Delivering Homes and Jobs

Firstly, it is not clear where I am supposed to submit comments on www.rochford.gov.uk/iao, therefore I am submitting this by email.

It is my understanding that you want to build 10,000 homes in the Rochford district over the course of the coming years.

I understand that developers are supposed to pay a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) that is supposed to be used to pay for infrastructure upgrades to support the increase in population, however, it is evident that this is not happening. Referencing the recent developments off of Brays Lane and Hall Road, the only infrastructure "upgrades" I can see are the addition of roundabouts. An infrastructure upgrade should bring an improvement. In the case of road infrastructure, the improvement should improve the flow of traffic. These roundabouts may help the residents of these housing estates, but that is it. For everyone else, they cause more delay.

In my relatively short time living in the area, traffic congestion has increased massively, not helped by ridiculous design decisions like removing the filter off the roundabout by Tesco (A127). You should be putting in more filters, not removing them! You've recently played around with the mini-roundabout adjacent to the railway bridge next to Rochford station. What did this achieve? You need "bite the bullet" and widen the bridge. Yes, it will cost a lot of money, but this is exactly what the CIL should pay for.

Where are all these people going to be working?
Assuming London, then one can assume the majority will travel by rail. Therefore, how are Greater Anglia going to manage the increase in passenger numbers? Under the current signalling system, trains are already running over-capacity. How will your local plan help Greater Anglia cope? Are you making sure Great Anglia's new rolling stock will be compatible with the new, automated signalling system when it come in? (this will greatly increase the number of trains able to run on the line).

Assuming nearby towns, it regularly takes an hour to do the 4 mile journey from Rayleigh to Hockley in peak times. Getting into Southend is just as bad. Trying to cross The Weir is a nightmare any time of day. This will only get worse, unless you make significant upgrades.

Does your local plan include provision for expansion to the hospital and an increase in doctor' surgeries?
Does your local plan include provision for new schools? All schools must have a suitable drop-off pick-up road system, away from the public highway that does not affect traffic flows. If there isn't local provision, then parents must be forced to pack their children up on a bus or remote locations sort, linked to the school by a tunnel or bridge.

I have also heard that you are letting the London Borough of Haringey build homes in the district. This is not viable and MUST BE STOPPED IMMEDIATELY.

Considering the massive profits these developers make, you need to adjust the CIL to reflect the true cost of all infrastructure upgrades and make sure these funds are directed towards infrastructure improvements. Improvements that help everyone, not just the new home owners. 100% of the funds should come from the CIL; the developers pockets, and not my (already unfair and extortionate) council tax.


Many thanks,

Further to the letter received marking out sites being considered for possible development in the vicinity of The Drive, Rayleigh, I would like to make the following corrections. Firstly the property stated as Dunsmure, the Drive, was registered as 'Touchwood', The Drive in 1993, as was the Plot CFS089, (land to the north of Eastwood Road, east of The Drive, south of Warwick Road).

Also, in support of the unsuitability of the suggested sites for development, I whole heartedly oppose any such plans as it is unsuitable for vehicles, has poor access, no mains sewage and is a no through road that is liable to flooding. Moreover the areas marked are wonderful natural habitats for wildlife, something that is disappearing at an alarming rate in this congested corner of the county. Access in and out of Rayleigh is already gridlocked - further housing will only exacerbate this serious issue further.

CFS 127 EASTWOOD NURSERIES OFF BARTLETTS SS67LN

While I understand & support the need for areas to be developed for additional housing the above area adjacent to where I live in Bartletts is my opinion is unsuitable for
the following reasons :

1. This area which the Prittelewell Brook runs through flooded badly on 24/08/2013 as described in the Evening Echo newspaper dated 27/08/2013.

2. Access is a problem when turning right during busy periods. The top of Bartletts sits on the brow of a hill and there is a blind spot to oncoming traffic approaching from Eastwood.
My wife and I during busy periods can only turn left out the of the close during for safety reasons.

3. I have lived here for over 20 years and we always told by RDC that this area was sensitive green belt buffer zone dividing the Rayleigh area from the Eastwood/Southend
urban sprawl. i.e. If developed there will no green break, just continued housing development.

Further to my conversation with one of your planning officers at Hockley Fire Station on 16 Jan 2018, I write to highlight an error on the maps that have been published with the Local Plan Issues Options document.

The error concerns the land which you highlight in a hatched green colour located to the rear of 11 and 11a Hillside Avenue, Hawkwell, SS5 4NN.

I can assure you that there is no land suitable for development at that location.

I would therefore ask that in future maps this green hatching is removed to avoid any unnecessary confusion to local residents.

You are more than welcome to come and inspect this at anytime to satisfy yourselves that this is the case and if you would like to do so, please do not hesitate get in touch with me.

I will be putting in a submission to your consultation in due course but wanted to make you aware of this error so that it can be corrected.

To whom it may concern.
I would like to register my concern regarding the above Housing Land availability and in particular the proposed sites: CFS054 & 044, CFS127 & 009, CFS001 & 102, CFS048 & 068.
Some of these are large areas of green belt that fall in the protected Urban sprawl area and are already heavily built on on the surrounding areas. The sites also have a lack of proper access or already poor access. Also some of the sites are not only greenbelt but have a flood risk CFS054 , CFS044, CFS127.
Please can you advise of how to register a block on these proposed sites?

Apologies if this is the incorrect email address for this enquiry, could you please pass on as appropriate.

Can you please advise of the current classification for the land edged red. It is currently being used as garden but we may in the future be looking at the possibility of building on the land.

RDC has permitted ugly, shoddy housing in key locations in Hockley. Any new housing must have properly dug, drained and levelled land before it is built. All new housing, especially affordable housing, must have solid brick walls throughout; quality wooden doors throughout; high grade roof tiles and window frames; and truly good design and features.

