Delivering Infrastructure

I am lead to believe that there is a proposed development to the land to the north of Malvern Road, Harrogate Drive and
the childrens' play area/ walk through to Beckney Woods (ref CFS023 / COL38 on the RDC Land Assessment 2017 - Appendix B).

Myself, my wife Patricia, my children Jessica and Christopher Olivares are vehemently against such a development.

This would destroy a beautiful piece of greenbelt land which is vital to local wild life and a pleasant area of Malvern Road
which was always designated as a safe children's play area for our road. Does the council have no regard for the safety of our young children?

It is hard enough to get an appointment at the local doctors, dentists or blood clinic. It is hard enough to get a parking spot
in the village. If there are more houses, you will put an even more intolerable strain on our (already) struggling services and village infrastructure..

Keep your "dirty hands" off of our wonderful green area. You should be ashamed of even considering such a development!

whilst I understand area's need development or sink, I believe due to financial reasons nobody seems a give any thought to the infrastructure of the area ie if I need the doctor for my disabled wife I have to queue at 7-30 in the morning to get an appointment for that day and that is because our doctors not only cover wakeing which would keep them busy but take Thorpe bay and shoebury patients. our primary school is on over load again because not only does it take wakering children but children from outside of the villiage which is leading to very bad vehicle problems around the school area because nobody walks anymore and the fleet of bus's taking our children to rochford everyday is unbelievable. with all the building that has taken place alexander road is now out of control with no second access road having been built to service the new estate at the far end. our high street is getting more traffic than ever but the street lighting has been reduced and is now very poor, side roads are getting harder to get out of due to the volume and speed of traffic, there are no traffic/pedestrian lights anywhere and only one zebra crossing. so as I have said whilst we need to develop please open the wallet and give us a proper infrastructure to go with the development

I understand that all areas have needed extra houses to be built to help with the housing crisis. However I believe enough has been built in the Hullbridge area or permission is already in place. Therefore I object to any further building. Our village would not be able to take any more developments for a number of reasons.

1. The road structure would not be able to cope with anymore cars. Rush hour is awful on Rawreth Lane, Watery Lane, through the whole of Hullbridge. Unfortunately traffic from Hockley, Rochford areas use Hullbridge as a route through to Chelmsford- watery lane cannot cope with the traffic and certainly wouldn't cope with anymore. Will that be made into a duel carriage way? After a day at work queuing to enter our home village just isn't on!

2. Schools- our local Senior schools are full so another one would need to be built. I'm not sure where the extra children from the 500 approved houses will go?! Our local primary school wouldn't cope with a huge influx of children either.

3. Agricultural land is disappearing quickly by being built on. We need to become more self sufficient rather than relying on imports from abroad if we want a successful brexit. Farmland needs to be looked after and successfully used.

4. I have grown up in Hullbridge and decided to buy my own house for my family in the village. Village being the important word, I wanted my children to experience the village lifestyle with fields and the river not boxed in like a town. Community spirit is important to me and that will be lost if Hullbridge expands anymore. If I wanted to live in a town that is where I would have bought. We used to have several parks throughout Hullbridge which have gradually sadly been built on.

5. Utilities how would they cope with more houses.

6. Many roads in Hullbridge are single track or unmade roads, which is fine with the current flow of traffic but certainly wouldn't cope with anymore cars.

7. I assume that now we are having 500 more houses built the buses will run more regularly and reliably. When I used to catch a bus to Sweyne school it would take me hours to get home as the buses couldn't fit enough people. What will happen now?

8. The correct infrastructure isn't in place now for the new houses costing the village money, therefore we do not need anymore.

9. Another doctors would need to be built as the current doctors has enough pressures and patients already.

I am writing to express my concern at the plan to build more new homes and increased development in Hockley. I have recently moved to the area, from Romford, which used to be a traditional market town; however, that was before the council decided to build thousands of new homes. It is now a built up town, with an extremely high crime rate and is far from the nice market town it once was. I have seen first hand how it has gone from a desirable area to a no go town, which is something I and the residents of Hockley would be devastated if this were to happened here. Please see below some key points/questions that concern myself and the people of Hockley:

- Already, the village experiences high congestion at peak times - how exactly is it supposed to cope with an extra 28, 000 cars on the road?

- The extra pollution? How will this affect our health and also the beautiful countryside and wildlife?

- Hockley is desirable due to its village appeal. With increased development this will disappear and it will be like other overdeveloped towns, with no character and the issues that come with the increased activity

- Will there be sufficient infrastructure to cope with the increased pressure on doctors' surgeries and the nearest hospitals? The wait for appointments is already far too long meaning health is out at risk. How will it cope with 7,500 more people needing treatment?

- How will the schools cope? With increased class size, children's education will suffer. This will have a detrimental effect.

- It is well documented that the crime rate in built up areas is higher than that in less populated villages and towns.

Please consider these points. This is an extremely important issue for Hockley residents and something that needs much consideration - it would mean changing the village for ever and not for the better. It is a strong opinion that the focus should be on preserving the local area and village feel.

Many thanks for taking the time to read this email and consider the points above.

