Delivering our Need for Homes

The Central Government will determine the amount of new homes to be built in Rochford District irrespective of the wishes and sensitivities of the local residents. The only power reposed in the Rochford District Council is where the homes are to be built.

The initial Government requirement is that 7500 new homes in Rochford District are to be built from 2017 to 2037 (375 homes a year). Those homes will be put largely on Green Belt and Greenfield sites.

Rochford District has neither the infrastructure nor the public services to sustain those homes. (The Government says that 45% is required by immigration).

Our roads in Rochford District are in disrepair; There are difficulties in getting a Doctor's appointment; First choice schools are becoming unavailable; the traffic is appalling; hospitals are incapable of dealing with the pressure of population growth; the price of homes(affordable homes as well as social housing) is beyond the reach of our youngsters; Developers want inevitably to build expensive properties to make most profit.

Our countryside and Greenfield amenities are being destroyed by concreting over our District. The UK Government is £2.2 trillion in debt and has no money for corresponding infrastructure or public services. This madness of building homes on Green Belt with no corresponding infrastructure or public services must stop.

I note that you are formulating your Local Plan and that yet again it envisages significantly greater levels of Green Field Land being developed.

Like many people I do not have the time or capacity to consider these matters in detail, instead I place faith in our elected representatives to act in our best interests. However, I am now coming to the conclusion that my faith has been misplaced.

The consultation and review process seems designed to deliver the result which has already been decided upon. It starts from the perspective that large scale development in the area is both desirable and wanted by the residents. Furthermore, the Appraisal has been undertaken by an organisation with no involvement in the area and possibly little detailed knowledge of the history of the area and no real feel for the wants and needs of the local residents. The Appraisal merely looks at whether any problems caused by the plan can be minimised, surely some consideration needs to be given as to whether the Plans objectives are sound!

Having been a resident of the area since 1960 and brought up a family here, I sadly feel that this area is no longer somewhere where I am pleased to live and many of my family and friends feel the same.

There has been inadequate investment in the infrastructure and whilst there seems to be some mention of schemes to alleviate anticipated problems in the Plan, I have little faith that these will be implemented. I recall from media reports at the time that when the Airport expansion was proposed that concerns were expressed over inadequate road access. In spite of this, permission was granted seemingly in the hope that something could be done at some stage in the future to improve links to the A127. Given that at around this time the speed limit along the A127 was reduced because of the existing traffic volumes, the decision seems taken more in hope than any real expectation of a satisfactory outcome.

I note that Brown Field land in Rayleigh previously designated as being suitable for residential development has not found a developer willing to take it on. This tends to undermine the presumption that suitable land is in short supply. Before we even contemplate losing more farm land we should ensure that all other options have been been properly utilised. Whilst I do not know if it falls within Rochford District, I often wonder why the land by the Roundabout at the Airport has never been developed since the 'Prefabs' were demolished?

You intend to continue your existing policy of ''....seeking to direct development away from the Green Belt as far as possible.'' The Appraisal states that ''The government attaches great importance to Green Belts; the fundamental aim of the Green Belt policy being to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. This helps to protect the identity of settlements and communities within the District. Figure 4 shows that the majority of the District's land is designated as Green Belt land. ..............., detailed policy concerns are raised for all aspects of Green Belt development,'' By qualifying your Plan to protect the Green Belt ''as far as possible'' seems not to fulfil the Government aim to avoid urban sprawl.

In the light of my above comments may I hope that you will fundamentally reconsider your plans.

Having looked at the new plan for 7500 house it seems unstainable on several counts.

There is no requirement for the house developers to contribute to the stainability at any level of the plan at any level.

There is no requirement on the house builder to recycle brown water.

The builder is not required to use geothermal heating or roof electricity generating panels or water heating panels

It is not accompanied with a plan to improve the road net-work with widening or by-passes.

Assuming the three hospitals in the area implement the plan to move patients between them road congestion will be an issue at certain times of the day. What is the plan?

Doctors surgeries are under pressure.

Additional school places seem to have no consideration.

Also to be considered are the utilities such as water with an addition of around 70 Cu M per house hold = approximately 500,000 cubic metres of water in total.

How is this water to be disposed of and the associated sewerage?

Building this number of houses will mean large amounts of rain water from the roofs will have to handled.

This number of houses will restricts the grounds ability to take up rain naturally thus adding to potential flooding some were in the area.

New house at affordable price and rents are no doubt needed but less than half the number proposed say 3000 over a period of twenty years would seem a more viable number.

I trust that the plan will be reconsidered taking into account environment, the financial consequences to the travelling public, the health and welling been of the residents and that the land owners and the developers make a contribution to the cost which will fall on the council.

Regards

My family and I live in Rochford District (Hillside Avenue, Hawkwell/Hockley). We are very concerned by the proposals to build up to 7500 new houses in the area. There are already significant delays and traffic jams on a frequent basis and there seems to be no investment in the roads planned. It is also extremely difficult to get doctor's appointments at any of the local surgeries due to the increase in the number of residents in recent decades. My wife is a school teacher and very aware of the pressure that the education system is currently under. Local services and infrastructure is not coping at the moment. It will not cope with an additional 7500 homes in the area.
We have been advised to provide 'facts' as part of any challenges/objections. We would like the council to adopt a target of 3500 new homes over the next 20 years (no more than 175 new homes per year). This will allow further investment in infrastructure and for the services to 'catch up' with the demands being placed on them. We do not want to see any development take place in Hockley or Hawkwell. This would be disasterous.

