Delivering our Need for Homes

I strongly object to any new homes being built in the Rochford area with poor road infrastructure the area would come to a standstill. With all current public amenities running at capacity we just could not cope!!

In particular the land between Windsor Gardens and Victor Gardens with proposed housing being built I wonder how access would be achieved??? Not forgetting its green belt land, a flood plain and in close proximity to St Marys church. This would also have a huge impact on wildlife in the area being so close to magnolia park.

I look forward to hearing your response.

Ashley Jones, Hawkwell, Essex.

Good Afternoon

I am concerned re the latest local plan of offered up building plots and really am opposed to building on the green belt, it was put in place for a reason, to safe guard our countryside.
At present it would seem that we do not have the infrastructure in place to accommodate the already planned 500 houses and over 700 cars that will come with them let alone any extra. With 1 medical centre that is coping with an increasingly elderly population and 1 primary school. Where are these potential new residents children going to go.
Although I appreciate the need for more housing if it is going to be built then they should be within the price range of our local community and young people and not the 300k + new builds that seem to be the norm at present.
With the increase of traffic that these will bring the air pollution will increase and I believe that this is already an issue in our surrounding area. There is only one road through our village of Hullbridge and it would be stupid to believe that the extra houses will not have at least 2 cars apiece as the local bus service is 1 bus that is not reliable and when the A127 is congested the village is already used as a cut through for fast moving vehicles and heavy lorries.

I hope that all these issues, plus more that I am sure will be coming your way from the local community, into account at any further planning considerations.

Are there plans to expand the Health Centre in Wakering to facilitate the extra people?
Are there plans to accommodate and educate the extra school age children in Wakering?
What plans are there to build in Rochford?
Is anything going to be done about the entrance to the site south of the High Street just about opposite the Health Centre? The approach is a quagmire and mud and stones spill out on to the pathway, where mothers and children walk every day to get to school.
People have to live somewhere but they also need a supporting infrastructure. So far I am not convinced any thought has been put into this.
I have raised these concerns on the Taylor Wimpey site (as suggested by them) but surprise surprise had no response. I do not understand why organisations ask for opinions then ignore them!

I am strongly opposing to the new local plans in Hullbridge to put another 750 homes in this beautiful Village.
I moved here to live in a village not a town and the government are totally destroying this.
The cutting down of the beautiful strong Oak trees as you enter our village on lower road is totally devastating, how could they, OUTRAGEOUS!!!!
How can you say that another 750 houses, which means on average 1,500 more cars, 2500 more people will not totally ruin this area. Just think of the wild life this will kill and leave homeless, disgusting. Our lovely unmade and tiny roads were not built for this and we will not have them made up into monstrous ugly new build roads.
It is unjust and unfair to the community to put this upon the people here.
Please please rethink your proposals for the sake of the families who live here.

Re: Future Housing Development in Wakering, Essex.

I am totally against the huge developments taking place in our Village.

That's what we are a 'Village'

Open spaces being built on taking away the village.

We don't have the roads to accommodate the extra housing, the schools cannot take a large intake of children.
I have not heard anything about creating a larger doctors surgery.

I strongly object to both scale and nature of the new Local Plan in general.

CFS-127 (proposed site)

I strongly object to this proposed site -

1. Poor access via Bartletts
2. Loss of green belt land
3. Narrow roads
4. Congestion
5. Air quality
6. No matching funding for supporting infrastructure
7. No spare capacity within health care and services.

To Whom It May Concern

I would like to put my objection through regarding the above development :-

1. The size of each development is huge with a lot of disruption & loss of very precious green belt land.

2. Loss of wild life in the area
3. Lack of infrastructure
4. Medical services
5. No extra schools
6. Taking village life away its losing its identity/community
7. Farming land
8. Walking/Rambling/Cycling general green spaces
9. No Social amenities (all housing)

Rayleigh cannot sustain more housing, traffic is horrendous and sometimes it is quicker to walk to the High Street than drive. Queues at peak hours are already horrendous and health services are over stretched. Having lived in Rayleigh since 1966 I find my lovely little town has changed out of all recognition.