I have moved to Hullbridge in October 2018 I live in lower road I have been sent a leaflet in the post about the new local plans. I have had a look at the plans and that there is the possibility that there could be up to 7,500 new homes to be built in this area and and that some are to be built just across the road to where I live and just round the corner to me. I find this very worrying as I moved to this area to get away from a concrete jungle and to live some where that had more of a country feel about it. I do not think Hullbridge should be made to take all theses new houses I understand that some have to be built I do not think it should be as many as planed and in the places that have been selected .

1- I do not think that Hullbridge can cope with at least 14,500 more people living here
2 - The roads we be impossible to move around easily I do not believe Hullbridge is built to cope with the amount of traffic all these new homes will bring
3- local schools will not be able to cope and doctors

ROCHFORD DISTRICT COUNCIL STRATEGIC HOUSING & EMPLOYMENT LAND AVAILABILITY ASSESSMENT 2017 - APP. B, MAP Q
REPRESENTATION IN RESPECT OF:-
FUTURE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT - GT. WAKERING
1. Gt. Wakering is once again in the spotlight for new housing developments. The Star Lane Brickworks site is more or less complete. There are 2 more sites in the pipeline. The next will be land south of the High Street adjacent to the Star Lane Development. SER9b. After this SER9a - Land west of the Little Wakering Road.
2. Any new housing development will put additional pressures on the local amenities & infrastructure.
3. All developments in Gt. Wakering will make demands on its schools/medical facilities/transport/roads.
4. All statements on the latest documentation state that Amenities are either Excellent or Good
5. Already the parents of the rising 5's are being refused the local school of their choice. There are no obvious choices for alternatives in the catchment area. Local research on the Star Lane site has revealed that parents have in the main chosen to keep their children at their previous schools. It has to be said that many of these new arrivals are former Rochford residents, so for the time being the problem has not been identified.
6. The medical facilities whilst reasonable at the moment are under daily pressures. This will not ease even if the local developments are limited to the current 3 approved sites.
7. The development of the Garrison Site in Shoeburyness has vastly increased the traffic using the cross country roads from the Anne Boleyn Pub on the Rochford Road, Sutton Road, Shopland Road, to the Rose Inn Pub at Silchester Corner. Traffic then turns left onto the Southend Road, onto Star Lane, Poynters Lane to Wakering Road & the Garrison Site.
8. NO NEW ROADS HAVE BEEN BUILT IN THE AREA TO ALLEVIATE THE INCREASING TRAFFIC FLOW DURING THIS EXPANSION PROGRAMME!
9. Neither Gt. Wakering nor Shoebury have benefitted in any significant way. The land from the old school 'Hinguar', has been turned into a 'Housing Development'. The new school was a necessity not a luxury!
10. Access & Egress for residents of Gt. Wakering all converge on the High Street/Shoebury Road and also now Star Lane. The residents of Alexandra Road already suffer daily chaos with Street Parking which was acutely aggravated by the development at its Southern End - Meeson Meadows.
11. Sufficient new housing needs to be available & affordable for local people. Two bedroom properties might improve the 'statistics' but do nothing for parents with 2 children of different sexes. The prices of the 2 bedroom properties on Star Lane, £300k towards the end of the development, will only attract well paid London workers! Again, a windfall for the developers but demoralising for local people. The consultation which took place in the village in the 1980's made a point of saying it wanted more affordable housing. It hasn't happened!
(1)
RDC STRATEGIC HOUSING & EMPLOYMENT LAND AVAILABILITY ASSESSMENT 2017 APP B
SPECIFIC COMMENTS RE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTS

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

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

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

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

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

* We would not support the development of this site!

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

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

3.Planning ref. CFS 057

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

* Substantial improvements to the Access & Egress appear to be vital. However, In the past, Rochford District Council has always maintained that it was against any Access /Egress onto Poynters Lane as it would effectively join Gt. Wakering to Southend on Sea. Will this Policy change? If so, at what cost to the residents?
(2)
4. Planning refs. CFS 097, CFS 034, CFS 056

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

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

* All other issues apply.

5. Conclusion

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

Dear sirs I object very strongly to the above plan. you do not include the substantial infrastructure that would be a necessity, are the water mains, gas mains electrical services adequate? Do you not realise that you can only get so much gas and water through a given bore of pipe, pressures would have to be elevated to a high level bringing with it leaks/explosions. The alternative being relaying these services throughout the district at astronomical cost. Electrical services also would have to be enlarged throughout.
This is before schools, hospital services doctors ,dentists etc etc are even considered. Roads are inadequate now, do you ever go out during the day and see the traffic jams if even Lower road or Watery Lane have work on them Hockley is brought to a standstill, likewise for Rochford if any work is carried on Southend road.

What worries me your planning officer, the one who said he was excited that the 600 home development in Hall road was starting and could not wait the see the finished result when every one else said the finished result would be Gridlock had any input into the scheme.

Re New Local Plan - Hullbridge

We have submitted just 2 items on your online missive site in regards to the proposed developments, however this is very combusome and therefore have now resorted to email to be able to put our sentiments across.
We wish to also point out that all of your documentation appears to be biased in favour of Rochford, Hockley and Rayleigh, but every item has an impact on the village of Hullbridge which going by the census of
2011 was only 2000 less inhabitants than that of Rochford!

