Policy SER6 - South West Hullbridge

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 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.

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
16. 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.

17. 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.

18. 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

The proposed development will be detrimental to the existing Hullbridge 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.


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.


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.



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.


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 object to legal complience as I don't believe the people of Hullbridge have been informed correctly. No letters have ever been written to residents, the first information on the core strategy was through Rochford Matters. That is NOT a legal document/ letter and not everyone receives or reads it, some people think it's just junk mail as we get so much these days!! Also, making everyone now go online is not satifactory as a lot of older residents either don't have or understand computers and I see this as dumbing down the number of objections. Very clever of RDC and very sneaky too!

Objection soundness; there is no infrastructure in place for roads, water, sewerage & drainage,
eg; the sewerage plant on Watery Lane is almost full to capacity.The smell that comes over the fields is appalling!
Watery Lane is closed at least 2x month because of flooding, for the first 3 weeks of January it was closed
No sign of community cohesion. How can there be when you have proposed hedging between the new and existing homes plus new shops?!
Southend Airport expansion? yet Hullbridge has no direct access there. Surely you shouldn't be encouraging more cars on the road? This also stands for anyone working in Chelmsford or Basildon. Only people working in Southend can get there by bus from Hullbridge.

There are no details of how the flooding around the Watery Lane area will be alleviated (This road has been closed due to flooding for most of the Month of January 2013)

The local road infrastructure struggles to cope with the amount of traffic at peak time at present, without the additional potential traffic created by the proposed housing scheme.

Building on Hullbridge is cleary a STUPID idea!

I object to legal compliance as I don't believe the people of Hullbridge have been informed correctly. No letters have ever been written to residents, the first information on the core strategy was through Rochford Matters. That is NOT a legal document/ letter and not everyone receives or reads it, some people think it's just junk mail as we get so much these days!! Also, making everyone now go online is not satisfactory as a lot of older residents either don't have or understand computers and I see this as dumbing down the number of objections. Very clever of RDC and very sneaky too!
Objection soundness; there is no infrastructure in place for roads, water, sewerage & drainage,
eg; the sewerage plant on Watery Lane is almost full to capacity.The smell that comes over the fields is appalling!
Watery Lane is closed at least 2x month because of flooding, for the first 3 weeks of January it was closed
No sign of community cohesion. How can there be when you have proposed hedging between the new and existing homes plus new shops?!
Southend Airport expansion? yet Hullbridge has no direct access there. Surely you shouldn't be encouraging more cars on the road? This also stands for anyone working in Chelmsford or Basildon. Only people working in Southend can get there by bus from Hullbridge.

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.

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 i was born in 1985, and a Driving Licence Holder Since 2003, 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- i am a firefighter in at rayleigh weir fire station, and my job and the possible safety of my community, depends on me being able to get to my home station in reasonable time. This will be significantly affected by the increase in traffic.

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
16. 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.

17. 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.

18. 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

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 1954, and a Driving Licence Holder Since 1969, 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 am self employed and need to visit various different sights.

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
16. 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.

17. 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.

18. 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

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).


Fostering Greater Community Cohesion -proposed development is detrimental to the current Community
4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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)).

8. 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
9. 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

10. 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.

11. 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
12. 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.

13. 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.

14. 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
15. 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
16. 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.

17. 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.

18. 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 as 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. The development as proposed, as evidenced above, will not promote community cohesion but will in fact be creating a separate village to Hulbridge, destroying the current community feeling that I feel exists.

2. 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 a flood risk as it is farmland and no claims have been made against insurance.

3. 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 the 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 Down Hall 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. Watery Lane has been closed on a regular basis in recent weeks due to continuing flooding.

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.

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 earlier point which will not promote community cohesion. The 3.6 hectares of natural green space will only be directly accessible from the new development. This development will create a separate village to Hullbridge, destroying the current community that exists.

1. Development is detrimental to the current community as 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. The development as proposed, as evidenced above, will not promote community cohesion but will in fact be creating a separate village to Hulbridge, destroying the current community feeling that I feel exists.

2. 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 a flood risk as it is farmland and no claims have been made against insurance.

