Policy SER6 - South West Hullbridge

Changes the nature of the village of Hullbridge. Not clear how the infrastructure would cope, seems to be on a wishful thinking basis not on any clear cut plans.

No thought given to the period of consultation and the effect this would have on residents.

In my opinion the core strategy housing development for Hullbridge is unsound.

a. Sewage/drainage system already at capacity. More housing will create even more flooding problems for low lying areas along Lower Road/Watery Lane stretch.

b. The combined effects of additional proposed housing in Hullbridge, Hockley, Rochford and Rawreth Lane is going to have a serious impact on the local road network. Hundreds more cars using Lower Road, Hullbridge Road and Watery Lane as a cut thorugh to get to London, Chelmsford or Southend because that's where the jobs are.

c. I read a statement in the core strategy report that the extra population will improve shop trade on Ferry Road. Farcial, people don't shop much in Ferry Road because the car parking is inadequate.

d. It's bad enough now trying to get a doctors appointment - going to make situation even worse.

This report is unsound because of the following. No core strategy assessment by Essex County Council, on the effects this development will have on the roads, especially during rush hour traffic. No proper assessment has been made on sewage and drainage systems. This is Green Belt farmland, so therefore no insurance claims have been made. Area is prone to fooding especially Watery Lane. Houses bordering this proposed development are already affected by flooding. The boundaries between Hullbridge and Rawreth should be considered. No proper assessment of the local shops and no proper assessment of youth facilities.

The infrastructure around the village of Hullbridge is totally insufficient at present, the road network, transport, electicity supply, water supply, sewerage, drainage and school facilities are all below par for the current size of the village it cannot stand such an increase in dwellings without considerable improvements. Particularly the road network which is pushed to its limits almost every day. The village is only served by a limited bus service. There is no Senior school only the Infants and Juniors which would be hard pressed to accomodate many more children.

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 erlate only to SER6, without taking into 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 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 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, to 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. Sewage/Drainage

The sewage system within Hullbridge is already at or near capacity. Although mentioned in the report no assessment of needs 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 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. Neighbourhod 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 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.
Hullbridge is short of other business premises such as office or studio facilities.

1. Access to roads can not delay traffic due to one way in and out Grasmere Avenue.

2. Building standards ie machinery - cranes - legislations - health and safety.

3. Profit gains - building to promote more noise in area and builders contractors lining pockets. Build elsewhere.

4. Killing off greenland don't want bricks and mortar in a lovely field that has been there for years and years.

5. Ask 100 people their views and see what percentage you receive yes/no then decide yourselves.

I feel our hands are tied,and the tight Hullbridge community spirit will be lost forever if the planned strategy of 500 houses goes ahead. I wish I could believe the planned homes were to be for growing families of Hullbridge,Hockley etc.

There would have to be many changes to accommodate these new dwellings if it goes ahead, as I am sure you are well aware, the same objections, time and time again regarding the infrastructure.

Despite there being a need for additional homes in the Hullbridge area this level of developement would put an extra strain on an already overloaded road network both in and out of Hullbridge and surrounding towns & villages to the tune of approximately 2000 extra cars per day (2x cars per household). Watery Lane which takes a large volume of traffic to and from Chelmsford direction has now been closed most of the time since November 2012 & Now January 2013 due to flooding, leaving the only feasable route to use being Rawreth Lane which during rush hour can add an additional 30 to 40mins to a journey. This has a knock on affect to an aleady inadequate expensive bus service running late, which incidently only runs from Hullbridge to Southend area Via Rayleigh.

The proposal makes no COMMITMENT to road improvements specifically to Watery Lane, instead the word "should" is used instead of "must" as features elsewhere. Given the already very poor access to the village when Watery Lane is closed due to flooding and related problems (the road has been "closed" for a month now) there is no way this development should go ahead without an absolute commitment to the road improvement. This should not be just a widening and straightening of the road but also an increase in the permitted gross vehicle weight, and a raising of the road service to avoid flooding from the adjacent fields. Drainage alone is not an acceptable answer.

