We are responding to the Local Plan proposals as requested in light of the inclusion of the above two sites.

We object to both sites being included and make the following observations.

Access to both sites is shown via Folly Chase. This single track privately owned road is unsuitable for the following reasons.

1. Folly Chase would have to be adopted by the Council and the residents (which includes ourselves) would unanimously reject any attempt by the Council to acquire/adopt the road which is owned by the respective property owners.

The access to CFS264 is shown only via a small driveway. This is from the unsuitable Folly Chase, to a site apparently designated as suitable for 30 houses. The road access along Folly Chase and the driveway access are entirely inappropriate for such development.

2. Folly Chase is barely 2m wide in places. Our understanding is that an adopted road needs to be 6m wide and would require a pavement of no less than 1.5m on each side of the road. Hence 9m width would be needed. This would have to entail a compulsory purchase of part of the residents gardens which would be contested to the point where the Council would need a Court order. Even if the Council were successful it would face a huge compensation bill as a result of the diminution of value of the properties in Folly Chase.

3. At the front of our property we have two well established oak trees both subject to a TPO. During the construction of our property a few years ago the Council's tree officer went to great lengths to ensure that the conditions of the TPOs were rigidly adhered too. It would be unreasonable for the Council to change it's policy with regard to the trees to assist with improvements to the road for redevelopment purposes.

4. Folly Chase is of shallow depth maintained by the residents to take limited traffic; i.e the just the residents and visitors vehicles. Services sit just below the depth of the road. It would be a major construction project to make the road suitable for the construction traffic and the two proposed estates.

5. A right of way exists over the road for pedestrian traffic which although not marked physically exists in law. It is unclear how even if the Council attempted to adopt the road and compulsory purchase the gardens how a public right of way could be maintained.

6. The junction between Folly Chase and Folly Lane is unsuited to take the increased traffic. At busy times there would be a complete snarl up of vehicles along Folly Chase backing up into both new estates bringing traffic to a lengthy standstill.

7. Folly Lane has become a dangerous road. There is an overspill of parking from the "Pond Chase" development leading to blind spots in the road where traffic heading west has to encroach on the wrong side of the road without knowing what traffic is heading round the corner in an easterly direction. Sadly there is going to be an accident here sooner or later. The Council did not give enough thought to this issue when giving planning consent for the "Pond Chase" development and by releasing the two proposed sites for far more extensive development the current problem will get much worse.

Traffic Issues In Hockley

The road network cannot cope with any further traffic. The recently approved local developments throughout the Rochford DC area have led to a significant increase in road traffic. The roads are old and neglected and are beyond full capacity. Any further development will make an already bad situation significantly worse.

Greenbelt Protection

The local authority must have regard to protection of the Greenbelt. We cannot have the ludicrous situation of the local authority on the one hand opposing infill development of the Greenbelt - see case concerning 80 High Road Hockley, where the council declined an application for a single property to be demolished and replaced by two properties and on the other hand acting entirely in contradiction to this position by agreeing mass development in the MGR. It should be noted that the Secretary of State upheld the Council's position on protecting the MGR by refusing an appeal on 80 High Road. Doubtless the Secretary of State and the local planning authority had regard to Paragraph 136 of the National Planning Policy Framework, which lays out that ‘exceptional circumstances’ must be met for any consideration of changing existing Green Belt boundaries. With regard to sites CFS064 and CFS264 it cannot be said that the ‘exceptional circumstances’ test has been met.

Pressure on Public Services

The local schools and doctors surgeries cannot cope with any further influx of pupils or patients.

