[For attachments, see files of respondent 14742]

I very strongly object to the above development for the following reasons


IMPACT ON COMMUNITY – This beautiful green belt land with Jubilee footpath on its perimeter has been used as a LINK for the community for decades by walkers and school children. It is a tremendous open space offering many health benefits to those who use it. The community LINK connects via the Jubilee Walk the Community Centre and Hockley Primary School round to the residents of the others side of Hockley including Church Road, Folly Chase and Folly Lane enabling residents and their children to avoid the heavily congested road that is the B1013 with its narrow pavement.

LANDSCAPE IMPACT – PLEASE NOTE ALL PHOTOS ATTACHED TAKEN OF THE SITE AND APPRECIATE THE DEVASTATING IMPACT THAT ANY DEVELOPMENT WOULD HAVE ON SUCH PRECIOUS LANDSCAPE

IMPACT ON ANCIENT WOODLAND AND LOCAL HABITAT AND GREEN BELT LAND– The site includes a beautiful area of ancient woodland and many oak trees including those 3 directly in the centre of the field. The Council has completely failed to take this into consideration. Why has it rated this site 5 in terms of protected trees?
In addition, the site has ‘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. 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 be developed.

The ’Buffer Zones’ that would be required at the perimeter of the LOWs and around the mature veteran Oak trees in the centre of 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 this site support a rich and varied population , indeed such woodland is recognized 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.

I note 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 in 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, 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

IMPACT ON AGRICULTURE– Whilst the farmer is looking to financially benefit from a housing development this has always been used as Agricultural land and this should continue.

REQUIREMENT FOR LIMITED INFILL NOT MET – A proposal here for up to 265 dwellings on such fragile green belt with ancient woodland is not limited infill and therefore the Council would fail to observe this requirement

CRITICAL DRAINAGE RISK– there are serious AND IDENTIFIABLE concerns here. The further impact of the Pond Chase nursery development should be properly considered , managed and monitored by RDC. There have been long standing failures in this regard. This continues to have an impact on Folly Chase and this site.

INADEQUATE /INAPPROPRIATE ACCESS TO THE SITE -Why has RDC rated this 3? Folly Chase would not be appropriate for all the reasons set out by the Folly Chase Road Frontagers Committee. It is fragile, narrow and due to its lack of development has in itself an abundance of wildlife. The access out of Folly Chase into Folly Lane and then onto the B1013 Is heavily congested on many occasions throughout the day. Other suggestions for access are also inappropriate and would have a serious and adverse impact on the community.

WHY HAS THE SITE BEEN RATED 3 IN TERMS OF BROWNFIELD (THE SAME RATING AS GREENACERS) – THE COUNCIL HAVE FAILED TO PROPERLY RATE THIS SITE OF ANCIENT WOODLAND AND PRIME GREENBELT


I RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT THESE OBJECTIONS ARE PROEPRLY CONSIDERED AND THAT THE SITE IS REMOVED FOR CONSIDERATION AND DEVELOPMENT. A HARD COPY OF THIS OBJECTION WITH PHOTOS WILL BE DELIVERED TO RDC.