Delivering Infrastructure

I am a long time resident and home owner in Hockley as well as Hawkwell and would like to object to the building of such a large amount of housing being built with no thoughts towards the local residents who reside in the Rochford catchment.
The roads are not coping at this point in time with congestion at peak times and that's not helped by the huge amount of heavy goods vehicles that were not meant for our narrow lanes and roads, we simply can't have upwards of an additional 20,000 vehicles using our existing roads.
Hockley and Hawkwell areas are struggling to cope with the fact there is no police presence which is sending out a message to the people who commit crime also the hospitals are the same as they too can't cope with the amount of people that they have to care for now! If there is this huge influx or housing with infrastructure needs not met is can't work, as a simple incident be it fire or robbery or accident happening at peak times how can emergency response get to it fast and safely on roads that are packed solid with people traveling to and from work bearing in mind there could be upto an additional 20,000 vehicles!
Rochford is a catchment of villages built for a much smaller population so the roads need massive updating to cope with the proposal.

Having recently reviewed 'The New Local Plan' I am writing to try and convey my concern, even shock at some of the parcels of land under review especially with regard to plots, CFS: 045, 074, 078, 079, 080, 081, 082, 083, 084.

Some of the sites detailed above (especially 045 and 074) are prime greenbelt land, beautiful plots of land that we in the local area have enjoyed throughout our lives and (as with me), I am sure many of us now enjoy these areas with our children. This is part of the attraction of living in our beautiful environment. If we keep eating away at this land, before long, it will be gone forever.

In addition to the above moral issue, there is also the very real issue of infrastructure. We have already seen the building of many new houses locally whether near Clements Hall or Hall Road yet within all these additional new plans, I haven't seen any mention or consideration given to new schools, roads and medical care (just as examples).

Schools
Currently the local schools are overloaded. I live near The Westerings Primary school where (ridiculously) there are already expansion plans yet the local roads are already 'no go' areas during the school run and are over crowded during the day due to teachers parking - some days I cannot even get off of my driveway! In addition, my daughter goes to Greensward Academy but for some local children there are already not enough places and they have to travel to Rochford, Rayleigh, even further afield to go to school.

Roads / Transportation
The main routes into Hockley / Hawkwell are not large (or even minor) A roads, they are B roads that were originally built to accommodate large villages / small towns yet the Hockley / Hawkwell area is now morphing in to a medium sized town in it's own right with a vastly increased population for the capacity of our local roads. As a consequence, at any given time of the day it is often quite difficult to get out onto the B1013, let alone when it is rush hour / school run time when the whole area around The Spa and/or Potash Garden Centre becomes absolutely gridlocked. Slightly further afield, I travel to Leigh on sea train station every day as trains from Hockley are so unreliable, dirty, expensive and already absolutely bursting at the seams due to overcrowding (another issue!) but if I leave slightly late I am also held up in Cherry Orchard Lane. I am generally forced to leave early to miss the already heavy traffic during rush hour, a journey which at off peak takes me 15 minutes but at rush hour, this 8 mile journey can take up to 40 minutes! I am lucky that my daughter is slightly older so I can be flexible with my leaving times but for those people that aren't flexible, getting out of the local area by car is already horrific!

Medical Care
No matter how you look at it, the population of the UK is generally ageing and with lot's of older people locally in Hockley / Hawkwell we are probably actually ahead of the curve compared to many other parts of the UK. As a consequence trying to be accepted on to a local doctors surgery roster is already pretty much impossible and I would imagine that local dentists would be the same. My doctor is in Westcliff and my dentist in Southchurch just as an example!

Now, I absolutely get the need for new housing although I suspect the UK should probably take a 'rain-check' until we see the fallout of Brexit first but notwithstanding this, we need to stop overloading and destroying the few remaining rural areas of South Essex, areas with little infrastructure. If we are as a community forced to accept more housing, surely areas with direct links to major arteries into the area (i.e A roads) should be the areas that are highest on the priority list but even then, schooling and other services should be considered as a priority over just building, building, building new houses relentlessly.

I know that lot's of my neighbors also have the same concerns and I hope that they too take the time to write.

With all of the above in mind, I truly hope that some time is taken to very seriously consider the topics raised (among others) before potentially (and quite disastrously in my view) moving ahead with these local proposals.

Having recently reviewed 'The New Local Plan' I am writing to try and convey my concern, even shock at some of the parcels of land under review especially with regard to plots, CFS: 045, 074, 078, 079, 080, 081, 082, 083, 084.

Some of the sites detailed above (especially 045 and 074) are prime greenbelt land, beautiful plots of land that we in the local area have enjoyed throughout our lives and (as with me), I am sure many of us now enjoy these areas with our children. This is part of the attraction of living in our beautiful environment. If we keep eating away at this land, before long, it will be gone forever.

In addition to the above moral issue, there is also the very real issue of infrastructure. We have already seen the building of many new houses locally whether near Clements Hall or Hall Road yet within all these additional new plans, I haven't seen any mention or consideration given to new schools, roads and medical care (just as examples).

Schools
Currently the local schools are overloaded. I live near The Westerings Primary school where (ridiculously) there are already expansion plans yet the local roads are already 'no go' areas during the school run and are over crowded during the day due to teachers parking - some days I cannot even get off of my driveway! In addition, my daughter goes to Greensward Academy but for some local children there are already not enough places and they have to travel to Rochford, Rayleigh, even further afield to go to school.

Roads / Transportation
The main routes into Hockley / Hawkwell are not large (or even minor) A roads, they are B roads that were originally built to accommodate large villages / small towns yet the Hockley / Hawkwell area is now morphing in to a medium sized town in it's own right with a vastly increased population for the capacity of our local roads. As a consequence, at any given time of the day it is often quite difficult to get out onto the B1013, let alone when it is rush hour / school run time when the whole area around The Spa and/or Potash Garden Centre becomes absolutely gridlocked. Slightly further afield, I travel to Leigh on sea train station every day as trains from Hockley are so unreliable, dirty, expensive and already absolutely bursting at the seams due to overcrowding (another issue!) but if I leave slightly late I am also held up in Cherry Orchard Lane. I am generally forced to leave early to miss the already heavy traffic during rush hour, a journey which at off peak takes me 15 minutes but at rush hour, this 8 mile journey can take up to 40 minutes! I am lucky that my daughter is slightly older so I can be flexible with my leaving times but for those people that aren't flexible, getting out of the local area by car is already horrific!

Medical Care
No matter how you look at it, the population of the UK is generally ageing and with lot's of older people locally in Hockley / Hawkwell we are probably actually ahead of the curve compared to many other parts of the UK. As a consequence trying to be accepted on to a local doctors surgery roster is already pretty much impossible and I would imagine that local dentists would be the same. My doctor is in Westcliff and my dentist in Southchurch just as an example!

Now, I absolutely get the need for new housing although I suspect the UK should probably take a 'rain-check' until we see the fallout of Brexit first but notwithstanding this, we need to stop overloading and destroying the few remaining rural areas of South Essex, areas with little infrastructure. If we are as a community forced to accept more housing, surely areas with direct links to major arteries into the area (i.e A roads) should be the areas that are highest on the priority list but even then, schooling and other services should be considered as a priority over just building, building, building new houses relentlessly.

I know that lot's of my neighbors also have the same concerns and I hope that they too take the time to write.

With all of the above in mind, I truly hope that some time is taken to very seriously consider the topics raised (among others) before potentially (and quite disastrously in my view) moving ahead with these local proposals.

