Option SWH4

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

This site incorporates the junction of Watery Lane and Hullbridge. This is a very dangerous junction and the increased traffic through both roads would create gridlock on a daily basis.
To consider housing along Watery Lane, which you already admit is subject to congestion and flooding is foolhardy, in addition consideration must be given to the resident Water Vole population which is nesting in the ditches and watercourses along there. This is a protected species and must not be disturbed.

1. Access routes via single track, un-adopted roads: Grasmere and Windermere Avenues.
2. Biggest impact on road congestion: traffic routed into Ferry Road at the most northerly point.
3. Largest development boundary adjacent to existing homes.
4. No logical reason as to why sites chosen, insufficient time spent assessing suitability of each site.
5. No logical reason (save the reduction in Rayleigh's allocation) as to why the allocation to Hullbridge has been increased.
6. Size, density and types of housing are inappropriate.
7. Irreplaceable loss of Green Belt land.
9. Flooding: Concreting on countryside will raise the level of the water-table.
10. Impact on services including Doctors Surgery.
11. Lack of cycle paths and pathways.

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.
Of all options, this is the least inappropriate.

No development of green belt/agricultural land. Insufficient infrastructure

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.

This is the best of a bad bunch, we should only have a 20 - 50 house built in this area so that Hullbridge can keep its village feel If they are built next to the golf course then it shouldn't have have too much of a negative impact on the residents

The argument for a defensible green belt boundary is totally erroneous here as this clearly extends such a boundary. But of course it sounds very politically correct. This argument would be more appropriate if used in support of the development of plotlands in the area as houses already exist there but strangely the council trots out this argument against such development. The arguments put forward by the council for development of this site therefore appear somewhat perverse.

Option SWH4 is a very large site which would impact on the openness of the green belt.

As for SWH2. Please see our general comments.

Although the numbers proposed are high, even spread over the time period suggested, I believe this proposal to be the best on offer for Hullbridge as it: enables a defensible green belt boundary; forms a gateway in to Hullbridge; enables upgrading of the road network and public transport; introduces the necessary infrastructure, and; allows the Council to require future developers to provide the necessary environmental improvements (e.g. protection from flooding etc) that other parts of the village need.

See comments to SWH1-SWH3. In addition this assumes that the golf driving range shuts to prevent light ingress etc. Marginally better traffic flow assuming that the site opposite Malyons feed directly into Hullbridge Road. All other comments remain for this option too.

Hullbridge is unable to take a further 500 properties, RDC has renegaded on the amount originaly intended for the village.

This would be the better option of the four, build by the supermarket and main road for ease of access. New build numbers must be limited. Hullbridge is unable to cope iwith schooling, transport, parking & access to and from the new homes.

Potholes, dust and lack of maintenance of unmade roads is a disgrace, and the busier the roads the dirtier the homes become.

We are writing in respect of the proposed development of 500 houses in the village of Hullbridge. Having asked us to choose one of four development sites our choice would be option SWH4. We feel this has the least impact upon current residents in the area and has both greater and safer access for likely road structures.

However, we wish to express our complete disagreement with any development of houses on Green Belt Land. Whilst your web-page states 'would afford opportunities for the creation of a defensible green belt boundary' it fails to acknowledge that it results in the removal of the existing green belt boundary, and replacement with a new one therefore immediately negating the term 'defensible' as any future proposed changes would surely follow this planning precedent.

Hullbridge is a country village, not a town as referred to on the Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document web-pages, so to be dictated to by a government who has allowed this country to be so overpopulated that building anywhere and everywhere is deemed such a necessity is wrong. Essex already has the second largest non-metropolitan country population in the country, being only 10,000 people behind Kent but with a higher density; Essex 403persons/km2, Kent being 397persons/km2. These national figures fail to include unitary authorities Southend-on-Sea (population 164,300 and 3935persons/km2) and Thurrock (population 151,600 and 928persons/km2) that after inclusion would appear to mean Essex is the most populated non-metropolitan county in the country (Source: Office National Statistics, mid 2008).

If Hullbridge is to house a thousand or more people plus children, we feel the infrastructure cannot take the strain it is already known that while predictions of increasing population are made, real-term increases in line with forecasts for funding in Health, Education, Social Services, local infrastructure are not forthcoming and therefore the quality of life for the current and future generations of the village can only suffer:

- getting an appointment at the Doctors in a timely manner is already extremely difficult due to the already significant development and population of the village.

