CLT2 Primary Education, Early Years and Childcare Facilities - Preferred Option

Although I have already sent you comments on behalf of Hockley Parish Plan Group, I would now like to register my own comments as a resident of Hockley:

The Core Strategy proposes to add 1,550 new homes on Greenbelt land in the pleasant semi-rural region comprising Hockley, Hawkwell, Ashingdon and Rochford, plus a further undefined number of homes on brownfield sites, and a further undefined number of homes in the Hockley and Rochford town centre developments. The new homes will reduce the open spaces between these parishes, closing the boundaries, and leading to the loss of their individual community identities.

Residents enjoy living (and retiring) in this region. However, the infrastructure of the area is already stretched in terms of roads, public transport, parking, schools, community services, and healthcare. The Core Strategy proposal gives very little detail of infrastructure improvements to support the increased population and traffic. It provides no details of costs or responsibilities for infrastructure implementation. By spreading the locations of new homes, it will be more difficult to ensure that developers incorporate and pay for new infrastructure.

Although average daily traffic on the B1013 is stated to be only 72% of the maximum capacity, there are no figures available that highlight the current congestion in peak periods, where traffic is almost at a standstill. Unless significant highways development is introduced, especially in the vicinity of the Spa roundabout, the additional traffic resulting from the Core Strategy proposed homes in Rochford and Hawkwell, will create gridlock. Proposed Southend Airport development will add further traffic problems through Hockley. The Core Strategy is not sustainable without a solution to the highway network bottlenecks in and around Hockley. No solution is provided to the lack of cycle path networks in the region.

The bus service in the Hockley and Hawkwell region is about to be cut back, but will need to be increased to support the additional number of residents proposed in the Core Strategy. Agreements with Arriva must be included to make the Strategy viable.

Car parks in Hockley are regularly overfull creating queues especially in Spa Road. Exits from the car parks in Spa Road are hazardous and will one day inevitably lead to a serious accident. Space in Hockley town centre is at a premium, but additional and safer car parking is essential to support the proposed additional traffic, or again the Core Strategy is not sustainable.

The Core Strategy includes new primary schools in Rochford and Rayleigh and an extension to King Edmund secondary school, but there is no proposal for additional school places in Hockley and Hawkwell. I assume that the majority of additional younger children in the Hawkwell region will go to Westerings School, where the roads in the locality are already a hazard during the 'school runs' where mothers drop off and pick up their children. Local residents regularly have to weave between cars and drive on pavements to avoid a collision. Without major improvements to the road networks in this region, the increased numbers of cars will undoubtedly cause havoc and lead to accidents. There are no proposals in the Strategy to accommodate additional secondary school children at Greensward College, which is the nearest school for Hawkwell West.

Community Services such as crime prevention, street cleaning, waste collection and road maintenance are already stretched, and will not be able to cope with the additional homes without a considerable increase to their budgets. It is unlikely that increased Council Tax revenue from the additional population will support the extra costs.

Doctor and dentist to patient ratios are currently unacceptable for residents in Hockley and would need to improve significantly to support the additional number of residents.

In conclusion, although many of these obstacles can be overcome with possibly cost effective justification, the necessary changes to highway networks and car parking in and around Hockley to support additional traffic volumes are massive, and probably not feasible due to cost and space limitations, leading to the Core Strategy not being sustainable in Hockley and the surrounding area.

From the figures provided by ECC, it would appear that Rayleigh as a Town does not need anymore primary school places, however secondary school places will be limited in the coming years, therefore the allocation of school places needs to cover the entire school age range and not just pre and primary school

it remains to be seen whether this is enough for the expansion plans

The LDF Committee report shows that a new primary school is needed in Rawreth if the proposed 850 homes are built.
It is well documented,(ECC's Essex Schools Organisation Plan 2007-2012), that nearly every primary school in Rayleigh is going to have spare capacity in 2012. Why spend millions on a new primary school when overall numbers of schoolchildren are decreasing?
Relocate some housing, proposed for Rawreth, closer to existing primary schools,and an additional school would not be necessary.
The needs of additional primary school children housed in the actual village of Rawreth could then be met by St. Nicholas School.

