Tell Us Your Views

I attended the open session on 16th Jan in Hockley and was appalled that seemingly no thought has been given to the required changes to infrastructure (roads, schools, medical facilities) to accommodate the potential 7500 additional properties. The only comment made on this is that the respective Depts (someone else's responsibility) will attend to this after the developments have been agreed. This is not acceptable!!
Hockley is already at a frequent standstill with traffic and no additional schools or medical facilities have been added to accommodate the recent new houses let alone 7500 more. Hall Road Development is a good example of additional houses with no sign of additional infrastructure. The planned expansion of Westerings school (presumably to accommodate Hall Road etc) will simply make a bad traffic situation simply intolerable. Please take these feelings into account and make sensible plans that incorporate infrastructure at the beginning and create some credibility with your tax payers.

Maps: Keys are far too basic.

Why are the booklets RDC use so simple - maps show no detail.

Flooding doesn't include water table stats.

Why is RDC taking photos for Social Media Facebook etc. This could put folk off coming. Not told until enter room - umm!?

I wish to object to potential development plans for the land at the end of Marylands Avenue, and behind Merryfields Avenue Hockley.

As a local resident this would have a major detrimental impact on the area. The main concerns as below:

Land is green belt and is there to protect countryside from being developed.

The land is next to the nature reserve and wildlife lives in the woods adjacent. There are various protected species in this area, including bats, badgers, and goshawks. These have all been seen in and around our garden several times over the last year.

Flooding issues would be increased as there is a stream running through the proposed area, and when there is heavy rainfall the water congregates at the end of Marylands Avenue

Access to the proposed site is narrow and limited. The area is a quiet residential street and many young families live in Marylands and Merryfields, therefore having site traffic would be dangerous

Developing on this land has previously been declined at the high courts, and should be declined again.

Having just moved into this area (two months ago), We are very upset to discover that the situation which affected us and drove us to move from our home of 29 years, is about to be implemented in this area also.

You said in your leaflet infrastructure would not be a consideration but it is the greatest problem facing any resident in any area.
How will people be served and who will pay for it?

If services are not a consideration then there will be severe and unfair problems.
The people who live and pay for the services are those who should have the greatest priority in any consideration of further development. If not the area will seriously deteriorate and on the back of that there will be an upsurge in crime, anger and frustration. We speak from experience.

In our previous residence the area was flooded with many people a lot of whom were state funded. This meant a great deal of pressure placed upon already over worked services. Not least schools where new class rooms were having to be added.
Doctors also not coping even when there were 4 doctors coming in. Waiting times (for an appointment) one month.
If this area of ashingdon were flooded with new residents the doctors we attend would never cope and the service would suffer.
Social housing is important but if these are not kept to a reasonable standard the whole area is affected.
The ashingdon road was obviously not built with the volume of traffic which would be generated by the increased housing in mind. Where will all that traffic go?

We have moved here believing we could enjoy a better standard of life. We have paid our way all of our lives. As home owner residents we expect to be shown the rights of such. If we were not to pay our council tax, our debts we would soon hear about it.

Serious questions need to be asked. We do know what we are talking about.

Please note that I find the above plan of up to 7500 new houses within the area totally unacceptable on the basis of unsustainability. Unsustainability being there is a complete lack of surgeries, schools and certainly no plans for further roads to ease the already overburdened traffic situation, let alone the fact that it is becoming more and more impossible to get a doctors appointment for residents already in the area. How will the overstretched NHS cope with the ever increasing population based on the occupancy of the planned houses? It is not feasible based on the gross under funding of road and rail links, already underfunded by £11 billion.

The lung that was put in place along Cherry Orchard is being depleted by the ever increasing industrial building occurring to further add houses on map j from Ark Lane to the Cherry Orchard Country Park just makes a mockery of this so called lung. Adding houses around Mount Bovers Lane, Victor Gardens, Windsor Gardens, the Railway Bridge, Ironwell Lane just takes out any boundary between Southend and Hawkwell. Thereby diminishing the character of Hawkwell which used to be considered a semi rural area. Where are the schools, surgeries, extra police, roads, ambulances, fire services to cater for this development? How can this plan be justified by RDC as helping the residents of the area create a harmonious place to live or for that matter for any incoming residents into these new builds be considered an enhancement to living a life well?

