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

I am writing as I am concerned about the proposed houses that are going to be built in Hullbridge. I am concerned that such a large scale development will impact negatively on village life.
Firstly, there is only one road in and out of Hullbridge, and this already gets very busy at peak times. How will the extra traffic caused by so many new residents be alleviated?
Secondly, why is it that Hullbridge has to accommodate so many new houses when there are other areas in Essex that have not been selected for new developments?
This makes no sense when Hullbridge has no rail station, no secondary school and scarce resources to support such growth.
Thirdly, with a daughter at the infant school I am concerned that my daughter's education will suffer if the school cope with the increased demand for places? Will it lead to higher class numbers? Will the school be given additional finds to provide the same levels of education that they currently supply?

I am writing to you to object to the proposed development in Hullbridge on our Green belt land.

The proposal to build 500 house dwelling is absurd. This will increase the village population by approx 1/3. We do not have the infrastructure to cope with such a development. Not to mention the proposed land is continuously flooding.

As you will note I live at the back of the proposed development. Throughout the winter our garden was continuously under several inches of water, which comes off the fields and from the ditch, that separates us and the field, I have been informed that the land is below sea level therefore this can never be rectified.

The sewage problem in Hullbridge is also a problem. I have received information from a reliable source that the sewage works cannot currently deal with the demand as it is. It was advised that in a weekly basis the 'sludge' has to be motored to Chelmsford!!!

Please accept this as a firm objection to this proposal. I except all these point to be investigate and a written response from you addressing the same,

Re- Against extending the village by 30% with an additional 500 homes all in one area.

I am writing this letter regarding my objections to the new development within Hullbridge.

Risk Assessment

In your general assessment have you taken into consideration the impact on:

The environment
Infrastructure
Flood (Watery Lane in regular flood - featured on National News recently).
Density
Drainage
Main services
Road
Access to and from Hullbridge
Schools - secondary
Doctors (already at capacity - and apparently there is presently a shortage).
Council services, including Fire and Police.
Health and Safety.

I understand that we originally were allocated 10% and would be grateful if you could write to me and inform me how and why these changes were made.

Is this because we were not represented at the meetings whereby three of our conservative members felt it not worthy of their attendance.

Or that the Parish Council felt that the residents of Hullbridge were not worthy of being notified in more ways than a paper that is not distributed fairly amongst the village.

The Hullbridge Action group seemed to manage to notify the village and I have not spoken one person who is for this development.

Designation and Classification of Land.

Please provide me with the information on the designation/classification of 'Green Belt', White Land and Brown field land.

I had always understood that land had to go through a certain procedure for Green belt land to be classified as suitable for industrial, Commercial or Domestic Development.

Investment

I was also informed at the meeting that you were trying to attract 'investment' in this area, please explain how a Domestic Development will have the capacity to attract 'investment'.

I did not hear any argument that you may have put forward in your 'Application' against a development which would expand the existing population by 30%

Developers

Could you also please explain how the Developers gain the knowledge that 'Green Belt' land would be available for 'Development', hence their purchase and planning applications which you admit have been forwarded by them for approval on the development.

Objection to housing development within Hullbridge.

I am writing to raise my objections to the proposed housing development within Hullbridge. I believe that this development would ruin the village that exists. I don't think such a large influx of homes and people would improve the area but would spoil the whole of Hullbridge.

The effect it would have to the village would be colossal:-

Drainage - Have you considered the drainage in this area? It is already very poor surely this development would just make the flooding worse.

Traffic - Have you considered the traffic in the area? The traffic in Lower Road and Hullbridge Road has already increased in recent years. How can the Infrastructure cope with an increase in traffic? Do we want another Canvey Island scenario? Will the council do anything about the maintenance of existing roads? The answer to this has always been no! How will the roads cope with plant machinery should the building work go ahead?

Medical Centre - The medical centre is currently being made bigger to cope with the increase an residents in Hullbridge. What will the waiting times be like with an additional 1000+ patients?

Schooling - with 450-500 new homes being built where are all these children going to go to school. The local senior schools are already oversubscribed following the demolition of Park School for yet more houses!!

Nation Grid - Our power supplies are already erratic and we suffer with power cuts on a regular basis. How will this be effected with even more houses in the area?

Pollution - 500 + houses + cars = INCREASE IN POLLUTION

Hullbridge already suffers from poorly maintained streets and roads, insufficient public transport, power buts, lack of schools, pollution and local facilities. How can building on green belt land be justified where there is plenty of derelict industrial land in Essex which could be built on.

PLEASE LEAVE OUR VILLAGE AND THE SURROUNDING CONTRYSIDE ALONE!!

I look forward to your response to this letter and would like it notes that I strongly oppose to this development.

I strongly object to the building of 500 houses in Hullbridge.

