Policy SER6 - South West Hullbridge

I am writing to let you know i am very much against the growth project for Hullbridge. More houses means more people which means more cars and more traffic. As it is now the area can barely handle what we have now and traffic backs up horribly any time there is any construction or bad weather. On top of all this there is the fact that they will be building on the green belt which we are becoming in short supply of these days. There are no good things that would come out of this growth project. We are all against this 100%. Please stop this atrocity from ruining the lovely area that is Hullbridge.
Thank you for your time,
Bryan

Access, drainage and other main infrastucture must be fully investigated. The number of homes expected will push the already in place, overstretched systems to breaking point. Just study the traffic problems when there is heavy rain or snow. The bottleneck at Rawreth lane tails back to the river and to Church road Hockley. This is the most obvious view of overstretched transport systems.

1. Development is detrimental to the current Community
The site is not properly integrated with the existing village of Hullbridge. A "green buffer" is to exist "in perpetuity between new and existing developments".
The 3.6 hectares of natural green space will only be directly accessible from the new development.
This development as proposed, as evidenced above, will not promote community cohesion but will in fact be creating a separate village to Hullbridge destroying the current community feeling that exists.

2. Highways
Although mention of limited highway improvements is in the report no detail is given as there is no Core Strategy Transport Assessment from Essex County Council or elsewhere.
The only Transport Impact Assessment required will be developer funded and relate only to SER6, without taking into account either highway issues or other developments (e.g. SER1) elsewhere in the District. No assessment of road improvements required has been made and Ferry Road, onto which much of the new traffic will go, has not been mentioned in the report.
At present Rawreth Lane is at, or near, capacity and when Watery Lane is closed, a common occurrence, traffic backs up along Downhall Road & Rawreth Lane towards Rayleigh and Hullbridge Road & Lower Road towards Hockley and Rochford making journeys to or from Rayleigh or Chelmsford difficult.
No impact on the district has been made with regard to the Fairglen Interchange (A127/A130/A1245) which lies just outside the District but which has a profound knock on effect when flooded with cars moving to either London Road or Rawreth Lane, too roads affected by SER6 and also, more directly by SER1.
It is stated that highway improvements should be made to accompany the development of the site, this will be to late as improvements must be made first given the current state of the highways network.

3. Sewage/Drainage
The sewage system within Hullbridge is already at or near capacity. Although mentioned in the report no assessment of need has been made.
Part of the area proposed is prone to flooding. It is not shown as flood risk however as it is farmland and no claims have been made against insurance. Flood Risk is based on insurance claims made.

4. Rawreth
Approximately one third, or around 6.2 hectares, of development SER6b (the second phase, will be in Rawreth, not Hullbridge. This also relates to point one above about community cohesion.
If the residents of the housing in SER6b live in Rawreth they will not be a part of Hullbridge, they will be represented by Rawreth Parish Council and Downhall & Rawreth District Councillors. They will pay a Parish Precept to Rawreth but get the facilities of Hullbridge.
Such a separation will again not foster Community Cohesion and does more to encourage the new development as a separate community.

5. Youth
Hullbridge has a Youth Centre which is currently underused; additional investment should be made to facilities there or at the Skate Park in the recreation ground rather than have additional facilities which will be underutilised.

6. Neighbourhood Shops
The suggestion that additional neighbourhood shops are required suggests a proper review has not been done of A1 use in Hullbridge, which then gives a concern about the report as a whole. With a population of around 7,300 Hullbridge has three (3) supermarkets; The Coop, One Stop (owned by Tescos) and Budgens) as well as a number of other independent shops including a butcher and a greengrocer etc. Hullbridge is more than adequately served
by shops.
Hullbridge is short of other business premises such as office or studio facilities

1) Trees & "green buffer" implies an "old Hullbridge" seperate to a "new Hullbridge". 2) There is no suggestion that these new houses will be available to existing residents from Hullbridge. 3) Residents of SER6b (which will be under Rawreth) will be subsidised by residents living in the rest of Hullbridge. 4) No detail has been given of road improvements beyond the development site. The additional traffic from SERs 1,2,3,4,5 & 6 will regularly create gridlock and air quality, as a result, will deteriorate. 5) Flooding is a common occurance along Watery Lane and creates havoc on all surrounding roads. The sewage system within Hullbridge is already under stress and raw sewage being pumped into the river Crouch has been documented. Current drainage facilities are inadequate without the addition of future development. 6) The parking facilities at the supermarkets,smaller shops, doctors & chemist are severely restricted and usually to maximum capacity.

