Policy SER6 - South West Hullbridge

Little consideration has been given to the development of Watery Lane - this must be done prior to any building undertaken. It has been closed for several weeks due to flooding as it is a 10 minute journey regularly takes 30 minutes on a good day.

There seems to be no assessment re the treatment of sewage. We have such a problem with the stench of sewage from the treatment works that cannot cope. This problem needs addressing before more houses are built.

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.

Highways - The roads improvement need to be made at Ferry Road, Rawreth Lane, Watery Lane as they can't cope now. Fairglen interchange (A127/A130/A1245) also when flooded causes knock on effect to our roads. Improvements need to be made before any work starts. The sewerage system within Hullbridge is near capacity - part of the area proposed is prone to flooding as you can see after rain fall.

Hullbridge has a youth centre which is currently underused, additional investment should be made to facilities there at the skate park in recreation ground rather than have additional facilities.

Shop the suggestion that additional shops are required needs to be reviewed. We have 3 supermarkets, butcher, greengrocer etc. We are adequately served. Hullbridge is short of an adult swimming pool, offices or studio facilities.

As a one-off it is a good plan. The problem is it does not take into account the other proposals for the area:- Hockley, Ashingdon, Canewdon and Rawreth. The increase traffic flow from these areas would have to be taken into account for the already stretched Hullbridge Infrastructure. In respect of the drainage for Hullbridge where would the swales be located? Water already runs into 'Watery Lane". Hence the name!

I feel some one has looked at a map and said 'that looks a good place to build' without looking at the actual area.

Improvements to drainage and sewage facilities, roads built/altered to avoid traffic congestion.

There is no overall strategy or policy that covers the very important issue of highways, traffic and its assessment on the already poor level of infrastructure. By example Watery Lane, if improved, still leads either to Battlesbridge which is a bottle neck of old, with a one way system over a weight restricted bridge or at the Lower Road (Hullbridge end) leads either to Rayleigh with an impediment to free flowing traffic at it junction with Rawreth Lane.

At present when ever Watery Lane is closed through constant flooding and repairs Lower Road becomes impossible through over capacity.

With the possibility of housing developments in Hockley, Rochford and Rawreth the Lower Road could not possibly cope and would lead to local 'gridlock'.

No assessment has been detailed for the future need and increase of sewage or surface water disposal.

Objection to policy SER6.

Draft Representations to be submitted to RDC Site Allocations DPD
On Behalf of Landhold Capital

The following responds to the Submission Draft of the Site Allocations document on behalf of Landhold Capital who the Council will be aware have land interests to the southwest and west of Hullbridge, and who have taken an active role in both the process towards the adopted Core Strategy, and in the earlier draft of the Site Allocations DPD.

We held a number of discussions with officers prior to the Committee and a number of clarifications were made in the addendum. The following section takes account of the addendum that was agreed and which forms part of the consultation document.

Brownfield Residential Land Allocations

In paragraphs 19 and 20 of the Inspector's Report on the Core Strategy, the Inspector noted that as part of the Examination process, concerns had been expressed as to the likelihood of the various employment sites coming forward.

At paragraphs 20 and 26, the Inspector concluded that the Core Strategy had sufficient flexibility to accommodate a shortfall in delivery (for example at the disputed employment locations), both because there was flexibility in the timing of the release of the strategic growth locations set out in CS Policies H2 and H3, and flexibility in terms of the quantum of development that could be delivered at the broad locations (paragraph 27 specifically refers).

The Core Strategy does not put any notional cap on the quantum that could be delivered at the broad locations, nor does it set out that any shortfall in one location can only be addressed within that same location.

The same uncertainties exist in respect of the delivery of the brownfield sites now, as they did when the CS Inspector issued her report. However, this Site Allocations DPD seeks to remove the flexibility from the broad locations, by introducing ineffective and arbitrary limitations on the growth locations, in conflict with the CS and the basis upon which it was found sound.


