Option SWH2

Too much green space taken away!!!!!!

Green belt, no reason why building can't continue onto the next farm, flooding at watery lane, site feeds onto unmade roads

We moved from Canvey Island because of traffic congestion. An average of Two cars per household would back traffic up whitch already is bad getting into Hullbridge road. Watery Lane consistantly floods and gets closed.It is narrow and cannot accomodate increased traffic volumes.My drive and the field floods from rain water as we are low level and the drains cannot cope with it.The pressure in the drains often lifts the drain lid in the North end of Hullbridge road.We would not have bought our house if the land around us was not green belt.Our property will be devalued

No more affordable housing

This area will flood. It is entirely inappropriate, too many houses. The roads in Hullbridge will not cope

The roads cannot take this amount of development, most of them are unmade single lane roads. Watery Lane constantly floods in bad weather and is very narrow, building here is very unsuitable.. We have far too much traffic using this road already.

Whichever option is chosen the existing infrastructure will not cope with 500 new dwellings. Any such development will be to the detriment of the residents of Hullbridge.

This option appears to provide maximum benefits without more devopement at the North end of the village.

No more housing for Essex and certainly none for Hullbridge! We moved from Thundersley to get away from an overcrowded gridlocked area, this is what will happen to this area if 500 units are built on the land at the back of our property. The infrastructure won't cope, the flooding will increase, where will the kids go to school. As it stands there are two roads in and out of Hullbridge. Watery lane which is narrow and often closed due to flooding and Rawreth lane which is often congested. More housing .......... STUPID IDEA!!

Road system cannot support additional dwellings; current services in Hullbridge cannot support additional dwellings; wildlife will be affected negatively as will lose fields and trees, their natural habitat; loss of space and views that are reasons why people bought property here in the first place.

Watery Lane suffers from heavy congestion and flooding already and would not be able to support additional dwellings/inhabitants. Negative impact on current residents; lack of appropriate current infrastructure and community services.

I cannot see how the village would cope with all these new buildings,Watery lane floods,the fields do flood,we dont have the drainage inplace to cope for these new homes,the schools are not big enough,the side roads would be a race track. The main traffic flows out of Hullbridge is towards Rayleigh and I cannot see how the road will cope with 500 new homes.It needs nore consideration to the infrastructures that already dont work!

Infrastructure and utility services are clearly insufficient to cope with proposed adotional dwellings and associated loads on the water and sewer network.Several of the access roads are private and not adopted by the council, and single track. School with insufficient capacity for the additional influx of children. Generally will detract from village atmosphere.

Greenbelt land should not be developed, existing roads are already conjested.

I wish to object to this loss of our local countryside, I have moved from a busy Town to Hullbridge 2 years ago a quiet village with minimum traffic, It will change this lovely village into a BUSY TOWN. It has a major impact and on traffic , crime and affects the whole actual village. The site is smack in the middle of a residential settlement.

Firstly it is not easy to object to all of the sites suggested in Hullbridge which is what I want to do. I have purchased a house in the village becuase I want my family to experience vllage life by building all of these houses in Hullbridge it will no longer be a village, there will be too much traffic, there will no longer be the neighbourly easiness of the village that we have now as the village will simply cease to exist. There are lots of derelict sites around the county that can be redeloped instead of ripping up the greenbelt, it has to stop now!

Please refer to ID 18192

Please see detailed objection as for SWH1. This development is too large to be considered approapriate for this area. The local infrastructure would find it near on impossible to cope and this would create massive problems both for existing and new residents.

I strongly object to each of the four suggested options OPTION SWH1 OPTION SWH2 OPTION SWH3 OPTION SWH4 for affordable housing in Hullbridge as each one is at the back of my house.