1. No detailed plans for highway infrastructure have been considered.
2. No detailed examination of the integration of the existing village facilities.
3. On the prevailing existing conditions - no evidence of a workable scheme to alleviate the severe drainage and sewerage issues for the south-west of Hullbridge.

1. Development is detrimental to this current rural Community
The site is not properly integrated with the existing village of Hullbridge. A "green buffer" is to exist "in perpetuity between new and existing developments".
This natural green space will only be directly accessible from the new development and will not promote an interconnected community but will in fact be creating a separate village to Hullbridge destroying the current community feeling that exists. Also as I have seen in the past these developments providing "affordable housing for local people" end up being bought up by outsiders and rented to a percentage of undesirables and eventually bring down the area and the crime rate up. I know because I have experienced it first hand where I used to live.
2. Highways
Although mention of limited highway improvements is in the report no detail is given
as there is no Core Strategy Transport Assessment from Essex County Council or elsewhere. The only Transport Impact Assessment required will be developer funded and relate only to Hullbridge without taking into account either highway issues or other developments in Rawreth and elsewhere in the District. No assessment of road improvements required has been made relating to Ferry Road, Hullbridge Road and Rawreth Lane onto which much of the new traffic will go, has not been mentioned in the report. At present Rawreth Lane is at near capacity and when Watery Lane is closed, which is a common occurrence, traffic backs up along Downhall Road & Rawreth Lane towards Rayleigh and Hullbridge Road & Lower Road towards Hockley and Rochford making journeys to or from Rayleigh, Hockley or Chelmsford very difficult. Also no mention of the impact on the district has been made with regard to the Fairglen Interchange(A127/A130/A1245) which lies just outside the District but which has a profound knock on effect when flooded with cars moving to either London Road or Rawreth Lane, too roads affected by SER6 and also, more directly by SER1. It is stated that highway improvements should be made to accompany the development of the site; this will be too late as improvements must be made first given the current state of the highways network.
3. Development traffic
As with all new developments extra heavy goods vehicles and contactor vans add to the traffic in the area rising road safety issues and health problems for the children and elderly living in the area. They will bring mud gravel and pollution onto the roads streets and private property for a very long period of time.
4. Sewage/Drainage
The sewage system within Hullbridge is already at near capacity as in light rain the man holes in Hullbridge road and lower road (Coventry Hill) have fountains of water gushing out of them. Although mentioned in the report no assessment of need has been made. Part of the area proposed is prone to flooding. It is not shown as flood risk however as it is farmland and no claims have been made against insurance. Flood Risk is based on insurance Claims made.
5. Rawreth
Approximately one third of the development will be in Rawreth, not Hullbridge. This also relates to point one above about community relations. If the residents of the housing in SER6b live in Rawreth they will not be a part of Hullbridge, they will be represented by Rawreth Parish Council and Downhall & Rawreth District Councillors. They will pay a Parish Precept to Rawreth but get the facilities of Hullbridge.
Such a separation will again not benefit the rural Community and does not encourage the new development as a community.
6. Youth
Play areas should be provided on the new development available to all Hullbridge children and as to Hullbridge Youth Centre which is currently underused should have additional investment and encouragement made to facilities there as well as the BMX track and at the Skate Park in the recreation ground rather than have Additional facilities which will be underutilised.
7. Neighbourhood Shops
The suggestion that additional neighbourhood shops are required suggests a proper review has not been done of Hullbridge With a population of around 7,300 Hullbridge has three (3) supermarkets; The Coop, One Stop (owned by Tesco) and Budgens) as well as a number of other independent shops including a butcher and a greengrocer etc. Hullbridge is more than adequately served
by shops but has not got its own post office.

1. This development will destroy the village feel and community spirit that thrives here, especially as this new development does not seem to be intergrated.
2. There does not appear to have been any thought to how the infrastructure will cope with all the extra housing. The sewage system is already almost at near capacity. During heavy rainfall some houses in Hullbridge have been flooded with sewage.
3. Every time Watery Lane gets flooded, this impacts on the transport system, with Rawreth Lane becoming gridlocked in the rush hour and school runs.

