Highways Infrastructure

Improvements in infrastructure should occur before or at the same time as the development. For example, it has been suggested that improvements to access and additional roundabouts to access the new Hullbridge development will only occur AFTER a significant part of the development has been completed. This is much too late.
A bond should be lodged by the developer in an escrow account and the funds released only on satisfactory completion. This will avoid developers failing to complete agreed improvements and the cost of bringing legal action against the developer by the Local Authority being too high to make it worthwhile pursuing the developer.

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

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

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

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

I would like to see greater priority given in the objectives to the transport infrastructure. My sense as a resident is that the amount of traffic on the main roads in the area has increased. On one recent Saturday afternoon I waited with my son and dog at the side of the main Hockley road for 5 minutes or so, there was throughout that time no let up in traffic.

With Chelmsford increasing in importance within the county, a city that seems to be achieving much in recent times I would also like to see the links to our county city improve.

Finally - Hockley is a good community to live in, however the centre although improving is still crying out for a real central focus and parking remains insufficient.

In response to your letter I'd like to raise the following concerns:

The mini roundabouts on the entrance to purdeys estates and on the west street/ashingdon road/hall road junction are too small to handle the amount of traffic using them. I frequently have people pulling out on me on both roundabouts and see at least 2 near misses a week. They are both accidents waiting to happen

The parking on Leicester road/Sutton court drive is extremely dangerous. People park right on the corners making pulling out safely from Leicester avenue impossible. In order to see what's coming I have to pull blindly into the middle of a road where cars travel far faster than the speed limit. Furthermore the parking along Sutton court drive is often back to back, the narrow nature of the road means there is no way for cars to pull over should a car be coming the other way. I have frequently observed cars pulling onto the kerb in order to let other cars pass as there is no where to safely pass or reverse.

Cars and vans are also frequently parking on the double yellow lines on the corner of Leicester avenue/Southend road causing issues when trying to pull in to or out of the road.

Finally the pedestrian pathways on Southend road (leading to and over warners bridge) and Southend road leading onto west street are not fit for purpose. The pavements only allow people to walk single file (and that's when the bushes have been cut back - they often hit you in the face when walking even single file. Walking single file becomes problematic when someone has to walk the other way, let alone a person with a buggy/bicycle/mobility scooter. This ultimately means someone needs (normally the lone pedestrian) to pass in the road. This is particularly dangerous on warners bridge which contains a blind corner over a bridge, where lorries frequently speed.

I am responding to your letter posted through my door in December with regards to opinions on how I see our surrounding area by 2037.
I have been a resident in Hullbridge since 1962 albeit I was 18months old when my parents moved from London to Essex.When we moved here my father was one of a handfull of residents privaliged with owning a car,in the whole of Abbey road I think no more than 10 cars were owned each one being kept on the driveway, 18 years later when my brother passed his test and got a car as well the local policeman would knock if he dared to park it outside the house as we lived opposite a turning and was deemed an obstruction !!25 years on Abbey road is inpassable to traffic god forbid a fire engine needs to get throughas each houshold seems to have 2 or more vehicles so many are parked on the road.
As the years have progressed so has the volume of traffic but Rochford council has done nothing to keep up with the situationhe roads in the area are the same as they were 55 years ago!! As a child I played down watery lane seeing only the occasional farm vehicle now it has heavy volumes of traffic all the time however the road has not changed and is still narrow and still lives up to its name constantly being flooded.
The lower road again from Hullbridge is a country road and the slightest drizzly day sees it flooding especially the water instead of draining on fields runs straight onto the road like a lake.
My concerns continue now the land at the side of Hullbridge (malyons lane) is now to be developed into 500 homes that field will be concreted where will the excess water go and where will the extra volume of cars go as the roads if you can call them that cannot cope now.If watery lane is closed during rush hour it can take upto 1hour to travel down rawreth lane to Hullbridge a distance of less than 3 miles.
I have seen many changes over the years and appreciate the need for extra housing but feel that Rochford council have sat blinkered for far too long and have not seen life from the general residents of the area,the southest of Essex has become a carpark with any journey a challenge god forbid a broken down vehicle or accident as you leave to do any journey as it can add hours to your arrival at your destination.
The area is already 20 years behind in its planning of invastructure so I do not know how it will catch up by 2037, I take comfort that I may no longer be around by then to see the increasing chaos, Rochford council needs to serriously get some money spent in the area to bring it in line with the 20th century and of course maybe listen to its tax paying residents.