Objection to the local plan regarding sites for possible building of new houses. The reason for my objection is because there is no provision in any of the evidence documents that I have seen for the necessary improvements to the infrastructure. For this reason, the plan is flawed and needs to be reconsidered.
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is quite clear that the infrastructure needs to be included in any planning for the future. The Addendum to the South Essex Strategic Housing Market Assessment, clearly demonstrates that between 2014 and 2037 the population of Rochford district will double. That fact, in and of itself must be a driver to upgrade the complete infrastructure.
All of the evidence I have seen seems to select parts from the NPPF to suit the argument, but they cannot be taken in isolation. Paragraph 7 clearly states in its first point;

an economic role
- contributing to building a strong, responsive and competitive economy, by ensuring that sufficient land of the right type is available in the right places and at the right time to support growth and innovation; and by identifying and coordinating development requirements, including the provision of infrastructure

Sustainable development cannot be achieved without the correct regard being paid to the infrastructure. There are numerous other paragraphs in the NPPF that point to the infrastructure needing to be addressed. Surely it is common sense to look at whether the foundations are capable of supporting the development before building anything. Paragraph 156 also directs the planning authority to set out strategic plans for infrastructure in its third point;

the provision of infrastructure for transport, telecommunications, waste management, water supply, wastewater, flood risk and coastal change management, and the provision of minerals and energy (including heat);

The issues and options document does not properly define how the infrastructure will be improved before any major building work takes place. Section 8.4 states where Rochford is in terms of current commuting practices. If we are to believe the projected growth in population then it stands to reason the stated numbers for commuters in all forms is likely to double. The issues and options document seems to have passed this responsibility on to Essex highways, that is not a plan, it is side step.

Section 8.5 is vague at best on what should be done. This needs to be addressed and statements about what concrete plans will be put in place to ensure the smooth transit of people across the of Rochford district.
Section 8.6 does refer to the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). This needs to be strengthened in a definite proposal that all major house building projects will be subject to that.

The businesses that will benefit most, in the short term, will be the housebuilders. Many builders use the following assumptions when pricing to build houses. Buy for a third, build for a third, and receive a third profit. Looking at one of the possible sites to the west of Hullbridge, where there could be as many as 1,167 new dwellings built. Which would increase the size of Hullbridge by nearly 50%. Assuming the average price each of these units were sold at was £400k. That would deliver £466.8m in sales revenue, assuming the builders usual profit of 33%, that would equate to £154m. Even if it cost £10m to widen Watery Lane that only equates to a profit reduction of 6.5% for the building companies.

I sincerely believe that the construction companies would also achieve a better profit than I am suggesting because of the economies of scale in building so many houses at the same time.

If the infrastructure is ignored then the council will have failed in its duty to, at least maintain the standard of living for the people in the village of Hullbridge.

The Rochford local plan highways base line document contains some suggested changes to Watery Lane will not go far enough to alleviate the traffic congestion. There needs to be a full reworking of Watery Lane to widen it for its whole length. As the cost of installing the filter lane at the end of Rawreth Lane, to access Hullbridge road, is being subsidised by the developer, the same should happen to Watery Lane. The developers / housebuilders should subsidise the work to widen the whole road.

The planning infrastructure delivery plan, is pinning its hopes on the improvement to the roundabout at the Hullbridge road end of Rawreth lane. Without also improving Watery lane this single change will not be enough, given the expected population growth. There is also no concrete plan for the provision of utilities, or healthcare within these plans. All of these elements need to be in place before any additional houses can be built.

Additionally, the issues and options document does not address the need for enhanced sewers, or water supply infrastructure to support the large number of dwellings that will need to be built. It also contains no commitment from any of the utilities regarding the provision of power.

Section 8.73 states "The Housing White Paper supports small and medium-sized house builders, and the delivery of small and medium-sized sites to deliver new homes more quickly than larger house builders. However, small schemes may not merit us to require planning obligations to make the development acceptable which means that the cumulative impact of such schemes cannot be captured and effectively mitigated against. This is an issue which has broadly been raised during the programme of early community engagement we undertook in 2016. Similarly even if a standard charge was in place, it is not guaranteed that these funds would be spent on specific infrastructure related to a specific scheme, as any funds must be spent on agreed infrastructure projects in line with the CIL regulations, which could be anywhere across the district depending on prioritisation of projects. Any future changes to the CIL regulations will also need to be carefully considered and accounted for."

As Rochford council you have the overall picture of where dwellings are going to be built and so the plan needs to include, or act in such a way that whatever percentage of the proposed site is being built on then an appropriate levy is secured against the house builder who is doing the development. As the council it is your responsibility to see that that money is put to use against the infrastructure needs of that site. If the council is not willing to track and budget that money for that area it is being delinquent in its responsibility.

If the housing developments need to be built, surely it makes sense to have all of the basic infrastructure needs in place before hand, as it will, potentially, ease the construction process and possibly speed it up. If the points I have raised are not addressed, then the council is highly likely to make the residents of the district lives a misery for years to come.

As a Hockley resident that lives on the High Road I feel I must object to the additional homes in the area without an improved infrastructure.

We constantly have queues of traffic outside our house morning and evening as the roads currently cannot cope. As a result, the fumes from the sitting traffic are strong, particularly in cold and foggier weather when the fumes sit lower. I walk my daughter to school along the main road in Hockley and we regularly have to deal with the fumes; I have on occasion turned back and got in the car and joined the traffic as sometimes it is very bad and am concerned about us inhaling it - however, I'm then adding to it. We are encouraged to walk our children to school but it is becoming a health risk. My husband has also mentioned it when he runs along the road.

It also takes a long time to cross the road where there are no set crossings, due to the heavy traffic flow (we don't have any crossings at our end of the High Road).

I do hope these considerations are taking into account when planning the future of the local area.

We stronger are opposed to the proposed housing development e.g. code plot: CFS065 & CFS011 in Great Wakering, end of Brookside Ave, & Shoebury Road. This proposal has not been properly thought out in terms of the infrastructure limitations, along with the impact on the village. Primarily, our medical centre which is already over stretched will not be able to cope with thousands of more patients on their books, also traffic would be out of control, e.g. the roads would not be able to cope, further more, Great Wakering, is a VILLAGE! not a town, it's history goes right back to the Doomsday book 12th century and beyond that to Anglo Saxon times, to build this extensive housing would be the end of a village construct, it would become a town!, this is totally not right! Many people in Great Wakering are elderly, and young families, the latter move to Great Wakering for the safe, quite lifestyle and tranquillity of village living, these proposals to use virtually every green space/field space in the area, is morally not right, and totally unfair to the people of Wakering and surrounding areas...The voices and opinions of the village folk must be considered, we are the ones who actually live here!! and would like to continue to do so in peace and tranquillity. There are more aspects to our quality of living rather than monetary constructs.... People come first.. the elderly come first... young families come first.. the local wildlife comes first... peoples sense of happiness & safety comes first.. services come first...e.g. medical, schools, etc. The people of Great Wakering and the surrounding villages will stand their corner to protect and preserve their green spaces... we may not have the money to hire top lawers.. but we have passion in our hearts..... in short we are human beings with our village lifestyle... and we WILL keep that.

PEOPLE COME FIRST!!!!

With ref to the current consultation regarding proposed building of houses to the North of Merryfields Avenue Hockley.

I must strongly object to the proposed building of houses within this area.

This is a small estate that simply cannot sustain further development. Hockley village suffers every day to traffic congestion. The main and local side roads are full to capacity and are becoming a danger to pedestrians and all road users alike.

