Delivering Infrastructure

Please note that I find the above plan of up to 7500 new houses within the area totally unacceptable on the basis of unsustainability. Unsustainability being there is a complete lack of surgeries, schools and certainly no plans for further roads to ease the already overburdened traffic situation, let alone the fact that it is becoming more and more impossible to get a doctors appointment for residents already in the area. How will the overstretched NHS cope with the ever increasing population based on the occupancy of the planned houses? It is not feasible based on the gross under funding of road and rail links, already underfunded by £11 billion.

The lung that was put in place along Cherry Orchard is being depleted by the ever increasing industrial building occurring to further add houses on map j from Ark Lane to the Cherry Orchard Country Park just makes a mockery of this so called lung. Adding houses around Mount Bovers Lane, Victor Gardens, Windsor Gardens, the Railway Bridge, Ironwell Lane just takes out any boundary between Southend and Hawkwell. Thereby diminishing the character of Hawkwell which used to be considered a semi rural area. Where are the schools, surgeries, extra police, roads, ambulances, fire services to cater for this development? How can this plan be justified by RDC as helping the residents of the area create a harmonious place to live or for that matter for any incoming residents into these new builds be considered an enhancement to living a life well?

How many of the hierachy of the RDC actually live in the Rochford area I wonder? I wonder whether the tax payers of the area actually get heard.

Will RDC inform the residents as to what the consensus is of the residents eventually?

Further to my e mail yesterday re the above I would like to ask just how many brownfield sites are being considered before looking at agricultural land, e.g. field by Mount Bovers? As I understand it part of this field was once ocupied by Hockley Woods (even further back I recall reading something about the land having been common at one time) and was grubbed up for the war effort. To add housing to this area would just be a blow too much for the area as a whole. This field sits between Gusted Hall Woods and Hockley Woods - being a Site of Scientific Interest. By building on the field this action would gradually eradicate the nature of the area. If I recall correctly there are something like 22 brownfield sites in the area - are these marked on your Local Plan map and if so are they being considered first before putting more blots on our landscape?

I understand that the consultation into the local area development is open until 5pm on the 7th March and as a resident and Council tax payer in Rayleigh, I would like my objection to this to be registered.

I am absolutely appalled that the Council are putting local residents into this position. If you put aside that you are building thousands of homes on green belt land that originally attracted people to the area, I would like to make the following points.

- These homes are going to create AT LEAST 2,000 new residents in Hall Lane, Rochford, as well as all of the other developments including between Rawreth Lane and London Road in Rayleigh. Where are all of these people going to register at a doctors? I am well aware that the Developers in Hall Road "paid off" the local health trust with approx £384,000 to do with as they please, instead of providing the originally promised new doctors surgery but that money has not worked its way back into the system, it has not provided a new surgery or additional doctors at already established ones, it has more than likely gone to pay debt. But it doesn't make the race for appointments any shorter. RESIDENTS LOSE.

- Where are all of these children going to go to school? It is well documented in the local area that there is a shortage of school places. People who have moved here independently over the recent months are unable to get their child into a local school. Where are these new schools that are supposed to be a condition of development? RESIDENTS LOSE.

- 2,000 more residents per development, means thousands of more cars. Where are you intending to put them? You cannot move in this area at peak times of the day and we live on a peninsula, there is NO WHERE for the cars to filter to. There has been NO consideration for this, NO allowances for additional infrastructure. Meaning that traffic and accidents will become a lot worse if all of this goes ahead. The air ambulance has landed on London Road, Rayleigh twice in the past six months due to how busy the road has got.

SO

The Developers win, as they are selling thousands of houses.

The Council win, as that's millions of pounds extra income from Council tax.

The Health Trust win, as they receive a large lump sum, with no questions as to why this hasn't been put back into the system.

Everyone wins EXCEPT THE RESIDENTS. The people who pay the bills, live their lives and are affected by EVERY decision that is made. We will get to the point where our children can't go to school in their local area, we won't be able to get a doctors appointment or use the hospital. We won't be able to get to work on our roads or to pick the kids up when they go to school miles away!

Awful circumstances, please register my objection.

