Firstly – the consultation document was inaccurate, misleading and used historical data – this makes the consultation invalid.
To evidence this I will give just one example of each of these;
Inaccuracy: map marked the Wakerings and Barling contained area CFs060 – which was then omitted on the map titled ‘stonebridge and Sutton’
Misleading: Even though it was clearly minited at a policy planning committee meeting (prior to the spatial options consultation being released) to use ‘ward names only’ (minuted as voted unanimously by the committee) it contained a map called ‘Stonebridge and Sutton’ this mislead residents.
Historical data: figures 9 and 10 (relating to Rochford residents work/destinations) this data is from 2011!
I will now comment on the areas to the east of the district; Named: ‘Wakerings and Barling’ and ‘Stonebridge & Sutton’ and list the reasons why the sites put forward are not suitable:
Road infrastructure:
Wakering/Barling is a peninsula with only 2 main roads into and out – if there is an emergency (as there has been historically) then these roads will barely cope. One road will NOT even be able to be widened as there are houses either side at key points. There are no viable options for a 3rd road.
Sites put forward for consideration provide no indication of where they would exit/entrance be – we have already seen the impact of a site in the current local plan where an inappropriate exit/entrance has been allowed – at the behest of Essex County Highways. The country lanes are not suitable for large developments – to reinforce this remember that the Majority of accidents (killed and seriously injured) happen on rural roads – more building will increase the use of the country lands and increase accidents.
Then think where the traffic would travel to and from: Only recently the leader of Rochford Council spoke against a development in the heart of the district clearly siting ‘severe’ impact on already struggling roads – this development was refused by the planning committee. This was a small development compared to some of the sites put forward for consideration - Access from the east of the district to and through the rest of the district is beyond capacity and cannot be expected to take any more traffic so if that one small site was deemed unsuitable because of its impact on the road – then building anywhere below this area in the district should be too.

Flooding:
Much of the east of the east of the district is in a high risk flood zone – this is expected to increase with the impact of global warming. Where it is not tidal flood risk there are areas of ‘high risk of surface flooding’ this will only increase with development.

Drainage and sewer systems are already at capacity with regular issues and reports to the flood forum – it is unable to take more homes. (fact: refer to reports to flood forum)

Impact on the environment
The sites put forward are currently farmland. This would result in a detrimental impact on: wildlife, bio-diversity, sites of archaeological interest. It will also increase the carbon footprint as removing land that currently acts to reduce carbon.
Increased traffic will increase the carbon output of this community. Pollutants and particles increase and reduce air quality.

You will be aware that the carbon footprint of a newbuild 2 bed house is 80 tonnes of C02e – of course the new local plan may include a pledge that all houses are carbon neutral (but how this be enforced?) But even if homes are carbon neutral there will ultimately be an increased carbon footprint from population increase – but leaving the agricultural land will at least allow for a ‘green lung’ in the east of the district.

This consultation does not explain how the new plan will meet the requirements of the government’s own Environment Bill and the government’s goal of carbon neutrality?

Health and well-being
People live in a village community because of the way of life. By building more houses the community element will be lost. Health and well-being of residents will be detrimentally affected. Crime will increase – and fear of crime. Poorer air quality – there is an abundance of reasons why health and well-being will be affected in Public Health England’s report on Health and wellbeing in rural areas.

My final comment is not to urbanise the east of the district. (forget the terminology of ‘garden village’ as it will be no such thing – it will be a bolt on to Southend) There may be a duty to cooperate with Southend Council – but there is a more pressing, more important duty to address carbon neutrality. By leaving our rural fields and providing a green lung this will at least go some way towards this.