There is not enough infrastructure available in the area to deal with further homes. Not enough doctors, dentists, schools etc.

The area being talked about is a Metropolitan Green Belt area and should be preserved not destroyed. There is a nature reserve adjacent to the area which should be sacrosanct as wildlife is being pushed from one place to another causing them to lose their environment and therefore perish as a result.

The area being considered is also of great risk to flooding which was the case only a couple of years ago. If houses are built as proposed then excess water will not be able to drain away in to the nature reserve and wooded area, a natural soakaway and therefore put our homes at risk to flooding.

I could go on and on about this but feel it would fall on deaf ears.

Please take on aboard mine and other points of view about this proposed building area and do not go ahead with it.

The owner of this land has tried in the past to build on this land for just total profit and without any concern for local nature and further continual agony for other residents. Please do not let him get his way this time.

I am opposing any future development of housing in the area around Rawreth lane. The infrastructure is insufficient to meet additional demands. The roads are jammed at rush hour, insufficient medical and educational facilities to meet additional demands. Do not allow the government to build more housing in this area. Force them to build west of London where there is more space and doesn't have a sea border restricting out of the area.

One of the biggest selling points of not only my house, but of Great Wakering as a village, was the beautiful scenery and sense of community spirit amongst the local residents. As a mother with three young children, it was definitly the place I wanted to raise my present and future family. I could see myself living here until my retirement and then some. Especially since I was given complete assurance that the surrounding farm land would never be sold on for any other purposes, or used for development as it is classed as 'top grade land'.

I feel that this proposal of development is a terrible idea. Not only because I strongly beleive that our country side and wildlife should be nurtured and protected, but because this development makes no sense.

Firstly, Great Wakering exists in a red alert, high flood risk zone. Whenever we experience exceptionally high tides or adverse weather, Great Wakering is always on high alert for flood warnings and on stand by for evacuation. With the development of both Alexandra Road and Star Lane, we are already experiencing high levels of traffic in and out of the village, without another 7,000 plus households being introduced to the area. On average each home houses two cars. That's an additional 14,000 cars populating the roads of Great Wakering. Roads that are already well in need of maintainance*. Can you imagine the disruption a frenzy of residents populating 9,000 homes trying to evacuate a small area that only has two ways out will cause?

*As a side note to this - maybe addressing the poor conditions of the local roads should be priority over building new homes! i.e. St John's Road, Cupids Chase, North Street to name a few.

The infrastructure of the local area is already struggling to cope. The local primary school barely has enough available spaces for children already living in Great Wakering, without the addition of more resisdents moving into the area. The doctors surgery is also already bursting at the seems, struggling greatly to accommodate the vast number of patients it has on its books. Both services will be put under even more undue strain if this proposal goes ahead!
As a person with a severe health condition, I am massively concerned that I will not be able to be seen by my doctor when I am experiencing an exaserbation of my COPD. If you know anything about the condition, you will know that it is extremely unpredicatbale, and potentially life threatening in left untreated. Occationally, I have no choice but to go into hospital, but given the low immune system I have, this is not advisable if it can be avoided at all. Access to my doctor and her time to make house calls is vital to the upkeep of my health.

No less important, is the impact these developments will have on the depletion in house values in the area. Many people have purchased family homes in Great Wakering, sold (like me) by the landscapes and community vibes. We are so lucky living where we do. We get the best of all worlds - being right on the outskirts of Southend town and only a short train journey away from the city of London, while experiencing life surrounded by country side, but being a stones throw away from the sea.
Home owners are going to lose money and interest in investments they would not necessarily have made, had they known that these developments would be going ahead.

Another issue that I feel has gone without consideration but will prove to be a big issue upon development, is that the internet speed is severely below average in the area, with an average speed of anything between 2-10gb. With the internet, and the way we use it, continuously progressing, it is important that we are given the access to a decent internet connection. This is not currently available in Great Wakering, and until this is addressed, will always be an issue.

It is for these reasons, I wish to express my profound objection the the proposals of local development in Great Wakering. I understand that society is growing at an expediated rate, and new homes are a necessity; however, I strongly believe that there are other plots of land locally that would be better suited for development. Plots of land that are not arable, and would also lend themselves to keeping travellers away!

I would be extremely greatful if you would seriously consider my comments, and take the time to look at alternative options for these proposed developments.

We have already lost the 'great' in Great Britain. Please don't take away the 'great' of Great Wakering too!

As a concerned resident living in Malvern Road Hockley, I refer you to RDC reference CFSO23/COL38.

Firstly CFSO23

Lack of privacy, Less than 40ft of garden and the substantial upward slope of the proposed development land, any new housing will overlook my ground floor and first floor ( bedroom )

Security

Development of this field will open up the land to vehicles and people so possibly increasing the bigger threat of burglary.

Flooding

There is a history of flooding to existing properties ( mine included ) due to a rise in the water table in the land behind Malvern Road after prolonged rainy periods.
Due to this, a spring occurs which follows the downward slope of the land and floods back gardens.
I am worried that any building on this land would effect the water table and increase the possible inability of the field to absorb any more rain and cause even more flooding to the
back gardens.

Water pressure.

My water pressure as it stands is not up to the standard required therefor the proposed number of houses may impact the pressure even more as the existing pumps and pipework
may not support any more development.

Access

The land available at the bottom of Harrogate Drive and Greensward lane is insufficient to gain access thereby making a safety issue for road users as any development of the land behind
Malvern Road will substantially increase the traffic flow. Accidents may occur as traffic entering or leaving Harrogate Drive will have to swing wide.

Loss of amenities

Loss of view of field and woodland, this will rob the residents of quality of life and enjoyment.

Green Belt Land

The proposed building of housing on this land bordering Beckney Wood could seriously effect this ancient woodland of its flora and forna which includes wood anemones, blue bells
celendine etc and which includes as its forna....Bats, Adders, Barn Owls, Green and Red Woodpeckers, Monk Jack deer, Badgers, Pheasants not to mention all the different kind of birds
that make the wood their home. a huge influx of people walking this wood will threaten the existance of this beautiful place.

RDC reference COL38

Small plot of land Malvern Road ( Childrens play area )

This area is used by Malvern Road families and the local residents to use this land as a play area and right of way for citizens to use every day. I have been using the land for the last 40 yrs
the steep incline and narrow access for vehicles makes it totally an inapropriate and dangerous junction and poses a threat to children etc.