What a bad idea! Why can't the council regenerate some run down areas instead of ruining our village. Is this so the Council can get more council tax money from their new housing estate.

Watery Lane, Hullbridge Road, Lower Road, Rawreth Lane will be a nightmare during peak times.

Who came up with this absurd and ill-conceived scheme?

Please can you let me know how this can work without ruining everyone's life?

There are several objections to this housing plan but the most major one is our road structure which is not built to take this many houses in such a small village. You are talking 500 houses over the next few years but this will mean at least 1000 cars that is without families growing up and requiring more cars per household. Anyone who now lives in the village knows to get in or out the village at rush hour times can be quite frustrating especially if an accident has occurred on the A130 of the A127, or of course when Watery Land floods. Some side roads in Hullbridge are not suitable for more traffic. The road I live in will become 'rat run' to get to the new housing. I would think it would be in the interest of RDC to make these other side roads up first before building more houses.
Other problems to be concerned about are fields being used for the said plan are flooded during the winter months, people who live along side these have problems with flooded gardens and raw sewage which is not acceptable.
Then there are concerns about doctors surgeries coping with extra patients and schools and not only junior but senior schools in these areas.
This is just a few of our concerns I'm sure as the years go by the problems will grow with the growing population and as I have enjoyed a quiet village life all my life I do not want it to change.

Re- Against extending the village by 30% with an additional 500 homes all in one area.

I am writing this letter regarding my objections to the new development within Hullbridge.

Risk Assessment

In your general assessment have you taken into consideration the impact on:

The environment
Infrastructure
Flood (Watery Lane in regular flood - featured on National News recently).
Density
Drainage
Main services
Road
Access to and from Hullbridge
Schools - secondary
Doctors (already at capacity - and apparently there is presently a shortage).
Council services, including Fire and Police.
Health and Safety.

I understand that we originally were allocated 10% and would be grateful if you could write to me and inform me how and why these changes were made.

Is this because we were not represented at the meetings whereby three of our conservative members felt it not worthy of their attendance.

Or that the Parish Council felt that the residents of Hullbridge were not worthy of being notified in more ways than a paper that is not distributed fairly amongst the village.

The Hullbridge Action group seemed to manage to notify the village and I have not spoken one person who is for this development.

Designation and Classification of Land.

Please provide me with the information on the designation/classification of 'Green Belt', White Land and Brown field land.

I had always understood that land had to go through a certain procedure for Green belt land to be classified as suitable for industrial, Commercial or Domestic Development.

Investment

I was also informed at the meeting that you were trying to attract 'investment' in this area, please explain how a Domestic Development will have the capacity to attract 'investment'.

I did not hear any argument that you may have put forward in your 'Application' against a development which would expand the existing population by 30%

Developers

Could you also please explain how the Developers gain the knowledge that 'Green Belt' land would be available for 'Development', hence their purchase and planning applications which you admit have been forwarded by them for approval on the development.

I would like to add my concerns to many others about the extra housing proposed to be built in Hullbridge. We are a small village and pride ourselves on the lovely countryside that surrounds us. We only have one road on and out. I would like Hullbridge to stay a lovely village by the river not another concrete jungle.

It seems that Rochford district council are choosing sites by guess work and just sticking a pin into a map and without properly researching the facts related to the chosen sites, that we the residents should be told about. As we know that the suggested site in Hullbridge is a boarder line flood plain. If this is a serious site for the new development could the council please explain in detail how they plan to prepare that indicated land to accept that amount of building work. And how (in detail) they plan to adapt the village's present infrastructure to cope with a 30% increase in population.

Also there are real and very serious consequences in building on land of this nature. Therefore the council are morally bound to appoint a council official by name. Who would be totally held responsible for any negative damage and grievments arising from any of the consequences that would unfold from this development? Importantly a very large sum of many money needs to be seen to have been put aside to allow compensation for all residents that might be affected negatively by such a risky development. And where is this money going to come from. Surely the residents must not be held responsible for paying themselves for a very poorly designed building estate that they didn't want in the first place.

And would the proposed housing be for Hullbridge residents? We consider the answer is no. We are fully aware that our own community would not see any benefits of this development.

It is also very important for the council to take the moral position to inform any family who is in position to buy a unit on this land, that they are purchasing a property that is prone to flooding. If this issue is not highlighted to potential buyers. Then there must be an official council body appointed that they would be able to take legal action against for questionable appointment of inappropriate land. I also feel that you should notify insurance companies too.

More importantly, as the intended site is indeed sub prime building land could the council please indicate why this particular site was chosen. And could the council remit in detail how much this would cost to install the correct drainage and access to make the building on this land possible. We also demand how much this infrastructure change would cost and would that in turn be past on directly or indirectly to the council tax payer.