ENGAGING WITH RESIDENTS

Submitted: ID 35330
Rochford District Council have REFUSED to meet with the TAX PAYERS of Hullbridge where a vast majority of the building works are suggested for planning.

GREENBELT

Submitted: ID 35333
WHATS THE POINT OF CALLING AN AREA AS GREENBELT IF YOU ARE GOING TO IGNORE THE ACCOMPANYING PROTECTION THAT THIS BRINGS.

BIODIVERSITY

Hullbridge is classed as a SPA as per your map. Building more houses will threaten this protection and reduce the amount of wildlife currently seen.

FLOOD PLAIN - CFS099

The flood plain is one of the plots highlighted on your proposed map.
Surely this has major implications for people trying to get a mortgage.
This is the protection for the current inhabitants. Building on this plot can potentially have an effect on the current properties in relation to the settling of the earth (clay soil) which can cause subsidence to the current structures closest to the proposed sites ie:
shrinkage of the soil.

INFRASTRUCTURE:

Unadopted Roads: - to name but a few

As per Windermere Road (unadopted), Grasmere Avenue is also an unadopted road. Which at present can not sustain the current throughfare as people use for West Avenue (also unadopted) and used to get to the top of Windermere Road and also gives access to the Drive (also unadopted).

Rawreth Lane:

In the main is a single carriageway in both directions and struggles to maintain the passability in the rush hours. This causes knock on effects for the locality concerning visitors to schools, doctors, and those relying on the emergencies services. Not forgetting the state of the current tarmac road.

Tree Preservation Orders - TPO - CFS099:

There are a number of TPO's in place which again need to be considered when deciding on areas to be developed. There are a number around this area.

Sewerage:

These systems are currently inadequate to sustain the amount that is flushed down them. Building new houses will increase the burden on the current structure.

Soakaways:

Many houses have soakaways which feed into CFS099. Where will these be relocated?

Schools:

The current scenario is unable to maintain intake for the catchment school.

Emergency Services:

These already have to come through Rayleigh to get to Hullbridge.
Increasing the housing and population, and not having adequate Road system in place will delay times of response.

Hospital:

Needless to say that has the knock on effect been taken into account in regards to Southend Hospital.

CURRENT HULLBRIDGE INHABITANTS

We feel that the population of Hullbridge has NOT been given a fair voice in this matter as many of the aged inhabitants are less able to respond via computer or understand the impact it potentially will have on them - Refer Engaging with Residents.

How can more 7500-9000 homes be consumed into Hockey it's obvious the Rochford councillors do not
Live in the village or use the narrow roads through. The other question is do they have to wait 3 weeks for a doctors appointment, because when they build these homes they don't allow any new ones or new schools and we the residents have to put up with illegal parking and taking a chance being able to call an ambulance etc or get to work.
As a resident in a private road we already don't get the services other roads take for granted so no I don't think you should build so many and use up every little space there is.
I urge the council to please consider giving the residents of Hockley a chance to enjoy the village and reduce the amount of houses they are considering.

How can more 7500-9000 homes be consumed into Hockey it's obvious the Rochford councillors do not
Live in the village or use the narrow roads through. The other question is do they have to wait 3 weeks for a doctors appointment, because when they build these homes they don't allow any new ones or new schools and we the residents have to put up with illegal parking and taking a chance being able to call an ambulance etc or get to work.
As a resident in a private road we already don't get the services other roads take for granted so no I don't think you should build so many and use up every little space there is.
I urge the council to please consider giving the residents of Hockley a chance to enjoy the village and reduce the amount of houses they are considering.

I have recently viewed the plan of the housing development proposal.
Whilst I acknowledge a certain number of new dwellings have already had the go ahead to be developed, I wish to lodge my objection to the future release of land for further development for the following reasons:

1. No funding has been allocated to cater for the increase use of public services eg : Schooling, Medical Centre, Library, Policing and recreational ground.
2. The extra area of housing foundations will have a detrimental effect on natural water drainage. Hullbridge already has drainage problems.

OBJECTION to the RDC New Local Plan ( Issues & Options stage ):-

RDC is still not able to access the impacts of current and approved future development, since a large amount has not been completed we are already noticing issues of gaining access to medical services and traffic congestion.

Development of the area should take in to account the unique geography being a peninsular.



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.

OBJECTION to the RDC New Local Plan ( Issues & Options stage ):-

RDC is still not able to access the impacts of current and approved future development, since a large amount has not been completed we are already noticing issues of gaining access to medical services and traffic congestion.

Development of the area should take in to account the unique geography being a peninsular.



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.

I write with much concern over the proposed New Local Plan for up to 7500 houses in this area! I believe the building that is currently going on in this area is far greater than the infrastructure can cope with!
I realise there is a need for more housing but with some of the affordable housing being around £350,000 how is this going to help our young people? If affordable housing is necessary shouldn't it be at a price that first time buyers can actually afford? Also perhaps smaller properties such as bungalows or suitable properties for the elderly could be considered which would then release larger properties on the marker. Surely common sense tells us that with all the traffic jams and problems in the area at the moment we cannot carry on building at this rate without consideration being given to improved infrastructure! This area of the country is simply FULL UP!!
If you happen to live in this area you will be aware of the chaos that is caused by even the refuge collections every week! Simply vans delivering to the local businesses in Hockley, which cannot park, can cause several miles of traffic queueing back in all directions! Road works of course are a necessity but can cause absolute chaos especially at time when it has been decided to dig up all surrounding roads at the same time!!
I would also be interested in knowing how the infrastructure would be improved because apart from knocking down half the houses on the main roads I fail to see what can be done! Local flooding can also be a problem and will not be helped by continued building on such a scale!
Our local hospitals, doctor surgeries, schools are not coping now so I fail to see how they will they cope with everything that is proposed in this phase so I believe the allocation for the next phase should be dramatically cut and certainly avoid any further building directly adjacent to the Rayleigh to Hockley main road and also the main Ashingdon Road to Rochford!

