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

500 houses will produce approx. 1000 cars. The roads around here cannot cope with the traffic now, the shops & car parks could not cope with the extra people & cars.
The housing estate would also ruin the view & devalue the houses in this area.
Whoever came up with this idea should find another job or be put into the nearest home for the insane.

Development at South west Hullbridge is close to the Crouch and Roach Estuaries SPA and Ramsar site and may, therefore, require assessment under The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 in relation to the potential increase in recreational pressure, especially by dog walkers.

We are very upset to here about the proposed building of 500 new homes in Hullbridge on greenbelt land. We moved to Hullbridge 4 and a half years ago and chose to make our home here due the beautiful surrounding countryside and the fact that it is not a major town. It seems a safe place for children and the community here is very nice. We want it to stay this way.

If you are to build these new homes, how is Hullbridge going to cope?

Traffic is often a major issue in and out of Hullbridge, how are the roads going to cope with the extra traffic?

Flooding is a major issue with the roads often flooded causing chaos for everyone; the drainage is struggling as it is, how will it cope with 450 new homes?

Extra people will mean our schools will be more full and I understand the secondary schools already have full capacity?


Extra people will mean our doctors will have to cope with more patients, leaving us with longer waiting times!

What about transport in and out of Hullbridge, we only have buses that run through, no train station to major routes.

Crime is low in Hullbridge and we want to keep it this way. Listen to the residents and how we feel, don't ruin out lovely village and community and especially don't ruin the surrounding countryside and the wildlife in it.

Build away from Hullbridge in a place where it's not going to affect anyone and upset residents nearby, there must be other places.

I was at the meeting last night in Hullbridge and listened with interest to the many objections that were raised to the scheme for more houses in Hullbridge, and also to the replies from the council's employees and the councillors present.
I am not, as you may gather, a professional complainer nor I hope am I one of the NIMBY brigade.
Nevertheless, I feel I must object to the plan on the grounds of:-
1. Lack of infrastructure.
The area suggested for the development of housing are subject to flooding and no amount of reassurance can take that away. The fact that Essex County Council will be responsible for drainage does nothing to fill me with confidence. The fact is that due to the nature of the subsoil (clay) and the position of the proposed development area no one can drain the water fast enough from that area. The people of Hullbridge are a practical bunch we know the area and we know the problems. Please listen to us.
2. Lack of doctors and schools
The medical practice in Hullbridge is currently expanding to fulfil to needs of the people currently here. More will simply swamp the facilities and make it difficult for existing residents to be properly cared for.
There is only one school currently in Hullbridge, that is only up to age 11 at which point most children have to go on the Rayleigh schools. Hullbridge is clearly not a good option for new housing with all the attendant children.
3. Unfairness
The residents of Hullbridge are being unfairly burdened with these proposed housing developments because they are not as articulate or as well represented as other parts of the area (eg Rochford, Rayleigh) We feel you could make the burden much less but that you are taking the line of least resistance in unfairly targeting Hullbridge. Hence the comment at the meeting "Hullbridge is becoming just like another Canvey Island!"
I hope you take into consideration all my objections. I am retired now like many of the residents of Hullbridge, and find your website a bit baffling hence the letter.

Proposed Housing Development - Hullbridge

Further to the community meeting which was held on Monday 12th April 2010 at the Hullbridge Day Centre, to discuss the above. I am writing to register certain points which we feel will have a massive impact on our household and which are of great concern to us.

Firstly should we have been notified in a more formal manor that the proposed development is to be built on the fields adjoining our rear garden where Maylons Farm currently is instead of squirreling it away in a publication of Rochford matters which tends to be a hit and miss affair as to whether we receive it or not, or was this a deliberate intention to comply with legislation to the barest minimum?. No one in Ambleside Gardens or Elm Grove has received any information. I found this absolutely incredible as when there was going to be new surface water drainage put in at the back of our neighbours garden and the fields of the farm, because our gardens were flooding when it rained we had several letters regarding this matter which had very little impact on ourselves directly the same can not be said of a construction site building 500+ homes.

