SWH - Are these sites the most suitable for development in this location?

No development should be considered that impacts on greenbelt, woodland or Agricultural land.

Building on Lords golf club gives a natural defense against further building using the road and trainline as boundaries. It avoids having to use very poor unadopted roads like Windermere and Grassmere and would also allow the opportunity to build a train station at Hullbridge, boosting the local economy. It will also help the local infrastructure by utilising the better main roads of Hullbridge Road and Lower Road as well as being less likley to increase flooding at Watery lane. Building in any of the current suggestions opens up a huge area of Green Belt which has NO defensible line.

This land becomes severely flooded in heavy rain causing an already ludicrous traffic situation at the junction of Watery Lane and the Hullbridge Road. If there were an estate built on this land this would increase the problem one hundred fold.

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

Suggest using industrial sites as first option which will enhance local area and not impact on existing home owners who bought properties because they wanted to live within the green belt.

Not suitable

The use of greenbelt land for housing is abhorent. In this particular case it is ill considered too. the loal roads to the west are prone to flodding adn are not capable of taking high volume of traffic due to the narrowness of the lanes and the weak bridge. The Roads in Hullbridge that are to belinked up to the estate are also single tracked and in poor repair and unable to take the increased traffic. Especially as they would be used s a 'rat run' intoand out of the village.

No more affordable housing

I stongly objectto any further development in Hullbridge due to:

Loss of our countryside.

Hullbridge does not have the infrastructure to accomodate such a huge development.

We do not have the facilities to accomodate the additional population within our schools or doctors surgery.

The saftey of the children in Hullbridge will be jeopardised by the increased amount of traffic.

The unadopted roads will not be able to take any additional traffic as they are already in an appalling condition. Most of the roads can only take a single line of traffic.

Local crime rates are likely to increase.

Increased problems with flooding in Watery Lane.

As with all 'Village' development work, residents will raise objections.
However, I accept progress in affordable housing is essential for the future.

Taking this into consideration, my preference is for option: - SWH4.
This appears to have the least impact on existing roads and residential properties.

The other Option's raise my concern, regarding daytime and evening high speed through traffic, along the already congested Windermere Avenue.
Not least when manoeuvring around parked vehicles, attending the newly extended 'Hullbridge Health Clinic' and 'Hullbridge Day Centre'.

My secondary concern is over the capacities of existing Services i.e. Sewage, Drainage, Electricity & Gas.

I feel hullbridge does not have enough ammenities to support more houses. No youth facilities, few shops, at present no pub, and a doctors surgery where it is difficult to get an appointment. Also many of the roads are unmade and more traffic would make the condition of these worse, not to mention more traffic chaos getting in and out of Hullbridge. Also flooding would be a major concern as the plans show the new site is near to watery Lane which has already flooded more than three times this year. Also would the sewage sysrem beable to cope as often the smell of raw sewage is terrible already. I am not compleately apposed to all building but I think it should be on a much smaller scale.

None of the sites or options are worthy of recomendation. The planning and masterplan for the general area requires careful reconsideration. 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. This proposal is unsuitable.

i most strongly object to this option. we saved hard and moved onto green belt land to avoid living on a "built up" estate. I think it is very wrong that the council can decide that they have the right to change our lives and devalue our homes by building on greenbelt on our doorstep.
Hullbridge is a village and people choose to live here because of that. we do not want more traffic. the roads are not suitable for more traffic. if you build here you will spoil our quality of life. you shouldnt have the right to do that!
i thought greenbelt was protected from development. whats the point if you just keep building on it!

Any of the above options will have a significant negative impact on the housing surrounding the site.The value of our properties will decrease as we will be losing the open space that attracted us to the property initially.
I feel that the roads, especially the one road going in and ou of Hullbridge will not be able to cope with the addititional traffic and it is my fear that the level of crime will increase. Hullbridge is already under policed.

The proposed significant rise in the village population will have an adverse effect on the character of the village and the quality of life of it's current residents. The increase in road traffic (perhaps 2 vehicles per property) would make local roads even more congested than they currently are. The farmland to concrete surfacing will probably increase the already high risk flooding potential of the area. Green belt land should continue to be protected from developments of this kind. Take the development to non rural areas.

Easy access to transport and main routes less impat on village

If it is essential that more housing be built in Hullbridge this area is probably the most suitable. However, I am yet to be convinced that there is any need for this scale of development. Hullbridge is still a rural village and too large a development will damage the village. Added to this the significant work needed to improve infrastructure in an already congested, flood-prone area with limited medical and schooling facilities leads me to the belief that any development in Hullbridge should be minimised.

Inadequate Roads-Watery Lane, Hullbridge Road and Lower Road are already extremely congested, particularly at peak times, i.e.At going to school and work times in the morning and also in the afternoon. Access to the sites from both these roads will be dangerous, particularly as Hullbridge Road joins Lower Road at this point on a right angle bend, with Watery Lane also joining at this point.

Flooding- This Area has always been very susceptible to flooding, surface water drainage is inadequate, also foul water drainage to the sewage works, at certain times odours from this area are apparent, indicating overload situations. I understand that Essex and Suffolk Water are unable at this time to increase the supply of drinking water to Hullbridge.
Lack of Schools- The nearest Secondary School(Sweyne Park), will presumably be inadequate to cope with the increase in children from 250 and finally 500 new homes.