As a local residents of the Rochford area for 35yrs plus we were truly concerned to receive a residents letter informing of a plan for another 7500 to be built on top of the 1500 already planned in our area.
Anyone who has lived and know the area as long as us would have sincere concerns being ;

INFRASTRUCTURE!

The Ashingdon rd is already a nightmare with heavy traffic for the schools and queuing on the main rd for Golden cross shops at busier periods as the main supermarket in Rochford has Closed along with all our Banks (you only have to see what happens when we have the numerous roadwork's in the area everything is at a standstill (it has taken me well over an hour just to get to the hospital by car)
So how is building an extra 9000 houses going to improve the situation? and everyone's way of life.

The Hall Road development for instance... We were all led to believe this would include a School, Doctor's etc this is a classic example of the power's that be saying anything to get what they want and then backtracking !

It takes me approx. 10 days to get a Doctor's app approximately so building this amount of houses with no infrastructure is surely not thought through ?
Although our children are grown up (the Ashingdon rd was a problem then) presumably new residents will have children that need to go to school on Ashingdon rd and need to get there on an already over clogged up road god forbid there is ever an emergency and vehicles need to get through because there are times when the whole area becomes gridlocked. People get sick and will naturally need Doctor's & Dentists.

We are looking on at the moment to see what happens but as long term residents it's about quality of life & we can already see the negatives so are seriously considering moving completely away from the area

I wish to lodge my objection to the Second Local Development Plan for 2017 to 2037.

Local residence have already submitted (my self include) their objections in respect of the First Plan for 2011 to 2025
and their reasons are already known by RDC Planning Department.

The the proposed plan will be on Metropolitan Green Belt which is there to protect the countryside from inappropriate development.
This land is also outside the existing settlement boundary.

There is concern also over the close proximity to the Nature Reserve which has a host of wildlife for people to enjoy.
Although it does not affect my property,I understand that excessive amounts of water during heavy rainfall congregates at the end of Merrylands Avenue which the gulley's are unable to cope with.

Increased traffic during and after development will destroy what is currently a quiet residential family area.

I found it difficult to navigate the RDC website in order to find the appropriate comments page. If I have sent this e-mail to the wrong department I apologise and ask that it be forwarded to the correct one.

My opinions on The New Local Plan.
Whilst I am fully aware of the need for new homes, the number proposed vastly exceeds any infrastructure we currently have or are likely to get in the foreseeable future.
A) Roads. The A127, A129 and Rawreth Lane are already well above capacity at peak times of 4:30-6:00pm with traffic queueing for up to 30 minutes belching out polluting fumes. Tackling this issue with a congestion charge which has been mooted would be an unsatisfactory solution as there is no alternative. We cannot park then use an "underground" like London. The B1013 on which I live, moves either at snails pace at peak times or traffic exceeds the speed limit on blind bends, an accident risk which will be worse with the new developments on Folly Lane and Bullwood Hall.
The number of cars for 7500 houses will probably add at least 10000 extra cars to our already congested roads.
B) Doctors. The local surgeries are currently difficult to get appointments and doctors are leaving the NHS and can't be easily replaced. Who will care for the new residents?
C) Schools. The schools are mainly already oversubscribed. New schools will have to be built to educate new children.
D) Hospital and community care. Southend University Hospital is under threat of being downgraded and acute patients transferred to Basildon and Chelmsford. Apart from disagreeing with this for our current population, it will be even worse with more residents and times for transfer will increase due to the extra congestion on the roads.
Some of the proposed new sites affect places where the local care homes are. It is essential to plan not just for new homes but also new high quality care homes. It is not just the elderly that need care. Young and middle aged adults also need good quality care. For an exemplary style of care for disabled adults please see "Scotts Project Trust" https://www.scottsproject.org.uk in Kent which is no more expensive than other places.
It is essential that the council puts the horse before the cart, not the other way round and puts in infrastructure and new roads BEFORE any further new homes.
General Strategic Planning:
The green belt is essential and as little of it as possible should be used for new development. It is the lungs of our society and not only improves physical health but also mental health of residents. I believe firmly also that sunshine and access to nature promotes mental wellbeing which goes on to improve physical health and the follow on of less pressure on health resources. Thus I feel that the planners must consider light, shade and views when arranging new housing. It seems that the present developments are creating tiny gardens in the shade of neighbours. Wherever possible as many south facing gardens should be planned. It is not only good for the residents' health and plant growth, but solar panels can be added inconspicuously to roofs on the non-dominant aspect of the home.
Also, I don't think the Rochford area caters well to the "better off" older people. The assumption that a very small garden is desired and a small home is untrue. There are many in my position who would like a slightly smaller garden than they have, but a more accessible home that could cater for a wheel chair as time goes on. Therefore having new homes with space left for a domestic lift and fully flat floors would be desirable. This would be more flexible and not necessitate someone moving as they became less mobile.