The plans for all these houses in the area of hullbridge is ludicrous, the roads are already gridlocked, without them, also there is no mention of schooling and doctors shops etc.

There is no infrastructure mentioned, and no thought for existing residents.

If all this green belt is being released any where, why not create a complete new village On a large amount of green belt, where you could put in new roads schools doctors, And shops like they did at Woodham Ferrers, which was a great success.

This is an objection to new local plans for more new houses to be built around the Rayleigh area.
ROADS ARE GRID LOCKED AT VARIOUS TIMES OF DAY ALREADY WE NEED A RING ROAD PUT IN BEFORE ANY MORE NEW DEVELOPMENT ITS SIMPLE NO NETWORK IMPROVEMENT NO BUILDING MAKE THE DEVELOPERS PAY

POLLUTION WILL INCREASE

GYPSY SITES ALREADY IN RAYLEIGH ARE SPREADING WITH NO COUNCIL CONTROL SO MAKE PROVISION FOR THEM IN LESS OVERPOPULATED TOWNS

LEAVE OUR OPEN FIELDS AS THEY HAVE BEEN FOR DECADES TO FILTER FUMES AND TO DRAIN OUR WATER AWAY WHEN WE GET FLASH FLOODING

WE ALL LIKE TO SEE GREEN AREAS BETWEEN OUR TOWNS MARKING BORDERS AND STOPPING THE SPREAD OF MORE CONCRETE

ARE PLANES GOING TO BE FORCED TO TAKE OFF OVER SEA OTHERWISE IF THEY ENCOUNTER ANY PROBLEMS THERE WILL BE NO OPEN SPACES TO TRY TO LAND


IF WE HAVE GOT TO BUILD WHY NOT IN SMALLER NUMBERS OVER MORE YEARS ALLOWING PEOPLE TO MAKE SURE THEY CAN COPE IN HOSPITALS AND ALL SERVICES

I would first like to say I don't to believe in consultations as they do not represents public opinion due to the lack of response from residents. This is mainly caused by making the online method too complicated with too many questions. The drop in presentation that were provided by RDC were pathetic with just two maps showing the areas put up for development. Is this the best RDC can do?
I would like to object to building any more homes on green belt land that joins existing villages an towns in Rochford District. The current building programme that runs until 2025 is already causing serious traffic jams on the existing roads with the resulting air pollution, even though building work has only just started. It has been stated that drivers in our area spend 30 hours per year in rush hour jams, the highest in our region. The second highest being Chelmsford at 23 hours per year.
I believe the existing infrastructure has taken on too much already and not just roads but services like electrics, gas, water, sewers and the health system, including the hospital, GP surgeries and dentists. RDC have indicated that they will include additional infrastructure this time but they have a very poor record on this so far, as the current increase in housing has produced practically none at all. I realise the reason for this is that additional housing comes from RDC and the infrastructure from Essex County Council (ECC) who provide the funds but so far this has not happened, as there aren't any.
We do need additional homes for our children to buy but unfortunately most are unaffordable and many end up being used to relocate people from London councils to relatively cheaper homes in our area. We also need retirement home developments in our area that would free up existing larger homes.
We live on a peninsular surrounded on three side by water, if we really have to have an additional 7,500 new houses in our district, I believe a new Garden Village could be located near South Fambridge and served by a new road from the north connecting to the B1012 would be the best solution. This road could cross the River Crouch near Fambridge linking to North Fambridge railway station.
If RDC allow more homes to be built adjacent to the existing B1013 and all the other already clogged up roads in our area, it will make the lives of our residents a misery and I believe they will not put up with it any more.

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, agricultural land and Air Quality.
5. No long-term LEGACY left for our future generations.
CUT THE TARGET NUMBERS TO NATURAL GROWTH LEVEL.

Four public drop-in events took place in January and February to explain how Rochford District Council (RDC) propose to squeeze the additional traffic from 7,500 additional homes onto our already overloaded and airpolluted roads. The event in Hockey was pathetic, just two maps showing the areas put up for development. Is this the best RDC can do? I believe the existing infrastructure has taken on too much already.

We get the bulk of our fruit and vegetables from within Europe. We could and should grow more here.

The consequences if this level of development takes place would be disastrous: getting to and from work/school/ hospital/doctors/dentists/shops; police, ambulance and fire services; gas and electric; water and sewage; broadband.

Total over development of an already busy area. Great Wakering and the surrounding roads are already clogged. There will be severe issues with regards to Doctors and Schools and other services.
All of the proposed sites are only accessed via lanes. As it is at the moment the roads can barely cope this will surely make the matter even worse.

