Policy H2 - Extensions to residential envelopes and phasing

I strongly oppose the building of 175 houses in Hawkell, as the ward is unsound because the vital requirements of PPS12 are not met. Therefore the location of Hawkwell West should be removed by the inspector.
The reasons the location is unsustainable are:
limited public transport.
car use increasing congestion
inability to improve highways
distance from shops
distance from rail stations
semi rural location unsuitable for large development complete loss of character loss of green belt loss of wildlife no social, economic or environmental benefits.

Re: Objection to Rochford Core Strategy, 175 houses in Hawkwell.

The proposal in the Rochford Core Strategy for this many houses in the Ward of Hawkwell West is unsound because the vital requirements of PPS12 are not met in terms of sustainability, and, therefore, the location of Hawkwell West (South Hawkwell) should be removed by the Inspector and the allocation moved to a sustainable location. In summary the reasons that development in this location is unsustainable under PPS12 are as follows:-

Travel
• Limited public transport
• Increased car use causing heavy congestion
• Inability to improve highways
• Distance from shops
• Distance from rail stations

Environment
• Semi rural location unsuitable for large development
• Complete loss of character
• Loss of green belt
• Loss of wildlife
• NO social, economic or environmental benefits whatsoever

In addition the Core Strategy in unsound because it does not fulfil the principles that are expressly stated in the Core strategy as it relates to the proposal for Hawkwell. Please see the following:

The Core Strategy talks about protecting the character of existing settlements and specifically 'seeks to take advantage of development opportunities that will provide social, econmonic, environmental benefits'. No such benefits would apply to this location and the development would be materially detrimental to the character of the existing settlement in Hawkwell West. It also states 'there is a limit to how much infilling and intensification existing settlements can sustain without their character being adversely affected'. This limit has already been exceeded in Hawkwell West.

The Core Strategy says 'locate development in areas where alternatives to car use are more viable', reduce the requirement to travel', and accompany any development with requisite highway infrastructure to 'mitigate their impact on existing network'. It is not possible to do this in Hawkwell West as there is no space for development of local roads, especially in Rectory Road, and any development here would increase the requirement to travel, especially by car. Moving on to Public Transport the Core Strategy states that 'planning should be well related to existing public transport where possible'. There is just one bus to and from Southend/Rayleigh per hour with no prospect of Arriva providing an appropriate service in the long term.

Finally, such a large scale development would leave to an unwelcome strip coalescence of built settlements which is not in line with Council policy.

We are also now writing to you separately to register our concern about Rochford Council Core Strategy which I understand is recommending the building of 175 new houses in Hawkwell/Hockley. This Core strategy is unsound because it does not fulfil the principles that are expressly stated.

We moved into the Hockley & Hawkwell area three years ago to enjoy the peace and quiet of semi rural life so the thought of the implications of 175 new houses being built on the land between Main Road and Rectory Road and Clements Hall Way are mind boggling. A semi rural location such as ours is a location unsuitable for large development. This would result in the loss of our semi rural location which would leave our vicinity with a complete loss of character. We would suffer a severe loss of green belt, wildlife, green fields, green gaps and many trees, the proposed area is a natural nature reserve in its own right.

175 houses means at least 500 more vehicles trying to gain access to main roads that are already congested. Parking in Thorpe Road is already full with resident parking and can only take a small flow of traffic, single file, how on earth is this road alone going to cope with all the strain of all this new traffic wanting access from the new houses to the main road. These proposed new properties are a fair distance from the rail stations, schools and shops so people will have to go about their business by car. Even if public transport is increased this will not solve the situation, the persons moving into these newly proposed homes would in general be young families and in this day and age most people travel by car and have at least 2/3 cars per household so even if you grant a subsidy for those that might wish to travel by bus the impact will not be diminished to any great extent.

Furthermore, we as local residents know that Rectory Road is already overstretched. Nursery Corner is a bottleneck now and there is very little scope for road widening if any, also the proposal to make a new road crossing from Clements Hall way right over to Thorpe Road is crazy, as we said above how is all this traffic going to gain access to the main road, it is difficult enough now to turn right. We cannot see how traffic lights or a mini roundabout would assist this even if this became a future plan of yours.

The entire proposal is completely unworkable and will cause chaos and disharmony to what is at present a wonderful peaceful and tranquil area to reside in, we can see no social, economic or environmental benefits whatsoever. We therefore object most strongly against this Core Strategy for the reasons set out above and we think you will find that there is a strong resistance locally to this project.

I strongly object to 550 houses being built North of London Road in Rayleigh.

Not actually defining where north of London Road is!

Is some of this area not a Green Belt Area ?

North of London Road has no infustructure for the Roads and Public Transport.

Objection to Rochford Core Strategy - 175 houses in Hawkwell is Unsound

The proposed building of 175 houses in Hawkwell as included in the Rochford Core Strategy, is we believe unsound, because the key requirements of PPS12 cannot be met in terms of sustainability, and we therefore request that the location, Hawkwell, be removed by the Inspector and the allocation be moved to a sustainable location such as the old Brickworks in Cherry Orchard Lane, which even has the access road already in place, is brown land rather than green belt and would not cause many of the problems we have highlighted below.

