Object

Representation ID: 42215

Received: 06/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Adam Gill

The current infrastructure of the town is already somewhat at its capacity. Ashingdon Road during term time is an absolute nightmare for traffic (due to the proximity of three schools in a small area) and traffic is often at a standstill in both directions.

Rectory Road is also not a viable alternative route for these additional homes - as this road often suffers the same gridlock first thing in the morning.

This is before an additional 2,000 homes are added to that. Pollution is already increasing and it is simply not viable to add this many homes, people and vehicles to the area.

As a dormitory town, Rochford does everything we hope it could. Sadly, however - no matter how much money is spent, the A127 won't cope with the additional traffic and the station and rail network doesn't seem as if it would be able to cope sufficiently once rail passenger numbers return to normal. The lull in rail passenger numbers during the covid pandemic will create a false sense that the transport network can cope. The numbers over the past two years are neither realistic, nor sustainable and further investigation clearly will be required.

I also have concerns on the way that education provisions will be made. Where are these additional numbers to be educated?! Undoubtedly this will mean expanding class sizes and this can only have a negative impact on the way our children will learn.

The town has a wonderful and rich history - which was one of the things that attracted us. I fear that such a development will erode this hugely and will cause that identity to be lost - Rochford will become just another housing development.

Furthermore, I have concerns about the impact caused to our wildlife. Rochford has such a diverse range of wildlife for us to enjoy. The noise, pollution and disruption could have a real negative impact. As a former resident of a new-build estate, I saw just how badly the local wildlife was affected. There was widespread displacement and it took a number of years for just a fraction of wildlife to return.

I also think it is important to mention our plans for flood defences. Excess rainwater needs somewhere to travel and to go. Our weather is becoming more and more unpredictable and the sewage system around the Holt Farm Estate looks as though it is currently coping. However, during the summer deluges we experienced, the drainage did seem to struggle, even though it held up.

New build developments are largely paved and concreted spaces with small drainage bowls designed to prevent the estate from flooding. But where else is the excess water supposed to go?

We cannot expect that the areas around Wallasea Island and Paglesham can consistently be a site for drainage and should the River Roach burst it's banks, the whole entire area is in serious trouble.

The cynic in me suggests that the housing developers are putting through such a large application in order to sneak a smaller one in. It is often a ruse by developers to offer to pay for an install new roundabouts as part of the deal. This simply won't be enough and the cost of the infrastructure that would be required would immediately be enough to make any suggestions an untenable position.

Please reject the application to build any homes on the Brays Lane/rear of King Edmund site. Whilst I acknowledge the need for additional housing, these developments should be far smaller - a maximum of 5-10 homes per development and to allow the area to grow organically, as opposed to dumping a widescale development and changing the entire footprint and landscape of one of the most important towns in British history.