Delivering our Need for Homes

We are opposed to all the extra building in Great Wakering as it is supposed to village and not a mini town.
It is already a nightmare to get an appointment at the doctors let alone what it would be like with even more people in the village. The children of the village are bused to and from school every day and if they don't go to King Edmunds they have to make their own way. God knows what the cost is in money let alone the pollution and this has been going on for over 45years. The amenities in the village are minimal I.e.one small supermarket,one small post office,one small chemists,one butcher,one hairdressers,one barbers and a few various other shops.
The village has done its fair share of providing land for building and most important of all most of the proposed land is green belt and we feel we have lost enough of this precious commodity already. We are small landowners ourselves and feel we are being pressurized to sell up as we do not want to be surrounded by housing.
After all Rochford is a rural county council so PLEASE keep it rural,the more fields you build on the less we can grow and the more we import from abroad

1. Gt. Wakering is once again in the spotlight for new housing developments. The Star Lane Brickworks site is more or less complete. There are 2 more sites in the pipeline. The next will be land south of the High Street adjacent to the Star Lane Development. SER9b. After this SER9a - Land west of the Little Wakering Road.

2. Any new housing development will put additional pressures on the local amenities & infrastructure.

3. All developments in Gt. Wakering will make demands on its schools/medical facilities/transport/roads.

4. All statements on the latest documentation state that Amenities are either Excellent or Good

5. Already the parents of the rising 5's are being refused the local school of their choice. There are no obvious choices for alternatives in the catchment area. Local research on the Star Lane site has revealed that parents have in the main chosen to keep their children at their previous schools. It has to be said that many of these new arrivals are former Rochford residents, so for the time being the problem has not been identified.

6. The medical facilities whilst reasonable at the moment are under daily pressures. This will not ease even if the local developments are limited to the current 3 approved sites.

7. The development of the Garrison Site in Shoeburyness has vastly increased the traffic using the cross country roads from the Anne Boleyn Pub on the Rochford Road, Sutton Road, Shopland Road, to the Rose Inn Pub at Silchester Corner. Traffic then turns left onto the Southend Road, onto Star Lane, Poynters Lane to Wakering Road & the Garrison Site.

8. NO NEW ROADS HAVE BEEN BUILT IN THE AREA TO ALLEVIATE THE INCREASING TRAFFIC FLOW DURING THIS EXPANSION PROGRAMME!

9. Neither Gt. Wakering nor Shoebury have benefitted in any significant way. The land from the old school 'Hinguar', has been turned into a 'Housing Development'. The new school was a necessity not a luxury!

10. Access & Egress for residents of Gt. Wakering all converge on the High Street/Shoebury Road and also now Star Lane. The residents of Alexandra Road already suffer daily chaos with Street Parking which was acutely aggravated by the development at its Southern End - Meeson Meadows.

11. Sufficient new housing needs to be available & affordable for local people. Two bedroom properties might improve the 'statistics' but do nothing for parents with 2 children of different sexes. The prices of the 2 bedroom properties on Star Lane, £300k towards the end of the development, will only attract well paid London workers! Again, a windfall for the developers but demoralising for local people. The consultation which took place in the village in the 1980's made a point of saying it wanted more affordable housing. It hasn't happened!
(1)

RDC STRATEGIC HOUSING & EMPLOYMENT LAND AVAILABILITY ASSESSMENT 2017 APP B
SPECIFIC COMMENTS RE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTS

1. Planning ref. CFS 153 - Land between Common Road & Chapel Lane
* This site is on the Dept. Of Environment's Flood Plain Map. We have been residents at this property for 40yrs. Over the past 5years it has become an increasing problem to obtain Household Insurance (Buildings & Contents). In fact many Insurers will not even quote!

* The proposed site is bordered on the Chapel Lane side by a 'Foul Water ditch'. This ditch takes the run off from the High Street.

* Although by law the land owner is required to maintain this ditch no attempt has been made to support a free running flow of water.

* In 2016 Anglian Water had to create a new run-off from properties in Newstead Road where rear gardens were flooding on a regular basis . This new pipeline enters the Foul Water ditch opposite our property.

* Heavy rainfall already causes localised flooding on Chapel Lane. By building on this land the current problem is likely to be exacerbated because of the loss of natural drainage.

We would not support the development of this site!

2 .Planning refs. CFS 070, CFS 065, CFS 011,GF 03
* These sites all fall within the existing recognised boundaries of the village of Gt. Wakering.
* CFS 065 quite possibly falls within the Dept of the Environment's Flood Plain Map. Therefore householders will experience problems in obtaining Household Insurance, This is already a problem for householders on the most recent development off Seaview Drive.

* The same problems with regards to Infrastructure/Medical facilities/Schools & Transport will apply to these developments if granted Planning Permission.

3.Planning ref. CFS 057

* This site appears to encompass all the remaining land bounded by Star Lane, Poynters Lane & Alexandra Road & includes the Wild Life Site.

* Substantial improvements to the Access & Egress appear to be vital. However, In the past, Rochford District Council has always maintained that it was against any Access /Egress onto Poynters Lane as it would effectively join Gt. Wakering to Southend on Sea. Will this Policy change? If so, at what cost to the residents?

(2)


4. Planning refs. CFS 097, CFS 034, CFS 056

* All 3 of these proposed Housing Development sites lie to the South of Poynters Lane. Although technically within the Rochford District boundaries they will greatly increase the urbanisation of the existing Shoebury Housing Estates.

* Potentially creating problems for Southend on Sea, Unitary Authority as stated above.

* All other issues apply.

5. Conclusion

The current planned developments under SER9b will add 400 new housing units to a village of approximately 2500 dwellings. This Community does not have access to a User FriendlyTransport system. There is no public transport to Shoeburyness Station for commuters. The existing bus routes now take much longer to reach Southend Central Bus Station due to re-routing. The last bus during the week does not support shift workers with evening & night shifts. Several hundred more vehicles (from the current developments) will be added to the already inadequate road structure. There appears to be a tendency when evaluating the local amenities (as per this latest plan) to assess them as being Excellent or Good. Even Good is stretching it a bit. This latest proposal would clearly see new units in excess of 1000 being added to the already saturated area. Just because it is a Greenfield shouldn't mean it's an easy target for Developers & Councils alike!
It will not be possible to support any of these proposals without a substantial investment in the local infrastructure.

Dear Sirs,

I am writing to lodge my objection to further planning to build more houses in Hullbridge.

Everyone in Hullbridge was against the building of 500 houses near Watery Lane and Malyons Farm, but none of the residents views were taken into account.

The reasons why I am against it are:-

1. The road infrastructure is not sufficient for the amount of traffic that flows in and out of Hullbridge as it is, let alone with another 500 houses and the cars that they will bring.
2. There is no provision for extra schools or school places.
3. There is no provision for doctors and the doctors surgery that we have in Hullbridge is to capacity without all the extra people 500 houses will bring.
4. There is no provision for extra shops to be built to service the people who live there.
5. I do not want three storey buildings built. It is bad enough that we have got to have all these extra houses on our skyline and three storey buildings are NOT wanted.