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

Undefined Core Wording

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strategic Goals

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

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

Examples below:

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

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

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

General Comment

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

My View

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

Summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

POLLUTION WILL INCREASE

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

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

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

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


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

I object to both the scale and nature of the outlined proposal ,as follows :

1. No matching funding for a supporting Infrastructure.
2. No guarantees that Utilities can match extra demands.
3. No spare capacity within Health & Care Services.
4. No let up in the sacrifice of the Green Belt & Air Quality.
5. No long-term LAGACY left for our future generations.

CUT THE TARGET NUMBERS TO NATURAL GROWTH LEVEL.

To whom it may concern,

PLEASE, PLEASE stop this over development of Hawkwell, Hockley Rochford and Ashingdon. It is well documented that the air quality in this area is one of the worse in the country and the Council want to make it even worse. More children are now suffering from asthma with the increase in pollution. As it is we need an additional Hospital in this area to cope with the many thousands of people pouring in from outside of the area (many from the London boroughs) Once the fields have been concreted over the ability to grow food for the increased population will be gone for good.
Quality of life in this area is getting worse as the stress many residents are suffering just being stuck in traffic as they try to get to work let alone trying to get home again.

Where are the children that will live on Elizabeth Gardens going to go to school? Some surely will no doubt be going to Westering Primary. So how are those parents going to get them there? By car (no doubt) on already congested roads
I wonder if this is all about money and the additional Council Tax the Government will receive. As it is white lines on the roads have not been freshened up for years let alone getting the pot holes filled in.
Please Please listen to mine and the view of the majority of long standing (I have lived in this area all my life) residents in this area.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I object to both the scale and nature of the outlined proposal as follows.

1 No matching funding for a supporting infrastructure.

2 No guarantees that Utilities can match extra demands.

3 No spare capacity within Health and Care Services.

4 No let up in the sacrifice of the green belt and air quality
.
5 No long term Legacy left for our future generations.

CUT THE TARGET NUMBERS TO NATURAL GROWTH LEVELS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I live in Bartletts, which, as you're aware, is a very small road, consisting of 16 semi-detached houses. This quiet cul-de-sac is surrounded by greenbelt land, which I understand should not be built on. Therefore, I strongly object to any such proposals being given permission for development.

My reasons for objections include the following:-

Heavy plant traffic, would not only be disruptive to the existing neighbourhood, but have a serious effect on the value of our houses.
The land is a flood plain, therefore unsuitable for development, also very risky.
I understand that the intention is to use Bartletts as access to the site. The road is not strong enough for the large number of heavy vehicles that would be using it as a thoroughfare.
There would be no infrastructure to cope with the amount of dwellings that you seem intent on erecting.
As the new residents would need vehicles to access, this would cause major congestion everywhere in this vicinity.

I would beg you to reconsider your proposals.

I live in Bartletts, which, as you're aware, is a very small road, consisting of 16 semi-detached houses. This quiet cul-de-sac is surrounded by greenbelt land, which I understand should not be built on. Therefore, I strongly object to any such proposals being given permission for development.

My reasons for objections include the following:-

Heavy plant traffic, would not only be disruptive to the existing neighbourhood, but have a serious effect on the value of our houses.
The land is a flood plain, therefore unsuitable for development, also very risky.
I understand that the intention is to use Bartletts as access to the site. The road is not strong enough for the large number of heavy vehicles that would be using it as a thoroughfare.
There would be no infrastructure to cope with the amount of dwellings that you seem intent on erecting.
As the new residents would need vehicles to access, this would cause major congestion everywhere in this vicinity.

I would beg you to reconsider your proposals.

