Highways Infrastructure

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

No additional road capacity for any additional homes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anything beyond that and on Green land is ridiculous

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

These comments relate specifically to Map E and all of the CFS's numbers shown and again specifically to traffic congestion if any of the proposed developments take place between now and 2037.

I cannot see that any of the houses proposed south of the Eastwood Road (A1015) and north of the Southend Arterial Road (A127) being allowed direct access onto the A127.

Therefore ALL traffic will have to use the A1015. Locals already know and the Planning Officers of RDC should know that if there is a problem on the A127 then the A1015 for its entire length becomes extremely busy. So the Strategic Housing and Land Availability Assessment will flood the A1015 with even more vehicles. How many houses are proposed on CFS 044/48/54/68/69/127 ? Next Question how many extra vehicles ?.

Let us say 50% of the vehicles leaving these proposed developments will turn left onto the A1015 and 50% TRY to turn right. Those turning left will have the easier task. However existing residents in Trinity Road, The Chase, Clarence Road, York Road, Lancaster Road and Connaught Road wishing to turn right towards Rayleigh are going to have a difficult time. And of course at some point all these extra vehicles will need to return.

At present five bus routes 9,20,25,25A and X30 plus school buses and the school run to two local schools (Wyburns and Grove Wood) also use the A1015. There is one bus stop at the junction with The Chase Rayleigh bound which has no layby. The road is often temporarily blocked. Sainsbury's Local does not help the traffic flow either.

Of course by 2037 there may be no buses and perhaps the Southend Northern Orbital Relief Road will have been built relieving the A127/A13 and A1015 etc.

Reference: CFS024 Land North of Merryfields Avenue, Hockley, MAP G,119

I would like to object to plans to build on this land for the following reason:
1. This is Metropolitan Green Belt and as such it should be protected.
2. I am a regular user of the Marylands Nature reserve and have serious concerns about the impact the destruction of this woodland would have on the wildlife in the reserve.
3. The houses adjacent to the land are prone to flooding. My own neighbour has regular problems with the ground and rain water draining down Merryfields Avenue. The destruction of the woodland will exacerbate flooding problems and I certainly wouldn't want to buy any house built on the land.
4. The increased volumes of traffic, particularly construction traffic, travelling down Merryfields Avenue.
This development should not be approved.

We would like to strongly reject any further development in Great Wakering as we have already had a number of new builds in the village and feel that any more would severely Change the whole village as we only have one school and one doctors that already struggle with expanding numbers of people it has to serve.
Also the roads out of the village are not suitable for any more traffic as they are country roads.Poynters Lane is already a very dangerous road to travel on as there are no lights or pavements and a lot of large vehicles use this road and are allowed to travel up to the national speed limit.

I wish to inform you of my objections for the following sites you are looking to build on:
GF03
CFS011
CFS065
CFS070
CFS056
CFS034
CFS097
CFS057
CFS004
CFS142
CFS103
CFS071
CFS125
CFS153
CFS060
CFS115/SER9
BFR1
GF02
EXP11
The reasons for my objection are:
Poor infrastructure; too many cars for the local roads, no pavements for pedestrians to walk to the nearest station, lack of more frequent buses.
Lack of schools, particularly senior school. Lack of space at the Doctors' surgery and increased pressure on local hospital. Destruction of plants and wildlife. Most of the land is greenbelt, this should remain sacred.
I have lived in this village for 25 years. I chose to live in the village for its community spirit and because it's small and quiet.
I totally understand the need for more housing but Great Wakering and Barling are not the places.