Hullbridge WAS a small community when we first moved to Hullbridge but now it seems you are planning to make it into a small Town and yet you are not prepared to look at how people will get around if they do live in Hullbridge.

The traffic is a nightmare getting in and out of Hullbridge on a normal day let alone if the weather adds to the situation or there is an incident. Watery Lane is not suitable for the amount of traffic that it has now let alone with more houses!!

I am totally objecting to any further building in Hullbridge and want my views noted.

Issues and Options Document - Planning Committees Response
19th February 2018


The Planning Committee propose the following to be submitted as the Town Council's response to the Issues and Options Document. The review of the document was conducted by Cllrs Mrs D Mercer and R Shorter.

General Response

Rayleigh Town Council's Planning Committee suggest that the following items should be considered in relation to new plan. These are not given in any particular order

1) A new town/s should be considered within the District (or several new villages) on areas away from existing towns/villages. This would enable the planners to create something special (like the garden towns), with minimal disturbance/upheaval to the existing residents in the district. This would be easier on the road network by not clogging up already grid locked roads in the towns that you are considering expanding, reducing the emissions from stationary vehicles.

2) Any new dwellings created should have ample parking to omit the need to park on the road. The current rules allow only 2 parking spaces for above a 2 bed dwelling. In a smaller dwelling, this is usually fine. In a 5/6 bedroom dwelling this is not enough, and extra cars block the roads.

3) Garages on new builds are frequently being created smaller than adequate to house a modern vehicle. These "garages" are then promptly created into habitable rooms.

4) Affordable homes - or rather, homes that suit the needs of the smaller family. There has been a steady rise in the number of 4/5/6 bedroom dwellings being built and the "affordable" homes being mainly a block of 1 or 2 bed flats. Very few 1, 2 & 3 bed roomed houses are offered (apparently due to profit margins). Maybe this should be looked at in the way of subsidies if it cannot be enforced. We also need to allow local people to be able to live in the town they grew up in and not have to move miles away from their support network. The young also need to be able to move out of their family homes in order to grow into the adults they are.

5) More school places need to be created (pre-school to 6th Form), to accommodate the population growth anticipated from the creation of new estates.

6) New dwellings should have character, not be "generic boxes," to fill in the spaces with as many as possible, and should have ample gardens to avoid feeling 'closed in', improving mental health and wellbeing.

7) Facilities need to be provided regarding GP surgeries, Health/Medical Centres & Dentists. Investment in local hospitals.

8) Shopping facilities (areas that can be utilised for a small parade of outlets to facilitate retail shops such as; newsagent, convenience store, etc.)

9) Any new towns created should have cycle paths/bridleways, recreational grounds with possible sports facilities/buildings to facilitate clubs like Scouts/keep fit, etc. Areas that provide parks/skate parks/BMX tracks etc. for the youth . New estates should also provide cycle paths and allotment plots.

10) New dwellings should facilitate the use of solar in its design as well as other types of renewable energy schemes.

11) Existing road networks need to be improved for free flowing traffic, which will reduce the pollution of CO2 and Nitrate gasses. New roads, by-passes, improvements like widening of Arterial roads should be considered, with pressure put on the departments responsible.

12) An overhaul of the drainage networks (water/sewerage) so that they can accommodate new builds.

13) Retaining of a good border of Green belt between built up areas.

14) We need to provide more temporary accommodation for those made homeless.

15) We need to provide smaller units so that the elderly are able to 'downsize'. They would be in areas that is designated for them, and their houses would then be able to go into the housing stock (reducing the need for so many large houses to be built).

16) All development should be made to contribute to the infrastructure of the area in which it is being built (ie S106).

17) Create space for the building of nursing homes to deal with the increasing elderly population who need care (thus releasing homes to the open market).

18) Improved public transport links (buses etc.)

19) Car parking facilities. There are simply not enough if existing towns are enlarged. New towns make it easier to create this

20) A larger and improved recycling facility to accommodate the increase in need.

21) Rawreth Lane is the only access road for Down Hall Park Way and, with an additional 3-400 houses, it is necessary to consider the provision of a second access road to ensure there is sufficient access for emergency vehicles. It was mentioned that a campaign for a new road had been conducted many years ago, however, this was rejected by Essex County Council. It is understood that the new housing estate will have an access road.

22) Essex County Council should ensure that all streets within new housing developments are adopted immediately on completion to allow traffic regulations to be introduced as necessary and street lighting adopted.
23) A new relief road should be built from the A130 to Shoeburyness in order to reduce congestion in Rayleigh town centre. It was noted that this scheme has been considered many years ago and rejected due to cost.









Replies to the consultation by paragraph and point number


In paragraph 3.3 "The area home to around 3,320 businesses...." the verb "is" is missing.

Paragraph 3.5 "The workplace and resident earnings in the district are below average compared to Essex and the UK." This is not true. It is true for workplace earnings but not for resident weekly earnings which at 670.9 are higher than Essex (594.0) and UK (539). The statement is also inconsistent with the first sentence of the next paragraph "The area is a generally prosperous part of the country,"

Paragraph 3.14 "'green part' of the South Essex". The word "the" is superfluous.

Figure 5: Ecological Map of the District. I think this is a bit out of date. Should not the whole of the eastern side of Wallasea island be shown as a local wildlife site? Also metropolitan green belt and sites of special scientific interest are shaded in the same colour.

The summary of statistics in paragraph 3.20 is muddled. "The proportion of residents aged 20 to 64 is expected to remain relatively stable over the next 20 years." is inconsistent with "An increase in the older proportion of residents compared to the rest of the population has the potential to lead to a smaller workforce and higher dependency needs."

Paragraph 4.3. "Through the Growth Deal, SELEP can direct Government monies towards specific projects across the LEP area - including schemes to deliver new homes, jobs and infrastructure - which can competitively demonstrate a growth return for the investment." My comment is that the criterium 'can competitively demonstrate' pushes investment towards homes and jobs at the expense of infrastructure, as it is easier to demonstrate growth from the former than the latter. But, adequate infrastructure is a necessary enabler of growth. If you use an unsuitable analysis method, you get the wrong answer.

Paragraph 4.5. The words "we must not over-burden investment in business." are meaningless and make the whole sentence incomprehensible. Delete these and the first word "Whilst" and the sentence makes sense.

Paragraph 4.13. The word "however" occurs twice in one sentence, which is incorrect.

Paragraphs 4.13 and 4.15. If Castle Point and Southend really are unable to meet their housing obligations then perhaps RDC could offer them some land in the extreme south east of the district, which is reasonably near Shoebury rail station, provided that central government funds the much needed relief road from the A130 to Shoebury, crossing the Crouch somewhere between Hullbridge and Fambridge and crossing the Roach. Southend and Castle Point would pay for the necessary flood defences for the new homes.