We are very disappointed in the effectual manner in which this core strategy plan was communicated to the residents it will affect the most and are indeed suspicious that this ineffectual communication was indeed an intended strategy in order to avoid opposition.

Please note that these points and concerns are not unique to the residents of Hullbridge, and are commonly felt by other residents in the Rochford District Council area who are facing similar developments. This indicates that Rochford Council have failed to process the core structure effectively. Resulting in a growing suspicion in a large number of tax paying voting residents that perhaps the manner in which this matter has been conducted has been intentional. This does not present our officials in Ombudsman to examine and police the structure and processes of the council's actions in close scrutiny.

We would like to protest about the plans for the new affordable housing which it is proposed should be built on what little countryside we have left, In Hullbridge.

Recent 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, not to mention the sewage overload.

Re- Against extending the village by 30% with an additional 500 homes all in one area.

I am writing this letter regarding my objections to the new development within Hullbridge.

Risk Assessment

In your general assessment have you taken into consideration the impact on:

The environment
Infrastructure
Flood (Watery Lane in regular flood - featured on National News recently).
Density
Drainage
Main services
Road
Access to and from Hullbridge
Schools - secondary
Doctors (already at capacity - and apparently there is presently a shortage).
Council services, including Fire and Police.
Health and Safety.

I understand that we originally were allocated 10% and would be grateful if you could write to me and inform me how and why these changes were made.

Is this because we were not represented at the meetings whereby three of our conservative members felt it not worthy of their attendance.

Or that the Parish Council felt that the residents of Hullbridge were not worthy of being notified in more ways than a paper that is not distributed fairly amongst the village.

The Hullbridge Action group seemed to manage to notify the village and I have not spoken one person who is for this development.

Designation and Classification of Land.

Please provide me with the information on the designation/classification of 'Green Belt', White Land and Brown field land.

I had always understood that land had to go through a certain procedure for Green belt land to be classified as suitable for industrial, Commercial or Domestic Development.

Investment

I was also informed at the meeting that you were trying to attract 'investment' in this area, please explain how a Domestic Development will have the capacity to attract 'investment'.

I did not hear any argument that you may have put forward in your 'Application' against a development which would expand the existing population by 30%

Developers

Could you also please explain how the Developers gain the knowledge that 'Green Belt' land would be available for 'Development', hence their purchase and planning applications which you admit have been forwarded by them for approval on the development.

Re- Against extending the village by 30% with an additional 500 homes all in one area.

I am writing this letter regarding my objections to the new development within Hullbridge.

Risk Assessment

In your general assessment have you taken into consideration the impact on:

The environment
Infrastructure
Flood (Watery Lane in regular flood - featured on National News recently).
Density
Drainage
Main services
Road
Access to and from Hullbridge
Schools - secondary
Doctors (already at capacity - and apparently there is presently a shortage).
Council services, including Fire and Police.
Health and Safety.

I understand that we originally were allocated 10% and would be grateful if you could write to me and inform me how and why these changes were made.

Is this because we were not represented at the meetings whereby three of our conservative members felt it not worthy of their attendance.

Or that the Parish Council felt that the residents of Hullbridge were not worthy of being notified in more ways than a paper that is not distributed fairly amongst the village.

The Hullbridge Action group seemed to manage to notify the village and I have not spoken one person who is for this development.

Designation and Classification of Land.

Please provide me with the information on the designation/classification of 'Green Belt', White Land and Brown field land.

I had always understood that land had to go through a certain procedure for Green belt land to be classified as suitable for industrial, Commercial or Domestic Development.

Investment

I was also informed at the meeting that you were trying to attract 'investment' in this area, please explain how a Domestic Development will have the capacity to attract 'investment'.

I did not hear any argument that you may have put forward in your 'Application' against a development which would expand the existing population by 30%

Developers

Could you also please explain how the Developers gain the knowledge that 'Green Belt' land would be available for 'Development', hence their purchase and planning applications which you admit have been forwarded by them for approval on the development.

I am writing to register my disapproval of the proposed development of the area that is currently farmland on the southwest corner of Hullbridge with 'affordable housing'.

It might have escaped the council's notice that one of the main thoroughfares in the area is called Watery Lane for a very good reason. All the properties in the area are already subject to flooding on a regular basis - something they feel is a nuisance but this inconvenience is offset by the fact that open fields surround them. With these fields covered in concrete/houses the entire character of the area will be changed for the worse and so will the flooding.

This so-called affordable housing might not be so affordable when it is repeatedly flooded and insurance companies refuse to cover flood damage. That flood damage is inevitable is obvious to all Hullbridge residents even though the planning department does not seem to think this is the case.