This unacceptable proposed development is not fully integrated into the existing village, is too large & being built in an area subject to flooding. It will cause detrimental changes to the community nature of the village & it's surrounds making it a less desirable place to live.
The local roads already suffer when Watery Lane &/or the A127 are closed or have problems; recent incidents resulted in delays of over 1 hour to get the 2 miles to Rayleigh outskirts. Proposed Watery Lane improvements will do nothing to improve the traffic situation along Lower Road through Hullbridge; in fact further building proposals in Rochford district will further increase traffic flow through the village & exasperate the situation. Regular forced use of Rawreth Lane when Watery Lane is closed is not a viable option; this road is already overly utilised with long traffic delays @ peak times.
Job opportunities?.. already limited for many locals, especially youth .. where will the new residents of the proposed housing work?
Local sewerage services are already @ or near maximum & cannot cope with this increase usage.

The infrastructure around Hullbridge is not adequate for an extra 500 houses. There are only three routes out of Hullbridge, Lower Road to the east, Hullbridge Road and Watery Lane to the west. The bulk of commuters out of the village head west. It is already a problem with the traffic. Watery Lane is often flooded, particularly over the winter and is therefore closed regularly - when this happens all traffic has to go via Hullbridge Road, and it can often take upwards of an an hour to get to the end of Rawreth Lane. An extra potential 500 + commuters will only make this worse. There is no provision to increase the travel accessibility out of the village. The route through Lower Road is also used by commuters from Ashingdon, Rochford, Hockley etc heading for Chelmsford adding to the problem.
As mentioned above Watery Lane often floods, as do the fields on which the development is situated. Houses in adjacent roads, Abbey Road, Abbey Close and Monksford Drive often have water in their gardens, and a number of properties in Monksford Drive have had subsidence problems presumably caused by water saturation.
The current shopping facilities would not sustain the increase in population, thus this would entail more traffic in and out of Hullbridge to necessitate the buying of provisions.
The doctors' Surgery will not be able to provide an adequate service for the increase in population which would result in a longer wait for appointments and not being able to provide adequate care.
The local primary and secondary schools will not be able to accommodate the children. Again traffic would also be increased in parents transporting children to schools further afield.
The increase in population would put a tremendous strain in Hullbridge which presently has so many problems which will only be exacerbated, especially the flooding which will be made worse by an increased mass of concretre and non-porous material..

I have lived in Hullbridge for all my life and my children are now 4th generation living in Hullbridge, as you will understand i have seen many changes to what was once a quaint and small village which has grown substantially over the years, now i'm am informed that 500 houses are being considered for building in 2015 to run from windermere avenue down to watery lane along the western boundary of hullbridge which i strongly Object to. walking round the Village i speak to lots of people and everyone i speak to are all in agreement that there should not be anymore houses built here, for many i would think writing or filling in this type of document, would be difficult or impossible for many reasons however if you want the real thoughts of our residents here, another meeting at the community centre would give you more of an acurate consensus although im sure that because the opinion at the last meeting was totally against more building in Hullbridge i dont think peoples decisions have changed at all from then, i do understand that more houses are required due to the goverment letting very large numbers of people into the country to live here, but the goverment are not the ones to suffer with having their village ruined by more building. have to admit the thought of even more houses fills me with dread and in-trepidation,because anyone living in Hullbridge will tell you as soon as there is any adverse weather , snow, or just a good winter/spring rain downpour and all the fields and watery lane get flooded , ( Watery Lane gets closed regularly) getting out of ferry road becomes almost impossible because the traffic that travels from Hawkwell , Rochford, Stanbridge, Canewden, Southend, all come via lower road to (cut through) reach their work destinations instead of using the already busy A127 or Eastwood /Rayleigh road, the traffic is so bad that people have to head back home and wait till 11am sometimes midday before trying to reach just Rayleigh high street, i also feel with the development's that have gone on over the past 10 years especially in Rawreth Lane.

Watery Lane has to close virtually every time it rains, indeed, it seems to have been permanently closed since before Christmas.
This causes immense congestion, especially during rush hours, extending back up Ferry Rd and Coventry Hill.
Effectively, Hullbridge becomes gridlocked on those occasions.
250 more homes initially will bring in another 250 vehicles at least, probably up to double that.
Even with the intended improvements, it is very hard to see how the roads will cope with the huge amount of extra traffic.
We fear that getting in and out of our dwelling will become a major chore.

1) Roads

No assessment is mentioned of the impact of the new development on the roads surrounding Hullbridge. Watery Lane is frequently closed and the only other route, Rawreth Lane, out towards Rayleigh, Chelmsford and beyond is at near capacity. Traffic backs up causing long delays.