- I it is likely we are able to extrapolate the Office National Statistics projection findings which showed 78% of the UK population own a car, equivalent to 38m people, based on UK adult population of 48.7m (Source: Population projections by ONS, 2009), therefore 700 to 800 extra cars will result from the proposals.

- we have already seen the re-development of the villages primary former senior school Park School, Rawreth into housing and retail. The schools integration into Sweyne Park School, Rayleigh means the distance for village children is at the upper end but unfortunately not over the statutory limit for distances for walking to school without local authority funding for transport services. The route is not one suitable for children of any age being one of non-populated agricultural land to one side and golf course to other posing significant risk and concern in this age to any parent and would therefore cause a large drain on their finances funding public transport, or the environment should parents chose to drive their children to and from school.

- leaving the village by car or bus gets worse each year, this is not just at the end of Ferry Road within the village, but at the junction of Rawreth Lane, often tailing back 1/2 to ¾ of a mile during busy periods. An extra 700 to 800 cars and or revised increase in public transport services to cater for increased population can only worsen the future for all residents.

- since moving here in 1979 we have had many power cuts every year though in recent years this has improved with sully changes, though one must question with the extra housing would we be forced to revert back to an unreliable supply.

- whilst the village sewage system already struggles to cope, who will pay for improving the current system so that the new development can connect efficiently for all waste water and without contributing to flooding of local roads such as Watery Lane. It is nationally acknowledged that development of Green Belt Land results in increased foul water and more importantly surface water that contributes to local flooding, hence the recent changes in planning policy for domestic driveways.

With such flooding that occurred this winter to Watery Lane, combined with an already significantly struggling infrastructure we do not understand how such a thoroughly impractical location can be considered for any of the proposed options. We hope these opinions and nationally recognized facts will go some way to influence the outcome of these development proposals.

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!

Thank you once again for giving your presentation at the Hullbridge Parish Council Meeting on the 12th April 2010.

I have since read through the Local Development Framework Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document and I am writing to give my personal news as follows:

While I have to object on grounds of lack of infrastructure and flooding I have considered the four options and I am giving my preferences.

If this development has to go ahead my first choice would be option SWH1.

My second choice would be SWH3 if the most westerly part could be used for public open space, solving the documents concerns about community cohesion.

I do not like option SWH2 due to the fact Watery Lane often floods. In addition to this there have been great problems with heavy goods vehicles using this road which is unsuitable for them. I fear widening any part of this road would encourage this to start happening again.

I like option SWH4 least of all because of the reasons for my dislike of option SWH2 plus it would be a creeping development towards Rayleigh.

In terms of flooding I think that it would be better to look for available land to the east at Hullbridge which is on higher ground.

With regard to other matters in the document affecting Hullbridge I would like to make the following submissions:

I like option E17 best for employment land.

Please can Kendel Park Hullbridge be added to the list of Wildlife Sites.

I am happy that the document protects Riverside Infants and Junior School (soon to become Riverside Primary). I would like to see further secondary school places added to the document.

I am also very pleased to see Hullbridge Community Association Community Centre safeguarded from development.

I came away from the recent meeting very surprised that the attempts of Rochford District Council to inform residents of this and previous consultations has had very little impact on local residents.

I am sorry if in my capacity of Chairman at Hullbridge Parish Council I have failed to assist you in this. If there is anything I can do to help prevent this happening again. Please let me know.

On behalf of Rawreth Parish Council I confirm that this six page letter is a formal response of objection to the Allocations DPD, Discussion and Consultation Document on the following counts:
The overall proposals shown in the ADPD for the Parish of Rawreth amount to overdevelopment within a semi rural Parish with disproportionate allocations in comparison to the remainder of the District and are totally unacceptable and unsustainable under PPG2 and the Council object most strongly to the document as drafted and the proposals therein.

Within the ADPD the Parish of Rawreth has site specific allocations shown for housing, industry and gypsy and traveller sites, whilst other Towns and Parishes within the District appear in the document but are confined to one area of site allocations be it housing, industry or gypsy and traveller sites and on much smaller scales. Overall under the ADPD the Parish of Rawreth stands to take the biggest allocation of houses in one phase, with its overall allocation being only 50 less than that of West Rochford.