I strongly object to the planning proposal to flood this local authority district with a disproportionate and unacceptable volume of planning applications for residential accommodation
without any consideration to the effect this will have on the infrastructure needed to make these proposals sustainable. It is unacceptable that local district councils are permitted to give permissions to implement their housing policies and at the same time turn a blind eye and wash their hands on issues that can only be resolved at county council level so as to make these developments sustainable. It should be imperative that the two tiers of local authority organisations take a corporate approach and joint responsibility to ensure that the substantial increase in the number of houses to be developed will be sustainable in the environment as a whole.
B1013
1. Any competent planning officer with integrity and a feel for the concerns of the local community must already know that the B1013 road which runs between Rayleigh Weir and Rochford Town Centre is no longer fit for purpose. The need to reduce congestion and provide a free flow of traffic on this road demands that urgent proposals be put in place in the following areas so as to avoid the present slow moving, costly and time wasting movement of traffic causing unacceptable levels of atmospheric pollution in the environment;
The junction between Rayleigh High Street and Eastwood Road, the junction between Hockley Road and Websters Way, the junction between Hambro Hill and Hockley Road, the junction between Main Road Hockley and Buckingham Road, the junction between Southend Road, Spa Road and Main Road Hockley, the junction between Rectory Road and Hall Road and the junction between Hall Road and Bradley Way Rochford.
I understand that in future it is intended to build a substantial number of new houses on green field sites at Mount Bovers Lane, Ironwell Lane, Nursery Corner and Cherry Orchard Way. These developments have the potential of producing another approximately 3 500 vehicles, all of which which will need access to the B1013. In nineteen years time the demand for private motor cars serving these dwellings could easily rise to exceed an additional 7000. This is in addition to the demands already made from the recently built sites of 175 houses in Rectory Road and 600 houses in Hall Road.
I would be pleased to receive all the information that you may have concerning improvements to the B1013 to avoid any future grid lock occurring in this main access to several cccccccccc c local routes, so as to make the New Local Plan sustainable.
It is absurd and a planning folly of unmeasurable incompetence to inflict this number of additional vehicles on a road system which even now is unfit for purpose.
A possible solutions may be to provide two completely separate new access routes to the A127 and A130 to make these proposals sustainable and relieve congestion on the over-used B1013.
County Council Issues
2. In addition to providing an efficient and satisfactory transport network of highways to allow the free movement of traffic throughout the region, further measures will be needed to accommodate
the predicted increase in population by 2037. I would be obliged if you could inform me of the provision to be made for additional nursery, primary and secondary schools and college facilities in the wider area, to accommodate the predicted increase in children and young persons educational needs during the next 19 years.
3. As it is predicted that there will be an increase in the number of elderly people requiring care in the community, are additional measures being taken in the wider area for residential care homes to be provided to meet this need?
NHS Issues
4. With the predicted future increase in the population in 2037, the Mid&South Essex Hospital Trusts will need to assess the future requirements to provide a sufficient number of new hospitals and medical centres to meet the increase demand for these services.

It is high time that councillors and planning officers at district council level looked beyond the increased revenue incentive received from the New Build Bonus grants issued by the central government and focus their attention on the long term effect that these proposals will have on the environment now being provided by local district councils for future generations to come.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The reasons being:

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

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

I would appreciate a response to my objections please.

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

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

The reasons being:

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

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

I would appreciate a response to my objections please.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yours sincerely,