Secondly knowing the area quite well as I drive in and out several times a day, the proposed site seems a strange choice you do not need to be a surveyor to notice it is a natural basin with the rising steeply to the north south and west, no surprise here then when we do have a heavy shower of rain the surface water drains of Lower Road / Hullbridge Road can be seen to be pumping out in a nice foot high fountain. How do you think Watery Lane came by its name? If you care to look at records for the fire rescue service you will find people in cars are pulled out on a regular basis from Watery Lane as it's a meter deep. Is this really a sensible place to be constructing 500+ homes, not only for the new homes but also the impact on the existing inhabitants of Lower Road? When you consider you will be paving over a large areas of the very land that has been soaking up a large percentage of that surface water and then dumping it into a already under equipped drainage system. Do you access to the required funds or the inclination to solve this problem satisfactorily?



Thirdly there already is a reliance on cars in Hullbridge as the bus service is not great and Rayleigh provides the nearest main line station. Looking at the proposal to construct five hundred homes in Hullbridge and another seven hundred and twenty on Rawreth Lane the impact on traffic and travel will be massive just trying to access the A127 or the A130 is a horrendous thought, also I have noticed that the proposed development in Hullbridge is to the south of the library which just happens to be the cut off point for free school travel to Rayleigh's Secondary Schools giving the parents no option but to drive as this will be cheaper thus compounding the traffic problems. The cost of improving the local road infrastructure to an acceptable level will be a massive undertaking and not very pleasant thought whilst it is on going.

On a more personal note we moved to Hullbridge from Dagenham about ten years ago to escape living in an urban environment with every body crammed in on top of one another and to give our children what we thought would be a better safer lifestyle. We really did think we had moved to the country and a major reason for buying the house we purchased in Ambleside Gardens was the view out across the fields to Rayleigh and the fact that we was not overlooked by anybody, whilst we understand you will say no one has a right to a view the fact remains we made our choice paid our money made other sacrifices and now you come along with your proposals and want to take what we have worked hard for, without even making worthwhile consultations with the people it will affect the most.

If the construction of the new homes goes ahead we understand that up to forty percent will be available for the HA rental market we hope that this will mean the young people of Hullbridge and the local area will be first in line for these homes and not used as a means to get council tenants out of the London boroughs so it will free up their housing stock to import more people from Europe and the rest of the world.

In summary we cannot see any economical, social or environmental benefits to this proposed development to our village and wish it registered that we are opposed to it.

Hullbridge is a Community that has evolved and is a large village with a village atmosphere. 500 housing will change this Community and put pressure on the current infrastructure. The road network cannot cope with rush hour traffic now. Any person needing emergency treatment will have to be sure to be ill and need an ambulance out of the rush hour.

I have lived in Hullbridge since 1964. When I moved here it was a small village it has already doubled in size since that time. To increase it further in size would be completely unsuitable, and overload the amenities of this village. The impact of the extra traffic alone would make it totally unsuitable for this plan for all these houses in the area. Getting in and out of the village in the morning rush hour is already at standstill. This plan would cause complete gridlock. We do not want this plan to go ahead.

As a resident of Hullbridge, I feel that the proposals are not suitable for a village location. Infrastructure will not be able to support the increase in population or traffic. The local area is unable to achieve the demand that would be needed to support increased employment or education needs.

I think that the plans are not suitable and our village could not accommodate the expansion proposed.

We wish to voice our concerns at the proposal to build hundreds of houses on the outskirts of Hullbridge.
The area designated for this massive development is on a well known flood plain. Therefore, it would seem to be the height of folly to go ahead with such inappropriate plans.
Hullbridge is still a reasonably small village and to have this kind of development foisted upon us will completely destroy the fabric and the make-up of Hullbridge.
Furthermore, the development cannot go ahead without enormous increases in capacity for local schools, doctors etc. Notwithstanding, the effect on roads, water and sewage removal. The cost in money terms will be astronomical and to the local environment a complete disaster.

We wish to voice our concerns at the proposal to build hundreds of houses on the outskirts of Hullbridge.
The area designated for this massive development is on a well known flood plain. Therefore, it would seem to be the height of folly to go ahead with such inappropriate plans.
Hullbridge is still a reasonably small village and to have this kind of development foisted upon us will completely destroy the fabric and the make-up of Hullbridge.
Furthermore, the development cannot go ahead without enormous increases in capacity for local schools, doctors etc. Notwithstanding, the effect on roads, water and sewage removal. The cost in money terms will be astronomical and to the local environment a complete disaster.

