Delivering Infrastructure

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Many thanks,

I have just received your Issues and Options Document and I would like to know what Rochford Council is proposing to improve the traffic situation in Rochford, Hockley and Rayleigh.

I understand the need to build more houses but surely the infrastructure should be in place before more houses are built. Hall Road, Rochford is a typical example of this where up to 600 new houses are being built with an average household having two cars per family this is an additional 1200 vehicles using these roads. The roads at the moment can not coupe with the amount of traffic especially at peak times.

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

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

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

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

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

I have lived at this address for 17 years, and had to put up with no pavement no drainage no adequate street Lighting,extremely slow internet, not to mention never having our road swept.

I know your standard answer is 'semi rural address', but this is not an exceptable excuse.
I pay over £130 council tax a month, soon to go up, I work for the NHS and have not had a pay rise in 8 years, how do you expect regular citizens to come up with the increases year after year; with no improvements to my services.

Many streets in surrounding areas are having their street lighting replaced with modern improved lamps.
Another issue which really worries me is the tight Turn left onto Barling Road after the Rose Inn pub.
I have personally almost had a smash, I passed a rubbish truck with centimetres to spare, A very dangerous turn, which could have been rectified when the council worked on the raided bank, instead of reducing the bank so it could be a comfortable turn, they just dug in a new path, which considering it's the only path down the whole road, I find this hard to understand.
I am please to be giving you my issues, but I have no faith that you will be improving anything in my neighbourhood.

We pay higher rates my parents who live in Thorpe bay, which of course is kept in pristine condition under southend borough council, but do not receive any of the services .
Yours sincerely

Never heard anything so ridiculous, doctors, schools etc cannot cope now, so how will we manage when the residents are in the new properties being built in Hall Road Rochford without additional buildings as proposed.

Lucilla and Roy Osborne
Mount Bovers Lane, Hawkwell.

Residents for over 50years.

I am informed that a greenbelt area (ref cfs054) at the rear of South View Close, in Rayleigh has been ear marked as a possible site for development and would like to inform you as follows:

The area does not have the infrastructure to accommodate a 23% increase in the housing for the following reasons: Our doctor's surgery recently changed their policy to "telephone appointments" as they do not have the sufficient number of doctors to cover the amount of face to face appointments requested, furthering the populace would indeed worsen the healthcare availability locally even further.

We also not have the schools capacity, the local junior school Wyburns is small and full to capacity now, would their funding be increased, would their property be extended, would they be allocated funds for further teachers?

We also find that the number of cars in Rayleigh has increased substantially in the last 5 years. There are only 2 main roads out of Rayleigh and at any given time they are extremely gridlocked, particularly the Weir/A127 junction. We currently add 10/15 minutes to enable us to get out of Rayleigh to any planned journey, we simply don't have the road capacity for another 23% increase in traffic.

Lastly we are somewhat shocked at the choice of this area, as we back onto that land and have serious flooding issues almost every winter, supplying our own sandbags on regular instances after rainfall and snowfall. Eastwood Brook is subject to overflowing on a regular basis.

Thank you for your attention. We would like logged that both my husband and I are highly apposed to this land being redeveloped.

Infrastructure
Transport needs not provided - Essex County Council in their Paper on Growth & Infrastructure highlight £4.4 billion gap in this respect not matched by Government Investment. Therefore without complete new infrastructure, we cannot achieve the proposed housing numbers.

Education, Surgeries cannot be provided - e.g. the Hall Road 600 - developer accepted by Section 106 agreement to provide a primary school and surgery. Apparently the school cannot now be provided. Therefore, we hear the Westerings Primary School may double in size - access for children, parents is a problem now, as also for adjacent residents who have long found access and egress to B1013 a problem.

Green Belt - only way to achieve e.g. 7,500 housing is to utilize much of this - don't forget flooding - e.g. 1953

Infrastructure
Areas needed to be in place before construction: -
- roads
- schools
- transport
- doctors
Developers to contribute to the above.

Monitoring of construction to be carried out at all times plus air quality to be monitored too.

Rochford District Council is a semi-rural area (predominantly Green Belt). How is a 30% increase in housing not going to impact Green Belt (GB)?

Key problem area is infrastructure.

- Roads
- Schools
- Doctors
- Hospitals

These must be agreed and in place at the start of Development with the developers contributing to all of the above.

There must also be extremely close monitoring of construction traffic and the impact on local roads and people.

The air quality is also a current issue prior to building and must be monitored closely.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Having read through most of the plan, I have some real concerns.

The first is that although there is a lot of talk about "affordable homes", most of these are clearly not affordable to the majority of young people. Plus they are becoming exponentially less affordable as time passes. Therefore what is needed are family homes at an affordable rent, and this area is woefully short of these!