How many of the hierachy of the RDC actually live in the Rochford area I wonder? I wonder whether the tax payers of the area actually get heard.

Will RDC inform the residents as to what the consensus is of the residents eventually?

Further to my e mail yesterday re the above I would like to ask just how many brownfield sites are being considered before looking at agricultural land, e.g. field by Mount Bovers? As I understand it part of this field was once ocupied by Hockley Woods (even further back I recall reading something about the land having been common at one time) and was grubbed up for the war effort. To add housing to this area would just be a blow too much for the area as a whole. This field sits between Gusted Hall Woods and Hockley Woods - being a Site of Scientific Interest. By building on the field this action would gradually eradicate the nature of the area. If I recall correctly there are something like 22 brownfield sites in the area - are these marked on your Local Plan map and if so are they being considered first before putting more blots on our landscape?

None of these options are viable or sustainable without FIRST addressing our road and facilities/services infrastructure. This should be compulsory at the start of any development.
The B1013 simply cannot cope with the volume of vehicles now let alone the increased volume from current and future developments. When I attended the local plan consultation event, I was horrified to see the number of areas being put forward for potential development. I understand that they wont all meet the criteria for various reasons but the sheer number of houses that are being suggested for our district, which is already vastly overdeveloped for the existing infrastructure, is just scandalous.
The detrimental impact of existing housing developments is clear to see with the promised but non-existent provision of healthcare facilities, schools and transport links - Hall Road is a prime example.
Where is the new school and doctors? Where's the transport links, bus services for Hall Road? I know - there wont be any because routes are being axed!!!!!! Where are all the new children going to school? - a load to the Westerings presumably where they either have to be driven by parents who then like to park as close as possible making the Woodlands Estate in Hockley gridlocked on a daily basis to the inconvenience of the residents who actually live there (God forbid an emergency vehicle needs to access that estate at school drop off or pick up times) or being ferried by taxi paid for by the taxpayer? It's strange that we're told there will be a new school - it doesn't happen but then Westerings is doubling in size - the cynic in me would think we are all being hoodwinked until it is too late.
Where are all these new households going to find a doctor or dentist that isn't already at capacity?
How is the air quality in the district ever going to improve if we just add to the pollution by sitting on gridlocked roads for even longer?
Why doesn't the infrastructure that supports these developments ever come first? so that when people move in they instantly have access to these facilities/services rather than negatively impacting on existing facilities which in turn impacts on existing residents.
You are dividing communities NOT enhancing them with such developments - residents are angry and fed up of not being listened to about how development affects their lives and businesses.

On the "green" issue - why can't all new house be made to have solar panels?

The only option is a new town/village/settlement like Beaulieu Park in Chelmsford

We cannot keep trying to get a gallon into a pint pot.

Any new houses being considered must have appropriate infrastructure to support.
The roads in this area are already congested. Pedestrian crossing is required near the M&S store and better ingress and egress is needed.
Schools and local doctor surgeries would seem to be at capacity so these need attention.
Sewers and potential flood risk need proper review.
Much is spouted about air pollution so with more houses comes more cars etc.... so more pollution

I object to both the scale and nature of the outlined proposal as follows.

1 No matching funding for a supporting infrastructure.

2 No guarantees that Utilities can match extra demands.

3 No spare capacity within Health and Care Services.

4 No let up in the sacrifice of the green belt and air quality
.
5 No long term Legacy left for our future generations.

CUT THE TARGET NUMBERS TO NATURAL GROWTH LEVELS.

We feel that the majority of the indicated sites in Hullbridge/Rawreth area are Green Belt & are not sustainable for the following reasons:-
Climate Change Nationally
It is well known that the Government was initially due to set targets for moving to zero carbon housing in this country by the end of 2016. It is reasonable to expect that all new houses should have an obligation to be zero carbon from 2016 onwards. The main source of climate change is the emission of greenhouse gases. Almost half of the UK tonnage of carbon dioxide emissions were accounted for in energy use in buildings, and more than a quarter come from the energy we use to heat, light & run our homes and this does not include the massive amounts of emissions produced by manufacturers in the production of most of the current building materials.
A draft Planning Policy Statement was published on climate change which expects planning strategies to be examined in providing for new homes and it expects that all Local Planning Authorities should have an input in delivering the Governments climate change programme in facilitating any provision of new homes and infrastructure. The subject of housing supply needs to be looked at alongside the reduction of carbon emissions, surely the best way of reducing these emissions in 2018 is to limit the number of new houses being built and not by increasing the numbers every year.