Objection Re. 500 houses

Why must we loose, every village in this part of Essex, 500 dwellings equalling at least 2000 people will kill our village, and our village way of life.

Plus the sites proposed are often flooded. So will these 500 dwellings be able to obtain house and homes insurances. Also a certain amount of water collects in neighbouring garden. Will tarmac and concrete increase this on low lying land a certain amount of open land is needed to help drainage.

I strongly oppose this development, and I look forward to your reply

I am writing to inform you of my objection to the proposed housing development planned for Hullbridge.
The number of houses allocated for Hullbridge is excessive and will put great strain on the school, roads, sewage and general infra-structure of the village.
The area around Watery Lane is often a victim of flooding which in turn will bring problems for the area. The green belt around Hullbridge is an environmental necessity and should be respected as such.

I am writing in opposition to the planned core strategy of the 500 unit housing estate planned for Hullbridge. I feel aggrieved that the councillors, who are supposed to represent us, are trying to push through these proposals with the minimum of consultation with the residents of Hullbridge and without proper investigation into the consequences. I am not against houses being built per se but a 30% increase in the number of houses for this area is completely unrealistic. This whole scheme is very poorly thought out and completely unsustainable for a village with such inadequate infrastructure.

My objections revolve around the impact in the following areas-

The Environment
Infrastructure
Flood plain
Density
Drainage
Main services
Roads
Access to and from Hullbridge
Schools - Secondary
Doctors
Council Services including fire, ambulance and police
Health and Safety

There is no employment directly in the village so where would the employment be for all these new residents? If employment is to come outside the area then these houses should be built where the intended employment is going to be. There is no secondary school in Hullbridge now after redevelopment of housing over the former Park School. As the majority of our children now have to attend Sweyne Park, it goes to show that there is no real planning with regard to this scheme.
There is only one significant bus service in Hullbridge and no railway network. All transport would be therefore by car bringing further congestion to the already over burdened road network. The only access out of Hullbridge is via Lower Road and there are major traffic jams during both morning and evening rush hours. This will further impact traffic to and from Southend and Chelmsford particularly via Rawreth and Rayleigh.
In addition we already have sewage problems in Hullbridge and I do not see how adding so many houses here could possibly improve matters. The biggest problem is the water drainage, especially at the proposed locations. Watery Lane is very appropriately named, since it floods on a regular basis and this will cause increased problems to current residents and indeed future residents.

It seems that Rochford District Council are choosing sites by guesswork and just sticking a pin in a map and without properly researching the facts related to the chosen sites, that we, the residents, should be told about I demand to know the names of all those councillors who are responsible for agreeing such a decision and should this hair brained scheme go ahead, I will hold them all jointly and severally responsible.

As the intended site is indeed sub prime building land could the council indicate why this particular site was chosen? Could the council remit in detail how much this would cost to install the correct drainage and access to the building on this land possible? How much money will be spent on improving the roads and what addition amenities are being considered? I also demand to know how much this infrastructure change will cost and whether it will in turn be past on directly or indirectly to all council tax players.

I am very disappointed in the ineffectual manner in which this core strategy plan was communicated to the residents it will affect the most and I am suspicious that this was indeed an intended strategy in order to avoid opposition. How can it be that the most important decision affecting the lives of every resident in Hullbridge was not communicated directly, by letter, to every household in the area?

This does not present our officials in Rochford Council in a good light. Perhaps it is time to appoint an independent ombudsman to examine and police the structure and processes of the councils actions in close scrutiny.

Please accept this letter as a firm objection to the proposal. I expect all these points to be investigated and I await your prompt detailed response.

I am writing in opposition to the planned core strategy of the 500 unit housing estate planned for Hullbridge. I feel aggrieved that the councillors, who are supposed to represent us, are trying to push through these proposals with the minimum of consultation with the residents of Hullbridge and without proper investigation into the consequences. I am not against houses being built per se but a 30% increase in the number of houses for this area is completely unrealistic. This whole scheme is very poorly thought out and completely unsustainable for a village with such inadequate infrastructure.

