South West Hullbridge 500 dwellings (250 between 2015 and 2021, and 250 post 2021)

The location of the 500 dwelling location is totally ridiculious, without considering the infrastructure of the area. Access to this site, currently, can only be accessed by public transport, or car. Hence access can only be from Lower Road from Southend or from the A127 & A130 via A1245 using either Rawreth Lane or Watery Lane. Rawreth Lane, RDC in this document are proposing large dwelling development how will this and Hullbridge large development get sensible access to/from there homes??
How will Rayleigh Station and Parking cope, Rayleigh Town Parking. We cannot continue to consider development in this fragmented way.

Logical developemnt area for Hullbridge but the implications of an additional c.1000 vehicles using the area of Watery Lane/Raweth Lane to access Rayleigh and main roads must be considered and eleviated. Hullbridge suffers from the lack of public transport and using cars is the only viable option currently.

Due to damage that will be caused to green belt land. The road infrastructure both on side roads and main road will be overloaded with traffic making already poor parking worse. Views from houses at the top end of Windermere Avenue and Harrison Gardens will be lost. Hullbridge will lose its unique country village feel and become yet other sprawling town.

NO GREENBELT LAND SHOULD BE CONSIDERED FOR DEVELOPMENT,NO PLANNING WOULD BE GRANTED TO A PERSON WHO HAS LAND ATTATCHED TO A PROPERTY THAT IS WITHIN GREENBELT! HULLBRIDGE SHOULD BE LEFT AS IT IS,A QUIET VILLAGE NOT A GROWING TOWN,PLUS HOUSE VALUES WOULD DROP AS A RESULT OF ANY DEVELOPMENT.ITS A COMPLETE NON STARTER FOR ME!

This proposal will alter the unique riverside village of Hullbridge.
With the addition of 500 new homes planned, it looks like we may become a town.

No more affordable housing

Why so many houses for such a small village? This would inappropriately increase the size of the village, there is only one small primary school, no secondary school. A new development on the outskirts on the village will be so isolated- you might as well give it a seprate name. People will just drive into Rayleigh. It will become one of those commuter towns where people don't know their neighbours - not what the village of hullbridge is like at all. I am devastated at the thought of it. What is a 'defensable green belt boundry'? What about the boundry with the green belt that already exists?

I would like to know why all four options have been taken on the same land.This will cause major traffic problems entereing the town from the south west.
Why is the developement not being spread out more around Hullbridge,there must be more options available to construct smaller developments on both sides of the town to stop the conjestion these options will produce.Sites in differing areas of the town constructing of up to 100 units would spread the traffic flows.

mr m eade.

Hullbridge needs the 500 dwellings now, lets bring this village to 2010.

Hullbridge is a small Village surrounded by greenbelt land, Greenbelt to prevent such aplications from being allowed. Hullbridge is not suitable for this development. Affordable housing would mean more young families in a small village which has no real facilities for children and young adults. It already has to send its children by bus to schools that have become overcrowded. Hullbridge would need to have many changes to its infrastructure to house another 500 families, it would become a town. If a town is required, build a new one on brown land and leave our villages be.

I object to Option SWH3 as the unadopted roads in this area will not be able to cope with the extra traffic.

I strongly object to the plans for SWH1/2/3 and SWH4. I have lived in this area for many years and greatly value the village and strong community life that exists. I feel very strongly this land has been ear marked for development. It is not necessary to have this located at these sites.
This development will greatly impact on the local community. Transport links in and out of Hullbridge will be affected greatly due to higher traffic levels. Bus services, schools and shops will need to be increased. Noise and polution levels will increase.

this end of hullbridge is perfect for development as the open space is there. eventually maybe hullbridge can be accessed from another direction as well,from battlesbridge or from the corner where lower rd meets hullbridge rd. this would bring hullbridge into the times.
GREAT IDEA

The proposal suggests there are good transport links to the Town Centre - That is simply not the truth! Currently at Peak times there is significant delays into and out of the Village. Lower Road / Watery Lane is used as a rat run for traffic coming from the A130 / A127 wanting to access Eastern parts of RDC area.
The proposed areas are designated Level 1 Flood Plain which will require significant investment in water management and impact on existing occupiers.
Core Infrastructure in Hullbridge insufficient to cope - Infant and Junior schools already oversubscribed. Doctors surgery similar. Shops too small/ not diverse enough
Number of unadopted roads in Hullbridge will require significant investment by local residents to enable plan. That is unfair
Access to sites not detailed enough to comment

13/04/2010: After attending the public meeting in Hullbridge last night - I just wanted to say that we only heard about this through reading about it in the ripples magazine. I am appalled that there has been no correspondence with the residents of Hullbridge regarding this matter. I have since heard that some residents have received letters and others have not, I know we never received any such letter.

Having just browsed the document I noted that, although your representative said last night, that these plans were not going to go ahead until 2015 and beyond. The document states that the planned beginning of work would be late 2010. Can I assume from this that your representative last night wasn't telling the whole truth?