Dear Sirs/Madam
I write with much concern over the proposed New Local Plan for up to 7500 houses in this area! I believe the building that is currently going on in this area is far greater than the infrastructure can cope with!
I realise there is a need for more housing but with some of the affordable housing being around £350,000 how is this going to help our young people? If affordable housing is necessary why are houses worth up to a million pounds being built in this area particularly in Hall Road? I also believe that many of the houses being built in Hall Road are for a London Borough which I find completely unacceptable as we are grinding to a halt locally if this is so why are we committing to other boroughs? Surely common sense tells us that with all the traffic jams and problems in the area at the moment we cannot carry on building at this rate and also house people from London Boroughs! I believe the large building projects should be taken away from the South East altogether! This area of the country is simply FULL UP!!
We also have the huge industrial estate being built at the airport at the moment and goodness only knows how much extra traffic that will bring into the area aside from the delivery lorries which this site will bring there will be thousands of workers and customers! New jobs to the area you say - well that is if we can actually drive on our roads to reach it - perhaps drones are the answer!!!
If you happen to live in this area you will be aware of the chaos that is caused by even the refuge collections every week! Simply vans delivering to the local businesses in Hockley, which cannot park, can cause several miles of traffic queueing back in all directions! Road works of course are a necessity but can cause absolute chaos especially at time when it has been decided to dig up all surrounding roads at the same time!! It is not unusual to take an hour to drive from Rayleigh to Ashingdon which is of course before this housing phase is complete!
I also understand that all the various infills of flats and houses don't get counted in the big scheme of things? Is this correct and why are they not??
I would also be interested in knowing how the infrastructure would be improved because apart from knocking down half the houses on the main roads I fail to see what can be done! Local flooding can also be a problem and will not be helped by continued building on such a scale!
I am fed up with being told about Government policy - I don't believe anyone in the local planning office could actually justify what is about to be thrust upon us!
Our local hospitals, doctor surgeries, schools are not coping now so how on earth will they cope with everything that is proposed in this phase so I believe the allocation for the next phase should be dramatically cut and certainly avoid any further building directly adjacent to the Rayleigh to Hockley main road and also the main Ashingdon Road!!

As with previous objections to the development of this land I believe the three
paragraphs below still stand

The site is allocated as Metropolitan Green Belt within the Rochford District
Council Replacement Local Plan (2006) and is there to protect the
countryside from being developed inappropriately. Policy R1 (Development
within the Green Belt) within this document specifies that "Within the
Metropolitan Green Belt there is a general presumption against inappropriate
development" except in very special circumstances. No special
circumstances have been specified in this case and it does not fall into the
criteria of the exceptions specified within policy R1. The proposal will not
preserve the openness of the Green Belt and will conflict with the main
purposes of the land within it.

This site is not specified within the emerging Core Strategy as a area for
potential residential development. Furthermore the site is specified within the
Council's emerging "Allocations Development Plan Document (DPD)" as Site
30. Within this document the Council specify that development to this site will
lead to Likely loss of character of site: Likely loss of significant views into/out
of site: There is also fear this would create greater ease of access to the rear
of properties already backing on to the existing open land, and provide a
greater threat of illegal entry to these properties, via their rear gardens
In addition the conclusion within "Appendix 1 to the Allocations DPD
document - Call for Sites 1-40" specifies that "The emerging Core Strategy
does not advocate the allocation of land for any other uses within this area.
The site is not within the preferred locations for residential development as set
out within the Core Strategy Submission Document. The site is on the outskirts of the main settlement." Therefore this proposal contradicts both the
current Replacement Local Plan (2006) and the emerging Local Development
Framework documents including the Core Strategy and the Allocations
Development Plan Document.

Nature reserve and wild life on the site.

There is also concern over the close proximity to the nature reserve next to it
and the detrimental effect this will have on the wild life in the area, the land
itself is a haven for wild life which has many species living in it both daytime
and nocturnal, the last time an environmentalist visited the site was during the
daytime and in December when the nocturnal creatures were asleep or
hibernating so did not give an accurate picture of what is happening on this
land. Also the wild life would lose their amenity of the stream for water.

Flooding

During heavy rain water collects at the bottom of Marylands Avenue, this used
to run away in to the Stream that runs through this propose development due
to the land owner blocking this, This stream is a running stream and runs
virtually all the way through this land and also collects water from the various
fields and tributaries that surround this land and to block or cover this stream
would cause flooding of the whole area which then brings into question the
problem of insurance for householders in the surrounding the area.

Infustructure

Access to this development site is too narrow, Marylands and Merryfields
avenues are quiet residential family orientated avenues and to have heavy
site traffic weaving its way up and down these avenues would be extremely
dangerous to the children and pedestrians alike as already there is a problem
with parked cars and with a potential of another possible one hundred cars
using these avenues make no sense what so ever. The emergency services
have a problem getting through with haste now which could have an impact
on lives This would also cause problems with Plumberow Avenue and the
amount of traffic using the road and filtering out into Greensward lane causing
congestion.

Amenities

As at present the amenities cannot cope with any extra capacity caused by
this development. The doctors, dentist, schools and other bodies are over
subscribed as at the present time. As already stated the sewer system cannot
cope now and the water pressure is inadequate for the estate now it would
make it even worse if this development went ahead

So in conclusion These factors also mitigate against the development

Visual impact on existing property holders
Overlooking current properties
Impact on the general area
Potential for further development
Increased traffic and parking current roads are narrow and already suffer from
vehicle parking in the road. An increase in this will create further problems
and require extra monitoring of current parking restrictions.
Set a dangerous precedent in the area for further encroachment of green belt
areas and resultant potential loss of wildlife habitat.