I am responding to your letter posted through my door in December with regards to opinions on how I see our surrounding area by 2037.
I have been a resident in Hullbridge since 1962 albeit I was 18months old when my parents moved from London to Essex.When we moved here my father was one of a handfull of residents privaliged with owning a car,in the whole of Abbey road I think no more than 10 cars were owned each one being kept on the driveway, 18 years later when my brother passed his test and got a car as well the local policeman would knock if he dared to park it outside the house as we lived opposite a turning and was deemed an obstruction !!25 years on Abbey road is inpassable to traffic god forbid a fire engine needs to get throughas each houshold seems to have 2 or more vehicles so many are parked on the road.
As the years have progressed so has the volume of traffic but Rochford council has done nothing to keep up with the situationhe roads in the area are the same as they were 55 years ago!! As a child I played down watery lane seeing only the occasional farm vehicle now it has heavy volumes of traffic all the time however the road has not changed and is still narrow and still lives up to its name constantly being flooded.
The lower road again from Hullbridge is a country road and the slightest drizzly day sees it flooding especially the water instead of draining on fields runs straight onto the road like a lake.
My concerns continue now the land at the side of Hullbridge (malyons lane) is now to be developed into 500 homes that field will be concreted where will the excess water go and where will the extra volume of cars go as the roads if you can call them that cannot cope now.If watery lane is closed during rush hour it can take upto 1hour to travel down rawreth lane to Hullbridge a distance of less than 3 miles.
I have seen many changes over the years and appreciate the need for extra housing but feel that Rochford council have sat blinkered for far too long and have not seen life from the general residents of the area,the southest of Essex has become a carpark with any journey a challenge god forbid a broken down vehicle or accident as you leave to do any journey as it can add hours to your arrival at your destination.
The area is already 20 years behind in its planning of invastructure so I do not know how it will catch up by 2037, I take comfort that I may no longer be around by then to see the increasing chaos, Rochford council needs to serriously get some money spent in the area to bring it in line with the 20th century and of course maybe listen to its tax paying residents.

1) As a resident of Rochford, I would prefer to cycle, or walk not drive to local areas. We are lucky that the airport retail park, co op, Hockley centre and even tesco on a127 are within cycling reach, however the route from Ashingdon to Hall road where the main cycle route starts is not consistent all along the Ashingdon road and therefore more cyclists use the roads.

2) The level of traffic on Ashingdon road at peak times is heavy - maybe a "walk instead of drive" promotion if the district with volunteers guiding people on ways to use their legs or bikes for local journeys would be good? If people see others role modelling the behaviours they would be more encouraged to do it themselves.

3) like the bus pass for elderly free travel to support yongsters hanging around Rochford offer local travel incentives to support unrowdy behaviour eg- free trips 8-11pm- for under 18's - This would mean they get home safe, and don't hang about as they are more likely to want to get home free ! It is worrying the level of young people who are about at Rochford square due to lack of money to go anywhere / buses expensive etc so this may also help. I

3) Ashingdon is lovely and peaceful and very safe. However can feel a little cut off due to the level of traffic if you want to go to Rayleigh- Its difficult trying to go anywhere near Rayleigh centre due to level of traffic- also traffic build up the other way along to the airport past Rochford is very congested near Sainsbury's on the weekends. Again offering alternatives such as cycling and better routes would be good to help as a lot of people drive locally.