Flash Flooding

With the development of this play area will give rise to the occasional flash flooding as water does run down the hill with increased rain fall into Malvern Road

Rochford district is at gridlock because of bad planning over a number of years. The housing policy across the whole country is flawed. Lobbying by large house builders and media scare stories of a housing crisis has lead to a knee jerk reaction by government which has resulted in hundreds of soulless communities being built with all profit going to large corporations. This rush to build at all costs has meant the wrong type of housing has been built as house builders will always go for maximum profit. Therefore a lot of four and five bedroom properties have been built instead of affordable homes. Also, in this area there are a lot of people aged sixty plus who probably would have downsized but new properties have not been built with that age group in mind. Older housing stock has usually been extended. Sadly the majority of these houses have not been built with sustainability in mind i.e. solar panels and heat exchange systems, this truly is inexcusable.
It is now imperative that a more sustainable house program is planned. The target for the next twenty years should be closer to three thousand properties which works out at approximately one hundred and fifty a year. There should be a thorough review of what type of properties are required. These should then be built by local builders on much smaller sites which involve between ten to twenty properties so as not to totally overwhelm an area. There must be no more large building sites as this area's roads and infrastructure cannot cope with the population it already has. The quality of life of residents has suffered tremendously from bad planning decisions and if this continues I can see it leading to poor mental health.
Some of the proposed sites should not be built on at all they are:- 1. Belchamps scout camp, this is an educational site with good public transport links (I will be writing to the scouts to let them know how disappointed I am that they have proposed their site. Better ethics are required from people who are educating our future generations).
2. Farmland next to Mount Bovers Lane. We should not be building on anymore farmland. This is also an important visual amenity. To have potentially six hundred and sixty houses on this site means in the region of approximately one thousand three hundred and twenty cars all going on to the already gridlocked main road.
3. Nursery Corner and plot of farmland running down the main road to the B1013 Cherry Orchard Way roundabout. Building on farmland is unacceptable. Cherry Orchard was built as a relief road to relieve the already congested roads, the building that has taken place around here should never have been allowed. No more development should be allowed around Cherry Orchard.
4. Ark Lane to the Cherry Orchard Country Park, the same reasons as above. The council will lose all credibility if it allows anymore development around a road that was built as a relief road.
5. Ashingdon Road is already very congested so any proposed sites whose access is onto the Ashingdon Road should be refused. Any farmland in this area and the Brays Lane area should not be built on.
6. Meadowbrook Farm which is at the end of Ironwell Lane should have no development as it is also farmland.
Why have Rochford District Council put Hockley and Rayleigh car parks forward? I am struggling to think where else Hockley could have a car park. If there is a plan, residents should have been notified first.
It is now imperative that before new sites are released, all existing sites with planning permission are developed first, so it can be monitored how roads and infrastructure are coping.
Any new sites should be brownfield. Hockley high street could also be much better utilised as there is scope to have shops with flats above.

I have issue with the infrastructure surrounding all the new housing developments in and around Wakering.
Whilst I'm happy for new homes to be built, it appears no thought whatsoever has been given to access roads and schooling . We have 1 primary school in the village, which, as I understand is already at capacity with rather large classes of 30 children per class. Then our allocated upper school is miles away in Rochford. Not only does KES have to take on pupils from the villages it also has ts own in Rochford. The housing development in Rochford is also high so you have a massive increase of children from both rochford and Wakering. Where are all these extra children going to go?
They need to go somewhere? I have not heard of any plans for extra schooling facilities?
If you look at the number of increase in children within this catchment area it could fill a whole school.
Where are these extra children going?
I'd like to see some plans for infrastructure development in the village before even more new developments are allowed to build. This is crazy.
It is looking to us villagers that the council's, are only interested in profits and what they can gain financially from these developments.
I strongly oppose any further new housing developments until other facilities are put in place .

I would first like to say I don't to believe in consultations as they do not represents public opinion due to the lack of response from residents. This is mainly caused by making the online method too complicated with too many questions. The drop in presentation that were provided by RDC were pathetic with just two maps showing the areas put up for development. Is this the best RDC can do?

I would like to object to building any more homes on green belt land that joins existing villages an towns in Rochford District. The current building programme that runs until 2025 is already causing serious traffic jams on the existing roads with the resulting air pollution, even though building work has only just started. It has been stated that drivers in our area spend 30 hours per year in rush hour jams, the highest in our region. The second highest being Chelmsford at 23 hours per year.

I believe the existing infrastructure has taken on too much already and not just roads but services like electrics, gas, water, sewers and the health system, including the hospital, GP surgeries and dentists. RDC have indicated that they will include additional infrastructure this time but they have a very poor record on this so far, as the current increase in housing has produced practically none at all. I realise the reason for this is that additional housing comes from RDC and the infrastructure from Essex County Council (ECC) who provide the funds but so far this has not happened, as there aren't any.

We do need additional homes for our children to buy but unfortunately most are unaffordable and many end up being used to relocate people from London councils to relatively cheaper homes in our area. We also need retirement home developments in our area that would free up existing larger homes.

We live on a peninsular surrounded on three side by water, if we really have to have an additional 7,500 new houses in our district, I believe a new Garden Village could be located near South Fambridge and served by a new road from the north connecting to the B1012 would be the best solution. This road could cross the River Crouch near Fambridge linking to North Fambridge railway station.

If RDC allow more homes to be built adjacent to the existing B1013 and all the other already clogged up roads in our area, it will make the lives of our residents a misery and I believe they will not put up with it any more.

I would first like to say I don't to believe in consultations as they do not represents public opinion due to the lack of response from residents. This is mainly caused by making the online method too complicated with too many questions. The drop in presentation that were provided by RDC were pathetic with just two maps showing the areas put up for development. Is this the best RDC can do?

I would like to object to building any more homes on green belt land that joins existing villages an towns in Rochford District. The current building programme that runs until 2025 is already causing serious traffic jams on the existing roads with the resulting air pollution, even though building work has only just started. It has been stated that drivers in our area spend 30 hours per year in rush hour jams, the highest in our region. The second highest being Chelmsford at 23 hours per year.

I believe the existing infrastructure has taken on too much already and not just roads but services like electrics, gas, water, sewers and the health system, including the hospital, GP surgeries and dentists. RDC have indicated that they will include additional infrastructure this time but they have a very poor record on this so far, as the current increase in housing has produced practically none at all. I realise the reason for this is that additional housing comes from RDC and the infrastructure from Essex County Council (ECC) who provide the funds but so far this has not happened, as there aren't any.

We do need additional homes for our children to buy but unfortunately most are unaffordable and many end up being used to relocate people from London councils to relatively cheaper homes in our area. We also need retirement home developments in our area that would free up existing larger homes.

We live on a peninsular surrounded on three side by water, if we really have to have an additional 7,500 new houses in our district, I believe a new Garden Village could be located near South Fambridge and served by a new road from the north connecting to the B1012 would be the best solution. This road could cross the River Crouch near Fambridge linking to North Fambridge railway station.

If RDC allow more homes to be built adjacent to the existing B1013 and all the other already clogged up roads in our area, it will make the lives of our residents a misery and I believe they will not put up with it any more.

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

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

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

This is just a couple of the issues.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anything beyond that and on Green land is ridiculous