My objections revolve around the impact in the following areas-

The Environment
Infrastructure
Flood plain
Density
Drainage
Main services
Roads
Access to and from Hullbridge
Schools - Secondary
Doctors
Council Services including fire, ambulance and police
Health and Safety

There is no employment directly in the village so where would the employment be for all these new residents? If employment is to come outside the area then these houses should be built where the intended employment is going to be. There is no secondary school in Hullbridge now after redevelopment of housing over the former Park School. As the majority of our children now have to attend Sweyne Park, it goes to show that there is no real planning with regard to this scheme.
There is only one significant bus service in Hullbridge and no railway network. All transport would be therefore by car bringing further congestion to the already over burdened road network. The only access out of Hullbridge is via Lower Road and there are major traffic jams during both morning and evening rush hours. This will further impact traffic to and from Southend and Chelmsford particularly via Rawreth and Rayleigh.
In addition we already have sewage problems in Hullbridge and I do not see how adding so many houses here could possibly improve matters. The biggest problem is the water drainage, especially at the proposed locations. Watery Lane is very appropriately named, since it floods on a regular basis and this will cause increased problems to current residents and indeed future residents.

It seems that Rochford District Council are choosing sites by guesswork and just sticking a pin in a map and without properly researching the facts related to the chosen sites, that we, the residents, should be told about I demand to know the names of all those councillors who are responsible for agreeing such a decision and should this hair brained scheme go ahead, I will hold them all jointly and severally responsible.

As the intended site is indeed sub prime building land could the council indicate why this particular site was chosen? Could the council remit in detail how much this would cost to install the correct drainage and access to the building on this land possible? How much money will be spent on improving the roads and what addition amenities are being considered? I also demand to know how much this infrastructure change will cost and whether it will in turn be past on directly or indirectly to all council tax players.

I am very disappointed in the ineffectual manner in which this core strategy plan was communicated to the residents it will affect the most and I am suspicious that this was indeed an intended strategy in order to avoid opposition. How can it be that the most important decision affecting the lives of every resident in Hullbridge was not communicated directly, by letter, to every household in the area?

This does not present our officials in Rochford Council in a good light. Perhaps it is time to appoint an independent ombudsman to examine and police the structure and processes of the councils actions in close scrutiny.

Please accept this letter as a firm objection to the proposal. I expect all these points to be investigated and I await your prompt detailed response.

We are the owners of 74 Windermere Avenue Hullbridge.

We have viewed the local authority planning and green belt policies and are comforted by the local authority attitude to preserve green belt land and limit development to identified sites.

As council tax payers we are further comforted that the local authority planning controls are reasonable and shows care for their community.

The planning proposal would fly in the face of the local authority green belt and planning policy and would tend normal minded people like us to conclude that the council considers the proposal and any future planning application to be a paper exercise with no merit.

Furthermore if the council were to grant outline or full planning permission to allow the development to proceed we would ask the council to confirm when the public consultation took place in respect of amending the green belt and planning policy?

If the public consultation has not taken place and permission is granted for any development this would be in total contravention of the current green belt and planning policy.

Turning now to the consideration that must also be given to the infrastructure of Hullbridge.

ROADS

Access and egress from any proposed development would be from Windermere Avenue. Part of this road is currently un-adopted and not a publicly maintainable highway. Access to any development would be over the un-adopted part of Windermere Avenue.

This said, whether the road is adopted or not the amount of traffic congestion, noise and pollution would be unacceptable to the current residents of Windermere Avenue and the other residents of Hullbridge.

The main road into Hullbridge is Ferry Road, which is a busy main road, and any additional traffic would cause excessive traffic congestion, noise and pollution.

In today's world most house owners have two cars some have more. With such a large proposed development there would be a substantial amount more additional vehicles using Windermere Avenue and Ferry Road.

SCHOOLS

Hullbridge has the benefit of local infant and junior school's, which has and hopefully will continue to provide education of the highest standard to the children of Hullbridge.

This success can be in part attributed to the number of children in each class; this allows the staff to provide invaluable time and attention to each child's individual needs.