One of our worries is flooding the bottom end of this site is often flooded along with Watery Lane there is nowhere for flood water to go.
We don't think the sewage system already existing will be able to cope with the extra housing.
The road will be bad on a normal day as it is already very busy up to Rawreth Lane, but when Watery Lane is closed, or the A127 is closed (flooding often closes the Fairglen Roundabout) or an accident on A127 it can take hours to get out of Hullbridge. A little while ago when we had flooding as previously mentioned there was NO getting out of the village towards Rawreth Lane all day.
Hullbridge does not need any more shops we have 3 supermarkets 2 butchers & a greengrocer.
We understand the proposed site does not join with the main part of the village, Hullbridge is a close knit community & feel this will make in effect a separate village.

It is unsound because no proper assessment has been made of the impact this proposed development will have on local road network. A review of the boundaries between Rawreth and Hullbridge has not been undertaken. Sewage and drainage capacity has not been properly assessed. As this is GREEN BELT LAND no assessment of flood has been made, there are no insurance claims to consider. There is no detailed report on Watery Lane as to how the flooding problem should be solved and who should be responsible for the extensive costs involved.Local shops and youth facilities need to be reassessed.

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 regularly late for work, causing me great stress & loss of earnings ( 2 hours to move from Ferry Road to Rawreth Lane).
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.

I do not believe that the document lays down stringent enough control or infastructure on the following items.

Road network - There are only 5 routes east west from Southend area west. The A13, A127, A129 London Road, Rawreth Lane and Watery Lane. As we have seen this winter Watery lane has been closed for a substantial time. The traffic congestion is already unacceptable with current traffic load. Watery Lane would need substantial widening straightening and raising above the flood level. I do not believe there has been a recent and thorough enough study to overcome this Issue.

Drainage foul and rainwater - This has been an issue within Hullbridge currently near or over capacity. Again I do not feel adequate studies have been undertaken and policy put in place to ensure any development will improve rather than degrigate the situation.

There are very important details that have been omitted from the site concerning its location, suitability, sustainability. Many issues raised by residents in earlier stages have not been addressed.
LOCATION.
The site is located West of Parish of Hullbridge.
The site is situated across 2 parish boundaries, Rawreth North East and Hullbridge South West.
Development on this site removes all the Green Belt boundary of Hullbridge West.
The site to the West is less than 1 mile from a flood plain as shown by Environment Agency.
The site is at its lowest 5 meters rising to over 20 meters above mean sea level.
The majority of the site is less than 1 mile from the River Crouch and at the North side less than 1/2 mile from river.
Hullbridge lies on a low lying plain that has the River Crouch all along its North Border and has high ground to the South raising to above 60 meters above mean sea level at Hockley and Rayliegh.
Along the full length of Ferry Road runs the pipeline from Langford pumping station to Wyvern.

SUITABILITY.
The main services infrastructure of the village is dated and not meeting current standards, it was put in place mainly during early 1950's. Prior to this is was developed by individual property owners during 1920's and still exists for a number of the older properties, (those along Lower Road adjacent to the site).
Hullbridge has a significant number of non adopted roads of which Malyons Lane and West Avenue are but just two. These roads are maintained by residents who have always rejected collectively to have the roads adopted by the council. Any connectivity to the development via these roads will need the residents permission.

The site has a pumping station that handles the majority of the villages sewage and is situated in the most South Westerly corner which is at the junction of Watery Lane, Hullbridge Road and Lower Road. Any development around that area will need to take this into account.

The surface water drainage of the village is achieved through ditches and the like which run along field edges. The existing housing on the West of Hullbridge uses the ditches that run around and through the site. Any new development would need to ensure these ditches either remain and can not be blocked up or a sustainable drainage system is connected.

Because Hullbridge is on a low lying plain with high ground to the South the surface water from that area ( both Hockley and Rayleigh (Hambro)) run through 2 brooks a) from Hockley and Blounts Woods and b) Trendyhayes in Rawreth which meets at Watery Lane, hence the flooding of that area. The saturation of that land is well known locally but never considered because of lack of insurance claims being made on farm land.