Thurrock Council has considered the Issues and Options document and the supporting Duty to Cooperate Topic Paper and has the following observations to make with regard to the Duty to Cooperate. Thurrock Council confirms it is satisfied with the level of consultation and engagement to date with regard to the emerging Rochford Local Plan.
The Rochford Issues and Options document clearly identifies in a number of its objectives and policy options the key strategic and cross boundary issues where it states the Council will work with the other South Essex local authorities and with individual organisations under the Duty to Cooperate. It is noted for example that homes and jobs, transport and other infrastructure are key issues identified for collaboration and joint working.
Rochford Council has also produced a Duty to Cooperate Topic Paper that sets out the legislative and policy context for the Duty to Cooperate and how Rochford has sought to meet its requirements. The topic paper highlights that there had been a need for more effective joint working between the South Essex local authorities and for arrangements that result in clear outcomes to address strategic cross boundary issues.
Thurrock Council welcomes and supports the continued involvement and participation of Rochford District Council in joint working and collaboration with the
other South Essex authorities including Thurrock. It is noted that Rochford Council has been and continues to be involved with the other South Essex authorities in the preparation of a range of technical evidence. Furthermore Rochford Council along with the other South Essex authorities and Essex County Council signed a Memorandum of Understanding in 2017 that includes a key set of principles and arrangements to improve the effectiveness of joint working including a commitment to prepare a Strategic Planning and Infrastructure Framework.
Since the summer of 2017 the leaders and chief executives of the South Essex Councils with the inclusion of Brentwood Borough Council and Essex County Council have also come together to develop a shared long term place vision for South Essex and develop the scope for greater strategic collaboration. By late 2017 work on the vision has resulted in the South Essex 2050 Ambition which includes agreement on the key policy themes to be supported, identifies six growth areas to be promoted and the establishment of new joint working arrangements including strategic planning.
In early 2018 the leaders and chief executives have committed to continuing with the vision and formalising the collaboration by forming an Association as agreed in a MOU and known as the Association of South Essex Local Authorities (ASELA). The aims of ASELA include providing place leadership, and the opening up of space for housing, business and leisure development by developing a joint spatial strategy.
More recently the ASELA Councils have begun considering more detailed arrangements for joint strategic planning including an expression of interest in becoming a pilot for the Government's proposed Statement of Common Ground, the commissioning of further technical studies and the consideration of the exact nature and status of the joint spatial strategy including the possibility of producing a Joint Strategic Plan (JSP). Rochford District Council as a member of ASELA and in supporting the joint planning arrangements will also need to consider the level of resource and commitment that it can provide towards the new joint planning arrangements and its own emerging and future local plan(s) production.
A key issue for Rochford Council will be the need to consider how the emerging New Local Plan will align with the preparation of the joint strategic planning both in terms of the content and nature of the local plan(s) that the Council intends to prepare but also in the timing and production of such documents especially if the South Essex Councils agree to move forward with the option of a statutory joint strategic plan.
The importance placed by the Government on better joint working is set out in the draft revision to the NPPF published in March 2018 reflecting statements in the housing White Paper and previous consultation. The draft NPPF includes greater provision to produce joint plans and also proposes changes to the "effective" and "positively prepared" soundness tests for local plans to encourage agreements and joint working. The "effective" test also requires local authorities to evidence cross -boundary issues and joint working in a Statement of Common Ground.

Strategic Objective 1
Thurrock Council fully supports Rochford Council in seeking to deliver housing to meet its Objectively Assessed Housing Need. However it is considered the Objective should be rewritten as it could infer that housing will be primarily delivered through PDL and then working with South Essex Neighbours but not other potential sources.

Strategic Priority 1: The homes and jobs needed in the area.
Delivering Homes and Jobs
SP1.1: We have a real and identified need for affordable homes in the district and an aging population, so how do we sustainably meet our need for market and affordable homes and homes for older people and adults with disabilities over the next twenty years?
Thurrock Council supports an approach under Strategic Priority SP1.1 and Option1 for Rochford District Council to seek to fully accommodate the upper end of its Objectively Assessed Housing Heed (OAHN) within the district during the proposed plan period of 2017-37.
The Issues and Options document sets out that the recommended range of Objectively Assessed Housing Need for Rochford is between 331-361 dwellings per annum as evidenced from the 2017 Addendum to the South Essex Strategic Housing Market Assessment. The Council has identified that taking into account the shortfall of housing delivered in 2014-2017 from the OAN base date that this results in a projected housing need for the plan period 2017-2037 of between 7,181 and 7,881 dwellings.
The Government published in September 2017 draft potential options for a standardised methodology for assessing OAN. The draft paper recommends a target for Rochford District of 362 dwellings a year. This is only 1 dwelling a year more difference compared to the higher end of the current OAN range. It is accepted that the Government methodology is only draft and there are uncertainties as to when the final methodology will be published and whether the OAN figure for authorities will have altered significantly. Revised population and household projections are also due to be published by the Government and will need to be considered as part of the assessment of any revised OAN figures. Therefore at this stage there remains uncertainty on the future figure of OAN for Rochford. The Council will need to take into account the expected changes to the methodology, population and household projections along with other evidence for housing need as it moves to the next stages of plan preparation.
It is recognised that at this stage of the preparation of the Rochford Local Plan that the Council has not fully assessed the potential capacity of the district to accommodate the currently identified OAN. Thurrock notes that Rochford Council is continuing to develop the evidence base to support its local plan and is to undertake further work to review policy and environmental constraints, infrastructure restrictions and site deliverability in order to determine the level of housing that can be accommodated in the borough.
The Issues and Options document states that based upon current evidence including the 2017 Strategic Housing and Employment Land Availability Assessment (SHELAA) that the Council has identified insufficient sites for housing within the urban area to meet the OAHN identified for the plan period. Thurrock Supports the approach that the Council its taking to consider further the potential capacity of the borough to meet its own OAHN including the ongoing call for sites, a review of the Green Belt and landscape assessment, and further development of infrastructure requirements.