Along with the concrete will come a greater reliance on man made drainage systems, which could potentially seem to alleviate the flooding problems but whatever system is used to provide drainage for the area there would have to be a reliance on a pumped system given the relationship of the area to sea level.

Even if there is never excessive rainfall again (and this is very unlikely) there will inevitable be episodes of pump failure within the drainage system and the resultant flooding from the waste water from all these new homes - unable to find green space in which to dissipate - will grow from a nuisance for a few properties into devastation for many.

The reason many people move to Hullbridge is because of its countryside location, which the proposed new housing will destroy. The proposed development will change Hullbridge from a large village with strong community relationships into a housing estate on the outskirts of Rayleigh. As ribbon development inevitably will follow the green buffer of countryside that protects the village will be further eroded.

I strongly urge that the council should vigorously oppose this proposed development at the highest level - since the council members are the elected representatives of the local people then the local people should have their views upheld. If not implementing this scheme will mean that the council incurs costs due to government pressures then I for one will be prepared for my council tax to increase to cover these costs - as long as this means that Hullbridge remains a country village.

I enclose a photograph of the recent flooding of the Free Church car park, which is adjacent to the proposed development.

We are appalled at the plan for 450 houses on green belt land, in Hullbridge.

This is a large village, not a town, and we do not have the infrastructure to cope with something on this scale. The area earmarked regularly floods which results in the closure of Watery Lane. Just one of the many reasons why this should not go ahead.

Hullbridge already has had a large building programme and the services are strained.

How was this decision made and who made it? Why were we not warned?

Re Planning for 500 dwellings Watery Lane/Hullbridge.

I am writing to express concerns about the 500 houses proposed for this area. It seems as if it's a done deal, but never the less am concerned about the 1000 cars plus on our roads. It takes a good half hour to get out of the village now at 7.30am before you get to the A130 at top of Rawreth Lane. 1000 more cars and maybe a bottleneck all through this area plus drains can't cope when it rains now Watery Lane is prone to flooding. Just ask the fire brigade to have to get boats to rescue people out of cars, thats without schools like senior that are full and needing extra classrooms do we really need to go back to the sixties for our children and 40 plus per class, can't control kids now without adding to the burden. Can get a doctors appointment within a few days will it be weeks now with 1000 plus people descending on us within the next few years. What about the travellers, no, they won't clog the doctors and schools but will use the roads when not tarmacing. Perhaps you could strike a deal!

I have been fighting for the last years to get our fence put back off the road, been to high court about it and got absolutely nowhere, we now have small trees planted no time soon is that going to be put back where it should be by law!

Objection to housing development within Hullbridge

I am writing to object to the building of 500 properties in Hullbridge.

Hullbridge is a village, and the roads etc, have been built to deal with a village setting - not a town. We do not have the infrastrucutre in place to deal with this sudden increase in numbers. The traffic caused by these proposals will not only give numerous problems to Hullbridge residents, but will also cause problems for the surrounding areas, ie Rawreth and Rayleigh. I also fail to see why we have to take up all the allocations that other areas have rejected - our original allocation was much more realistic.

The areas allocated for development are all areas known for flooding. Watery Lane even made it onto the news this year for its complete inability to cope with the rain. How does this make this area a good place for developing?

I am also strongly against the idea of gypsy camp being allocated. I fail to see how the council can justify spending vast amounts of money on a group of people who give nothing back, and in fact, normally cuase even bigger problems. Look at Crays Hill for evidence of this.

Please accept this letter as a firm objection to all the proposed developments in Hullbridge. I await your reply with anticipation.

Objection to housing development in Hullbridge.

I do not think the village of Hullbridge has the necessary facilities to cope with this large influx of homes. The area being considered is prone to flooding and the roads already get congested with traffic. Also our power supplies are inadequate and we suffer power cuts of a magnitude. Green belt land should not be built on as I believe there is many other derelict sites that could be used.

I do not want my grandchildren to grow up in a concrete jungle. Many of the older residents in Hullbridge moved here many years ago to live in a village atmosphere with many green fields to enjoy. Hullbridge is definitely not the place for this development.

The way in which this matter has been dealt with by the council disgusts me as it has all been handled very underhandedly and wonder if this is actually legal.

They have also failed to represent us at previous meetings regarding this matter, so I have absolutely no faith in them whatsoever.

I await your earliest attention to this matter.

I am writing to you to register my opposition to the proposal to build 500 new houses in or around Hullbridge. Due to the lack of publicity regarding these proposals (a few lines in an unread Council publication does not count, given the terrible impact this development would have on our village, even if it is technically legal), local people who will be the ones affected by this, have been given very little time to voice their protest.

For the record, the roads and other services around Hullbridge are already at full stretch and will not stand any additional loads. I do not with to see any more green belt land built upon in this area, there has already been too much development.