Any significant increase in traffic volume passing along Ferry Road would require impact investigation on the water pipeline.

Because of the near proximity to the river and flood plain, any new development not complying with Board of Insurance companies recommendations on Building in such areas will mean properties either being un-insurable or attracting high premiums, which places a heavy burden on achieving affordable housing.

The removal of the Parish's Western Greenbelt by the site and the encroachment of it into another Parishes greenbelt alongside is contrary to the reasoning for the existence of Greenbelt.

Because some of the site development will be on higher ground than existing surrounding properties any drainage solutions must take this into account to ensure no back running of surface water impacts the existing housing.

SUSTAINABILITY.

Any development of the site makes the maintenance of flood defenses even more critical around the stretch of river Battlesbridge to Hullbridge.

Much of the existing services infrastructure is situated alongside the major roads of Ferry Road and Lower Road. Recently in 2010 Hullbridge was inaccessible from Hullbridge Road/ Watery Lane for 1 complete day because an old gas main pipe cracked in front of the site because of land movement, thought by British Gas engineers to be because of increase in weight and use of road traffic. With the further increase in volume of traffic as a result of the site and other development sites it may be necessary to replace existing infrastructure around the site and along the main road arteries of the village before development is completed.

The land, area and infrastructure are not suitable for development. Independent research needs to be carried out. Research by Developers or RDC is unacceptable as it maybe bias.
The Land - Watery lane area is subject to flooding or surface water. The road has been closed for som etime already. The fact that it is not designated a flood plain is simply becuase there are not enough insurance claims made to raise its risk profile.
Infrastructure - There has been no independant assessment of the cost of the road improvements that will be needed. This area is already takes a lot of traffic from neighbouring areas trying to reach the A12 A130. With ne housing plans for Rochford and Hawkwell this will only get worse. We have seen the results that a closure to Watery lane causes. Massive delays and traffic jams as neither the roundabout at the bottom of downhall road, the traffic junction at the end of downhall road (traffic lights) asnd the fair glen roundabout (itself, subject to flooding) can cope currently. All road improvements must be in place before any development programme begins for housing otherwise the combination of conctruction work on roads and housing will lead to an unacceptable inconvenience to the work/life balance of the residents. The likely number of extrq cars just in Hullbridge will be 750.
No independant study of the segae facitlities has been made - the cost for upgrading the current fascility prior to development must be established. The sewage facilities must be in place before any development work starts.
I doubt whther the Dr's surgery has the capactiy to cope with 500+ new households. We do not have a local dentist. We already have enough supermarkets so building a new one is pointless, and although would provide jobs, the likelihood is that one of the others would close, making the net gain zero.

Area - The youth facilities in Hullbridge are reasonable, the youth centre is underused,and any new investment should be prioritised in developing those exisiting facilities.
Part of the development will come under Rawreth - this does not support community cohesion

Much more independent analysis and upgrading needs to be done prior to any development of houses.

Swan Housing Association makes the following representation regarding Rochford District Council's Planning Policy SER6 on the basis that it is not effective and not justified and therefore is unsound.

SITE 17
Site 17 is a five and a half acre piece of land, which includes a strip of white land, situated to the south of Lower Road and to the east of Hullbridge Road (please refer to the attached Image 1). It is bound by highways on two sides, houses on one side and a golf course on the other. Swan believes this site is therefore a natural and unobtrusive extension to the urban form, and represents a more logical boundary to the town.

Site 17 was officially 'screened in' in the ADPD Evidence Base and fulfilled all required criteria, rendering it technically qualified for the Council's proposals. Swan and our partners the Hanover Land Trust feel the Council have overlooked the opportunity to utilise and capitalise on this important adjunct to SER6.

EFFECTIVE
To be effective the plan should be deliverable, embracing sound infrastructure planning, which as it stands Swan believes it does not do.