Until Rochford Council has fully assessed the policy constraints and capacity within the district it is unclear whether there is a potential unmet need. Furthermore Rochford Council will need to consider any implications of unmet need arising from other authorities in the housing market area.
Thurrock Council requests to be kept informed of any shortfall of housing provision arsing in Rochford during the preparation of the New Local Plan. Such matters will be increasingly be considered as part of the joint working arrangements and preparation of the South Essex joint strategic planning including the ongoing development of the evidence base and monitoring.
Thurrock Council also supports the approach of Rochford in Option 2 of SP1.1 of working with other Councils across South Essex to address the strategic cross-boundary matters such as housing need and distribution and unmet housing need. This key strategic issue will be considered as part of the joint strategic planning and as this will provide a strategic framework to inform the emerging Rochford Local Plan.
Rochford Council will need to consider how much additional evidence base for housing need and capacity can be prepared in partnership with adjoining authorities and the other South Essex authorities. The South Essex Authorities are considering the commissioning of additional elements of evidence base to support the preparation of the joint strategic planning including a review of the South Essex SHMA, a spatial options study including a high level housing land and capacity assessment and further infrastructure studies.
The outcome of these studies and the preparation of the joint strategic planning will have implications for the nature and scale of housing provision across South Essex including Rochford District and the approach to be taken in the New Local Plan.
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.
Thurrock Council supports the approach that Rochford Council has identified in the Issues and Options document with the six potential options representing realistic ways to deliver the additional homes required in the district. It is considered that a combination of a number of these options for delivering housing supply are likely to provide the source of housing capacity to meet OAHN for the plan period.
The 2017 Rochford Council SHELAA sets out that currently the Council land trajectory has identified there is sufficient suitable, available and achievable land to deliver a total of 3499 dwellings with most having planning permission but also including an additional 935 dwellings on land identified through existing allocations without permission or other sites assessed though the SHELAA, the call for sites and are predominantly on urban land.
As noted in the Issues and Options document there is currently insufficient appropriate sites to accommodate the projected OAHN for Rochford during the plan period and sourced from the urban area. In seeking to assess the potential options to accommodate the shortfall in housing supply the Council will need to carefully consider the balance between the levels of housing need and the environmental capacity and other policy constraints.

It is identified in the Rochford SHELAA that through the ongoing call for sites process the Council have identified significant additional potential capacity but the suitability of these sites to come forward for housing will be subject to the further assessment of environmental capacity and review of other policy constraints such as the Green Belt that are being undertaken as part of the local plan process.
The Council should continue to review the potential supply of sites from the urban area and other brownfield sources including the review of density assumptions and the other potential sources of supply from the urban area. However if the Council has exhausted all other reasonable alternatives in order to accommodate its OAHN including discussion with adjoining authorities it should consider there are exceptional circumstances to justify the release of Green Belt land in order to accommodate this need. It should be noted that a number of other South Essex authorities including Basildon, Brentwood and Thurrock are proposing to release land from the Green Belt in to accommodate part of their housing need.
SP1.5: How do we sustainably meet our need for Gypsy and Traveller pitches over the next 20 years?
The Issues and Options document sets out the needs for Gypsies and Travellers arising in Rochford to 2033 as identified from the recently published Gypsy and Travellers Accommodation Assessment (GTAA) of 2018. The Council states it has potential pitch provision through an allocation to meet most of the identified needs of Gypsy and Travellers up to 2033 regardless of whether the Gypsy and Travellers meet the current planning definition. The Issues and Options documents sets out a range of alternative options to meet this need, including giving careful consideration to provision for the needs of those households that no longer meet the planning definition of Gypsy and Travellers.
Thurrock supports the overall approach of Rochford Council to accommodate its own Gypsy and Travellers need. However it is noted that the assessment of need based on the most recent GTAA only covers the period to 2033. It is considered the Rochford Council will need to further review the GTAA to ensure it has identified the Gypsy and Traveller need to cover the whole plan period. Clarification is sought that the Council will accommodate this need within the borough. At this stage it is unclear what in terms of potential unmet Gypsy and Traveller need there is across Essex and in particular South Essex. Rochford Council along with the other authorities in South Essex will need to consider this matter as part of the Duty to Cooperate process.
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 wider South Essex area?
Thurrock Council supports Option B for taking the Green Belt policy forward in the New Rochford Local Plan that includes the potential amendment of existing policy.
The Council should continue to review the potential supply of sites from the urban area and other brownfield sources including the review of density assumptions and the other potential sources of supply from the urban area. However if the Council has exhausted all other reasonable alternatives in order to accommodate its OAN including discussion with other authorities it should consider there are exceptional circumstances to justify the release of Green Belt land in order to accommodate this
need. It should be noted that a number of other South Essex authorities including Basildon, Brentwood and Thurrock are proposing to release land from the Green Belt in order to accommodate part of their Housing and other development needs.

I would like to register my objection to the land at the end of Sandhill Road, Eastwood being offered for future housing projects.

Sandhill Road is a private road that is very narrow, has no pavements and is just wide enough for cars to pass each other safely. At the very end of the road where it adjoins the land being offered it narrows into a single track and is therefore unsuitable for access.

There is also a host of different wildlife living in this land that would suffer severely if it were to be used for housing.

Please consider my objection.

I object to the strip of land to the north of Merryfields Avenue, Hockley being used for housing, as the trees form a natural buffer between Marylands Estate and the Nature Reserve, and should be kept as such. Or perhaps incorporated into the nature reserve.

Re Map Q, ALL SITES, Strategic housing land availability and employment Assessment 2017 AppB

I wish to object to the building of further housing estates in the Great Wakering area, in view of the construction of serveral estates in process, increasing the population of the village by several hundred, on the grounds of:- Insufficient infrastructure.

A. Health - Doctors surgery already under stress. Patients sometimes having to wait a week for appointments.
B. Education - One local school already full.
C. Roads and Transportation - Main road very narrow with housing on either side, so unable to be widened, for extra traffic.
D. No bus service to local Shoeburyness train station.
E. No sports hall for local youth.
F. Insufficient industry to employ people so huge increase in outgoing traffic.
G. Loss of fine agricultural land.

