Option GT4

Who wrote this description needs their head examined. Even if the local residents wanted to welcome the gypsies to their area, they themselves have strict beliefs about not interacting with anyone but their own. Therefore to think this will promote community cohesion is absolutely ridiculous.

regarding the problems at Crays Hill there is no guarantee that the number will not increase on this site also the infrastructure has already been strained with the recent building of 66 new properties in this area schools dentists and doctors are having problems catering for the influx

We strongly oppose the proposal to place a Traveller's site in this area. This is a residential, greenbelt area, which will be subjected to increased traffic and noise which will directly contribute to decreased property prices.

There are several issues to be addressed, such as a lack of a mains sewerage drainage facility, posing a potential environmental problem.

We have lived in Hockley for 35 years, which has always been known as quiet, affluent village. The integration of a Travvelling community will be of the detriment to the village.

Mr & Mrs R H Smith

This site is totally unsuitable and does not have the correct facilities to make a sustainable site.
A consideration for the local residents should be adhered to.

I also object for the following reasons:

1. No pavement or street lighting
2. Outside planning boundries
3. Sustainability
4.Security of isolated properties
5.Previous planning history of the site
6.Highways issues/increased traffic
7.Not served by main sewage system
8.Impact on local residents
9.Car dependent site.

The points made so far are all valid but the council should not think for one moment that they can keep putting on the residents and rate payers by taking more and more green belt for their own needs. in this instance to obey instruction from Brussells that we should supply land for caravan owners. there are plenty of houses for sale with sewege, water, electric and all the necessary things required for proper accomadation for families (affordable homes being built by the developers for the council to home any one they wish) This particular piece of land had to be scraped of all contamination and re topsoiled last time gypsy's moved off the site. The council have taken green belt and keep taking it for their own use by compulsory purchase at green belt prices and then they do a deal with developers making a killing on land sales at Betts farm and at Plumberow avenue and more sites now all over Rochford district. Southend Council dont have any greenbelt left so it falls on us to supply the greenbelt for building new houses and Gypsy camps. Any sites which are supposed to intergrate with the community are asking for trouble for both the residents the council and the gypsy's. As they will be isolated on small sites dotted over various areas and will not be able to integrate into residential settlement promoting community cohesion as suggested by the council.

I strongly object to the developement of a travellers site in Plumberow, the following needs to be considered.
* No main sewage system
* Increased traffic flow on an already badly conditioned road
* Unslightly considering the natural beauty of the area
* Decrease in property prices in the area

Plumberow Avenue is becoming too busy already. We do not need more dwellings. We certainly do not want the road made up as that would then turn the road into a main road from Lower Road.

The Allocations Report should be amended to show what the accommodation needs assessment for Gypsies and Travellers required to be carried out by RDC per part 6 of the Housing Act 2004 showed. It is believed that that the suggested sites around Hockley would be unsuitable because of road and services access.

This site is totaly unexceptable for this area we do not have enough spare land as it is without it being given away.
we are struggling as a village now with not enough doctors, schools over flowing, transport not nearly good enough to get about, we need to keep hockly as a village as it has allways been there are not many village left and we want this one kept the same.

1. The site does not have sufficient space to cope with all pitches.
2. There is no mains sewage drainage to this site. This could present both an environmental and health and safety issue for adjoining properties.
3. The site is also supposed to be Green Belt so why is this being considered as suitable for this type of accommodation?
4. The road this site is on is unadopted and needs to be maintained by residents. Who will pay for the road maintenance ouside this site?

I Object to this site for the following reasons:
Inapproriate use of Green belt land.
Inapproriate use of land in an established residential area.
Road is unsutiable for additional/heavy vehicles
No main drainage or sewage treatment, health and safety issue.
Children play area close by.
Detrimental effect on established residential area.
Reduction in property value.
Close proximity to family recreational facilities ie cycling,walking,horse riding.
As a council tax payer this is of no benifit to me or my family.

This is a very small parcel of land that would accomodate only a small number of people and has no attendant mains services. This tiny piece of land (if it is to be converted from green belt) would be better utilised for residential purposes in keeping with its surroundings.

We strongly disaprove to having travellers moving into the end our road. We are concerned with the impact this will have in the sorroundng area. Aswell as the drain on resources, schools, doctors etc, there will be a large increase in traffic in this area. There will be no sewage/drainage put in place which is definately a concern. The woodland will also be effected. Lastly, all house prices within the surrounding area will decrease which is unfair...

The site is too small and too close to existing housing, and there is no main drainage. Allowing a number of people to live on this tiny site so close to other established dwellings would create a nuisance to the people already living there. I understand travellers were previously turned away from this area and there was a public health problem due to the lack of sanitation.

Making Plumberow Avenue more accessible at this end would quickly turn it into a "Rat run". My parents live in the made-up part of the road and it has already become much more busy due to building around Beckney Wood.

I object to this land becoming Gypsy/Traveller Accomodation, there is no mains sewage on site after having my council tax bill in I feel that I already pay far to much for a very poor service why should I pay for this sewage? This land is Green Belt why is this being considered, planning along this road is very strict so why is it ok for this to be considered? The value of my property would reduce, when I bought my house I did searches as I had no desire to live near a Gypsy/Traveller site, I paid a premium for my house as it was in this road who will re-emburse me of the decrease in value of my property due to the site. The catchment primary and secondary school are oversubscribed, as is the Doctors and Dentists.Traffic flow along is busy at the best of times, with no traffic flow measures in place surely more cars along a primary school route with no crossing is not safe? Who will maintain the unmade part of the road outside this site.

