SWH - Should other sites be considered?

Only sites with existing industrial usage should be considered for residential development.

I object to Hullbridge being made bigger. We moved here to get away from the crowds. And we enjoy the peace and quiet of living in a small village. Why always add to present comunities, why not build something new with it's own shops, doctor, library, schools etc.
PLEASE DON'T RUIN OUR LOVELY LITTLE VILLAGE.

Hullbridge building should be either 1 massive site at Lords Golf Club or smaller sites spread through the village. Having 1 site will not improve the village

I suggest developement of the current industrial site Nevendon Salvage Scrap Yard on the south side of Lower Road, Hullbridge. Any new building could join existing housing on Coventry Hill.
This will have less impact on householders already living in Abbey Road, Malyons Lane, Elm Grove or Ambleside Gardens.

Other sites with a better road infrastructure should be looked at first. Preferrably the brown field sites.

Yes. Other sites and locations which have the capability and infrastructue to support and absorb additional housing development of this size should be considered. The planners should be more responsible and sympathetic to the environment and associated capacities of the infastructure services. All proposals of this nature should take sustainability and the environmental effects into careful coinsideration prior to going any further forward with any such proposals.

swh1 is the only option that is the most suited for Hullbridge and alll residents should be all in favour of this.

Why are the government insisting on new homes being built, when there are so many exisiting houses standing empty, boarded up or abandoned ? This should be addressed first before destroying GREEN BELT land.
We moved to Hullbridge because of the village atmosphere and community spirit something I fear we may lose if this developemnet goes ahead.
Also mentioned in the proposal, INFRASTRUCTURE etc. The developement of Rawreth lane several years ago saw no effective infrastructure improvement what so ever! The access roads to the village are already overloaded and the smell from the existing sewage plant is ever increasing.

All districts must accept a quota of development but 500 dwellings on this particular site is excessive. The area is prone to flooding, traffic already is heavy during peak hours , at least another 1000 cars on this section of road would cause even more problems. Sweyne and Fitzwimark schools would have to provide more places,(extra school transport costs), another medical surgery needed.
Alternatively,we have a brown field site ( scrap yard on Lower Road ). Is building on land between Sutton Road and Journeyman's Way in Rochford a possibility? Ideal for extra airport workers.

Yes, We should build on the brown belt first before ever building on green belt.
surely there is enough land in built up areas surrounding London rather than having to spoil the countryside.

If we hadn't allowed the big car show rooms to be built near the airport we could have had a lot of affordable houseing built without it effecting anyone else.

Yes other sites should be considered as there are numerous other sites in the area which should be considered - immediately adjacent to the proposed area is the Hullbridge Gardens estate comprising Kingsway, Wellington Gardens etc on which there are numerous unkempt derelict sites which attract rubbish dumping and other unsavory behaviour. Development of these sites would be an improvement in the quality and amenity of the area, rather than the destruction of greenfield sites which currently are used by the community for a variety of beneficial activities.

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.

Objection to proposed residential allocation of land in Hullbridge.

Sugested other sites:

Land occupied by Nevendon Salvage, Lower Road, Hullbridge
Land occupied by Coventry Hill Service Station, Lower Road, Hullbridge
Land opposite Pevensey Gardens and Central Avenue, Lower Road, Hullbridge (old site of car mechanic).

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.