Twenty two Strategic Objectives is far too many! The document would be more convincing if you called the five Strategic Priorities the five Strategic Objectives and put the other points under them as numbered bullet points. Many of these are not strategic and they are not objectives; they are job descriptions of what the council is expected to do.

Putting homes and jobs first might be what central government want but it is not what the existing residents want. These two are interdependent - build more homes and you have to create jobs for the people to work in; create more jobs and then you cannot fill the jobs until you have built homes for the workers. The first priority should be what you have at number three: transport, waste management, and flood risk. You can forget about telecoms, water supply, wastewater and the provision of minerals and energy as these will all be provided by the private sector.

Paragraph 6.12. "Affordability can be measured by comparing the lowest 25% of earnings to the lowest 25% of house prices, which gives an affordability ratio." This is written the wrong way round and would give a ratio of 0.103. It should be written "Affordability can be measured by comparing the lowest 25% of house prices to the lowest 25% of earnings, which gives an affordability ratio."

Tell Us More SP1.1: Affordable homes and ageing population.
Surely the district council's responsibility is restricted to ensuring that sufficient land is available for development and that there are no unreasonable planning hurdles put in the way of developers. The net completions graph shows that the actual number of houses built depends on the overall state of the economy and the economics of the housing market. The district council has no control over either of these. Central government has only minor influence, even if they think otherwise.

6.30 Option: A Option C sounds like a good idea but will not work. If you are thinking of the children of existing residents then in many cases those children who would like to buy a home here will not currently be residents here. They may be renting elsewhere (in my case in South Woodham Ferrers and the Isle of Man). You would have to come up with a definition of something like a "right to residence" rather than "resident". The whole concept is fraught with difficulties.

6.21 Option: C Market forces will sort out what gets built and options D and E are then irrelevant.

6.33 Option: A

If there is a particular requirement for providing additional assistance for certain sectors of the population then try persuading central government to allow you to increase the rates paid by everybody already in the district and put that money away, securely, in a fund earmarked for that purpose.

Tell Us More SP1.2: Care homes Option: A

Paragraph 6.45. I do not agree with this statement: "We need to demonstrate that we have considered all the options before considering the Green Belt."

The original idea of the Green Belt has become distorted over time. The idea was that existing towns and cities would be surrounded by a belt of green land to prevent urban sprawl. (It is usually cheaper to build on greenfield instead of brownfield sites and so without this "belt" developments will always expand outwards, leaving a neglected and eventually derelict inner core, as in many USA cities.) In Rochford District we have a lot of Green Belt land which is not a belt around anything - it is just a vast expanse of undeveloped land.

Instead of infilling within existing developments and nibbling away at what really is the green belt immediately adjacent to them, something a lot more radical is needed and if central government are going to keep handing down housing targets then they must be prepared to provide the necessary infrastructure. It is this:

Build the relief road previously mentioned from the A130 to Shoebury, crossing the Crouch somewhere between Hullbridge and Fambridge and crossing the Roach. It needs to be a high capacity dual carriageway feeding directly onto the A130 and not at Rettendon Turnpike. The Fairglen interchange needs to be substantially improved (not the current inadequate proposals) to handle the extra traffic between the A130 and the A127 in both directions. The new road needs direct exits to both Battlesbridge and Shoebury stations and 2 or more exits to allow new developments to be built on this huge area of green land which is not green belt at all. A bus service will provide transport from the new developments to both stations. Obviously, schools, health, drainage, and power infrastructure will be needed as well but it will be cheaper to provide it out here than adding to existing conurbations. Flooding is an issue but the existing villages have to be protected against flooding anyway.

Tell Us More SP1.3: New homes ...
Option: E All of the other options are just short-term tinkering.

Tell Us More SP1.4: Good mix of homes
Option: A (The policy on affordable housing in conjunction with market forces takes care of this.) Option E is also worth considering but will only be viable if option E has been chosen in SP1.3.

I do not agree with the statement "This approach would therefore not be appropriate." in Option I. What justifies the "therefore"? It would be sensible to adopt option I and not have a specific policy. If you want to build bungalows you will probably have to accept a lower density than the current minimum, if you want to have an area of affordable housing then a good way to keep the costs down is to go for a higher density. Not to have a specific policy does not mean that there is no policy at all. Why constrain yourselves unnecessarily?

Paragraph 6.70 "There is no need has been identified..." remove "There is"

Tell Us More SP1.5: Gypsys and Travellers Option B

Tell Us More SP1.6: Houseboats Option B

Tell Us More SP1.7: Business needs Options B, C, and E

Tell Us More SP1.8: New Jobs Options B, D, E, F

Tell Us More SP1.9: Southend airport Implement all options A, B, C, D

Paragraph 6.127 "The availability of broadband in more rural areas is a constraint to the development of tourism in the district; nowadays visitors need access to promotional and other material electronically to help them navigate around (although paper copies are still
important)." This is just not true. Do you mean broadband or do you mean 3G/4G phone coverage? Local businesses need broadband, tourists do not.

Tell Me More SP1.10: Tourism and rural diversification Option B

Tell Us More SP2.1: Retail and leisure Options A, B, C, D If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

Tell Us More SP2.2 Local facilities
This is outside of the council's sphere of influence and so there is no point in worrying about it. Pubs and local shops will close if there is insufficient trade to keep them going, while in new developments business will spring up once there is sufficient demand provided planning restrictions do not get in the way. Options A and B.

Tell Us More SP3.1 Roads
Paragraph 8.1 "The equality of infrastructure in terms of services and facilities is challenging across the district given that we have such a large rural area to the east, which can mean that isolation becomes an issue." If you embrace my previous suggestion and with Southend and Castle Point persuade central government to fund the new road, the large area to the east will no longer be rural and isolated. In paragraph 8.10 "It also includes
the area to the south of the River Roach in proximity to Great Wakering." you identify exactly the problem that this would address.

Paragraph 8.12 mentions a requirement for a bypass around Rayleigh but there is nowhere to build such a bypass even if it could be justified and funded. Part of the problem in Rayleigh is that in the evening rush hour the A127 towards Southend is so congested that traffic turns off either at the Weir or Fairglen interchange and diverts through Rayleigh. Also, traffic coming down the A130 and heading for Southend finds it quicker to divert through London Road, Rayleigh town centre, and Eastwood Road than to queue for the Fairglen interchange and Progress Road. A bypass is needed not around Rayleigh but from the A130 to the eastern side of Southend.

Paragraph 8.17 "upgrades have been completed at the Rayleigh Weir junction". Is there any evidence that these 'upgrades' have made any difference whatsoever? Local people think not.

Option C would be better than nothing. The others are only tinkering around the edges of the problem. What is really needed - although outside of RDC's control - is improvements to the strategic road network.

Paragraph 8.21. Option A is marginally better than doing nothing.

Tell Us More SP3.2: Sustainable travel
Paragraph 8.27. "Encouraging cycling within and through Rayleigh town centre are, in particular, supported to drive improvements to local air quality in this area, for example improved cycling storage." This is wishful thinking. Rayleigh is on top of a hill, of the four approaches, three involve cycling up hill in poor air quality. There are a few diehard cyclists (like my son) but normal people will not be influenced by improved cycle storage.