Settlement Extension Residential Land Allocations

'
Paragraphs 3.4 to 3.6 make clear that between 2006 and 2021 the Council is required to accommodate 3,790 dwellings at an approximate average of 250 dwellings per year. Post 2021, the District is required to continue the development rate of 250 dwellings per year, and that accordingly, the Core Strategy sets out the approach to housing distribution to 2025. It goes on to say that the District's housing supply includes extant permissions and sites already allocated for housing, but additional land needs to be allocated, including appropriate brownfield sites previously allocated for employment use (see chapter 2) and Green Belt land, and points out that the detailed housing supply is set out in the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) 2012 which the Council say will be monitored regularly through the Annual Monitoring Reports.

In our view, given the delay between the adoption of the Core Strategy due to the legal challenge, and the progress of the Submission SADPD, the current housing position should be identified to keep the document as up to date as possible, and to react to any potential shortfall.

In terms of delivery, table 2 reiterates the phasing of the Hullbridge site into 2 areas, one 2015 to 21, and the remainder post 2021.

As set out in previous representations and developed below, we consider that, particularly given the infrastructure requirements and social benefits identified as part of the requirement for the Hullbridge scheme, particularly in the early stages (eg para 3.171 requires for example that youth, community and leisure facilities should be provided within the first phase of the development), then it makes no sense not to allow for the site to be developed in one go, particularly given the additional costs of stopping and starting again, which would potentially increase the costs of developing the site. There will be significant set up and related preliminary costs as a result of the period of inactivity and that this amount could be available for social provision if the development of the site runs straight through, and indeed the period of inactivity would be so short as to be of no real benefit in terms of spreading out the development to meet the policy.

Allowing for securing outline planning permission, securing release of conditions and reserved matters approval, site set up and infrastructure, together with a development programme for the first 250 dwellings, would in our view would take us to mid 2019, which would if the policy were strictly adhered to, mean a 2 year break before we could deliver again in accordance with the policy. Advance infrastructure for future phases at the start would be both cost effective, and mean that the delivery rate for homes would be accelerated in the later years. The Council's approach could therefore cause a delay in the delivery of housing units, increase costs and therefore not be sustainable and potentially affect the Council's housing delivery strategy.

The Core Strategy Inspector accepted the Council's land supply position only on the basis that the strategic growth locations had flexibility to accommodate shortfalls arising elsewhere (and on the basis of a promised early review, arising from the shortfall in the length of the Plan period itself).

Paragraph 3.10 introduces a flexibility cap of 5%. There is no such 5% limit in the CS, and given the reason why the CS Inspector considered flexibility was needed, it is evident that a 5% flexibility cap is inadequate and inappropriate.

Our comments here apply equally to all settlements, but taking Hullbridge as an example, the strategic growth area allocation is 500 units and the 5% flexibility allowance equates to just 25 dwellings. The Council relies heavily on the brownfield sites to deliver a significant proportion of its housing requirement, yet even the Inspector has raised concerns on whether these can deliver, and has accepted the Core Strategy on the basis of the implied flexibility within.

For the above reasons, we consider that the introduction of the 5% cap fails the test of soundness for all four reasons i.e. this aspect of the Plan is not Positively Prepared, Justified, Effective or consistent with National Policy, or indeed with the Core Strategy.


Policy SER6 - South West Hullbridge

We fully support the identification of the site within the Submission draft. However, we would raise the following points in relation to the details under Policy SER6:

1. In relation to paragraph 3.163, we have objected to the artificial constraint of 5% flexibility, as site conditions, capacities, density and other opportunities and constraints have yet to be fully informed by a master plan.

2. With regard to figure 12, we don't believe there should be a hard line on a plan for pre and post 2021 development, as any phasing should be informed by site opportunities and constraints, and by the master plan approach set out in the point above. The plan itself may introduce an additional constraint to the proper delivery of the site in addition to those identified above, and should be replaced with something simpler along the following lines:




3. We do not disagree with the need for appropriate open space provision. However the green and play space areas identified in paras 3.167 to 3.169 have not been justified by separate analysis and should be the subject of explanation within the text.

4. In para 3.172 it states that the exact nature of community facilities will be the subject of agreement with the Council at the appropriate time, yet para 3.173 establishes a minimum area. As with green and play spaces, this either needs specific justification, or removal to be discussed at the appropriate time.