Further development ie SER1 will also impact on this. There are often problems on the main route out of the area, the A127, which is just outside the district boundary. Rayleigh comes to a near standstill when traffic has to go through to avoid any hold up on the A127 causing a knock on effect to Hullbridge. Extra traffic generated by both SER6 & SER1 can only add enormously to these problems.

2) Sewage/Drainage

There is no mention of an assessment of need of the sewage system of the area. It is already at/near to capacity. Part of this area, Watery Lane area, is prone to flooding but is not shown as such because it is farmland.

3) Community Cohesion

A green buffer is proposed between the existing and new developments, but it will only be accessible from the new development therefore creating a separate village. This will destroy the current community feeling that exists with in Hullbridge.

The second phase SER6b will not actually be in Hullbridge but in Rawreth. Again this will not encourage community cohesion but will do more to create a separate community.

4) Shops

It would appear that a proper review of the shopping facilities of our village has not been carried out. With 3 supermarkets, a butchers, a greengrocers and several independent businesses a population of approx 7300 is well served. However, Hullbridge lacks other business facilities ie office premises and a Post Office.

5) Youth

Additional investment is needed for existing youth facilities rather than new ones which are likely to be underused.

1. Development
New development should be part of the existing community, not separate from it.
2. Highways
Any improvements required should be completed before the start of any development.
3. Sewage/drainage
an assessment of the sewage/drainage capacity is required
4. Development traffic
Provisions should be put in place for the extra heavy goods vehicles using local roads
5. Rawreth
Parish and District Ward boundaries should be changed and agreed by the boundary
6. Youth
Space should be provided for play areas and other public open space and investment in existing facilities
7. Shops
a review should be carried out in Hullbridge such as a post office.

Objection is made to the lack of provision within the policy for providing additional outdoor sports facilities to meet the additional needs generated by the development. The Council's Playing Pitch Strategy has assessed playing pitch needs and has identified deficiencies across the district especially for mini and junior football pitches. Such deficiencies would be aggrevated by the additional population associated with the new development unless provision was made for meeting these additional needs. While the concept statement makes provision for youth facilities, play space and lesiure facilities to be provided no explicit proviison is amde for playing pitches which is it is surprising in the context of the core strategy policies and the evidence base provided by the playing pitch strategy. The proposed allocation provides a rare opportunity for new playing pitch provision to be provided. In its current form the policy is not considered to meet the soundness tests relating to being justified and consistent with national policy as the proposals do not respond to needs justified by the Council's evidence base and core strategy policies or accord with NPPF policy e.g. paragraph 73 which advises assessments of need for sports facilities to be used for determining what sports provision is required.

There are insufficient details for measures to be taken to alleviate flooding from surface water, to improve the road network, to improve provision of adequate sewerage

Lack of community cohesion as part of the proposed development would be attached to Hullbridge but be within the Rawreth Parish boundary

The roads in the area already suffer from grid lock on more and more numerous occasions and not only will the Hullbridge proposed development be further crippling to this, but so will proposed developments in Ashingdon and Canewdon, as Hullbridge is a natural bypass for these areas. Up grades to Watery Lane will always be insufficient and a bypass necessary at the cost of the developers. There should be no vehicular access into Hullbridge from the development, there is already inadequate parking for the shops in Ferry Road which is dangerous at peak periods. Access should be pedestrian only.
I am also concerned about the term dwellings not houses, could a block of flats be termed as a dwelling perhaps there could be 500 dwellings but 2000 families?
The idea of building houses on land which must be a flood plain is asking for problems for the surrounding area and good luck living near the sewerage plant with the prevailing wind pointing immediately towards the area. It would seem that the plant is already unable to cope in its present state due the unpleasant odoures experienced at times during the year

This ill thought out development will be very separate from the rest of the village, shops and play spaces will only be used by the 'new' houses - the other residents will have no need to use them as there are already plenty of shops and amenities for residents. 1000 plus new cars on the road around the village will put an unimaginable strain on our sewerage system and roads - chaos is caused when watery lane is closed - not to mention the fact that many roads in the village are dirt tracks or single lane undopted roads.

1. Little evidence that local population growth requires more homes.
2. Large scale, high density & proportion of affordable homes (175) will change community feel.
3. Current road conjestion along Rawreth Lane and Lower Road as a result of recent new housing developments will be made worse with additional 500 homes - 500-1,000 more cars travelling into and out of the village. Existing road network cannot cope with current volume of traffic at peak times.
4. Doctor's Surgery: 500 homes will mean 1,500-2,000 more people placing a strain on health services.