The map shows a very large area proposed for housing around Hall Road and Stroud Green. This would wipe out far too much beautiful countryside. It might require residents to won cars to access amenities just when we should be reducing car ownership.

Please develop Eldon Way and other sites close to community centres, shops and stations so that residents can walk to what they need. All leisure facilities should be top quality and in town centres.

RDC New Local Plan (Rawreth & West Rayleigh Proposals)
Neither SER1, Rawreth Ind Estate and Michelin Farm (all previously approved for development) have progressed in any way. Therefore the predicted negative impacts of these large 'Projects' has yet to be realised by RDC or ECC.

The current potential additional over-development is quite clear via Call for Sites Maps; apart from the overall life changing impact on the area, the following are examples of why they should NOT be considered 'Preferred Options':-

Ref: CFS146/147 - Green Belt, Flood Risk, Pylons, Traffic issues.
Ref: CFS092/144/145 - Green Belt, Flood Risk, Traffic issues.
Ref: CFS005/055 - Green Belt, Pylons & Cables over.
Ref: CFS016/136/168 - Green Belt (traveller Site overloading).
Ref: GY03/04 & CFS152 - Green Belt (rewarding squatting!!).
Of the remaining 21 proposed sites all but 2 are Green Belt, the two previously used are -
Ref: CFS105 (car Storage area) served by a steep/narrow road (Hambro Hill) with rail bridge restrictions on height and width, and a likely site entrance located on a blind bend.
Ref: CFS137 (Defunct Nursery) - probably the only viable site but remote from Public Transport/School/Shopping and Services in general, typically lacking infrastructure.

Given more time (by 07/03/18) I will be submitting the same sort of summary into the Public Consultation covering the entire District as this Plan will be life changing for many, in the meantime:-

The scale of this exercise could double or treble the size of existing settlements which would completely change both the character/environment and history of such places, for example:-

Hullbridge (becomes another South Woodham Ferrers)
Great Wakering (surrounded - on Flood Plain?)
Rochford Town Centre (swamped and gridlocked)
Canewdon (overwhelmed by expansion with infrastructure)
The problematic B1013 road (unsovable for more loading)

Above all the Green Belt key objectives "to prevent urban sprawl and the coalescing of one settlement into another" -

Handed in to the Rayleigh 'Drop in' session Monday 15/01/18.

Outline Input to Planning Portfolio Holder: - Observations....

OAN - The existing and New Local Plan amount to a 30% increase on the existing 33,000 District homes, which will impact this semi-rural area significantly. The fact that only one third of the OAN relates to the 'local; nature growth requirements in favour of two-thirds for speculative migration & immigration - is disproportionate and constitutionally wrong.

The proof follows:-

RESTRAINTS -

1. The Principal Consultee (Essex County Council has published a report (AECOM-GIF 2016) that is quite clear in it's conclusions. The cumulative total, across the 13 Authorities that make up Essex, is 18,000 new homes - which cannot be matched by supporting Infrastructure funding. The shortfalls in Developer (s 106 & CIL) contributions and available Government funding amount to - £ multi-Billions.

2. The privately owned (and profit driven) UTILITY companies (water/gas/electric/telecom/waste) do not appear to have proven or committed to meeting additional demands. An example - the Essex & Suffolk Water Co (Water Management Report 2014) claims to be able to meet an extra 100,000 people demand by 2040 - that is only one third of the forecast number by 2037 (refer to the above mentioned ECC GIF Report).

3. Rochford District itself is predominantly Green Belt classified, a housing increase of 30% can only be achieved via breach of GB Legislation. This is clearly illustrated on the Call for Sites location Maps and is already happening within the existing Local Plan. The NPPF 'wriggle room' created by the "only in exceptional circumstances" phrase will be impossible to justify on over 200+ diverse sites being considered as Options.

4. The 10 years (so far) of Austerity Measures has already eroded Civic Amenity provisions, the RDC proposals to sacrifice further Civic Amenities is a measure of desperation. Car Parks and Care Homes are essential Civic Amenities, offering them up to meet speculative growth targets is morally wrong. Also we currently have all three 'local' Hospitals in so-called Black Measures/Police Stations closing and Care in the Community in crisis - are these the next to be abandoned?

5. The Sustainability Analysis tabled by RDC is not fit for purpose - it neither proves nor disproves if the 'Project' of 30% is SUSTAINABLE. It appears to be simply conforming with a series of headings dictated by the NPPF Policy guidelines - not even viability is in anyway proven. Provided by the same 'Consultant' used by ECC in 1) above it doesn't even reference or discuss the 11 Billion under funding of Road/Rail and £4.4 Billion shortfall in general Infrastructure. A clearly negative impact on the RDC ethos of - INFRASTRUCTURE FIRST!!!!!

A much more detailed input will follow via the current Public Consultation process from myself & others.

RDC New Local Plan (Rawreth & West Rayleigh Proposals)
Neither SER1, Rawreth Ind Estate and Michelin Farm (all previously approved for development) have progressed in any way. Therefore the predicted negative impacts of these large 'Projects' has yet to be realised by RDC or ECC.

The current potential additional over-development is quite clear via Call for Sites Maps; apart from the overall life changing impact on the area, the following are examples of why they should NOT be considered 'Preferred Options':-

Ref: CFS146/147 - Green Belt, Flood Risk, Pylons, Traffic issues.
Ref: CFS092/144/145 - Green Belt, Flood Risk, Traffic issues.
Ref: CFS005/055 - Green Belt, Pylons & Cables over.
Ref: CFS016/136/168 - Green Belt (traveller Site overloading).
Ref: GY03/04 & CFS152 - Green Belt (rewarding squatting!!).
Of the remaining 21 proposed sites all but 2 are Green Belt, the two previously used are -
Ref: CFS105 (car Storage area) served by a steep/narrow road (Hambro Hill) with rail bridge restrictions on height and width, and a likely site entrance located on a blind bend.
Ref: CFS137 (Defunct Nursery) - probably the only viable site but remote from Public Transport/School/Shopping and Services in general, typically lacking infrastructure.