We would also make the point in relation to the front-end provision of open spaces and facilities that this effectively pre-judges the most appropriate location for such facilities within the development to meet the needs of future residents, and this should both be derived as the consequence from the master plan approach suggested above, yet to be undertaken, and provides further justification for not fixing a line on a plan which formalises the locations of phases SER6a and b.

5. In para 3.176, the retail requirement should be reworded to state there is a possibility it could be investigated rather than a requirement, given that a fundamental part of our case to the Core Strategy was that this scheme would assist in anchoring existing town centre shops, which are undertrading.

6. In para 3.177, we don't of course object to the transport statement but as it will be a requirement of the planning application in any case, and as such we would question why is it referred to here.

7. In para 3.182, the reference to Malyons Lane as a preference for an access should be removed as this is a matter that should be explored through detailed masterplanning and detailed public consultation.

8. We are concerned by the text at paras 3.184 and 5 as it appears that the Council are confusing the transmission network and the treatment facility. There are two wastewater treatment works; Rayleigh West and Rayleigh East. The sewers crossing our site (which we will discharge into) drain to Rayleigh West Waste Water TW which, according to the Council's evidence base (specifically the September 2011 Water Cycle Study), has adequate capacity to accept and treat the additional flows arising from the proposed level of growth. Furthermore our pre-development enquiry with Anglian Water back in 2010 indicated that the existing sewers crossing our site (transmission network) have sufficient capacity to accommodate the flow from the proposed development.

Objection to Policy SER6.

Insufficient consideration has been given to roads and highways. Current conditions have forced the closure of Watery Lane causing significant increase in traffic on the one remaining road for residents. Journeys are currently extended by 10 miles (round trip) if this is a regular route.

Impact of SER1 immediately adjacent also needs consideration. Flooding is an issue with drainage being at or near capacity figures used were challenged by the Parish Council but no account has been taken of data provided which is more up to date.

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.

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.

Objection to Policy SER6

Development is detrimental to the current community:
The site is not properly integrated with the existing village of Hullbridge. The 'green buffer' which is to exist 'in perpetuity between the new and existing developments' will only be accessible from the new development. This development as proposed, will not promote community cohesion but will create a separate village destroying the current community atmosphere.
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 as it is farmland and no claims have been made against insurance. Flood Risk is based on insurance claims made.

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 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, (and according to recent long-term weather forecasts likely to remain so) 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, two roads affected by SER6 and also more directly by SER1.

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

As a resident of Hullbridge for 47 years I consider this development totally unsound. The facilities in Hullbridge will not take the building of 500 dwellings added to its already overloaded sewerage, doctors, school, use of roads the list is endless and we the people of Hullbridge will be the loosers. If these developers are not spending their money on updating the village which I don't think they are where does it leave us, it will be a divided community. Please reconsider these proposals.

As I am a local resident, I wish to protest against the siting of the new houses. Reasons:

1. Watery Lane floods every time it rains heavily. Also surrounding fields.
2. Part of the land is or was used for farming.
3. It can be very difficult to set out onto Ferry Road at the moment. This will become even more difficult with the extra traffic from Malyons Lane.
4. It will put a lot of extra pressure on the GP surgery and also the school.

Any house as at the edge of one of the fields that is proposed for development. I have not been informed as to what is going to be built at the bottom of my garden and feel this is all about developers and land owners making money at the expense of the people of Hullbridge our facilities are stretched now and nowhere have I read that we are going to be updated to cope. Our roads and pavements need attention, many roads are still unmade. There is no Council money. Whilst these dwellings are being built the facilities of Hullbridge will be used I like our village and don't need an add on that won't be part of our village but a separate estate.

The sewerage system within Hullbridge is at or very near full capacity. The report mentions this, but no full assessment of that need has been made so far the assessment of road improvement needed, is inadequate as has not taken the impace into account of how much extra traffic will use Ferry Road, this was not mentioned.

Rawreth Lane is at full capacity already and when Watery Lane is closed, which is often, and for some prolonged periods, the traffic around Hullbridge/Rawreth backs up along Downhall Road and Rawreth Lane towards Rayleigh itself. Also the Lower Road to Hockley and Rochford, making journeys often to work, to or from Rayleigh, Chlemsford or London very difficult, time consuming and expensive on fuel. We already have a youth centre that is under used due to lack of investment what would attract youth there is a skate park but these facilities would be used more if upgraded. We already have 3 large supermarkets and parking is difficult now.

