Comment

New Local Plan: Spatial Options Document 2021

Representation ID: 41284

Received: 20/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Kevin Jefferson

Representation Summary:

The A127 could not be widened before it leaves Eastwood being developed on both sides; the A13 could not be touched before Sadler’s Farm roundabout due to being developed on both sides from Shoebury through to Benfleet; The Eastwood Road is residential all the way from Kent Elms corner to Rayleigh; the Hockley Road (including Hall Road, Alderman’s Hill, etc) from Rochford Station to Rayleigh is almost entirely residential on both sides other than in Rochford & Hawkwell and if the sites located on this route are developed that will only serve to clog the roads downstream to the west even more; Lower Road from Ashingdon through to Battlesbridge might prove the only logical route other than the impact on green belt and farm land, or finally something running along the estuary from Southend linking to the A13 way out west.

Add to the last paragraph the simple issue of road safety where schools are currently situated along or close to the routes, a growing elderly population who still have a right to safe walking or wheelchair routes, and the likely huge increase in pollution affecting the quality of all our lives who abide in this area.

Full text:

Land identified for potential Housing Development
Having read through proposals for potential development sites I am shocked at the number and location of some of the sites and the impact they will surely have on the local environment, the people, squeeze on existing services including hospitals, schools and shops, bus routes, railways and not forgetting roads.

This corner of South East Essex is already fit to burst as evidenced by the traffic volumes exiting the Southend area on a daily basis by whatever route possible with the consequent impact on pollution and noise in areas like Rochford, Hawkwell, Ashingdon and Hockley in particular. There is little or nothing that can be done on any of the major (and minor) routes serving this part of Essex.

The A127 could not be widened before it leaves Eastwood being developed on both sides; the A13 could not be touched before Sadler’s Farm roundabout due to being developed on both sides from Shoebury through to Benfleet; The Eastwood Road is residential all the way from Kent Elms corner to Rayleigh; the Hockley Road (including Hall Road, Alderman’s Hill, etc) from Rochford Station to Rayleigh is almost entirely residential on both sides other than in Rochford & Hawkwell and if the sites located on this route are developed that will only serve to clog the roads downstream to the west even more; Lower Road from Ashingdon through to Battlesbridge might prove the only logical route other than the impact on green belt and farm land, or finally something running along the estuary from Southend linking to the A13 way out west.

Add to the last paragraph the simple issue of road safety where schools are currently situated along or close to the routes, a growing elderly population who still have a right to safe walking or wheelchair routes, and the likely huge increase in pollution affecting the quality of all our lives who abide in this area.

It can not have escaped your notice that job opportunities for anyone moving into the area are limited since there are no major employers setting up here and so one must assume anyone moving here and already having a career will either commute by train or road towards the west including London. Looking specifically at trains, the services in the morning and evening peaks are already at capacity from Rayleigh onwards and that ignores the train travel along the Fenchurch St line from Leigh on Sea equally at capacity. The railway safety case will not support more train movements at peak along the two lines servicing S. E. Essex and lengthening the trains to increase capacity would prove an issue where existing station platforms could not cater for longer trains.

Has anyone checked the home locations of those holding title to the land where proposals for inclusion on the list of potential sites? If anyone doesn’t live locally surely they are after "make a fast buck” and not having a care for the environment or local residents?

I’m sure many of these issues have been discussed and dismissed due to blind obedience to government dictate. Nevertheless I feel sure allowing any of these developments to proceed without first making significant change to local infrastructure to cope in future, so that local residents will not be adversely impacted by heavy goods vehicles thundering through our towns villages adding to the problems mentioned above.