Rawreth Parish Council has never been opposed to development within the Parish, however they have always expressed that appropriate amounts of additional housing should be built on smaller, existing and brownfield sites within the greenbelt thus enhancing the lives of new and existing residents instead of eroding our green buffers and starting the coalescence of Rayleigh and Wickford.
Rochford District Council have chosen to totally ignore the alternative proposals put forward by Rawreth Parish Council in the "Call for Sites" document all of which would use previous brownfield sites within the green belt, enhance the centre of Rawreth and avoid the use of so much farmland GB1. Building approximately 200 houses within Rawreth village, with a possibility of more at a later date, would alleviate the need for such a large scale development of 550 houses all in one place. Drainage, traffic and access would all be much enhanced and under our proposal any development would have less impact on the lives of residents within the Parish and neighbouring areas. These proposals however have in the opinion of the Council never been considered or taken seriously.

The area surrounding the Parish of Rawreth is seen as "The Gateway to Rochford" yet under the ADPD the proposals for the land north of London Road NLR1 to NLR5 will take away beautiful, productive, open farmland and turn it into a mix of housing and industry. To build 550 houses on the North/South Eastern area of this land, to legalise and possibly double the Gypsy and Traveller Site on the North Western edge GT1 and to add an Industrial Site on the South Western Corner, which was supposed to be the Green Buffer within NLR1, is absolutely unacceptable and unsustainable under PPG2. To consider placing ANY of these proposals on this area of high quality farmland will absolutely destroy the openness and character of this entire part of Rawreth for ever. In addition the existing roads, A1245, A129, Rawreth Lane and Beeches Road/Watery Lane are already full to capacity and frequently at a standstill, to add more traffic as a result of these proposals is completely unacceptable.

On Thursday the 25th of March 2010 Rawreth Parish Council undertook a 12 hour constant traffic survey in both Rawreth Lane and Beeches Road. In Rawreth Lane during the hours of 7am and 7pm 7,179 vehicles were recorded travelling in an Easterly direction and 7,217 in a Westerly direction, this is a road that does not even have a B classification. In Beeches Road during the hours of 7am to 7pm 2,848 vehicles were recorded travelling in an Easterly direction and 2,022 were recorded travelling in a Westerly, this is a very small, winding rural lane.

The full details of these surveys are attached.

In addition to the above comments the Parish Councils observations, objections and proposals on specific options are as follows:

Land North of London Road. Large scale development here will have massive impact on all local roads- A1245, A129, Rawreth Lane and Beeches Road/Watery Lane. The development will impact highly on drainage and surface water run-off which will cause even more flooding to parts of the Parish which are already classified as being within Flood Zone 3, Watery Lane in particular has been closed twice already this year in February, with motorists needing to be rescued by the Fire Service using boats.

In March this year Cllr Hudson said quite categorically in a local newspaper that all the traffic generating from the proposed sites North of London Road would gain access to and from the A129 and, therefore, would have no effect whatsoever upon Rawreth Lane, this statement is completely contra to the proposals detailed under NLR1, NLR4 and NLR5 where access is quite clearly gained from Rawreth Lane.
NLR1, NLR4 and NLR5, would have massive impact on the traffic in Rawreth Lane and are completely unsustainable and impracticable.

NLR2, NLR3 would have better access in and out of the area as long as correct and adequate roads are put in.

SWH1 States that "sustainable urban drainage systems MUST be implemented" - this is an absolute minimum as the whole area is only just above sea level and subject to possible large scale flooding. Areas within the Parish are already within Flood Zone 3.

All schemes for the Parish of Hullbridge would result in a huge increase in traffic using either Rawreth Lane or Beeches Road/Watery Lane which are both already full to capacity. Watery Lane is a very narrow, winding lane which is frequently closed due to 3 foot deep flooding and any attempt to "straighten " it must also be subject to consideration of the resident Water Vole population which nest within the watercourses and ditches in this area, this is a protected species . No scheme at all should include housing along any part of Watery Lane as in SWH2 and SWH4.