Hiding behind phrases such as 'its a central government directive' will not do. As a council you have been elected to serve the local people. Grow a pair and throw this insane proposal out.

I and others like me do not want a compromise no. of houses; we don't want any!

Needless to say I will be watching events, bearing in mind we have a general election and council elections coming.

Regarding the proposed traveller sites, I suggest that the hopefull occupants live up to their name and keep travelling, as far away from here as possible!

Re: RDC's Local Development Framework Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document Feb 2010

I write to you in protest of the above document and it's plan to:

1. Build 500 houses in Hullbridge, (SWH 1, 2, 3, 4)
2. Provide a Gypsy and Traveller's site in Hullbridge (GT7)

My reasons briefly are as follows:-

1. It will ruin our cohesive community as there is so much anger and resentment in the village about the above that it is hard to see it being quickly repaired. It is more likely that there will be split communities. Do you have plans on how you might repair the current situation?
2. The sites you have chosen are not capable without massive investment of sustaining the number of houses you are suggesting because of the flooding that yearly occurs. My husband tells me the drains he and other developers laid many years ago in the village will cause a problem when having to be connected to the new development. Like he has stated have you considered that perhaps there is a reason the floodings have not been reported?
3. The population of Hullbridge has never wanted to be anything other than a village, a site of natural beauty and interest that attracts visitors. It is of archaeological importance with traces of Neolithic settlement. It has even been said to be one of the oldest sites in England. What impact do you think the new development will have on those sites, especially that site on Fenn Creek which is where my husband informs me, a significant amount of surface water escapes to.
4. I have to comment that I think your document does not give me enough information to do anything other than use what I know about a village I have lived in since 1960.

I have written this letter because I care about the community in which I live. I sincerely believe that the proposed development for Hullbridge is ill-thought and illogical compared to surrounding area you have made with sweeping and unjustified statements. It will have a most detrimental effect on the lives of the people who live in Hullbridge.

I should appreciate a written response to the few questions I have asked and the comments I have made, and I sincerely hope you will make proper evaluation of comments I and other villagers are making and believe you can improve what you have done so far.

Re: RDC's Local Development Framework Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document Feb 2010

I write to you in protest of the above document and it's plan to:

1. Build 500 houses in Hullbridge, (SWH 1, 2, 3, 4)
2. Provide a Gypsy and Traveller's site in Hullbridge (GT7)

My reasons briefly are as follows:-

1. Communication: You wrote a document called a statement of community involvement in which you identified reasons why people would not participate and how you would remove those reasons, yet in the past week it is clear, with the massive response by villagers that you have failed terribly when it comes to our village. You should now be revisiting that document and your methodology for communicating. It did not work!
2. Communication: The document makes sweeping and vague statement without anything to back them up, so we the intended audience find it hard to see if the options are sound, valid and cost justified. Perhaps this was intentional, you did not want to put the effort in or you wanted to hide things. What it has done is create a feeling of suspicion and anger at you the councillors we elected. Why don't you postpone the approval process till you can create something more meaningful for your intended audience?
3. Common Sense: Did you honestly think we, as a community, would accept increasing the population of the village by 1/3rd when the towns, especially Hockley has less development on green belt land (50 houses).
4. Local knowledge: It is clear that you councillors, despite living in the district and some on the outskirts of the village know very little about it and the wonderful cohesive community WE have created with the help of some wonderful work by our neighbourhood police team from Rayleigh. You should have made sure the locals were properly consulted and on-board before publicizing the document. The following would have been told to you.
5. Watery Lane did not get is name because it's the driest spot around here. It has been around for centuries, there was even a house on the corner called 'Slough House' (Slough meaning boggy) in which our dear Ferryman Dick Hymas lived when he was a boy. The house was demolished because it was inhabitable due to the amount of rising damp etc. In 1968 and more recently in February this year the lane has seriously flooded, with the event of '68 being published in the National newspapers. The Environmental Agency, you state does not consider the fields in question a High flood risk, what you do not state is that the risk is assessed against fluvial conditions (sea conditions) and not the impact due to surface water, which is the reason this area floods. If you had spent time looking at the land around the village you would have seen that the fields surrounding the village are a natural escape route for the surface water and that the drainage of that land depends upon a few open ditches which should be maintained by Essex and Suffolk Water, but are not. At the end of these are tidal drains. When the tide is in the water cannot escape and in fact becomes a blockage causing the lane and field to flood. As an ex-developer in the village I know about the villages drainage problems in particular the problems in getting a natural flow because the land is so near to sea level, it does not give you much scope.
6. The Environment Agency relies on people communicating instances of flooding to them so that they can constantly re access the flood risk (done on a quarterly basis). Has it not occurred to you that with the recent approval that Insurance companies do not have to insure properties with a flood risk rating of 3, people living in the village do not want it to be classified as level three and so do not report all instances? Also do you think Mr Beckwith or any villager has been previously concerned enough to report that a field is swamped by surface water when this means an increase in insurance premiums? You could have made more local enquiries instead of relying upon the Environment Agency.
7. Essex and Suffolk Water along with the Environment Agency recognize that building large scale developments like the one you propose makes a big impact on the level of surface water and they recommend two approaches when there a tidal drains in place, they are:- Raise the outlet pipe (this is not practical in the village's case because of the level of the existing drainage). Create water balancing ponds which require spare land.
8. As well as the environmental impact there is also the impact on our community with such rapid large growth.

