I would like to voice my objections to the plan to majorly develope the land around Hullbridge. I understand that more housing and facilities need to be provided in the Rochford area but that this should not happen to the cost of large rural areas.

Firstly, I would like to say that it is very short sited to plan for more major development in this area, when the impact of current building cannot be assessed. The two major developments are no where near completion and therefore the real impact of the increased population is only guess work.

Secondly, these areas do not have good infrastructure, especially transport. Hullbridge has been, since the 1960s a dormitory area. There is no work opportunities here and public transport is poor at best. This means that the majority of travel is by car. This is not only a strain on the local roads but also a greater negative impact to the environment. In a time when we should be thinking more of climate change, destroying green belt to build more houses with no green transport facilities is madness.

From your initial assessment, I see that you do not think that these developments will have a negative effect on wildlife. As I regularly see foxes, badgers and hares in this area I cannot disagree more. I would also like to point out that all of the proposed developments around Hullbridge don't have access to public rights of way, they are proposed to be built right over the top of them. There is little in the way of recreation facilities in the Hullbridge area without the use of a car but our countryside footpaths are one of the few.

I would also like it to be known that I object to development taking place in areas that have already been set aside for recreation and wildlife, as in area in or adjacent to Cherry Orchard park. i.e. Fleming's Farm Road, Cherry Orchard Way, Mount Bovers Lane, Northlands Farm and Bullwood Hall. All of this would impact the country park negatively and increase population would also increase its use.

Finally, I would like to say that I do not think that large developments are the answer to the housing needs. I think that smaller developments on the edges of existing housing areas, along existing roads, would have less negative impact and also less negative response. They may cost more per house for the developer and decrease the profits but would spread the population and the strain on local infrastructure. As we all know that nobody is in this for the profit, it would be a more sustainable and sensible solution.