Paragraph 8.31. "study recommends several mitigation measures ..." These measures are just tinkering and are completely inadequate. More traffic lights are needed and some pedestrian crossings need to be moved or removed. I submitted a comprehensive plan for this previously.

Paragraph 8.34. "We could consider setting a more challenging mode share, for example 30/30/40 (public transport/walking and cycling/private vehicle)." This is wishful thinking. You can set what mode share you like but you cannot influence it.

Options A, C, and E are sensible. B will not help, D is impractical

Tell Us More SP3.3: Communications infrastructure Option B

Tell Us More SP3.4: Flood risk Options A and C

Tell Us More SP3.5: Renewable energy Option A

Tell Us More SP3.6: Planning Option A

Tell Me More SP4.1: Health Option D

Tell Me More SP4.2 Community facilities Option B

Tell Us More SP4.3: Education Option A and B

Tell Us More SP4.4: Childcare Option A and B

Tell Me More SP4.3: Open spaces and sports. [this number has been repeated]
These do no look like options. You seem to want to do all of them. What is there to choose?

Tell Me More SP4.4 Indoor sports and leisure [this number has been repeated] Option A

Tell Me More SP4.5: Young people Option A

Tell Me More SP4.6 Play spaces
Paragraph 9.57. "In order to reduce the amount of greenfield (undeveloped) land...." I do not entirely agree with this premise and think you should reconsider it. Most of the district is greenfield. Surely, building on some of that is better than trying to squash more and more development into the existing towns and villages. People in new houses can access their gardens every day, they possibly only 'go out east' to look at a field once or twice a year.
Option A

Paragraph 10.6 "A fundamental principle of the Green Belt is to keep a sense of openness between built up areas." Yes, that is what the green belt is for. However, most of the metropolitan green belt in Rochford District is maintaining a sense of openness between the built up areas to the west and the sea to the east.

Tell Us More SP5.1 Green belt vs homes Option B

Tell Us More SP5.2 Protecting habitats
Option A but leave it as it is; do not waste your time and our money worrying about climate change or wildlife corridors. There are plenty of wildlife pressure groups to do that. Also, implement options C, D, E, F, and H. Do not waste your time and our money with G.

Tell Us More SP5.3 Wallasea Island Options A and B

Tell Us More SP5.4 Landscape character
Paragraphs 10.35 to 10.45 - two and a half pages (!) written by someone who has gone overboard extolling the virtues of the countryside. I love the countryside and particularly the coastline and mudflats but this reads as though RDC councillors from the east have too much influence and want to protect their backyards (NIMBY) while pushing all the development to the west where, in fact, the majority of ratepayers actually live.
Options A and B

Tell Us More SP5.5 Heritage and culture Option A

Tell Us More SP5.6 Building design
I question whether there is any justification for doing this. Why not just follow the national guidelines, Essex Design Guide, and building regulations? Option A and K

Tell Us More SP5.7 Air quality
None of the actions proposed will make a significant difference to air quality. The biggest improvement will come from the gradual replacement of older vehicles with new ones built to a higher emissions standard and, ultimately, the introduction of hybrid and electric vehicles.
If you want to do anything in a faster time frame than that then steps must be taken to: reduce traffic congestion; avoid building new homes in areas that are already congested; build new homes in areas where the air quality is good.

You may as well stay with option A since options B and C will make no difference. I previously submitted a much more comprehensive plan for traffic management in the centre of Rayleigh which does address the congestion and air quality hot spots.

Tell Us More D.P1.1 Affordable homes Option F What happened to options A to E?

Tell Us More D.P1.2 Self build
You are making a mountain out of a molehill on this. No policy is needed. Anyone wishing to self build will have to find a plot of land first. They will then have to apply for planning permission and meet building regulations the same as anybody else would. All the council has to do is NOT to discriminate against such applications. From the self-builders point of view, negotiating the VAT maze is far more of a problem. New builds are zero rated but everything they buy will have VAT on it. The only way to claim back the VAT is to form a company and register it for VAT but that is difficult when it has no trading history and will only complete one project. This is all for central government to sort out, not local councils.
Option D

Tell Us More D.P1.3 Rural exception sites
Paragraph 11.16 "with the publication of the Housing White Paper in February 2017 the definition of what constitutes affordable homes could be amended" This is clearly out of date and needs updating. Was the paper published last year? Was the definition amended?

There is no point in wasting time and effort worrying about a situation that has not arisen yet and may not arise. Since there are so many possible variables in the circumstances any such policy would have to be extremely comprehensive. Wait until a planning application is made and then assess it on its merits. If there is no formal policy in place then this would have to be debated by the Development Committee. You could meet the NPPF requirement by putting a reference to rural exception sites on the council's website.
Option H

Tell Us More D.P1.4 Annexes and outbuildings
Option B which should say "...rely on case law", not "reply on case law".

Tell Us More D.P1.5 Basements
Option A

Tell Us More D.P1.6 Rebuilding in the green belt
Option B

Tell Us More D.P1.7 Agricultural occupational homes
Paragraph 11.42 ".... applications for the removal of agricultural occupancy conditions will not, therefore, be permitted except in the most exceptional circumstances." Are you sure this is sensible? If an agricultural home becomes empty would you rather let it remain empty and possibly become derelict than allow a non-agricultural worker to move into it? Option A
Tell Us More D.P1.8 Brownfield land in the green belt
Option B

Tell Us More D.P1.9 Extending gardens in the green belt
Option A

Tell Us More D.P1.10 Parking and traffic management
Options A and B

Tell Us More D.P1.11 Home businesses
A thriving home business could cause parking issues in the immediate area but it also provides local employment thereby reducing commuting out of the area. Also, noise and pollution issues have to be considered. This requires each case to be assessed on its own merits. Option A

Tell Us More D.P1.12 Altering businesses in the green belt
Option A

Tell Us More D.P1.13 Advertising and signage
Option A

Tell Us More D.P1.13 Light pollution [this number has been repeated]
Option B

Tell Us More D.P1.14 Contaminated land
Option A

The introduction is too verbose and will deter people from reading the whole document. A professional editor should have been employed to précis it down to a length that people will be willing to read. Some of the rest of the document is better but would still benefit from editing.

There are too many spelling, grammatical, and punctuation errors to make it worthwhile proof-reading this initial draft until it has been edited.



Interim Sustainability Appraisal

The first ten pages have been constructed by concatenating standard paragraphs, with minimal editing, in the same way than an accountant or surveyor prepares a report.

The rest of it consists of extracts from the Issues and Options document with meaningful, but not particularly incisive, comments.

Preparing this document was a legal requirement but it does not add much to the sum total of human knowledge.

Dear Tina and the Issues and Options Team.

I have had delivered this afternoon, your flyer regarding future housing development. The back page appears to show plans to build houses on the north side of Barling Road, behind existing houses. I live opposite those houses (on the south side).