It is recognised that major new drainage construction and significant road improvements are necessary for the proposed future residential development in this area, including the upgrade of the busy junction of Watery Lane, Hullbridge Road and Lower Road. The solving of these infrastructure delivery problems would be better accommodated and more readily accomplished by the inclusion of Site 17, which is adjacent to the main bus route and traffic routes serving Hullbridge. It is also well placed for drainage improvements - it incorporates much of the main surface water drainage route and the main relief drainage route. The extensive existing drainage system was previously upgraded when a residential planning consent was granted on the site, and further improvements could therefore easily be incorporated.

We also recognise the effectiveness of having delivery partners signed up to progress with this opportunity. Swan Housing Association along with our partner the Hanover Land Trust is ready and able to participate as soon as the Local Planning Authority would permit. The land is unencumbered and in single ownership by the Trust meaning it is available for redevelopment immediately, which will help with the government's aspiration of quickly providing new housing stock in the area.

JUSTIFIED
Having assessed the Updated Sustainability Appraisal for the Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document produced by Rochford District Council it is apparent that Site 17 was evaluated only as part of a larger selection of sites (option SWH4) and that the strongest argument against this option had little to do with Site 17. Swan questions the justification of grouping Site 17 with this particular configuration of sites and contends that it was not considered against reasonable alternatives. The only justifications in the DPD for its exclusion refer to a) cohesion and b) the exclusion of the site to the north. Swan believes that a reasonable alternative would be to have both ours and the sites to the north and forego a site to the west.

Paragraph 6.42 of the Sustainability Appraisal reasons that Option SWH4 would likely have a greater permanent, negative impact on landscape and townscape because it would "expose the field to the north of Maylons Farm (which is designated Coastal Protection Belt) to development pressure" and would consequently "weaken the defensibility of Green Belt boundaries". The Green Belt by its very nature is a protective mechanism. As such, this logic is flawed and unjustified.

However, Swan is in agreement with Rochford Council on the point of trying to create as natural an extension to the town as possible to minimise impact on the surrounding landscape. As such, we agree it is irrational to leave a gap in the new development, but would reason that the same could be said for leaving out Site 17.

Site 17 is the only proposed site that currently has a sharp boundary definition. It is bordered by the developed golf club to the south, existing residential development to the east and existing highways to the north and west, so it would have less of an visual impact on the townscape and general impact on the Green Belt landscape and on land and soil objectives in the longer term, as it is already largely constrained by built form unlike other options. Swan argues that the inclusion of this site in the Plan is justified by it providing a clear and robust town boundary that would strengthen the Green Belt defensibility of Hullbridge.

With regards to the issue of cohesion, Site 17 is an easily accessible site that already has a good link to the local highway network including Lower Road, and is next to the current bus route. A strip to the north-east of the site can accommodate a public footpath/cycle-path to improve pedestrian links to local shops and facilities along Ferry Road.

In our view the council has not reasoned these aspects of their argument thoroughly and therefore their approach is not justified. The inclusion of Site 17 would consolidate the town and improve cohesion in the community by linking the existing development to the south of Ferry Road, including the five houses adjacent to the site, with that to the north.

Swan therefore believes that the DPD decision is irrational and not justified in terms of the Council's selection criteria for allocated housing sites.

The objections raised during the previous application still apply: the radical and unwelcome change it would make to the 'village'; the flooding of Watery lane and the site itself; the need for real clarification concerning sewage, road improvement, medical and school provision. The recent approval for two shops to be replaced by housing in Hullbridge suggests that the provision of retail premises is unlikely. Of particular concern is the effect that any road works at the Watery Lane entry would cause severe and prolonged traffic jams during the morning and evening 'rat-run' toward the A12; how would travel between Hullbridge and Rayleigh be possible during such work? The reaction of the great majority of Hullbridge residents when this plan was originally mooted should be taken into account; feelings were (and are) very strong, and it is probable that the expanded Hullbridge would divide into "residents" and "newcomers", not a satisfactory social position. With so much land adjacent to both Lower Road and Hullbridge Road, some with its own access roads, being available, why is this same plan being again pushed forward?

