I am writing in response to your consultation with regards to development in the area going forward.

I am particularly concerned with regard to 179 Final Viability Report with regards to the field at the bottom of Folly Chase where I live and the addition of Greenacres nursery to the proposals.

I thought the vision statement for Hockley was to maintain ancient woodland rather than destroy it within this development as it is completely abliterated? My understanding was that HC1 Folly Wood has some protection but has the field by the railway line been included in error with regards to biodiversity?

My understanding of previous consideration was that Folly Chase would be used as an exit road??? How is that possible when it is a private road, unadopted and not wide enough?? The only way you could do this would be to compulsory purchase some of our front gardens to widen the road??? There are no paths and I have an oak tree on my border which has a TPO on it.

The completely irony is that when I first moved here and wanted to trim it I was refused (only a trim not a removal!!) by an Arboricultural Inspector as it would spoil the character and amenity of the area and the effect on the tree health and the importance of oak trees in our biodiversity and threatened invertibrates within it. It was decided it would have a negative impact!

This was later overturned as mentioned before I only wanted to trim it!! and at the time the council was considering building 50 houses in the field (later chose Pond Chase).

How are we expected to support a council that dictates on the one hand what I can and cannot do and then turns a blind eye completely contradicting its findings when it suits???

I do not consider 265 houses a small development which is in breach of infill development recommendations.

The drains, I believe, are still not connected to the Pond Chase development so who is responsible for not completing this - the builders?? Surely the council has a responsibility to ensure procedures are followed?

I understand from the Greenacres homeowners they have not put their land forward for development of 40 houses but it has been lumped in with the proposals?? How is that allowed without consultation to the landowners?? It has caused much anxiety and stress to them in addition to the other homeowners in the road.

Again, there is limited access (one car width) to their current premises so does that mean the house at the front would be demolished to provide access??

What about environmental factors and the assessment of the field for protection of wildlife - has this been done for a buffer zone around the mature oaks, and, as previously mentioned, how will you do this around my oak tree as there will not be the room??(see previous biodiversity comments).

I believe there are more suitable sites on the western edge of the plan and other brown field sites not full developed. The bigger developments would have access to better transport links as the current traffic situation in Hockley cannot take any more cars. Strategy Option 3 would be best suited to provide the housing needs if required by government.