Historically, there have been numerous incidents of blockages and floodings
and these sewers could never cope with further burdens on their capacity

Ref: CFS060
I live in Havenside Little Wakering & I object to the planning application for the above reference number most strongly for the following reasons.
The field running adjacent the The Parry has a wide diversity of wildlife which will be lost forever if this build goes ahead.
We have a huge variety of birds that visit not only my garden but in the surrounding area. We have both hedge sparrows & house sparrows ( declining species), blue tits, coal tits, great tits, long tail tits, dunnocks, green finches, gold finches, chaffinches, a variety of woodpeckers, sparrow hawks , magpies, crows, herons, collar doves, wood pigeons, blackbirds, thrushes, starlings, swallows, house martins, swift's, nightingales, pheasants, egrets, owls & even kestrels. There are also hedgehogs ( another endangered species) in the area ( these hibernate in my garden), moles, rabbits, hares, foxes, squirrels, badgers & there are also muntjac deer in the area.
Do we really need to lose this diversity ?
I understand the need for more housing but we simply do not have the infrastructure to support the current new builds let alone another 7500 The locals schools are full! The doctors surgery is full! The public transport is not enough to support this amount of building. The local roads are country lanes. With this amount of building there is a potential 15000+ children requiring a school place, a potential 15000+ cars on our country lanes, a potential 30000+ people requiring a doctor!
I am not sure if this is accurate, but I was informed that there is only 1 main sewer leading out of the village too. How on earth will this cope with all the new builds?
We rarely see a policeman in the village anymore & I was told by a policeman that if we need urgent assistance after 5pm, then the police have to come from Canvey! Whoever needs that assistance could potentially be dead by the time help arrived.
This planned housing does not appear to have been properly thought out.
The power that decide these issues do not live in this area.

THEREFORE I OBJECT TO THIS PROPOSED PLANNING IN THE STRONGEST POSSIBLE TERMS............

Please find below the Comments that Rawreth Parish Council wish to submit with regards to the Issue and Options Document (and draft Sustainability Appraisal)


Objectively Assessed Need (OAN) page 38
Section 6.30
A combination of both Option A & C. Seek to provide as much of the Districts housing need within out District given our environmental and other constraints, giving a percentage of new homes to residents to purchase on a first come first served basis for a limited period of time, bearing in mind we need to co-operate with neighbouring authorities.

Affordable Homes page 39
Section 6.31
A combination of A & C. Reduce the threshold for the provision of affordable homes in line with emerging residential policy.

Section 6.32
A combination of D & E. need to maximise the provision so wherever possible increase above the 35% but, this should be the minimum on all sites.

Homes for Older People and Adults with Disabilities
Section 6.33
Support integration within new developments to provide for various needs.

Section 6.36
Support option B.

Delivering our Need for Homes
Section 6.37
In order of preference support Options A, B, E, C, D. Density should be increased near to Town Centres and Transport hubs. Large extension to existing residential areas are becoming too remote from Town hubs, eg Hall Road, Ashingdon Road and Land to the North of London Road. Hence the possibility of a new settlement South West of Rayleigh, East of Hullbridge around Lower Road, north of Ashingdon but only if infrastructure is improved with national investment (we have responded separately on this point under Transport and Access)

Section 6.59
Support Options B & F. We need to preserve our existing stock of bungalows and restrict permitted development rights to enable the increasing elderly population to remain in independent living. To monitor the need for new bungalows in proposed mixed developments.

Gypsy, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople
Section 6.78
Support Option B combined with Option E. We support the Michelins Farm site provided it is in the District Council's control and strictly monitored with provisions for very limited natural expansion as the needs arise.

Paragraph 6.74 States that unauthorised sites are pursued through enforcement powers, there is no evidence to this in the case of the Cherry Hill Site on the A1245 which continues to increase in numbers.

Houseboats and Liveaboards
Section 6.86
Support Option c to safeguard the open apsects of the shoreline of the River Crouch and the River Roach.


Meeting Business Needs
Section 6.96
Support Option C. Paragraph 6.95 states that "the local road network also needs investment to improve accessibility", there needs to be connectivity with the national network to attract new business, as the imbalance between available employment and outflow to other areas needs urgently addressing.

Need for Jobs
Section 6.111.
Support a combination of Options A, C, E F with option B being worth of consideration . Paragraph 6.109. The increasing leisure use on some industrial sites makes these sites unattractive to further business use it also suggests that there was a surplus or business premises, possibly because of the inaccessibility of some sites due to congestion or poor roads, eg Brook Road, Eldon Way and Purdeys Way.





Tourism
Section 6.128
Support Option A. Paragraph 6.120 & 6.121 why does the "Crouch Coastal Community Team" not include the river up to the bridging point at Battllesbridge? Chelmsford City Council, Rawreth Parish Council and Rettendon Parish Council need to be involved.

Commercial Development
Section 7.20
Support Option A. Parking issues ie cost and accessibility restrict the enjoyment of facilities in the Town Centres, the draw of free parking at out of Town shopping centres, A127, Lakeside and Southend Airport divert resources away from small independent shops to large national chains. The Government promised that a levy on free parking was to be introduced this should help subsidise local centres, this needs addressing by National action.