NEW LOCAL PLAN ISSUES AND OPTIONS DOCUMENT
OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSALS CONTAINED IN THAT DOCUMENT.
This is a response to the expensively produced document of approximately 800 pages which outlines proposals for the development of Rochford District post 2025.
I wish to state that I consider the prospect of building a possible unconstrained additional 7500 dwellings is UNSUSTAINABLE in every way imaginable. My reasons are summarised briefly below.
There will be an expansion on these issues further in this document.
Housing
Traffic / Roads / public transport trains & bus capacity
Flooding
Health provision / hospitals / doctors / care provision
Schools / Education
Environment
Air Quality
Greenbelt protection
Housing demand
There is a need for housing to meet the natural growth in our district. The percentages of house building requirements do not match the current objective need. The actual objective is to provide for London overspill because of the mass influx of people that have arrived in our capital city in the past ten years. To suggest otherwise is to be disingenuous.
The natural growth of the district can be met by RDC actively seeking out brownfield sites for development, small infill developments, use of degraded greenfield, the return of the use of flats over shops, in order to keep our towns and villages alive and active, and finally the conversion of properties into larger units. All these measures will prevent the proposed maximum attack on our greenbelt and valuable farmland.
I will cite the following examples of fairly recent developments:-
Gunn Close London Road (One bungalow morphed into 14 four bed houses)
Eon site London Road (one industrial site became 101 homes)
London Road / Station Approach (small scrubland site developed into numerous apartments). Lakeside Downhall Road (back land development of multiple apartments).
I could continue to discuss developments throughout this particular small part of the Rayleigh and surrounding areas, especially Hullbridge, that are NOT included in the figures, to meet some central Government target, that should serve to meet the generic need for the area without mass building projects. Add to this the regular conversion of bungalows into 4/5 bed houses and the proposals to create cul-de-sacs from single dwelling plots, the capacity to house our increasing population could be met. The figures for generic growth in our district do not support by the kind of mass development envisaged.
It is claimed that developers, having secured planning permission, have been using a loop hole in the 'affordable housing' requirement by subsequently claiming the projects don't might the 20% profit threshold required. Thus very few houses are being build that are affordable for local people.
The maps of the areas to be suggested for development show a huge number to be built in the town of Rayleigh and the village of Hullbridge. It identifies enough land to build a minimum of 6000 suggested for Downhall and Rawreth Ward in the west of the district. This is in addition to the 700 not yet built as a result of the 2010 Local Plan (SER1) in the same location.
Traffic and Road network
This western part of the district is unfortunate to suffer an almost daily gridlock on our roads.
London Road, Rawreth Lane and Watery Lane are the arteries that feed most of the villages and small towns to the east. They are all regularly at a standstill. 7500 extra dwellings will result in at least 15,000 more vehicles.
The increase in traffic on our roads will be UNSUSTAINABLE if this plan is implemented.
Promises of the 'jam tomorrow' of roundabouts and traffic improvements have no prospect of delivery due to the piecemeal nature of the developments already approved.
There have been suggestions from other objectors that a substantial upgraded road be developed towards the east of the district. Taking a route whereby Watery Lane / Lower Road are fed by vehicles, directly via the A130, bypassing Rayleigh. We cannot support this idea because it will serve to open up much of our remaining greenbelt to further development to the detriment of the villages further east in our district. We cannot agree to make the situation worse for our neighbouring villages.
70,000 vehicles pass through the A127 Fairglen Interchange daily, serving Rochford, Southend, South Benfleet and beyond, making it the busiest junction in South East Essex. To increase the volume of vehicles by 15,000, in this area alone, is not sustainable.
Essex County Council have a serious shortfall in funding. It will result in no major improvements in the road network for the foreseeable future in this district. Refer to addendum 1 showing ECC Summary of infrastructure project costs and funding gaps.(2016-2036)
Public Transport
There is limited opportunity to increase the train capacity on the Greater Anglia line at peak times because of the terminus at Liverpool Street is currently at its' peak capacity. Trains are overcrowded now so how can they accommodate more passengers.
Bus transport is somewhat irregular and completely unavailable in many parts of the district.
