Dear Sirs
I understand it is important that there needs to be development to meet Government targets.
But I do not believe the constant in-filling of existing communities is the right way to achieve this objective. By so doing the strain on the infrastructure becomes even greater when it is already at an unsustainable level in terms of traffic, medical facilities and schools. For instance the almost daily traffic queues through Hockley and Rayleigh will get considerably worse with any housing development to the East of the district. The piecemeal development also means that the developers have no obligation to make meaningful improvements to the infrastructure.

It would be preferable to build the housing required in one location to the west of the district.
The sites suggested in the spatial plan are much better sites with better access and less impact on the existing infrastructure and the communities of Hockley, Rochford and Hullbridg. Specifically those sites which are close to the A130, Rawreth Lane and London Road and that have the space for large development, additional social infrastructure and transport links. Specifically the sites CFS055, 121, 137, 144, 145, 146, 147, 167, 168. These are all on the Western edge of the district and would therefore protect the existing communities and infrastructure in Rochford, Hockley, Hullbridge etc. from increased through traffic and pollution and would not put further stress on these villages infrastructure including roads, schools, doctors, etc.

In terms of the local plan I have particular reservations with regard to CFS064 and CFS264 with which I am familiar. My concerns are:-

· That access to the sites is very limited, specifically that using Folly Chase, a privately owned and un adopted road that is too narrow, has no footpaths and the residents have ownership rights. The ability to make any adaptions would involve the destruction of numerous trees with preservation orders including ancient oaks.
· It would impact adversely upon the footpaths which are located within these sites and which have proved invaluable during the pandemic for not only exercise but also the mental well being of the local population.
· there is no public transport access to these sites
· Drainage – this has already been an issue with the lack of sewerage connection at Pond Chase and already inadequate fall/capacity to take waste away without any further development
· Elements are within the Green belt and should not be harmed.
· The effect on the Environment and its biodiversity. Specifically, the threat to Ancient Woodland at Folly Wood, Betts Farm Wood and the wood in the North of the Field.
· The effect on the existing Wildlife ‘corridors’ (specifically the badger setts), and the further fragmentation of wildlife habitats by future development.
· My understanding is that should the plan be adopted at site (previously designated Site 179) now CFS064 this would conflict with RDC policy on promoting and preserving Biodiversity
· Removal of valuable quality agricultural land
· Having reviewed the site appraisal paper for Hockley and Hawkwell and the various levels assigned to each criteria I seriously doubt whether any detailed site visits have been made and proper due diligence carried out.

Given the announcements that have been made that there are pending changes of Government legislation relating to planning, I recommend that any further action on the Local Plan is suspended until such legislation is passed, otherwise there is a real risk of wasting a lot of tax payers money on further consultation/planning etc. that may subsequently be prevented or altered by policy changes.
To Conclude
To meet the housing needs all housing should be built in 1 of the 3 locations which have been identified. (Option 3 on the consultation document).
In addition CFS064 and CFS264 should be removed from the next stage of the plan.