I have written this letter because I care about the community in which I live. I sincerely believe that the proposed development for Hullbridge is ill-thought and illogical compared to surrounding area you have made with sweeping and unjustified statements. It will have a most detrimental effect on the lives of the people who live in Hullbridge.

I should appreciate a written response to the few questions I have asked and the comments I have made, and I sincerely hope you will make proper evaluation of comments I and other villagers are making and believe you can improve what you have done so far.

I am writing to express my horror of the proposal of an extra 500 homes here in Hullbridge, also an 18 site for travellers on the outskirts of the village.

What are you thinking of. We have only one road through the village Ferry Road, this is in constant use for our shops, library, post office, schoold and medical centre. This is in constant use throughout the day and is a nightmare during rush hours and at school times. How on earth are we to cope with so many more people using the amenities. Although lucky to have a car park (Pooles Lane) this is full to capacity at school times, cars are parked in the Drive, Wallace Gardens and outisde the shops making it very dangerous to walk let alone drive. Add to this the number of single and double decker buses transporting children in and out of school.

We have a wonderful village here, with a community spirit hard to find anywhere else. People come here to get away from the rat race of town life and you want to take away our green belt land, swamp our already undeveloped drain and road systems with 1,000 more people at least.

Why so many houses and why all together in a known flood plain that can only lead to further problems for us all and why to cap it all a travelers site that can only bring about further deterioration to the village.

I am writing to you with regard to your proposal to create an extra 500 homes in Hullbridge, to which I strongly OBJECT to.

This will increase the population by at least 1500, also increase the volume of traffic by 1000 more vehicles. That is without also more buses to cater for school children.

It would be interesting to hear your explanation as to why you are prepared to spend money of this magnitude on this development, yet you will not spend any money on the existing unmade roads in Hullbridge.

I suspect that once again as was the case after WWII, Hullbridge was used as a dumping ground for war damage rubble. So you have been told by the government that a place has to be found for 500 houses so lets dump them on Hullbridge.

Perhaps you can explain to us why Hullbridge has a higher allocation that any other area. The main road system in Hullbridge is up to capacity so any increase will be unacceptable. To conclude any thought of installing a travellers site in or near the village is wholly unacceptable and will be met by the strongest of objections.

I am writing in opposition to the planned core strategy 500 unit housing estate planned for Hullbridge. I feel that this is a very poorly thought out and completely unsustainable for a village with such an inadequate infrastructure. And all the documentation involved has no traceability to any costing that may involved. Or the effects it will have on the community.

It seems that Rochford district council are choosing sites without properly researching the facts related to the consequences of building in that area. Unless here is a hidden agenda related to the chosen sites, that we the residents should be told about. As we know that the suggested site in Hullbridge is prone to serious flooding.

If this is a serious site for the new development could the council please explain in detail how they plan to prepare that indicated land to accept that amount of building work. And how (in detail) they plan to adapt the village's present infrastructure to cope with a 30% increase in population.

More importantly can you publish the indicated cost?

Also there are real and very serious consequences in building on land of this nature. Therefore the council are morally bound to appoint a council official by name. Who would be totally held responsible for any negative damage and problems arising from any of the consequences that would unfold from this development? Importantly a very large sum of money needs to be seen to have been put aside to allow compensation for all residents that might be affected negatively by such a risky development. And where is this money going to come from. Surely the residents must not be held responsible for paying themselves for a very poorly designed building estate that they didn't want in the first place.

And would the proposed housing be for Hullbridge residents? We consider the answer is no, we are fully aware that our own community would not see any benefits of this development.

It is also very important for the council to take the moral position to inform any family who is in position to buy a unit on this land, that they are purchasing a property that is very prone to flooding. If this issue is not highlighted to potential buyers then there must be an official council body appointed that they would be able to take legal action against for questionable appointment of inappropriate land.

More importantly, as the intended site is indeed sub prime building land could the council please indicate why this particular site was chosen. And could the council remit in detail how much this would cost to install the correct drainage and access to make the building on this land possible. We also demand how much this infrastructure change would cost and would that in turn be past on directly or indirectly to the council tax payer.