We believe that the development of Hawkwell is unsustainable for a number of reasons, including (but not exclusively);

The increased car use causing even more congestion (it already takes up to five minutes to get out of Thorpe Road at peak times at peak times and then only when somebody 'lets you out'.

The inability to improve the highway as it is built up on either side.

The lack of sufficient doctors or dentists to support the existing population let alone an increase.

The lack of additional school place and the fact that these schools are land locked so cannot expand.

In addition there are environmental issues, including;

Hawkwell is a semi rural environment and as such is unsuitable for development.

Such a large development would ruin the character of this village. The development would encroach on much needed green belt, when there are brown sites nearby that would actually benefit from development. We currently enjoy the benefit of a varied wildlife and they have a superb environment in which to thrive, exactly where it is proposed to create this development. Once the wildlife has been removed/killed it is gone for ever and our children will be the worse for not having the experience we can enjoy on a daily basis.

We are afraid that we can see no social economic or environmental benefits whatsoever. Apart from the points raised above, we will see more teenagers loitering in Clements Hall Park as they have nothing else to do.

In addition, the Core Strategy is unsound because it does not fulfil the principals that are expressly stated in that Core Strategy as it relates to Hawkwell as follows;

The Core Strategy discusses the protection of the character of existing settlements and specifically 'seeks to take advantage of development that will provide social, economic and environmental benefits'. No such benefits would apply to this location and such development would be materially detrimental to the existing settlement in Hawkwell.

The Core strategy also seeks 'to mitigate the impact on the existing network'. It is our belief as shown above that the network is already stretched too far. As a simple test, I would ask you to travel by car from Thorpe or Rectory Road and Rayleigh between 8.20 and 9.00am or to do the reverse journey at any time after 4.00pm, when you will queue from just past Hambro Hill until you turn left into Thorpe or Rectory Road. With 175 extra houses and 300 extra cars, we could find ourselves with the hair that breaks the Camel's back. For those travelling by public transport, the experience is made worse by the fact that there is only one bus per hour.

Finally, such a large scale development would lead to an unwelcome strip coalescence of built settlements which as you are aware, is not in line with Council Policy.

Would you please acknowledge receipt of this letter.

The proposal in the Rochford core strategy for this many houses in the ward of Hawkwell West is UNSOUND because the vital requirements of PPS12 are not met in terms of sustainability, and, therefore, the location of Hawkwell West should be removed by the inspector, and the allocation moved to a sustainable location.

The reasons for development in this locations is unsustainable under PPS12 are as follows,

Travel:

Limited public transport, increased car use causing heavy congestion, no scope to improve highways, distance from shops, distance from rail stations

Environment:

Semi-rural area unsuitable for large development, complete loss of character, loss of green belt, loss of wildlife, no social, economic or environmental benefits whatsoever.

In addition the core strategy is UNSOUND because it does not fulfil the principles that are expressly stated in the core straegy as it relates to the proposal for Hawkwell. Please see the following,

Protecting the character of existing settlements. Seeks to take advantage of development opportunities that will provide social, economic and environmental benefits. More housing within the existing settlements will adversely affect the present character.

We object to any houses being built off Rectory Road, and if you look in the front windows of houses lining the route and beyond, you will see a notice 'No houses for Hawkwell" the vast majority it would seem agree with us.

The main reason why we object is the B1013 road from Rayleigh to Rochford splits at the Spa roundabout at Hockley, going east via Ashingdon and Golden Cross, and west via Hawkwell and the Cock Inn Pub, both roads coming together again at the Hall Road roundabout in Rochford.

The ONLY link between these two main roads is a MINOR road called Rectory Road, which for want of a better terminology is a rat run, add the cars of the existing settlement AND the cars going to and from Clements Hall Sports Centre, you have a very busy MINOR road.

The core strategy states 'there is a limit to how much infilling and intensification existing settlements can sustain without their character being adversely affected,' surely the limit has been reached in Hawkwell West.

If you travel to work by train, Hawkwell West is the worst location to put new houses. We bought our bungalow 26 years ago, because we wanted a semi rural location, we ask the council not to allow the developers to infill our green belt with more homes.

Development in semi-rural South Hawkwell of a further 175 dwellings within the next six years is unbelievable.

The proposal in the Rochford Core Strategy for this many houses in the Ward of Hawkwell West is UNSOUND because the vital requirements of PPS12 are not met in terms of sustainability, and therefore, the location of Hawkwell West should be removed by The Inspector and the allocation moved to a sustainable location. In summary the reasons that development in this location is unsustainable under PPS12 are as follows:

TRAVEL

limited public transport
increased car use causing heavy congestion
inability to improve highways
distance from shops
distance from rail stations

ENVIRONMENT

semi rural location unsuitable for large development
complete loss of character
loss of green belt
loss of wildlife
NO social, economic or environmental benefits whatsoever.