Please see my objection to developments proposed in the new local plan.

The existing and 'New' local plan amount to a potential 30% increase in housing for the Rockford District - the following legitimate restraints will indicate that the plan is not viable nor sustainable.

1. Funding

The Principal Consultee (ECC) have issued a 2016 report (Greater Essex Growth & Infrastructure Framework) that concludes that infrastructure cannot match the proposed growth due to high levels of under funding.

2. Utilities

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 185,000 new homes (water/electricity/gas/telecoms/waste treatment/recycling)

3. Green Belt Law

The RDC area of responsibility is 74% classified as Green Belt status. A housing project of this scale can only be achieved by sacrificing of the GB principals, quote:
"..to prevent urban sprawl and preclude one settlement coalescing into another"

4. Civic Amneties

The 10 years (so far) of an Austerity Programme has eroded Civic Amenities and Services to the point of crisis (health & care services). This same situation is now starting to impact education and emergency services due to a lack of capacity. 30% loading is just not feasible - let alone sustainable.

5. Commuting

Commuting out and back into the district is the root cause of rush-hour congestion, this clearly underlines the the existing housing to local work place 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

I live at *redacted* which backs onto the above sites, I strongly object to Planning permission being given to them in view of the fact Barling Road is a very
narrow road which is in rush hours something of a rat run. Also there is insufficient
access onto Barling Road.

In Wakering there is only one small school, one doctors surgery, Bournes Green roundabout at rush hour is almost gridlocked how will people be able to drive out with existing roads and very poor public transport.

At present planning has been granted for Star Lane eastwards, West of Little Wakering Road which have hardly started or not at all.

It is all well giving the possibility of future planning on all these plots but until sufficient infrastructure roads, schools, doctors and sufficient transport this area cannot sustain the expansion.

Whilst it is understandable that Rochford District Council has to meet the Government criteria for available land on which to build on surely practicality must come into future decisions.

I am writing to object to the following site reference number developments in Great Wakering:
CFS057, CFS097, CFS070, CFS065, CFS011, GF03, CFS056 and CFS034
I was born in Great Wakering 40 years ago and the greatest qualities in the village is the Community, peace, safety and being surrounded by people who you know. If, the above planning goes ahead this will be lost for the following reasons.
School
The Great Wakering Academy is full and would not be able to take the planned volume of children. If the plans went ahead siblings of the current families may miss out on spaces and have to commute to other schools. As most schools start at similar times how would parents get their children to different schools. We are not within walking distance of other schools and do not have frequent public transport. With the school being the size it is there is an excellent family feel to it, this would be lost if the village was to expand. Currently there is a lollypop lady at the beginning and end of the day but she does not cover after school activities or breakfast club times. With no permanent crossing and an increase in traffic the children's safety would be a major concern.
Roads
We do not have the roads to cope with the increase in traffic volume and they would not be fit for purpose. When they built the Star Lane development there was often delays caused by traffic lights, access vehicles, clearing of mud on the road etc. The High Street in Great Wakering is the main road and already has cars parked on both sides, which leads to single lane use. This increase in traffic will lead to a loss of on-road parking which is a loss of valuable residential amenity. The reason for such parking on the roads is because we are a village with old cottages that do not have off road parking.
The only other access is Poynters Lane. Locals tend not to use this road as it has poor visibility, dangerous speeds are used and pedestrians sometimes walk along it. With increased traffic and building vehicles this would increase the dangers. We are not close to major roads such as the A127 or the main part of the A13. There are plenty of other towns with the potential for development which have good access to the A127 and A13, transport and amenities.
There is one crossing in Great Wakering at the doctors surgery. Increase in cars travelling and parked will become a danger to pedestrians.
Public Transport
The number 4 bus serviced this village for years, twice an hour and took around 20/25 minutes into Southend. About a year and a half ago this was replaced with the number 7/8 bus. This bus can now take 45 minutes to get to Southend as it goes around Shoebury, Thorpe Bay and Woodgrange before finally reaching Southend. It was supposed to be 3 times an hour but now it's twice an hour. So since the Star Lane development our public Transport has actually got worse. Some of the behavior I have seen on the bus has not been nice due to the areas it goes through and my working day has increased as I have a longer journey. The bus is also full and sometimes you cannot get a seat from Southend. When the changes happen it was sold as a better service as it would go past Thorpe Bay train station, well the number 4 went past Southend East so that wasn't improving the service. If these plans were to go ahead this bus service would not cope. I thought we were trying to move away from car based communities not build them!
Surroundings
Great Wakering has beautiful surroundings and many residents look out onto fields with uninterrupted views and great privacy. Children play in the surrounding fields, we exercise in the open space. According to our Human Rights Protocol 1 Article 1 we are entitled to peaceful enjoyment of possessions. The developments would destroy our enjoyment of peace by bringing busy roads, all the current walks across the fields would have developments either side, increased noise, smell from work, people, vehicles and over-crowded amenities. By losing the fields this would increase the risk of flooding which Wakering has a history of. We should be protecting Green Belt as a valuable flood prevention not building on it. I believe the Government model for this district is 7,500 homes but with the rate of growth it should be 3,500. Green Belt land should not be used just to ease housing targets it has greater uses such as food production and stopping our village from joining up to the next town and losing the village forever. In the Rochford District Historic Environment Characterisation Project document on the Rochford.gov.uk website,it was said that the historic environment has a powerful influence on peoples' sense of identity and civic pride. Pages 69-70 have some points about Great wakerings history and how a few of the original boundaries survive and every effort should be made to preserve them.
Wildlife
In my garden alone I have squirrels, foxes, birds, hedgehogs and I have heard bats in the village. Day and night the wildlife can be seen. Green buffers between developments would not be enough to keep this wildlife and yet another use for Green belt. Villagers enjoy the walks and seeing the wildlife. With over development to a village, this wildlife would be destroyed.
Amenities
We have one coop which is busy and only has a small car park with tight access. When there are deliveries cars and pedestrians have to stop whilst the lorry reverses into the car park. With an increase for the coop how would it cope with the deliveries and customers. Our local tip is over 30 minutes drive away and then there is often a queue.
Security and Crime
Great Wakering is a very low crime and secure village. The children are happy and parents have confidence in them being allowed out in the village. I have never felt unsafe day or night. But if the village grew to the size of the proposals then this would change. We would not know the people around us and there is hardly any police presence in this village.
Employment
Developments should bring employment but already Star Lane housing has taken some away, with the selling of Star Lane industrial estate. Also Southend is declining in employment opportunities so what are all these new residents going to do for work. My work in Southend will be going in the next few years.
Great Wakering
It is a village and that is why we live here these plans are inappropriate for a village and it will be destroyed. Our previous Prime Minister said that" protecting Green Belt is paramount".