We are very disappointed in the ineffectual manner in which this core strategy plan was communicated to the residents it will affect the most and are indeed suspicious that this ineffectual communication was indeed an intended strategy in order to avoid opposition.

Please note that these points and concerns are not unique to the residents of Hullbridge, and are commonly felt by other residents in the Rochford district council area who are facing similar developments. This indicates that Rochford council have failed to process the core structure effectively and responsibly. And have communicated the planned sites ineffectually. Resulting in a growing suspicion in a large number of tax paying voting residents that perhaps the manner in which this matter has been conducted has been intentional. 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 council's actions in close scrutiny.

We as community are very disappointed in the attitude of both councillors, Mr T Cutmore and Mr K Hudson, at our meeting with them on 16th of April. As they both presented themselves in a condescending, arrogant and totally untrustworthy manner. If these two individuals are a representation of RDC, and their position on this matter. Then it only verifies our suspicions further of an intentional avoidance of effective communication.

I await your prompt detailed response.

I was invited to attend a meeting at the Day Centre on Monday 12th April 2010 regards a proposed development of Domestic Dwellings in Hullbridge extending the habitable boundary by approximately 30% courtesy of my neighbour informing me as I did not have the pleasure of receiving any information from RDC.

At the meeting I was informed that you have already forwarded the incumbent Planning Application, is this correct?

I am surprised and disappointed that advance notice was not given that Planning applications were being forwarded, to at least allow me the opportunity to discuss and put forward my objections to your proposals which affects the whole Community. And it is unacceptable, to give me such short notice that a response is required by the 30th April.

I was also surprised that the Planning Officer (Mr Scrutton) was unable to answer questions put to him from the floor.

I wish to register my strong protest at this proposal, particularly as, in my view, it will have a detrimental affect on primary issues such as flood (Watery Lane floods every year several times), drainage, roads-access from and to Hullbridge and the obvious affect on our Doctors.

I was also informed that 18 gypsy sites will be erected in various parts of Rochford and some sites will be located in Hullbridge, I do strongly object to the site's which will have a detrimental affect on Health and Safety issues.

Does the Council require the financial burden to be funded by me.

I am astounded that the green belt land is to be used for this development without any explanation why re-designation has not gone through the proper procedures.

Some of our residents consider that the social housing is to be provided for the benefit of 'economic migrants' and not for the Essex Community.

I have lived in Hullbridge for some 40 years and in my retirement years I looked forward to continue a peaceful 'village' life.

Could you please respond to this letter.

Re: Proposed Development In Hullbridge

I am writing to you to object to the proposed development in Hullbridge.

My husband and I are very concerned for our grandchildren in this matter. We fear for their safety. Three of them will soon be learning drive. We have one road out of Hullbridge tat will be so congested with all the work going on and after when new people move into the area it will not get better. Also our younger grandchildren will be caught up in it going to and coming home from school. My grandchildren and everyone elses children included.

Myself and my husband both pensioners, no car we use the only bus in Hullbridge that uses the same route that goes to Southend will get caught up in the 'jam' probably making us late for the important hospital appointment. That's just my family. What about the flooding in Watery Lane? No one will answer that question or many more.

I wish to object to your proposal for 500 new homes in Hullbridge. I attended both the meetings last week re: the proposed building of three homes. I have lived in Hullbridge for over 40 years and am appalled by this proposal. I believe the vast majority of the residents in Hullbridge are against this proposal because it will ruin Hullbridge as a village (expanded by a third).

Most of us only found out about this proposal very recently, because most of us probably don't seem to matter to you. I think you have underestimated the residents of Hullbridge. We have enough problems now getting back into Hullbridge at certain times of the day and quite regularly Watery Lane is closed off presumably because of flooding. It will be absolute hell with another thrid extra residents.

Re: Against extending the village by 30% with an additional 500 homes all in one area.

I am writing this letter regarding my objections to the new development within Hullbridge.

Risk Assessment

In your general assessment have you taken into consideration the impact on:

The Environment
Infrastructure
Flood (Watery Lane in regular flood - featured on the National News recently).
Density
Drainage
Main Services
Roads
Access to and from Hullbridge
Schools - Secondary
Doctors (already at capacity - and apparently there is presently a shortage)
Council services, including Fire and Police
Health and Safety

I understand that we originally were allocated 10% and would be grateful if you could write to me and inform me of how and why these changes were made.

Is this because we were not represented at the meetings whereby three of our conservative members felt it not worthy of their attendance.

Or that the Parish Council felt that the residents of Hullbridge were not worthy of notifying us in more ways than a paper that is not distributed fairly amongst the village.

The Hullbridge Action group seemed to manage to notify the village and I have not spoken to one person who is for this development.