I am struggling to find where to comment on the New Local Plan so would appreciate it if you could upload my comments to the portal. The New Local Plan will make Rochford and the surrounding areas grossly overdeveloped. The infrastructure (roads/schools/doctors etc.) will need to be vastly improved to accommodate the considerable increase in housing - the current infrastructure can barely cope as it is. Getting anywhere at rush hour or weekends is already a nightmare and this will only add to the problems.

I am very concerned about the plans to build more houses in this area, whilst I can see that more homes are needed our roads are at a crisis point. They become completely gridlocked especially at peak times. I go to Rayleigh three days a week and it takes me 20 minutes to get out of Hockey then another 20 minutes to get through Rayleigh. Whichever route you take you end up sitting in traffic. The same happens if you go the other way through Ashingdon. The doctors do there best but it is rare that you can get an appointment the same day. There are problems with power cuts and the sewage system in Hawkwell. The answer is NOT to build more houses but sort out the infrastructure. Do not destroy the green belt land otherwise this area will just become a congested polluted concrete jungle.

I am writing to object to consideration being given to the development of the above sites. The development of these locations would destroy the small amount of remaining countryside that we have left which is vital to maintaining the character and quality of the local environment. These outside spaces are regularly used for recreational purposes by walkers, cyclists and others for whom this provides important health and general wellbeing benefits.

Furthermore, the local roads are already at maximum capacity with traffic congestion at a level that is unsustainable. The impact of new housing in these locations would result in a traffic gridlock between Rochford and Rayleigh aside from other infrastructure issues that will arise. The development of the Cherry Orchard Way Business Park and Hall Road development has already had a significant effect on traffic when travelling to and from Hockley which will only increase when these sites are completed.

I wish to register my comments and opinion regarding the plans to build an additional 7500 homes in the Rochford area.

Hall Road, leading from Rochford to Hawkwell is now getting very busy, Hockley is becoming a bottleneck, and the road to Rayleigh is now becoming more and more congested.
Without improvements to these local roads, and better infrastructure, the idea to build such a huge number of new houses in a concentrated place, would appear to be very undesirable to local people living in the area. Personally I am against such a vast building plan.

I strongly object to the proposal of houses being built on the land to the North of Malvern Road and Harrogate Drive. The infrastructure in this area would not support additional houses, access via the main road would cause even further congestion at busy times, and the homes in this area would be greatly affected by any development.

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

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

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

Rayleigh is being destroyed.

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

Please don't let this happen

I object to both the scale and nature of the outlined proposal ,as follows:

1. No matching funding for a supporting Infrastructure.
2. No guarantees that Utilities can match extra demands.
3. No spare capacity within Health & Care Services.
4. No let up in the sacrifice of the Green Belt & Air Quality.
5. No long-term legacy left for our future generations.

CUT THE TARGET NUMBERS TO NATURAL GROWTH LEVEL.

Dear Sirs

For the past 27 years, I have lived in Great Wakering and I would like to register my comments on the Rochford District Council's New Local Plan (and sustainability appraisal)
I strongly object to the continued loss of green belt (which I believe should be protected at all costs for us and future generations) and the amount of new housing already been approved and the possibility of even more houses in Great Wakering. The village is changing beyond all recognition and not in any ways that benefit existing residents. The increase in population is at the expense of those who already live in the village as no real investment or contribution to our village has been made by way of schools, doctors or roads etc, to name just a few (i.e. the infrastructure).

All of the legitimate concerns which residents raised before the Star lane estate and the estate behind the high street were approved, (which were ignored) are now even more critical as more population are sharing the existing infrastructure which has not been improved or enhanced. This is having a detrimental effect to the standards of living of residents.

I also refer to the "call for land" and the submission of CFS153 on Map P, the land west of the Common. I believe this land is the highest level of flood plan (Zone 3) and that the Governments recommendation that this should only ever be built on as a last resort. If this was to proceed, it would mean more traffic having to navigate very narrow streets, past a historic church, through a conservation area and past village assets of the Duck pond and the Common. I also believe that part of this plot is within the Rochford District Council's Wildlife site (which covers both sides of Common Road). Therefore any more housing so close to this area and the Common would have an effect on the local wildlife. For full transparency I declare that I am the Chairman of the trustees of the registered charity the "Friends of Wakering Common". Therefore can you kindly confirm that this area will not even be put forward for consideration.