GT1 - The only gypsy and traveller site pinpointed for real consideration is in the Parish of Rawreth , alongside the very busy A1245 dual carriageway. Essex Highways have already objected to this site on the grounds of safe access. It is within 100metres of traffic lights at the junction with Rawreth Lane, with traffic accelerating at this point. To allow access at this point is extremely dangerous.

GT2 - Is even more dangerous as, to double the size of this site to accommodate ALL the pitch requirements for the whole district, would result in even more traffic accessing the site within the area of this busy junction.

GT3, 4 & 5 - could all accommodate some of the pitches and, all have good access to surrounding roads.

GT6 - would have good access and would be able to accommodate all pitches required.

GT7 - Has very restricted access, is an unmade road/track with no mains services. Use of this site would lead to increase in traffic in Rawreth Lane.

In addition to the ADPD gypsy and traveller proposals Rawreth Parish Council put forward a proposal within the "Call for Site" document that land to the North of the A127 and East of the A1245 directly opposite GT6 in a Easterly direction would be very suitable as a Gypsy and Traveller site, this proposal in the opinion of the Council should be reconsidered, the site has the capacity to support the full allocation of required pitches has access to all routes and allows the Traveller community to remain in one area continuing their own community cohesion.

E13, E14, E15 & E16 would all be able to accommodate the relocation of Rawreth Industrial Estate and could fit in fairly well with the already established businesses, Wheatleys Garden Centre, Swallows Fish Centre and the Cafe. They would all provide good access to A1245, A129 and A127, but would initially increase the traffic on the immediate A129 area.

E17 Is most strongly objected to. This is the "green buffer", the land that Rochford District Council have indicated in all the Land to the North of London Road Proposals would be put to green "park" use to establish a barrier to stop houses etc., being built right up to the A1245.

In additional ADPD Industrial Site proposals the Parish Council put forward a proposal within the "Call for Site" document that land to the North of the A127 and West of the A1245 shown in the ADPD document as GT6 would be very suitable as an industrial site if properly designed with security, the site would also adjoin proposed industrial sites within the Basildon District. The site provides excellent road and transport links with its close proximity to all the major routes, the A127, A130 and A13 and adjoining the main Southend to London Liverpool Street railway line. The site is currently under enforcement action for inappropriate use therefore to develop this further as an industrial site would ensure the correct use of what is already semi industrial land thus ensuring the environmental improvement of the site as a whole. This proposal in the opinion of the Council should be reconsidered,
Community Facilities - Education:
Rawreth Parish Council do not agree with allocating land on North of London Road for a new Primary School. This would have a very serious detrimental effect on St Nicholas Primary School, located within less than a mile of this proposal EDU11. St Nicholas has capacity and planning to double the size of the present school but is unable to do this, as all other local Primary Schools have spare capacity and a new school with its enormous incumbent costs is, therefore, not necessary in this location. Education predictions have indicated that there will be spare capacity within the area in the next few years which could result in one of the local schools having to close.

In addition to the ADPD the Council have considered the Development Management DPD Regulations document and comment as follows.

The National Policy on Green Belt PPG2 states "The most important aspect of the Green Belt is its openness". PPG2 states that the purpose of including land with the GB are as follows:

To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas.
To prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another.
To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.
To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns.
To assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.

The Land North of London Road in its current use complies with all of these points and MUST therefore be retained and preserved as it stands.

The Parish Council looks forward to receiving your acknowledgement of this submission by return.

North of London Road, Rayleigh

I have asked several people from outside of the district where they would consider "North of London Road, Rayleigh" would be. I showed them a Ordnance Survey Explorer Map No. 175 (see Appendix 1) and showed them the Civil Parish boundaries as identified on the map. None of them thought the area you highlight to be North of London Road, Rayleigh. They believe the area you show to be North of London Road, Rawreth. They also identified the land at Sweyne school and Sweyne Park to fit the title you use here.

The title was used to indicate in the emerging Core Strategy document (page 44 Policy H2) where development of 550 houses would be.
Either the emerging Core Strategy is wrong or you have chosen the wrong site(s).

South West Hullbridge 500 dwellings

I have asked several people from outside of the district where they would consider "South West Hullbridge" would be. I showed them a Ordnance Survey Explorer Map No. 175 (see Appendix 1) and showed them the Civil Parish boundaries as identified on the map. None of them thought the area you highlight to be South West Hullbridge. They believe the area you have highlighted to be North West and or at a push West Hullbridge. They identified the land to the right of Hullbridge Road to be South West Hullbridge.