3. 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 the 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 Down Hall 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. Watery Lane has been closed on a regular basis in recent weeks due to continuing flooding.

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.

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 earlier point which will not promote community cohesion. The 3.6 hectares of natural green space will only be directly accessible from the new development. This development will create a separate village to Hullbridge, destroying the current community that exists.

Because not enough overall dedicated information for the overall picture for such a large scale project (houses). Will certainly change our way of living in Hullbridge because there would not be enough room to manoeuvre. Already we get havoc on our roads when there are floods and accidents that some times occur.

Although mention of limited highway improvements is in the report no detail is given. No assessment has been made.

Watery Lane is at present shut frequently causing traffic problems. The council has been trying to improve the drainage of the road for years without success.

At present Rawreth Lane is near capacity when Watery Lane is open - with Watery Lane shut the traffic situation is bad - all this before 500 houses are built, without assessment, without detailed plans the proposed development is unsound.

Although mention of limited highway improvements is in the report no detail is given. No assessment has been made.

Watery Lane is at present shut frequently causing traffic problems. The council has been trying to improve the drainage of the road for years without success.

At present Rawreth Lane is near capacity when Watery Lane is open - with Watery Lane shut the traffic situation is bad - all this before 500 houses are built, without assessment, without detailed plans the proposed development is unsound.

Feasibility study required.

1. Development is detrimental to the current community

New development should be part of the existing community, not separate from it. Greenspaces and new facilities should be directly accessible to both the current and new developments to promote community cohesion.

2. Highways

An integrated transport assessment should be made for the Core Strategy as a whole and incorporated into this document detailing the improvements to all roads in the District required by the development of these sites. Any improvements required should be completed before the development or at least as the first units are occupied.

3. Sewage

An assessment should be made of the sewage/drainage capacity requirements in relation to this development and improvements made prior to the commencement of any works.

4. Rawreth

Parish and District Ward boundaries should be changed and agreed by the boundary commission prior to the commencement of development. Costs to come from the developers.

5. Youth

Space should be provided for play areas and other public open space. Investment in youth facilities should be towards existing facilities such as the youth club and skate park.

6. Neighbourhood Shops

A review should be carried out to decide if any additional busines facilities are required; it is more likely to be office based in Hullbridge than shop based.

Will Watery Lane be made to A class Road before building commences.
As there has been no survey of traffic flow down Hambro Hill, Down Hall Road, Rawreth Lane, Hullbridge Road, Watery Lane, Ferry Road, and Lower Road at same day will one be taken before building commences.
Will main sewers be up graded to take new and old sewage before building commences or will sewage be pumped into River Crouch as before.
As there are 4 river flowing into the Crouch River including one from Wickford and Hullbridge is close to sea level and sea levels are due to rise and weather patens change been taken into account.
As the fact that all the schools are full in the area where will the children go to school.
How many 2-3 bed houses and how many 4-5 bed house which the developer will prefer as its more money to be made on 4-5 bed houses.
With congestion on our road with the whole 2500 properties being development in the Rochford area has the response times of fire and ambulance been taken into account.
Where will all these new jobs promised come from.

1. Development is detrimental to the current Community

New development should be part of the existing community, not separate from it. Greenspaces and new facilities should be directly accessible to both the current and new developments to promote community cohesion.

2. Highways

An Integrated Transport Assessment should be made for the Core Strategy as a whole and incorporated into this document detailing the improvements to all roads in the District required by the development of these sites. Any improvements required should be completed before the development or at least as the first units are occupied.

3. Sewage

An assessment should be made of the sewage/drainage capacity requirements in relation to this development and improvements made prior to the commencement of any works.

4. Rawreth

Parish and District Ward boundaries should be changed and agreed by the boundary commission prior to the commencement of development. Costs to come from the developers.

5. Youth

Space should be provided for play areas and other public open space. Investment in Youth Facilities should be towards existing facilities such as the Youth Club and the Skate Park.

6. Neighbourhood Shops

A review should be carried out to decide if any additional business facilities are required; it is more likely to be office based in Hullbridge than shop based.