Highways Infrastructure
Section 8.20
Object to Option C, Support Option B. Paragraph 8.4 note that 14,000 commute out of the District daily, 63% by car which puts pressure on the road network. The need to attract inward employment could reduce pressure on the system. The A127/A130 junction improvements are due to be operational 2022/23. The District is a peninsula therefore there is only one way out, westwards if the Government insists on expansion in Rochford, Southend and Castle Point then Central Government should invest in our future by alieving the congestion by a river crossing between Hulllbridge and Fambridge to link with the Burnham Road to bypass South Woodham Ferrers dual carriageway to the Turnpike/A130. The whole road should go through to the Tesco's roundabout on the A127, this could be linked to a new settlement as previously mentioned and relieve congestion around South Woodham Ferrers.

Sustainable Travel
Section 8.37
Support Option A, C and E. Paragraph 8.32, Green Grid strategy was promised in the Core Strategy for the Land North of London Road Rawreth, however it seems to have disappeared in the Countryside plans. There is a need for joined up pedestrian/cycle ways to provide a meaningful and safe network. The subtrans national cycle route via Beeches Road/Watery Lane seems have disappeared, its unsafe because of the volume of traffic. Buses need to be convenient and cost effective alternatives to private vehicles.

Water and Flood Risk Management
Section 8.58
Support Options A & C which should be combined. Paragraph 8.45 Zone 2 and 3 areas of Rawreth are at risk from development upstream of the Brook system which drains Rayleigh, Thundersley, Bowers Gifford; Basildon and Wickford, all areas with development pressures. We need to co-operate with each authority to minimise risk in Rawreth and the River Crouch. Some areas of Rawreth are protected by sea defences which need upgrading to match the height of the North Bank. Because of the geology of the area in exceptionally wet years the impermeable clay can become saturated and ground water becomes an issue. The Rayleigh ridge is of mainly permeable Bagshot beds sitting on a clay base which gives rise to ground water. Flood risk from Highways improvements have to be properly modelled, for example the Fairglen interchange. Paragraph 8.49 the Water Cycle Study 2015 recommendation needs updating to take account of new future housing.

Health and Wellbeing
Section 9.11.
Support Option D with land allocation support.

Education
Section 9.29
Support Option A, B D and E Paragraph 9.26 stated that 800 new homes would generate a need for a new Primary School. Land to the North of London Road will generate 550 homes but this is not enough to generate a new school. St Nicholas School Rawreth was designed to be expanded to 210 pupils, it is currently half that, will expansion be an option?
Each new development should be treated individually to ensure adequate land is set aside for school sites if the demand can be shown. The Secondary School provision for age 16 to 19 years needs to be considered and addressed.

Open Space and Outdoor Sports Recreation
Section 9.42
Paragraph 9.39 "Depending on their size and scale these are considered appropriate in certain circumstances taking into account the impact on the Green Belt" So do the pitches in Old London Road Rawreth fit that criteria? In the SA Report it is stated that there were only about 30 pitches in Rochford District. There should be a re-appraisal and a comprehensive census of all sports facilities in Rochford. Why are most Council owned facilities underused and of poor quality? If private landowners can make a profit on pitches then the Council should review their facilities and invest in improvements to attract profitable use.

Green Belt
Section 10.16
Paragraph 10.6, Does this mean that the Green Belt can be expanded as well as reduced to facilitate development. Paragraph 10.7 there should be a sixth principle in food production and encouragement of locally produced sustainable food. Paragraph 10.15 the western boundary and strips of Green Belt are becoming too narrow as Basildon District, Shotgate expansion is built almost to the Rochford boundary. Is the land to the west of the western boundary of the land to the North of London Road still classified as Green Belt?

Air Quality
Section 10.72
Support Option B. We need to improve air quality by encouraging sustainable travel, also clean non polluting renewable energy. All new housing must incorporate PV panels or tiles on the roof.

Rural Exception Sites.
Section 11.19
Recognise the need for affordable housing in rural areas by small well designed sites in villages to retain the generations of families in their environment who can be supportive as a family unit, relieving pressure on social and health care services and reducing travel. Continue need for agricultural workers where new demand appears. Developments could be instigated by Parish Councils (see page 4&5 section on Community Led Planning)

Development of Previously Developed Land in the Green Belt
Section 11.49
In the guidance notes it was suggested that derelict agricultural/forestry areas should be excluded from the definition of Brownfield. Each site should be judged on its merits. In the case of Hambro Nurseries Rawreth where there are several hectares of un-used and underused greenhouses as well as areas of scrub and concrete, it should be looked at as on its own advantages it would be a development adjoining an existing residential area as was stated in the previous Core Strategy this Parish Council would support this area to consolidate and create a meaningful hub for the Village of Rawreth, the disadvantages put forward by the District Council were grossly exaggerated.


Contaminated Land
Section 11.81
Paragraph 11.80 it is stated that Rochford District Council don't have any formally declared contaminated land, what then is Michelins Farm?

Further to attending a meeting today at The Old School, Great Wakering.

I am appalled that RDC is considering/accepting planning applications for further housing developments in & around the 'village' of Great Wakering.

The current Star Lane Development is already a concern as no changes are being made to the current infrastructure; Schools, Doctors, roads, drainage (Great Wakering is still using Victorian sewage & drainage) etc. It already takes an age to get out of the village to travel through Southend to the A127 & A13. More housing at this end of the A127 will cause more traffic congestion & increase the air pollution.
Sports facilities are pretty much non-existent apart from local football, the Sports Centre is a dance school, not a sports facility. The playing fields are no longer looked after so football is no longer played there.