The title was used to indicate in the emerging Core Strategy document (page 44 Policy H2 and page 45 Policy H3) where development of 500 houses would be, (250 + 250).

Either the emerging Core Strategy is wrong or you have chosen the wrong site(s).

OPTION SWH1
Highlighted fields

The field top left, if you check on the Civil Parish Boundaries of the Ordnance Survey Map is not Hullbridge, but Rawreth. By including it under the envelope of Hullbridge is wrong !

OPTION SWH2
Highlighted fields

The field bottom left, if you check on the Civil Parish Boundaries of the Ordnance Survey Map is not Hullbridge, but Rawreth. By including it under the envelope of Hullbridge is wrong !

OPTION SWH3
Highlighted fields

See also my question Add 3 also the field top left, if you check on the Civil Parish Boundaries of the Ordnance Survey Map is not Hullbridge, but Rawreth. By including it under the envelope of Hullbridge is wrong !

OPTION SWH4
Highlighted fields

Please refer to my question Add 4. The same field in question is included in this option.

1 Introduction

1.1 This report sets out representations submitted on behalf of H R Philpot and Sons Ltd and P W Robinson to Rochford District Council's public consultation on its emerging Site Allocations Development Plan Document (DPD)

1.2 H R Philpot and Sons and P W Robinson are local landowners with land interests to the west of Hullbridge. Bidwells has previously submitted representations on their behalf in respect of previous consultations on the Council's emerging Core Strategy, as explained in the following section.

1.3 The Council is currently consulting on its Issues and Options draft Allocations DPD. The document identifies four potential options for the expansion of Hullbridge to accommodate 500 new homes. This report sets out a critique of each option in respect of their suitability, opportunity and constraints for development.

1.4 Our client wishes to express support for the Council's emerging strategy of new housing locations as highlighted in the Core Strategy Submissions. New development focused on larger villages such as Hullbridge has the potential to provide the following significant benefits:

New first time buyer and family homes.
New local affordable housing.
Public open space.
Improvements to the wider road network.
Enhancement to local community facilities and schools as part of planning contributions.
Enhanced access to the water side by introducing new footpaths and cycle routes.
Sustainable homes using modern methods of construction and sustainable energy.

2 Background to Representations

2.1 The Council's Core Strategy, which was submitted to the Secretary of State in September 2009 and is due to be examined this summer, identifies South West Hullbridge as a growth location for 250 homes over the period 2015-2021 and a further 250 post-2021 (500 homes in total - see Figure One below). The document is likely to be adopted by the Council if it is found to be 'sound' by an Inspector following the examination.

2.2 H R Philpot and Sons and P W Robinson have submitted representations as part of the Core Strategy drafting process over the last three years, including the most recent consultation on the submission draft in October 2009. Whilst the proposed expansion at Hullbridge as whole is supported, these representations identified only if South West Hullbridge as a specific location for growth. H R Philpot and P W Robinson contend that, to be found sound, the Core Strategy should not identify site specific locations for growth and should simply identify Hullbridge as a growth settlement, leaving more scope for the Site Allocations DPD to identify the most suitable sites to facilitate the strategic growth of the town and to allow the testing of these options. We await a further opportunity to present to the appointed Inspector on these points later in 2010.

3 Critique of Rochford District Council's Options for Growth

3.1 In accordance with the scope of the Core Strategy, the four options for growth have been put forward and these are all located to the south west of Hullbridge. The options presented by the Council, as shown below, illustrate that various parcels of land being considered for development over the Core Strategy Plan period. This section of the report sets out H R Philpot and Sons and P W Robinson's critique of each and provides the Council with our clients' thoughts on specific development options including opportunities and constraints.


Option One - SWH1

3.2 Option One would lead to the development of the field immediately north of Lower Road, with development extending further to the north and west, joining up with existing development along Windermere Avenue. It would surround Malyon's Farm.

3.3 Lower Road currently presents a highly attractive approach to the village from the west (see Figures Two and Three below). A high quality hedgerow marks the boundary of the highway with the open countryside to the north. Grassland and paddocks frame the village and add to its character as a settlement. This option for development would significantly increase the sense of urbanisation on the approach to the village and have a considerable impact on visual amenity in this highly sensitive area should part or all of this option be taken forward then landscape impact and enhancement measures would need to be reconsidered.