The new development would not be part of the existing village of Hullbridge and would damage the community cohesion which currently exists. The road and sewerage networks will not be able to cope with this number of additional homes. Changes to drainage on the new site, which floods regularly, could create problems for the existing houses,many of which are on unadopted roads with no surface water drainage. Plans to provide new shops and youth facilities on the new site would be detrimental to the facilities which exist now.

There is no way current roads can be made to accomodate vehicles for 500 more houses - upwards of another 700 vehicles? Village locations are not suitable for this. Traffic cannot go out through northend of location as people live there so roads cannot be adjusted. Also, Watery Lane has been flooded now for over a month. School cannot cope with expected number of children, nor can drs with increased patients.

We support the concept statement acknowledging:
- SuDS need to be provided and a drainage strategy submitted. We also note you have highlighted a localised surface water flooding problem which will need to be addressed in the strategy;
- That you have acknowledged upgrades to the foul water infrastructure network may be required. This issue is acknowledged in your Water Cycle Study so the reference in your allocations DPD is welcomed.

However the text in paragraph 3.184 advises that upgrades at Rayleigh Waste Water Treatment Works (WWTWs) are likely to be required prior to development. Rayleigh WWTWs has had its flow measurements certified so we consider it possible to confirm adequate capacity for the development. We would however suggest you seek clarification on this matter with Anglian Water Services before amending the policy.

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 farmlandand no claims have been made against insurance.Flood risk is based on insurance claims made.

The Sewage system is already near to capacity

Rawreth Lane is at 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 out of the area difficult.
Sewage systems are at more than capacity.
If access is to be via Ferry Road traffic would also be of concern.

1. The development does not allow for integration into the existing community, it will be a separate built on the side.

2. The road network in the area is not adequate.

3. The drainage system is not adequate for the current community.

4. The proposed development's Parish and District Ward boundaries need to be changed.

5. There are not enough recreational facilities for the new community


6. Is the area able to sustain employment for the increased population?

7. Are there enough school places, allowing for the increase in the school participation age?

1. The development does not allow for integration into the existing community, it will be a separate built on the side.

2. The road network in the area is not adequate.

3. The drainage system is not adequate for the current community.

4. The proposed development's Parish and District Ward boundaries need to be changed.

5. There are not enough recreational facilities for the new community


6. Is the area able to sustain employment for the increased population?

7. Are there enough school places, allowing for the increase in the school participation age?

The current sewage system in Hullbrige can bearly cope with the existing drainage requirement and reguarly blocks / backs up. The area where the proposed developement is has been flooded & subjected to excess surface water for a large part of this winter. This additional development will only add to this already serious problem.

Representation relevant to SER6 development proposal in South West Hullbridge
1. The proposed SER6 development in the South West of Hullbridge will have a severe impact on the lives of existing Hullbridge home owners and residents, threatening to jeopardise the strong community cohesion that currently exists. Rochford District Council will disregard its own key priorities, set out in its current Sustainable Community Strategy, by pursuing the SER6 development, in particular:
* Fostering greater community cohesion.
* Keeping Rochford Safe.
* Promoting a greener district.

2. Rochford District Council states that a DPD should be justified, meaning it must be founded on a robust and credible evidence base, backed up by facts (Rochford DCAS, DPD, Notes and Representation Form, Para 3.1 (Soundness)). There are various unanswered concerns that Hullbridge residents have. Residents of Hullbridge have the right to see these questions comprehensively addressed by Rochford County Council before the SER6 development can be considered 'justified'.

3. Houses in the South East of England on average, own 1.4 cars per household
The introduction of the SER6 development will lead to an additional 735 cars being used in Hullbridge and the surrounding roads (calculated by multiplying 525 houses by 1.4). There are on average, 2.4 people per household in England. This means an additional 1260 residents will live in Hullbridge (Office for national statistics: 2011 Census: key statistics for England and Wales, March 2011, Crown 2012).

