Object

Representation ID: 9472

Received: 20/04/2009

Respondent: Mr A Clarke

Hockley is neither a town or a village...just an unpleasant urban sprawl.

The above mentioned plan is yet another outdated 20th century concept of 'predict and provide' lacking any economic justification...unless you are the developer.

The plan is anti-social. It fails to cater for the housing needs of a growing elderly population as there is no provision for new single storey housing. Of those bungalows built in the 50s and 60s most have now been bastardized with 'rooms in the roof' thus reducing the available housing stock to buy for the mature citizen wishing to downsize because of age-related incapacities.

The proposals will not make life healthier, the overcrowding will make it worse. It will intensify the inequalaties for the elderly who will be subject to covert rationing of the limited health service resources available.

Nor will it help to reduce the level of crime or the fear of crime. On completion of the project crime figures will increase. No mention is made for developing schemes to combat substance misuse including illegal drugs and alcohol.

What about fire safety cover for the additional housing plus retail and industrial units. Of utmost importance is to ensure that retained fire engines can respond to emergencies including the increased risk of a disastrous air accident. I believe the Hockley fire tender is crewed by retained fire fighters on a part time basis who often have other jobs. In order to be available to respond to emergencies retained fire fighters must be within five minutes travel distance of the fire station. Due to work and other commitments they are not always available on this basis. As a result the fire engine will not be available for periods of time. A stand by unit from either Rayleigh or Rochford will not be able to respond quickly due to additional road traffic generated by increased population. It is also difficult to recruit and retain enough part-time firefighters which will impact on the fire and rescue services ability to respond to all emergencies.

Safety is word that has no value to Rochford District Council.

The obese developments proposed will require a high level of additional costly infrastructure to meet the demands of the increased population. The area is already overpopulated and any increase will have serious consequences. The additional costs for roads, sewers, schools etc etc, will place a heavy burden on Council Tax Payers some of whom will only have a limited income source and face severe hardship.

I would point out that Essex and Suffolk Water have already announced price increases above inflation to cover the cost of providing extra capacity in its resevoirs to meet the demands of additional population usage.

As for the proposed 'flats' developments...the City of Leeds went down that road and many remain empty and unsold. The same circumstances apply in Birmingham and other UK cities therefore the proposals outlined for so many 'flats' in Hockley is NOT viable.

Frankly, nobody in their right mind would support this proposal. The whole concept is criminal as we shall all be battery caged humans. Chickens have better welfare standards.

Consultation doesn't work. There is an incesturous relationship between Council officials and Developers that works against concerned public opinion. Examples of maladministration by Rochford District Council are shown below:-

. Failure to observe the regulations contained in the TOWN and COUNTRY PLANNING (General Development Procedure) ORDER 1995.

. Failure to observe the regulations of the TOWN and COUNTRY PLANNING (General Permitted Development) ORDER 1995...Part 2...MINOR OPERATIONS...CLASS A.

. Failure to observe the regulations applicable to the FIRE PRECAUTIONS ACT 1971.

A Fire Service document states the following - the range of consultations varies from small building work (such as the installation of a new toilet) to high-profile building projects. Please note, nothing is too small to be outside Building Regulations.

To support their planning policy Rochford District Council advised as follows:-

With regard to whether or not an extension to an existing house is acceptable or not, that is a decision the planning authority must reach taking into account the material planning issues. In this case, planning consent was granted, but in other instances consent can be refused for a range of reasons, including the scale of the extensions, impact on neighbours etc.

As this was written on Rochford District Council headed notepaper I assumed this had been 'signed off' by the Leader of the Council and the Chief Executive of Rochford District Council as official Council Policy.

To me the words underlined represents PLANNING ANARCHY...a form of planning apartheid dictated by postcode. If someone can advise me where this interpretation of planning legislation can be found in BLACKSTONES STATUTES ON PLANNING LAW (3rd Edition) by Victor Moore LLM, Barrister (Professor of Law Emeritis, University of Reading) and David Hughes LLB (L'pod) LLM (Cantab) FRSA (Professor of Housing and Planning Law) The Environmenal Law Institute, De Montford University Leicester, I would be obliged for the information.

In conclusion I have no confidence that Rochford District Council are capable in conducting any planning application with due dilligence. To me their policy represents the acquistion of power with a corresponding decline of responsibility.