1 . Development is detrimental to the current Community
The Site is not properly integrated with the existing village of Hullbridge. A "green buffer" is to exists " in perpetuity between new and existing developments".
The 3.6 hectares of natural green space will only be directly accessible from the new development.
This development as proposed, as evidenced above, will not promote community cohesion but will in fact be creating a separate village to Hullbridge destroying the current community feeling that exists.

2 Highways
Although mention of limited highway improvements is in the report no detail is given as there is no core strategy transport assessment from the Essex County Council or elsewhere. The only Transport Impact assessment required will be developer funded and related only to SER6, without taking account either highway issues or other developments (eg SER1) elsewhere in the district. No assessment of road improvements required has been made and Ferry Road, onto which most traffic will go, has not been mentioned in the report.
At present Rawerth Lane is at, or near, capacity and when Watery Lane is closed, a common occurrence, traffic backs up along Downhall Road and Rawreth Lane towards Rayleigh and Hullbridge Road and Lower Road towards Hockley and Rochford making Journeys to or from Rayleigh or Chelmsford difficult.

No Impact on the District has been made with regard to the Fairglen Interchange (A127/A130/A1245) which lies just outside the District but which has a profound knock on effect when flooded with cars moving to either London Road or Rawreth Lane, too roads affected by SER6 and also, more directly SER1.

It is stated that Highway improvements should be made to accompany the development of the site, this will be to late as improvements must be made first given the current state of the highway network.

3 Sewage/Drainage.
The sewage system within Hullbridge is already at or near capacity. Although mentioned in the report no assessment of need has been made.
Part of the area proposed is prone to flooding. It is not shown as flood risk however as it is farmland and no claims have been made against insurance. Flood risk is based on insurance claims made.

4 Rawerth
Approximately one third or around 6.2 hectares, of development SER6 (the second phase) will be in Rawreth, not Hullbridge. This also relates to points above about community cohesion.
If the residents of the housing in SER6b live in Rawreth they will not be a part of hullbridge, they will be represented by Rawreth Parish council and Downhall and Rawreth District Councillors. They will pay a parish precept to Rawreth but get the facilities of hullbridge. Such a separation will again not foster Community Cohesion and does more to encourage the new development as a separate community.

5 Youth
Hullbridge has a Youth Centre which is currently underused; additional investment should be made to facilities there or at the skate park in the recreation ground rather than have additional facilities which will be underutilised.

6 Neighbourhood Shops

The suggestion that additional neighbourhood shops are required suggests a proper review has not been done of A1 use in Hullbridge, which then gives a concern about the repost as a whole. With a population of around 7,300 Hullbridge has three (3) supermarkets; The Co-op, One Stop (Owned by Tesco) and Budgens as well as a number of other independent shops including a Butchers and a Greengrocer etc. Hullbridge is more than adequately served by Shops.
Hullbridge is short of other business premises such as office or studio facilities and banking.

1. Development is detrimental to the current Community
The Site is not properly integrated with the existing village of Hullbridge. A "green buffer" is to exists " in perpetuity between new and existing developments".
The 3.6 hectares of natural green space will only be directly accessible from the new development.
This development as proposed, as evidenced above, will not promote community cohesion but will in fact be creating a separate village to Hullbridge destroying the current community feeling that exists.

2 Highways
Although mention of limited highway improvements is in the report no detail is given as there is no core strategy transport assessment from the Essex County Council or elsewhere. The only Transport Impact assessment required will be developer funded and related only to SER6, without taking account either highway issues or other developments (eg SER1) elsewhere in the district. No assessment of road improvements required has been made and Ferry Road, onto which most traffic will go, has not been mentioned in the report.
At present Rawerth Lane is at, or near, capacity and when Watery Lane is closed, a common occurrence, traffic backs up along Downhall Road and Rawreth Lane towards Rayleigh and Hullbridge Road and Lower Road towards Hockley and Rochford making Journeys to or from Rayleigh or Chelmsford difficult.

No Impact on the District has been made with regard to the Fairglen Interchange (A127/A130/A1245) which lies just outside the District but which has a profound knock on effect when flooded with cars moving to either London Road or Rawreth Lane, too roads affected by SER6 and also, more directly SER1.

It is stated that Highway improvements should be made to accompany the development of the site, this will be to late as improvements must be made first given the current state of the highway network.