Given more time (by 07/03/18) I will be submitting the same sort of summary into the Public Consultation covering the entire District as this Plan will be life changing for many, in the meantime:-

The scale of this exercise could double or treble the size of existing settlements which would completely change both the character/environment and history of such places, for example:-

Hullbridge (becomes another South Woodham Ferrers)
Great Wakering (surrounded - on Flood Plain?)
Rochford Town Centre (swamped and gridlocked)
Canewdon (overwhelmed by expansion with infrastructure)
The problematic B1013 road (unsovable for more loading)

Above all the Green Belt key objectives "to prevent urban sprawl and the coalescing of one settlement into another" -

Handed in to the Rayleigh 'Drop in' session Monday 15/01/18.

Outline Input to Planning Portfolio Holder: - Observations....

OAN - The existing and New Local Plan amount to a 30% increase on the existing 33,000 District homes, which will impact this semi-rural area significantly. The fact that only one third of the OAN relates to the 'local; nature growth requirements in favour of two-thirds for speculative migration & immigration - is disproportionate and constitutionally wrong.

The proof follows:-

RESTRAINTS -

1. The Principal Consultee (Essex County Council has published a report (AECOM-GIF 2016) that is quite clear in it's conclusions. The cumulative total, across the 13 Authorities that make up Essex, is 18,000 new homes - which cannot be matched by supporting Infrastructure funding. The shortfalls in Developer (s 106 & CIL) contributions and available Government funding amount to - £ multi-Billions.

2. The privately owned (and profit driven) UTILITY companies (water/gas/electric/telecom/waste) do not appear to have proven or committed to meeting additional demands. An example - the Essex & Suffolk Water Co (Water Management Report 2014) claims to be able to meet an extra 100,000 people demand by 2040 - that is only one third of the forecast number by 2037 (refer to the above mentioned ECC GIF Report).

3. Rochford District itself is predominantly Green Belt classified, a housing increase of 30% can only be achieved via breach of GB Legislation. This is clearly illustrated on the Call for Sites location Maps and is already happening within the existing Local Plan. The NPPF 'wriggle room' created by the "only in exceptional circumstances" phrase will be impossible to justify on over 200+ diverse sites being considered as Options.

4. The 10 years (so far) of Austerity Measures has already eroded Civic Amenity provisions, the RDC proposals to sacrifice further Civic Amenities is a measure of desperation. Car Parks and Care Homes are essential Civic Amenities, offering them up to meet speculative growth targets is morally wrong. Also we currently have all three 'local' Hospitals in so-called Black Measures/Police Stations closing and Care in the Community in crisis - are these the next to be abandoned?

5. The Sustainability Analysis tabled by RDC is not fit for purpose - it neither proves nor disproves if the 'Project' of 30% is SUSTAINABLE. It appears to be simply conforming with a series of headings dictated by the NPPF Policy guidelines - not even viability is in anyway proven. Provided by the same 'Consultant' used by ECC in 1) above it doesn't even reference or discuss the 11 Billion under funding of Road/Rail and £4.4 Billion shortfall in general Infrastructure. A clearly negative impact on the RDC ethos of - INFRASTRUCTURE FIRST!!!!!

A much more detailed input will follow via the current Public Consultation process from myself & others.

Please find below the comments from Hockley Parish Council relating to the Issues and Options Document.

1. Infrastructure: There is little provision for improvement which must be given priority as the district cannot sustain the existing level of development.
2. Affordable Housing: Insufficient affordable or suitable housing for first time buyers.
3. Empty Houses: These should be brought back into use before allowing more new development.
4. Air Pollution: There is evidence that this has reached a dangerous level in many local areas which will only increase with more traffic on already over-congested roads.
5. Local Services: Hospitals, doctors, social services schools etc are struggling and there is serious concern that further increases in housing and the proposed merger of hospitals in Southend, Basildon and Colchester will add to the pressures on both providers and communities.

We are horrified by the information contained in the Rochford District Residents newsletter regarding development of even more housing in the District.
Personally we do not believe that any further development should be allowed from Hill Lane as far as the horrific new development at Hall Road. Regardless of funding for infrastructure the roads just cannot cope with more traffic; the potholes and road markings and inadequate lighting make journeys between Hockley and Rochford - Southend a nightmare. People have no comprehension of others needing to get out of side roads - manners have gone out of the window and giving way is something few people understand.
The sites mentioned in the newsletter are all that is left of what was once a country road. I protested abut the cancellation of a GP's surgery and school on the new Hall Road estate only to be told that these provisions only have to be provided for a certain number of houses within one contract so the splitting of the contracts is just a way of getting through hoops. It is inevitable that the greed of builders will create exactly the same problem in the proposed sites.
To add to this the forms of travel, i.e. buses and trains are totally inadequate. The buses often run only hourly at certain times of the day and the reliability of the train service into and from Liverpool Street is so bad people are travelling to stations on the Fenchurch Street in to try to get over the problems. The construction of Cross Rail means there is no straight through service at weekends and i doubt this will improve after completion.

Ashingdon Road is also overrun with houses at present and the side roads are inadequate to cope with traffic and parking.

In Briar Close an extension has been allowed to rebuilt meaning there is inadequate parking for the residents who own two vans and two cars. On the new development on the Lentern Aircraft site, cars are already parked on the road which means there must be inadequate parking granted for this development.