4. As a resident of Hullbridge since 1978, and a Driving Licence Holder Since 1977, I have an intricate knowledge of the road network in Hullbridge and the traffic issues that are present. Any observations in this representation that have not been based on credible documented evidence have been based on my own personal experience of daily use of the local roads-my livelihood depends on me being able to get out of Hullbridge every day in my car as I travel between schools in different areas in Essex each day.

Fostering Greater Community Cohesion -proposed development is detrimental to the current Community
5. The site is not properly or satisfactorily 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.
Hullbridge, in its current layout, has a strong sense of community cohesion which is helped by its sheltered nature and limited 'through' roads to other 'developments' or towns. It is cut off by the river and is a tranquil, trouble free area in which to raise children and for the elderly to grow old feeling they live in a safe and supportive community. Malyons Lane, or one of the surrounding roads, would provide access to the new development (according to the Rochford District Council - Local Development Framework Allocations Submission Document). These roads were designed to be access roads to existing dwellings only and are not suitable to support the traffic of an additional 700+ cars, which would need to pass through when accessing the SER6 development. Some of them are narrow and undeveloped and none were designed with this volume of traffic in mind. The additional traffic will have a negative impact on the quality of life and community cohesion of Hullbridge residents (particularly in the vicinity of Malyons lane and all roads leading through to the proposed development). Previous studies in the UK have discovered that the number of friends and acquaintances on a residential street, as well as the extent of individuals' 'home territory' tend to decrease as vehicle traffic increases. Other notable outcomes from the research include the finding that the frequency of stationary, street-based recreational activities is reduced as traffic flow increases, and that individuals' perception of the safety of their neighbourhood may be disproportionately influenced by the amount of traffic on their street of residence, especially affecting the degree of independence granted to children". (Driven to Excess: Impacts of Motor Vehicle Traffic on Residential Quality of Life in Bristol UK, April 2008, page 4 Joshua Hart (MSC Transport Planning). Residents currently already have difficulty accommodating visitors' cars due to the number of driveways and dropped curbs and sometimes in parking their own cars after a day at work. Working families support the local shops and businesses which helps the whole community to have the necessary amenities at hand-getting to work will be such a problem that many families may have to reconsider whether Hullbridge is still a viable address. It is possible that as a result the number of employed people could drop and this would have a detrimental effect on the community and quality of life experienced by residents. Hullbridge will potentially become known as an area to avoid if you rely on getting out of the area to work and to avoid because of the volume of traffic passing through and leaving the village.

6. 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.

7. 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 toSER6, 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.

As no official Transport Impact Assessment (TIA) appears to be available the following observations are made:
* At peak times traffic through Lower Road, Ferry Road, Hullbridge Road and Watery Lane is very heavy.
* Traffic entering the new development at the proposed entrance near Watery Lane will cause large traffic queues. If traffic is approaching from the east on Lower Road, it will have to wait for a break in traffic in the opposite direction (which rarely breaks in peak hours) before it can access the site. This will cause build up of traffic additional to the queues that already exist to gain entrance to Watery Lane from the east, which also requires a break in the traffic in the opposite direction.
* Due to the close proximity of the proposed SER6 site entrance, the entrance to Watery Lane and the mini roundabout adjacent to the Budgens store connecting to Ferry Road (approx 100metres), traffic cues will block the main access to and from the village (Ferry Road). Traffic will be forced to channel onto the narrow side roads, which were not designed for such use and will affect local residents.
* Currently , on a good day, traffic in peak hours manages to move because of the few obstructions blocking its flow, such as roundabouts or traffic light islands in the vicinity of the Watery Lane/Lower Road junction, that would contribute towards longer queues and journey times for drivers. I have personal experience of trying to drive out of Hullbridge on the many bad days when there has been an incident on any main A or B roads in the locality or on major routes out of the area, such as the A127, A130, or A13. On these occasions traffic from the Southend area and towns and villages in between Southend and Hullbridge re-routes through Hullbridge to access other ways out of the area through Watery Lane. Traffic is then extremely heavy and adds considerable time to journey times which is very difficult to plan for as usually an accident of some time is involved. The other factor involved is that Watery Lane has been inaccessible for weeks on end and intermittently throughout last year due to flooding. It has been closed for over 4 weeks now. The resulting congestion means I cannot get out of Hullbridge to get to work and adds up to 2 hours to a journey. This is a clear indication of the volume of traffic currently trying to get to main routes via our village-add to this the additional traffic produced by other local developments (Hawkwell; London Rd Rayleigh) and Hullbridge will become an undesirable place to live for anyone needing to get to work out of the area.