I write with much concern over the proposed New Local Plan for up to 7500 houses in this area! I believe the building that is currently going on in this area is far greater than the infrastructure can cope with!
I realise there is a need for more housing but with some of the affordable housing being around £350,000 how is this going to help our young people? If affordable housing is necessary shouldn't it be at a price that first time buyers can actually afford? Also perhaps smaller properties such as bungalows or suitable properties for the elderly could be considered which would then release larger properties on the marker. Surely common sense tells us that with all the traffic jams and problems in the area at the moment we cannot carry on building at this rate without consideration being given to improved infrastructure! This area of the country is simply FULL UP!!
If you happen to live in this area you will be aware of the chaos that is caused by even the refuge collections every week! Simply vans delivering to the local businesses in Hockley, which cannot park, can cause several miles of traffic queueing back in all directions! Road works of course are a necessity but can cause absolute chaos especially at time when it has been decided to dig up all surrounding roads at the same time!!
I would also be interested in knowing how the infrastructure would be improved because apart from knocking down half the houses on the main roads I fail to see what can be done! Local flooding can also be a problem and will not be helped by continued building on such a scale!
Our local hospitals, doctor surgeries, schools are not coping now so I fail to see how they will they cope with everything that is proposed in this phase so I believe the allocation for the next phase should be dramatically cut and certainly avoid any further building directly adjacent to the Rayleigh to Hockley main road and also the main Ashingdon Road to Rochford!

I write with much concern over the proposed New Local Plan for up to 7500 houses in this area! I believe the building that is currently going on in this area is far greater than the infrastructure can cope with!
I realise there is a need for more housing but with some of the affordable housing being around £350,000 how is this going to help our young people? If affordable housing is necessary shouldn't it be at a price that first time buyers can actually afford? Surely common sense tells us that with all the traffic jams and problems in the area at the moment we cannot carry on building at this rate without consideration being given to improved infrastructure! This area of the country is simply FULL UP!!
If you happen to live in this area you will be aware of the chaos that is caused by even the refuge collections every week! Simply vans delivering to the local businesses in Hockley, which cannot park, can cause several miles of traffic queueing back in all directions! Road works of course are a necessity but can cause absolute chaos especially at time when it has been decided to dig up all surrounding roads at the same time!!
I would also be interested in knowing how the infrastructure would be improved because apart from knocking down half the houses on the main roads I fail to see what can be done! Local flooding can also be a problem and will not be helped by continued building on such a scale!
Our local hospitals, doctor surgeries, schools are not coping now so I fail to see how they will they cope with everything that is proposed in this phase so I believe the allocation for the next phase should be dramatically cut and certainly avoid any further building directly adjacent to the Rayleigh to Hockley main road and also the main Ashingdon Road to Rochford!

I refer to the proposal for the possible building of 7,500 new houses in the local area to Hullbridge, Rayleigh and surrounding area.

I strongly object to this vast number of houses being built in this area due to congestion, pollution, lack of school places, lack of patient places at doctors, loss of wildlife and green areas, reduction of quality of life in what is a small village now and which would become a town.