My comments are as follows:

Page 38 , item 6.30
OPTIONS we must provide our own District housing quota. RDC has a significant green belt area, our neighbouring authorities are largely built up. If we opted to pool future development Rochford would inevitably lose open land other areas cannot provide.

Page 42, Table 5, also pages 44 and 45.
I strongly object to Rochford District Council's 'Settlement Heirarchy'. In my opinion this system is obsolete and inappropriate going forward. Past waves of development in the same areas have led to reduced living standards for residents in the more urban parts of the District. Negligible infrastructural improvements have been provided to offset this development.
If the level of development envisaged in SHMA addendum 2017 were agreed for the District as a whole (Page 33, Table 3), then I consider the development should be either:
A) Evenly distributed through all the parishes in the District creating about 25 homes per parish per annum.
or
B) The creation of a Locally Led Garden Village or Town as per government's recent policy guidance. Ideally this would be close to a pre-existing major artery A Road, such as the A1159. It should be noted that this area benefits from retail and leisure facilities, it also has easy access into Southend, which is asper page 10 Figure 2, is the destination for the largest number of residents leaving Rochford District every day for work (more than the number that go to inner and outer London combined).
The Rochford District area ( Fossetts Farm), close to the A1159 is I believe green belt. However the District will inevitably be obliged to release green belt land and we should not assume the boundaries of existing urban areas are the only green belt to be re-categorised. We must put the lives and wellbeing of our resident above our noble principles of preserving remote parts of the green belt.

Page 78 Highway Infrastructure 8.3
Although, as stated, Rayleigh is close to a number of 'A' roads, those same highways create significant problems for Rayleigh and the western part of Rochford District.
The major multi lane A roads are all at the edge of the Rochford District or beyond its boundary. However most other A roads and main B roads within Rochford District are over 150 years old in modernised/upgraded form. Indeed most of the main roads in the western part of the District can be found on the 1875 County Series O.S. Map. It is truly astonishing that so much development has been added over the following 140 years with the same, if improved, roads. In essence we have a vastly expanded population funnelled down pre 20th century roads. This explains the traffic problems on roads in Rayleigh. Effectively no wholly new transport infrastructure has been added in 150 years to the western end of the District. This results in delays and difficult traffic movements throughout the week.
However one positive point we should not lose under any circumstances is the current traffic system in the centre of Rayleigh at least preserves the town centre. Were it returned to the former one way system, with it's race track effect, the District's most successful town centre would be greatly harmed and cease being a pleasant place to shop.
Traffic from all the adjoining communities Hockley, Hullbridge and Hawkwell flow through Rayleigh on the afore mentioned 200 hundred plus year old roads.
Another problem adversely effecting the traffic in Rayleigh and the western part of the District, is that congestion and frequent problems on the A127, which funnels many vehicles through the town in a west /east or reverse direction.
I submit that these road factors, which create delay and pollution in the western District, preclude further significant development in Rayleigh or Rawreth (above and beyond that already agreed).

Air Pollution
Tackling air pollution from road traffic should be at the heart of our new local plan. We are fortunate to have a good railway system running through the District. On a small scale cycling is rising in popularity and good for both the environment and also for the health and well being of residents, however cycling is poorly catered for in Rochford District. Adding cycle lanes in the overcrowded and somewhat dangerous main roads in our urban areas may be rather too challenging. However if RDC does opt for the 'Locally Led Garden Village or Town' option we should ensure safe cycle lanes are included in any scheme.

Historic Buildings , Conservation Areas and Local Lists
I am concerned that Local Lists have been somewhat down graded by Rochford District Council over recent decades. Whilst not giving the almost guaranteed protection of national Listing they do confer significant protection especially in Conservation Areas.
Conservation Areas / the Historic Core of Towns and villages are an efficient way of protecting historic and attractive areas of the District. I recommend that as part of the Local Plan process Conservation Area boundaries should be reviewed, with a view to extension, subject to local Public Consultation (not just County Council advice).

Accommodation for independent older age group residents in or close to town centres
In recognition of increasing older age group numbers within our District, we should a guidance note to allow town centre older age group units for independent mobile residents. These may come with shared garden / recreational areas. With the changing nature of our town centres and the erosion of some retail and public facilities such as Police Stations, the Council should encourage the conversion of historic buildings and the redevelopment of the more modern inappropriate and unappealing town centre buildings for elderly person accommodation. This is not to suggest that all modern buildings are bad and all old buildings good, however popular support for historic buildings in Conservation and adjacent areas should be given weight when considering planning applicatons. All development within Conservation Areas should meet the highest standard of architecture as in any historic towns in the country, furthermore elderly person units should be required to provide good sound proofing especially in town centre locations.

Page 39 6.31 Affordable housing
Developers do not want to include affordable housing within their schemes as it adversely affects their profit margins. A significant number of new residents have been coming from the London area where they are able to sell houses for extremely high values compared with the local housing stock, this has caused additional house inflation and has led to a greater demand for large housing units out of the reach of many local young people hoping to get a first foothold on the housing ladder. The new Local Plan should recognise and address this problem. Simple requirement for affordable housing within schemes may not be successful going forward. It would be good for RDC local policies to explore the possibility and practicality of requiring large scale developers to sell small parcels of land at reduced price to Housing Associations either for rental property or part rent part purchase schemes.

Page 41 6.36 Care Homes
Care Home finances are under severe financial pressures, which lead to problems for the NHS. Policy option B would be the best response in current circumstances of rising demand and limited supply.