8. The effects of an additional 735 cars may have a dramatic impact on the surrounding roads and the community cohesion of Hullbridge. This must be reviewed in a Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA), championed by the Local Authority and agreed by Hullbridge Residents before the SER6 Development is signed off. If SER6 is signed off without a TIA, there is the risk that retrospective road infrastructure improvements will be necessary, no matter what the impacts to Hullbridge residents. This is an unacceptable, and potentially illegal way forward for Rochford District Council, which states that a sound DPD is to be positively prepared and founded on a "robust and credible evidence base, backed up by facts" (Rochford DCAS, DPD, Notes and Representation Form, Para 3.1 (Soundness)).

9. At present the only narrative available on the plans regarding local highway capacity is "Local highway capacity improvements, including improvements to Watery Lane and Watery Lane/Hullbridge Road Junction" [LDFA Submission Document, Para 3.158]. This is an insufficient evidence base. The Local Authority must demonstrate an in-depth analysis of the traffic issues highlighted in this representation, to be publicly published in the form of a Transport Impact Assessment. Included should be a specific strategy on how these traffic issues will be tackled. It should be to the satisfaction of existing Hullbridge residents before the SER6 development is signed off.

A community within a community
10. Para 3.171 of LDFA Submission Document advises that "Youth, community and leisure facilities should be provided within the first phase of the development". This demonstrates that residents within the SER6 development will be isolated from the existing community, using separate facilities. The main contact they will have with Hullbridge in its current form is using the existing road network to access the 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 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

11. Discussions with the Hullbridge Medical Centre in 2013 have confirmed that there is no capacity to support an additional 1200 residents. It is expected that Rochford Council will already be aware of this fact but is mentioned in this representation for clarity. This is further evidence that residents on the SER6 development will not be embedded within the current community, causing a threat to the existing community cohesion. There is no evidence within the Local Authorities LDFA Submission Document on how the new residents will gain access to a General Practitioner or receive medical support. The NHS Constitution advises that all UK members are entitled access to NHS services, including a local GP, by law (The NHS Constitution, for England, March 2012). This Constitution will be in breach by the Local Authority under the current submission. Full details of NHS GPs in the local area that have capacity for an additional 1260 members, and are willing to enlist them, are required before the SER6 development can be signed off.

12. The evidence presented here shows that the community cohesion in Hullbridge is under threat by the SER6 development, directly contravening the Key Principle of fostering Community Cohesion.

Keeping Rochford Safe
13. Hullbridge does not have a Police Station. The Village is 'parented' by Rayleigh Police Station some 4 miles away. This means that responses to emergencies are slower, due to the distance Police response units have to travel in answering an emergency call originating from Hullbridge. Reports of a crime against an individual happened at a rate of 80 per 1000 people in 2011/12 according to Police Statistics (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/science-research/research-statistics/crime/crime-statistics-internet/). Extrapolating this figure to reflect the 1200 extra residents in Hullbridge shows that on average, extra 96 crimes will occur in Hullbridge each year. No plans or analysis appear to be publicly available to show how this will affect the Hullbridge community, or if the current Policing arrangement is suitable. Additionally, this also represents a threat to community cohesion if residents perceive a drop in safety in Hullbridge.

14. As mentioned in Paragraph 5 the access roads to dwellings in Hullbridge may suffer a significant increase in traffic through roads designed as access to dwellings. The extra traffic will have a negative impact on the safety of residents and their own perception of safety in the community.

15. The evidence presented, based on information currently available, including the LDFA Submission Document, shows that Rochford District Council is contradicting its principle of Keeping Rochford Safe in its progression of the SER6 development.