I object to this going ahead as Plumberow Avenue this will cause increased traffic , impact lanscape/light, security of isolated properties also this is a green belt area and should stay that way

I believe the impact of the proposed allocation of GT4, 285, Plumberow Avenue as a Gipsy/Traveller site is unsuitable and would have a negative impact on the local area. The potential to develop problems such as those very publicly experienced by other DC's such as Crays Hill is a concern.
This site I understand is not served by the main sewage system and I presume does not have any supply for other utilities.
Plumberow Ave at this location is an unadopted road. Therefore understand that each householder on this section of Plumberow Ave is responsible for the maintenance of the road outside of their property. Who would pay for the maintenance of the stretch adjacent to No 285?

If this is green belt then I object to the erosion of our green belt by allowing this site to be developed.
I also object on the grounds of a further traffic increase to an over busy Plumberow Avenue.
It will be an unsafe area to develop given there are no footpaths or good street lighting.

All the reasons that made the site unacceptable to for gypsy accommodation before remain, no sewage systems which as previously experienced will cause an environmental issues and no road infrastructure for commercial vehicle as the gypsy community tend to have. This is a residential/greenbelt area with only permanent buildings, mobile homes are not in fitting, the gypsy community would want to use it as not only a residential site but a business site which again its not suitable for.
This would also have serious negative impact on property values in the area which totally unacceptable to every property owner in Hockley.

To have a gypsy site on this suggested plot is deffinitely not at all suitable, unfortunately the traveller's reputation has gone before, and to put a site on an unmade road in such close proximity to residents who work hard to keep their properties to an excellent standard is a very poor idea.After the council spending enormous amounts of money to remove travellers previously, it seems to be incomprehensible. Extra traffic,litter, & the lack of mains would also be a problem.

Green Belt Land should remain "Green". I am amazed how easily the council have considered converting this land when they are so very strict with the planning application process when house owners seek to improve their properties.

This site is totally inapproriate for a traveller or gypsy site.

There are no facitities to the site such as pavement, street lighting, and sewage. To supply these necessary facilities would increase local expeniture that would either mean an increase of local taxes or the reduction of other important community services There are no bus services so the site will be totally vehicle dependant that will increase traffic along Plumberow Avenue that is already at saturation levels and will increase the possibilty of accidents. As the area consists predominately of young families the possibility of accidents involving children may increase. The costs of increase security of surrounding and nearby properties will be disproportioniate.

My main objections are: no mains sewage drainage facility serving this land, it is registered Green Belt, it is too small a site to house a gypsy community, the road leading to the area is unadopted and therefore maintained by the local residents and it is not in good order, previous experience and clear up operation after last community there. Implications on property valuations where residents have paid a premium to live, No to option GT4.

This site is clearly in the area stipulated by Rochford District Council as "Green Belt" land and no development should be allowed. Allowing development would be in breach of existing plans for the area and would inevitably attract applications for residential development which could present a legal minefield for the Council.
There is no sewage available for this area and if such services have to be provided for the Travellers site it would be prohibitively costly.
The road is unmade and if a Travellers site was allowed the road would need to be brought up to a standard whereby caravans could arrive and exit the site without damage. The case of Wollett (Plumberow Avenue Residents Association) -v- Essex County Council, should be most carefully scrutinised in this connection.

The site is impractical for the following reasons:
1. Part of Plumberow Avenue is an unadopted road.
2. There is an estate of houses behind the unadopted road part of Plumberow Avenue with access via Etheldore Avenue but the Emergency Access via Wood Avenue is being used as the gate is wedged open and this adds to the traffic using the unadopted road. thereby increasing the damage to the road.
3. The unadopted road is also overused by residents of hockley who drive onto the road and park in order to walk their dogs over the mount and to use the playground facility at the foot of the mount, thereby adding to the damage to the road.
4. When we have snow the residents of hockley again use the unadopted road and park in order to tabogan down the fields, thereby adding to the damage to the road.
4. The infrastructure cannot cope with more residents eg, schools, doctors, dentists etc
5. The water pressure is already very low.

We are concerned about the enviromental issues concerning this site (lack of sewerage facility) and also strains this site would put on the local ammenities (schools doctors dentists)

The increased traffic would cause problems, also this site has no sewage treatment. The local school, and doctors would be put under considerable strain. Security of isolated properties and sustainability are also an issue.

I strongly disagree with the proposal as this will seriously devalue properties in the surrounding area and due to the lack of sewage will constitude a major health problem,

As a local resident I am concern with the proposed plan, I believe this area is designated as Green Belt and that going ahead with these plans will not only spoil the landscape but bring with it several issues, which concern me.
Firstly the sanitation issue, there is no main sewage drainage facility on this site, which i believe would present a potential environmental issue for this area at a huge cost to the local community. Health and safety issues if raw sewage is left and not disposed of in a hygienic manner. Also maintenance to the local site including the road and upkeep of the site area. Who will pay for this.

This site is simply too small to be of significant use and I disagree with the assertion that 'There is suitable access'