3 Sewage/Drainage.
The sewage system within Hullbridge is already at or near capacity. Although mentioned in the report no assessment of need has been made.
Part of the area proposed is prone to flooding. It is not shown as flood risk however as it is farmland and no claims have been made against insurance. Flood risk is based on insurance claims made.

4 Rawerth
Approximately one third or around 6.2 hectares, of development SER6 (the second phase) will be in Rawreth, not Hullbridge. This also relates to points above about community cohesion.
If the residents of the housing in SER6b live in Rawreth they will not be a part of hullbridge, they will be represented by Rawreth Parish council and Downhall and Rawreth District Councillors. They will pay a parish precept to Rawreth but get the facilities of hullbridge. Such a separation will again not foster Community Cohesion and does more to encourage the new development as a separate community.

5 Youth
Hullbridge has a Youth Centre which is currently underused; additional investment should be made to facilities there or at the skate park in the recreation ground rather than have additional facilities which will be underutilised.

6 Neighbourhood Shops

The suggestion that additional neighbourhood shops are required suggests a proper review has not been done of A1 use in Hullbridge, which then gives a concern about the report as a whole. With a population of around 7,300 Hullbridge has three (3) supermarkets; The Co-op, One Stop (Owned by Tesco) and Budgens as well as a number of other independent shops including a Butchers and a Greengrocer etc. Hullbridge is more than adequately served by Shops.
Hullbridge is short of other business premises such as office or studio facilities and banking.

I don't believe the DPD is sound because of the following reasons:
* The area around Watery Lane is prone to flooding on a regular basis and causes severe problems for people travelling to and from Hullbridge ( and further afield). Currently, Watery Lane remains closed to traffic and it has been closed more often than it has been open since early December 2012. On at least two occasions in 2012 the surrounding area has been completely gridlocked with people unable to travel as a result of flooding. This has affected me personally as I am self employed and I was unable to get to work on those days ( 2 hours to move from Ferry Road to Rawreth Lane) resulting in loss of earnings.
Flooding issues are compounded by tidal problems i.e. when the tide is in (River Crouch and 3 other rivers involved) the surface water cannot drain away. Holding tanks can be used but these are not effective and do not solve this problem.
* There has not been any drainage survey undertaken by Anglian Water, neither has there been any assessment of the roads, including Watery Lane, Malyons Lane, Windermere Avenue etc that are currently be unsuitable for additional traffic. Some of the roads are unadopted by the council and therefore of very poor quality. The building programme required to improve the roads would be hugely expensive. No core transport strategy has been produced by Essex County Council.
* Sewage - this is already at or near capacity for Hullbridge.
* Some of the planned houses actually come under Rawreth not Hullbridge as the boundary crosses the building plans area.
* The coastal protection belt should be adhered to to preserve the unique nature of the area.
* The plans would be detrimental to the current Hullbridge community as any greenspace would only be accessed by the new community.
* No survey has been carried out regarding whether any youth facilities or retail premises need to be built.
* Figures/data being used is out of date i.e. at leat 10 years old so unsound in terms of planning.
* Sustainability - the effects of the building plans in 10, 20, 30 years time have not been considered e.g global warming.....
* Employment issue - there is currently very little employment in Hullbridge and although there is a JAAC including a business plan being produced, this is not being done in conjunction with the building plans and does not take into consideration the increased number of people who would need employment.
* Building of houses on greenfield sites is detrimental to the area destroying the habitat of wildlife.

summary of my repesentation
1. roads/sewage/flooding
the roads in and out of hullbridge are continually blocked when watery lane is closed due to flooding
this has to be top priority if any development was to go ahead in the Hullbridge area, incapacity of
the current sewage/drainage systems to cope with an increase in population
2. youth centre.
already underused creating a new one would be a waste of money.
3. Shops.
no banking facilities, proper post office needed
4. Medical centre would not be able to cope with such a large increase in patients.

My concerns are for the additional traffic which would increase as a result of the proposed buildings in Hullbridge, flooding to Watery Lane is already common and with the increased traffic, Hullbridge would grind to a holt.

I moved to Hullbridge a number of years ago as part of it's appeal was that it had green space and a good community feel, I also feel very safe living here and I fear that all this will be lost if the full allocation of 500 dwellings are built and it upset's me to think Hullbridge will no longer remain a village.