Promoting a greener district
16. This Key Principle will be ignored by Rochford Council, if the SER6 development goes ahead, for the following reasons:
* The proposal is to completely cover a section of Green Belt land in Hullbridge with new houses and associated peripheral facilities. This means an urban development will replace a natural environment that was previously deemed important enough to assign the protected status of Green Belt land.
* Visually the area will be significantly reduced in its natural beauty, reducing the attractiveness and appeal of the Hullbridge village. The land that is proposed as the building site is elevated at least 100ft above the surrounding roads, particularly those to the south and west. The visual impact for people approaching Hullbridge from the west will be significant. Instead of a natural green field being the main view on approach the village, 500 buildings will be visible at a greater elevation than the green field, due to the added heights of the buildings on top of the land. To the south and west, the development will be visible for approximately 3 miles, using a 'birds-eye' view.
* The additional 735 cars will increase traffic density in and around Hullbridge. The threat of traffic cues, as discussed in Paragraph 6 will increase the pollution generated by vehicle exhaust gasses.
* Of the 500 houses and other building proposed, only 10% of the energy required to power them will be needed from green sources [reference], increasing the local electricity requirements, decreasing the green credentials of Rochford and Hullbridge.

At least 8 years of disruption to Hullbridge residents through construction work
17. The ongoing impacts and disruption of the planned building work to local residents of the SER6 development will continue beyond 2021 [LDFA Submission Document, Para 3.159] which represents at least 8 years of their lives. During this time it is estimated that thousands of construction vehicles will need access to the development area. Potential effects are:
* Noise pollution,
* Increased dust and exhaust fumes (risk to respiratory health including asthma and allergies).
* Disruption to local traffic.
* Increased risk of injury or death to drivers and pedestrians on routes used by construction vehicles.
* Depreciation of property value for local home owners (due to construction work in short term and loss of green belt land, increased traffic and loss of community cohesion/desirability in long term).
* Construction vehicles will cause regular blockages on the local roads in trying to gain access to the development sites. Local traffic control measures may be needed including 'temporary' traffic lights and directing of traffic, causing delays and disruption to local residents trying to travel to and from their homes.
* Any large construction vehicles may need to access the development site through Malyons Lane or West Avenue. If so, this will increase the danger to pedestrians on these roads. Also, as the roads are narrow and used by residents to park their cars, access to construction vehicles will be difficult. How this problem is to be tackled must be explained, as measures taken may affect local residents. For example, the Local Authority could decide to introduce restricted parking (yellow lines etc) on these roads to allow construction vehicles access. This would leave a serious shortage of parking to residents who would need to find alternative parking and then need to walk a significant distance to their homes.

18. The close proximity of the SER6 development to the existing village will mean that there will be no effective way to avoid these effects. The length of disruption (to be measured in years) will open the possibility of psychological effects on local residents leading to a reduction of mental wellbeing and quality of life. These effects should be assessed when considering the viability of the SER6 development.

19. 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

I 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 a council tax payer I am further comforted that the local authority planning controls are reasonable and shows care for their community.

The development would fly in the face of the local authority green belt and planning policy and would tend normal minded people like me to conclude that the council considers the outline 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 I 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 the development this would be in total contravention of the current green belt and planning policy, which is available to view on the Rochford Council Web Site.

Turning now to the consideration that must also be given to the infrastructure of Hullbridge.

ROADS

The plan attached to the outline planning application shows minor roads to be constructed within the new development. Access and egress from the proposed development would be from Windermere Avenue. Part of this road is currently un-adopted and not a publicly maintainable highway. Access to the proposed 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.

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 the development of 14 houses there is potential for possible 28 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 the 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

Although we have not studied in detail the water authorities plans consideration needs to be given to the location of the main sewer whether public or private and the mains water supply. The proposed development will require these facilities. Can the current sewers and mains water support the additional usage as a result of the additional 14 households?

EMERGENCY SERVICES

With the ever-increasing pressure placed on the emergency services having an additional 14 household 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. This 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.

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. 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