Will Watery Lane be made to A class Road before building commences.
As there has been no survey of traffic flow down Hambro Hill, Down Hall Road, Rawreth Lane, Hullbridge Road, Watery Lane, Ferry Road and Lower Road at same day will one be taken before building commences.
Will main sewers be up graded to take new and old sewage before building commences or will sewage be pumped into River Crouch as before.
As there are 4 rivers flowing into the Crouch River including one from Wickford and Hullbridge is close to sea level and sea levels are due to rise and weather patterns change been taken into account.
As the fact that all the schools are full in the area where will the children go to school.
How many 2-3 bed houses and how many 4-5 bed houses which the developer will prefer as its more money to be made on 4-5 bed houses.
With congestion on our road with the whole 2500 properties being developed in the Rochford area has the response times of Fire and Ambulance been taken into account.
Where will all these new jobs promised come from.

Please just listen to the local radio, we are always being mentioned when Watery Lane is closed traffic backs and affects all the surrounding access roads. God forbid if the emerging services need to get through. I have a constant battle to get my son to school at St Thomas More and my daughter is in despair trying to get to Chelmsford University.
The problem is getting worse due to climate change alone. Improvement or upgrades to Watery Lane are needed before any development begins.

Development is detrimental to the current community as the green buffer only accessible from the new development will effectively split the new development from the existing Hullbridge Village.
The only Transport Impact Assessment required will be developer funded and relate only to SER6 taking no account of other developments (eg SER1). Rawreth Lane is at or near capacity when Watery Lane is closed, as it has been recently, traffic backs up in both directions.
The sewage and drainage systems in Hullbridge are already at or very near capacity. Also part of the area proposed is prone to flooding.
Approximately one third of development SER6b will be in Rawreth not Hullbridge, they will pay Parish Precept to Rawreth but get the facilities of Hullbridge. This will fail to foster community cohesion.
Hullbridge has youth facilities and it would be better to spend money on these that have additional facilities.
Hullbridge is more than adequately served by shops and does not need more as the review suggests. Does this mean that a proper review of A1 use in Hullbridge was not in fact carried out?

New development seems that it is not going to be part of our community.
New facilities should be for curent community as well as the new development. No development should start until all improvements are made to existing and new roads. Sewage has always been a problem and once again this should be rectified before commencement. We do not need anymore shops in the village, part of development will be in Rawreth under Rawreth Council but using the facilities of Hullbridge.

Development is detrimental to Hullbridge.
It is suggested a green buffer is to exist between the new and existing developments, this will create a separate village and destroy the current community spirit. There is no detail of road improvements or where the roads will be leading onto Ferry Road, Lower Road, Watery Lane? with the likely capacity problem when Watery Lane is closed (floods regularly) or fairglen interchange (floods) Hullbridge is blocked making journeys to Rayleigh, Chelmsford impossible.
What assessment has been made on the victorian sewage system together with the above flooding problems.
A suggfestion for further shops when there is no requirement suggests a proper review has not been done and gives concern about the report as a whole.

There is nothing in the DPD document which addresses the issues of:

1. roads unable to cope with the possible addition of 1000 cars (2 per household) attempting to leave Hullbridge during the rush hour.

2. flooding issue in Watery Lane and the area to the south of the development. This will significantly increase if 500 houses are built as fainfall will not be able to naturally soak into the subsoil.

3. The current sewerage system cannot cope with the existing development. What improvements will be made to cope with 500 more houses.

The proposed development will not be integrated with the existing village of Hullbridge leading to two co-joined communities with separate identities.

Local roads, namely Ferry Road, Hullbridge Road, Lower Road and Rawreth Lane, are congested at peak times and will be badly affected by the increase in traffic the proposed development would bring and by increased traffic during the construction phase.

No assessment of need has been made regarding sewage disposal.

I believe the DPD is unsound and give the reasons:

1. Sewage/drainage in Hullbridge is at capacity. No assessment of need has been made. Part of the area to be developed is extremely prone to flooding. Flood risk is based on insurance claims and this area is not shown as a flood risk becuase it is farmland and no claims have been made against insurance. I cannot believe Watery Lane is being considered for development. It will cost millions of £s to develop. Everyone locally knows of the problems with Watery Lane - its very name gives an indication of why the problems exist! The site is totally unviable.