Perhaps through my own ignorance, I was totally unaware of these plans which, if carried out, will significantly affect the value of properties in the area, as well as build congestion through the roads in the area (some of which have surfaces more akin to those in third world countries - but that is another issue). I tried to access the relevant information on the RDC website, but the links kept taking me to a 'page not found'!!

Obviously, residents have two days from now to express their views. Without further information, I don't believe I am in an educated position to have a view. Therefore and in an effort to help me, will you be kind enough to advise the following:

1. road access points
2. the number and breakdown by size, to the houses to be built
3. planned infrastructure provisions - school, doctor etc.
4. timeline.

Many thanks and I look forward to hearing from you shortly.

With best regards,

Neil

Dear Sir / Madam Whilst i agree that more suitable land is required in this area for residential development, Sandhill Road in its present state must not be used to gain access to any further new housing development for the following reasons. 1) From number 47 to 57 the vehicular carriage narrows to approximately 3.3 meters which prevents any vehicles passing each other, or stopping on the carriageway (excluding the occasional delivery). 2) There are no footpaths on either side which means pedestrians are forced to walk in the road and to allow access to any futher development which would increase traffic would be dangerous as most occupants have carried out extensive planting between there boundary and the tarmac carriageway. I trust the above observations will be taken into consideration. J.R.Slater M.R.I.C.S.

Rochester District Council
Issues & Options Local Plan Consultation

Question SP1.3: How do we plan for and facilitate the delivery of our need for new homes over the next 20 years within the District ?
Answer SP1.3:
The Council's approach taken to date through the current adopted Core Strategy in seeking to maximise the use of previously developed (brownfield) land to deliver new homes to meet objectively assessed housing needs is supported. Nevertheless, it is submitted that this approach has limitations and the scale of housing delivery now needed is such that there will be a requirement for release of Green Belt land to ensure that housing need can be met.
The Issues & Options Local Plan correctly identifies the need to assess potential suitable sites for residential currently within the Green Belt by assessing the contribution that sites make towards the 5 purposes of the Green Belt. This is an established and sound approach endorsed by national planning guidance.
The Issues & Options Local Plan also sets out six potential options for delivering new homes. It is submitted that option C (several small extensions to the existing residential area) and option D (a number of fewer larger extensions to the existing residential area) are the most appropriate and most likely options to ensure delivery of sufficient new homes within the emerging Plan period. Continued focus on increasing densities within the existing urban areas, and increasing densities on existing allocated sites (options A and B) is unlikely to result in speedy delivery of new homes, and is equally likely to result in poor quality living environments and detrimental impacts on residential amenity for existing and future new residents. Creation of a new settlement (option E) would not represent the best approach for Rochford, due to the significant infrastructure, delivery and longer lead in timescales, as well as the Green Belt status of the majority of the District.
It is therefore submitted that Rochford District Council should focus through the emerging Local Plan on identifying the most suitable small and some larger extensions to the existing residential areas. Sites should be selected as residential allocations were the release for housing would be sustainable and logical taking account of the degree to which sites contribute towards the purposes of the Green Belt, and the ability for sites to contribute towards sustainable forms of development.

Land at Clements Hall Lane, Hockley, SS5 4DT (as submitted through the Call for Sites) represents a highly suitable site for residential, being within the boundary of Hockley which is a Tier 1 Settlement. The site is close to public transport with Hockley train station 0.8 miles away and bus stops for the No. 8 and 815 only 0.4 miles away. Local amenities, such as shops and community facilities located on Main Road also within walking distance only 0.4 miles from the site. The site is at very low risk of flooding and the site does not contribute significantly towards the five purposes of the Green Belt as follows:
* development of land at Clements Hall Lane would not result in unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;
* new housing at the Clements Hall Lane site would not result in neighbouring towns merging into one another;
* the Clements Hall Lane site does not contribute significantly towards assisting in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;
* the site at Clements Hall Lane does not contribute significantly towards preservation of the setting and special character of a historic town; and
* whilst the Clements Hall Lane being subject to Green Belt policies to date has assisted in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land, the overwhelming need for housing within the District and the unavailability of sufficient previously developed (brownfield) land means that development of the Clements Hall Lane site would represent a logical and sustainable form of development to deliver new homes within the District.














Rochester District Council
Issues & Options Local Plan Consultation

Question SP5.1: How do we balance protection of the district's Green Belt that meets the five Green Belt purposes, against the need to deliver new homes and jobs across the district, and the wider South Essex area?
Answer SP5.1:
It is submitted that the only realistic and reasonable approach available to be taken that will ensure delivery of new homes to meet objectively assessed housing need in Rochford District is set out within the Issues & Options as option B (amend the current Green Belt policy in the Core Strategy).
Option A (retaining the existing Green Belt), and Option C (do not have a policy on the Green Belt) are both considered to be untenable. There is a need to amend the Green Belt to ensure that housing needs can be met for at least the next Local Plan period. It is clear that neighbouring authorities, such as Castle Point and Basildon, have similar Green Belt and environmental constraints as well as high housing requirements of their own, which means that the prospects of neighbouring authorities assisting Rochford in helping to meet housing needs are remote. Conversely, the Green Belt is long established and provides a valuable planning tool to prevent unrestricted sprawl, encroachment in to the countryside and coalescence of adjoining settlements and the enduring over-arching benefits of the Green Belt should be retained through the new Local Plan. Removal, in its entirety, of the Green Belt planning policies that protect the majority of Rochford District from development would be an inappropriate response to the District needs for new homes.
Option B represents the only viable and tenable approach. It is therefore submitted that there is an urgent need for Rochford Council to progress a thorough and detailed Green Belt review to ensure that amendments made to the Green Belt can be permanent in the long term, and capable of enduring beyond the Plan period, perhaps for two Plan periods.
For the reasons set out within our response to questions SP1.3, land at Clements Hall Lane, Hockley, SS5 4DT represents a logical and sustainable location for new homes. Whilst an amendment to the Core Strategy would be required to remove the Clements Hall lane site from the Green Belt, the site does not contribute significantly towards the five purposes of the Green Belt. An appropriate balance would therefore be struck by releasing the Clements Hall Lane site from the Green Belt to contribute towards meeting housing needs within the emerging Local Plan period.

I object to the new local plan as follows:-

1. Loosing green belt which is a buffer to Hockley sprawl, and .
2. The problem with infrastructure has been ongoing for more years than I care to remember the situation in Hockley just gets worse with the Spa pinch point, low funding?
3. No spare capacity for Health and care facilities including Adult social acre let alone for 7500 extra houses.
4. The number of affordable homes home for rent needs to increase from 35% and include quads in this category .
5. The type of houses need to be moderated, so it is not mainly high end and expensive.
6. Fewer but larger sites
7. Please make the next stage of public consultation easier for all to use, the present site is too cumbersome.