Area not suitable for development- problems-access to proposed site,issues regarding flooding of whole area, loss of amenity to existing residents,problems to local residents during such development.need for improvements to infrastructure, especially drainage, sewerage and power supply...existing power will not cope.
Village is not capable of sustaining such an increase in size, particularly due to road access in and out of village, severely restricted during peak times, or when one access road is blocked, as is frequently the case.
Development undesirable and will adversely affect the quality of life of existing residents.We value our village community.A 20% increase in size will destroy that.

Soundness

The development is detrimental to Community Cohesion
The site is not properly integrated with the existing village of Hullbridge. A "green buffer" is to exist "in perpetuity between new and existing developments".
The 3.6 hectares of natural green space will only be directly accessible from the new development.
A significant part of the development will take place in Rawreth, the neighbouring Parish and Ward. Although these dwellings will be "in Hullbridge", as there is no other built up area surrounding Hullbridge (it being Green Belt Land) they will actually be in Rawreth under a separate Parish Council and District Councillors.
This development as proposed, evidenced above, will not promote community cohesion but will in fact be creating a separate village to Hullbridge destroying the current community feeling that exists.

Highways
Although mention of limited highway improvements is in the report no detail is given as there is no Transport Assessment from Essex County Council in the Core Strategy. The only Transport Impact Assessment required will be developer funded and relate only to SER6, without taking into account either highway issues or other developments (e.g. SER1) elsewhere in the District. No assessment of road improvements required has been made and Ferry Road, onto which much of the new traffic will go, has not been mentioned in the report.
Hullbridge has one bus scheduled every 20 minutes which goes to Southend via Rayleigh, there is no Railway Station and most people travelling by train would use Rayleigh. Most employment is outside of the village with people mainly working in Rayleigh, Southend, Chelmsford and London. As Southend Airport is the main driver for employment in the area this to will be a key employment area as evidenced by the JAAP (Joint Area Action Plan) with Southend. From this evidence it can be seen most people living in Hullbridge of a working age will travel out by car to other areas or towns.
Traffic through Hullbridge at the Southern end of the village along Lower Road, Hullbridge Road and Watery Lane is already very high and carries vehicles driving from and to the west and central areas of the District, most vehicles using this route are from outside of Hullbridge. Watery Lane is itself is single carriageway for most of its length and is subject to flooding causing its closure on a significant number of days each year, as I type the road had had water across its entire carriageway for over a month and although passable with care has had road closed signs up for all of that time. Such closures cause problems with the traffic as vehicles using Watery Lane on a daily basis divert along Hullbridge Road to Rawreth Lane. This causes severe traffic delays with queues stretching back along the Hullbridge Road through Hullbridge for at least 2 miles. These vehicles are then queuing along Rawreth Lane to reach the A1245 junction for a further 2 miles.
As there is also a development (SER1) proposed along Rawreth Lane this will further exacerbate the existing and future traffic problems as at present Rawreth Lane is at or near capacity as evidenced by a recent traffice survey
The secondary School to which most students go to from Hullbridge, Sweyne Park, has advised me that Hullbridge Pupils are late on mass when there are problems with the road and the policy is to mark them as on time whenever the buses arrive, such regular lateness is detrimental to the students..
In addition no impact on the district roads has been made with regard to the Fairglen Interchange (A127/A130/A1245 junction) which lies just outside the District but which has a profound knock on effect when flooded with vehicles moving to either London Road or Rawreth Lane, two roads affected by SER6 and also, more directly by SER1.
It is stated that highway improvements should be made to accompany the development of the site, this will be to late as improvements must be made first given the current state of the highways network.
An individual traffic assessments for SER6, as proposed, and separately for each development will not be effective as they will not take into account the knock on effects of other developments in the District such as SER1. There is a token mention in SER6 of contributing towards improvements to the highway network at the western part of the network there is no definition of what is "western" and why other developments in the "Western" part of the district have no such requirement.

Flooding
There are two parts of this.
Firstly the road network is subject to flooding with, as already mentioned, Watery Lane being closed a significant number of times each year due to it being under water. The reasons for its flooding are twofold.
It is below sea level meaning that at high tide the river running alongside it and then under it cannot drain to sea at high tide causing the water to back up and flood the road.
The water table is above the level of the road, the water could be pumped away but it will just come back.
Secondly the southern part of the site is subject to flooding. It is not shown as a flood risk zone as flood risk is based on insurance claims, no claims have been made as it is agricultural land. Again the water table is at or very close to the surface and any pumping to alleviate the problem would not be effective.
The proposed "ponds to take the excess water along Watery Lane are not shown on the plans and will further erode the Green Belt boundary.
Part of the site is within the Coastal Protection belt as evidenced on maps. It appears that the Coastal Protection belt has been "moved" to accommodate this development.