Ref. CFS024 Land North of Merryfields Avenue, Hockley. Map G.119

I wish to make a formal objection to the proposed building of 30 plus houses on the ground behind the houses in Merryfields Avenue. I believe this is Green Belt Area.

1. We get flooding after heavy rain down Marylands Avenue, already, as the drains don't seem to be able to cope, this will only get worse as loss of natural drainage from the woods behind Merryfields Avenue.
2. Even more pressure on the sewers, etc. which there has been in the past.
3. We already have problems getting appointments with Doctors, etc. and Southend Hospital, this will only get worse.
4. Traffic will increase greatly, there are delays getting in and out of Hockley, also if we have building lorries etc. on this estate it will be dangerous to the children here.
5. Schools are already running to capacity, this will only get worse, unless you intend building more schools.
6. What is wrong in building more houses on the fields in the area that aren't used for cultivation, such as you have built on the land down Hall Road?

Yours sincerely,

G E Brunt

The Green Belt Area Merryfields

I feel that it is absolutely ludicrous and heart-breaking to build on this land. Some of us already get flooding on property. I myself have had to have pallets in my garage have so much water in there when it rains. At times garden is so flooded can't get out there. Not only that the traffic is horrendous in Plumberow. Building all these houses will add to this. Wildlife has already been hit badly. Building houses in Etheldore has taken so much. I love Hockley but if this plan goes ahead this will ruin it. We have already have had to put up with noise and dirt of lorries going by every hour when the building of the woodland border of Plumberow was sanctioned.

Further to the Council's consultation on the Issues and Options, I should like to offer the following feedback:

* Site S001 - Rayleigh Garden Centre - This appears to be a suitable development site within Rayleigh as it is of a decent scale to deliver both market and affordable housing; it benefits from ingress and egress the Eastwood Road; and there could be suitable buffers to neighbouring properties to limit nuisance during development and post completion.

* Site S102 - Land to the north of Rayleigh Garden Centre - This also appears to be a suitable site for development as it is of sufficient size to generate some affordable housing and it could be buffered from neighbours.

* Site CF S068 - Land to the south of Daws Heath Road at Lower Wyburns Farm - This does not appear to be a suitable site as it is greenbelt stopping the ribbon development down Daws Heath Road; Daws Heath Road will be unable to cope with additional traffic as it not built to a suitable standard; the increased traffic leading on to the A127 will add to the existing danger at this difficult junction; and the additional development will exacerbate an existing problem with drainage as highlighted by the 2014 flooding within existing properties.

* Site CF S069 - Land to the north of Daws Heath Road at Lower Wyburns Farm - This does not appear to be a suitable site as, just like site CF S068, it is greenbelt stopping the ribbon development down Daws Heath Road; Daws Heath Road will be unable to cope with additional traffic as it not built to a suitable standard; the increased traffic leading on to the A127 will add to the existing danger at this difficult junction; and the additional development will exacerbate an existing problem with drainage as highlighted by the 2014 flooding within existing properties.

Re: Planning Proposal (CFS054, CFS048, CFS044)

We are extremely concerned to learn of where the proposed designated area's of development could be in our immediate area. We have lived in South View Close for 35 years, over the passed 2 years the increase in traffic on the Eastwood Road and all surrounding area's of Rayleigh has dramatically increased causing severe congestion. Rayleigh was originally a village, the narrow roads in and out of this area are not built for this high volume of traffic, the schools and doctors in the vicinity are already at full capacity.

Greenbelt land as so called should remain to be protected so that we have open spaces, tree's that produce oxygen and greenery for wildlife, it is healthy for the environment cutting down on pollution and poisonous gases in the atmosphere.

Our grandchildren love our back garden overlooking fields and recognising different species of wildlife, we do not want to raise our children in a concrete jungle.

The area the council has designated for building has always been susceptible to flooding, please do not build more houses creating even more congestion, flooding and irreparable damage to the environment.

Ref CFS024 Land north of Merryfields Ave, Hockley - MAP G 119

1. Funding
Where is that coming from

2. Utilities
Utilities will not be able to manage with all these new houses 600 in Hall Rd. Plus Christmas Tree land, the old prison plus any others.

3. Green Belt Law
We will not have a great deal of Countryside, one town will be joining the next town our villages will disappear, even school fields are being used for extra school building. It will be concrete from London to Southend.

4. Civil Amenities
Doctors are over crowded. Schools are in the same mess. No parks for children to play in or for nice walks.

5. Commuting
We have one road in from Rayleigh to Hockley Ashingdon which is always busy especially school times. Rush hour even worse when buses don't turn up on time.

6. As for Maryland Avenue build access is bad enough without lorries. The nature reserve will be disturbed with rare animals what's going to happen to them. Its definitely a no no.

Re: CFS024Land North of Merryfields Avenue, Hockley, MAP G, 119

I wish to register a strong objection to the application above for the reasons shown below.

First and foremost this land is Metropolitan Green Belt and outside the existing settlement boundaries.

I am very concerned about the close proximity to both Marylands Wood and the Nature Reserve, and the detrimental effect that this will have on the wildlife in the area. This land is teeming with wildlife and the Nature Reserve itself is undisturbed by humans AT PRESENT so provides ideal nesting sites. It is home to bats, badgers and a rare orchid, all protected species.

I am one of many residents in Marylands Avenue affected by flooding. During heavy rain excessive amounts of water flow down the hill and congregates at the end of the road where the gullies cannot cope. The woodland provides a natural soakaway.