Apart from the practical issues that were highlighted last night such as the impact it would have on the infrastructure etc of the village, increasing Hullbridge to a small town. In essence destroying the appeal of this lovely village, which brought us here in the first place. I do not believe that any thought ever goes into the planning of such things. The quality of life of people is of no consequence. One of the few pleasures I have is to sit in my garden, after a long day at work, and enjoy the rural quiet of my surroundings. Nevertheless, it really doesn't matter what I, as a voter says, does it?

In answer to one of the men who spoke last night - didn't get his name - who said that the council have to bow to government demands. I say, it is your job to fight for the rights of the people who voted for you, isn't that why we put you there? We expect empathic representation, not a 'body' that cowers in the face of a government that wants to destroy what we have left of the countryside. And why has it suddenly become OKAY to build on GREEN BELT land?

All 4 options will ruin the current countyside views of the houses in Windermere Ave, Harrison Gardens & Abbey Rd. These properties have been chosen for their tranquil location overlooking farmland & countryside. These proposals would reduce the appeal of these homes & thus affect residule value.

The additon of 500 homes to Hullbridge would be disproportionate to the size of the present population and upset the balance of the community. Why are 500 homes proposed for Hullbridge while Hockley, which is larger and has better infrastructure and facilities, is only being allocated 50? How can the Council claim that these proposals would enable the green belt to be protected when they are proposing to build on existing green belt land?

I object to the proposal for the 500 new dwellings in Hullbridge. No attempt has been made in the last 30+ years to develop the services/infrastructure in Hullbridge. I expect that the locations were not selected by local experts, but by a consultancy firm based on a catchment model. If Rochford council wish the residents to support this venture, demonstrate your commitment by implementing the planned road developments, improve the public transport system and give commitments that adequate policing and other services will be provided to meet the requirements. With that in place, you may find Hullbridge residents more approachable.

The village is large enough as it is it does not need to be any bigger and at the moment there is a good mix of housing and countryside. The land that is earmarked for this development is green belt land and should remain so.

Please refer to ID 18192

I would like to make my feelings known and put in an official complaint about the proposed plans for 500 houses planned for the area you ar
calling, SWH1,2,3 and 4. There have, as you know been many changes to Hullbridge in the last ten years. The tearing down of protected trees to make way for flats, of which some are still EMPTY!! The knocking down of perfectly good bungalows to make way for flats, of which some are still EMPTY !! The filling in of swimming pools, again to build flats, again some of these are still EMPTY!! Why do you feel the need to turn a what was once a nice village into a small town, we all know what ends up happening
in towns, more crime more anti social behaviour and a lot less care is given to the surrounding area. Not to mention the loss of country side,
wild life ect all these things we take for granted we will soon be without competly. Explain to me where is the excess water going to go if we
concrete all the flood plains left, not to mention pollution caused by more traffic, and schools. Hey lets just knock down another school and build houses, because that of course leaves all the children nowhere to be schooled. Think again Council before making there palns a reality.

Iwould like to put my objections to the proposed development in South West Hullbridge. There are no facilities for children apart from a tiny hall. We have no police station , no bank,poor roads in and out of the
village.Then you want to enlarge the village by a third more houses. I moved here to live in a village not a town

I want to strongly object all four options put forward for any houses in Hullbridge.

At the moment there are roughly two hundred homes either to let or buy in the area.

My husband and i have here for forty five years, and watched the village develope. Brought up two children, one born in the village. Have attended the local schools. Myself was on our parent association for over six years.

We do not want our village turned into another Basildon,Pitsea or Canvey. We know all around us, Hockley, Ashingdon,Hawkwell, Daws Heath and Wickford are having the same fight. Why is the south east continually getting bombarded with building. We are villages and want to stay as such.

Where you want to build is flood plain, we have been through flooding over the years, where was any help from our councillors then. Whenever is there any help for Hullbridge!!

Has any one walked along our river bank lately? if they have ,you can see how the bank is falling into the river. We have been told the water levels are rising, and parts of our coast will be under water. Well we have eyes and can see for ourselves. We regularly walk to Battlesbridge so we know the banks are corroding.

Why is there this rush for houses where are the people coming from to fill them ?Why is our population going so fast? Why the need for social housing? We all know the answer, because there is no control on immigration. No-one will talk about this its a taboo subject.

Five hundred houses, three thousand inhabitants? how many cars for our roads?.Have you seen our roads?We still live on an anadopted road like many of Hullbridge residents. Though we all still pay the same banding. Never had a rebate, though we dont have street cleaners, edge cutting, drains cleaned, new lighting or repairs done to the road we do that ourselves.

You have schools to think about, we did have a new senior school some years ago Park. Did'nt last long.Was pulled down, yes you guessed for more houses.Now Swayne Park is stuffed full.

Well i think you know my feelings by now. NO HOUSES FOR HULLBRIDGE.

A road network that cannot cope with the volume of traffic at peak times.
The local electricity supply is not the most reliable and the same goes for very poor drainage in the area.
Hullbridge is just not a suitable area for additional housing in addition there is not a senior school here, senior schools outside the area are all over subscribed.
There is no Police Station or rail station and a poor bus service, this is not an ideal location. Our doctor's surgery cannot cope with current demands and there is little or no youth facitities in Hullbridge.