Failure to consult the Hullbridge Plan Group and Hullbridge Action Group. The sewerage system within Hullbridge is at/or very near capacity, the report mentions this but no full assessment of that need has been made so far. The assessment also of road improvement needed is inadequate as it has not taken the impact into account of how much extra traffic will use Ferry Road, this was not mentioned. Rawreth Lane is at full capacity already and when Watery Lane is closed which is often and for some prolonged periods, the traffic around Hullbridge/Rawreth backs up along Downhall Road/Rawreth Lane towards Rayleigh itself. Also the Hullbridge Road, Lower Road, to Hockley and Rochford making journeys (often to work) to or from Rayleigh, Chelmsford very difficult, time consuming and expensive on fuel.

We already have a Youth Centre that is underused, due to lack of investment, that would attract youth, there is a skate park, but these facilities should be used more if upgraded. We already have 3 large supermarkets and parking is difficult now.

Although the proposed area to be developed is not shown as a flood risk, even though it has been because the area is farmland, it was not necessary to make any insurance claims. Unlike householders, flood risk is based on insurance claims made.

Failure to consult the Hullbridge Plan Group and Hullbridge Action Group.

The sewerage system within Hullbridge is at or very near capacity. The report mentions this, but no full assessment of that need has so far been made. The assessment also of road improvement needed is inadequate, as it has not taken the impact into account of how much extra traffic will use Ferry Road. This was not mentioned. Rawreth Lane is at full capacity already and when Watery Lane is closed which is often and for some prolonged periods, the traffic around Hulbridge/Rawreth backs up along Downhall Road/Rawreth Lane towards Rayleigh itself. Also the Hullbridge Road, Lower Road to Hockley and Rochford making journeys (often to work) to or from Rayleigh, Chelmsford very difficult, time consuming and expensive on fuel. We already have 3 supermarkets and parking is already difficult.

The strain on the already very busy doctors and pharmacy will be awful with so many more people here. The proposed area to be developed is not shown as a flood risk, purely because it is farmland and nobody needed to make a claim, but it is flooded most of the time in winter, especially Watery Lane.

A few months ago, due to severe rain, some of us could not get ut of the village even to go to Rayleigh because of the back-up of traffic in the whole area.

I feel that the flooding of Watery Lane has not been fully considered. The road floods frequently and is often closed to traffic. That is why it is called Watery Lane.

The building of 500 units means a likely increase of 2000 people - we have no bank, no dentist, a small school and a doctors already at full capacity. The sewerage system appears to be under pressure - the smell of sewage that settles over Hullbridge at times is disgusting.

Not legally compliant because I do not feel you have consulted the residents of Hullbridge correctly from the beginning.

Not sound because the proposed plan will not bring community cohesion, the flooding has not been addressed properly, the timescales contradict other reports (2015 or 2021?) and there is no infrastructure in place.

The housing development will infringe on green belt and natural green space. This will have detrimental effect on Hullbridge. The area concerned is constantly flooded but because it is farmland has not shown as flood risk. Flood risk only if insurance claims made. Watery Lane constantly flooded and closed to traffic. At present the highway network in Hullbridge is at capacity. Rush hour traffic is often at a standstill. Considering each property will have 2 cars this would not be acceptable.
The sewerage system in Hullbridge is already at near capacity. The new development will be built separate from Hullbridge village with no road access. It will be separate from community, not integrated.

Highways

The road system around Hullbridge is at full capacity with the introduction of these new houses the road system slowly grounds to a halt. When Watery Lane is closed (which has been on/off for the last two-three months due to flooding) the traffic is completely gridlocked around Rawreth Lane/Hullbridge Road/Lower Road back towards Hockley which makes any journey in this area impossible.

Sewerage/Drainage

The sewer and drainage is already struggling to cope, with the addition of new houses, this system would breakdown.

The site proposed is at a high level of flooding and as can be clearly seen is currently flooded.

Infrastructure

This will not be able to cope with the number of new residents/children. The surgery and school are at capacity.

