Healthcare

On behalf of Hockley Parish Plan Group, I would like to register the following comments and objections in response to the RDC Core Strategy Preferred Options (2008) Document:

Comment 1
Hockley must remain as a distinct community with clear boundaries and green spaces between Hockley and its neighbouring parishes. Countryside in and around Hockley, including woods, footpaths, bridleways, play areas, playing fields and nature reserves must be 100% preserved. There should be no loss of greenbelt or open spaces in Hockley or the surrounding areas.

Comment 2
Due to shortage of available building land, housing development in and around Hockley must be minimal, and should include starter homes and affordable housing. Historic and listed buildings in Hockley must be preserved.

Comment 3
Hockley town centre development must maintain the character of Hockley, and include a variety of shops, family restaurants, enhanced parking facilities, and facilities for the youth. It must consider appropriate facilities for people with disabilities.

Comment 4
Increased population in Hockley and its neighbouring parishes must be supported by additional healthcare (dentists and doctors), primary and secondary school places, community services, and leisure facilities.

Comment 5
Improved highways and cycle networks are essential in and around Hockley to support increased traffic volumes, improve road safety, and eliminate congestion.

Comment 6
There must be no additional pollution in Hockley in terms of air quality and noise, particularly related to increased traffic volumes and airport expansion programmes.

Comment 7
Public transport must be improved in and around Hockley in terms of routes and frequencies to support additional population and to alleviate the impact of additional traffic volumes.

Comment 8
Additional controls must be introduced to ensure crime levels, vandalism and anti-social behaviour issues, in and around Hockley, do not increase due to additional population numbers.

Objection 1
The core strategy does not provide an option of placing all 3500 homes in one new location, remote from Hockley, with provision of appropriate self supporting infrastructure (schools, healthcare, community services and leisure facilites), and including public transport and highway networks that do not impact on Hockley.

Objection 2
As the majority of proposed additional housing, population and traffic is located to the east of Hockley, the plan is not sustainable, in and around Hockley, due to insufficient infrastructure proposals (schools, healthcare, community services and leisure facilities), and particularly related to public transport and highway networks. Roads through Hockley already suffer from major congestion issues, and no plans are evident in the strategy to eliminate current and future traffic issues.

Best regards

Re:-Rochford District Core Strategy

Having attended the Rochford Core Strategy meeting I would like to raise my objections to the proposals outlined.

Firstly I have to question why the Rochford meeting was scheduled for a date preceding the distribution of the Rochford Matters newsletter. Also note that the information in this publication was scant to say the least, and there was no mention or detail of the three proposed meetings.

Secondly at this meeting questions were asked regarding detail of additional infrastructure required to service these proposed sites.
The answers given were that extra roads etc. could not be considered at this stage because detail of where the sites would be relative to existing roads were unknown.
With respect I find this hard to believe, you cannot tell me that "triangles" would be placed on a map without knowing exactly where the proposed properties would abut existing roads!

Below is a summary of my reasons for stating that I consider the proposed Core Strategy lacks detail, is incomplete, and is in my view unsustainable.

Having houses scattered across the area would make it impossible to provide suitable infrastructure. There have been no proposals to address the bottlenecks that will be created at the areas railway bridges, in particular the Rectory Road traffic lights.

There appears to be no proposals on road upgrading. Building 1170 houses in Rochford West will put unprecedented pressure on the already overcrowded Ashingdon/Rectory Rd.B1013. Hockley will also suffer by being surrounded by new housing.

The need for infrastructure was deemed necessary but no detail was given, and no costing. Costing is essential to be able to know what is affordable.

As a cyclist I note there are proposed cycle ways but no detail, no land and again no costing.

I am reliably informed that Hockley/Rochford has the lowest GP/Dentist ratios in SE Essex, but again no proposals to address this.

It appears that housing would be on one side of the area (North) and employment on the other side (South East), the result, more pressure on local roads.

Bus services are soon to be reduced. It is essential to have a reliable, frequent public transport system in place.

The promise of additional youth facilities has been made, but this cannot be viable given the "scattered approach".

Property values in the areas considered are high, is "affordable housing" realistic?

The Core Strategy does not provide for the future, given that additional allocations imposed by EERA/ECC are already under discussion.