3.4 The suggestion of expanding the village to the south-west as proposed by Option One would locate new development close to the main highway at Lower Road, however, many of the new homes would be located further from the centre of the village and the hub of essential services provided on Ferry Road and the leisure opportunities on offer closer to the River Crouch. You would need to drive from these locations to the centre of the village. More need for car usage for groups living on new development.

3.5 The suggested arrangement may engender the creation of a separate 'dormitory' annexe to the village that bears little relation to the main settlement. With easy access to Lower Road and the higher order settlements surrounding Hullbridge, many residents may not need to enter the village centre, pass via the High Street or provide passing trade for local facilities. To this end, Option One would reduce the current cohesiveness of the settlement and provide less support for its facilities than could be the case if developing further north.

Option One Opportunities

Good access onto Lower Road.
Potential for limited development to the west of the village.

Option One Constraints

Impact on immediate landscape as you enter village.
Development could drift further to the west as unconstrained.
Potential for local flooding.
No direct access to waterfront and access to large areas of open space.

Option Two - SWH2

3.6 Option Two would have a similar impact on the character of the village by extending development further west along Watery Lane, however this does illustrate increased growth to the west along Watery Lane which we consider is unacceptable. Malyons Farm remains surrounded by development.

3.7 A new access from Lower Road or Watery Lane would be required. The most favourable solution in highway engineering terms would appear to be a roundabout at the junction of the two roads, but this may not be feasible given the location of existing development north of the junction.

3.8 There is significant local concern about the impact of flooding along Watery Lane and this does not yet appear to have been fully investigated by the District Council in relation to the southern element of the site.

Option Two Opportunities

Access to Lower Road good in highway terms.
Limited development adjacent access road.

Option Two Constraints

Increased built form along Lower Road and Watery Lane.
Identified flooding on Watery Lane/potential on site flooding.
Impact on wider landscape when viewed from highway.

Option Three - SWH3

3.9 Option Three proposes growth of Malyons Farm and a number of roads abutting land further to the north.

3.10 Option Three is the most deliverable option for preserving the rural character of the village. It will have significantly less impact on visual amenity when approaching the village from the west and should cause less harm to the character of the settlement as a whole.

3.11 Removing new development from the edge of Lower Road and Watery Lane will make it less prominent for the majority of residents and reduce perceived urbanisation of the village. Whilst there may be implications for the views enjoyed by some properties at the ends of Riverview Gardens and Grasmere and Windermere Avenues, the impact on the village as a whole should be significantly reduced. To mitigate the concerns of the residents' better planting could be introduced as strategic planting. However we consider a new access would need to be located on Lower Road and there may be opportunities for landscape enhancement to the north-west and south-west of the village by incorporating open space or recreational land in these areas. A growth option plan attached at Appendix 2 illustrates options for maintaining development abutting the western boundary with a new access road acting as a defensible boundary with strategic planting and open space. An attractive
avenue of trees and shrubs would be introduced to enhance the local area.

3.12 This option is likely to enable the village to be expanded in a more cohesive manner. The dwellings would be located close to the centre of the village and the range of essential services available on Ferry Road, including the Cooperative market, Post Office, opticians and pharmacy (see Figure Five below). The development would form a more integrated part of Hullbridge given that access to some of the new homes could be provided from existing streets leading off the main thoroughfare of the village such as Ferry Road. Utilising these roads, some of which are in a poor state of repair and not maintainable at public expense, may present an opportunity to support their enhancement, to the benefit of existing residents. There would be no need to use motor cars as there are strong links on foot with good linkage with the introduction of shared surface.

Option Three Opportunities

Reduced impact on wider landscape to the west.
Delivery of considerable amount of open space for wider village use.
Access to beauty riverside walk for local residents.
Permeable access to facilities including local shops and school.
Opportunity to enhance adjoining access roads.
Attractive balancing ponds for water run off.

Option Three Constraints

Impact of development to the south of the village in landscape terms. Enhancement required.
Careful consideration will be required for linkages to the waterside area.