The development is detrimental to the existing community

I consider the development is detrimental to the community as it is now, in that it will not be integrated with the existing village as a green buffer zone is apparently to exist between the existing and new development in perpetuity, which in my opinion will create a separatge village and will destroy the current community feeling.

Highways

Limited mention of improvements to the highway is in the report but no detail is given as there is no Core Strategy Transport Assessment from Essex County Council or elsewhere. It would appear the only transport impact assessment required will be developer funded, without taking into account either higway issues or other developments elsewhere in the district. No assessment or road improvements required has been made and Ferry Road, on to which much of the new traffic will go, has not be referred to in the report.

Currently, Rawreth Lane is at, or near capacity and when Watery Lane is closed, which happens often, traffic backs up along Rawreth Lane and Downhall Road towards Rayleigh, and the Hullbridge Road and Lower Road towards Rochford and Hockley making journeys to or from Rayleigh or Chelmsford extremely difficult. I consider any highways improvements should be carried out prior to the proposed development as after will be too late.

One additional fact which seems to have been ignored is that the Fairglen Interchange which is just outside the district, currently causes significant problems when flooded which happens often.

Sewage and Drainage

The system in Hullbridge is already very near capacity and although mentioned in the report, no mention of improvements to be made is stated. Additionally part of the proposed area is prone to flooding, which although currently farmland will still presumably flood.

No propser assessment of the infrastructure seems to have been undertaken.

Traffic assessment - The urgent need for access and road improvements. Have the authorities taken into account the flooding that occurs in Watery Lane whenever there is heavy rain and the subsequent traffic problems in the surrounding area.

Sewage - Hullbridge capacity is at full stretch to meet present needs.

Schools - Where will the children go? Particularly at the secondary stage.

Medical Facilities - will there be sufficient?

All these points need to be sorted before any development takes place as it will be too late after and the lives of the people in Hullbridge and any new development will be extremely difficult if these concerns are not addressed.

Limited highway improvements in report. No assessment of road improvements required.

All roads in and out of Hullbridge are at capacity and when Watery Lane is closed due to flooding all roads are gridlocked. The flooding will be considerably worse when houses are built on already flooded areas. Any road improvements should be made before any construction work begins.

The sewerage system is also at near capacity what assessment has been done to cope with new proposed development.

The new development shows more shops would be built there are already empty shops in Hullbridge and adequate food shops.

Limited highway improvements in report. No assessment of road improvements required.

All roads in and out of Hullbridge are at capacity when Watery Lane is closed due to flooding all roads are gridlocked.

The flooding will be considerably worse when houses are built on already flooded areas. Any road improvements should be made before any construction work begins.

The sewerage system is also near capacity what assessment has been done to cope with the new proposed development.

The new development shows more shops would be built. However, there are already empty shops in Hullbridge and adequate food shops.

No account has been taken of schools needed as these must be family homes.

The nearest railway station is at Rayleigh and trains are always full in the mornings when they arrive here so where are the extra passengers going to go.

There is flooding in Watery Lane depending on the rainfall, which will affect any houses being built.

The Hullbridge road is the only access to this site and is usually very busy with traffic going through to Hockley or to Hullbridge village.

We have been told that the sewerage system is inadequate to cope with these new builds.

No detailed plans for highway improvements. Current roads at full capacity at peak times. Village centre (Ferry Road) all traffic must enter and leave by this road and no parking near amenities.

No plans to address road flooding and the increase caused when the farmland that currently absorbs excess water, once built on many more homes will be at risk and roads impassable.

Sewerage and surface water drainage reports necessary along with full impact on local community during and in the long term.

1. The development is detrimental to the 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 as proposed as evidence above will not promote community cohesion but will in fact be creating a separate village to Hullbridge destroying the current community feeling that exist.

2. Highways - Although mention of limited highway improvements is in the report no detail is given as there is no core strategy impact 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 this 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 and Rochford making journeys to or from Lower Road towards Hockley and Rochford making journeys to or from Rayleigh or Chelmsford very 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.

Having resided in the adjacent area for 40 years I object to the proposal to erect 500 houses in the nominated area for the following reasons:

1. Inadequate road access.
2. Inadequate drainage - constant flooding to adjacent land and roadways
3. Limited utilities
4. Limited schools
5. Limited services ie doctors.