2. I don't believe a proper assessment has bene done of how the roads will be affected in Hullbridge and the surrounding area. Watery Lane is often closed because of flooding putting extra traffic on to Rawreth Lane and Downhall Road leading to Rayleigh and on to Hullbridge Road and Lower Road leading to Hockley and Rochford. If the new development goes ahead probably at least an extra 1000 vehicles would be pouring in and out of Hullbridge creating gridlock and pollution.

3. The new 'estate' of 500 houses appears to be separated from the village of Hullbridge by a 'green buffer'. This would not promote a strong community spirit which the village has at the moment. It would create a feeling of 'them' and 'us'.

I was amazed to learn that 1/3rd of the development area is in fact in Rawreth, not Hullbridge. Those 'Rawreth' residents will not be part of Hullbrdige but represented by Rawreth Parish Council and Downhall & Rawreth District Councillors - paying a Parish Precept to Rawreth but getting the facilities of Hullbridge.

4. I believe a proper review of Hullbridge shops has not been done. We are very lucky to have so many excellent shops - 3 supermarkets; a butchers; bakers; greengrocer; 2 hairdressers, even a launderette - this is rare for a village this size. We do not need extra shops as suggested.

5. We have adequate youth facilities in Hullbridge and do not need more as suggested.

1. Development is detrimental to the current Community

The site is not properly integrated with the existing village of Hullbridge. The proposed 3.6 hectares of natural green space will only be directly accessible from the new development. This will not promote community cohesion but create a separate village to Hullbridge destroying the community feeling that now exists in the village.

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 (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 when Watery Lane is a common occurrence due to flooding, traffic trying to access routes to and from Southend, Chelmsford and Rayleigh backs up all the way along Lower Road, Hullbridge Road, Downhall Road and Rawreth Lane (which is at or near capacity).

There is also no mention of the impact on the district with to the Fairglen Interchange (A127/A130/A1245) a major access route and lies just outside the District and which has a profound knock on effect when flooded, with traffic 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 this needs to be addressed 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 for development floods on a regular basis. This area is not shown in the report as a flood risk due to the fact that it is farmland and no insurance claims have been made against any insurance company. (Flood Risk is based on insurance claims.) This flooding also affects some of the gardens backing on to the proposed development.

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.

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 new additional facilities which will be underutilised.

6. Neighbourhod Shops

Hullbridge is adequately served by shops i.e. 3 supermarkets, plus independent shops including a butchers and greengrocers and the suggestion that additional shops are required suggests a proper review has not been done of A1 use in Hullbridge.

Allocations Submission Document

On behalf of Rawreth Parish Council I confirm that this letter is a formal response and representation of the Councils views with regards to the Allocations submission Document.
This Council believes the LDF Core Strategy, Allocations Submission Document is unsound on two counts. The two counts are detailed below, together with supporting facts and examples. In addition there appears to be no acknowledgement of previous consultations and publication of responses was delayed 12 months after publication of preferred Site Allocations, Policy GB1.

Count 1. Preference and proposed use of Green Belt land over land previously used or brown field sites: Policy ED4 Core Strategy Preferred Options Future Employment Options. GB1 Core Strategy Preferred Options. ENV3 Core Strategy Preferred Options Flood Risk. PPS25 Development & Flood Risk)
Within the Development Management DPD - Preferred Options Document 3.1 clearly states under PPG2, the most important aspect of the Green Belt is its openness. In addition, PPG2 also states within the five purposes of not including land within the Green Belt :

To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas
To prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another
To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment
Our first example of unsoundness is the proposed Housing at " Land North of London Road, West of Rayleigh (Rawreth)" vs land previously put forward in the "Call for Sites" at: Hambro Nurseries Rawreth, Former nursery land at Weir Farm, Rayleigh and the Site of Garden Centre and former nurseries in Eastwood Road.

Our second example is the proposed housing in " Hullbridge, Malyons Farm (Rawreth)" vs the at land at NSEC Lower Road Hockley" which was also put forward in the "Call for Sites". All the Sites given in our examples were put forward in the "Call for Sites" and all this land is previously used or brown field land which would provide hundreds of sustainable houses with good access to present infrastructure all falling within PPG2. However they have all been rejected by Rochford District Council as not acceptable.