Access to the site is far too narrow. Marylands Avenue is a quiet, residential, family oriented street and to have heavy site traffic weaving its way up and down this road, my road, is unthinkable, extremely dangerous and would impact badly on all the residents.

This is not the first time that this tract of land has been offered up for consideration as a proposed building site and the same objections are raised each time. I am hoping that the answer will be the same this time...NO NO emphatically No.

CFS024 Land North of Merryfields Avenue Hockley Map G, 119

We both object quite strongly about the houses being built on the above site, we will list the reasons why below.
1. This is Metropolitan Green Belt and should not be used for development. This land is also outside the existing settlement.
2. We feel the housing project would be to near the nature reserve as we often walk our grandchildren over there, this reserve should be reserved for future generations to come.
3. A few years back this area was flooded including our house in Plumberow Avenue, which could happen again if this development went ahead as there would be no soakaway.
4. The traffic entering and leaving Plumberow Ave to get to Maryland Avenue will be excessive and noisier once the houses are there, also we feel that Maylnd Avenue and the adjacent roads are far to narrow to except all this excess traffic.
5. At the moment it can be quite difficult during the day to find a parking space n the station car park, as my wife is disabled she finds it very had when the two disabled spaces are used and she has to walk the whole length of the car park to get on the train, so in the future if these houses are built it will make the situation more difficult.
6. The extra strain on the existing Doctors Clinics and Dentists, would make it harder to get appointments which is hard enough at the moment.
This is a pleasant area to live, which we feel this would be lost if this development went ahead. WE OBJECT TO THIS PLANNING APPLICATION.

Issues and Options Document

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. If they have not been completed, do not say so.

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 and I shall submit it again as an appendix to this document.

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 not 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.

Air quality now has increased importance. The EU is threatening to fine our government because its plans to improve air quality in a large number of cities and towns are inadequate. Just waiting and hoping that things get better will not do!

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.

I refer you again to the plan that I append to this document to significantly reduce congestion and improve air quality in Rayleigh town centre. This could be achieved in much less time than waiting for all the existing vehicles to be replaced.

You may as well stay with option A since options B and C will make no difference.

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.




Appendix

A proposal for the reduction of traffic congestion in central Rayleigh and consequent improvement of air quality

Air pollution is an acknowledged problem in central Rayleigh and just today the high court have ruled that the government must do more to reduce it, particularly NOx emissions from diesel vehicles. A major cause of air pollution in Rayleigh is traffic queuing on Crown Hill and creeping forward one vehicle at a time - engines continually running and repeated hill starts which are particularly bad for NOx emissions. Many recent cars and buses have automatic engine stop when stationary so that if traffic is held at a red light emissions will be significantly reduced. This feature will become commonplace over the next few years.

The pedestrian crossing at the top of Crown Hill and the mini roundabout at its junction with the High Street must be eliminated in order to cure this problem. This proposal achieves that and improves traffic flow in Websters Way as well as eliminating most traffic from the central part of the High Street.

1. Close the High Street to traffic between the Crown and Half Moon/ Church. Allow access for taxis to the existing taxi lagoon only. Allow access for delivery vehicles but perhaps only at specified times. This will be a shared space and so 10 MPH speed limit.
2. Block off access from Bellingham Lane and Church Street to the High Street.
3. Replace the mini roundabout at the Crown Hill / High Street junction with a swept bend with limited access to and from the High Street (see 1) with give way lines on the outside of the bend.
4. Replace mini roundabouts at the High Street / Eastwood Road and Eastwood Road/ Websters Way junctions with traffic lights.
5. Replace the zebra crossing at the top of Crown Hill with a light controlled pedestrian crossing.
6. Remove the pedestrian crossing outside the Spread Eagle. This is no longer needed as people can cross from The Crown to the taxi lagoon.
7. Replace the zebra crossing across Eastwood Road outside Marks and Spencer with a light controlled pedestrian crossing.
8. Replace the zebra crossing across Websters Way near to Eastwood Road with a light controlled pedestrian crossing.
9. Arrange for coordinated control of the two new sets of traffic lights, and the four light controlled pedestrian crossings (Crown Hill, Websters Way, and two in Eastwood Road). *
10. Remove the pedestrian crossing in the centre of the High Street as it is no longer needed.
11. Remove the traffic lights at the Junction of Websters Way and High Street and the pedestrian crossing across the High Street as they are no longer needed. Retain the pedestrian crossing across Websters Way. This junction becomes a swept bend and will be free flowing for traffic except when pedestrians are crossing.
12. Access for wedding cars and hearses to the church will be unaffected except that they will have to use London Hill instead of Bellingham Lane to/from Church Street.
13. Access to the Mill Hall and its car parks will be via London Hill and Bellingham Lane. A new exit will be required from the windmill car park to London Hill adjacent to Simpsons solicitors. **
14. Provide parking for disabled people in Bellingham Lane between the Mill hall and its previous junction with the High Street. Create a small turning circle where the junction used to be.
15. Create a layby in Websters Way for buses heading for Hockley or Bull Lane.
16. The loading bay outside Wimpy will become the bus stop for the No 9 bus.
17. The No 1 bus is a problem as it will no longer be able to stop in the High Street or Websters Way and the first stop in the High Road is too far from the town centre. A new bus layby will be needed outside Pizza Express. ***
18. Install traffic lights at the junction of Downhall Road and London Road, incorporating the existing light controlled pedestrian crossing.
19. Install traffic lights at the junction of London Hill and London Road / Station Road. Traffic lights will not be needed at the junction of The Approach and London Road if the lights either side of this junction are phased correctly.