Our dissatisfaction with the changes in this area are overwhelming and bearing in mind the level of Council Tax paid to you, we find it unbelievable that these things should be considered.

I have read with dismay the proposals for possibly 7,500 new houses to be built in and around the Rochford area. I assume that the criteria for the purchase of these new homes is as follows. 1. You are not able to own a car because the surrounding roads are unable to cope sometimes with the amount of traffic already using them. 2. You cannot be a parent of a child still at school age as the local schools are struggling to deal with the number of children they already have. 3. Your health must be extremely good with no existing ill health issues as the local G.P's cannot cope with the numbers of patients they already have. Yours sincerely

I am writing to express my concerns after reading about the proposed building of an additional 7,500 new homes across the district. I cannot see how the area can cope with any more. The roads are in a poor condition. Potholes on many of the main roads. The main road through Hockley has had two burst water mains in the last six months causing chaos to the roads. It was not intended for heavy goods lorries to pass through either and quite often we have a situation where they cannot pass under the railway bridge.

Traffic is a big problem. Congestion both through the town into Rayleigh and the other direction towards Ashingdon. We regularly have to put up with temporary traffic lights for maintenance that compounds this problem further. Some Saturdays you can queue in traffic from the top of the hill at aldermans hill near Bullwood Hall down to the Hockley Spa roundabout. At rush hour and peak times traffic is crawling all along this road and through the Hockley high street from the station. The route from Hockley to Rayleigh should only take 10 mins with flowing traffic but more often than not it is three times this amount.

My children attend Plumberow primary academy. This is a large 3 form school already. It would not be able to take additional pupils. We walk to school but many children that attend the school live out of catchment and have to drive to school causing problems with parking at both entrances to the school as well as increases the traffic situation. I understand similar problems are experienced at Hockley primary and Westerings school.

I have also heard people complaining about how hard it is to get a doctors appointment because they are busy. Could they cope with additional patients? The high demand on the Southend a&e and hospital is worrying at present without additional local population adding to this.

In summary I am concerned that you are considering further homes in this area. I appreciate the pressures you have from government but additional homes in this area will not be the solution, only causes other problems. I therefore urge you to reconsider this area.

Whilst accepting the need for more housing all over the UK I am staggered to see the extent of potential development within Rayleigh bearing in mind the current state of its infrastructure.
Traffic jams at all times of the day have become the norm and with the potential increase of 7500 additional houses ( and an estimated 10,000 plus additional vehicles ) the future looks pretty bleak without a major overall of our local highways . I see no plans for additional roads/routes in or around Rayleigh.
I live at 49 Connaught Road, this road has Sewage tankers up and down it on a daily basis and is in a sorry state. We already have issues with double parking on this road plus the dental practice at the junction with Eastwood Road where parking is haphazard and dangerous at times. An increase in housing here will result in chaos unless some alternative route onto the Eastwood Road is planned for the developments cfs047,089,003,014,102,001,009,127. How is the increase in traffic from these options intended to access the Eastwood Road ? Check out the length of traffic queues on the Eastwood Road at the junctions with Progress Road and Rayleigh High street not to mention the tail backs at Rayleigh Weir and the A129 underpass.
The plot of land opposite my house has had at least 2 planning applications turned down in recent years but is now in your long term plan for development , has something changed ? I notice he has spent a considerable amount of time and expense recently clearing his land - is he aware that this is a done deal ?
Is there a plan to build more primary and secondary schools, hospitals , doctors surgeries ?
I understand this is a 20 year plan but I see no concrete proposals on how such an increase in the number of houses is to be supported by local infrastructure
Incidentally I attended the session at the WI in Rayleigh and left my email address but as of today no contact so I have joined your mailing list myself !

Looking at the map of areas being considered for possible development around the Hullbridge village we question the suitability of area CFS099, land west of Hullbridge. Unless this site is separated in some way from the existing village then access to Ferry Rd. and all the amenities will be through unadopted roads which have to be maintained by local residents. The alternative will be through the Malyons Farm site, which from the drawings we've seen, doesn't show a road substantial enough to carry large amounts of traffic. Sites CFS149 And CFS006, also west of Hullbridge, would both have to be accessed via Watery Lane or the Malyons farm site.

Sites CFS033 and CFS101 have only one access through Pooles Lane which is extremely narrow at the community centre, where, being on a narrow blind bend the risk of accidents will increase. As a walk leader for the council run "walking for health" group, I, Mr. Bowley, am always anxious for the safety of the walkers at this part of Pooles Lane as the path is narrow and cars get very close to pedestrians. Traffic from both these sites will have to pass the Hullbridge infants and junior school in Ferry Rd.

Access into and out of site CFS015,adjacent to Hullbridge Rd. and Lower Rd., will have a major impact on traffic movement. We understand there are plans to modify the junction with Watery Lane/Lower Road/Hullbridge Road with an additional roundabout to create easier access into the Malyons farm site. Traffic on this particular stretch of road is already heavy with queues often backed up beyond Hullbridge towards Ashingdon and Hockley and along Hullbridge Road and Watery Lane at peak periods. If any of the sites CFS128,CFS151,CFS100,CFS041 or CFS042,to the east of Hullbridge, were to be developed the pressure on the Ferry Rd./Lower Rd. junction plus the junction at Watery Lane would no doubt be regularly gridlocked at peak times. Lower Road is being used by drivers from further east of Hullbridge to gain access to the north and west of the county and is considered a more direct route as opposed to Hockley Road and Rawreth Lane in an attempt to bypass traffic on the A127. Since the building of sites elsewhere in the area there has already been a huge increase in traffic through Lower Road. Further development within the peninsula will make matters worse and the drop in air quality which is already detectable will deteriorate even further.