The second concern, I have is that our roads are already hopelessly congested and whilst we continue to build numerous houses without improving road space, we are adding to an already appalling problem. This is also having a detrimental effect on air quality and no consideration seems to have been given to the future health of our children and future generations.

It is not only road space which needs expanding, but doctors' surgeries, schools, hospitals and all of the other services essential to our community.

Large proportion of people commute to London from this area, so will the current rail system cope with a large increase in population.

In conclusion although it is obvious that we are in desperate need of more housing, we must have the infra structure to support the resultant increase in population if we are to maintain the character of this area and, more importantly, the quality of life of the residents.

Best. Regards - David Mullen (Hawkwell resident)

p.s. Why has Hawkwell not been included as a district particularly as it has a higher population than Hockley?

Having read through most of the plan, I have some real concerns.

The first is that although there is a lot of talk about "affordable homes", most of these are clearly not affordable to the majority of young people. Plus they are becoming exponentially less affordable as time passes. Therefore what is needed are family homes at an affordable rent, and this area is woefully short of these!

The second concern, I have is that our roads are already hopelessly congested and whilst we continue to build numerous houses without improving road space, we are adding to an already appalling problem. This is also having a detrimental effect on air quality and no consideration seems to have been given to the future health of our children and future generations.

It is not only road space which needs expanding, but doctors' surgeries, schools, hospitals and all of the other services essential to our community.

Large proportion of people commute to London from this area, so will the current rail system cope with a large increase in population.

In conclusion although it is obvious that we are in desperate need of more housing, we must have the infra structure to support the resultant increase in population if we are to maintain the character of this area and, more importantly, the quality of life of the residents.

Best. Regards - David Mullen (Hawkwell resident)

p.s. Why has Hawkwell not been included as a district particularly as it has a higher population than Hockley?

I have read the plan and I can understand the need for more houses in the UK for people to live in. However, I strenuously object to the plan because if makes inadequate provision for supporting infrastructure. The roads we have are already clogged and the school, doctors surgeries and hospital provision etc etc ("infrastructure") are inadequate for the people we have living here now. Building lots of new houses, without simultaneously upgrading and increasing the infrastructure, is simply not acceptable.

Politicians of all persuasions and at all levels need to start listening to the people on the ground and the people in the Rockford District are generally of the view that all of this building needs to stop until someone does something to improve the 'infrastructure" to cope with existing needs let alone the needs which will be created by the proposed allocation of land for building.

As a resident of Western road I really need to voice my concerns over the proposed developments as listed above. Whilst recognising the need for more housing across the county we have already started to creep on areas enjoyed by wildlife and where the community, our children and our pets are able to enjoy walks and exercise. Some areas I accept that have been selected in recent times are prime sites given their size and location but I cannot understand or accept why you would be considering this development in Great Wheatley's. In addition to my comments above I would add we already have a lack of schools and services in the area and above all I really don't see how the roads can sustain what is effectively a new village. The routes in and out of my road and Great Wheatley would completely disrupt the feel to our road, and local community, and totally transform (for the worse) the family environment I bought in to when I moved in to the area 11 ag o.

I really hope when you consider all of your options you will take my comments, and those of my fellow friends and residents, very seriously as I really see big infrastructure issues with this project. That is the practical plea the more emotional one is that it will totally transform what is a very nice part of Rayleigh with a good mix of housing and green belt. An area where people inside the town go out of their way to come and enjoy walks and family days out.

Thank you in advance for reading and considering my concerns

As a resident of Western road I really need to voice my concerns over the proposed developments as listed above. Whilst recognising the need for more housing across the county we have already started to creep on areas enjoyed by wildlife and where the community, our children and our pets are able to enjoy walks and exercise. Some areas I accept that have been selected in recent times are prime sites given their size and location but I cannot understand or accept why you would be considering this development in Great Wheatley's. In addition to my comments above I would add we already have a lack of schools and services in the area and above all I really don't see how the roads can sustain what is effectively a new village. The routes in and out of my road and Great Wheatley would completely disrupt the feel to our road, and local community, and totally transform (for the worse) the family environment I bought in to when I moved in to the area 11 ag o.

I really hope when you consider all of your options you will take my comments, and those of my fellow friends and residents, very seriously as I really see big infrastructure issues with this project. That is the practical plea the more emotional one is that it will totally transform what is a very nice part of Rayleigh with a good mix of housing and green belt. An area where people inside the town go out of their way to come and enjoy walks and family days out.