In addition the Core Strategy is UNSOUND because it does not fulfil the principles that are expressly stated in the Core Strategy as it relates to the proposal for Hawkwell. Please see the following:

The Core Strategy talks about protecting the character of existing settlements and specifically 'seeks to take advantage of development opportunities that will provide social, economic and environmental benefits'. No such benefits would apply to this location and development would be materially detrimental to the character of the existing settlement in Hawkwell West. It also states 'there is a limit to how much infilling and intensification existing settlements can sustain without their character being adversely affected'. This limit has already been exceeded in Hawkwell West.

The Core Strategy says 'locate development in areas where alternatives to car use are more viable', 'reduce the requirement to travel', and accompany any development with requisite highway infrastructure to 'mitigate their impact on the existing network'. It is not possible to do this in Hawkwell West as there is no space for development of local roads, especially in Rectory Road, and any development here would increase the requirement to travel, especially by car. Moving on to Public Transport the Core Strategy states that 'planning should be well related to existing public transport where possible'. There is just one bus to and from Southend/Rayleigh per hour with no prospect of Arriva providing an appropriate service in the long term.

Such a large scale development would lead to an unwelcome strip coalescence of built settlements which is not in line with Council policy.

Dear Sir,

Objection to Rochford Core Strategy, 175 houses in Hawkwell is UNSOUND.
Objection to Planning Application 330 houses by David Wilson Homes

The proposal in the Rochford Core Strategy for this many houses in Hawkwell West is Unsound, because the vital requirements of PPS12 are not met in terms of sustainability and thus this location should be removed by the Inspector, and moved to a sustainable location for the following reasons

Travel. There is very limited public transport. There will be an obvious increase in car use as the proposed sites are well away from schools and stations.

Environment. This area is Semi Rural and these proposals will completely change the character of the area, losing both greenbelt and wildlife. In effect it will no longer be Semi Rural.

The Core Strategy mentions protecting the character of existing settlements, and specifically 'seeks to take advantage of development opportunities that will provide Social, economic and environmental benefits'. If this proposal goes through exactly the opposite would apply.

It also states that 'there is a limit to how much infilling and intensification existing settlements can sustain without their character being adversely affected'. We in Hawkwell West have already gone past this limit.

The Core Strategy also says 'Locate developments in areas where alternatives to car use are more viable, reduce the requirement to travel, and accompany any development with requisite highway infrastructure, to mitigate their impact on the existing network'. How is this possible in this location? Where are the new roads going to be? The B1013 which is the only outlet for vehicles in this area is saturated with 16,000 vehicles a day which is already causing bottlenecks and tailbacks, plainly evident to us locals. The Core Strategy also states that 'planning should be related to existing public transport where possible. The bus service currently is one per hours in either direction.

Housing on this scale is in my opinion the creation of a 'concrete jungle'. Surely this is not Council policy?

Objection to Rochford Core Strategy, 175 houses in Hawkwell is UNSOUND

I would refer to the above proposal and would like to register my objections to same.

The proposal in the Rochford Core Strategy for this many houses in the Ward of Hawkwell West is UNSOUND because the vital requirements of PPS12 are not met in terms of sustainability and, therefore, the location of Hawkwell West (South Hawkwell) should be removed by The Inspector and the allocation moved to a sustainable location. In summary, the reasons that development in this location is unsustainable under PPS12 are as follows:

Travel

- limited public transport
- increased car use causing heavy congestion
- inability to improve highways
- distance from shops
- distance from rail stations

I would expand upon these points in the order that they are written:

As you are well aware, Arriva in their infinite wisdom, decided to cut the No 8 bus service to one an hour albeit with it now continuing on to Rayleigh. The last weekday bus in the direction of Southend is 18:17 with the last weekday bus to Rayleigh being 18:48. Clearly there is not a regular enough service for existing usage so any additional housing will only serve to exacerbate the situation. Furthermore, the first bus after 09:00 is often full due to it being the first bus of the day that can be used by those availing themselves of the free bus pass scheme. Again, any additional housing will only serve to exacerbate the problem.



I would suggest that increased car use is, although not exclusively, directly related to the above bus situation. There is already heavy congestion at both ends of Rectory Road at peak times and any additional housing can only make matters worse. It is also important to note that the small row of shops in Main Road incorporating the Co-op is already often overcrowded resulting in vehicles blocking the traffic flow on the main road due to people queuing to gain access to the relatively small car park. This is further evidenced by people parking in the adjacent bus stop which has recently been the subject of parking tickets being issued by the Council. Further vehicular traffic will only magnify the existing problem.

I believe the question of an inability to improve highways has already been properly dealt with by Councillor John Mason, amongst others.

The distance from the shops is self - evident.

The distance from rail stations is self-evident.

Environment

- semi rural location unsuitable for large development
- complete loss of character
- loss of green belt
- loss of wildlife
- No social, economic or environment benefits whatsoever

In addition, the Core Strategy is unsound because it does not fulfill the principles that are expressly stated in the Core Strategy as it relates to the proposal for Hawkwell. Please see the following:

The Core Strategy talks about protecting the character of existing settlements and specifically 'seeks to take advantage of development opportunities that will provide social, economical and environmental benefits'. No such benefits would apply to this location and development would be materially detrimental to the character of the existing settlement in Hawkwell West. It also states 'there is a limit to how much infilling and intensification existing settlements can sustain without their character being adversely affected'. This limit has already been exceeded in Hawkwell West.