As well as providing a good standard of education which parents expect schools also have to aspire to and produce results in line with central government's policy on education particularly children at primary level.

Allowing any proposed development would result in an influx in the amount of children attending the school and would therefore affect the numbers in each class and this would be detrimental to the education of the children who attend the school.

In addition the morale of the staff would be affected which again central government whish to avoid due to the amount of teaching staff leaving the profession because of the unacceptable numbers of children in classes.

WATER SUPPLY & DRAINAGE

We have not studied in detail the water authorities plans if these are at all available at this stage, consideration needs to be given to the location of the main sewer whether public or private and the mains water supply. Any proposed development will require these facilities. Can the current sewers and mains water support the additional usage as a result of the additional properties?

EMERGENCY SERVICES

With the ever-increasing pressure placed on the emergency services having the additional properties within the Hullbridge area would result in further work for the already overworked staff to undertake.

The Ambulance station at Southend Hospital was closed and merged with Rayleigh Ambulance station. The police would either have to come from Rochford or Rayleigh Police Stations.

Having to deal with emergency calls throughout the Southend, Rayleigh, Hullbridge and other surrounding areas does the staff really need an increase to the already widespread catchments area?

THE COUNTRYSIDE

The village of Hullbridge being steeped in history is something, which we all must aspire to maintain. Part of that history is the outstanding views of the English countryside, which we are proud to say Hullbridge benefits from greatly. Any proposed development would destroy and lose the natural beauty of the fields and countryside.

The residents of Windermere Avenue and surrounding roads enjoy living in close proximity to the open countryside, which benefits from peace and quiet and the aesthetic views.

The proposed development will take place on green belt land, which benefits from natural beauty and forms the habitat of many species of wildlife, which will be affected and possibly destroyed forever.

Village life is again something, which we must be proud of and again maintain before it is lost and becomes a thing of the past.

Our clients have an in principle objection to providing an extension to Hullbridge, as Hullbridge is classified as a tier 2 settlement in the Core Strategy and has limited amenities.

Refer to objection to housing development within Hullbridge.

I am strongly against the expansion of Hullbridge by up to 500 homes.

Hullbridge is already a very busy village as it is and will not be able to cope with more traffic. There is often traffic coming into Hullbridge which tails back into Rayleigh and Rawreth. There is one road in and out. How can Hullbridge cope with an extra 500 cars? (At least 500).

Flooding is also a major issue in Hullbridge. Many times Watery Lane has been closed due to flooding! How can you say it is not a flood zone? Now you want to put extra pressure on the land?

I am also worried about the disruption to Hullbridge when the building starts. Our roads are fragile as it is and the arrival of many trucks, vans and Lorries and building material will cause such disruption. For how many years?!?

I was very surprised and disappointed at how you as a council advertised this proposal so quietly so none of our community could protest against this. As a council you seem to pride yourselves on having such a beautiful district with a low crime rate - you won't for long if these houses go up!! You want to house migrant workers here who will give nothing to the community. We had an influx of migrant workers where we used to live (Forest Gate, East London) and crime went up. This is why we moved to Hullbridge, to get away from crime - now you want to bring it to Hullbridge!?

Our doctors are always busy as it is and will not cope with the increase in population. We simply do not have the facilities.

Please tell me why you need more houses in Hullbridge? I'm sure there are many empty homes in and around Southend. You are proposing to turn a beautiful green village into an eye sore. Why not turn the area into a park or playground for our children?

Finally I want to know why these proposed homes are not being made available to us, the Hullbridge community. Why are they being built for migrant workers? There are plenty of British builders/workmen out of work.

I look forward to your response.


Yours Faithfully

Scott Rogers

P.S. I am proud to be a Hullbridge resident, please do not make me lose more faith with your department/council.

Ref - Objection to housing development within Hullbridge.

I am strongly against the proposal erection of 500 new houses in the Hullbridge area. I attended the 'Hullbridge Action Group' last night and was angry and disappointed that the council have kept the se plans secret and under wraps to the Hullbridge residents. This is why no one appealed earlier.
I feel let down by yourselves as I am a fellow RDC employee and can't believe the lack of communication. It was apparently mentioned in Rochford District matters but an outside company distribute these copies to us and no one can guarantee the copies get to our homes.