This is just a couple of the issues.

I am aware that you have a housing target to reach, but additional housing in Great Wakering, really ?
The Government provides you with funds towards new housing, so you will probably do all you can to get the money & put it in the bank. The 'village' will not see any of the money as no changes will be made to the infrastructure to cope with the new housing.

What about utilising the land around Sutton Road Industrial Estate, The old Stambridge Mill that burnt down, Land north of Canewdon for example.
If you look hard enough, Why can you not make use of derelict, unoccupied buildings for new housing ?

There is some land between the Rose Inn Public House & Morley's Nursery, What is this allocated for, golf course, cemetery ? There is an access road, so why not use this land to build new housing ?

Great Wakering is a 'village', It is too far away for any major business to set-up here or relocate to, so the opportunity for further employment is ridiculous, especially when the existing industrial estate is earmarked for new housing !

Rather than dismiss rejections, like you did with the Star Lane development, in order to fill your pockets with the vested interests some of the Councillors have, consider the destruction to wildlife, light pollution, air pollution, lack of infrastructure etc.

My home is about to be overlooked by those awful, too high pitched, houses that are to be built to the West of Star Lane behind Great Wakering High Street. I have lived in Great Wakering all my life & to date it's changed & lost its identity as a 'village'.

Further to attending a meeting today at The Old School, Great Wakering.

I am appalled that RDC is considering/accepting planning applications for further housing developments in & around the 'village' of Great Wakering.

The current Star Lane Development is already a concern as no changes are being made to the current infrastructure; Schools, Doctors, roads, drainage (Great Wakering is still using Victorian sewage & drainage) etc. It already takes an age to get out of the village to travel through Southend to the A127 & A13. More housing at this end of the A127 will cause more traffic congestion & increase the air pollution.
Sports facilities are pretty much non-existent apart from local football, the Sports Centre is a dance school, not a sports facility. The playing fields are no longer looked after so football is no longer played there.

This is just a couple of the issues.

I am aware that you have a housing target to reach, but additional housing in Great Wakering, really ?
The Government provides you with funds towards new housing, so you will probably do all you can to get the money & put it in the bank. The 'village' will not see any of the money as no changes will be made to the infrastructure to cope with the new housing.

What about utilising the land around Sutton Road Industrial Estate, The old Stambridge Mill that burnt down, Land north of Canewdon for example.
If you look hard enough, Why can you not make use of derelict, unoccupied buildings for new housing ?

There is some land between the Rose Inn Public House & Morley's Nursery, What is this allocated for, golf course, cemetery ? There is an access road, so why not use this land to build new housing ?

Great Wakering is a 'village', It is too far away for any major business to set-up here or relocate to, so the opportunity for further employment is ridiculous, especially when the existing industrial estate is earmarked for new housing !

Rather than dismiss rejections, like you did with the Star Lane development, in order to fill your pockets with the vested interests some of the Councillors have, consider the destruction to wildlife, light pollution, air pollution, lack of infrastructure etc.

My home is about to be overlooked by those awful, too high pitched, houses that are to be built to the West of Star Lane behind Great Wakering High Street. I have lived in Great Wakering all my life & to date it's changed & lost its identity as a 'village'.

We would like to object to the proposal for new housing to be built in Great Wakering, especially the sites to the East of the village.
We live in New Road and already have issues with parking which would only be made worse if further housing was built in this road. Also the traffic will be made worse with only one main road out of Wakering. Will a new doctors surgery be built as already it is hard to get an appointment.
If the planned housing goes ahead Great Wakering will lose it's identity as will almost become part of Shoeburyness with no real gap in housing in between and will no longer be a small village. We only moved here at the end of last year and was attracted to this area due to the countryside location. It would be a shame to lose this for the current residents and for all the local wildlife we are so lucky to see here which would no longer have a home.

I went to the consultation today about the proposed new building sites and was horrified !

Our little village doesn't have the infrastructure to support anymore houses.

IF a building site was to be given the go ahead, we would need a new school, an additional health centre, and maybe an Aldi supermarket ?

Following the Liberal Democrats leaflets regards the Local Plan, I missed the drop in in Rayleigh earlier this week but wish to lodge a objection to any building of new houses that are being considered West of Rayleigh in particular

Anyone living in Rayleigh knows full well the traffic problems that exist along the A127, Chelmsford Rd and London Road let alone East bound to the Southend area

Increasing housing will exacerbate the traffic issue as well as causing overflow on doctors (cannot get appointments if you work), schools etc

The impact on the area will be crazy - we have already had the Eon development on London Rd and awaiting the commencement of CFS146/CFS147 and CFS167

Anything beyond that and on Green land is ridiculous

It is far to overcrowded in the south east and the Rayleigh to Southend area as it is. Surely there must be another answer rather than build build build and suffocate stretched local resources

Following the Liberal Democrats leaflets regards the Local Plan, I missed the drop in in Rayleigh earlier this week but wish to lodge a objection to any building of new houses that are being considered West of Rayleigh in particular

Anyone living in Rayleigh knows full well the traffic problems that exist along the A127, Chelmsford Rd and London Road let alone East bound to the Southend area

Increasing housing will exacerbate the traffic issue as well as causing overflow on doctors (cannot get appointments if you work), schools etc

The impact on the area will be crazy - we have already had the Eon development on London Rd and awaiting the commencement of CFS146/CFS147 and CFS167

Anything beyond that and on Green land is ridiculous

It is far to overcrowded in the south east and the Rayleigh to Southend area as it is. Surely there must be another answer rather than build build build and suffocate stretched local resources

My wife and I object to the planning ref CFS153 for the following reasons Flood Risk Poor road Access - the refuse tip was closed because of the unsuitable road Poor all round infrastructure ie hospitals doctors schools roads

Today my wife and I attended an open meeting at Great Wakering Community Centre showing the extent of options for building land around Great Wakering.