We feel that the indicated sites in Hullbridge/Rawreth area are mainly Green Belt and are not sustainable for the following reasons:-
The NPPF states that developments should be directed away from areas of high risk of flooding, with any new developments not to be allocated if there are reasonable available sites appropriate for any proposed development in areas with a lower probability of flooding.
Where development is necessary, it should be made safe without increasing levels of flood risk elsewhere. South Essex Surface Water Management Plan statement includes consideration of flooding from sewers, drains, groundwater & s.w. runoff from land, small watercourses & ditches that occurs as a result of heavy
rainfall. None of this was taken into account by RDC in the proposed development at Malyons in Hullbridge, the southern end of which is in the flood plain and should therefore not be built on especially when calculated for a minimum of 1 in 1 year annual probability storm, together with the amount of additional surface water runoff due to the extra impermeable surfaces from any proposed developments which would inevitably add to the volume of water to be dealt with, especially as DEFRA have now bottled out of introducing Sustainable Drainage Systems SuDS as compulsory legislation. Essex Constabulary have records which show Watery Lane in Hullbridge was flooded 25 times in 5 years, average 5 times per year causing Watery Lane to be closed for 13 weeks continuously.

We feel that the majority of the indicated sites in Hullbridge/Rawreth area are Green Belt & are not sustainable for the following reasons:-
In connection with Landscape & Historic Environment the NPPF states that local Authority planning system should recognise that heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource and should preserve them in a manner appropriate to their significance. This was totally ignored for the proposed Malyons development which strides Hullbridge & Rawreth. As stated in the Archaeological Assessment for this proposed development the Local Authority's archaeological advisor at Essex County Council noted that the historic field boundaries within the site comprise undesignated heritage assets of local significance and recommended that the orientation and preservation of these historic boundaries should be encouraged within the detail of the development proposals, this does not appear to have been incorporated within the proposed scheme especially the Ward Boundary between Rawreth & Hullbridge.
The submitted Map A for the local Hullbridge area shows sites CFS006, CFS138, CFS149, CFS099, GY01 and GY02 but these are not located in Hullbridge Parish but are actually in Rawreth Parish and that part of CFS138 is already included in the approved Malyons site.

We feel that the majority of the sites in Hullbridge/Rawreth are Green Belt and are not sustainable for the following reasons.
In connection with local environmental quality, RDC are supposedly prioritising the reuse of previously developed land and should include policies to reduce impacts on air quality, protect water quality & water resources and reduce flood risk.
RDC were informed of 11 Brownfield sites that were available locally in Hullbridge prior to the release of Malyons site for development, but these were totally ignored. Although it has been put forward that Rochford District has lower per capita transport emissions when compared to Essex as a whole, BBC Look East recently reported that dangerous levels of nitrous oxide caused by diesel fumes are being found in the Rayleigh and surrounding areas.
In a recent national news report it stated that record amounts of carbon dioxide have been recorded in 2017 and is on the rise, this has been the highest in the last 4 years. So why are RDC contemplating building more and more houses on Green Belt land creating more emissions and more traffic, adding to this major problem. Transport Assessments, including an assessment of air quality, should accompany any proposal to develop any future sites for development. This must examine the additional transport impacts that any developments will generate. The development of any future sites should contribute towards improvements to the highway network to facilitate movement along any part of the network. Again, as stated on a BBC local TV programme 'Inside Out' on 22 January 2018 Southend drivers spend 30 hours per year in rush hour traffic jams, the highest in our region. The second highest being Chelmsford at 23 hours per year. RDC now want to make our area even more congested when it is extremely doubtful that ECC will make any road improvements just like with the previous housing increase.