The question being asked by many Hullbridge residents is whether our doctors surgery and our local school will be able to cope with the population increase caused by the Malyons farm development, not forgetting the fact that Hullbridge has no senior school and the Schools in Rayleigh are oversubscribed with parents having to send their children outside their catchment area . Even Mark Francois MP has had to get involved(Evening Echo December 18th 2017).

My wife and I attended the meeting held 17th November where literature was available concerning future development. We were amazed by the way that finance is meant to be sourced (through rose tinted glasses). Given the current financial crisis, cut backs across the whole spectrum of government and developer's lust for profit, any infrastructural back up for further housing appears unlikely. Section 106 appears to be a magic wand.

The current population of Hullbridge and probably the rest of Rochford district has a large percentage of elderly people, of which we are both part, will not live forever and the houses we currently occupy will become available. Has this factor been taken into account? It won't help the immediate shortage of housing but then again neither is the current strategy of building large houses which are unaffordable. For the benefit of future generations why not build smaller homes which are affordable either to rent or buy, taking up less land and not using as much green belt. Could Rochford District Council NOT build as many large houses and allow the younger generation progress from affordable starter homes to houses which are currently being occupied by a decaying elderly population.

Both my wife and I are new residents in the Rochford district living now in Canewdon View Road for the past 2 months.

We lived for 29 years in the same house under Barking and Dagenham Council. In the last 5 years of living there we experienced a huge increase in number of affordable housing along with an influx of ethnic minorities flooding our area. There was a marked deterioration in the cleanliness of our road along with an increase in abandoned vehicles along with persons running car businesses from their houses. There was never anywhere to park even outside our own property.

After much deliberation we decided to move to Rochford for a better quality of life only to discover today that the local council are now contemplating the introduction of the same set of circumstances that we left at our previous residence.

Whilst I can appreciate the need for diversity within the borough I must emphasise that an increase in the population with the diversity that it brings, will change the feel of the area and commence a drain on all essential infrastructure and resources that is necessary to support the proposed plans.

I don't want to see the same issues I left in Dagenham following me to a Rochford therefore I vehemently objective to the proposed plans to introduce more housing around Oxford Road, Nelson Road and Brays Lane.

I would request that the council do not bow to government pressure to introduce this housing and that the council take my concerns into account before signing off these plans.

I've read the documentation linked to the New Local Plan: Issues and Options Document 2017 and put together some feedback which I hope will be considered.

Undefined Core Wording

Throughout the document there are words and terms used without any definition or measurement of success linked to them. These terms are often used in official Government documents such as this and it is important, yet seemingly always forgotten, to set definitions ensuring all stakeholders understand and agree.

Most proposal documents, across the public and private sectors, contain modern and popular buzzwords, words that we (the general public) positively associate but are technically meaningless unless they are undefined.

Examples of words used throughout the proposal but with no detail are:

Sufficient - This would imply that we understand the current requirements for housing. How many are needed to meet demand now? If we don't know what we need now then how can we possibly project what is needed in the future?

High Quality - A very subjective term. My idea of high quality is Next, another person might say Harrods. I'd suggest that the definition should be new properties meeting home for life requirements and achieving an EPC rating of at least B.

Sustainable - A well used word throughout the document but are we talking sustainable from an infrastructure, environmental or building perspective, or a.n.other or a combination of all? We, the public, associate the word 'sustainable' very positively but it's use is generally (I've tried to think of another word other than this but) pointless.

Affordable - As a district, as a county and as a country we need to put a suitable, understood and publicly agreed definition of "affordable". We are traditionally a nation of homeowners and yet the perceived benchmark of property affordability is generally based on a fixed percentage less than the market rental value. I've spoken to hundreds of people across the broadest spectrum of society regarding this and I have a proposal:

1 Bedroom
5 x the average salary for the County or Country, with a 20% deposit

2 Bedroom
(5 x the average salary) + (2.5 x the average salary) with a 20% deposit.

3 Bedroom
(5 x the average salary) + (5 x the average salary) with a 20% deposit

Schemes such as Shared Ownership and Help to Buy simply cover over the affordability issue and saddle the applicants with a level of debt that would not normally have been able to achieve. I don't think we can consider the burden of debt to be "affordable".

Strategic Goals

Broad strategic goals by themselves are, again, pointless. Every strategic goal should be accompanied by a benchmark of success so that the public can understand what we mean by it and how we will judge our success.

Successful private companies use similar language in setting goals but they are (or should be) accompanied by a section around "this is our agreed definition of success" per objective. This simple addition allows all who read the proposal to understand the vision of those charged with delivering it. We can then agree or disagree on those goals but it would be from a position of knowledge, not a broad and undefined thought put down on paper.

Examples below:

Encouraging walking, cycling and the use of passenger and public transport - How? We can't even secure a regular bus service to existing communities (the number 8 bus route through Hawkwell being an example, not a remote area). There are a number of existing paths that I know of within the district that cannot fit 2 people walking side by side let alone pushchairs, mobility scooters etc. From the perspective of the public this "objective" is worthless. You could achieve this objective by building dedicated walking and cycle links (which would be fantastic) but you could also solve this by putting up a single poster highlighting the health benefits of walking. Both examples would be a tick against the objective but only one would be truly valued.

Proportionate and suitable infrastructure - Every public department, from District Council to the NHS to central Government, uses this phrase and it is never defined because it requires confirmation of additional factors. I consider myself to be an informed member of the electorate but I couldn't even begin to describe what I think this means within this document and yet it is a document meant for public review and feedback.

Attracting and retaining businesses to provide local employment opportunities - A fantastic sentence but the demise of the traditional High Street is a testament to how this cannot be controlled by local Government. It is private landlords who own the properties within High Street locations and their vision is, for the most part, short sighted financial gain.

General Comment

We currently have a target to deliver 250 new homes per year, a target that has been achieved only twice in 10 years, and the solution to this is to agree another plan with a new target of 331 homes per year??