4) level of Parking in residential roads rather than on drives- a key example of this was recently in Alexandra Road, an ambulance had its ramp done in the road supporting a patient. The problem was the level of cars down both sides of the street blocking the other side which meant a 1 hour wait at the bottom of the road to get up it. I have to "slalam" to get up my road due to the amount of road parking by residents- I feel if residents have too many cars to fit their drive they should have to have a permit and pay for the privilege, or if they don't have a drive get a permitted space for their car which allows them the right to parks outside (an example is a off road monster truck parked in the road which takes up 3 spaces in Alexandra Road ....) this may deter people from parking. A worry would be due to double parking what about if fire service needed to get up the road a fire truck would not fit. I use an example where this method works well- ( heritage way)

5) more community events for use at Ashingdon Hall, I went to a murder mystery there in summer and it was great fun, met some new residents - definitely a call for residents to be more involved in local fetes/ farmers markets there etc If could be arranged to get community together and make more use of it. Maybe marketing a monthly "what's on" newsletter more related to social events / health groups in the Rochford magazine? ( would call out to think of social events of the younger people - 50 and under- we don't all want crochet or bridge club!)

6) Better use of twitter/ social media to get the community connected- the caring about Rochford Facebook group page is a great example there is a clear want for this from residents but it does need to be moderated.

7) Make use of skills of residents -eg retired people / pet lovers / etc would happily offer their gardening/ dog walking services etc which will help elderly / vulnerable people who maybe can't afford this but there is a need.

8) Encouraging people to get more involved in local initiatives willl build a sense of community pride - "try it out" free sessions/ subsidise - maybe partnering with Clements hall to offer free walking club or fitness classes for residents who bike instead of drive to prevent traffic etc - "ditch the car " free class" "walking mums club "- free coffee at xxx for encouraging mums to walk their kids to school rather than drive...building healthy residents.

1) As a resident of Rochford, I would prefer to cycle, or walk not drive to local areas. We are lucky that the airport retail park, co op, Hockley centre and even tesco on a127 are within cycling reach, however the route from Ashingdon to Hall road where the main cycle route starts is not consistent all along the Ashingdon road and therefore more cyclists use the roads.

2) The level of traffic on Ashingdon road at peak times is heavy - maybe a "walk instead of drive" promotion if the district with volunteers guiding people on ways to use their legs or bikes for local journeys would be good? If people see others role modelling the behaviours they would be more encouraged to do it themselves.

3) like the bus pass for elderly free travel to support yongsters hanging around Rochford offer local travel incentives to support unrowdy behaviour eg- free trips 8-11pm- for under 18's - This would mean they get home safe, and don't hang about as they are more likely to want to get home free ! It is worrying the level of young people who are about at Rochford square due to lack of money to go anywhere / buses expensive etc so this may also help. I

3) Ashingdon is lovely and peaceful and very safe. However can feel a little cut off due to the level of traffic if you want to go to Rayleigh- Its difficult trying to go anywhere near Rayleigh centre due to level of traffic- also traffic build up the other way along to the airport past Rochford is very congested near Sainsbury's on the weekends. Again offering alternatives such as cycling and better routes would be good to help as a lot of people drive locally.

4) level of Parking in residential roads rather than on drives- a key example of this was recently in Alexandra Road, an ambulance had its ramp done in the road supporting a patient. The problem was the level of cars down both sides of the street blocking the other side which meant a 1 hour wait at the bottom of the road to get up it. I have to "slalam" to get up my road due to the amount of road parking by residents- I feel if residents have too many cars to fit their drive they should have to have a permit and pay for the privilege, or if they don't have a drive get a permitted space for their car which allows them the right to parks outside (an example is a off road monster truck parked in the road which takes up 3 spaces in Alexandra Road ....) this may deter people from parking. A worry would be due to double parking what about if fire service needed to get up the road a fire truck would not fit. I use an example where this method works well- ( heritage way)

5) more community events for use at Ashingdon Hall, I went to a murder mystery there in summer and it was great fun, met some new residents - definitely a call for residents to be more involved in local fetes/ farmers markets there etc If could be arranged to get community together and make more use of it. Maybe marketing a monthly "what's on" newsletter more related to social events / health groups in the Rochford magazine? ( would call out to think of social events of the younger people - 50 and under- we don't all want crochet or bridge club!)