In conclusion the Core Strategy has not considered the option of a single site that would address the above concerns cost effectively.

Sir or Madam

ROCHFORD DISTRICT COUNCIL'S CORE STRATEGY - PREFERRED OPTIONS

Do we need to cover the ever diminishing land area in the UK with more sterile concrete and tarmac? Yes is the Government's directive...NO is my emphatic response.

Government's basic argument is that more homes are needed for a growing population but I understand the birth-rate is actually falling in the UK at this moment in time. This represents to me a very sophisticated signal that the Government intends to allow uncontrolled immigration into the UK should such a policy be allowed to proceed unchecked we will all suffer...black, brown, yellow or white.

The Revd. Thomas R Malthaus (1766-1835) commented at the time of the Napoleonic Wars that if the population was allowed to increase unchecked it would lead to misery, disease and vice. What's changed? Since 1951 there has been a massive increase in anti-social behaviour, gratuitous street violence, drug abuse etc etc. and Government's proposals can only make matters worse to the point of the increased possibility of public disorder.

The 'consultation process' is nothing more than a gigantic sham.

As a result of past housing, industrial and retail developments within Rochford District Council's area between 1 January 1959 and 31 December 2008 we have already reached unacceptable levels of population growth, therefore even a small addition would place an even greater strain on our limited basic services such as health provision, educational establishments, transport etc...not forgetting the impact such proposed developments would have on our 'quality of life'.

Rochford District could become a 'hell hole' or a 21st century slum!

Yes the council must examine all opportunities to build on degraded land ie brownfield sites, also checking out empty properties for habitation plus space above retail outlets. There appears to be some 'wasted space' around the districts railway stations which could be utilised for housing development...the council should approach Network Rail to ascertain the possibilities.

I repeat NO development on Green belt land nor on non designated open spaces within the area.

With regard to the provision of health services. Covert rationing of health services to an even greater extent than exists today...the over 60's will be section targeted as they are not a viable economic unit. NHS speak for a person not between the ages of 5 and 55. A Government Economist will instantly recognise this as an ideal solution to eradicate the 'Pensions Bombshell'. The Treasury don't have to provide funding to pay pensions to deceased persons. Problem solved for the Government.

Public transport provision. All road and rail services have been privatised and operate primarily for profit not as a public service. The current load factor on services 7 and 8 serving Hockley is dismal therefore the service provider will cut services to meet demand and reduce financial losses.

What is not provided is a local bus service within Hockley to connect all outlying housing estates with the central area...shops, library, bank, doctors etc...the viability of providing such a bus service or services should be undertaken by the Council. In addition such a review should include a 'park and ride' element to reduce unnecessary car journeys within the district...one car one driver is uneconomic and a polluting nuisance.

Car fumes KILL more people than car crashes. This, coupled with increased road congestion means that 'road pricing' schemes must be on the agenda. Highly contentious maybe but becoming ever more necessary when you consider all these new dwellings when or if built.

Food security. It's not just a global problem it's banging away at our backdoor. The proposals to build more dwellings in the area without a food plan could result in serious problems. Think about it. Diminishing soil and water resources plus the proposed population growth present an unprecedented threat to local food security.

Malthaus also said that unchecked population growth would lead to famine. Some key facts. In 1900, 40% of the UK population was involved in farming; now it's less than 1%...90% of all fruit and 50% of our vegetables are imported.

Today the pound is losing value that means these imports will cost more. For information I attach an article which appeared in 'The Observer' Sunday 16 November 2008.

A final fact. The complacent UK Government's official food policy is to rely on global imports and intensive farming practice to ensure supply. Meanwhile, a range of threats such as climate change, peak oil, resource depletion, and possible growing prosperity in other parts of the world mean serious questions need to be asked whether this policy will remain sustainable over the long term.

Food security is not only a problem for developing countries...it's our problem as well when you take into account our current economic woes.

In conclusion who will pay for all the necessary infrastructure should this strategy be implemented...all council tax payers another gloomy fact.

I apologies for being 'off message'.

Hockley/Rochford has the worst GP/patient ratio in SE Essex (PCT data) but no improvmenets have been considered.