I OBJECT to COL38 in Appendix C

1. In 2000 this Play space was given to Ashingdon Parish Council on a Peppercorn rent for 100yrs.
2. We now find it is called a Former Play Space.
3. It was registered with HM Land Registry Title No. EX739404 on 5th February 10.12.2004 as Malvern Road Play Space.
4. In Mr Martin Elliot's report on 1st December 2014 ( this was over a proposed Bridleway)
He stated :-The route across the play area is deemed a public right of way due to its use by pedestrians over a period of time, in his report (point 39) he records that there was significant concern expressed by the objectors (RDC and local residents) to the need to protect the public open space from development

OBJECTION

I object on the grounds that:-

1. The land is green belt.
2. Rush hour traffic is already too much for our (Hockley) road system to cope with.

If the decision is to go ahead with the plan, can we please have a path between the homes to give us all access to the woods behind them - which we used to have before the entrance in Merrylands was blocked off.

Option
The option I am objecting to is the plan to build at the back of Merryfields Avenue, reference CFS024, Map G, 119

6th February 2018

We write to express our deep concerns and disappointment with the probability of the proposed new build properties.

This land has always been green belt land and it seems that all the council wants to do is build on every inch of it that they possibly can.

We feel this would possibly affect the driveway at the side of our property and also our neighbours. As my husband has numerous health issues, the stress and strain would not help him at all.

We are also concerned that with all these new builds there would not be enough schools and doctor surgeries. We know that people arriving in the village have difficulty in gaining access to these facilities.

We would appreciate it if you would take kindly to this letter and maybe if possible rethink this situation.

Comments Form - heard about consultation via leaflet.


OPS099

I understood that it was Government policy NOT to build on flood plains.

This is an area with SSI status.

The England Coastal footpath runs along the edge of this area.

Please be advised that as the owner of 16 Barling Road I have some serious concerns regarding any possibility of building taking place on the fields to the North of my property.

Firstly any new buildings on this plot would be out of sync with the density of housing along Barling Road. There are parts of the road that have a property on only one side and in some stretches there are none on either side of the road. It therefore feels ridiculous to consider building behind properties along Barling road when the road itself has space for further properties.

Secondly I feel access to the plot would be extremely dangerous. Both possible entry points from the map would create blind spots on to country roads where significant traffic flow from a new development would likely cause a significant level of traffic incidents. This extra traffic would also make it a lot more dangerous for us as residents trying to leave our driveways.

Thirdly all views of the countryside would be decimated for all residents with properties to the North of Barling Road, changing the area significantly This is an area of Rochford that it not in a town and is simply a rural country road, with no local amenities except for the Rose Inn pub. Surely the logical place to build would be on the edge of a town where all local amenities are already situated and could take the stain of an extra development as well as have less of an impact on residents views.

Fourthly, Barling road would not be able to cope with all this extra traffic. Traffic is getting considerable worse in Rochford and Southend with recent properties being built and there being no extra infrastructure provided to cope with all the extra housing. It is now normal for it to take 30 minutes or more by car to get to Progress Road during the day and from there being able to access a significant and flowing main road.

In Summary this is simply a rural road, and not a plot on the edge of a town where if you wanted to build new homes it would make more sense. There are no amenities here, the roads are busy at the best of times. Building on this plot would be a disaster anyway, yet to do so when considering how many better local alternative plots there are would be ludicrous.

Section: Planned development of woodland end of Marylands Avenue
Option: Objection
Paragraph: All

Lived in Hockley at present address for 40 years. Our children grew up with access to the woods joining Merryfield Avenue with Maryland Avenue which forms the strip of woodland where the proposed development may take place. Access to the woods has been restricted for some time by the original owner who sold part of his land for development accessible from Plumberow.

Were the proposed development to go ahead, then yes there may be access into the woods, but more likely to be rejected by the new home owners who would not want people passed there homes into the woods.

I oppose the development of the woodland area as I believe that the estate at present could not support a further 37 houses being built with the existing road access to the development putting pressure on the road around the area.

The land where the development is proposed is subject to flooding as is proven by the suffering experienced by the existing homeowners on the woodland side of Merryfields Avenue. I cannot believe that a development is proposed that would greatly increase the flooding risks further.

I walk our dog in the nature reserve and do see the creatures that live there, again a development of the size proposed would have a considerable effort on the wildlife in that area that call woodland 'home'.

Again seems yet more invasion of green belt land for profit. Affirming a heart felt no to any development of the woodland site at the end of Marylands Avenue and Merryfields Avenue.

without my local councillor informing me of your Future Housing Development plan was unaware of your railroad through housing development without proper consultation.I wish to object to your plans on my counts.where are children going to school ? our current primary school has a waiting list. Trying to get a doctors appointment is difficult not to mention a recent CQC visit that felt the practice was in need of improvement. we have NO local trains a minimal timetable for buses and a road network that is currently not fit for purpose.Whoever carried out your assessment is not fit to give you the correct information. As an example on one site your assessor says transport good and on the opposite side of the road gives a completly different response. you seem to be pushing goverment pressuires on without proper consultation or taking into account the need for more money being spent on infrastrure

This building site is not appropriate for this area. The site is next to the Nature Reserve that will have detrimental effect on the wild life. Apart from that schools and doctors will also be affected. We have to wait at least a week for an appointment at the moment so these 37 more houses will make that even worse. Marylands are at the lower end floods now so with housing here were will the water of these houses will get water logged as there is a natural stream that runs the other side of the building area.
My house is on the corner of Marylands Avenue and Mount Crescent so the traffic will also affect me.

Comments Form - heard about consultation via letter.


Having lived in Merryfields Avenue for 53 years we are very much against the building of more houses on this estate it's a nature Reserve and should be left as such. There has always been water problems from Plumberow Avenue through to the Marylands estate and more houses will only cause more problems.

We are against any more houses being built in Hockley it is still a village and parking is already getting an issue.

The Hall Road estate will increase this problem and schools, doctors, dentists, etc. and Hockley will not cope with more building.

I wish to comment regarding the excessive buildings proposed to be built in Hullbridge. The infrastructure cannot cope with all these new builds. The roads won't cope, the school is not big enough, doctors, sewage, etc. The best plan would be to build a new garden village from scratch so that infrastructure can be built in from the start.

Comments Form / found out via social media


Section: General Overview

I am strongly against what I believe to be an over development of this area. We are already facing total gridlock in many areas at peak times. Not enough is being done to tackle current issues of over population without adding hundreds/thousands of new homes.

I live in Hullbridge because I want to live in a village not a town. The village has very little infrastructure as it has no secondary school, no train station, only 1 bus service. Our dentist cannot even get NHS registration and our doctors surgery is often booked solid. There is only 1 road out of the village and the impact of large new housing developments has not been considered at all in my opinion.

These areas are home to much wildlife and the green spaces should be protected wherever possible and more Brownfield sites used instead. The current plan does not offer enough recreational parks and protection of nature and the environment.

I am very concerned that when my boys are ready to move on to secondary school there will be a shortage of places and all the local schools will be over subscribed.

I would like to raise my objections to the potential development sites CFS069, CFS068, CFS048, CFS054, and CFS044 on map E of your "Strategic Housing and Employment Land Availability Assessment 2017".