Rawreth
Approximately one third, or around 6.2 hectares, of development SER6b (the second phase, will be in Rawreth, not Hullbridge. This also relates to the point above about community cohesion.
If the residents of the housing in SER6b live in Rawreth they will not be a part of Hullbridge, they will be represented by Rawreth Parish Council and Downhall & Rawreth District Councillors. They will pay a Parish Precept to Rawreth but get the facilities of Hullbridge.
Such a separation will again not foster Community Cohesion and does more to encourage the new development as a separate community.

Youth
Hullbridge has a Youth Centre which is currently underused; additional investment should be made to facilities there or at the Skate Park in the recreation ground rather than have additional facilities which will be underutilised.
No impact on school places appears to have been considered, with 600 dwellings proposed in SER1 and 500 at SER6 and currently 100 being built in the same road as the school I have been told the school will not have the capacity to meet demand physically it cannot get bigger)

Neighbourhood Shops
The suggestion that additional neighbourhood shops are required suggests a proper review has not been done of A1 use in Hullbridge, which then gives a concern about the report as a whole. With a population of around 7,300 Hullbridge has three (3) supermarkets; The Co-op, One Stop (owned by Tescos) and Budgens) as well as a number of other independent shops including a butcher and a greengrocer etc. Hullbridge is more than adequately served by shops, in fact the site was chosen for its proximity to the existing shops in Hullbridge.
Hullbridge is short of other business premises such as office or studio facilities and this has not been considered.
Other
The impact on the local doctors has not been assessed. The doctors are at or near capacity and would be physically unable to extend the practice to take on 1,500 patients (we have been told by the doctors this is the ration of patients to dwellings they would expect).

Legal Compliance

Consultation
I believe the consultation has not been carried out as required. The Council has a commitment to consult with Community Groups. In fact the Council has communicated with Community Groups in respect of other areas such as Hawkwell Residents Association, Hockley Residents Association, Hockley Parish Plan Group etc, but in Hullbridge they have failed to consult with either The Hullbridge Action Group or the Hullbridge Parish Plan Group. In the Sustainability Appraisal/Strategic Environmental Assessment Core Strategy Adoption Statement table 5 it was stated that "The Council has advised there will be considerable community involvement in the preparation. As no such involvement or consultations took place the plan cannot be legally compliant.

I am against the building of so many new property's as this will destroy the village and communty feel of Hullbridge which I have enjoyed being part of and was the very reason I chose to live there.

I also dread the increased traffic impact this will create if so many houses are built.

1. The new development should be part of the existing community.

2. An integrated Transport Assessment should be made for the Core Strategy detailing the improvements to all roads required by the develpment of these sites.

3. An assessment should be made of the sewage/drainage capacity requirements in relation to this development.

4. Boundaries should be changed and agreed by the boudnary commission.

5. Investment in youth facilities should be towards existing facilities.

6. A review should be carried out to decide if any additional business facilities are required.

1. The new development should be part of the existing community.

2. An integrated Transport Assessment should be made for the Core Strategy detailing the improvements to all roads required by the develpment of the sites.

3. An assessment should be made of the drainage and sewage requirements in relation to the development.

4. Boundaries should be changed and agreed by the boudnary commission.

5. Investment in youth facilities should be towards existing facilities.

6. A review carried out to decide whether any additional facilities required.

1. No detailed plans for highway infrastructure have been considered.

2. No detailed examination of the integration of the existing village facilities.

3. On the existing prevailing conditions - no ev idence of a workable scheme to alleviate the severe drainage and sewage isues for the south west area of Hullbridge.

I do not believe that this plan is any near approaching being legal as the residents of the affected areas have declared in an overwhelmingly number in voicing their objections to this plan - before granting any further planning permissions the council should hold a referendum with the people of Hullbridge. This council has shown total disregard for the people that they purport to represent. The plan has no benefits for the residents of Hullbridge in that the area is already subject to flooding and with further fields being taken away for development it can only increase the areas that would be affected by flooding - indeed the Met Office has indicated that the recent rainfalls that led to widespread flooding is only a forerunner of what the weather holds for us in the future. So armed with this new evidence the whole council should reconsider this plan then you have the question of access into and out of Hullbridge.