With the type of soil in the village of Hullbridge building on such a vast scale could cause flooding.

We are already having to accept 550 houses which will dramatically alter life here without another load being built.

I believe roads will be totally congested with just the 550 houses and cannot imagine how horrendous it would be with this huge extra number of properties. Rayleigh is already known to be a very polluted town with a poor air quality in parts which is injurious to health and this will just increase across the whole of this area making it unpleasant to live and travel in. Considering we are all supposed to be more environmentally aware I'm amazed the council would want this much pollution. The roads just could not support the increase in traffic this building project would bring.

On top of this it appears funding for this whole project looks pretty dire with secured funding a tiny percentage of what is required.

Please think again on this disastrous plan so we aren't drowned in a sea of concrete and pollution. Hullbridge has a very special community which our local council seems determined to ruin.

I am writing to object to the proposed developments in Great Wakering under the following reference numbers:
CFS057, CFS097, CFS070, CFS065, CFS011, GF03, CFS056 and CFS034
Whilst I am relatively new to the village only living here 10 years I have come to appreciate the country feel, closeness to nature and close-knit community in Great Wakering. I believe there are a number of areas where village life will be negatively impacted if more houses are built.
* School places, our school is great, friendly, rural, there are no / very few places spare, if new housing means impacts on teaching standards, higher pupil numbers, catchment areas, then this is a change for the worse for existing residents.
* Doctors Surgery - Very difficult to get appointments now when you want them, very limited new baby care (there is talk of weighing your own child instead of a professional weekly child session with healthcare workers) much degraded since my first child was born in 2009. I can only see this getting worse with more people demanding healthcare services from more houses in the vicinity.
* Merging of Wakering into Shoebury, as the "village" spreads out the green areas disappear, boundaries disappear and urban areas merge, this isn't what should happen to a historical village with history going back centuries.
* Wildlife we have access to open spaces, wildlife reserves, cross field walks and public footpaths. Whilst I am sure the footpaths will have to remain, walking through housing estates with patches of greenery isn't what this village life is about. People have an expectation of living standards and a reason for living in a village environment wholesale building affects all residents and may change the dynamic / type of residents within the "new" village. We have limited access to the MOD areas on one side of the village so building on greenfield areas on another side does have a negative impact on the countryside, nature, village life and wildlife.
* Shopping and Amenities - There is a co-op a butchers and a post office in the village, this is nice we are a village, we can get most essentials. I am concerned that wholesale building will have an impact on how these outlets cope, the quality of service , what's available, delivery schedules, parking, and traffic on the high street.
* Roads - We have one permanent zebra crossing and a very busy high street, poorly lit access roads and a lot of children and elderly residents, I am concerned there will be a knock on impact to the existing roads with increased housing. More cars and road users, impacts on street parking as many houses don't have drives and impacts during school runs.
* Public Transport - The bus service into Southend was degraded after the Star Lane new houses were built, whilst the bus now visits Thorpe Bay and parts of Shoebury it takes longer, is busier, and less frequent than before the new houses appeared. No notice was taken of complaints about the changes; I have very little faith that "public" voices are even heard when dealing with big money developments, what do more houses mean for public transport links?
* Building on green fields - I would like to understand more on the council's policy of building on these sites, I believed the Gov policy was to avoid them. I would like to understand what other areas have / are being considered by the council in bigger urban areas with better public transport links, better infrastructure and residents not having an expectation of living in a village surrounded by fields. This policy needs to be explained further.

Having recently read your plan of proposed sites I have some objections, as well as improvements for sites, mainly focused around the Hockley area, of which I am familiar. Firstly site CFS064 (the land to the north and east of Folly Chase). When I first heard about this site being proposed for development I thought it was some poor attempt humor, not least because at the time we were sitting a tail back along the High Road, a very common occurrence as anyone who commutes regularly will know. Throwing in around 250 houses (the rumored number than I have heard) into an area where the only road (track) in and out of the site is essentially a single track drive which leads straight out onto a very sharp bend in Folly Lane, then onto the already congested High Road surely really shows abysmal lack of planning. The potential for accidents and even greater tail backs is a serious problem around this area. The development at CFS040 will also enhance this, as will the development adjacent to Bullwood Hall (though I personally feel that development is a feasible one). There are also environmental implications - Folly Chase and the surrounding countryside, north towards the rail bridge, is a beautiful area, peaceful, historic, popular with walkers ect. It would be a great loss to Hockley if this development went ahead, essentially turning Betts Farm, Folly area & this new development into one mass of urban sprawl. Hockley Primary's environment is also under threat, currently nestled within a quite, crime-free area, with ample access to green space. A good example of a school in which you would feel comfortable sending your kids to study at. Dumping a whole new estate directly adjacent to it's grounds could really damage it's outlook. A crying shame. How it would cope with the increase in pupil numbers is also an interesting question.