Cycle. The distances and the terrain preclude the use of cycles except for those who are able. Plus there has been no sustained efforts to create safe cycle paths for cycle users.
Walking
Due to the distances covered it is impractical to expect residents to walk for most of their daily requirements. For instance, the elderly and families will not be able to walk from Hullbridge to Rayleigh and carry necessary groceries, a distance of 3 miles plus. It is simply not practical and to suggest otherwise is a ridiculous fantasy.
Families use cars. That is a fact of life for almost every activity i.e. shopping, travel to work/school (many youngsters have to be ferried to and from school due to the distances involved) and for the opportunity to even use the somewhat remote leisure facilities.
Flooding
Where are the measures to tackle the flood risk to many of our riverside communities? Extreme weather is becoming a norm and the building of huge estates with piecemeal flood alleviation measures is unsustainable. Evidence is readily available to the RDC that clearly identifies pinch points in the flood defences of this area.
Air Quality
Rayleigh town centre, as acknowledged in the report, has a dismal record on AIR POLLUTION. Being at consistently illegal levels of nitrogen dioxide. This is damaging our children's health and well being and with a possible link to dementia. Increasing the traffic will exacerbate this problem.
Health Provision
Residents have difficulties accessing their doctors in a timely manner. It is routine at the moment for the local surgeries to offer appointments three weeks after they are requested.
Our three hospital Southend , Basildon, and Broomfield have all issued notices that they are on 'black alert' over the past year. Indicating they have NO BEDS available. There is no provision made in the proposals to increasing the capacity in our health service to meet the increased demand.
The gap in funding for adult social care is not addressed in this proposed plan.
Refer ECC Summary of Infrastructure project costs and funding gaps (2016-2036).
Schools
Evidence is available that Rayleigh Primary Schools are over-subscribed. Rayleigh Primary and Glebe School state they have no capacity at present. Some parents are face with travelling across the district to different schools to educate their children.
As discussed in a Guardian newspaper article developers have managed to wriggle out of providing planned schools, after securing their planning permission, by persuading authorities that the development would be made 'unviable'.
I cite the situation on the Hall Road Development where a school was promised and now is not to be provided. Also the planning for the site North of London Road was recently given the go ahead by the District Councillors and the school was left as a 'pending' provision with no firm promise of it being built. The education of our children should not be left to a chance that a developer MIGHT provide the facilities.
Refer ECC Summary of Infrastructure project costs and funding gaps (2016-2036).
Greenbelt
There is no possibility of delivering the number of dwellings proposed without the destruction of vast swathes of our remaining greenbelt which is against the policies contained in the National Planning Policy Framework. NPPF. Our Prime Minister and Minister for Housing has stated repeatedly 'there should be no building on greenbelt until every other opportunity has been explored'.
To Summarise.
Due to the evident unsustainable nature of the present Issues and Options document I would make a request to consider the following :-
I propose a compete rethink of the document and would ask the Members of Rochford District Council and Members of Parliament representing constituencies in South East Essex namely:-
Mark Francois MP mark.francois.mp@parliament.uk
Rebecca Harris MP rebecca.harris.mp@parliament.uk
Sir David Amess MP amessd@parliament.uk
Stephen Metcalfe MP stephen.metcalfe.mp@parliament.uk
John Barron MP baronj@parliament.uk
James Dudderidge MP james@jamesdudderidge.com
To support these objections and comments.
In addition i request that the above listed representatives call for a scheme to build a new Garden City on the Dengie Peninsular with a road and rail bridge over the River Crouch linking Southend to the north of the county. Links could be provided to provide further development in future. This would help to preserve the semi-rural nature of South East Essex and prevent the total URBANISATION of our part of Essex. They could call on the new proposed Infrastructure Policy, announced recently by the the Government, to help fund the roads and bridge.
Members of Parliament representing constituencies along the Cambridge to Oxford corridor and those serving Kent constituencies have secured such funding for Garden Cities with all the necessary infrastructure, roads, hospital, schools etc. This is in order to protect their residents. I call on all our local Members of Parliament to step up and try to protect our people in the same manner. A copy of this objection will be distributed to the Parliamentary members named for their attention.
Regards
Chris Hennessy