My View

* Define "affordable"! How many generations are we going to leave in the rental sector because home ownership in unattainable without being burdened with huge levels of debt?
* If we cannot achieve a target of 250 new homes per year, how much confidence should the public have that we can deliver more? The plan agreed to build 250 new homes would have followed the same process as this one and I've yet to read anything that gives me more hope than the last.
* There are 2 types of housing desperately required; starter homes and retirement homes. With these 2 segments in such short supply it pressures the middle housing segment resulting in astronomical and unsustainable price rises.
o Starter homes should be the definition of affordable noted within this email. Provision of 1, 2 and 3 bedroom properties will allow generation rent to become homeowners.
o Retirement homes should have focus on community, health and activity. In order to truly cater for this ever increasing portion of our population, we need to build specifically for them. What are their requirements? How can we meet them? What is the most cost effective way of meeting the requirements? Dare we ask such direct questions...
* District Government MUST own, or be very close to a central body who does, the commercial buildings in any High Street type location. Only this approach will ensure that we are not left with a ghost town of empty shops, unable to be occupied because of the high rental costs.
* District Government MUST contract the house build themselves, via a holding company with directors of building experience if necessary. There are no shareholders to appease or a bloated executive team to pay. I've followed a number of local housing developments where the requirement of affordable housing was part of the accepted planning permissions but a compromise to the number of affordable housing was agreed following the building company reassessing the "viability" mid build. Control of these developments is the most efficient way to deliver AFFORDABLE housing for starter homes and SUITABLE housing for the 60 year+ age group.
o To effectively grant housebuilders permission to develop vast areas of our community will see the properties THEY stand to make the most financial gain on. Not the properties our community needs or can afford.
* Do you really think that 50 homes per year for the over 75's is enough? I'd like to see the data that supports this but would hazard a guess that it does NOT include those over 75 now that are living in 3+ bedroom family homes due to a lack of suitable housing available to them.
* When we consider infrastructure, we must consider air quality. We view traffic lights, pedestrian crossings and roundabouts as a normal feature of today's roads but it is these that cause higher pollutants than free flowing traffic, High Road in Rayleigh for instance. The efficiency of any car (petrol, diesel, hybrid or electric) is negatively affected with stop start traffic flow so we can surely say that a steady speed road network is in the interests of our environment.

Summary

Without agreed definitions throughout this document, I don't see it as something that can or should be supported. It is simply paying lip service to national concerns without constructively proposing any real solutions.

Ours is a fantastic district, within a brilliant county in an amazing country. We can look at things differently and lead the way for others to follow. Be brave!

As local residents, living presently in Hockley and previously in Rochford, altogether over more than 40 years, my wife and I feel compelled to write to you having read a pamphlet issued by 'Rochford District Residents', the contents of which you are doubtless aware.

Frankly we are appalled by the number of new houses being proposed in addition to those already under construction, in the light of lack of additional/improved infrastructure including adequate roads, adequate hospitals and health services, adequate policing and adequate schools.

The local council must surely be familiar with the existing traffic congestion experienced in these local areas not only in the traditional 'rush hour' periods, but at other times during the day, for example at schools' opening and closing times, refuse collection times, and emergency or routine road repair occasions. Currently this can do nothing for local air quality, and increased traffic can only worsen the situation.

Link the foregoing with the present pressure not only on existing medical services including general practitioners, hospital wards and hospital staff, but also on the ambulance service. Potential increased traffic on, in places, deteriorating roads and the diminution in policing seen on the streets and in local towns, combined with increasing pressure on education facilities are all detrimental to the anticipated future quality of life for all levels of society.

Surely local and county planners must be aware of the possibility for regular traffic gridlock, extended criminal activity and, we are sorry to say,the potential for patient deaths with the new systems under consideration between local hospitals.

We realise the foregoing will doubtless be seen as negative comment, but sites do exist between the above areas and Chelmsford for the provision of new hospital and housing facilities with better access to main traffic routes of the A12 and A127 via the A130.

Can we please, therefore, ask that the Council do at least take the foregoing comments, which we do feel are prevalent amongst a number of local residents, into consideration in their deliberations regarding future housing developments - surely it is possible to say to Central Government 'enough is enough'. We would mention that we have also written to our local MP, Mr Mark Francois, on this matter and await his response.

I would like to register my objection to all proposed additional new builds as outlined in the recent Lib Dem 'Focus' newsletter.

The rush hour traffic on London Road, Downhall Road, Rawreth Lane and Crown Hill is already chaos. The pollution is too high at this time, the infrastructure is not in place and no amount of planning for this will ever overcome the problem of the distinct lack of land available to widen roads or build sufficient new junctions.

There are insufficient school places for the additional new houses. It is already impossible to get an appointment with a GP in the area. I am also concerned about the increased risk of flooding.

In addition, I am a regular user of the bridal path (CFS164 & 163) and also a member of the UKWCKFA Kung FU club, which, located at Unit 4, The Planks, Lubards Lodge, appears from the Lib Dem newsletter, to be earmarked for demolition. I would be grateful if you could clarify this position.

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 & Care Services.
4. No let up in the sacrifice of the Green Belt & Air Quality.
5. No long-term LAGACY left for our future generations.

CUT THE TARGET NUMBERS TO NATURAL GROWTH LEVEL.

I am writing in connection with the proposed planning for up to 7500 new homes in Rayleigh Essex and a possible Gypsy and travellers site. I wish to object strongly to the development of these houses and the Gypsy site.

Rayleigh is already overpopulated and adding a 27% increase would cause numerous problems to infrastructure and road traffic which are already struggling. 7500 - 9000 new homes is unsustainable! I would like to put forward a request to reduce the target to 3,500 over the next 20 years, which equates to 175 a year of growth that we need for our own local needs.