The paperwork on display showed various assessment documents concerning each site.

We would like to register our objection to any housing being built at all on the basis of lack of infrastructure.

Although you may claim that the assessments show very few problems and most facilities as being available we find the exact opposite in most cases, this view is based on the observations

made from living within the village of Great Wakering for over fifty years .

It is apparent that the assessments are flawed in the methodology of the way that each subject is measured, giving false positive impressions about suitability for development.

Roads, schools, medical needs and employment are obvious subjects that need to be looked at.

We hope our objections are duly noted and remain

Ref CFS024 Land North of Merryfields Avenue, Hockley I understand that the Green Belt land has been proposed for consideration of building houses on this site which I object to, there is no matching funding for a supporting infrastructure, no guarantees that utilities can match extra demands, no spare capacity within he health and care services, no let up in the sacrifice of the green belt and air quality no long term legacy left for future generations. There are sufficient brown fill sites that further housing can be accommodated on.

I would like to make a formal objection to the proposed use of the Paddock by Clements Hall Way, Rectory Road SS5 4LR (CFS118).

This area is currently designated as both Greenfield & Green Belt land, it was previously heavily defended as such, whilst the "Clements Gate" development was being constructed and as part of that planning permission a Section 106 legal agreement was enforced to protect the site -

'3.2.3 The Owner shall only use the Paddocks for agriculture, horticulture, forestry, grazing or as open land so as to ensure that they remain un-built upon except for any buildings ancillary to such permitted use and provide open space which mitigates the visual impact of the Development on the area in which the Site is situated.'

The "Paddocks" were originally established along Rectory Road to avoid overdevelopment and retain level of "Green separation from Rectory road, All development was to be prohibited bar the addition of one house and the retention of 352 Rectory Road because it houses a bat roost.

Recently, excessive traffic to and from the sports centre down Clements Hall Way, has been causing issues for some residents and this issue has been raised with local councillors to investigate, with a view to traffic calming being installed.

Adding extra homes into a thin strip of land will only add to the problem, because there does not seem to be any easy way to provide access in and out of the Paddock.

In my opinion, if this area was to be used, it would be an over development of the area and just lead to increased pressure on an already weak local infrastructure.

I wish to to the make a formal objection to the following development sites:-
CFS057
CFS153
CFS065
CFS070
CFS011 on the following grounds:
By the very nature of where Gt Wakering is situated there is only access to Gt Wakering by two roads, your plan is to build 7500 homes which will see the increase of cars by at least 15000, there is no way the road system could cope with this amount.
The local schools are full, both junior and senior
The gp surgeries are full to capacity
The only open land in Gt Wakering is green belt

Please take this as an objection to all above sights

I wish to make formal objections to
CFS057
CFS153
CFS065
CFS070
CFS011

Access by road, there are only two roads into Gt Wakering and no way of building more, with your proposals of 7500 houses which is at least another 15000 cars.
Gp surgeries are full to capacity
Both junior and senior schools are full to capacity
Public transport is not sufficient to cope with this extra amount of residents
Not to mention gas, electricity and sewerage
Wi fi in Wakering is not very good

Please take this as my protest against the extra house building

We would like to strongly reject any further development in Great Wakering as we have already had a number of new builds in the village and feel that any more would severely Change the whole village as we only have one school and one doctors that already struggle with expanding numbers of people it has to serve.
Also the roads out of the village are not suitable for any more traffic as they are country roads.Poynters Lane is already a very dangerous road to travel on as there are no lights or pavements and a lot of large vehicles use this road and are allowed to travel up to the national speed limit.

I wish to inform you of my objections for the following sites you are looking to build on:
GF03
CFS011
CFS065
CFS070
CFS056
CFS034
CFS097
CFS057
CFS004
CFS142
CFS103
CFS071
CFS125
CFS153
CFS060
CFS115/SER9
BFR1
GF02
EXP11
The reasons for my objection are:
Poor infrastructure; too many cars for the local roads, no pavements for pedestrians to walk to the nearest station, lack of more frequent buses.
Lack of schools, particularly senior school. Lack of space at the Doctors' surgery and increased pressure on local hospital. Destruction of plants and wildlife. Most of the land is greenbelt, this should remain sacred.
I have lived in this village for 25 years. I chose to live in the village for its community spirit and because it's small and quiet.
I totally understand the need for more housing but Great Wakering and Barling are not the places.
Yours

I am writing to inform you of my objections against plans to build on the following sites;
CFS115/SER9
gF02
BFR1
EXP11
CFS011
CFS065
CFS070
CFS56
CFS34
CFS057
CFS004
CFS142
CFS103
CFS071
CFS142
CFS125
CFS153
CFS060
My objections are due to the catastrophic impact on nature, birds and wildlife. Poor infrastructure; Roads unable to cope with more traffic. Lack of policing , schools and doctors already full to capacity.
I moved to Great Wakering 14 years ago because I wanted to live somewhere rural and quiet. I appreciate there is some need for housing but the village of Great Wakering is totally inappropriate on many levels.

