Object
Core Strategy Preferred Options (Revised October 2008)
Representation ID: 4179
Received: 16/12/2008
Respondent: Mr and Mrs Davison
I accept the need to build more houses, but strongly object to using PRIME FARMLAND (eg area 144 north of London Road bordering Rawreth Lane.) which is totally unsustainable and unnecessary because we need the farmland for FOOD PRODUCTION and because NO NEW ROADS are planned to cope with the resultant increase in traffic. Furthermore, using ONE LARGE SINGLE SITE such as 144 concentrates the traffic chaos for the whole area. Already surrounding roads cannot cope at peak times and when problems occur (eg accidents on A127; flooding of Watery Lane in November) when all surrounding roads become completely grid locked. Using this one large site seems a very convenient solution for the PLANNERS, but is not the best solution for the COMMUNITY.
Why is no priority being given to using EXISTING BROWNFIELD AND RESIDENTIAL SITES? (eg area 73 and the garage opposite it, 28, 89, 135 etc). Their sites have the advantage of NOT being prime farmland and those which are at present UNSIGHTLY will BE IMPROVED. Also, because they are scattered and not concentrated in one single site, the resulting increase in traffic congestion will not be so detrimental to the area.
We also have no objection to area 17 and the extreme northern area of the golf course (area 19) being used because they are near existing residential areas bordering Lower Road, Hullbridge. But we strongly object to the whole of area 99 and the southern part of area 19 because they border EXISTING WOODLAND AREAS.
I accept the need to build more houses, but strongly object to using PRIME FARMLAND (eg area 144 north of London Road bordering Rawreth Lane.) which is totally unsustainable and unnecessary because we need the farmland for FOOD PRODUCTION and because NO NEW ROADS are planned to cope with the resultant increase in traffic. Furthermore, using ONE LARGE SINGLE SITE such as 144 concentrates the traffic chaos for the whole area. Already surrounding roads cannot cope at peak times and when problems occur (eg accidents on A127; flooding of Watery Lane in November) when all surrounding roads become completely grid locked. Using this one large site seems a very convenient solution for the PLANNERS, but is not the best solution for the COMMUNITY.
Why is no priority being given to using EXISTING BROWNFIELD AND RESIDENTIAL SITES? (eg area 73 and the garage opposite it, 28, 89, 135 etc). Their sites have the advantage of NOT being prime farmland and those which are at present UNSIGHTLY will BE IMPROVED. Also, because they are scattered and not concentrated in one single site, the resulting increase in traffic congestion will not be so detrimental to the area.
We also have no objection to area 17 and the extreme northern area of the golf course (area 19) being used because they are near existing residential areas bordering Lower Road, Hullbridge. But we strongly object to the whole of area 99 and the southern part of area 19 because they border EXISTING WOODLAND AREAS.