* There are potentially some problems which arise because there will be traffic lights at junctions where the limited space available prohibits the use of a right turn lane or a left filter lane and there are pedestrian crossings nearby. The traffic lights at High Street / Eastwood Road and Eastwood Road / Websters Way will each need to have a phase when traffic from all three directions is stopped and both the adjacent pedestrian crossings are open for pedestrians. This phase will only need to occur when a pedestrian has requested it at either of the adjacent crossings. When there is a lot of pedestrian traffic it will be necessary to synchronise both junctions so that the "all traffic stopped" phase occurs at both junctions at the same time.

** Some drivers will complain that in order to get to the Mill Hall they have to go down Crown Hill and up London Hill, although they could park in Websters Way car park or the market car park and walk. However, people approaching Rayleigh along the London Road will have easier access to the Mill Hall car parks and will not enter the town centre at all, reducing congestion and pollution.

*** Considering traffic coming up Crown Hill, it will be advantageous to arrange that when the pedestrian crossing on Crown Hill goes red to stop traffic there is a delay of several seconds before the light at the High Street/ Eastwood Road junction and the Eastwood Road pedestrian crossing turn red. This should empty this section of road and allow a bus in the layby to pull out without disrupting the traffic flow up Crown Hill.

Re: Future housing development

I am unfortunately writing today with reference to the future Housing Development outlined on your plans number 329.

I would strongly object to this particular piece of land being built on for a number of reasons.

This is agricultural land! We were informed when we bought the property *on* New Road that this adjacent land could not be built on as it is a flood plaine area.

Also there is not enough infrastructure i.e. schooling, shops, doctors, roads and drainage to accommodate this amount of housing. I would be grateful if you would notify me in writing of any future developments to this land.

I am writing to strongly object to the suggested proposal to build 37 houses, or indeed ANY houses on the strip of woodland adjacent to Marylands nature reserve behind Marylands Avenue.

I feel strongly that we need to keep these trees and not destroy them. Hundreds of trees are massacred each year in Hockley woods, which is a hearbreaking sight, but when will people realise that we need every tree we can hold on to? Trees provide the very oxygen we need to breathe and survive.

The nature reserve benefits enormously from this small but important piece of woodland which provides food and shelter for wildlife and provides peace and tranquillity to sooth human minds in the turmoil of today's world. This piece of green belt should never be allowed to become a building site.

Ideally, I would like the Council to purchase this little woodland and incorporate it into the nature reserve.

OBJECTION

1) I OBJECT because the approach roads to the proposed site are too narrow:
a) for construction vehicles
b) for extra traffic from new properties.

2) I OBJECT because this is next to the nature reserve and will disrupt natural habitat and living conditions.

3) I OBJECT because the site is too small to sustain the proposed development.

4) I OBJECT because this IS Greenbelt and another intrusion into it.

5) I OBJECT because this small area is totally unsuitable for more housing.

6) I OBJECT because this area floods already and will cause major problems with water flow if built on.

OBJECTION

1) I OBJECT because the approach roads to the proposed site are too narrow:
a) for construction vehicles
b) for extra traffic from new properties.

2) I OBJECT because this is next to the nature reserve and will disrupt natural habitat and living conditions.

3) I OBJECT because the site is too small to sustain the proposed development.

4) I OBJECT because this IS Greenbelt and another intrusion into it.

5) I OBJECT because this small area is totally unsuitable for more housing.

6) I OBJECT because this area floods already and will cause major problems with water flow if built on.

OBJECTION ref. CFS024 Land north of Merryfields Avenue, Hockley. MAPG119


Object to building on Greenbelt Land where wildlife flourishes and land acts as a natural soakaway and prevents flooding.

CFS024

Land North of Hockley - Merryfields Avenue, Hockley, Map G, 119

I object most strongly to the proposal, referenced above, to build dwellings on land north of Merryfields Avenue, Hockley on the following grounds:
1. This land is Metropolitan Green Belt and is there to protect the countryside from being developed inappropriately. This land is also outside the existing settlement boundary.
2. The proximity of the proposed development to the Nature Reserve and the detrimental effect that this will have on the wildlife in this area. The land is full of wildlife and supports the Nature Reserve as it is undisturbed and provides ideal nesting sites and refuge for other wildlife. Bats are also seen over this land, which as a protected species, should not be disturbed.
3. During heavy rain excessive amounts of water run heavily down the hill in Merryfields Avenue and pool at the end of Marylands Avenue and the woodland provides a natural soak-away for this water. If developed the land will cease to provide this natural soak-away and cause flooding problems for the existing housing.
4. The stream that runs through the proposed site could be affected by the development and certainly if re-directed could have a detrimental effect on wildlife.
5. There is also the matter of increased pollution to the surrounding area and Nature Reserve to be considered.
6. Access to the proposed site is too narrow. Merryfields Avenue and Marylands Avenue are quiet residential roads that are family-orientated and heavy site/plant traffic will make these roads and extremely dangerous and will impact on all residents in surrounding roads.
7. Additional houses will inevitably bring more traffic through the new residents, their visitors and delivery vehicles. There will be at least one vehicle per household and probably more. Surrounding roads such as Mount Crescent/Mount Avenue which are quiet residential roads will also be affected by increased traffic from the proposed dwellings and this will be a permanents and growing problem.
8. Once permission is given to build on this site it is only a matter of time before more applications to build are made and this natural piece of land/barrier will disappear for ever.

