Option SWH4

Support

Representation ID: 17530

Received: 25/03/2010

Respondent: Mr Raymond Bates

I feel option SWH4 will be the best because it will have the least disruption for existing residents and will afford the safest access for heavy plant and machinery direct from lower road.
The access for the new residents of this site could be to and from Lower road and not into existing side roads, this would have the benefit of not increasing traffic volumes through residential streets.
It would also preserve the green belt to the north of Malyons lane.

Support

Representation ID: 17538

Received: 26/03/2010

Respondent: mr c Ball

Only supporting as apparently have to support one of the four! Some choice. Greenbelt should be left as is, use brown sites only. What effect is 500 extra house have on the village - traffic, health centre, schools etc. The roads in an around Hullbridge cant take an extra 500- 1000 vehicles. lower Road and Watery Lane have well documented problems, unless major development to the roads is undertaken the traffic will be a nightmare and if it is the character of the area will change for the worse.

People choose to live in Hullbridge as it is a village,

Support

Representation ID: 17539

Received: 26/03/2010

Respondent: mr donald gazzard

this is the solution that we support

Support

Representation ID: 17540

Received: 26/03/2010

Respondent: martin ashmore

Option SWH4 seems to offer least impact to roads.

Support

Representation ID: 17542

Received: 26/03/2010

Respondent: Mrs Karin Nicholas

I think it is really sad that you once again are going to build on our beautiful countryside. Hullbridge is presently a lovely little village with hardly any crime, why go and spoil things for the people who chose to move here to get away from the crowds, cars racing up and down your road, busy doctor's surgeries ect. There is nothing for the youth here in Hullbridge to do , why add to the problem?

Support

Representation ID: 17547

Received: 26/03/2010

Respondent: Mr Michael Foss

My preference would be to have no development but this one would seem to be the least intrusive if adequate infrastructure is provided and the flood risk can be contained.

Comment

Representation ID: 17558

Received: 28/03/2010

Respondent: Mrs Lynda Ivison

Although I don't agree with any new developement in the areas specified, if I had to choose one of the four options, SWH4 would be my choice.

Object

Representation ID: 17565

Received: 28/03/2010

Respondent: Mr Adam Blakesley

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

Object

Representation ID: 17582

Received: 28/03/2010

Respondent: Mr Neill Harrild

No more affordable housing

Object

Representation ID: 17599

Received: 29/03/2010

Respondent: Mrs Karen White

Inappropriate development, infrastructure will not cope

Object

Representation ID: 17604

Received: 29/03/2010

Respondent: Mrs Carol Cooper

Another bad idea for this development bordering Watery Lane. Have we not learnt our lesson from flooding in other areas of the country, where buildings are put into unsuitable places.

Object

Representation ID: 17622

Received: 29/03/2010

Respondent: Mr Antony Stephen

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.

Support

Representation ID: 17659

Received: 31/03/2010

Respondent: Mr Anthony Bates

I do not think that any development of this size is appropriate for this village!
However, if as it seems a choice has to be made, this option would appear to be the most suitable.
It would have less of a detrimental impact on the majority of residents and roads in the village, both during and after construction.

Object

Representation ID: 17683

Received: 01/04/2010

Respondent: Mrs Amanda Every

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!!

Comment

Representation ID: 17688

Received: 02/04/2010

Respondent: Ms Sian Thomas

This option is the one that we object to least although we cannot support it as such. It would have less negative impact on the poor adopted roads of Hullbridge and would retain the current farmland and residential views across the fields.

Comment

Representation ID: 17695

Received: 02/04/2010

Respondent: Mr Andy Barker

Least negative option although cannot actually be said to support it.

Object

Representation ID: 17697

Received: 02/04/2010

Respondent: Mr Philip Downs

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!

Object

Representation ID: 17705

Received: 02/04/2010

Respondent: mr jack osborne

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.

Object

Representation ID: 17706

Received: 02/04/2010

Respondent: mr jack osborne

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.

Support

Representation ID: 17721

Received: 04/04/2010

Respondent: Mr Roger Sayers

Best of 4 options. Mininum effect on Hullbridge village traffic.

Support

Representation ID: 17738

Received: 05/04/2010

Respondent: MR James Spencer

I would like to support the option SWH4

I believe the development will make the village a better specticle upon entering the village with new housing and bring more money into the towns economy.

I do not believe the development should be on a selection of sites, and just keep to one, as it will restrict the loss of local countryside. This is my choice out of the four

Many Thanks

Support

Representation ID: 17792

Received: 07/04/2010

Respondent: Mrs A Jones

I STILL object to this loss of our local countryside, I have moved from a busy Town to Hullbridge a quiet village with minimum traffic, It will change this lovely village into a BUSY TOWN. ALAS if this housing has to be somewhere this would be the best location, It affects less of the actual village. The site is NOT in the middle of a residential settlement and not extending as far North to the river, It is easily acceptable via Hullbridge road and Watery lane, which the roads will be more able to cope with.

Support

Representation ID: 17813

Received: 08/04/2010

Respondent: mrs helen fountain

I think this would be the best option as it would be better for road links and would retain some greenbelt land.

Object

Representation ID: 17814

Received: 08/04/2010

Respondent: Mr Neil Othen

Access to the land south of Lower Road is my main concern for this option the road bents at 45 degrees and there have already been a number of accidents here over the years, I would be interested in how the planners hope to over come this? The regular flooding of Watery Lane overloads traffic unpredictably which affects the reliability of our workers and school attendance. The main walking access to the village is along this side of the road and ther would therefore be increased safety concerns for pedestrians.

Support

Representation ID: 17825

Received: 08/04/2010

Respondent: Mr Bryan Sarll

Out of 4 poor, very similar choices, this gets my vote but only by default. Not all of this site has been analyzed in the bigger 'call to' document. The 1st field in Watery Lane has been ignored - why? Look at the bigger document to see what I mean or look at www.hullbridge.me to see the highlighted area. What about the listed buildings at Malyons Farm - I don't see anything that says what's to happen with them.

Object

Representation ID: 17837

Received: 09/04/2010

Respondent: Mr K W F Steward

This option would appear to be the best of a bad choice; however, the village is already struggling with unmade roads, lack of infrastructure suitable for so many more houses, and problems with both foul and storm water drainage. Even the "main roads" are already very busy, the inevitable increase in traffic is very worrying. Put bluntly Hullbridge does not want any more houses!

Object

Representation ID: 18255

Received: 21/04/2010

Respondent: Mr Phil Warren

Please refer to ID 18192

Object

Representation ID: 18292

Received: 22/04/2010

Respondent: Mrs Michelle Howes

This does appear the best out of a bad lot. Hullbridge does not need any more housing. We do not want to become just another over populated town.

Object

Representation ID: 18325

Received: 24/04/2010

Respondent: Mrs Jane Gilbert

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.

Comment

Representation ID: 18506

Received: 31/03/2010

Respondent: Mr and Mrs M Cleaver

Our preferred option is option SWH4