Traffic is bad enough into and out of Hullbridge as it is and to build more houses will make matters worse. The traffic will filter more into Rayleigh and Rawreth causing much more congestion - this is too much.

Flooding of lower road and Watery Lane will increase. I have lived here for just over a year and have seen the roads closed due to flooding so many times and this will get worse.

Crime, I fear will rise. Rochford District council pride themselves on low crime rate but the introduction of new European migrant workers will no doubt increase crime. I know this from experience from where I used to live in East London. I feel they will bring down the community and not give anything back.

When I phone to book Doctors appointments I have trouble as it is. The influx of new residents will put our doctor's surgeries under more pressure. Will you provide a bigger surgery with more doctors??

Our post office is only small. Are you going to build us a bigger one??


I and my family moved from Forest Gate, East London to get away from crime, pollution, built up living and congestion. Hullbridge is everything we wanted in a village to live but you are turning it into everything that me, my family and the residents of Hullbridge don't want. I am afraid that if these plans go ahead we will have to move house AGAIN.

Have you thought about the chaos and disruption you will cause with building these houses? Lorries, materials, cranes and trucks will cause nothing but hassle. Also our roads are in a bad condition as it is. Our roads cannot cope with the weight of this transportation.

I was looking forward to raising my children in Hullbridge but now because of your plans I'm worried for my children's future.

To close, 500 homes are too much for Hullbridge to cope with, please, why so many? There is plenty of room on the A13 and A127 with main central roads. Hullbridge simply won't be able to cope.

Please can you my letter as I strongly oppose this development.

The village of Hullbridge cannot support the addition of another 500 houses.
The road network can only just cope at the moment especially at rush hour, with all these extra houses the roads will be at a complete standstill.
The local services also would not be able to cope, we now have no police station, the local clinic is hard enough to get into at the moment, the school also would not be able to cope with the extra pupils.
The land that is proposed to be built on already badly floods and so do surrounding properties, I fear that building on this land would only make the surrounding area flood even worse. The drainage system also would not be able to cope, we already have bad problems with sewage and drain problems and again this development can only make that worse.
A lot of the roads are currently privately maintained, looking at the plans entrance to the proposed site would be along some of these private roads so they to will deteriorate with the increase traffic and at the current residents expense!
Lastly, Hullbridge is a rural village and all the residents want it to stay that way, this development would substantially increase the size of the village and gobble up a lot of the green belt land surrounding it. Why is it that such a small community has been proposed this increase in property numbers? It is totally out of porportion to other developments in much bigger surrounding towns. This will have a damaging effect on our property prices (I already know of people that are having trouble selling their porperty because of this proposed development) and our residents. We live in Hullbridge because we enjoy the countryside, lets keep it that way. If we wanted to live in an urban jungle we would have chosen somewhere else to live.

Thank you for your letter dated 17th March 2010 concerning the developments that you are proposing in our area.

We think they are totally unsuitable.

Hockley is a small area with a village feel. This will be totally destroyed. We think that the amount of housing that is being planned will swamp the area and take away its character. The traffic will be unbearable, it is bad enough now! The roads will not be able to cope. The drains area forever collapsing already.

The pollution in the form of Sulpha dioxide and Carbon monoxide will rise and our health will suffer. Our quality of life be greatly affected.

What about health care, doctors, dentist, etc, we are limited at the moment. Hospitals will be overloaded as they are stretched now.

Education would be another area that springs to mind. Where are the children going to go to school the places are inadequate now. In some places parents are being asked to send children out of the area. This would cause a great deal of stress.

It was nice of you to inform us about your intentions but what about all the other people in the area, as you are not widely advertising the facts at tyhis point and our information is received via the HRA. Is a tiny notice tucked away on page 17 in the Echo 22nd March 2010 inviting us to view the plans at various places enough? Surely these kinds of plans which will cause a major impact on the community should have more prominence.

The people who live in the Folly Lane area have suffered years of being plagued by the smell from the mushroom farm (we have lived here for forty years) followed by huge 'Artics' day and night and now industrial units have moved in and more heavy vehicles. Why are there industrial units there now when it was classed as agricultural land? (A farm that grew tomatoes and then mushrooms).