Response to Rochford District Council's New Local Plan Issues and Options Document
8P1.3 How do we plan for the and facilite the delivery of our need for new homes over the 20 years within the District?

6.48 The most redistrict option would be a new option of a settlement in the west of the district in the Battlesbridge/Rawreth area, thus allowing easier access to London, Chelmsford, Basildon Southend and Thurrock, because of the supherb highway network. Ifrastructure would be provided as the village was build thus reducting the pressure on existing villages. Garden villages are supported by the government therefore Option E would be the best option, although option C is supported by many resdients the effect is to urbanise existing villages.

Table six implied size of housing required 2014-2017
6.59 A need for smaller properties in particular bungalows has been identified, therefore, option a combination of E and F should be considered to ensure an mixed community. Any increase in density on new sites although allowing for less land to be developed would reduce the enjoyment for existing residents.

Highway Infrastructure
SP31 What is the realistic options P83 option B should be supported. Prioritise local highways and junctions between Rayleigh, Hockley and Rochford (B1013) and support direct funds to improve local highway network. I would not support option C, this option would ecourage use of the route through winding roads that are unsuitable for further traffic movements.

P105 Education and skills
SPH.3 How do we facilitate the delivery of education skills development for the next 20 years. Would support the combination Option A&B. It is essential that land allocated for schools must not be allowed to be used for other puposes once it been set aside.

Page 109 Early years and childcare provision
9.36 What are the realistic options Page 114 would support option B.

Page 162 Advertizing and signage
DP13 How do we manage signage across the district?
11.72 What are the realistic options?
Liked A but feel it be strengthened over the last few year there has been increase on advertising boards on side of building grass verges with no reference to adjacent business and A board blocking pavements to the determent of people with poor vision disabled persons bugies and mobility scooters.

Most of the local plan first phase has been provided in the Hawkwell/Rochford parishes and this along with post 2021 phase between Oxford Road and The Drive Rochford with a further 500+ houses will provide 2000 house in the Ashingdon Road Rectory Road Hall Road area causing even greater pressure of these roads which already apparent. The main problem is lack of infrastructure.

Page 76 SP2.2 Villages and Local Neighhood Centres
What are realistic options?
I would support Option A retaining the existing core strategy policy. It is important to retain facilities and not all as shops to be turned into housing and other not retail uses. Without these facilities villages will die and lack community intergration and cohesion.

Page 67 6117 Would support D Core Strategy T2 seek to improve roads providing surface excess to London Southend Airport.

Table 10 requirement for economic land in Rochford District.
Land provided for industrial or office use should be kept as such and not allowed to be used for retail or leisure such as purdys and eldenway estates this just means we have to supply more employment land in the future.

CFS 011, CFS 034, CFS 056, CFS 057, CFS 065, CFS 070 & CFS 097

I wish to register by objections to the above on the following grounds:
The additional traffic from any new developments going through already busy roads such as Bournes Green Junction and Shopland Road/Sutton Road junction. These roads are extremely congested at busy times already.

In the busiest times of the day the High Street in Great Wakering is extremely busy and can be very dangerous when walking along with a buggy as the pavements are so narrow.

Great Wakering Primary school is a very small and friendly school. The teachers know all the children and their families and the children know all the children in other years as well as their own. We don't want to see the ethos change.

We have not been given any information as to how the hundreds and hundreds of new school children of all ages will be schooled within their local area. Bearling in mind that the majority of year 7's and above from the Wakering area have to bussed to King Edmund School Rochford and, therefore, all the year 7's who will have to travel to get to school on buses along the same roads that are also expected to take hundreds if not thousands of additional cars each day if more houses are built.

With additional housing the Doctors will be taking on many hundreds of more patients onto their lists. At the moment it does not offer reasonably timed appointments.

If we keep building on the fields which are good agriculture lands where will we eventually grow the crops?

All building work has detrimental effect on wildlife.

Surely other areas such as Canewdon and Stambridge could have more houses built as I feel we have had more than our fair share of new buildings.

I found it difficult to get around the Rochford website, thus the paper copy.

RE: CFS 011, CFS 034, CFS 056, CFS 057, CFS 065, CFS 070 & CFS 097
I wish to register by objections to the above on the following grounds:
The additional traffic from any new developments going through already busy roads such as Bournes Green Junction and Shopland Road/Sutton Road junction. These roads are extremely congested at busy times already.

In the busiest times of the day the High Street in Great Wakering is extremely busy and can be very dangerous when walking along with a buggy as the pavements are so narrow.

Great Wakering Primary school is a very small and friendly school. The teachers know all the children and their families and the children know all the children in other years as well as their own. We don't want to see the ethos change.

We have not been given any information as to how the hundreds and hundreds of new school children of all ages will be schooled within their local area. Bearing in mind that the majority of year 7's and above from the Wakering area have to be bussed to King Edmund School Rochford and therefore, all the year 7's who will have to travel to get to school on buses along the same roads that are also expected to take hundreds if not thousands of additional cars each day if more houses are built.

With additional housing the Doctors will be taking on many hundreds of more patients onto their lists. At the moment it does not offer reasonably timed appointments.

If we keep building on the fields which are good agriculture lands where will we eventually grow the crops?

All building work has detrimental effect on wildlife.