In particular, I would like to strongly object to the plans at the bottom of the Chase / Bull Lane and the potential gypsy site. I find this completely unacceptable and you will have strong pushback from the people that live here. My primary reasons for objection are that this proposal is in direct contravention of various components of the following policies, government guidelines and previous statements made by the SMDC on this matter.

DCLG (2008) Designing Gypsy and Traveller Sites: Good Practice Guide
DCLG (2012) Planning and policy for traveller sites
SMDC (2014) Core Strategy Development Plan Document (pages 120-121)
SMDC (2011) Gypsy and Traveller Site Options and Issues Appraisal
Letter from SMDC to Frank Hopley. dated 23 February 2015, ref: DL/JF

No one in Rayleigh will want the travellers site, this is a nice clean area, where people walk their dogs and feel safe, having a travellers site would change everything and push housing prices down. This is completely unacceptable.

The consequence of this housing planning would be disastrous, getting to and from work which is already a nightmare, school, hospitals, shops and not forgetting the police, ambulance and fire service, gas and electric, sewage, water and broadband. The issues this will cause are endless and I hope you take this objection seriously.

Having reviewed the second local housing plan, I would like to register my strong objection to the proposed plan as the consequences of this level of development would have a detrimental effect on people getting to work, schools, hospitals and shops. In addition, the ability for the police, ambulance and fire services to undertake their duties would be severely impacted. I would like to propose that the number of new houses be reduced to 3,500 over the next 20 years, equating to 175 a year, which is more than the government target the growth we need for our own local needs. The development on Greenbelt land on the proposed sites will also lead to the current individual communities to lose their identities and result in yet more urban sprawl.

I am not a NIMBY and am well aware of the need for extra housing in this area both for first time buyers and for social housing but I felt compelled to raise objections to the large number of proposed housing schemes targeted around the Raweth Lane and London Road area.
The traffic congestion during peak times is well documented and no one can fail to notice the state of the roads at present - I cannot imagine how much worse both would be if all 4,540 houses (as noted in the Lib Dem's FOCUS pamphlet) were to be built. I can see how much extra revenue in the form of Council Taxes would be raised by these and how this is a very attractive proposition but the infrastructure and facilities are not in place to support this number. It is impossible to get a doctor's appointment in under a week at present in my surgery and it is again well documented that surgeries have difficulty in recruiting GPs let alone how the NHS is stretched generally in this area.
I have no doubt that planning for some of the housing schemes will be passed but I do hope that a great deal of care and consideration will be given to each on merit and with an eye on the bigger picture for the area.

It has been brought to our notice by the local residents team, that further housing developments have been proposed for another 30 sites to the East of Rayleigh. As if the large development to the West between Rawreth Lane and the London Road is not enough!
Our roads, hospitals, sewerage system, doctor's surgeries, schools etc etc ...simply won't be able to COPE! It is ludicrous. Already the roads in and around Rayleigh get totally grid-locked at busy times.
It's been admitted that the government/county council have no money to improve the infrastructure in the area.
Doesn't anyone realise that the more agricultural farmland that is turned into housing..means more people to feed and less land to provide it?? If ever there is another 'conflict' the whole country will be in peril. It would be a simple matter to stop imports of food and provisions.......

I live opposite the Grove Wood school, and even more cars blocking the roads around here would prevent safe access for emergency vehicles. We have had a few flooding incidents in this area over the past few years, and building more houses on the woodland near the school and agricultural land to the north will only make the situation worse...as this area is right down in a 'dip'.
We trust common sense will prevail and you will reconsider these proposed plans.

I am a local Rayleigh resident who moved to Rayleigh in 1996, I moved here as it was semi rural and the area that I chose to live was great for walking my dog and bringing up my children. We have been blessed with lovely fields to roam in and kids can play but now I feel like I am being more and more hemmed in. A simple journey that should only take ten minutes is now filled with traffic , road rage and stress. The facilities that I used in the area are now over crowded and becoming unpleasant experiences.

The schools aren't coping with the influx and demands being put on them for intakes. The town is busy and not to mention the pollution. We are slowly being polluted, stressed out and hemmed in.

I live in Saxon close just of Ferndale Road and have noticed the never ending traffic that is hitting Rawreth Lane, my school runs are diabolical and if there is an accident in either Downhall Road, Rawreth Lane or Hullbridge Road the whole area around me grinds to a halt.

This is not acceptable. Looking at the planned applications, I an see that you plan to build 1300 houses in Lubbards farm, that is beyond too many, where are all the cars going to go ? Where are the children going to go to school, where are the people going to get a doctors appointment ? I am mostly concerned about this are as it is directly on my doorstep. What about the flood risks ??

According to the plans I cannot believe you expect Rayleigh/Rawreth to have a total of 4540 houses in my local vicinity. I really am concerned about this and the pollution it is going to create for myself and my family.

I don't know why house building cannot be spread all around the country, why does everything have to be accumulated into the south east of England ? Enough is enough. Surely by making peoples lives more stressful and making people iller by pollution this is going to have a negative effect on the NHS and our children future health.

It seems absolutely ludicrous to me that this should be allowed to go on.

The roads are falling apart at it is there are potholes everywhere that are not being repaired, my road has been like this for two years nearly now and no-one has bothered to look at it. No road sweepers have come here for ages. Where is my council tax being spent as its sure not on benefitting the residents.

I am totally apposed to the over building on Rayleigh and I am sure that mire residents will be apposing these ludicrous applications.