The Core Strategy says 'locate development in areas where alternatives to car use is more viable', 'reduce the requirement to travel', and accompany any development with requisite highway infrastructure to 'mitigate their impact on the existing network'. It is not possible to do this in Hawkwell West as there is no space for development of local roads, especially in Rectory Road and any development here would increase the requirement to travel, especially by car. Moving on to Public Transport, the Core Strategy states that 'planning should be well related to existing public transport where possible'. There is just one bus to and from Southend/Rayleigh per hour with no prospect of Arriva providing an appropriate service in the long term (some of these points I have dealt with above under the 'Travel' heading).

Finally, such a large scale development would lead to an unwelcome strip coalescence of built settlements which is not in line with Council policy.

The proposal in Rochford Core Strategy for this many houses in the Ward of Hawkwell West is UNSOUND because the vital requirements of PPS12 are not met in terms of sustainability, and, therefore, the location of Hawkwell West (south Hawkwell) should be removed by The Inspector and the allocation moved to an area that will sustain the development.

To summarise: The reasons this development in this location under PPS12 in this location are:-
Travel
Public transport limited
Road congestion due to increased car usage
No room to improve highways
Too far from local shops
Too far from rail stations

Environmental Issues
Complete loss of local character
A semi rural location which is unsuitable for such a large development
There will be a loss of wildlife
There will certainly be a loss of green belt
There will be NO economic, social or environmental benefit whatsoever for the local population

The Core Strategy is UNSOUND because it does not fulfil the principles that are expressly stated in the Core Strategy in relation to the proposal for Hawkwell.

The Core Strategy talks about protecting the character of existing settlements and specifically 'seeks to take advantage of development opportunities that will provide social, economic and environmental benefits'. No such benefits would apply to this location and development would be materially detrimental to the character of the existing settlement in Hawkwell West. It also states 'there is a limit to how much infilling and intensification existing settlements can sustain without their character being adversly affected'. This limit has already been exceeded in Hawkwell West.

The Core Strategy says 'locate development in areas where alternatives to car use are more viable', 'reduce the requirement to travel', and accompany any with nthe requisite highway infrastructure to 'mitigate their impact on the existing network'.

It is not possible to do this in Hawkwell West as there is no space for the development of local roads, especially in Rectory Road, as any development here would increase the requirement to travel, especially by car. Moving on to Public Transport the Core Strategy states that 'planning should be well related to existing public transport where possible' There is just one bus to and from Southend/Rayleigh per hour with no prospect of Arriva providing an appropriate service in the long term.

Finally, such a large scale development would lead to an unwelcome strip coalescence of built settlements which is not in line with Council policy.

i want to register an appeal against 2 developments Rochford core strategy 175 houses in Hawkwell on the following grounds
1) it is unsound because the vital requirements pps 12 are not met because of unsustainability

TRAVEL-- limited public transport
increased car use causing even more congestion/pollution inability to improve highways distance from shops distance from train stations

ENVIRONMENT--semi rural location unsuitable for large development complete loss of character loss of green belt loss of wildlife NO social,economic or environmental benifits whatsoever

Sirs,
Objection to Rochford Core Strategy, 175 houses in Hawkwell is UNSOUND

The proposal in Rochford Core Strategy for this many houses in the Ward of Hawkwell West is UNSOUND because the vital requirements of PPS 12 are not met in terms of sustainability, and therefore the location of Hawkwell West (South Hawkwell) should be removed by the Inspector and the allocation moved to a sustainable location.

In summary the reasons that development in this location is unsustainable under PPS 12 are:-

Travel

Limited public transport
Increased car use causing heavy congestion
Inability to improve highways
Distance from shops
Distance from rail stations

Environment

Semi-rural location unsuitable for large development
Complete loss of character
Loss of Green Belt
Loss of wildlife
NO social, economic or environmental benefits whatsoever

In addition, the Core Strategy is UNSOUND because it does not fulfil the principles that are expressly stated in the Core Strategy as it relates to the proposal for Hawkwell, namely -

The Core Strategy

'Seeks to take advantage of development opportunities that will provide social, economic and environmental benefits'

'locate development in areas where alternatives to car use are more viable'

'accompany any development with requisite highway infrastructure to mitigate their impact on the existing network'

No such benefits apply and any development would be detrimental to the character of the existing settlement in Hawkwell West.

I therefore object to the proposal in the strongest possible terms.

NO !!!! to the above, I have voiced my concerns before!! why is no attention being paid to this issue ???
I object as the proposal is unsound for lots and lots of reasons !!
New housing in Hawkwell is a bad move and will cause untold problems in the future as it is not a sustainable location.
The vital requirements of PPS12 are not met.
This semi rural location is unsuitable for a large development and has no social, economic or enviromental benefits whatsoever!
And would detract from the existing character of this lovely location and disturb the precious wildlife.
Please add my comments to what I am sure is already an ever growing list,

I hope to here some kind of positive response soon.