NEW LOCAL PLAN my views

We are being overwhelmed with new-build houses. The selling price of these houses is beyond the reach of nearly all constituents of Rochford District and their relatives and friends.

As a result of this over-building, our environment is suffering gross pollution (not only from cars): I myself suffer from a lung infection and my only way of preventing further decline in health is to move away from the area. I chose to move to Hawkwell in 1963 when I could walk across the main road (B1013) without even looking; this remained the case for about 15 years when I moved away to live in South Woodham Ferrers.

Subsequently I moved back to Hawkwell in 1999 to find Hawkwell had changed only a little but this was to change radically in the next 12 years. In the past 5 years, traffic and pollution have increased 4-fold. It sometimes takes 10 minutes to pull out of my driveway onto the road due to traffic, a lot of which is only 'passing through' and should properly be using the A127! The road congestion cannot be avoided and with it comes pollution.

Councils are being blackmailed by Parliament to build regardless of the cost to our health and well-being. Our MPs are failing us. They have not stood together and said: "stop", they must now do so.

About 6 years ago, in response to the request of Hawkwell Parish Council and in conjunction with other concerned parishioners, we produced the Hawkwell Parish Plan (copies were handed to Rochford District Council members) showing what it was that Hawkwell parishioners wanted; to get a good idea of what was need in 2012 and beyond, it is necessary to read the conclusions of the plan. It was not necessary to build very many houses - the need was for hundreds and not the thousands of houses which are being built now: all this latter does is to encourage people to move out of London to live in Rochford District, it does not improve or even maintain the lot of our existing parishioners.

It is my view that those elected to serve the community are failing us badly in all aspects of local life here; this applies at government, county and district levels.

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

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

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

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

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

I 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.

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.

Issues and Options Document - Planning Committees Response
19th February 2018


The Planning Committee propose the following to be submitted as the Town Council's response to the Issues and Options Document. The review of the document was conducted by Cllrs Mrs D Mercer and R Shorter.

General Response

Rayleigh Town Council's Planning Committee suggest that the following items should be considered in relation to new plan. These are not given in any particular order

1) A new town/s should be considered within the District (or several new villages) on areas away from existing towns/villages. This would enable the planners to create something special (like the garden towns), with minimal disturbance/upheaval to the existing residents in the district. This would be easier on the road network by not clogging up already grid locked roads in the towns that you are considering expanding, reducing the emissions from stationary vehicles.

2) Any new dwellings created should have ample parking to omit the need to park on the road. The current rules allow only 2 parking spaces for above a 2 bed dwelling. In a smaller dwelling, this is usually fine. In a 5/6 bedroom dwelling this is not enough, and extra cars block the roads.

3) Garages on new builds are frequently being created smaller than adequate to house a modern vehicle. These "garages" are then promptly created into habitable rooms.

4) Affordable homes - or rather, homes that suit the needs of the smaller family. There has been a steady rise in the number of 4/5/6 bedroom dwellings being built and the "affordable" homes being mainly a block of 1 or 2 bed flats. Very few 1, 2 & 3 bed roomed houses are offered (apparently due to profit margins). Maybe this should be looked at in the way of subsidies if it cannot be enforced. We also need to allow local people to be able to live in the town they grew up in and not have to move miles away from their support network. The young also need to be able to move out of their family homes in order to grow into the adults they are.

5) More school places need to be created (pre-school to 6th Form), to accommodate the population growth anticipated from the creation of new estates.

6) New dwellings should have character, not be "generic boxes," to fill in the spaces with as many as possible, and should have ample gardens to avoid feeling 'closed in', improving mental health and wellbeing.

7) Facilities need to be provided regarding GP surgeries, Health/Medical Centres & Dentists. Investment in local hospitals.

8) Shopping facilities (areas that can be utilised for a small parade of outlets to facilitate retail shops such as; newsagent, convenience store, etc.)

9) Any new towns created should have cycle paths/bridleways, recreational grounds with possible sports facilities/buildings to facilitate clubs like Scouts/keep fit, etc. Areas that provide parks/skate parks/BMX tracks etc. for the youth . New estates should also provide cycle paths and allotment plots.

10) New dwellings should facilitate the use of solar in its design as well as other types of renewable energy schemes.

11) Existing road networks need to be improved for free flowing traffic, which will reduce the pollution of CO2 and Nitrate gasses. New roads, by-passes, improvements like widening of Arterial roads should be considered, with pressure put on the departments responsible.

12) An overhaul of the drainage networks (water/sewerage) so that they can accommodate new builds.

13) Retaining of a good border of Green belt between built up areas.

14) We need to provide more temporary accommodation for those made homeless.

15) We need to provide smaller units so that the elderly are able to 'downsize'. They would be in areas that is designated for them, and their houses would then be able to go into the housing stock (reducing the need for so many large houses to be built).