6) Better use of twitter/ social media to get the community connected- the caring about Rochford Facebook group page is a great example there is a clear want for this from residents but it does need to be moderated.

7) Make use of skills of residents -eg retired people / pet lovers / etc would happily offer their gardening/ dog walking services etc which will help elderly / vulnerable people who maybe can't afford this but there is a need.

8) Encouraging people to get more involved in local initiatives willl build a sense of community pride - "try it out" free sessions/ subsidise - maybe partnering with Clements hall to offer free walking club or fitness classes for residents who bike instead of drive to prevent traffic etc - "ditch the car " free class" "walking mums club "- free coffee at xxx for encouraging mums to walk their kids to school rather than drive...building healthy residents.

My comments are at this stage focussed on transport, though I have views on a lot of the document, I cannot list everything in one email.

I have got to say that in general I am somewhat underwhelmed by the entire document - there appears, to me, be very little ambition shown.

I am available as a consultant to assist you with this, either as a third party contracted to yourselves, or as a paid member of the AECOM team (though I would not be going to Bristol to talk to them about Rayleigh's issues).

Some specific areas:
No mention made of maintaining existing cycle infrastructure - a great many cycle paths are unusable due to the fact they are covered in broken glass and other harmful detritus.
No suggestions for new, safe, cycle lanes.
regarding the roads, you seem to ficus almost entirely on one B road. Yet the Rayleigh Weir continues to be a mess, the A129 into Rayleigh is also a mess and something needs to be done, for example looking at the intersection of Eastwood Road with the A129 and also looking to make the Rayleigh high Street pedestrian / cycle friendly.
The A127 fortune of war roundabout and other foolhardy ideas need taking out to allow the arterial traffic to flow better (appreciate that the FoW roundabout is in Basildon, but we need to flag this up).

Renewable energy - this is only fleeting mentioned. Being a rural area we could be doing so much more with biomass / district heating / solar and maybe wind farms. Nothing appears to have been considered to any depth in this report.
The comment that electric vehicles should be considered in the next plan is derisory, plans should be developed now to place EV charging points at prime locations within our town centres to encourage EV take-up. The council should also further support plug-in car grants through fleet purchasing, making a proportion of the fleet available to local residents at low rates. EV transport is an evolving area, and I think you need a consultant here with better insight.

I have great concerns regarding the infrastructure around the Hockley area. The roads at present are congested and additional housing will only add to this problem as it seems impossible to widen access to these areas. Additional high street stores would add to the problem with their deliveries, as we had with Sainsburys in Spa Road when their lorries blocked the main road.

I am also concerned about the lack of provision for additional GP services and schools. In June I wrote to Rochford Council to express my concerns about GP surgeries with regard to the Hall Road development. I was advised that no new surgeries would be built although there are an additional 600 homes planned. This would probably mean around 2000 additional residents, and it is very difficult to get appointments already.

I was told that the Primary Care Trust has sought a contribution from the developers of £383,689 towards health care infrastructure and that the Council has no influence in how this is spent. They could just use it to pay off current deficits. This is no help at all for existing residents.

I also wrote to Mark Francois and attach a copy of his reply.

I would advise that I will be looking closely at who approves these plans which will reflect in who I vote for at future Council elections. I believe that many others share this opinion according to posts on local social media sites and feel that Councillors should bear this in mind.

I wish to object to developments when there is no improvement in access roads, schools and GP surgeries.

"8.6 Any scheme that is delivered can only mitigate its own impact; it cannot rectify any existing deficiencies"

So how do you propose to counteract deal with the back-log of required infrastructure upgrades?

"8.6 "development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe.""

On these grounds you won't be allowing any of these 7500 homes then!

"8.6 We are however working to deliver a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) charge on schemes in the future, which would mean that financial contributions could be sought from different types of development to potentially contribute to the network improvements beyond a development area. "

This must happen now, before a further brick is laid. All infrastructure upgrades / improvements costs should be borne in their entirety by the land owners and developers. They are the only ones that gain and therefore it is only right they reduce the impact of the development they leave behind.