Objection to Rochford Core Strategy 175 houses in Hawkwell
Objection to planning application 330 houses by David Wilson homes

The proposal in the Rochford Core Strategy for this many houses in the Ward of Hawkwell is UNSOUND because the vital requirements of PPS12 are not met in terms of sustainability, and, therefore, the location of Hawkell West should be removed by the Inspector and the allocation moved to a sustainable location. In summary the reasons that development in this location is unsustainable under PPS12 are as follows:-
Travel
Limited public transport, increased car use causing heavy congestion, ( I live on the B1013 and the traffic has increased greatly since I moved here in 1993, many road accidents and nearly every day it can take me 10-15 minutes to leave my driveway onto the B1013.
Inability to improve highways, distance from shops, distance from rail stations.
Environment
Semi rural location unsuitable for large development
Complete loss of character
Loss of green belt
Loss of wildlife
No social, economic or environmental benefits whatsoever
In addition the Core Strategy is UNSOUND because it does not fulfil the principles that are expressly stated in the Core Strategy as it relates to the proposal for Hawkwell.
Finally such a large scale development would lead to an unwelcome strip coalescence of built settlements which is not in line with Council policy. Additionally we live across from Hawkwell Common and the council is aware of the youth problems and anti social behaviour in our area from Clements Hall through to Spa Road.

I understand that you are wanting public views about the above and I would like to make objections on various counts

1. Objection to Rochford Core Strategy of 175 houses in Hawkwell is unsound because the vital requirements of PPS12 are not met in terms of sustainability and therefore the location of Hawkwell West should be removed by The Inspector. It is unsustainable under the PPS12 as follows:

Travel - we have very limited public transport and even buses are often cut out for no reason

- increase of cars, I often have problems trying to get out of Poplars Avenue due to the amount of cars now

- inability to improve highways

- distance from shops and railway

Environment - semi rural location unsuitable for large development

- loss of character

- loss of green belt (green belt was protected by past governments and even if it is only 1% now what about the percentages taken in future. Green belt is sacrosanct! (You should be congratulated on saving so much in this area in the past).

- loss of wildlife

- NO social, economic or environmental benefits whatsoever

2. Objection to Planning Application of 330 houses by David Wilson Homes

3. Objection to unelected East of England Regional Assembly making decisions on our behalf.

I am writing to object to the proposal, in the Rochford Core Strategy, to erect 175 new houses in Hawkwell because this many houses in the Ward of Hawkwell West is unsound. It (the proposal) does not meet the vital requirements of PPS12 (the Governments Planning Policy) in terms of sustainability, and therefore the location of Hawkwell West should be removed by the Inspector and the allocation moved to a sustainable location.

To summarise; the reasons the reasons that development in this location is unsustainable under PPS12 are as follows:
TRAVEL: public transport is very limited, (in fact pretty hopeless), therefore the development will lead to severely increased car usage and the inevitable jams during busy times, (check out Cherry Orchard Way in the mornings). The new houses are also a considerable distance from the shops and the Railway Station and a large proportion of local people commute to London so can you imagine the chaos during the commuter time/school time period? Additional roads may help but we don't have the ability to improve our local highways.

ENVIRONMENT: Hawkwell West is a semi-rural location which is clearly unsuitable for a large development. The loss of greenbelt will result in an inevitable proportionate loss of wildlife, and the character of Hawkwell will disappear with no social, economic or environmental benefit whatsoever. There are NO plusses to this development!!

The Core Strategy talks about protecting the character of existing settlements and specifically "seeks to take advantage of development opportunities that will provide, social, economic and environmental benefits". No such benefits would apply to this location, in fact, the development would be detrimental to the existing settlement of West Hawkwell!! It also states that "there is a limit to how much infilling and intensification existing settlements can sustain without their character being adversely affected". This limit has already been exceeded in Hawkwell West. In fact the council is already in arrears with it's legal obligation to provide allotments in the area.

The Core Strategy also says "locate development in areas where alternative to car use are more viable", "reduce the requirement to travel" and accompany any development with requisite highway infastructure to "mitigate their impact on the existing network". There is no space for the development of local roads, especially in Rectory Road, therefore the development will have the opposite effect and considerably increase the requirement to travel, (particularly by car). moving on to public transport, the Core Strategy states that "planning should be well related to existing public transport where possible". There is just one bus to and from Rayleigh/Southend per hour, (which stops in the early evening) and no prospect of Arriva providing an appropiate service in the long term.

Finally, such a large scale development would lead to an unwelcome strip coalescence of built settlements which is not in line with Council Policy.

OBJECTIONS TO ROCHFORD CORE STRATEGY - 175 houses in Hawkwell

The proposal in the 'Rochford Core Strategy' for this many houses in the Ward of Hawkwell West is UNSOUND because the vital requirements are not met in terms of sustainability, and therefore the proposed location is totally unsuitable. The reasons for our objections are.

