up for further housing appears unlikely. Section 106 appears to be a magic wand.

The current population of Hullbridge and probably the rest of Rochford district has a large percentage of elderly people, of which we are both part, will not live forever and the houses we currently occupy will become available. Has this factor been taken into account? It won't help the immediate shortage of housing but then again neither is the current strategy of building large houses which are unaffordable. For the benefit of future generations why not build smaller homes which are affordable either to rent or buy, taking up less land and not using as much green belt. Could Rochford District Council NOT build as many large houses and allow the younger generation progress from affordable starter homes to houses which are currently being occupied by a decaying elderly population.