We feel that the majority of the indicated sites are Green Belt and are not sustainable for the following reasons:-
Population & Communities.
Nationally Local Authorities should/must ensure that there is a sufficient choice of school places which is of great importance.
Yet recently at a RDC local workshop meeting held in Hullbridge it was pointed out that although the local primary school had a few available places these children would eventually have to attend the surrounding secondary schools which have all confirmed that they are over subscribed, but according to an RDC representative, because these schools are not actually located in Hullbridge this is not an issue, which is totally unacceptable. Recently we are now being informed that many schools are now cutting back on certain topics from their curriculum because of a lack of specialist staff, other schools are now also considering shortening the school week due to budget cuts for the number of students that need to be catered for. Therefore agreeing to more substantial developments is not going to ease this situation.
Safety
Rochford is maintaining that it has a relatively low crime rate and is one of the lowest in Essex. At a recent meeting with the Police at the Rochford Parish Rooms on 15 December 2016 the majority of the large number of the public who attended all had the same complaint which was that most crimes are not being reported due to the fact that there is hardly any or no response from the police, who stated due to cutbacks there are only 6 community police officers available to cover the whole of Rochford and Castle Point including Canvey Island. So the statement made by Rochford cannot be taken seriously.

We feel that although a very few of the indicated sites in Hullbridge/ Rawreth area are Brownfield the majority are Green Belt and are not sustainable for the following reasons:-
In connection with the Green Belt the proposed 30% increase in housing for RDC can only be achieved by sacrificing Green Belt as the call for sites maps illustrate. The Government has stated that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open, the essential characteristics of Green Belt are their openness and their permanence. The majority of this district's land mass is designated as Green Belt land and should only be released under exceptional circumstances. When we recently asked a RDC Planning Officer what is meant by exceptional circumstances he confirmed that this has not been defined.
The Green Belt is supposed to serve five purposes
1. To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas.
2. To prevent neighbouring towns/villages merging into one.
3. To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.
4. To preserve the setting & special character of historic
towns/villages.
5. To assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of
derelict and other urban land.
RDC have released large areas of Green Belt for development all over this district including Hall Rd. Rochford, Xmas Tree Farm Hawkwell, Mushroom Farm Folly Lane, Bullwood Hall Rayleigh, Hockley Rd. Rayleigh, London Rd. Rayleigh & Malyons Farm Hullbridge. Yet, as previously mentioned, all Brownfield sites are being ignored.
In connection with the proposed new Local Plan, the submitted Map A for the local Hullbridge area shows the majority of the proposed larger sites are Green Belt with the exception of a proportion of CFS 100 Brownfield Site being a lorry/heavy goods breakers yard, formerly a car breakers yard, which is obviously a highly contaminated site. Sites CFS006, CFS138, CFS149, CFS099, GY01 & GY02 are not in Hullbridge Parish but are actually in Rawreth Parish but if developed will obviously still use all the facilities in Hullbridge including the Riverside Surgery which is already overstretched. These sites will also require access off the narrow, weight restricted Watery Lane/Beeches Road, and will merge the villages of Rawreth & Hullbridge CFS is 50% in the flood plain. CFS151 will require access off an existing single track in Long Lane and CFS120, CFS026, CFS107, CFS106, CFS110, CFS108 & CFS109 will require access of an unmade single track in Kinsway, all of which will require a major upgrade to provide the required road widths including footpaths/cycle ways as recommended by the Essex Design Guide Highway Standards.

With regard to the proposed new Local Plan, the submitted Map A for the local Hullbridge area shows the majority of the proposed larger sites are in the Green Belt with the exception of a portion of CFS100 Brownfield Site being a lorry/heavy goods breakers yard, formerly a car breakers yard, which is obviously now a highly contaminated site.
Sites CFS006, CFS138, CFS149, CFS099, GY01 and GY02 are not located in Hullbridge Parish but are actually in Rawreth Parish but will obviously still use all the facilities in Hullbridge including the Riverside Surgery which is already overstretched. These sites will obviously require access off the existing narrow, weight restricted Watery Lane/Beeches Road, and will merge the villages of Rawreth and Hullbridge. CFS015 has 50% of the site in the flood plain.
CFS151 will require access off the existing single track in Long Lane and CFS120, CFS 026, CFS107, CFS106, CFS110, CFS108 & CFS109 will require access off the unmade single track in Kingsway, all of which will require a major upgrade to provide the required road widths including footpaths/cycle ways as recommended by the Essex Design Guide Highway Standards.