16) All development should be made to contribute to the infrastructure of the area in which it is being built (ie S106).

17) Create space for the building of nursing homes to deal with the increasing elderly population who need care (thus releasing homes to the open market).

18) Improved public transport links (buses etc.)

19) Car parking facilities. There are simply not enough if existing towns are enlarged. New towns make it easier to create this

20) A larger and improved recycling facility to accommodate the increase in need.

21) Rawreth Lane is the only access road for Down Hall Park Way and, with an additional 3-400 houses, it is necessary to consider the provision of a second access road to ensure there is sufficient access for emergency vehicles. It was mentioned that a campaign for a new road had been conducted many years ago, however, this was rejected by Essex County Council. It is understood that the new housing estate will have an access road.

22) Essex County Council should ensure that all streets within new housing developments are adopted immediately on completion to allow traffic regulations to be introduced as necessary and street lighting adopted.
23) A new relief road should be built from the A130 to Shoeburyness in order to reduce congestion in Rayleigh town centre. It was noted that this scheme has been considered many years ago and rejected due to cost.









Replies to the consultation by paragraph and point number


In paragraph 3.3 "The area home to around 3,320 businesses...." the verb "is" is missing.

Paragraph 3.5 "The workplace and resident earnings in the district are below average compared to Essex and the UK." This is not true. It is true for workplace earnings but not for resident weekly earnings which at 670.9 are higher than Essex (594.0) and UK (539). The statement is also inconsistent with the first sentence of the next paragraph "The area is a generally prosperous part of the country,"

Paragraph 3.14 "'green part' of the South Essex". The word "the" is superfluous.

Figure 5: Ecological Map of the District. I think this is a bit out of date. Should not the whole of the eastern side of Wallasea island be shown as a local wildlife site? Also metropolitan green belt and sites of special scientific interest are shaded in the same colour.

The summary of statistics in paragraph 3.20 is muddled. "The proportion of residents aged 20 to 64 is expected to remain relatively stable over the next 20 years." is inconsistent with "An increase in the older proportion of residents compared to the rest of the population has the potential to lead to a smaller workforce and higher dependency needs."

Paragraph 4.3. "Through the Growth Deal, SELEP can direct Government monies towards specific projects across the LEP area - including schemes to deliver new homes, jobs and infrastructure - which can competitively demonstrate a growth return for the investment." My comment is that the criterium 'can competitively demonstrate' pushes investment towards homes and jobs at the expense of infrastructure, as it is easier to demonstrate growth from the former than the latter. But, adequate infrastructure is a necessary enabler of growth. If you use an unsuitable analysis method, you get the wrong answer.

Paragraph 4.5. The words "we must not over-burden investment in business." are meaningless and make the whole sentence incomprehensible. Delete these and the first word "Whilst" and the sentence makes sense.

Paragraph 4.13. The word "however" occurs twice in one sentence, which is incorrect.

Paragraphs 4.13 and 4.15. If Castle Point and Southend really are unable to meet their housing obligations then perhaps RDC could offer them some land in the extreme south east of the district, which is reasonably near Shoebury rail station, provided that central government funds the much needed relief road from the A130 to Shoebury, crossing the Crouch somewhere between Hullbridge and Fambridge and crossing the Roach. Southend and Castle Point would pay for the necessary flood defences for the new homes.

Twenty two Strategic Objectives is far too many! The document would be more convincing if you called the five Strategic Priorities the five Strategic Objectives and put the other points under them as numbered bullet points. Many of these are not strategic and they are not objectives; they are job descriptions of what the council is expected to do.

Putting homes and jobs first might be what central government want but it is not what the existing residents want. These two are interdependent - build more homes and you have to create jobs for the people to work in; create more jobs and then you cannot fill the jobs until you have built homes for the workers. The first priority should be what you have at number three: transport, waste management, and flood risk. You can forget about telecoms, water supply, wastewater and the provision of minerals and energy as these will all be provided by the private sector.