I am writing on behalf of my mother to confirm objection to the new housing
Reference CFS024 Land north of Merryfields Avenue Hockley MAP G 119

Pat Williams
45 Marylands Avenue
Hockley
Essex
SS5 5AH


Our family has lived there for 55 years and we are aware it is metropolitan green belt and is there to protect this sort of development so are surprised to see the application.
The land is known for its wild life and the nature reserve is the right environment for bats that we are aware are a protected species

The other concern is flooding as the existing gulley's cannot with heavy rainfall which we have seen over the years.

Looking at the map of areas being considered for possible development around the Hullbridge village we question the suitability of area CFS099, land west of Hullbridge. Unless this site is separated in some way from the existing village then access to Ferry Rd. and all the amenities will be through unadopted roads which have to be maintained by local residents. The alternative will be through the Malyons Farm site, which from the drawings we've seen, doesn't show a road substantial enough to carry large amounts of traffic. Sites CFS149 And CFS006, also west of Hullbridge, would both have to be accessed via Watery Lane or the Malyons farm site.

Sites CFS033 and CFS101 have only one access through Pooles Lane which is extremely narrow at the community centre, where, being on a narrow blind bend the risk of accidents will increase. As a walk leader for the council run "walking for health" group, I, Mr. Bowley, am always anxious for the safety of the walkers at this part of Pooles Lane as the path is narrow and cars get very close to pedestrians. Traffic from both these sites will have to pass the Hullbridge infants and junior school in Ferry Rd.

Access into and out of site CFS015,adjacent to Hullbridge Rd. and Lower Rd., will have a major impact on traffic movement. We understand there are plans to modify the junction with Watery Lane/Lower Road/Hullbridge Road with an additional roundabout to create easier access into the Malyons farm site. Traffic on this particular stretch of road is already heavy with queues often backed up beyond Hullbridge towards Ashingdon and Hockley and along Hullbridge Road and Watery Lane at peak periods. If any of the sites CFS128,CFS151,CFS100,CFS041 or CFS042,to the east of Hullbridge, were to be developed the pressure on the Ferry Rd./Lower Rd. junction plus the junction at Watery Lane would no doubt be regularly gridlocked at peak times. Lower Road is being used by drivers from further east of Hullbridge to gain access to the north and west of the county and is considered a more direct route as opposed to Hockley Road and Rawreth Lane in an attempt to bypass traffic on the A127. Since the building of sites elsewhere in the area there has already been a huge increase in traffic through Lower Road. Further development within the peninsula will make matters worse and the drop in air quality which is already detectable will deteriorate even further.

The question being asked by many Hullbridge residents is whether our doctors surgery and our local school will be able to cope with the population increase caused by the Malyons farm development, not forgetting the fact that Hullbridge has no senior school and the Schools in Rayleigh are oversubscribed with parents having to send their children outside their catchment area . Even Mark Francois MP has had to get involved(Evening Echo December 18th 2017).

My wife and I attended the meeting held 17th November where literature was available concerning future development. We were amazed by the way that finance is meant to be sourced (through rose tinted glasses). Given the current financial crisis, cut backs across the whole spectrum of government and developer's lust for profit, any infrastructural back up for further housing appears unlikely. Section 106 appears to be a magic wand.

The current population of Hullbridge and probably the rest of Rochford district has a large percentage of elderly people, of which we are both part, will not live forever and the houses we currently occupy will become available. Has this factor been taken into account? It won't help the immediate shortage of housing but then again neither is the current strategy of building large houses which are unaffordable. For the benefit of future generations why not build smaller homes which are affordable either to rent or buy, taking up less land and not using as much green belt. Could Rochford District Council NOT build as many large houses and allow the younger generation progress from affordable starter homes to houses which are currently being occupied by a decaying elderly population.

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.

SUMMARY

RDC have not assessed, previously, any of the alternatives in terms of major impacts/sustainability especially in connection with the Malyons Site in Hullbridge including other major developments recently completed or under construction, we therefore have no confidence that this will change in any future emerging new Local Plan for this district. ECC report concludes that housing targets cannot be matched by infrastructure provisions due to a massive shortfall of £billions in funding, none of which is referenced in the RDC Plan who need to take into account further carbon emissions, traffic congestion, flooding & further drains on existing infrastructure.

I am writing to voice my objections to the plans for excessive additional housing development in the Rochford Local Plan, particularly, but not exclusively, in the London Road, Rawreth Lane and Lubbards Farm areas in Rayleigh.

Since we moved here over 30 years ago Rayleigh has become more and more congested, the doctors are more and more difficult to see and the place grinds to a halt with exhaust pollution poisoning the air, every time there is an incident on the A127.

The area does not have the infrastructure to support more house- building and yet we hear no plans on this front, with developers wringing their hands and saying that it is not their problem. Our daughter works near Rayleigh Weir a journey which of late has taken more than 30 minutes in the rush hour from our home in Downhall Park Way.This is madness.

Rayleigh is being destroyed.

We moved to Rayleigh in search of something better and we thought for a good few years we had found it. Now we may as well change the name to Basildon or Romford. We are turning into their back-yards.

Please don't let this happen

I am writing to voice my objections to the plans for excessive additional housing development in the Rochford Local Plan, particularly, but not exclusively, in the London Road, Rawreth Lane and Lubbards Farm areas in Rayleigh.

Since we moved here over 30 years ago Rayleigh has become more and more congested, the doctors are more and more difficult to see and the place grinds to a halt with exhaust pollution poisoning the air, every time there is an incident on the A127.

The area does not have the infrastructure to support more house- building and yet we hear no plans on this front, with developers wringing their hands and saying that it is not their problem. Our daughter works near Rayleigh Weir a journey which of late has taken more than 30 minutes in the rush hour from our home in Downhall Park Way.This is madness.

Rayleigh is being destroyed.

We moved to Rayleigh in search of something better and we thought for a good few years we had found it. Now we may as well change the name to Basildon or Romford. We are turning into their back-yards.

Please don't let this happen