1. Public transport is very limited, being one bus per hour from Southend to Rayleigh going through Hawkwell., and there is no prospect of this being changed for the better!! There would be an increased use of cars causing more congestion on the already busy roads. We are constantly being reminded about using alternatives to car use, but the distance from the railway station is too far for most people to walk. The distance from shops makes it necessary to use a car. The present roads are already saturated and not suitable for improvement.
2. Our semi rural location, is unsuitable for a large development. The building of so many dwellings would adversely affect the whole area. We would lose the character of our 'village', along with the green belt, trees and wildlife, some of which are rare species. The proposed tiny amount of green land would not be enough to relocate the wildlife.
3. I can see no social, economic or environmental benefits of such a development.

Please consider our objections. Thank you.

Objection to Rochford Core Strategy, 175 houses in Hawkwell is UNSOUND

The proposal in the Rochford Core Strategy for this many houses in the Ward of Hawkwell West is UNSOUND because the vital requirements of PPS12 are not met in terms of sustainability, and, therefore, the location of Hawkwell West (South Hawkwell) should be removed by The Inspector and the allocation moved to a sustainable location. In summary the reasons that development in this location is unsustainable under PPS12 are as follows:

Travel

limited public transport
increased car use causing heavy congestion
inability to improve highways
distance from shops
distance from rail stations
Environment

semi rural location unsuitable for large development
complete loss of character
loss of green belt
loss of wildlife
NO social, economic or environmental benefits whatsoever
In addition the Core Strategy is UNSOUND because it does not fulfil the principles that are expressly stated in the Core Strategy as it relates to the proposal for Hawkwell. Please see the following:

The Core Strategy talks about protecting the character of existing settlements and specifically 'seeks to take advantage of development opportunities that will provide social, economic and environmental benefits'. No such benefits would apply to this location and development would be materially detrimental to the character of the existing settlement in Hawkwell West. It also states 'there is a limit to how much infilling and intensification existing settlements can sustain without their character being adversely affected'. This limit has already been exceeded in Hawkwell West.

The Core Strategy says 'locate development in areas where alternatives to car use are more viable', 'reduce the requirment to travel' and accompany any development with requisite highway infrastructure to 'mitigate their impact on the existing network'. It is not possible to do this in Hawkwell West as there is no space for development of local roads, especially in Rectory Road, and any development here would increase the requirement to travel, especially by car. Moving on to Public Transport the Core Strategy states that 'planning should be well related to existing public transport where possible'. There is just one bus to and from Southend/Rayleigh per hour with no prospect of Arriva providing an appropriate service in the long term.

Finally, such a large scale development would lead to an unwelcome strip coalescence of built settlements which is not in line with Council policy

The proposal in the Rochford Core Strategy (this is the RDC Policy for local development) for this many houses in the Ward of Hawkwell West is UNSOUND because the vital requirements of PPS12 (this is the Government's Planning Policy) are not met in terms of sustainability, and therefore, the location of Hawkwell West (South Hawkwell) should be removed by The Inspector and the allocation moved to a sustainable location. In summary the reasons that development in this location is unsustainable under PPS12 are as follows:

Regarding the proposed 175 new homes for Hawkwell, Essex.

As residents of Hawkwell and knowing the traffic problems we endure on a daily basis, the increase in housing will cause heavy congestion especially with the limited public transport in our area, also the inability to improve the highways. The distance from the shops and the railway station will cause the new inhabitants to use their cars.

Our semi rural location is completely unsuitable for such a large development resulting in a loss of character. We will lose even more green belt and wild life. Later with the inability of other countries to provide our country with food this land will be needed for agriculture.

This development will leave our community with no social, economic or environmental benefits whatsoever.

In addition the Core Strategy is UNSOUND because it does not fulfil the principles that are expressly stated in the Core Strategy as it relates to the proposal for Hawkwell. Please see the following:

The Core Strategy talks about protecting the character of existing settlements and specifically 'seeks to take advantage of development opportunities that will provide social, economic and environmental benefits'. No such benefits would apply to this location and development would be materially detrimental to the character of the existing settlement in Hawkwell West. It also states 'there is a limit to how much infilling and intensification existing settlements can sustain without their character being adversely affected'. This limit has already been exceeded in Hawkwell West.

The Core Strategy says 'locate development in areas where alternatives to car use are more viable', 'reduce the requirement to travel', and accompany any development with requisite highway infrastructure to 'mitigate their impact on the existing network'. It is not possible to do this in Hawkwell West as there is no space for development of local roads, especially in Rectory Road, and any development here would increase the requirement to travel, especially by car. Moving on to Public Transport the Core Strategy states that 'planning should be well related to existing public transport where possible'. There is just one bus to and from Southend/Rayleigh per hour with no prospect of Arriva providing an appropriate service in the long term.

Finally such a large scale development would lead to an unwelcome strip coalescence of built settlements, which is not in line with Council policy.

RDC's strategy proposes a limited number of very large sites around existing settlements. A more suitable approach would be to direct the new H2 housing requirement to a larger number of smaller sites around existing settlements. This would have the following benefits:
- higher reuse of existing infrastructure as opposed to having to provide new infrastructure
- the increase in traffic load resulting from new housing would be spread around each settlement as opposed to concentrating it into new areas.
- better integration into the existing housing areas
Why are large sites more prefferable to smaller sites? Where is the evidence?