Now we have been told of the plan for fifty or more houses on the site, and as usual our views will probably ignored.

Another point to be considered is the more densely populated an area becomes the more crime it invites.

Children need space to grow and all the green spaces and all the green spaces are being eroded and there will be nothing left for the next generation. Just a concrete jungle and the only people to benefit as always are the builders and those engaged in numerous consultations.

With regard to the Watery Lane area, you can't be seriously thinking of building there? The clue is in the name it floods. Surely lessons should be learned from other areas in the country that have been built on at there cost. Or is this just a smoke screen.

As for the development of Eldon Way (We were told that the area was originally a pond so that would be liable to floods). It would be far better to concentrate on the shops that we already have. Reducing their rates would be a start so that they can compete with the supermarket giants.

Also we are most alarmed at the suggestion of a gypsy camp in Lower Road. Have the council seen the pictures in the Echo of the last camp in Wickford? Is that what you want for Hockley? We are enclosing the cutting for you to see.

We hope our comments will be taken very seriously as all these developments will have a huge and lasting impact on our lives.

We note at the bottom of your letter is the logo 'investors in people' who are these people? Certainly not us we fear.

No No No

We strongly object to any of the options. They are all on Green Belt, plus flood plain. We want to keep Hullbridge a village not another Basildon or Pitsea.

Why must all this building be in the South East, go up North. Put a stop to immigration, then we wouldn't want all this housing.

Re: Proposed development of 500 new homes in Hullbridge

Having attended last night's Parish Council meeting in Hullbridge, where Mr Scrutton and two other members of the planning committee attended, the residents were advised to write to you if we wished to register our opposition to this proposed development.

I would now like to set out my reasons why I believe this development would be detrimental to our village:-

When my husband and myself moved to Hullbridge in 1973, our youngest son went to school here and then on to The Park Senior School to complete his education. At that time the village had Barclays bank, a police house with a resident policeman, a regular traffic warden to control improper parking, and a good selection of small shops that catered for almost all our needs. It seemed a perfect place to live, with the right amount of property and people for the size of the village.

Since then the bank, police house, traffic warden and The Park Senior School have all gone, along with the variety of shops, leaving us with mainly take away food outlets, two supermarkets, insufficient police cover, and no dedicated senior school which catered for the Hullbridge children.

The Infant and Junior school, along with the doctors' surgery must also be considered. With so many extra parents and children to be catered for, this is a small village with limited capacity for both of these facilities.

The proposed addition of a large housing estate would not only totally ruin the atmosphere of Hullbridge, the infrastructure just isn't in place to cope with the burden of so many extra people, along with the added traffic that would come with them. We only have to think back to a few weeks ago when Watery Lane was yet again closed due to flooding. The village ground to a halt with traffic jams due to the fact that this popular rat-run wasn't available.

The lorries needed for the construction of the new development, where we only have the one main road in and out of the village would cause long term disruption.

It is also a well known fact that the drainage system in Hullbridge has long been inadequate, and unless some serious money is provided to update the old pipes, there would be no end of trouble in coping with the extra sewerage created by the proposed extra housing.

Lastly would be the possibility of increased crime and vandalism with the addition of more children and the lack of amenities to keep them occupied.

I hope that the above objections will be taken into account before you come to any decision on this proposed development in Hullbridge.

I wish to register my views about the proposed plans to build 500 homes in S W Hullbridge from approximately Watery Lane to Riverview Gardens.

I feel this is a most unsuitable site because:-

1. This is an area prone to flooding, it is below sea level, the sea level, the sea levels are known to be rising. Building here would affect the water table and would very likely affect the houses that are already built and occupied adjacent to the proposed site causing flooding etc. thus causing difficulty with insurance. Many of us remember the flooding in autumn 968 and subsequent years, problems with sewerage entering houses and gardens.

2. Many of the roads at the Riverview Gardens end are single track unadopted roads and quite unsuitable for another 500 plus cars.

3. We have no secondary school in Hullbridge. The primary school does not have the capacity for 100 or more children.

4. The Doctors surgery is oversubscribed now, with people living longer and a new influx of younger people it would be even more difficult than it is now to obtain an appointment.