Given the scale of proposed development all options will result in a massive increase in traffic throughout the area and therefore details of highway improvements to accomodate this increase must be produced before any development is approved. Options SWH1, SWH2 and SWH4 in particular are likely to require access to Lower Road and Watery Lane and must be specified. Option SWH4 encroaches onto land to the south of Lower Road to no apparent benefit, whilst leaving the northern boundary less defensible against future expansion.

How are the roads, schools, doctors etc going to cope with all these new houses?

1. Parking of cars on the road in Windermere Avenue is already bad. General access for residents is a problem and it would prove extremely hazardous should there be the need for emergency vehicles to access the road.
adding extra houses would only exasperate this problem.
2. The obnoxious smells from the sewage farm show that it cannot cope with the present level of sewage, let alone another 500 families. This is despite the fact that we were promised the waste would be taken to the new sewage works in Grays over a year ago.
3. Where will the secondary school pupils go to school? There are already continueing arguements with ECC about the distance from Hullbridge to Sweyne Park. Park School was built for Hullbridge pupils.
4. General parking in Hullbridge is totally inadequate. Apart from Pooles Lane car park there are insufficient parking facilities for the doctors, the chemist, the Post Office, the shops, the Day Centre etc. etc.
5. Watery Lane will be ruined if changes are made to accommodate extra traffic and reduce flooding.
6. Simply getting in and out of Hullbridge at peak times is a major problem let alone adding another 500 families.

With poor drainage in the area, (visit Watery Lane after heavy rainfall), and a road network that cannot currently cope with the volume of traffic at peak times, Hullbridge is not a suitable area for additional housing. In addition, with no senior school, no police station, no rail station and a bus service every 20 minutes this does not make an ideal location. Our doctor's surgery is struggling to cope with current demand, the local electricity supply is not the most reliable and there is little or no facilities for the youth in the area. Think again.

Hullbridge is a village and should remain as an attraction with its beautiful riverside activities. Building such a development would leave traffic madness due to the lack of infastructure. We do not have the facilities to cope with an extra 500 homes. That will be another 1000 cars trying to get into the budgens car park or waiting to turn into Ferry Road. Another 4000 people wanting to visit the medical centre to see a Doctor. Why not build these houses elsewhere and then improve Hullbridge so people can visit and enjoy the scenery. There is plenty of wasteland elsewhere. With flooding consistantly shown to cause problems along Watery Lane and the congestion caused along Rawreth Lane because of the closure, surely this must show that another 1000 carrs would be a logistical nightmare.
I recently purchased my property and there was no sign of any developments in progress and I shall be taking this matter further as this development of "affordable housing" is surely going to reduce the value of my property.
In addition, as this is "affordabe housing" I assume that we are talking of young proffesionals/small familes who will be looking to commute to/from London. With no train station, this will add to the traffic rush hour chaos to and from Rayleigh/Hockley.

The report states 'defensible' green belt - this plans destroys the green belt in this area and just moves the belt conveniently sideways as it suits

The village at busy times is already at it maximum capacity - difficult to park near doctors & pharmacy as well as the shops - parking areas regularly fill at busy times. An increase of 25% would swamp the local facilities

The roads past Hullbridge are already a 'rat run' with many people cutting through from Coventry Hill to Watery Lane - at busy times it is already difficult to get out of a side road onto lower road. All too often queues also form in the morning at Rawreth Lane sometimes back to the golf club and beyond. In the evening rush hour there is a long queue from the corner of Lower Road and Watery Lane - again due to people cutting through to other areas. Unless the planners are considering a new dual carriageway from Hullbridge any increase in population would cause further delays.

Out of all areas in the plan Hullbridge appears to have been saddled with some 25% of the total (2015 onwards) - Is this fair or just?

Wherever the council opts to place these extra homes because of government rules there will always be objections from whoever is near. Has the option of perhaps a new town/village been considered away from all other homes where all the infrastructure required could be placed to cope with little disruption to any othe area.

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.

Until there is proper investment in the infrastructure any major developement in any of these options is unsustainable .Flooding and transport issues are the main problems .Again the parish of Rawreth will be taking a large portion of extra housing being a similiar position to the sites west of Rayleigh ,as a lot of this land is in the parish of Rawreth .Hullbridge should only have to deal with its own natural housing needs and not absorb any new residents.

It would appear to me that option SWH 4 is the best option as it will keep traffic out of Ferry Lane and the busy mini roundabout at Budgens. Before any of the schemes proceed surely Watery Lane needs to be made into a usable, safe road with the drainage dramatically improved.

In a word No, Hullbridge has a lovely village feel which would be spoiled by the intrusion of this many houses.
Hullbridge is quite a small area yet we seem to have the largest allocation, why? is it because we were not told in time and so haven't made as much fuss as the other areas. I have been informed that a notice was in the local magazine, unfortunately this is not a regular delivery in this area and so many residents missed out, I would like to know why the Parish Council were not informed.

This site (and the others shown for Hullbridge) are simply wrong. There is no logical transport infrastructure for the village and increasing public transport services will only increase congestion along Ferry Road and at the key junctions at Ferry Road/Coventry Hill and the junction at Watery Lane.

With such a planned increase traffic will increase dramatically and the remaining infrastructure of the village will not cope. This is a village not a town and this does not represent infill building this is simply taking away another swath of virgin countryside - greenbelt land by name or association.