Why is North London Road, Rayleigh the ONLY site in Rayleigh where future housing development is approapriate. No evidence has been provided. An attempt was made in the preffered options document to detail why areas of Rayleigh were less desirable. The consideration for South East Rayleigh development was that it would cause coaleascence and accessability problems for services. This is not true for all sites submitted in this area and I believe that sites submitted would be more beneficial that the proposed North London Road site in Rayleigh. Where is the evidence that each site has been properly considered?

Objection to Rochford Core Strategy, 175 houses in Hawkwell is UNSOUND.

We wish to bring to your notice our objections of the above proposal on the following grounds:-

TRAVEL

Public transport limited (1 bus per hour which stops running after 6.30 p.m.)
Increased car use on an already busy road.
Rectory Road is very narrow and winding with no possibility to improve, and Main Road is also heavily used.
The shops are a great distance from the site.
Both Hockley and Rochford railway stations are a great distance to the site.

ENVIRONMENT

Semi rural location unsuitable for large development
Complete loss of character. Hawkwell has already seen large scale development in Hill Lane area, Bosworth Close, Spencers Nursery etc.
Loss of more Green Belt land.
Disturbance and loss of wildlife.
NO benefits to the community, economic, social or environmental.

SERVICES

Schools, Doctors, Dentists, Sewage, water are all already over-stretched.

We hope you will take all these things into consideration and alter your Core Strategy.

Many of the preffered locations would involve the development of agricultural land. Given that the the government has identified that we will need to grow more domestically and import less food, how can the sites choosen on productive grade 1 agricultural land be justified?

The proposal in the Rochford Core Strategy for this many houses in the Ward of Hawkwell West is UNSOUND because the vital requirements of PPS12 are not met in terms of sustainability, and therefore, the location of Hawkwell West should be removed by the Inspector and the allocation moved to a sustainable location. In summary the reasons that development in this location is unsustainable under PPS12 are as follows:

TRAVEL

limited public transport
increased car use causing heavy congestion
inability to improve highways
distance from shops
distance from rail stations

ENVIRONMENT

semi rural location unsuitable for large development
complete loss of character
loss of green belt
loss of wildlife
NO social, economic or environmental benefits whatsoever.

In addition the Core Strategy is UNSOUND because it does not fulfil the principles that are expressly stated in the Core Strategy as it relates to the proposal for Hawkwell.

The Core Strategy talks about protecting the character of existing settlements and specifically 'seeks to take advantage of development opportunities that will provide social, economic and environmental benefits'. No such benefits would apply to this location and development would be materially detrimental to the character of the existing settlement in Hawkwell West. It also states 'there is a limit to how much infilling and intensification existing settlements can sustain without their character being adversely affected'. This limit has already been exceeded in Hawkwell West.

The Core Strategy says 'locate development in areas where alternatives to car use are more viable', 'reduce the requirement to travel', and accompany any development with requisite highway infrastructure to 'mitigate their impact on the existing network'. It is not possible to do this in Hawkwell West as there is no space for development of local roads, especially in Rectory Road, and any development here would increase the requirement to travel, especially by car. Moving on to Public Transport the Core Strategy states that 'planning should be well related to existing public transport where possible'. There is just one bus to and from Southend/Rayleigh per hour with no prospect of Arriva providing an appropriate service in the long term.

Finally, such a large scale development would lead to an unwelcome strip coalescence of built settlements which is not in line with Council policy.

We trust our objections will be noted and our voice will be heard.

I agree with the need to provide additional housing, and that the Green Belt will have to be used to address this. I do not agree that the locations detailed are the best locations to provide the housing. A more pragmatic approach would be to allow smaller extensions to the residential envelope around each of the settlements, avoiding the need for the huge extensions detailed here. There is inadeqaute evidence provided to convince me that this has really been considered.

I strongly object to houses being built in our area.

Objection the Rochford Core Strategy of 175 houses in Hawkwell is unsound.

We need to keep Hawkwell a village. We do not need any more houses, traffic and people. There is only one answer that is NO.

We are writing to object to the Rochford Core Strategy of allowing the construction of 175 houses in the ward of Hawkwell West, we consider that this strategy is unsound because the vital requirements of PPS 12 are not met in terms of sustainability, and that therefore the location of Hawkwell West should be removed by the Inspector and the allocation moved to a sustainable location.

You have invited comments in relation to the planning merits of this core strategy, a strategy that we believe the vast majority of local residents oppose due to the large number of dwellings proposed to be constructed on green belt land with resulting loss of natural wildlife habitat.

My wife was born in Hawkwell in the late 1940's and we have lived in either Hockley or Hawkwell for all of our married life, and for the last 29 years in Rectory Road at the above address.

Throughout all of that time housing developments of one sort or another have taken place within the Parish boundaries: Spencers on the site of the former Spencer Nursery, White Hart Lane, Victor Gardens, Hillside Avenue and at various locations in Main Road Hawkwell eg the site of the former Hawkwell Primary School, Hookers Garage and shops on White Hart Hill demolished with houses being built in their place.

What all of these residential developments have in common is that the number of homes being built were of a size that could be assimilated comfortably within the existing village community and in the main did not detract from the pleasant semi-rural environment of Hawkwell.