We feel that the majority of the indicated sites are Green Belt and are not sustainable for the following reasons:-
In connection with health of the community the NPPF states that health and well being & health infrastructure should be considered in any Local Plan and also the NPPG states that local Planning Authorities should ensure that the health and well being, including health infrastructure are considered in local and neighbourhood plans and in planning decision making.
But once again this has already been totally ignored by RDC especially in connection with the proposed Rawreth/Hullbridge sites. On the western side of the Hullbridge site on the boundary between Rawreth/Hullbridge sites next to CFS149, approximately in the centre there are three existing Telecommunication Masts together with an additional mast at the rear of site CFS100.
According to the Guide to Mobile Phone Masts, independent scientists and doctors, these are a major health hazard. Cancer clusters have been found around Mobile Phone Masts up to 400m from a mast, which in these cases would encompass the majority of any proposed dwellings around these sites. People living near each other and close to a mast have ended up with rare cancers at nearly the same time as each other. This has already been the case in Devon, Lincolnshire & Staffordshire. Many doctors are now so concerned that they have all signed a petition to demand that the Government take these health concerns over Mobile Phone Masts seriously.
In connection with key health issues, forecasts suggest that the number of people aged over 85 in the district will increase in the future. An ageing and additional population has the potential to increase pressures on healthcare services in the district. We do not agree that any future developments will not result in increased pressure on existing primary healthcare these need to be fully addressed not just by developers making financial contributions, which are totally inadequate, and which in its self does not solve the shortage of doctors, nurses, dentists. hospital beds and appointment waiting times. Actions are required by RDC to address any negative impacts identified through the Health Impact Assessment before any possible development site is put forward in the Local Plan.

The Wakering corner of Essex is not ideal for more development and will exacerbate road congestion and emissions for residents and business all the way through to the main exits from Southend i.e A127/A13. Other areas are better communicated with rail stations and proximity to A13/A127 .Disagree with Green Belt being released and new development will exacerbate flood risk in surrounding neighbourhoods. How will the extra infrastructure and services be funded? Current residents should not have to fund, via tax, infrastructure and services that they did not require. What about the inevitable disruption/inconvenience caused during development

I would like to object to the proposals in RDC issues and options document(and draft sustainability appraisal) regarding the proposed developments reference CFS024. I have been a Hockley resident for the past fifteen years and in that time the area has become significantly congested. I commute on a daily basis to Basildon and the routes in and around Hockley are unworkable. We have seen many sites with one property demolished only to be redeveloped to accommodate several more. Both the infrastructure and community services cannot cope with the continuing demand.

The plan will be unsustainable within the current infrastructure. The roads, schools and medical facilities in Rochford District are already at bursting point and adding another 4000 additional houses to those already approved will not help. What happened to the proposed school and surgery at the Hall Road development ? The developers seem to be able to get away from their responsibilities all to easily. Only if ECC come up with the additional infrastructure is this remotely viable.

OBJECT: CFS024 MAP G, 119. I wish to express my concerns over this area being considered for development. The animals/birds that inhabit the nature reserve spill over into the land and in the summer bats are seen. Development would have a drastic effect on wildlife. There is a prospect of flooding, in heavy rain my garage gets flooded and the woodland is a natural soakaway. Access to the site is limited, this could cause traffic problems and disruption with heavy vehicles in a confined area. Please consider the impact of the development on wildlife and residents of the area.

Site Ref: CFS099 : CFS138; CFS149; GY01;GY02 ;CFS033 CFS101;CFS151; CFS128; CFS100

Objections:

1. The developments will change the village into a town which the local inhabitants vehemently object to. The population of the village will double .

2.The local roads will become gridlocked, each new dwelling will have on average 2 vehicles, so approximately 3,000 new dwellings will equal an extra 6,000 vehicles and will give an overall total of 22,000 vehicles which will completely overwhelm this local area.All current unadopted roads in Hullbridge (most roads off Ferry Road)will become not fit for purpose once drivers start trying to avoid the congestion,(Burnham road for a start)

3.Schools- With the massive increase in the Hullbridge population the current schools cannot possibly cope. There is no plans that we are aware of to build any new schools and this should be part of the planning.Anyone that thinks this is not a requirement shouldn't be involved in planning.

4.Hospitals and Doctors -Southend and Basildon hospitals already at maximum capacity and cannot cope and we wait on average 3 days to book a doctors appointment .Therefor with a likeihood of an additional 10,000 new patients how can this possibly be accommodated in the current structure.

