I object to sites that increase the urban sprawl including CFS261 and CFS126. I don't agree with you initial appraisal of CFS126 especially as it suggests that it could be good for regeneration of a deprived area. This area is not deprived therefore should be given a higher rating. No more houses should be built until the infrastructure is addressed prior to building. This does not mean the developer just handing extra money over as has happened with all the new developments across the area, this does not help the traffic problem. Nor does adding a filter lane to various junctions on the Ashingdon Road (as happened with the Hall Road development), as this only allows one more car to move forward as the filter lane is not big enough for more than that. The Highways technical report told you this road was over capacity years ago and you haven’t listened. There have been 227 days of roadworks over a span of 400 days between Ashingdon and the Anne Boleyn, that’s more than every other day meaning we are stuck in traffic throughout the day, more often than not, which triples my journey times. There are 4 primary schools and one secondary school at capacity (in fact class sizes have been increased due to demand). This is an exceptional circumstance not to build anywhere in this area due to the current congestion. Where is the new school originally in the Hall Road development? The number of built and planned housing has already gone over the 1500 that should trigger a new primary school. The only solution is a new road linking the areas, the current road cannot cope and it is the residents of Rochford and the surrounding area who suffer. Relieve the traffic problems first or do the traffic survey when there are roadworks going on and look at your results then, as that will give you a more realistic picture of the issue that everyone talks about. You, as our council, need to push back against the government targets which are unrealistic for this anywhere off the Ashingdon Road, it is unique. The green belt policy says that it should only be used in exceptional circumstances and need for housing is not in its own right and exceptional circumstance. Your policy is almost the opposite, in that it seems to be it should be used unless there is an exceptional circumstance not to. I would be very surprised if any of our views make a difference because you will choose the option that best suits the council not the residents.