The core strategy proposal is for 175 homes to be built on an adjoining parcel of green belt land in Rectory Road thereby creating a huge new housing estate that will be approximately ¾ times larger than any other previous single development in Hawkwell.

The result - should this development be approved - will be the destruction of a natural nature reserve and the loss forever of the pleasant rural environment of Hawkwell which is the main reason that most current residents have chosen to live in the area.

Our specific objections to the proposal are briefly detailed as follows not necessarily in any order or importance:-

Building on existing green belt land.

A 175 home estate is far too large for a relatively small village

Infrastructure of Hawkwell is inadequate to cope with the demands of a development of this size.

175 new houses means at least another 300/400 daily cars on our already congested roads - B1013 is one of the busiest B roads in the country.

Doctors surgeries, Schools and Dentists are full to overflowing and our Fire Service is a retained one not permanently manned.

The proposed site for development is at a considerable distance from shops and railway stations.

The local bus service has been reduced giving few options to travel other than by private car.

Rectory Road from Clements Hall to Nursery Corner is very narrow with buses and lorries having great difficulty in passing.

In the morning rush hour the traffic down Rectory Road to Nursery Corner is already very congested often backing up way past the entrance to the Clements Hall Sports Centre.

The area proposed for development abounds with wildlife: muntjac deer, badgers, foxes and numerous birds currently reside on the land.

Trees and hedging would be lost to be replaced with a concrete jungle.

Living as we do opposite the Christmas Tree Farm we recognize that the charge of 'nimbyism' is likely to be levelled against us and it is obvious that we are one of the families most affected by this proposed development, however we understand that villages and communities evolve and that part of this process results in increased levels of housing.

Our main objection therefore is the size of the development on green belt land, a development that if permitted will destroy the rural ambience and character of Hawkwell for ever.

The Core Strategy talks about protecting the character of existing settlements and specifically 'seeks to take advantage of development opportunities that will provide social, economic and environmental benefits'. No such benefits would apply to this location and development would be materially detrimental to the character of the existing settlement in Hawkwell West. It also states 'there is a limit to how much infilling and intensification existing settlements can sustain without their character being adversely affected'. This limit has already been exceeded in Hawkwell West.

Finally we would question the demand eg a number of the flats built at the top of White Hart Hill remain unoccupied some 2 years after completion.

The planning system exists to ensure that the public interest is taken into account when a new development is proposed, and that new development does not harm the environment. Clearly the proposed development on the land between Main Road and Rectory Road and Clements Hall Hockley fails in the objectives of public interest and environmental impact.

If the council examined the area and current infrastructure, it is clear that:

Transport systems are poor
Traffic congestion through Rectory Road from Main Road and Ashingdon Road is currently a serious issue.
Due to the current housing framework there is no possibility to extend/improve current highways.
It has inadequate Primary and Secondary School facilities
It is inadequately served by shopping facilities.
The distance to train stations is such that links for other transport systems (buses) are essential.
Clements Hall Sports Centre already attracts a high volume of traffic from 7\m to 10pm daily.
There are no social benefits of any kind of development for the local community on this green belt land.
The area currently supports a significant wild life population, with examples from Roe deer to common newt, which has been enhanced by the Spencer's Park rural development.

The Proposed Development.

Whether the proposal was 30 or 300 houses the conclusion would be the same. The impact on social and environment levels would be seriously detrimental, and offer no economical benefits to the local economy.

Due to the low level of local industry travel by car is essential due to inadequate Public Transport facilities. Increasing the local population by as little as 30 households would be detrimental, 175 to 350 disastrous. Clearly a development where car use is minimised would be far more in keeping with current government directives.

Additional vehicular access to Rectory Road, and Clements Hall Way would significantly impact on what is already a high throughput road link for traffic moving between Main Road and Ashingdon Road, in addition to the traffic to and from Clements Hall Sports Centre.

There is a requirement for more housing in the district however the intensity of housing in the Hawkwell West area already exceeds current facilities and further development would seriously effect the character and existing education, road and education framework.

The environmental impact of this proposed development should not be underestimated. The stretch of land forms a link between other green belt areas and supports a significant wild life population, including badger, fox, roe deer, and a significant bird and amphibian population.

To the point:

Rochford core strategy for 175 houses this is UNSOUND.

Objection to Rochford Core Strategy, 175 houses in Hawkwell is UNSOUND.

The proposal in the Rochford Core Strategy for this many houses in the Hawkwell West Ward is UNSOUND for the following reasons,

Travel - Limited pubils transport (one bus per hour)
The present road infrastructure (B1013) has difficulty in coping with the heavy congestion each peak time of the day.
There are no shops in the immediate vicinity.
Any building would be quite a distance from the railway stations (where parking is at present at a premium).

Environment - The present semi-rural location is unsuitable for a large development complete loss of character and loss of green belt land.
There would be loss of wildlife and there would be no social, economic or enbironment benefit to the area whatsoever.

In addition the Core Stratey is UNSOUND because it does not fulfil the principles that are expressly stated in the Core Strategy as it relates to the proposal for Hawkwell.

I trust that you will consider my objections when the planning application comes before the committee.