A site I am on board with is the industrial estate at BFR2, a potentially brilliant site for creating a solid area of housing with good town, school and commuting links. If done effectively this could provide a really healthy community atmosphere, whilst also bringing to life a currently detached and lackluster area of the town. Planning this out to be a green, 'Garden Town' (or at least an estate with decent green areas) would massively enhance Hockley center, both socially and environmentally, minimising the impact of the inevitable increase in pollution in the town center, if these building projects were to go ahead, whilst turning a pretty dire area into an aesthetically pleasing part of town.
The only potential downside is, again, traffic flowing directly out onto Spa Road, an already congested area. Though one could minimise this by limiting development upstream at CFS064.
CFS023 is also a pretty solid area for development, the only site in Hockley with potential for a decent access route which doesn't spill out onto an already congested road. The only thing I will say is that any development backing so close onto Beckney Woods needs to be sympathetically planned, with plenty of greenery (wildlife corridors) within the estate, funneling towards the wood. The developers of Etheldor and Wood estates did this pretty well, by keeping lots of mature trees and planting many more, creating a very pleasant area. Though this could be improved on by the linking of these green spaces together more effectively.
CFS169 and CFS020 would also pose a significant challenge regarding access, with only the small Windsor Gardens? and a tiny piece of access at the far SE of the site leading onto Rectory Road, just prior to the bridge, creating a problem of further bottle necks at this point. Though CFS150, 017 and 093 are good sites with Park and Victor Gardens providing enough access.

All round I think pretty much everyone who has seen these plans or even heard of the number of houses proposed to be built knows this area is unable to cope with such a large en-mass building scheme. Not only do we not have the necessary investment in infrastructure and local resources to cope with the influx, the potential of eventually linking Southend, Rochford, Rayleigh, Ashingdon and Hockley together as one vast mass of urban sprawl is not an idea which anyone desires, but one which if this level of building goes ahead, could become a reality in the near future. One of the overwhelming reasons why this area of Essex is so popular for those wanting to start a family outside of the city is because of Hockley's tranquil setting. Lets not bugger it up completely. Cut the number of houses in half to around 3500 and you might find yourself with a realistic plan.

Having tried unsuccessfully to register my objections on the rochford council iao link, I feel I must email you directly,

It seems that once again RDC is determined to allow further mass development in Great Wakering, without any thought to improving the infrastructure to our already stretched services, we have a small and already over stretched doctors surgery that is already struggling, a road system that is unable to cope and is totally inadequate for the amount of traffic using the roads around Great Wakering, and with such a limited public transport option most people who can, choose to drive because of the infrequent and limited service provided. We then have a infant/junior school that is not big enough for a mass influx of new children to educate, on top of this is the further need to transport the children of secondary school age to rochford, And let's not forget the recent weather problems and how parts of Great Wakering were cut off, yet RDC did nothing to rectify this, choosing to leave it to local farmers to clear roads, proving that RDC cannot cope with the problems we already encounter, without further housing to make matters worse. So in summary, I believe it is RDC's obligation to give us much better value for money for the council tax that we currently pay and give the people of the area services to warrant that and to make sure that our services and infrastructure are brought up to the required standards of the Village as it is today, then and only then should RDC consider allowing further development .

I am emailing regarding the above to share my concerns regarding the level of proposed new housing over the coming years particularly with regard to the enviroment in the Hullbridge area where I reside.

1. There will need to be consideration for additional schools to accommodate the anticipated increased pupil numbers. Is this in the plans.

2. Has any thoughts been given to the increased traffic numbers which will inevitably be seen. At present, Lower Road, in particular, is very busy as are other roads in the area. Appropriate speed limits will have to be put in place, especially on Lower Road. Access will also be a severe problem at busy times.

3. There will need to additional Doctors, has the local practice been appraised of the situation as it is not always easy to get an appropriate appointment at the moment.

4. Are additional bus routes planned where necessary & are the local bus companies likely to provide new routes or extra services.

5. Will there be an allowance for Sheltered Housing in any of the proposed sites particularly in view of the aging population. A number of bungalows on each site could be appropriate.

6. Some of the proposed sites do not have mains drainage at present. As this will obviously need to be provided on new developments, will existing homes in those areas have the opportunity to have this provided.

7. We reside in Lower Road opposite La Vallee Farm which is one of the proposed sites. I am surprised that land designated as farmland will be considered for housing development.

8. Perhaps, in view of Brexit, we might consider that we should maintain our farmland to provide for our population in view of the potential increase in costs of imports which may occur.

9. With regard to La Vallee Farm & adjacent sites, you may be aware that the road in that area is presently prone to flooding with water coming down from the higher ground above the farm. Hopefully, this will be a further consideration to take on board.

10. As mentioned earlier, the speed limit of 40mph in this area will be excessive if a residential development is allowed. Certainly, appropriate access to Lower Road is paramount as traffic levels on this road are likely to substantially increase.

I hope that the above points will be considered on any of the proposed sites with stringent reviews undertaken before plans are approved.

The infrastructure must be able to cope with the additional population in what is generally a very rural area.