Our third example is the relocation of Rawreth Industrial Site to a Greenbelt site on the A129 next to Swallows Aquatic Centre vs brown field land at Michelins Farm, adjacent to the A127, put forward in the "Call forSites".

Our fourth example is the erosion of Green Belt and the coalescence of two conurbations, Wickford/Shotgate and Rayleigh, entirely contrary to Green Belt Policy GB1 and H1. If smaller, more appropriate brownfield sites were used, as put forward in the "Call for Sites", this erosion and coalescence would not take place.

This Council believes this document to be UNSOUND as due consideration has not been given to more appropriate sites that clearly fall within PPG2.

Count 2. This Council believes there is an absence of an overall effective Transport Risk Assessment and Traffic Impact Statement which would clearly show the effects of present and future housing on traffic flow on the existing inadequate road network. (Policy T1 & T2)

At the Public Examination in 2010,conducted by the Government Planning Inspector, both this Council and the public were assured that adequate infrastructure would be looked at when the Essex County Council Local Transport Plan was reviewed in 2011. In 2012 ECC explained that " the current Essex Local Transport Plan was developed in line with Department for Transport Guidance and which provides the framework within which transport programmes can be developed."

In the Development Management DPD, Preferred Policy Options Document Rochford District Council's Vision states " The Highway Authority will look at solutions to congestion issues across the District to ensure the highway infrastructure becomes "fit for purpose". Without the risk assessments, congestion issues have not been addressed and the necessary documentation therefore, is not in the Evidence Base which makes the document unsound.


In Minutes of Rochford District Council 27/11/2012 officers advised that "the Highways Authority was looking strategically at the cumulative effect of traffic impact through the Local Transport Plan" and, in addition, " the emerging community infrastructure levy should facilitate strategic highways improvements" yet, there is still no Traffic Impact Assessment of the District within the Evidence Base. DM28
As a Council we know from day to day that the overall highways infrastructure within the District cannot cope with present traffic flow and, therefore, believe that without major infrastructure improvements the situation will become intolerable.
RDC stated in its Public Consultation that to be "SOUND" the plan should be prepared based on a strategy which seeks to meet objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements consistent with sustainable development.

ECC stated in December 2012 "every strategic development proposal is accompanied by a transport assessment agreed with the Highway Authority which will consider the impact of proposed development on the highway network to ensure a comprehensive approach accounting for present traffic conditions and future traffic growth".

Right from the beginning of the Local Development Framework, all the documents within and including the Rochford Core Strategy state clearly "in order for development to be sustainable it must meet the needs of the present and future in terms of highways and traffic impact" and quotes "Improvements must be made to East/West routes"."RDC must ensure there are adequate highway infrastructure improvements to serve new developments and to mitigate their impact".

We believe that this Allocations Submission Document is not "SOUND" on the two Counts as detailed.

One, that the Highway Authority has not objectively assessed the developments and infrastructure requirements taking account of present traffic and future traffic growth. Evidence Base is essential for the "SOUNDNESS" of this document and a Traffic Impact Statement has not been provided within this Base.

Two, the preference and proposed use of Green Belt land over land previously used or brown field sites is contrary to GB1 and, therefore, renders the document UNSOUND.

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 (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.

7. Doctors

The existing doctors in Hullbridge is extremely busy, with appointments taken over a week. With 500 additional houses, possibly about 2000 additional people, additional facilities would be needed.

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 (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.

It is not considered that this location has good access to public transport [trains] and therefore these residents will be more dependent on the private car; would also question the suitability of the existing road network to cope with the level of traffic associated with the proposed 500 dwellings; a significant increase to the existing settlement.

The allocation would result in a large addition to the western side of the existing settlement, and although it would follow the existing field boundaries, it is not considered that this would result in defensible boundary.

The people of Hullbridge who this affects have not been consulted as to whether this plan is acceptable to them. Many like us moved to Hullbridge because they liked what they saw.

Before making radical changes to the whole area a full consultation should be held.