Option Four - SWH4

3.13 Option Four appears to be the least favourable of all the proposals put forward by the Council. Not only would it lead to the development of open fields to the north of Lower Road and Watery Lane, with all the drawbacks highlighted in relation to Options One and Two, it would also extend development south of Lower Road (see Figure Six). This is currently a defensible, physical barrier to the expansion of the settlement that should be maintained.

3.14 Access would be required to the north from Lower Road/Watery Lane, a further highway junction would be required to the south, to serve the southern parcel of development. This would need to be in the vicinity of the existing junction with Watery Lane, which is on a sharp bend, and the new access to development land to the north. This could be to the detriment of highway safety.

3.15 Option Four would increase the urbanisation of the approach to the village, affecting the character of the whole settlement, and, again, engender a more fragmented form of development that may not encourage a cohesive community. Whilst the views of the few properties overlooking open fields on Windermere Avenue, Ambleside Gardens and Elm Grove would be less affected than by Options

One to Three, the wider relationship of development as a whole should be considered. To this end, Option Four is not considered to be a favourable solution.

Option Four Opportunities

Provision of open space at entrance to village.
Opportunity to provide much needed housing for village
.
Option Four Constraints

The site is divided by Lower Road which divorces the site from the village.
Development proposed to the south of the village does not provide suitable access to the village facilities.
Need for use of car little ability to walk to centre.

4 Conclusions

4.1 The emerging Rochford District Core Strategy, which has been submitted to the Secretary of State and is due to be examined and adopted later this year, establishes the principle of expanding Hullbridge to provide 500 new homes. The Council is currently consulting on four potential options to accommodate this level of strategic growth to the south-west of the village.

4.2 This report presents the representations of H R Philpot and Sons and P W Robinson, who contend that Option Three is the most favourable option to deliver the identified need for strategic housing growth. This proposal will have the least impact on the character of the settlement as a whole, is well located to support and expand the range of services offered in the village centre and is most likely to enable the village to grow in cohesive manner, preserving its identity as a single community.

4.3 The Councils Option Three has a number of positive benefits for the village, which we reinforce below based on our assessment of the options undertaken to date:

Quality new housing to meet the needs of the area.
Additional affordable housing.
Links to future attractive riverside walk.
Introduction of new large areas of public open space.
Support for local community facilities as part of planning obligations.
Sustainable construction and energy generation on site.
Excellent linkage to local facilities and the school.
Opportunities for attractive development to adjoin high quality open space with opportunities to walk to the centre for new residents and local community.

RE: ALLOCATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT PLAN DOCUMENTS



Thank you for giving Anglian Water the opportunity to comment on the above document.



Please find our comments summarized on the attached document.

Objection to housing development Hullbridge SWH1, SWH2 and SWH3. See paper copy for details.

Objection to SWH4 and Support to SWH1. See paper copy for details.

Objection to SWH4 and Support to SWH1. See paper copy for details.

there is a dire shortfall of affordable housing in rochford district due to restrictions on the green belt. most objectors properties were once greenbelt. it is grossly selfish for existing residents to deny others the option to live in their neighbourhood. it is pure protectionism. as long as infrustructure improvements keeps pace with the additional demands of new building there should be no problem. option swh4 appears to be the least disruptive to existing hullbridge residents.

Supporting the housing in South West Hullbridge.
See paper copy for details.

The land outlined in black on the attached plan is owned by Mr J Warren. The land is suitable and available for development. The land outlined red on the attached plan is highlighted in the Allocations Option SW2 and SW4.

This land extends to 3.84 hectares (9.49 acres). It is available and suitable for development.

All of the land is owned by one owner who is supportive of development in this area. There are no legal constraints on this land - no tenancies or covenants that would preclude or delay development. Part of the site has a sewer main running across it.

The site does not fall within the flood plain or any conservation or special landscape areas. The land is within the coastal protection belt as is other land proposed for development South West of Hullbridge.

The land is open grassland and can accommodate significant housing or supporting infrastructure. It is considered that the site does not have any constraint to development that could not be overcome.

The site preparation costs are low and the site can accommodate any necessary infrastructure. The development can be phased as required and the owner anticipates a single developer on the project. Land can be made available on allocation.

This land should be included in allocations south west of Hullbridge. If additional land is required in this area the attached plan shows adjacent land in the same ownership.

To view plan, please see paper copy.