"8.5 However, due to the nature of planning, improvements are limited to those that are directly related to a development site, and are proportionate to the impact of the scheme alone."

This MUST CHANGE NOW! You quote 63% of locals commute by car. 10,000 extra homes in the district equates to ~13,400 (1.34 cars / household in S.E) extra cars. So based on 63%, that's a further 8422 extra cars. What are these extra cars going to do to journey times and air quality? In other words, the impact will be a DIRECTLY RELATED to the developments.

I respond to your letter. I strongly disapprove of this proposal for the following reasons, I am a local resident (Rayleigh Downs Road);

* This is a vital piece of greenbelt between boundaries of Rayleigh and Southend. It should remain as greenbelt.
* It has poor access, no proposed access points are suitable.
* It is right on A127, and therefore access to this road is dangerous, due to fast moving traffic. Traffic cannot be entering the A127 from development or Rayleigh Downs Road - deadly.
* The roads are narrow and could not cope.
* Congestion would also occur.
* The whole area floods quickly and regularly - a big issue, as a low lying flood plane.
* This development would impact greatly on residents of Bartletts and Rayleigh Downs Road.

This is very upsetting news and has impacted residents, many of whom are elderly.

We are horrified by the information contained in the Rochford District Residents newsletter regarding development of even more housing in the District.
Personally we do not believe that any further development should be allowed from Hill Lane as far as the horrific new development at Hall Road. Regardless of funding for infrastructure the roads just cannot cope with more traffic; the potholes and road markings and inadequate lighting make journeys between Hockley and Rochford - Southend a nightmare. People have no comprehension of others needing to get out of side roads - manners have gone out of the window and giving way is something few people understand.
The sites mentioned in the newsletter are all that is left of what was once a country road. I protested abut the cancellation of a GP's surgery and school on the new Hall Road estate only to be told that these provisions only have to be provided for a certain number of houses within one contract so the splitting of the contracts is just a way of getting through hoops. It is inevitable that the greed of builders will create exactly the same problem in the proposed sites.
To add to this the forms of travel, i.e. buses and trains are totally inadequate. The buses often run only hourly at certain times of the day and the reliability of the train service into and from Liverpool Street is so bad people are travelling to stations on the Fenchurch Street in to try to get over the problems. The construction of Cross Rail means there is no straight through service at weekends and i doubt this will improve after completion.

Ashingdon Road is also overrun with houses at present and the side roads are inadequate to cope with traffic and parking.

In Briar Close an extension has been allowed to rebuilt meaning there is inadequate parking for the residents who own two vans and two cars. On the new development on the Lentern Aircraft site, cars are already parked on the road which means there must be inadequate parking granted for this development.

Our dissatisfaction with the changes in this area are overwhelming and bearing in mind the level of Council Tax paid to you, we find it unbelievable that these things should be considered.

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

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

Im writing in response to the documents published.

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

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

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

I am writing to express my concerns after reading about the proposed building of an additional 7,500 new homes across the district. I cannot see how the area can cope with any more. The roads are in a poor condition. Potholes on many of the main roads. The main road through Hockley has had two burst water mains in the last six months causing chaos to the roads. It was not intended for heavy goods lorries to pass through either and quite often we have a situation where they cannot pass under the railway bridge.

Traffic is a big problem. Congestion both through the town into Rayleigh and the other direction towards Ashingdon. We regularly have to put up with temporary traffic lights for maintenance that compounds this problem further. Some Saturdays you can queue in traffic from the top of the hill at aldermans hill near Bullwood Hall down to the Hockley Spa roundabout. At rush hour and peak times traffic is crawling all along this road and through the Hockley high street from the station. The route from Hockley to Rayleigh should only take 10 mins with flowing traffic but more often than not it is three times this amount.

My children attend Plumberow primary academy. This is a large 3 form school already. It would not be able to take additional pupils. We walk to school but many children that attend the school live out of catchment and have to drive to school causing problems with parking at both entrances to the school as well as increases the traffic situation. I understand similar problems are experienced at Hockley primary and Westerings school.