Hullbridge would seem to be just about at maximum capacity for a self-contained village with little local employment. The local infrastructure can barely cope with the traffic involved with this type of rural community. The addition of 500 homes, which will inevitably result in an additional 1000-2000 extra people with their 500-1000 vehicles, will overload the infrastructure so much it could cause gridlock at certain times of the day. Without considerable investment in facilities to satisfy the requirements of these extra families the village will no longer be self-contained, requiring much more traffic movement in and out of the village to meet these requirements. This development will turn Hullbridge into a small rural town without the infrastructure to support it. In my opinion recent developments elsewhere in the area would make those areas much more suitable for this size development.

Dear Sir/Madam
Having been at the parish meeting on Monday 12th April 2010 I have decided to write and add my dislike of the planning that is planed for Hullbridge in the next 10 years. I see from your web site that there is no mention of a Hullbridge action group unlike other areas.
The infrastructure in Hullbridge is very poor already and would only get worse with another 500 houses which is and increase of a third on how many at presenct. The drainage is bad and the storm drains in Hullbridge Road cannot take the water when it rains now let alone when the houses have concreted over a large flooded field.
Last week when Watery Lane was closed the traffic going towards Rayleigh was back to the golf club and that was mid morning on a school holiday. 500 houses will increase the vehicle numbers by at least another 1000 and probably more. How are small roads like Hullbridge Road or Lower Road going to cope with this increase.There are times when we cannot even get out of Ferry Road and you feel trapped.
Watery Lane is bearly wide enough for 2 cars to pass and not wide enough for lorries so how are they going to build all these houses without blocking Hullbridge residents.
We live in Grasmere Ave which is one of the unadopted roads that is close to the proposed building area. We have to maintain the road and pathways and the extra traffic would cause us a great deal of expense and we would expect the road to be made up and maintained if the site is granted.
I again say why there, why there.

Dear Sir/ Madam
I wish to register my objection to the proposed devolopement of up to 500 new dwellings in the Watery lane Maylons farm area of Hullbridge by 2025.

My wife and I have lived in the village since 1973 and in that time the population has increased significantly with many new houses and lately blocks of flats,this has not been accompanied by any new infrastructure such as roads and drainage, if this development is allowed, Hullbridge will be gridlocked with the extra traffic and people this will bring.

Moreover, most of the land where these houses are going is prone to flooding already, where is all the surface water going when this is concreted over, not to mention the sewerage which is a joke in the village already.

My next point is the schooling for the extra children this will bring, the planners in their wisdom a few years ago decided to knock down a perfectly good senior school (The Park) because they thought it would not be needed due to falling population, now there will be thousands more children requiring a school, where will they go?

I could go on and on about the reason why this proposal is wrong for Hullbridge, but suffice to say that we and most of the residents of the village are against it,as was proved at the meeting on Monday 12th April in the day centre.

One of our members recently received a copy of the plans for new affordable housing which it is proposed should be built on what little countryside we have left, surrounding our village.
Recently heavy rain has proved how quickly the land became saturated, with flooding causing problems in the area. Our schools and local Medical Centre would come under severe pressure with any such expansion.
In view of the above we would like to strongly protest against any such development ever taking place.

Hullbridge has not got the resources and infrastructure to support large amounts of extra housing within the village.
i.e. Bad drainage, foul and surface, lack of schools, banks and policing.
The roads are congested enough at peak times to make it very difficult for people to cross the roads, Ferry Road, to catch a bus or shop.

1) A major development on this scale cannot be contained within the existing infrastructure.

2) All access roads are single lane and most are unmade/unadopted or just 30 years old without any major resurfacing over the period. They could not take the strain of another 2000 cars.

3) No roads are of a size to include pedestrian walkways.

4) Street lighting is inadequate.

5) Existing Drains and sewage cannot cope with additional development on this scale. In addition Hullbridge Road and Watery Lane cannot manage additional water flow and back-up and overflow/flood during heavy rainfall.

6) Parking will be a major problem - possible additional 2,000 vehicles, plus visitors arising out of 500 home development.

7) Roads and access to and from the village will become blocked and saturated.

8) No comprehensive school within walking or within 3 miles easy route

9) Primary school too small for potentially additional 1,000+ children.

10) No child facilities - except the main park.

11) No youth facilities except very old small old school building.

12) Loss of green belt land.

14) Loss of agricultural land.

15) Loss of views, walking amenities and environment.

16) Damage to local wildlife - herons, field mice, shrews, pheasants, ducks, foxes, badgers, birds.

17) Loss of hedgerows and ancient trees (oaks).

18) Loss of drainage ditches.

19) Access for emergency services - already very tight and unsuitable.

20) Health facilities - all unable to cope with additional 2000 people.

21) Waste and recycling collection and facilities are inadequate and will be further stretched by additional homes and people.

22) Public transport - access and usage. Already limited to one bus.

23) No train station - access to Hockley and Rayleigh already very congested on single lane roads.