2 roads: Infrastructure - no money for this. So how can more housing be built? Air Quality?
Schools are full. Hospitals are on black alert. Care in the community is stretched now. Affordable housing in 200 thousands. Flood plains to consider. Green Belt: Badgers/Bats/Foxes/Roe Deer. Urban sprawl - Eastwood joined to Rayleigh joined to Hockley Hawkwell etc.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Doctors surgeries are under pressure.

Additional school places seem to have no consideration.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards

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

Having read the latest newsletter from Rochford District residents concerning the proposed local plan for housing etc., I am dumbfounded as to how the council thinks it can
Implement the scheme.
Up to 9000 new houses? In a town that can barely cope with the volume of people and traffic it already has? With the (already) built housing on Hall Road, around Clements Hall and others, the towns infrastructure is in danger of breaking at the seams. Ashingdon Road is already the busiest road in Essex, if not further afield. 9000 houses means a potential for a further 18000 more cars in the area! The roads will not cope.
Apart from the roads, the general infrastructure, sewage, drains, etc., is old and cannot handle any more. The council has already stated that due to already having 33,000 homes in the area, there is not the possibility to vastly improve these systems.
Use public transport we are told. How? When the bus companies seem to be oblivious to the fact that more houses means more passengers. More passengers means more buses are needed. At the moment the trend seems to be to cut timetables. Fewer buses means more people are going to need to use their cars! More congestion!
People moved to or stayed in the area because they like the area. Another 9000 houses means that Rochford will lose its' identity. It will cease to be a 'nice' country town surrounded by countryside where people like to live. It will become a mass metropolis rapidly becoming a grid locked system of car parks!
I hope that everyone involved in this idiotic scheme will see sense, 'put their foot down', and say NO we don't want these extra houses. Don't let us become controlled by faceless government departments that don't live here. WE DO!

Im writing in response to the documents published.

Im a resident of Hockley where the services and facilities currently struggle to meet demand. I am concerned how the current services and facilities within Hockley will be able to support more people.

Building many more houses will place a greater strain on existing services, recreational areas, and mean a lower standard of living for all within the vicinity.

I would like to ensure that you are aware and considering plans for;
- Road congestion and improvement
- Public transport improvements (trains are already very busy)
- More local cycle routes as all local towns/villages are within cycle distance
- New Schools (currently 30 children per class)
- Recreational areas for children, teenagers and elderly with local programmes to help
- More Doctor surgeries
- More Dentist surgeries
- Hospitals - shutting Southend A&E is not logical with existing residents, let alone having more people living within the vicinity.

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

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

I am writing to air my deep concerns regarding a conversation I have had with a neighbour regarding a plot of land behind my home. He has shown me a map of the proposed site fs127 Eastwood nurseries off Bartletts SS6 7LN.
The area cannot be suitable for development due to; poor access
narrow roads that could not possibly cope with more traffic
there are already congestion problems with would only worsen
the field is always flooding
this is an important greenbelt area
I have often seen dear in the fields and in our road so where would they go
this area is on septic tanks and soakaways as the infrastructure is not suitable for new developments
the whole area is not suitable for development theres not enough access without destroying peoples homes and lives Please can we be informed on any decision regarding this proposal as it wasn't for my neighbour I would have known nothing about it. Neither did some of the others residents I have spoken to since.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Having received notifications of possible sites for more houses in Hullbridge I would like to comment on 2 sites on the list that directly effect myself & my partner .
We live at KIngsmans farm road which is a private road at the end of Pooles Lane & Long Lane .
Both possible sites are totally unsuitable due to the nature of the narrowness of pooles Lane very close to cottages & a park home site , playing field & houses in general .
Their is no way that this road is suitable for heavy machinery needed to build houses , The noise never mind the increased traffic on a tiny Lane .
You would be bringing however many more cars out of that road on a busy car park/school junction which is dangerous at the best of times .
I would also point out that I'm sure the school & doctors surgery will not be able to cope with the potential number of people these houses would bring to the area .
We were under the impression that these site were green belt .
It would appear that every piece of land empty is being taken to ruin what was always a village . We live here to enjoy the little bit of countryside NOT to live on housing estates, never mind however much disruption in all ways this would cause all residents In the village .
We hope that everyone concerned in these planning decisions visit the effected area at normal rush hour times noT when on a Sunday .
We will await our comments with interest & worry .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I note there are plans to build 7500 new houses. We are already suffering a, NEW TOWN, being built with three storey house for multiple occupation in Hall Road. WHERE on earth is the infrastructure to handle this? Our surgery is already FULL. Over the years I have seen the gradual destruction of our area, starting with beautiful open fields being built on; now known as Ashingdon Heights. Who is responsible for the mess to our rural habitation?