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

I am encouraged that the Council is developing an Infrastructure Delivery Plan (Para 1.21 page 5). This is vital to the success of the new Local Plan and addresses the concerns repeatedly raised by residents that the existing infrastructure (roads, schools, health services, etc) are insufficient to cope with further development.
With the 'duty to co-operate' those responsible for providing the infrastructure to support the new plan must provide estimates of the costs, locations and timings required to deliver the necessary infrastructure to support the plan. I would therefore support the following options in the paper:-
* Para 9.11 Page 103 option B - Ensure land is specifically allocated for healthcare
* Para 9.29 Page 108 option B - ensure land is specifically allocated for schools
* Para 9.36 Page 114 option B - Ensure land is specifically allocated for Schools, early years and childcare
I would also include requirements for other elements of infrastructure, in particular roads.
The total of all infrastructure costs will then be able to inform the amount of money needed to deliver the Plan and inform the calculation of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) (see below). The locations will enable the Plan to designate particular parts of proposed sites for infrastructure. For example, earmarking land alongside existing roads to be used for cycle paths, or land for new schools. The timings will also inform the Council when funding will be needed and whether this can be obtained by the CIL at that time.
2. Community Infrastructure Levy
The paper identifies section 106 agreements as a possible source of provision for infrastructure. Although such agreements can be made there is a belief that Developers are disaggregating developments in an attempt to avoid the costs, thereby leaving local councils to pick up the bill. The CIL, however, can be applied to all new houses and in many ways reflects a fairer way of funding changes caused by developments.
The CIL guidance suggests that Landowners are ultimately responsible for the CIL. It is a fact of life that the value of land increases significantly once planning permission is granted for a development. Even the inclusion in the plan as a preferred site will affect the value of the land. Therefore the Council needs to assess the current value of all land being considered for development so that if necessary a proportion of the 'gain' can be clawed back when development commences. Moreover, having established the total additional cost of infrastructure through the Infrastructure Delivery plan it would be possible to assign to each preferred development site a target contribution to the CIL.
Concerns have been raised that developers could try to avoid their responsibilities by declaring a development 'not viable' because of the costs of the CIL. However, providing the target as part of the local plan will make it clear what costs are involved and these can be addressed in any negotiations between the Landowner and the Developer.
Guidance on the CIL allows for a great deal of flexibility in how the levy is set. For example, it could be based on the overall size of the development or there could be rebates given to encourage provision of social housing. The Council needs to develop a 'Charging Schedule' in consultation with developers and other interested parties and again this will provide advanced notice which will allow Developers to bring forward plans that reflect the aims of the Council and the profitability of the development. To that end the Core Strategy policy CLT1 mention in Para 8.75 9, Page 99 needs to be reviewed
3. Mix and style of housing
The plan proposes a formula for the mix of housing types required and it is important that, particularly the major developments, offer the full range from small flats to large houses. The paper states (para 6.58 page 48) that the current policy (H5) on types of home provides flexibility to respond to market needs. If this is working I see no need for a more prescriptive approach and would therefore reject Option B in para 6.58 and also option E in Para 6.9.
Para 6.14 suggests the demand for residential care homes and sheltered housing is decreasing. At the same time the elderly population is said to be increasing. Given this apparent contradiction it would seem best to ''leave it to the market' to decide where and when such homes are needed. To that extent I would support the option A in para 6.36, page 41 and treat each application on its merits. My only proviso would be to ask (under the duty to co-operate) if the local healthcare providers or Essex County Council planned to provide such facilities in the district.
The Council's current policy on housing density sets a minimum of 30 houses per hectare. This equates to a maximum plot size of 333 M2 . This leaves little outside space for children to play in and provides little privacy for residents. There is a suggestion that this housing density could be increased particularly in existing residential areas. However, I believe the overcrowding and consequent impact on existing infrastructure would be detrimental to the quality of life of local residents and should be resisted. I would therefore strongly object to increasing the minimum density as proposed in options A and B in para 6.48 on page 45.
4. Residential development sites
Table 2 Page 32 and Table 3 page 33 and the maps in Appendix B and C have raised fears of uncontrolled development across the district. The recently circulated FAQs attempt to clarify the position and it may be beneficial for the Council to circulate these FAQs wider. Nevertheless the additional requirement of 4,600 to 5,200 represents a significant increase which will be difficult to absorb. Whilst this may be an 'off policy' number, if it represents the Objectively Assessed Need the Planning Inspector will expect the plan to show how it can be delivered.
The current plan has been unable to achieve its annual target of 250 new homes per year (Para 6.18 page 35). Therefore there must be some doubt as to whether the proposed target around 360 per year can be achieved over the next 20 years. The Council needs to investigate why the target is being missed and what it can (or cannot) do to improve matters.
There is a desire by the Council to focus new development within existing developed areas. However, as noted above, residents are concerned that, in particular, existing road infrastructure is unable to support current demand let alone that implied by the proposed developments. Furthermore, in many cases (for example residential estates) it is simply not possible to make improvements. I would therefore suggest that in considering whether or not to make a site a preferred site the council adopts a policy to 'reject any site with potential for more than say 10 - 15 houses (or 1/3 Hectare) that only has access through residential side streets or narrow lanes'
It is similarly not possible to make improvements to many of the main roads through the district although in general they have a greater capacity than the side roads. It may therefore be possible for 'the Council (subject to other considerations) to include sites for upto say 100 houses (or 3 hectares) which have direct access onto a main road'.
The council should also adopt a policy that 'Sites capable of delivering more than 100 houses should only be included where they are on the fringes of existing developments and have direct access to main roads where traffic would normally be directed away from those developments.
Finally, given the difficulties of making significant improvements to roads in the district I would recommend a policy that no sites should be included that deliver more than 500 houses'.
5. Green Belt
The plan states (Para 3.2 Page 9) that of the 16800 hectares of land covered by the district some 12481 are classified as green belt. It is not clear how much of the remaining land would be available for development but presumably much of it is already developed. It is also noticeable that very few of the proposed sites are not classified as being in the green belt area.
Para 6.38 (page 42) implies that there is already an acceptance that a small amount of green belt land (upto 1%) may need to be sacrificed to meet the need for new housing. Whilst this is regrettable, 1% of 12,481 hectares would yield 124 hectares of land which could accommodate around 3,750 houses. It should be possible, with some careful consideration, to identify a range of areas across the district that could be used. I would therefore support Option B in para 10.16 Page 124 to amend the current green belt policy.
6. Employment provision
Whilst I understand the Council's desire to improve employment opportunities in the district there is limited opportunity for them to achieve some of the aims set out in the paper. A significant proportion of the population commute into London and although the costs are high so are the salaries. Moreover they commute to London because the type of job they desire can only be found in London. Firms based in London do so because they have a large catchment area for staff and would be unlikely to limit this by relocating to Essex.
The Paper recognises the various existing employment areas but seems unsure what should be done with them. There have some thoughts about releasing the land for housing but the example of Star Lane (P64) shows that is not necessarily easy. Moreover, it seems perverse to remove employment space whilst trying to encourage business to set up in the District. Perhaps the problem is not so much with the allocation of land but the type of facilities that are provided and access to the sites.
Mention is made of the Brook Road estate in Rayleigh. This was designed in an era where large manufacturing facilities were required. They are unsuitable for the type of 'high end' businesses that we need to attract and the Council should perhaps be encouraging the property owners to redevelop the various sites to meet the new demands.
Purdey's Way has a number of businesses that use large lorries to collect and deliver to the site. However the surrounding roads were built when lorries were much smaller and it is difficult to see how the roads can be improved to accommodate such vehicles. Perhaps the Council should work with these businesses to find better and more accessible locations for their businesses whilst at the same time discouraging similar businesses from opening where access is difficult.
There is also a recognition of the need to provide 'grow- on' space for business expansion. This important as any business when faced with a need for more space will look at a range of options and may well decide to move out of the area. Again the Council's options are limited and encouraging property owners to redevelop sites to meet the perceived need may be all that can be achieved.

Section: Land Availability Ass.
Option: Greenbelt Land
Paragraph: 2

As stated in my previous letter we chose to purchase a house in 'Bartletts' from the 'drawing board' being assured at that time by the then 'Rayleigh' District Council that the land which is a beautiful greenfield to the rear of Bartletts would remain greenbelt. We moved into Bartletts in 1971 and brought up our family of four in these pleasant surroundings. Over the years there have been so many changes in Rayleigh. We lost our cinema and proposed gym to Clements Hall when Rochford Council took over and now have so few facilities for young people.

I am unclear as to the access proposed to site "CES127" but can assure you access onto Eastwood Road from Bartletts at peak times of the day can be so busy!! I worked for many years at Rochford and Southend hospitals and to turn right at the exit from Bartletts was frustrating eleven years ago and must be much worse now!!