5,Flooding and flood plain.This has been mentioned time and time again but to no avail.Basically all rain water congregates towards Watery lane.North from middle of Hullbridge at Malyons lane,
South from the railway lines through the golf course,East from Coventry Hill,and West is slightly downhill from Battlesbridge. This coupled with the fact that the Watery lane is considerably lower than the fields on both sides is in my opinion road flooding waiting to happen.The ground will no longer be able to soak up the water once concrete driveways are built so watery lane will always be flooding after heavy rain .
the whole concept of all this planning has had no real thought process its just been a matter of 'well we have been told by central government to build a certain number of houses over the next 5 to 10 years so tha'ts what the Rochford Council are going to do whatever anyone says.

Site Ref: CFS099 : CFS138; CFS149; GY01;GY02 ;CFS033 CFS101;CFS151; CFS128; CFS100

Objections:

1. The developments will change the village into a town which the local inhabitants vehemently object to. The population of the village will double .

2.The local roads will become gridlocked, each new dwelling will have on average 2 vehicles, so approximately 3,000 new dwellings will equal an extra 6,000 vehicles and will give an overall total of 22,000 vehicles which will completely overwhelm this local area.All current unadopted roads in Hullbridge (most roads off Ferry Road)will become not fit for purpose once drivers start trying to avoid the congestion,(Burnham road for a start)

3.Schools- With the massive increase in the Hullbridge population the current schools cannot possibly
cope.There is no plans that we are aware of to build any new schools and this should be part of the planning.Anyone that thinks this is not a requirement shouldn't be involved in planning.

4.Hospitals and Doctors -Southend and Basildon hospitals already at maximum capacity and cannot cope and we wait on average 3 days to book a doctors appointment .Therefor with a likeihood of an additional 10,000 new patients how can this possibly be accommodated in the current structure.

5,Flooding and flood plain.This has been mentioned time and time again but to no avail.Basically all rain water congregates towards Watery lane.North from middle of Hullbridge at Malyons lane,
South from the railway lines through the golf course,East from Coventry Hill,and West is slightly downhill from Battlesbridge. This coupled with the fact that the Watery lane is considerably lower than the fields on both sides is in my opinion road flooding waiting to happen.The ground will no longer be able to soak up the water once concrete driveways are built so watery lane will always be flooding after heavy rain .
the whole concept of all this planning has had no real thought process its just been a matter of 'well we have been told by central government to build a certain number of houses over the next 5 to 10 years so that's what the Rochford Council are going to do whatever anyone says.

I find some of the site assessments are a little on the optimistic side. CFS065 is listed as good and not in a flood zone. I can assure you the south-east corner of this site is in flood zone 2, floods after heavy rain and is over 800m from public transport (unless you include school day only bus and the hourly Sunday service). CFS056 is served by the same public transport but is designated as poor. CFS034 is designated as transport medium and is even further away.

Sites as proposed in land availability 2017 document will totally overwhelm the now village which will move towards town status with plans for expansion already in force. Roads within village, many are single track and un-adopted, cost to upgrade should not be borne by residents. Current road structure to the village not of sufficient standard to support what is already a "rat run" from Chelmsford area to Southend. Services are stretched before current expansion started. "Green Belt" should remain until all other options have been explored such as brownfield sites and land being held by organisations with intent to profit

Sites as proposed in land availability 2017 document will totally overwhelm the now village which will move towards town status with plans for expansion already in force. Roads within village, many are single track and un-adopted, cost to upgrade should not be borne by residents. Current road structure to the village not of sufficient standard to support what is already a "rat run" from Chelmsford area to Southend. Services are stretched before current expansion started. "Green Belt" should remain until all other options have been explored such as brownfield sites and land being held by organisations with intent to profit

A 27% increase in new housing is unsustainable for a community that is currently struggling with doctor's appointments, school admissions and high volumes of traffic on most of our roads. Green Belt, should stay as such in order to preserve the countryside and it's rare and often unique wildlife, for future generations.

Ref.Future Housing Development,Great Wakering Map Q. Site Ref.NOs CFS070 plus all other sites.
Already there will be 400 new homes in the Wakerings Star lane,south of high street and Little Wakering' already allocated.That means 400 plus cars,400 plus school children.How can the "Village" sustain any more influx with already limited infrastructure possibly cope.Do you not think Wakering has enough new builds.I have lived here for over 45 years it seems a pity what the Rochford Council are doing to our Village.It seems whatever local people say has little effect to to the outcome!

