Policy SER6 - South West 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 (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.

Flooding

Southern end of site floods.
Watery Lane floods.
Proposed 'ponds' to allegedly alleivate flooding would impinge on Greenbelt.

Highways

Roads at capacity.
When it rains Watery Lane is closed diverting vehicles onto already overcrowded roads.

Community Cohesion

Part of building will be in Rawreth.
Development 'seperated' from Hullbridge.

1. Lack of community cohesion as some is Hullbridge and other Rawreth.

2. No Core Strategy Assessment from RDC in relation to inadequate roads. What improvements will be made to Watery Lane, at what cost, by whom and when. Not a developers cost, a major problem! Floods, accidents, road closures.

3. DPD is no longer sound as does not include using Bullwood Hall Prison site as a possiblity for housing.

4. DPD is not sound because it does not include proposals to adequately mitigate potential impacts re 1 and 2.

5. Lack of employment! No more shops required.

1. The site is not integrated with existing villag eand therefore not promoting community cohesion.

2. No mention in report how major highway improvements are to be implemented.

Watery Lane has been closed for over 2 months, with floods, the field one side being 2 feet higher and drains blocked. A danger to life, with people who have been trapped and accidents. A problem which has been ongoing and reported constantly.

Developers will not pay for upgrades to Watery Lane, capacity for transport is I believe at its limit. Improvements to highways should be undertaken prior to new houses being built. Also when Fairglen Interchange is flooded this has a knock on effect with cars moving to other roads, affected by SER1.

If residents of the housing in SER6b live in Rawreth, they will not be part of Hullbridge, and therefore will not form community cohesion, paying parish precept to Rawreth yet using facilities of Hullbridge.

DPD is not sound because it does not include proposals to adequately mitigate potential impacts on comments 1 and 2.

1. Will Watery Lane be made to a A class Road before building starts?

2. Will the main swers be up graded to take both old and new sewage beofre building commences or will sewage be pumped into Ricver Crouch as before?

3. As 4 rivers flow into the crouch at Battlesbridge, which includes one from Wickford and as sea levels are due to rise and weather patterns change, have these facts been taken into account with regards to flooding in the area?

4. As the fact that all the Schools are full in the area, where will the children attend school?

5. As there has never been a traffic flow taken on the following roads at the same time, Hambro Hill, Down Hall Road, Hullbridge Road, Watery Lane, Ferry Road, Lower Road and as the congestion will affect the response times of Fire, Ambulance and Police. Have these services been consulted?

6. As Rochford Council states that the property developer has to stand the cost of 1, and 2 is he prepared to do so for just 500 houses?

1. I think that the green buffer zone accessible from the new built properties will split the community in two and would ruin the environment surrounding bordering properties which would create resentment between the existing and new residents.

2. I find it unsatisfactory that whilst there is an acknowldegement that road network improvement will need to be made, I think this should have been provided before we are at consultation stage.

3. This area is notorious for flooding which will present problems in ensuring these properties which will harm there value and may leave them without buyers.

Objection to Policy SER6

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.

THE ADDITION OF THIS MANY PEOPLE WOULD DESTROY THE VILLAGE!

2.2 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 Rawerth Lane is at, or near capacity and when Watery Lane is closed, a common occurrence, traffic backs up along Downhall Road and Rawreth Lane towards Rayleigh and Hullbridge Road and Lower Road towards Hockley and Rochford making journeys to or from Rayleigh or Chelmsford difficult, BUT USUALLY - COMPLETELY IMPOSSIBLE. 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.

3. Sewerage/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 be 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 under used; additional investment should be made by purchasing part of the farm (instead of new housing development) and building a youth area/activity park and large supervised building with adequate parking.

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 Tesco) and Budgens) as well as number of other independent shops including a butcher and a greengrocer etc. Hullbridge is more than adequately served by food shops BUT ALL OTHERS ARE CLOSED DUE TO EXCESSIVE RENTS AND GREEDY COUNCILS. Hullbridge is short of other business premises such as office or studio facilities and DENTISTS ETC.

Development is detrimental to the current Community

The location of the proposed new development on the outer edge of Hullbridge lends itself to creating a separate community to that which already exists happily within Hullbridge.

We have been advised that a green buffer is to exist 'in perpetuity between new and existing developments', to this end the existing green space will only be directly accessible from the new development.

Highways

As far as I am aware there has been 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, 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.

Sewerage/Drainage

No adevquate assessment of flooding has been made, as flood risk is based on insurance claims of which none would have been submitted with regards to this land as the land in question is currently farmland.

Secondly Watery Lane, which forms a boundary to the proposed development is closed on a regular basis due to flooding, and as a point of note over the Christmas period 2012, was closed due to flooding from week commencing the 17th December 2012 up to today (15th January 2013), and still remains closed.

Rawreth

Approximately one third of the development of SER6b (the second phase), will be in Rawreth, not Hullbridge. This also relates to the point above about community cohesion. If the residents of the housing in SER6b live in Rawreth they will not be a part of Hullbridge, they will be represented by Rawreth Parish Council and Downhall 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.

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.

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.

We do not believe that Policy SER6 of the ASD is legally compliant because

(i) it has been prepared without the proper consultation with local groups as was set out in the Statement of Community Involvement,
(ii) in particular, the Council has failed to carry out the extensive consultation in respect of Hullbridge, as was later set out in the Core Strategy document.

We do not believe that Policy SER6 of the ASD is sound because the policy as set out is inconsistent with the aim of community cohesion, which the Council admits is particularly important in our village. We say this because the policy is written in terms of a standalone development sitting adjacent to the main residential community in Hullbridge, and calls for community enhancements for that specific site that are inconsistent with the needs of Hullbridge as a whole.

In addition, we do not believe that Policy SER6 of the ASD is sound because we do not think that it is possible to proceed with the development of site SER6(a) (that part of the development envisaged prior to 2021) within the timescales set out in it. We say this because

(i) the policy fails to address the already existing traffic, flooding and waste problems in Hullbridge, which can only be exacerbated by the proposed policy.
(ii) The timetable as set out in policy SER6 is inconsistent with (a) timescales across other documents that have been issued by the Council in relation to this process, (b) information given in the past to residents and (c) indications given to Hullbridge's district councillors and others.

A detailed justification of this position is set out in an attached letter with annex.

Objection to Policy SER6