We all know what strains we have with regard to existing infrastructure especially doctors and hospitals.

Am now a widow since eleven years and am well aware of the need to house young families. We all benefit from what pleasant open space remains. Please Rochford Council protect what little greenbelt remains.

To whom it may concern:

I wish to state my strong objection to the proposed future housing development in Little & Great Wakering and I refer in particular to the areas shown as site reference CFS115 - Land to the west of Little Wakering Road and the various areas depicted on Map Q.

At a rough estimate it would appear that the village will be increased in size by at least 30%. A more worrying aspect of the entire proposal is that no where is there any reference to the ancilliary services; I refer in particular to the disposal of sewerage which has already created problems from the former brickfield site in Star Lane.

I note with interest and amazement that the suitability assessment states that educational, transport links, and healthcare facilities are 'good'. This belies the fact that the school is at full capacity, the doctor's surgery is working to full capacity and is often inaccessible in terms of appointment availability and contact. Secondary school children are still being taken to King Edmund school from the village by coach. What is proposed to alleviate these very crucial and critical problems which should be addressed before any further agreement on development is concluded?

Rail links to London Fenchurch Street from Shoeburyness are good, however, there are few parking facilities available and parking permits have been introduced in Shoeburyness to attempt to alleviate this problem which will only increase with further housing development.

Employment opportunities in Southend and the surrounding areas are virtually non existent with London Southend Airport being quoted at all times as a magic source of employment for the new residents of the proposed housing. I raise this with reference to the parking issues at the closest mainline station to Southend, Basildon and London.

During the severe weather we have suffered powercuts on two occassions as the grid in this area is already at full capacity. Indeed, during the recent construction of flats and houses at Mason Way cables were unable to take the extra load of power supplies.

Finally, I am aware that there is a high pressure gas pipeline to the west of site CFS115 and I believe that British Gas require development to be situated at least 40 feet either side of the location of the main. Has this been taken into consideration?

I request constructive answers to the issues raised above, and seek clarity as to how it is conceivable for planning to be proposed under such circumstances.

Our first objection is to the strip of beautiful woodland at the end of Marylands Avenue, running behind Merryfields Avenue and adjacent to the Nature Reserve in Hockley, being offered up as a possible site to build houses on.

The reasons being:

1. This 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 concern over the close proximity to the Nature reserve and the detrimental effect this will have on wildlife in this area. This land is teaming with wildlife and supports the nature reserve itself as it is undisturbed by humans and provides ideal nesting sites. Bats, a protected species, can often be seen circling around in the summer months. We have seen badgers in our garden on two occasions. My neighbour spotted a Muntjac deer, that she reported to yourselves. You said that you had seen footprints nearby in the Nature reserve. My neighbour also spotted a protected species of bird, a type of bullfinch, which is on the red danger list, near to extinction.
3. The trees are protected by a tree preservation order by yourselves, the council, we have been told by another neighbour.
4. Flooding: During heavy rain, excessive amounts of water streams down the hill and congregates at the end of Marylands Avenue which the gulleys cannot cope with. The woodland provides a natural soakaway.
5. Access to this site is too narrow by far. Marylands Avenue itself is a quiet, residential family orientated street and to have heavy traffic weaving it's way up and down this road is extremely dangerous and quite unthinkable and would impact on all residents lives.
Objection to 7500 houses being built in our area over the next 20 years, including using green belt land.

1. Funding/Infrastructure: Infrastructure cannot match the proposed growth due to high levels of underfunding (by a 2016 report issued by the ECC.)
2. Utilites: The privately operated Utility companies have not proven their ability, nor given formal commitment to meeting the extra demands for the Essex County target of 185,00 new homes - (water/electricity/gas/telecoms/waste treatment/recycle.)
3. Greenbelt law: The RDC area of responsibility is 74% classified as Green Belt status, a housing project of this size can only be achieved by sacrificing the GB principals, quote - "...to prevent urban sprawl and preclude one settlement coalescing into another."
4. Civic Amenities: The 10 years (so far) of an Austerity programme has eroded civic amenities and services to the point of crisis (health and care services.) This same situation is now starting to impact Education and Emergency services due to lack of capacity - the plus 30% loading is just not feasible or sustainable.
5. Commuting: Commuting out and into the District is the root cause of rush-hour congestion, this clearly underlines that the existing housing to local workplace ratio is out of balance. Obviating the need to long-distance commute by the generation of local employment must be one of the main drivers for a project of this nature and should limit the scale accordingly.
We, as residents like living in our semi rural area. A project of this size would change our living environment to one that we did not choose, when we decided to live here. We like the feeling of open space and we enjoy driving through the countryside to get to one place or the other. We like to see trees and fields, hear birds sing, see horses in fields. We like feeling safe and knowing that we live in a settled, long standing community. A project like this would inevitably cause a lot of people to feel stressed, unsettled. A lot of people would move away. It would not be such a pleasant place to live anymore. The current resident's quality of life needs to be considered. The wildlife, nature, character of our district needs to be considered.
There simply isn't enough room, there isn't the infrastructure, amenities or utilities to consider a project of this scale. A few more houses may need to be built, but not to the detriment of the people already living here.

I would appreciate a response to my objections please.

I trust you will take into consideration my feelings on this subject.

Our first objection is to the strip of beautiful woodland at the end of Marylands Avenue, running behind Merryfields Avenue and adjacent to the Nature Reserve in Hockley, being offered up as a possible site to build houses on.

The reasons being:

1. This 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 concern over the close proximity to the Nature reserve and the detrimental effect this will have on wildlife in this area. This land is teaming with wildlife and supports the nature reserve itself as it is undisturbed by humans and provides ideal nesting sites. Bats, a protected species, can often be seen circling around in the summer months. We have seen badgers in our garden on two occasions. My neighbour spotted a Muntjac deer, that she reported to yourselves. You said that you had seen footprints nearby in the Nature reserve. My neighbour also spotted a protected species of bird, a type of bullfinch, which is on the red danger list, near to extinction.
3. The trees are protected by a tree preservation order by yourselves, the council, we have been told by another neighbour.
4. Flooding: During heavy rain, excessive amounts of water streams down the hill and congregates at the end of Marylands Avenue which the gulleys cannot cope with. The woodland provides a natural soakaway.
5. Access to this site is too narrow by far. Marylands Avenue itself is a quiet, residential family orientated street and to have heavy traffic weaving it's way up and down this road is extremely dangerous and quite unthinkable and would impact on all residents lives.
Objection to 7500 houses being built in our area over the next 20 years, including using green belt land.