I have also heard people complaining about how hard it is to get a doctors appointment because they are busy. Could they cope with additional patients? The high demand on the Southend a&e and hospital is worrying at present without additional local population adding to this.

In summary I am concerned that you are considering further homes in this area. I appreciate the pressures you have from government but additional homes in this area will not be the solution, only causes other problems. I therefore urge you to reconsider this area.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Although I am registered on line with Rochford District Council there appears to be a system problem to comment on the above.

Therefore I would like to register my non support of possible land availability at the above site to build new houses.

Reasons;

It is a metropolitan green belt - kindly recognise this protection or else there is the no point of such government coverage definition

The impact of introducing greater traffic to the immediate adjoining streets of Marylands , Merryfields and Plumberow plus others should not be underestimated if houses are built on this land.

Increased traffic impact to the surrounding residential area should be protected as people already living nearby matter for their quality of life.

This is a small piece of land but to build on it has big impact to others already in nearby location.

Let's please protect Hockley's vacant spaces which makes up one of the reasons people want to live there in a suitable greener environment where possible.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My reasons for objections include the following:-

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

I would beg you to reconsider your proposals.

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

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

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

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

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

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

We feel that although a very few of the indicated sites in Hullbridge/ Rawreth area are Brownfield the majority are Green Belt and are not sustainable for the following reasons:- In connection with the Green Belt the proposed 30% increase in housing for RDC can only be achieved by sacrificing Green Belt as the call for sites
maps illustrate. The Government has stated that the fundamental aim of
Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open, the essential characteristics of Green Belt are their openness and
their permanence. The majority of this district's land mass is
designated as Green Belt land and should only be released under exceptional circumstances. When we recently asked a RDC Planning Officer what is meant by exceptional circumstances he confirmed that this has not been defined.
The Green Belt is supposed to serve five purposes 1. To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas.
2. To prevent neighbouring towns/villages merging into one.
3. To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.
4. To preserve the setting & special character of historic
towns/villages.
5. To assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of
derelict and other urban land.
RDC have released large areas of Green Belt for development all over this district including Hall Rd. Rochford, Xmas Tree Farm Hawkwell, Mushroom Farm Folly Lane, Bullwood Hall Rayleigh, Hockley Rd. Rayleigh, London Rd.
Rayleigh & Malyons Farm Hullbridge. Yet, as previously mentioned, all Brownfield sites are being ignored.
In connection with the proposed new Local Plan, the submitted Map A for the local Hullbridge area shows the majority of the proposed larger sites are Green Belt with the exception of a proportion of CFS 100 Brownfield Site being a lorry/heavy goods breakers yard, formerly a car breakers yard,
which is obviously a highly contaminated site. Sites CFS006, CFS138,
CFS149, CFS099, GY01 & GY02 are not in Hullbridge Parish but are actually in Rawreth Parish but if developed will obviously still use all the facilities in Hullbridge including the Riverside Surgery which is already overstretched. These sites will also require access off the narrow, weight restricted Watery Lane/Beeches Road, and will merge the villages of Rawreth & Hullbridge CFS is 50% in the flood plain. CFS151 will require access off an existing single track in Long Lane and CFS120, CFS026, CFS107, CFS106, CFS110, CFS108 & CFS109 will require access of an unmade single track in Kinsway, all of which will require a major upgrade to provide the required road widths including footpaths/cycle ways as recommended by the Essex Design Guide Highway Standards.

SUMMARY

RDC have not assessed, previously, any of the alternatives in terms of major impacts/sustainability especially in connection with the Malyons Site in Hullbridge including other major developments recently completed or under construction, we therefore have no confidence that this will change in any future emerging new Local Plan for this district. ECC report concludes that housing targets cannot be matched by infrastructure provisions due to a massive shortfall of £billions in funding, none of which is referenced in the RDC Plan who need to take into account further carbon emissions, traffic congestion, flooding & further drains on existing infrastructure.

Dear Sirs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SUMMARY

General, Vital Infrastructure Improvements for Hullbridge Parish.

Suggested Environment/Welfare Improvement

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

SUMMARY

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