Designation and Classification of Land

Please provide me with the information on the designation/classification of 'Green Belt', White Land and Brown field land.

I had always understood that land had to go through a certain procedure for Green belt land to be classified as suitable for Industrial, Commercial or Domestic Development.

Investment

I was also informed at the meeting that you were trying to attract 'investment' in this area, please explain how a Domestic Development will have the capacity to attract 'investment'.

I did not hear any argument that you have put forward in your 'Application' against a development which would expand the existing population by 30%.

Developers

Could you also please explain how the Developers gain the knowledge that 'Green Belt' land would be available for 'Development', hence their purchase and planning applications which you admit have been forwarded by them for approval on this development.

I await your written reply and request that you respond to each item I have raised.

I am writing as I am most concerned with the intention of the Council to build 450/500 houses in the area around Lower Road Hullbridge. As I understand it this is green belt land and as such land is being eroded from our environment at great speed it should be noted that as well as the area degenerating into somewhat of a concrete jungle there should also be areas of what is known as 'this green and pleasant land'. To this end I ask you to consider:-

Flooding

The drainage systems are non-existent when heavy rain falls in Watery Lane. In fact in February Watery Lane featured on BBC Look East showing vehicles stranded, homes with sandbags positioned to stop the water entering, and people being rescued by boat by fire crews.

The actual fields where you intend to build the homes were flooded and existing homes in the area had their gardens and garages flooded.

In the event of these new homes being built the frequency of flooding will increase due to the fact that with the green fields being removed and replaced with roads and concrete the removal of surface water will cause overwhelming problems due to lack of soak away land.

Did you know that sewerage comes up through existing drains in the village at present; I don't understand why this problem hasn't been addressed already.

The Highway

Watery Lane is purely an access road used excessively during the rush hour by those wanting to gain access to Battlesbridge, Wickford, Woodham and the A130. At present during such times the traffic can be backed up to Battlesbridge. I fail to see how these roads will be able to sustain an additional 1000 cars. Perhaps you should consider:

What contingency plans you have in place when Watery Lane floods
The chaos caused to Rawreth Lane at such times
At such times the risk to life and property within Hullbridge when an emergency occurs. The access for the emergency services will be severely delayed.
In 2008 Ferry Road was resurfaced at great cost. It was of such poor quality that it was better before the work was carried out. How will the surface cope with 1000 additional cars?

Buses and Trains

At present the buses only run every 15 minutes - will this change? Will there be enough to transport people to the station bearing in mind the additional traffic causing jams on Lower Road and Downhall Road?

Telephone masts

There are already several telephone masts erected on the land where the new buildings are intended to be built. Are there likely to be any more built? What is the guideline as to telephone masts next to homes/children?

Schools

We do have a primary school but we do not have a senior school. We did have but it was knocked down. Additional buses will be needed leading to more traffic on the roads.

I see on the internet that EEC is talking of setting up a Sure Start Centre in the caretaker's accommodation at our primary school. I also note that there is no provision for parking here at all.

Shops

Our shops are closing and flats or houses are being built in their place. As I write there are still flats not taken up for rent and houses still up for sale. We now have no greengrocers, no bank, no police station, the library is only open part-time and there is always the threat of the post office closing.

Doctor's Surgery

Although building work is being carried out at the Riverside Medical Centre with additional services being provided the parking at present is horrendous and I cannot see how Ferry Road, Windermere Avenue and Ambleside Gardens will cope with the additional car parking.

Traveller's Site

I appreciate that travellers need some where to stay but they do not move on. They are looking for permanent sites. Once a site is approved the number will increase. As we have seen from Crays Hill this is a situation WE do not want in Hullbridge.

In conclusion I appreciate that homes are needed but consideration should be given to the infrastructure of the village. As the existing infrastructure is not up to standard the building of these properties within Hullbridge should be rejected and we can continue to be part of this green and pleasant land.

Proposed 500 Houses in Hullbridge

I am writing to object to the proposal put forward to expand Hullbridge Village by a further 500 dwelling.

Our Village cannot deal with this growth (approx ¼ more dwellings) we do not have the infrastructure to support such a development. The proposed lane is also at high risk of flooding. If the land as documented is filled with concrete how will this affect the water table?

It was my understanding that Greenbelt land could not be built on, what gives the local council offices the right to change this. Our countryside is very precious and should be looked after. No one is considering the effect on the countryside and wildlife. There are plenty of brown sites in the local areas that can be considered for development, there is no need to use green belt land.

My house backs onto the fields that are the proposal for development. Having spoken to estate agent it was confirmed we paid a premium for our house because of the view we hold, if this is no more who is going to compensate us for our loss of profit to our property?

I wish to be notified of any meeting involving this proposal.