I write to object to the developments proposed in the new local plan. These plans are not realistic or sustainable, from what I have read there is not enough funding to provide an adequate infrastructure for the proposed amount of development. The majority of the sites in question involve building on our greenbelt land. This land is of vital importance not only for future generations, and to stop negative impact on the environment but also for preventing urban sprawl and the merging of our towns. The greenbelt land should be protected and it is stated that it should only be overruled in extreme circumstances. What are these extreme circumstances? The civic amenities and services in this area are already stretched beyond sustainability we do not have the services to cater for so much growth in the area; the hospitals, schools, doctors surgeries and emergency services are under enough strain already. Speaking about Rayleigh specifically as it is the town I am most familiar with, the area already suffers with extreme congestion and we do not have the road system to effectively cope with more commuters, not to mention that the air quality in some places is already at dangerous levels. In regards specifically to the area outlined in map E a lot of these plots are flood risk 2 and 3 ,and regarding Daws heath road, the road itself is not wide enough to handle more traffic as it already has the overflow from the a127 in peak times as well as having poor drainage, flooding and awful potholes year after year it simply could not cope with more traffic from extra adjacent housing sites. I ask you to cut the target amount to sustainable levels and protect our greenbelt for the sake of all residents.

I realise the deadline has passed for the consultation, but I have been away on holiday and would still like to comment on the issue of possible developments to the East and South of Great Wakering

These future projects will devastate this quiet end of the village. Lives will be wrecked by over-population, traffic and lack of infrastructure to cope with it, plus the loss of prime agricultural land in the Green Belt.

I have lived here now for nearly 63 years and would have to consider moving to a place without the friends I grew up with if these developments went ahead.

Having recently attended a public meeting which identified areas in and around Great Wakering I would like to indicate my objection to planning being granted to the following sites.

CFS057, CFS097, CFS070 CFS065.

My main objection is that the areas indicated above are green belt agricultural land and should remain as such. Other objection to these areas being allowed to become housing developments are the current poor transport links. Increased housing will definitely put these under strain, not just here but also into Southend and beyond which during morning and evening rush hours often grind to a halt.

Lastly, we do not currently have sufficient infrastructure to cope with a large influx of new housing. This would include doctors, secondary schools, local shops and leisure facilities.

I object to the new local plan as follows:-

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

I OBJECT to COL38 in Appendix C

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

I object to both the scale and nature of the outlined proposal ,as follows: 1.
No matching funding for a supporting Infrastructure.

An ECC report has made it clear there are insufficient funds to provide the vital infrastructure for this plan. It's unsustainable and will adversely affect the quality ofl ife of current residents and will nor provide a good environment for those purchasing any property.

NHS Services are at full stretch - witness deaths over Christmas/New Year due to insufficient NHS provision locally.

Roads are already at full capacity.

Schools are largely full.

No provision for improvement to Police provision,

No provision for extra public transport capacity.

Some areas are already known to have bad air quality, which would worsen.

2.

No guarantees that Utilities can match extra demands.

The water companies have made it clear they cannot cope with this extra demand on resources, per the ECC infrastructure report.

No provision for increases in electricity and gas provision.

3.

No spare capacity within Health & Care Services.

Our hospital couldn't cope over Christmas/New Year 2017/18 - deaths ensued. Mny GP surgeries are already full.

4.
No let up in the sacrifice of the Green Belt & Air Quality.

Air quality known to be above set limits at places such as Rayleigh Weir and the Hockley Road where it enters the town, and Websters Way area, due to traffic queues occurring there. This must be addressed first.


5. No long-term LEGACY left for our future generations.

No figures as to how many affordable homes needed, and will be available for our younger residents needing first time homes. Likelihood is builders will erect larger more profitable houses. Also possibility of affordable homes being sild off to authorities the area - thus not solving our housing needs.

Destroying our Green Belt - as this Plan could do, leaves an area no longer fit to live in. This whole scheme in no way considers the welfare of current residents and possible future ones. This scheme will destroy this general district. Presumably RDC has no concerns over making this area part of a greater urban sprawl; and gaining the reputation as a council determined on destructive, uncontrollable and indiscriminate building at the cost of adversle affecting the welfare of residents.

I would like to express my extreme concern regarding the proposed New Local Plan, with CFS074 being of specific interest to me.
I am aware that CFS045 has already been rejected and would express my feeling that CFS074 also be rejected too, for the following reasons:
* It is an area of natural outstanding beauty
* It is used my many local people, as well as non-locals to not only enjoy the area but also use it for reasons such as dog walking, horse riding, rambling, etc
* Families take their children to the area to enjoy the great outdoors, something which is dwindling for the young children of today's age
* GP surgeries - with the need to know a week or so in advance of when you might become ill, local surgeries are, again, "oversubscribed" and it is difficult to get appointments when convenient. That is, of course, if the surgery will actually accept new patients!
* The roads around the are already overly congested and this is already being impacted from the recent new housing developments along Main Road, Clements Gate and Hall Road
* Schooling - the local schools are already bursting at the seams with some families having to travel outside the locality to take their children to school, The Westerings Primary School being a perfect example
* Hockley/Hawkwell roads, especially during rush-hour, are already a problem and the rush hour issues are already having an effect on Cherry Orchard Lane which is now congested you don't leave "at the right time"
* Public transport - as a very small town/large village, the area does not have the best of transport systems. Add 100's of additional inhabitants and this issue will only get worse

It is my personal opinion that additional housing, which I understand is needed, should be placed nearer more mainstream areas with better infrastructure, such as large main roads and immediate access to major A roads (A127, A13)
We are so lucky to have such few areas of beauty upon us where we can either walk to or have a short drive to appreciate and utilise the space outside, please do not take this away from us