5. We have no bank or railway station.

6. We have no significant local industry. Where will all these people work?

7. The roads are not suitable for more traffic Watery Lane and Lower Road are chaotic between 8am and 9am and 4.30pm to 6.00pm because of the sheer volume of traffic using the road to get to Hullbridge, Hockley, Rochford, Southend and the surrounding districts. Many of the vehicles are trying to avoid traffic build up on Rawreth Lane and A127 and A130. Many residents in Lower Road, Abbey Road etc have difficulty getting off their driveways.

I hope you will take points into account when deciding against this proposal.

1. 500 homes will generate 1000+ cars on our small roads.

2. Flooding in this area often cuts Hullbridge off.

3. Purchased house in 2008. Why was this proposal of site not mentioned on a search.

4. Affordable housing may cause an increase in crime rate.

I put an offer on my property April 2008. When was the area first sited?

I purchased the property because it was opposite green belt land and want it to stay as it is.

Supporting details:-

Upgraded roads into and out of village, upgrading size of local school to accommodate increase in children, extra pressure put on health centre losing yet more open space, upgrading requirements on gas, electricity and sewage systems.

I am writing to you as our elected representatives to ask you to veto the proposal for 500 dwellings South West of Hullbridge.

My reasons for this are as follows - Firstly the area adjoining Lower Road and Water Lane regularly floods, putting any building there at risk and possibly spreading the risk of flooding to this end of the existing village.

Secondly access from any such housing would be via Watery Lane and Lower Road both of which are already very busy, being used as 'cut through' to avoid Rayleigh and the A127. Also Lower Road is the only exit from Hullbridge, I can just imagine the traffic jam to get out of Ferry Road!

Thirdly surely 'green belt' means just that useful and pleasant green spaces around residential areas so that traffic fumes are absorbed and so that we can look out on fields rather than more houses.

Finally the proposed number of dwellings with the number of people that this entails would put too much strain on already stretched facilities such as Doctors, schools, shops, waste and sewerage disposal.

I am very pleased that this matter is still open for consultation and discussion and that there is still time for opinions of local people to be taken into account.

Re Core Plan Consultation Document

Having attended the meeting in Hullbridge on the evening 12th April it was advised that a letter be sent to list any objections to the development SW Hullbridge, with reasons.

My objections are:

1. Hullbridge has clearly defined Green-Belt boundaries which should be rigorously defended
2. The proposed development is on a recorded flood plain which through experience I know to be well dounded.
3. The plans call for improved infrastructure but no details are given and, indeed, the questions regarding entrance to the new estate, nor connecting roads, sewerage disposal (already overloaded!) got no answers - I wonder why?
4. Hullbridge is a low crime area with a great community spirit. By increasing the population by 20/25 per cent, this community would be destroyed.
5. The whole of the Eastern Area of Rochford District is already over developed.
6. I wonder why of the localities selected around Hullbridge this particular site was chosen over, say, the land on the Northern edge of Lords Golf club which is not on a flood plain, is as integrated as that of the South West site and will still leave a massive boundary between Hullbridge and Rayleigh which were the reasons given to me by Mr Scrutton at the meeting for not choosing this site. Could it be that as part of the 'improved' infrastructure that plans are for a new road to be pushed through linking the newly expanded airport and all points east with the A130? Or am I being just too cynical?
7. If it is already a fait complete then of the options given SWH4 would seem to be the least disruptive.

Perhaps you will prove me to be over cynical by replying to the questions raised. After all it is a DISCUSSION document and not a dictate. It will be interesting to see just what effect this plan has on property values in the village or if there are any compensation plans for the ondoubted falling values!

Hullbridge has major flooding problems now and road access problems many new houses will only add to the problems we already have. The proposed sites even if raised will force water onto properties that already have flooding problems.

We also have limited schools in Hullbridge (no senior school) and have problems getting the children already in the area into an over burdened scondary school (Sweyne Park).

All the main roads in Hullbridge, Lower Road, Watery Lane and Hullbridge Road become rivers in winter and are already at full capacity at 9 and 5 to 6 how will it cope with more houses and more vehicles. The proposed sites are definitely in need of reconsideration.