I accept there is a need for housing, but looking at most of the properties in the Star lane these appear not to seem to contribute to the need for "affordable housing" as the asking prices are higher than many of the existing houses for sale in Wakering, therefore these properties would have been sold if affordability was the issue.

The road network from Great Wakering across through Rochford and Southend is often completely blocked and Sutton road into Rochford is almost unusable in the rush hour and more housing this side of the district would make thing much worse.

The High Street in Great Wakering is a historic and very narrow road in the conservation area and struggles with the existing traffic at the church end. Where it is narrows buses (let alone emergency services) often cannot get past the Co-op due to the amount of cars. Therefore to approve any further building to the east of the village of Great Wakering would result in more traffic through this area and exasperate the problem. This would ruin what is a very attractive focal point of the village, which should be protected. The traffic will also effect the primary school, preschools, numerous old people's homes, all of whom are vulnerable to the dangers of increased traffic.

I believe that any future housing plans should respect the wishes of local residents and look to minimise disruption and negative effects on existing residents. If development is to happen it should enhance and bring benefits to all of the residents not lower their standard of living by saturating the services and infrastructure until they break.
As elected local and district councillors I believe that the councils should be looking putting the interests of those who elected you and live here before those who wish to come to the area to live.

It is of vital importance to carry out a compete 'Full Survey' of Infrastructure requirements in our Village of Hullbridge. And even more important to act to complete all those items identified, prior to increasing any further developments within the vicinity.

Our local 'Parish Council' have a several page'd list of outstanding road and pathway issues, which they are unable to get action'd by Essex County Highways, due to their unreasonable and outdated 'Priority Grading System'. This situation is unacceptable in modern times and shows a real lack of operational organisation within Essex County Council department.

This extends from Zebra Crossings and General Road Markings, Speed Signage, Community Building Signage etc. to Paved Areas, Both Made-up and Unmade Road and Paved Surfaces.
Broken, Missing and Damaged Safety Bollards and Lamp Posts in the main Ferry Road shopping area.

On a more positive note, I would like to suggest an improvement to the environmental/welfare of the village. By paving and marking out 'Watery Lane/Beeches Road' as a Pedestrian/Cycle Route.
Allowing only vehicle use by local residential and business traffic.
This to be supplemented by Traffic Calming Measures.
Object: - To encourage a safe outdoor exercise and fresh air activity for all residents.

SUMMARY

General, Vital Infrastructure Improvements for Hullbridge Parish.

Suggested Environment/Welfare Improvement

With regard to the proposed new Local Plan, the submitted Map A for the local Hullbridge area shows the majority of the proposed larger sites are in the Green Belt with the exception of a portion of CFS100 Brownfield Site being a lorry/heavy goods breakers yard, formerly a car breakers yard, which is obviously now a highly contaminated site.
Sites CFS006, CFS138, CFS149, CFS099, GY01 and GY02 are not located in Hullbridge Parish but are actually in Rawreth Parish but will obviously still use all the facilities in Hullbridge including the Riverside Surgery which is already overstretched. These sites will obviously require access off the existing narrow, weight restricted Watery Lane/Beeches Road, and
will merge the villages of Rawreth and Hullbridge. CFS015 has 50% of the
site in the flood plain.
CFS151 will require access off the existing single track in Long Lane and CFS120, CFS 026, CFS107, CFS106, CFS110, CFS108 & CFS109 will require access off the unmade single track in Kingsway, all of which will require a major upgrade to provide the required road widths including footpaths/cycle ways as recommended by the Essex Design Guide Highway Standards.

SUMMARY

RDC have not assessed, previously, any alternatives in terms of major impacts and sustainability especially in connection with the Malyons site in Hullbridge and all the other major developments recently completed or under construction, we therefore have no confidence that this will change
in any future emerging new Local Plan for this district. ECC report
concludes that housing targets cannot be matched by infrastructure provisions due to a massive shortfall of £billions in funding (ECC/AECOM GIF Report 2016).
RDC need to take into account further carbon emissions, overcrowding, traffic congestion, flooding and further drains on the existing infrastructure.