The LDF Committee report shows that a new primary school will be needed in
Rawreth if the proposed 850 homes are built.
It is well documented, (ECC's Essex Schools Organisation Plan 2007-2012),
that nearly every primary school in Rayleigh is going to have spare
capacity in 2012. Why spend millions on a new primary school when overall
numbers of schoolchildren are decreasing?
Relocate some housing, proposed for Rawreth, closer to existing primary
schools, then an additional school would not be necessary.
The needs of additional primary school children, housed in the actual
village of Rawreth, could then be met by St. Nicholas School.

The text of Preferred Option CLT2 (Primary Education, Early Years and Childcare Facilities) should be clarified by the following revisions,
o In the first paragraph that the new primary schools that may be required are for the proposed development locations at North of London Road Rayleigh and West Rochford;
o In the second paragraph delete the words 'new primary schools with early years and childcare facilities' and insert the words 'new primary schools and early years and childcare facilities', because new early years and childcare provision may be required at sites other than just the two new primary schools;
o In the third paragraph add the words 'and Early Years and Childcare' after each reference to 'primary school(s)' in order to be consistent with the amended wording of the first and second paragraphs of the policy;
o Convert the final sentence of the policy into a fourth paragraph to clarify that it pertains to the whole policy and not just to the third paragraph.

It is to be hoped that new primary schools built to serve proposed residential development will be attractive buildings in their own right. In this way, they may encourage higher standards of design in the new housing. A bold, iconic school building of outstanding attractiveness can give a real sense of place to a neighbourhood. With a new housing estate, it is easy for a sense of community to be absent.

The need for a flexible school design should not mean that it will be a kind of modular, bolt-on monstrosity devoid of character or style. Essex County Council has produced some lovely schools (eg the one in Grove Road), so every effort should be made to encourage imaginative design for the proposed schools.

LDF - Core Strategy - Preferred Options.

On behalf of Rawreth Parish Council I confirm that this letter is a formal response of Objection to the Core Strategy Preferred Options with particular reference to the allocation of 1050 houses to be sited within the Parish of Rawreth - 650 initially "North of London Road", with a further 200 on the Rawreth Industrial Estate and 200 more at the edge of Hullbridge.

We believe that no development should take place until local infrastructure is in place and the roads are able to take the increased traffic that would result.

1. We believe that Rawreth should be included in Tier 4 - all other settlements, where additional development is considered unsustainable. Rawreth presently has 373 dwellings and to put in developments of 1050 houses which equates to a 228% increase is totally unjustifiable, unsustainable and would completely destroy the
character of Rawreth.

2 The huge development of 650 houses "North of London Road" Rawreth is totally
unacceptable. This land is good quality agricultural land which is protected by the
Green Belt -GB1 - fulfils all purposes under PPG2 and should be retained as such.
Once used for development this land can never be returned to agricultural use, and if
you continue to erode into our Green Belt and farmland it will be lost forever.


3. This particular area is part of the "Gateway to Rochford " and is the "strategic buffer"
between Rayleigh and Wickford. Reference is made in the document to "avoiding coalescence" of villages/towns - a development of this size immediately erodes this buffer, starts coalescence and destroys the rural character of Rawreth.


4. The document clearly states that "Brownfield" sites would be considered before Green Belt land is used. This is not the case with the land ""North of London Road" and there are several sites within the area in the "Call for Sites" document that should be looked at first, these sites as we understand have not even been visited by the Local Development Framework Sub Committee and do not form part of the preferred options. These sites need to be visited, considered and the views of all the residents considered before any development areas become "site specific". A complete consideration has to be given to all the sites put forward in the "call for sites" and not just those that appear an easy option for development.

5. The roads and infrastructure in the Rawreth area are completely full to capacity. The A127, A1245, A129 London Road, Rawreth Lane and Watery Lane just cannot take any more traffic and this proposed development will increase traffic to a completely unsustainable level. On three occasions in the last month alone, incidents within and on the outskirts of this area have brought traffic to a standstill for hours along London Road, Rawreth Lane, Watery Lane/Beeches Road and the Hullbridge Road. It took some residents 1 ¼ hours to proceed along Rawreth Lane and into Hullbridge - a distance of 1 ½ miles.