I strongly object to the planning proposal to flood this local authority district with a disproportionate and unacceptable volume of planning applications for residential accommodation
without any consideration to the effect this will have on the infrastructure needed to make these proposals sustainable. It is unacceptable that local district councils are permitted to give permissions to implement their housing policies and at the same time turn a blind eye and wash their hands on issues that can only be resolved at county council level so as to make these developments sustainable. It should be imperative that the two tiers of local authority organisations take a corporate approach and joint responsibility to ensure that the substantial increase in the number of houses to be developed will be sustainable in the environment as a whole.
B1013
1. Any competent planning officer with integrity and a feel for the concerns of the local community must already know that the B1013 road which runs between Rayleigh Weir and Rochford Town Centre is no longer fit for purpose. The need to reduce congestion and provide a free flow of traffic on this road demands that urgent proposals be put in place in the following areas so as to avoid the present slow moving, costly and time wasting movement of traffic causing unacceptable levels of atmospheric pollution in the environment;
The junction between Rayleigh High Street and Eastwood Road, the junction between Hockley Road and Websters Way, the junction between Hambro Hill and Hockley Road, the junction between Main Road Hockley and Buckingham Road, the junction between Southend Road, Spa Road and Main Road Hockley, the junction between Rectory Road and Hall Road and the junction between Hall Road and Bradley Way Rochford.
I understand that in future it is intended to build a substantial number of new houses on green field sites at Mount Bovers Lane, Ironwell Lane, Nursery Corner and Cherry Orchard Way. These developments have the potential of producing another approximately 3 500 vehicles, all of which which will need access to the B1013. In nineteen years time the demand for private motor cars serving these dwellings could easily rise to exceed an additional 7000. This is in addition to the demands already made from the recently built sites of 175 houses in Rectory Road and 600 houses in Hall Road.
I would be pleased to receive all the information that you may have concerning improvements to the B1013 to avoid any future grid lock occurring in this main access to several cccccccccc c local routes, so as to make the New Local Plan sustainable.
It is absurd and a planning folly of unmeasurable incompetence to inflict this number of additional vehicles on a road system which even now is unfit for purpose.
A possible solutions may be to provide two completely separate new access routes to the A127 and A130 to make these proposals sustainable and relieve congestion on the over-used B1013.
County Council Issues
2. In addition to providing an efficient and satisfactory transport network of highways to allow the free movement of traffic throughout the region, further measures will be needed to accommodate
the predicted increase in population by 2037. I would be obliged if you could inform me of the provision to be made for additional nursery, primary and secondary schools and college facilities in the wider area, to accommodate the predicted increase in children and young persons educational needs during the next 19 years.
3. As it is predicted that there will be an increase in the number of elderly people requiring care in the community, are additional measures being taken in the wider area for residential care homes to be provided to meet this need?
NHS Issues
4. With the predicted future increase in the population in 2037, the Mid&South Essex Hospital Trusts will need to assess the future requirements to provide a sufficient number of new hospitals and medical centres to meet the increase demand for these services.

It is high time that councillors and planning officers at district council level looked beyond the increased revenue incentive received from the New Build Bonus grants issued by the central government and focus their attention on the long term effect that these proposals will have on the environment now being provided by local district councils for future generations to come.

Richard and Valerie Siegert our objections to the proposed development Ref CFS023 at the rear of Malvern Road are the following reasons.

(1) The field backing onto our properties also backs onto Beckney Woods which is recorded as an Ancient Woodland. The field in question is important Green Belt Land, it has always been used as grassing land, therefore it supports the needs of protected animals and birds etc living in Beckney Woods. This important support for wild life would be lost along with Hedgerows that surrounds the field.

(2) Due to the field being higher than Malvern Road this can reduce our privacy and security. The new houses could see into our rooms at the rear of our houses.

(3) There is a history of flooding from the field when it rains for prolong periods. This could be an expensive problem for the developers to solve by installing larger drainage systems for the development and surrounding roads.

(4) why not concentrate on other sites which are flat and more suitable. Such as Mount Bovers Lane and Cherry Orchard Lane at the rear of the Cock Inn Pub.

(5) The proposed new houses would add a noise and air pollution to the surrounding area, due to the increase of cars and motor vehicles.

(6) There would need to be changes to the junction where Harrogate lane and Greensward Lane meet. Both are very narrow roads and the junction where they meet would need to be widened in some way to cope.

(7) My next door neighbour is ex Water Board and knows that our water pressure is working to maximum at peak times. This current water supply system would not cope with many more houses using this old system. An expensive new supply would need to be installed.

(8) This new development would put extra strain on many public services, including Roads, Trains, Doctors, Schools, police, hospitals, welfare services and commuters, to name but a few.

This constitutes my main objections.

Objections to the play area and public right of way Reference COL38. We wish this play area and public right of way to remain as it is.