1. Funding/Infrastructure: Infrastructure cannot match the proposed growth due to high levels of underfunding (by a 2016 report issued by the ECC.)
2. Utilites: The privately operated Utility companies have not proven their ability, nor given formal commitment to meeting the extra demands for the Essex County target of 185,00 new homes - (water/electricity/gas/telecoms/waste treatment/recycle.)
3. Greenbelt law: The RDC area of responsibility is 74% classified as Green Belt status, a housing project of this size can only be achieved by sacrificing the GB principals, quote - "...to prevent urban sprawl and preclude one settlement coalescing into another."
4. Civic Amenities: The 10 years (so far) of an Austerity programme has eroded civic amenities and services to the point of crisis (health and care services.) This same situation is now starting to impact Education and Emergency services due to lack of capacity - the plus 30% loading is just not feasible or sustainable.
5. Commuting: Commuting out and into the District is the root cause of rush-hour congestion, this clearly underlines that the existing housing to local workplace ratio is out of balance. Obviating the need to long-distance commute by the generation of local employment must be one of the main drivers for a project of this nature and should limit the scale accordingly.
We, as residents like living in our semi rural area. A project of this size would change our living environment to one that we did not choose, when we decided to live here. We like the feeling of open space and we enjoy driving through the countryside to get to one place or the other. We like to see trees and fields, hear birds sing, see horses in fields. We like feeling safe and knowing that we live in a settled, long standing community. A project like this would inevitably cause a lot of people to feel stressed, unsettled. A lot of people would move away. It would not be such a pleasant place to live anymore. The current resident's quality of life needs to be considered. The wildlife, nature, character of our district needs to be considered.
There simply isn't enough room, there isn't the infrastructure, amenities or utilities to consider a project of this scale. A few more houses may need to be built, but not to the detriment of the people already living here.

I would appreciate a response to my objections please.

I trust you will take into consideration my feelings on this subject.

I would like to comment on the Issues and Options document as follows:

1) As Rayleigh is already at breaking point on the roads for most of the day, expanding it would be detrimental to the existing residents. Would it not be more beneficial to create a new town/village (or several), rather like the garden cities that have been hugely successful? This would enable you to create the roads/drainage/sewerage/open spaces that would compliment the housing that would be built and be able to sustain it. These could have their own character and be designed with people in mind. There could be areas for business, leisure, clubs, create cycle paths, space for allotments, and you could use renewable energy schemes throughout. This new area (s) would need to be somewhere where Rayleigh wasn't the only access to it. Building this type of scheme would reduce the increase in pollutants that would occur should any increase in building were to take place in Rayleigh. You must ensure that there is adequate greenbelt borders to stop urban sprawl. You also need to make available various entrance/exit routes to avoid bottlenecks and rat runs.

2) Any new houses built should have ample parking. New builds now days tend to build garages that are not big enough for a modern day car. You also seem to stick to the minimum of 2 parking spaces per dwelling, even when it is a 4-6 bedroom house. You then push parking onto the road network. This can be avoided if you implement rules into your documents.

3) Reduce the building of 4-6 bedroom houses. You only make an area exclusive when this is all you offer. The building companies favour this size house and only offer up 1-2 bedroom flats in their "affordable" range. What we need are 1, 2 & 3 bedroom houses for families (and your homeless department state that there are a shortage of 2 bedroom houses). The young CANNOT move out of the family home as the houses are NOT affordable for them, even with Government schemes. If they are lucky, they may be able to find somewhere miles away from their family and support networks. We need a mix of house sizes and this should be enforceable.

4) Many building companies create "boxes" that are fairly generic. We need to have houses that have character, otherwise we will be looking back and comparing what we are being given now like we do with the concrete monstrosities of the 1970's building estates.

5) The infrastructure of Rayleigh will be unable to cope with the amount of housing that you are obliged to provide. The road networks are almost at collapse, many with poor surfaces and pot holes (the criteria to repair them being amended all the time to the detriment of the road users). Who thought it was correct to cover a concrete road with tarmac? We now have roads that have both surfaces, the tarmac reducing all the time from the concrete (which does not adhere well together). Building in Rayleigh means that more traffic will pass through (or try to). Maybe you should be considering building a ring road around Rayleigh or another road that will link the A1245 to Hullbridge? More houses means more people, meaning that we will need more school places to be provided from nursery to 6th Form. How will this be achieved? What about GP's? We cannot get an appointment when we are ill now. More people on the Doctors list means longer waiting times. I suppose that eventually, people will in fact die from waiting to see their GP. That will reduce the population in Rayleigh!!! Cynical maybe. We need investment into GP's or Medical/Heath Centres, Schools, etc.

6)We need areas of provision for our residents who become homeless and we also need to provide smaller accommodation especially for our elderly residents who wish to downsize. There is a shortage of these type of properties. By having these available, the elderly can release their bigger houses into the market (reducing the need to build large houses) and move into these specially adapted dwellings. You would need a covenant on them to stop any of them being extended, and be purely for the "over 60's/70's etc.

7) Our car parks do not have the capacity now for residents at busy periods. how will they cope when there are thousands more houses?

8) The recycling centre in Castle Road cannot cope now so how will it be able to provide a service with even more households using it? It opens too late for people to use it on their way to work and it closes several times during the day in order to change over containers, thus causing long, road blocking queues (and pollution).

9) I noticed that our bordering Councils may not be able to meet their requirements and may request that some of their need be taken on by their neighbours. WE CANNOT take on the housing quotas for Southend and Castle Point. We have our own problems. We can also NOT be able to provide even more sites for travellers, we have several illegal sites now. We do not want another Crays Hill! If we compare the needs of these site residents, wanting to keep their expanding communities together, we must ask why they have not settled like the rest? My children cannot buy in Rayleigh. One has had to go to Basildon, the others are at home with no chance of affording to rent, never mind buy. We are all people. Why be treated differently? Could you provide my family somewhere they can live near me? No! But this is a requirement for other communities, which is discrimination.

Yours sincerely,

I object to both the scale and the 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.

I think your plan is over ambitious and you seriously need to think about the impact on the infrastructure and green belt land to the proposals you are putting forward.

The proposed over development in the Rochford area for 7,000 additional homes is absolutely ridiculous
We have lived in the Hockley area for the past 12 years and seen the volume of traffic on the local roads increase to an intolerable level with virtually no road improvements in that time
There would have to be a very substantial amount of infrastructure needed to cope with the additional proposed housing and for new roads put in as well as existing main roads upgraded
To avoid total gridlock and air pollution I suggest RDC should abandon the consultation now and not waste any further tax payers money with its crazy plans for our already overcrowded villages

I have taken the opportunity to have a look through the local plan which you currently have on your website. I would like to make some general comments and observations based mainly on the sustainability document and the proposed sites for development. it is mentioned that existing greenbelt and ancient woodland will be a consideration when making final decisions, but when viewing your maps it seems like most of the proposed sites are indeed on greenbelt, including area of woodland.

As an example of one of the greenbelt sites proposed I'd like to make points on the one that is closest to where I live. This would be the end of Victor gardens where I often walk my dog round Clements Hall itself and round to the playing fields beyond. I note that Greenacres and Meadowlands have put up their properties for development as well as the woodland to the left as you walk down the lane towards Clements Hall. This is, of course, a bridleway, so, firstly, how will the traffic created from such a development be conducive to the riders using this bridleway? Bridleways by definition are there to keep horses and riders away from the roads, so any development of the size proposed in this area will cause problems not only for the horses as the volume of traffic will be an issue for the whole of Victor Gardens - it's already a job for cars to negotiate their way up the
road because it is already full of parked cars and any further development will only create a bottleneck. My main concern, however, would be the removal of woodland that exists in this part of Victor Gardens. The survival of all our remaining woodland has to be a priority. Although this particular piece of woodland is privately owned , the very fact that people are not entering it allows the wildlife to exist as they should. On occasion I have heard owls in there and these little pockets or oasis's of woodland must be allowed to survive. It will be to our detriment if we don't look after it. I know that this part of Victor Gardens has had various planning applications put forward in the past and all have been rejected. These were based on far fewer houses than the current proposal, so if these were rejected how can this huge development plan be considered.