1) A major development on this scale cannot be contained within theexisting infrastructure. 2) All access roads are single lane and most are unmade/unadopted or just30 years old without any major resurfacing over the period. They could nottake the strain of another 2000 cars. 3) No roads are of a size to include pedestrian walkways. 4) Street lighting is inadequate. 5) Existing Drains and sewage cannot cope with additional development onthis scale. In addition Hullbridge Road and Watery Lane cannot manageadditional water flow and back-up and overflow/flood during heavy rainfall. 6) Parking will be a major problem - possible additional 2,000 vehicles,plus visitors arising out of 500 home development. 7) Roads and access to and from the village will become blocked andsaturated. 8) No comprehensive school within walking or within 3 miles easy route 9) Primary school too small for potentially additional 1,000+ children. 10) No child facilities - except the main park. 11) No youth facilities except very old small old school building. 12) Loss of green belt land. 14) Loss of agricultural land. 15) Loss of views, walking amenities and environment. 16) Damage to local wildlife - herons, field mice, shrews, pheasants,ducks, foxes, badgers, birds. 17) Loss of hedgerows and ancient trees (oaks). 18) Loss of drainage ditches. 19) Access for emergency services - already very tight and unsuitable. 20) Health facilities - all unable to cope with additional 2000 people. 21) Waste and recycling collection and facilities are inadequate and willbe further stretched by additional homes and people. 22) Public transport - access and usage. Already limited to one bus. 23) No train station - access to Hockley and Rayleigh alreadyvery congested on single lane roads.

At Hullbridge Parish Council meeting 19/4/2010 objections were raised: does not give community cohesion, transport infrastructure in sufficient (poor standard of local roads/routes to and from village already at full capacity during rush hour/school run), frequent flooding on the site and Watery Lane, concern on the impact to nearby existing properties with regard to flooding, insufficient infrastructure for sewage, increased vehicles within Hullbridge, potentially insufficient capacity at doctors' surgery, no secondary school in Hullbridge, insufficient facilities in Hullbridge to accommodate such large increase in population, lack of jobs in village which will increase commuter traffic, loss of green belt.

Whoever has chosen these sites has done so at random and without any thought or research into what impact this would have on Hullbridge and its current infrastructure It seems the decision about a development has already been taken without the residents having the right to voice their opinions and now only have options The development is disproportionate in size to the existing housing and the village community would be lost As it is intended to build on green belt mentioning preserving it would seem hypercritical and irrelevant SWH4 would appear to be the less intrusive site

All additional housing in Hullbridge will result in a huge increase in traffic in Rawreth Lane and Beeches Road/Watery Lane. You have already accepted that Watery Lane currently suffers from congestion and flooding. Any attempt to alleviate this would result in the severe disturbance of the local Water Vole population which nests in these ditches and water courses and are a protected species. Therefore you should dismiss any proposals whichinvolves Watery Lane.

1. No logical reason as to why these sites were chosen and insufficient time spent in assessing the suitability of each site.
2. No logical reason (other than the reduction in allocation to Rayleigh) as to why the allocation to Hullbridge has been increased.
3. Size, density and types of housing are inappropriate.
4. Increased road traffic congestion.
5. Irreplaceable loss of Green Belt land.
6. Flooding: Concreting on countryside will raise the level of the water-table.
7. Unsuitable roads: many are single lane/unmade and un-adopted roads, without drainage.
8. Impact on services including Doctors Surgery.
9. Lack of cycle paths and pathways.

No development on green belt/agricultural land. Insufficient infrastructure. Flood risk

Absurd and Very Ridiculous Proposal

1. Green Belt
2. Flood Plain!!!
3. Inadequate Infrastructure
4. Below Sea Level
5. Inadequate Road Systems
6. Increased Population by 30%
7. No police station, no bank, no dentist, no fire station, no senior school

In view of the above, surely there must be some intelligent people at the council Planning Offices with old fashioned common sense, who will realise what a ludicrous proposal this is and reject these plans immediately.

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.

too many houses,
we will loose village feel
risk of flooding - my garden was flooded during the last big rainfall I don't think the area could cope with all the propsed housing.
loss of green belt - we should use brown sites first.

This clearly extends development into green belt intrusively in a way that development of smaller plots in the plotland developments in Hullbridge would not. This is just a case of choosing administrative convenient i.e. going for plots which will appeal to large developers rather than the planning staff having the hassle of dealing with a number of individual applications.

Option SWH2 is a very large site which would impact on the openness of the green belt.