Mr.Colin Lowe

I am objecting to any further plans to increase building in the village of Great Wakering in general. The areas that have been given up as land for development is "green belt" and the residents of Great Wakering chose to live here to enjoy village life in a "green belt" area. The infrastructure is not in place now and the cost to provide sufficient infrastructure would be phenomenal ie. roads, medical surgeries, sewerage pipes, etc. Most of the land designated is arable farm land which is also precious for growing our food.

I strongly object to more housing being build around Hullbridge and boarder with Rawreth. Residents have chosen to live in Hullbridge because it is still a village. New housing estates callously ignores residents wishes. Our roads are not capable of sustaining more traffic due to weight restrictions. Flooding happens regularly where Watery Lane meets Hullbridge Road. Commuter and school runs traffic causes major road congestion - it is often difficult to drive out/into the village at these times. With the uncalled for development at Maylons it will impossible to drive at anytime - Maylons and NO MORE keep the GREEN BELT. It seems that the wishes of Hullbridge residents are and have been ignored by Rochford District Council. Just follow government blindly - no backbone to say NO! That is not leadership that is foolhardy arse-wiping!

I have commented on specific parts of the document but wish to also comment on the document as a whole. I would state that I live in a small development of 4 houses built on land previously belonging to 3 houses at the rear. This was objected to by local residents due to further traffic created down the cul de sac and the loss of part of a small communal green.

There is a need for further housing in our district as in other parts of the County and the Country. However this should be primarily provided for children of residents of the area and not an overspill from London. The overspill from London needs to be provided for separately by the provision of further new towns with the required infrastructure to create these as happened in the 1960s with the creation of Basildon and the 1980's with South Woodham Ferrers.

The housing need in the district should be met as much as possible by smaller infill sites, use of vacant brownfield sites rather than allocating greenbelt for development. If larger sites are created the improvements to local roads needs to be made in order to cope with the increased traffic. By stopping traffic being at a standstill it will lessen the pollution effect which is already too high in the area. 7500 extra dwellings means at at least 7,500 - 15,000 more cars and other vehicles. This increase in traffic is not viable on the roads we currently have in the district.

There is a serious shortfall in funding for road and infrastructure projects due the governments austerity measures. The planned road works for the Fairglen interchange are not scheduled to be started for another year and full completion is expected to take several years.

Other forms of transport - I commute from Rayleigh to Southend by car. Whilst I can get to work by bus or train if needed it is not practical on a daily basis as I do need to make home visits to clients and I often work late when the buses are less frequent. I work 6 miles from home and would only consider cycling if there was a fully separate cycle path meaning I did not need to cycle on the roads as with the amount of traffic I would not feel safe cycling on Eastwood Road. I am in walking distance of Rayleigh high street and therefore generally have no need to drive there but this means I can only carry limited shopping and I drive to do my main food shop out of town but this is partly due to the cost of doing a weekly shop at M & S.

Other services - Schools are not an issue for me personally but I understand some in the area are oversubscribed. Medical services are also a breaking point, part of the issue being lack of GP's but the other part being oversubscription of surgeries. These issues are inadequately addressed in the plan.

As outlined above I object to large scale developments with in the RDC area that have no corresponding infrastructure and service improvements. I therefore support the proposal made by Rayleigh Action Group:

To call for a scheme to build a new Garden City on the Dengie Peninsular with a road and rail bridge over the River Crouch linking Southend to the north of the county. Links could be provided to provide further development in future. This would help to preserve the semi-rural nature of South East Essex and prevent the total URBANISATION of our part of Essex. They could call on the new proposed Infrastructure Policy, announced recently by the the Government, to help fund the roads and bridge.

Members of Parliament representing constituencies along the Cambridge to Oxford corridor and those serving Kent constituencies have secured such funding for Garden Cities with all the necessary infrastructure, roads, hospital, schools etc. This is in order to protect their residents.

I would suggest this type of scheme to be more appropriate to meet our housing needs over the next 2 decades rather than keep expanding and expanding on what we already have and pushing our roads and services further past their breaking point.