My overall observations on the developments we have had in the Rockford area so far is that the majority of the houses built are priced at the high end - where or, indeed, what is affordable housing? These houses are only accessible to high earners commuting to London or people moving out of London, Ilford, Romford etc. who can afford the very high prices being demanded for these properties. I see no chance for local people, who work locally being able to get anywhere near affording these properties. The people who benefit are the landowners and the developers, who obviously make a lot of money out of there developments. All we are doing is turning our greenbelt and communities into another superb of London. Sad but true.
Your document mentions a mix of houses to suit the needs of all sectors of the community. Well most of the developments I've seen - Beckley woods, the Christmas Tree Farm and Hall road a few examples - so very little evidence of this.

The Sustainability document goes on to mention the need for infrastructure requirements. The need to improve the local road network, to introduce new doctors surgery and schools. This is pretty obvious, but how can the local road system be improved? To my mind, and many others, it simply can't be improved. For example, Aldermans Hill and Hockley road is number to number every weekday evening from 4pm for a couple of hours at least. Road works with random traffic lights pop up everywhere and cause untold delays. In short, the local roads struggle to cope now - I see no way to avoid and escalation of this over the years.
We know doctors surgery are struggling to cope everywhere and I imagine existing schools will not be able to manage the intake of new pupils easily. I know there is a commitment to improved infrastructure, but there has been scant evidence of this in the developments we have had so far (Hall Road is a good example I believe) and I really wonder where the money for all this will come from. The developers? They have proved that they will do what they can to avoid this. The government? - nowhere near enough. Essex Count Council? - Again, nowhere near enough.

If anything, a village like development where schools, doctors and roads can be planned in conjunction with the building of the houses would be the most sensible approach, placing it in the most accessible location in the area. Brown field sites ( mostly old nurseries etc.) could also be developed. This will,obviously, always fall short of the 7,500 houses planned, but I think it's also obvious that the Rockford area can't sustain 7,500 houses, even if it is planned to take place over 20 years.

I know the council is just putting it out there and no sites have been confirmed, however, my conclusion is that the local plan appears to be no plan at all, and therefore I would like you to note my objection to this consultation at this stage.

Re. Future Housing Development.
I did not attend the recent Public Meeting but did attend a similar meeting last year ? I wish to comment as follows:-
In talking to Councillors I found their attitude towards New Housing Development in Wakering to be very negative i.e. " Wakering has not got the infrastructure to support new housing etc. etc. " My view Wakering could only benefit from new housing, " Where is the money to come from ? " , answer; From the new housing development and subsequent council tax. " new housing would only bring problems " Answer neighbouring Thorpe Bay for instance far outweighs Wakering in its housing density but it's a most sort after and desirable place to live.
Wakering needs to wake up from the " dark ages " ; recent snow and Shoebury Road (from Poynters Lane ) into Wakering was impassable... Poynters Lane itself is a disgrace, pedestrians, young children on bikes on their way home from school at dusk on what is not much better than an " unlit farm track ". The turn off into Poynters Lane from Star Lane on a very sharp almost blind bend has a faded turn right positional arrow painted on the road I shudder to think any body would dare position themselves as such. And to top it all this unlit Poynters Lane seems subject to flooding at the mere sight of rain.
Modernise Wakering with new Housing Projects ; Infrastructure will follow together with a new more vibrant community and economy, a better transport system and a better way of living. That's what New housing Development would bring to Wakering.
Are we a "nimby " council ? Please show we are not.

I would like to make the following comments:-

Whilst I accept the need for more housing (particularly affordable - for renting and purchase) there needs to be more adequate provision for the infrastructure which will be substantially affected by the proposal to build upto 7500 homes particularly the roads, public transport, health facilities and schools. These improvements need to be made before the houses are occupied. I am also unclear as to when green belt land is green belt and when it isn't. I am also not convinced that adequate investigation has been carried out into the feasibility of using brownfield sites.

Dear Sir/ Madam

With respect to the above mentioned plans please see below my objections and comments to the above mentioned plan

I've lived in Rayleigh for the best part of 60 years and seen changes good and bad. Rarely have I involved myself in local politics although I must confess to having strongly objected to the London Road/ Rawreth Lane proposals for many reasons. This process did make me realise that mass developments such as these need heavy scrutiny and the need for individuals and local communities to stand up and state their alternative views and hope that the voice of reason is carried.

I would like to see a 20 year plan for Rayleigh and the surrounding area that considers the following;

Decision makers putting the wishes and concerns of the local community at the forefront of all large scale planning applications/options.

A strong focus given to the impact of increased traffic flow that would result from any large scale future planning applications/developments. This should take into account both congestion problems together with health and pollution issues.

Property developments only to be considered as and when sufficient infrastructure is already in place (or proven it will be in an acceptable timeframe) and considered adequate to cope with the consequences of any such developments.

All decisions should keep in mind the need to avoid developments that support or negatively influence the culture of anti-social behaviour. Presently this is moving very quickly in the wrong direction in Rayleigh and as such gives rise to much concern. The mid and long term effects of this should not be under-estimated and is an important consideration if we are to maintain Rayleigh as a desirable place to live or visit.

Where there is insufficient room for new or very much improved roads then no large scale developments should be permitted.

There should be no intrusion into designated "green belt" areas, it was labelled green belt for a reason and those reasons still hold good today. We need to keep in mind that our trees and vegetation are linked to an important eco system that benefits us all.

MOST IMPORTANTLY I WOULD LIKE TO SEE LOCAL GOVT STAND UP TO THE CENTRAL GOVT. WHO ARE IMPOSING THESE QUOTAS AND CHALLENGE THEM WHEN IT CAN BE DEMONSTRATED THAT IN ALL PROBABILITY THE PROPOSALS WILL RESULT IN A NEGATIVE IMPACT TO THE EXISTING RESIDENTS/ENVIRONMENT.

I believe in a democratic society local councils should have a moral duty to support and stand up for the desires and wishes of the local communities they represent rather than accept any ill thought -out and unwelcome impositions of central government.

As long as I can remember Rayleigh has always been a desirable place to live. At the moment however it is on the cusp of slip sliding away into something far less desirable. Now is the time to reject what is not in our best long term interests and for the local Council to submit a more acceptable and realistic planning proposal that fits with the wishes of the local community and takes into account the foregoing objections and comments.

Further to a recent open public meeting we would like to raise our concerns about the land that has been designated as being suitable for development in Great Wakering.

Our major concern is the development is not supported by an infrastructure to accommodate the increasing number of household occupants. The village has one infant/primary school and all children of secondary school age have to travel to Rochford (King Edmund catchment) or further afield and this arrangement has been in place ever since we have lived in the village (1981). This was only supposed to be a temporary measure.

The roads are already overcrowded as the majority of houses were not built to accommodate one car let alone 3 - 4 which is the average household now and with the extra volume of cars on the two roads out of Wakering, this will only lead to congestion and frustration.

The Doctors Surgery is already at capacity as they also serve patients from their old premises in Thorpe Bay so again with the added volume of people in the village, how can they possibly provide a caring service when they are already over stretched.

The sites that give us concern are: CFS057, CFS097, CFS070 CFS065 CFS011 CFS056 CFS034.

I object strongly to the following Development sites as we do not have the infrastructure to support thousands more people and cars,we need bigger and better roads more schools bigger doctors surgery etc.to name but a few things that need upgrading for the population we have now let alone thousands more crammed into such a tiny area.How can we be expected to share our tiny roads with even more vehicles,you will just be building homes for people that wont be able to get to work as they will be stuck in one massive jam.
CFS057.CFS097.CFS034.CFS056.CFS011.CFS070.CFS065.