I have been a resident of Daws Heath Road in Rayleigh since my birth 45 years ago, my family have been plot holders here since 1885 when the plots were first split from the White House farm estate.

It has become quite apparent that in the time I have and my immediate ancestors have lived here the "rural" end of Daws Heath Road is certainly not up to the job it is now used for. Initially built as a cart track the width of this road has not been widened, this is apparent by looking at the remaining ancient hedge rows and mature trees that flank it. The road is not wide enough for two cars to pass without mounting the grass verge and no current maintenance is given to this road. The 1000 plus vehicles that use this road on a daily basis are destroying it and making it exceedingly unsafe for pedestrians. To widen this road would involve having to use private land (some of which I own) and destroy the previously mentioned ancient hedges and trees. To expect to use this road for an increased traffic flow that would be needed if this was developed is total madness potentially rendering it unusable by pedestrians.

There is no mains drainage in place, at present all the current properties have there own individual septic tank systems. There is no mains gas installed, so all the current properties use either oil, LPG, solid fuel, or electric for there heating needs.

Around the perimeter of these potential development is a brook. I know only to well how this brook can flood and swamp the surround land, I believe that at least some of these potential sites are classified as a zone 2 flood risk.

I cannot see how under any circumstances these plots could be considered suitable for this kind of proposed development.

I wish to object and/or comment on the following Strategic Priorities in the IAO document:

SP1:1. Homes and jobs needed in the area: the IAO document talks about 'prioritising the use of previously developed land i.e brownfield first'. However, there are already 500 new houses to be built in Hullbridge on previously undeveloped land so this priority has not been adhered to in this instance.

SP2:8 IAO refers to 'support continued use and sustainability of our village and neighbourhood centres'. How can we sustain the centre of Hullbridge when it will be put under immense pressure with the advent of 500 additional properties and therefore approximately 1,000 extra vehicles? The proposed dwellings in addition to the 500 would make the village situation untenable. Indeed, it would no longer be a village but a town. We want Hullbridge to remain a village.

SP3:9 IAO talks of ensuring 'that all new homes...are supported by appropriate, timely and necessary infrastructure including transport, utilities, .....flood risk, education, health etc. Where is the infrastructure that is talked about here? Hullbridge has no planned or prior infrastructure to support new homes.

SP3:10. IAO says there will be 'meaningful improvements to the local highway network'. Where are these improvements to be found to support the village of Hullbridge?

SP3:11. IAO talks of 'reducing out-commuting' but how is this possible for a village like Hullbridge which has little or no industry meaning that most residents have to travel by car to other larger towns for work? How can we deliver realistic and meaningful travel options for our communities like Hullbridge over the next 20 years?

SP3:13 How do we address water and flood risk management especially in our river and coastal regions? There remains flood risk on Watery Lane and environs despite intervention.

SP4: 14 IAO talks of 'access to good quality social and health and well-being services' but there is only one gp surgery in Hullbridge so how will this cope with the influx of people from 500 new houses, let alone any further proposed houses? Well-being is emphasised throughout the IAO document but there is such a long wait for counselling that I have had to pay privately to attend sessions.

SP5: 19 IAO speaks of the need 'to protect, maintain and enhance our natural environment... support wildlife'. However, hedges and trees have already been cut down along the approach to Hullbridge in readiness for building houses and these fields are home to an abundance of wildlife including foxes, squirrels, birds etc Where will these wild creatures go for their habitat?

SP5 20: IAO speaks of ensuring 'Green Belt retains openness of area, protecting valued landscapes, retaining physical separation between towns and villages'. In Hullbridge, we value our openness of area and have highly valued landscapes, particularly to the SW of the village which are in danger of being destroyed by building. Any further building will result in there being no separation between village and towns, just a merging of dwellings and a destruction of individual characteristics of place. How do we protect our beautiful natural habitats and meet the five Green Belt purposes?

SP5 22: the South Essex SHMA and The Environmental Capacity Study' are 'uncertain that the district has the capacity to accommodate the level of growth ' needed i.e 240 pus homes a year to 2025 and beyond.

Other points I wish to make are:

The Core Strategy has 'recognised congestion and capacity issues' in terms of traffic and that these 'could have a detrimental affect on environment and health' in the local area. It has been found that there is a 'lack of resilience on the local highway network with large volumes of traffic queuing at key junctions and stationery vehicles along main routes'. This has a negative impact on journey times and ability of residents to not only reach their destinations in a timely manner but also to leave their village or town. The residents of Hullbridge have expressed concern about being able to exit the village and on a number of occasions there has been gridlock meaning that I have been unable to get to work at all. The traffic issues are very stressful and would only become worse with additional homes and vehicles in the area. The Essex County Council's Sustainable Modes of Travel Strategy 2016 require residential travel plans for schemes of 250 plus new houses. Where can these be found? How can traffic management be improved?

On page 121 of the IAO document, reference is made to national policy where 'planning should minimise vulnerability and provide resilience to impacts of climate change, flood risk, landscape etc The River Crouch is recognised for its wildlife and natural habitats and must retain its open rural character. The Ramsar Convention is just one directive in place to protect wildlife.
On page 131 the Essex Wildlfe Trust identify the River Crouch as 'living landscape' and it would be criminal to destroy such landscape. Land to the SW of Hullbridge is designated Coastal Protection Belt and therefore not available/ suitable for building upon. We are urged to 'protect and enhance our distinctive landscapes and plan for biodiversity', not cover them with concrete.
We are proud of our green landscape and wish to preserve it.
Pages 140 and 163 mention air quality and light pollution. How can these be managed now and in the future? Air quality is already very poor in some areas and would worsen if more houses and vehicles were introduced into an already densely populated area. This could affect health and well-being of residents, particularly the young and elderly.
Light pollution has a negative effect on ecology and wildlife, obscures vision of the stars, spoils the rural fell of the area and causes stress and anxiety.

All these concerns and more I am registering here. As a resident of Hullbridge, I am proud to live in a village and moved here to dwell in a village. I wish Hullbridge to remain a village and retain its unique character.

I wish to object to the possibility of more house building around Hullbridge due to the lack of infrastructure. Hullbridge was a small semi rural village that is being spoilt by overdevelopment and will ruin the village atmosphere and community cohesion.

We would like to register our objection to the proposed plan for approximately 600 new homes in Hockley and the possible overall addition of 7,500 new homes in the Rochford district.

As you are aware, the current infrastructure is totally overloaded and will not be able to cope with these proposed increases in population.

Why can't there be some forward thinking strategy? We need to create more New Towns where we can build affordable housing and new industrial centres so that people don't have to commute such ridiculous distances.

We did it in the 1950's so why not now? Everything today is just a short term fix with no real solution and we just lurch from one crisis to the next.

A New Town to the North and East of Southend Airport with a new road and rail link following the South Bank of the River Crouch and linking up with Rettendon could work.

And here's an idea for the ECC - how about a large new Garden City next to Stansted? It has already got the motorway and international airport!