More Suitable Sites

Sites CFS146,147,167,144,168,145,137,055,121 are more suitable due to

1. Better access

2. Better transport

3. Divert traffic away from the existing congested areas of Hockley and Hawkwell

Wildlife

An additional contravention of Policy to the Green belt restrictions is that the site is in ‘close proximity’ to 3 Local Wildlife Sites (LoWs) namely, Betts Wood, Folly Wood and Hockley Hall-South Wood. These are all designated a minimum of HC1 (ancient Woodland) and have further designations. Folly Wood occupies most of the southern boundary of the site, Betts Wood most of the eastern boundary and Hockley Hall-South Wood circa half of the northern boundary. It should be noted that there is a strip of woodland joining Folly Wood and Hockley Hall-South Wood along the entire western perimeter and this may mean that these two LoWs are in fact one larger site. It is important to point out that the Site Allocation Assessment Criteria fails to mention the ‘close proximity’ of the LoWs and that it is vital that this is noted by RDC. This omission must render the Site Allocation Assessment as invalid, and that the site should not have passed the first stage consultation as a consequence.

The ’Buffer Zones’ that would be required at the perimeter of the LOWs and around the mature veteran Oak trees within the site would reduce the available land suitable for development significantly and render the site uneconomic.

The LoWs mentioned above, and the immediate surrounding environment, including the field detailed in site CFS 064 support a rich and varied population , indeed such woodland is recognised as providing the most diverse and important habitats in the UK and is already limited to just 550,000 Hectares across the entire UK.
The LoWs assessments do not detail many resident species but the following can/have been found in and around these sites and the site in question; Grass snakes, Adders, Slow Worms and Common Lizards , Common Frogs, Toads, Smooth Newts, Great Crested Newts, Badgers, Foxes, Muntjac Deer, Buzzards, Sparrow Hawks, Merlin, Tawny Owls, Little Owls, Nightjar, Blue Tits, Great Tits, Long Tail Tits, Coal Tits, Willow Warblers, Chiff Chaff, Blackcap, Blackbirds, Song Thrush, Goldfinch, Greenfinch, Chaffinch, Yellowhammer, Nuthatch, Swallow, Swift, House Martin, Crow, Jackdaw, Magpie, Jay, Rook, Coot, Moorhen, Cuckoo, Dunnock, Wren, Fieldfare, Lapwing, Redwing, Goldcrest, Great Spotted Woodpecker, Green Woodpecker, Lesser Spotted Woodpecker, Grey Heron, Pied Wagtail, Grey Wagtail, House Sparrow, Kestrel, Linnet, Nightingale, Meadow Pipit, Robin, Skylark, Starling and significant numbers of unidentified bats over the field and in the gardens of Folly Chase at night suggest a colony within Folly and/or Betts Woods. Rich flora, especially Bluebells and significant insect species including Wood Ant colonies.

This incredibly diverse range of species rely on the tree and plant species found in Ancient Woodland and on arable farmland. They require free movement between sites and the field, and the large mature Oaks within it, provide essential movement corridors between the three identified LoWs sites. Any development in the field in the center of these three LoWs can only have a massive detrimental effect on the population, and the existing richness and diversity proves this is a site that should be preserved, not destroyed. Consideration for development must cease forthwith.

The ’standing advice’ of the Government in this regard is found within Natural England and Forestry Commission guidance ( https://www.gov.uk/guidance/ancient-woodland-and-veteran-trees-protection-surveys-licences). Standing Advice is a ’Material planning consideration’. Ancient Woodlands have equal protection in the National planning Policy Framework.

We draw attention to the RDC’s own statements regarding potential development within the Local Plan document. The plan clearly states that one of it’s key objectives is ‘’for meeting future needs (including housing….). It will also identify areas for protection, such as sites that are important for wildlife and open space.’’ The RDC have failed in their policy objective and in following correct process that there is a failure to even identify the proximity of the LoWs detailed above in the Site Allocation Assessment Criteria.
Rather than the site be considered for development, we have shown that it should be identified for protection in accordance with the Local Plan objectives and that it should be removed from the development plan and placed in a protection plan.

Spatial Options Document 2021

We do not feel that the vision is going to be accomplished by granting planning consent for either of these two sites.

The Council needs to recognise that Housing developments of this type do not lead to more affordable housing.

There should be a Government led initiative to resolve this issue, but granting planning consents like this is not the answer.

Conclusion

We believe sites CFS064 and CFS264 should be removed from the next stage, due to their unsuitability as expressed in this response.

As mentioned there are other sites that are far more suitable and achieve a "better score" giving weight to the wide range of development considerations.