The proposed development at the western edge of Hullbridge, which is, in fact, largely in Rawreth would also greatly increase the traffic problems in the area. We understand there would be a proposal to "widen/straighten" Watery Lane/Beeches Road, with a roundabout at the junction with the Hullbridge Road. This is an extremely dangerous junction even at the present time and would become increasingly so. There is also the question of where the traffic would go when it reaches Battlesbridge at the Western end, it cannot possibly cross the Bridge as this is "restricted" and in a Conservation Area, therefore, it would have to turn left and proceed to the A1245 -
a very dangerous junction.

6. The Services in the area would be unable to cope with this increase in housing - drains and sewers are already working to capacity. Recent heavy rain resulted in flooding in Watery Lane and the Rawreth Brook system has been very close to flooding twice already this year. During a meeting between the Parish Council and the Environment Agency we were advised that this situation will worsen with increased housing.

7. We believe that the appropriate amount of additional housing should be built on smaller existing sites thus enhancing the lives and environment of existing residents.
We believe RDC should consider the use of smaller sites that have been put forward, particularly in the Rawreth area and that the large development proposed "North of London Road" should be refused. We are at present in the process of developing our Community Garden in the centre of Rawreth Village with the help of a Community Initiatives Fund and believe that a reasonably sized development of houses in that area could be of benefit to our village. It may be that any development of this nature could include a village shop which would be of enormous value to local residents.

8. Large numbers of housing in one area, as stated in the infrastructure requirements, will necessitate a new primary school. County figures suggest that there will be surplus places in Rayleigh schools even with new housing. Obviously these will be in the wrong parts of the town so increasing the risk that an existing school could close .It makes sense to spread the development in smaller sites around the town, avoiding closure and preventing unnecessary provision of a new school.

9. Relocation of Rawreth Industrial site to a vague area south of the London Road near
Carpenters Arms would take further green belt, admittedly of moderate attraction, from the Parish. It is therefore suggested that an area bounded by the A127, A130, A1245 and the railway to the north gives the chance to provide high quality well designed industrial site with potential to use alternative forms of transport in the future.

10. Further use could be made of the land opposite Michelin farm. This land has been despoiled in recent years and landowners could and should be made to forfeit the full value of their land by way of compulsory purchase powers for use as a travellers site to provide some of the required pitches necessary for the Rochford District and to remove the illegal site on the A1245 at Bedloes Corner.

On behalf of Rawreth Parish Council I look forward to receiving an acknowledgement of this letter.

I wish to strongly object to the proposed development North of London Road, Rawreth.

I understood that Greenbelt land should only be considered after ALL Brownfield sites are considered. There will be no going back once this prime agricultural land is built on. The huge number of dwellings proposed is very unfair to the small parish of Rawreth. The allocation of dwellings should be done as fairly as possible. This proposal is grossly unfair.

I understand a couple of sites along the A1245 towards Battlesbridge have been suggested. To use these sites would be fairer to Rawreth regarding the number of potential dwellings & access would be direct onto main roads therefore not causing further congestion to the already busy Rawreth Lane.

If the proposed suggested area 'North of London Road, Rawreth' goes ahead it will destroy the character & distinctiveness of Rawreth by becoming so huge. It will cause further congestion throughout Rayleigh.

I understand Schools in other parts of the District will need more children to keep them being viable, yet it has been suggested a new school would be needed if this proposed development went ahead. Where is the sense in that? Surely it would make more sense to use existing facilities wherever possible.

Maybe sites suitable for development within the District, with access via Cherry Orchard Lane should be looked at very seriously with access via the A127.

I hope all these comments & all the others you have received regarding this proposed area of Rawreth are taken into very careful consideration. If the planned proposal goes ahead regarding this land in Rawreth it will have a devastating affect on all the residents of Rawreth.