I would like to make the following comments on the local plan:
1. The Plan does adequately describe how infrastructure and employment opportunities will be increased to meet the demands of an enlarged population.
2. The scale of the land areas identified for development in the Hullbridge area are excessively large in comparison to the existing development 3. The road network serving Hullbridge is barely adequate for its current size and will be put under further strain by the coming development adjacent to the Hullbridge Road. It would not be able to cope with any more large developments.
4. The site CFS099 is a potential flood area. If the sea wall was raised here to allow for development it would increase flooding risk in existing developed areas further down the river.

We are objecting to more house building in the Hullbridge area without improvement of existing infrastructure as per the PRIME MINISTERS speech this week. The existing road structure barely copes with traffic volume now and that is before the 500 houses already in progress. On top of that with the extra land being concreted over where is all the extra water run off going to go. Watery Lane is prone to flooding (hence its name) as too is the A1245 underpass under the A127. The extra traffic through Hullbridge causes gridlock when this floods and it has taken me 3 hours to get from my home in Hullbridge to work at Sweyne Park School which is just over 3 miles away.

How are any children going to be schooled, or sick people going to be cared for without these necessities being addressed. They seem to be building a pub though so you obviously have your priorities.

You have deliberately excluded the people of this village due consultation probably because you know we are united against the way you are foisting this upon us. We will be just as united next polling day.

I have registered on the Rochford Site and have attempted to mark my objection online, however the system is not very user friendly or easy to make such a stance. Anyway, please accept this email as my formal objection to the RDC plans and in particular the late addition towards Behind Malvern Road

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, which is particularly applicable to the Malvern Road site behind my house and wasn't meant to be made Available for any planning 5. No long-term LAGACY left for our future generations.
6. Security concerns- access behind my house and back garden will cause me And my family additional Concerns and make us additional vulnerable 7. Traffic and Access to many of the proposed sites have not been considered or thought through. Personally for me such amount of additional traffic to obtain access To the houses being proposed behind Malvern Road is not logistically feasible

Please CUT THE TARGET NUMBERS TO NATURAL GROWTH LEVEL.

I am a Great Wakering resident and have grave concerns regarding the many proposed development sites in the village.

My concerns are as follows:
- Traffic/congestion on the 2 access roads leading to the village are already extremely busy without the extra traffic that development would bring
- The only school in the village is already at maximum capacity with no room to make bigger
- Doctors surgery. At the moment the waiting time to see a GP is several days, this will only increase with more people.
- Noise pollution
- Disruption to residents daily lives over the months and years of building work
- Destruction to the local wildlife
- Commuting time to work will increase
- My choice to reside in the village came from wanting to raise my family in an environment where we have open land around us and not a concrete jungle!

The proposed development sites I wish to oppose are:
- CFS070
- CFS065
- CFS153
- EXP11
- GF02
- BFR1
- CFS115/SER9
- CFS060

I am writing to object against the 500 new builds, infrastructure and traffic are the main reasons by also the loss of green belt. It will ruin our village and surrounding areas.

I am writing to object to the proposed houses intended to be built in hullbridge I feel this will turn a village in to a busy town which the services will not be able to cope with. By you allowing more houses to be built in mass will affect local people's lives by putting a strain on the Doctors schools roads etc

May I first say that I have tried to use the website to leave this feedback but found the site too complicated for an average user to navigate and therefore contribute to this consultation, this has led me to leave this e-mail of which I hope you read and include. My name is Alan Pomroy and I reside at *redacted*
I am, as a resident, very frustrated with the policy of repeated development of the area that I live in and the surrounding towns that I travel through for work and social reasons. The south east of Essex has such a dense population of people due to employment opportunities that the infrastructure cannot cope at this time let alone with the future population growth that would occur with the proposed developments. In brief the points that deeply concern me are:
* Traffic issues. The main roads cannot cope with the current volumes of traffic without the increase due to development. This is so much in evidence that the introduction of tolls along the A127 to try and alleviate the congestion are being considered. Local pollution levels are on the increase due to the industrial demand and the road traffic issues causing health concerns.
* Water demands in the area. Hanningfield reservoir is a popular fishing resort I frequent. During the summer months and especially toward the end of summer the reservoir is regularly depleted of its resources thus causing the necessity to drain local rivers to supplement the demand. An increase in demand is simply not sustainable.
* Education. The schooling in the local area is insufficient at all levels if development continues. At primary level the local school has a 2 form entry that simply cannot cope. There is nothing on option locally for secondary school education other than to travel to surrounding schools placing demand on transport resources and the local population to those schools. Shortage of placements will impact on all adjacent areas and children will not necessarily gain their desired or nearest place of education. Schools are therefore regularly closed for extended periods during winter months due to adverse weather as the risks of travelling to these schools fails any risk assessments made thus leading to lost time in education.
* Health issues. The local doctors surgeries are already at capacity. Getting an appointment is almost an impossible task leading to people to attend the A & E at Southend hospital. A hospital already overloaded with demand and also a hospital that has exceeded its budget regularly and has been scrutinised for closure/partial closure to redeploy to other medical sites. This would be devastating for the area as it stands without further development. The demands on Southend Hospital are already too great and further demand on this institution should be unthinkable.
* Great Wakering is/was a village of which all local infrastructure and amenities represent. Due to constant demand for development the village is/has lost its identity as a village but these amenities and infrastructure has not changed. Great Wakering cannot take further development. The main high street consists of a number of listed buildings meaning updates/development of the road is impossible. The High street is barely passable at times for busses let alone this increase in local traffic. The surrounding areas suggested for development are based on flood risk sites, areas containing natural resources or areas of conservation.
* Recycling centres. The areas waste production is already out of control with increased demand to establish new local landfill sites ( another demand nobody wants on their doorstep ). Great Wakering recycling centre is miles away at Rayleigh although Southend is SO much closer. I am led to believe that plans are being considered to relocate this recycling centre even further from these local residents. This could lead to an increase in fly tipping or attempts to use the more local centre of Southend adding to their issues.
* Crime and policing. With an increase in population an increase in policing demands would naturally be required. This would impact on an already stretched law enforcement institution.
Taking all the above in account and the responsibilities we have to maintain the green and great British land I believe that this proposal should be rejected in all counts. I respect the need for increased housing that would align with an improvement for all amenities and local infrastructure but I strongly believe that there is enough evidence already to show and prove that the area cannot cope with the proposed increase in housing and therefore population.

Please accept this email as my formal objection to these house ms going up in and around the hullbridge area. I moved to hullbridge to escape the hustle and busle of a town to enjoy the green belt and village feel of hullbridge for a start and also the following issues will be caused by building new houses.

School is not big enough
Doctors to full as it is
Roads and traffic will be too busy.
Parking for local shops
Shops not big enough
Pubs and resturants not enough
Nothing to for kids
Wildlife will be affected
Noise polution

These are just a few of issues it will cause.

There is enough land around that is larger were yku could create a new town to house people.
Leave the green belt around for people to enjoy.