Paragraph 6.12. "Affordability can be measured by comparing the lowest 25% of earnings to the lowest 25% of house prices, which gives an affordability ratio." This is written the wrong way round and would give a ratio of 0.103. It should be written "Affordability can be measured by comparing the lowest 25% of house prices to the lowest 25% of earnings, which gives an affordability ratio."

Tell Us More SP1.1: Affordable homes and ageing population.
Surely the district council's responsibility is restricted to ensuring that sufficient land is available for development and that there are no unreasonable planning hurdles put in the way of developers. The net completions graph shows that the actual number of houses built depends on the overall state of the economy and the economics of the housing market. The district council has no control over either of these. Central government has only minor influence, even if they think otherwise.

6.30 Option: A Option C sounds like a good idea but will not work. If you are thinking of the children of existing residents then in many cases those children who would like to buy a home here will not currently be residents here. They may be renting elsewhere (in my case in South Woodham Ferrers and the Isle of Man). You would have to come up with a definition of something like a "right to residence" rather than "resident". The whole concept is fraught with difficulties.

6.21 Option: C Market forces will sort out what gets built and options D and E are then irrelevant.

6.33 Option: A

If there is a particular requirement for providing additional assistance for certain sectors of the population then try persuading central government to allow you to increase the rates paid by everybody already in the district and put that money away, securely, in a fund earmarked for that purpose.

Tell Us More SP1.2: Care homes Option: A

Paragraph 6.45. I do not agree with this statement: "We need to demonstrate that we have considered all the options before considering the Green Belt."

The original idea of the Green Belt has become distorted over time. The idea was that existing towns and cities would be surrounded by a belt of green land to prevent urban sprawl. (It is usually cheaper to build on greenfield instead of brownfield sites and so without this "belt" developments will always expand outwards, leaving a neglected and eventually derelict inner core, as in many USA cities.) In Rochford District we have a lot of Green Belt land which is not a belt around anything - it is just a vast expanse of undeveloped land.

Instead of infilling within existing developments and nibbling away at what really is the green belt immediately adjacent to them, something a lot more radical is needed and if central government are going to keep handing down housing targets then they must be prepared to provide the necessary infrastructure. It is this:

Build the relief road previously mentioned from the A130 to Shoebury, crossing the Crouch somewhere between Hullbridge and Fambridge and crossing the Roach. It needs to be a high capacity dual carriageway feeding directly onto the A130 and not at Rettendon Turnpike. The Fairglen interchange needs to be substantially improved (not the current inadequate proposals) to handle the extra traffic between the A130 and the A127 in both directions. The new road needs direct exits to both Battlesbridge and Shoebury stations and 2 or more exits to allow new developments to be built on this huge area of green land which is not green belt at all. A bus service will provide transport from the new developments to both stations. Obviously, schools, health, drainage, and power infrastructure will be needed as well but it will be cheaper to provide it out here than adding to existing conurbations. Flooding is an issue but the existing villages have to be protected against flooding anyway.

Tell Us More SP1.3: New homes ...
Option: E All of the other options are just short-term tinkering.

Tell Us More SP1.4: Good mix of homes
Option: A (The policy on affordable housing in conjunction with market forces takes care of this.) Option E is also worth considering but will only be viable if option E has been chosen in SP1.3.

I do not agree with the statement "This approach would therefore not be appropriate." in Option I. What justifies the "therefore"? It would be sensible to adopt option I and not have a specific policy. If you want to build bungalows you will probably have to accept a lower density than the current minimum, if you want to have an area of affordable housing then a good way to keep the costs down is to go for a higher density. Not to have a specific policy does not mean that there is no policy at all. Why constrain yourselves unnecessarily?

Paragraph 6.70 "There is no need has been identified..." remove "There is"

Tell Us More SP1.5: Gypsys and Travellers Option B

Tell Us More SP1.6: Houseboats Option B

Tell Us More SP1.7: Business needs Options B, C, and E

Tell Us More SP1.8: New Jobs Options B, D, E, F

Tell Us More SP1.9: Southend airport Implement all options A, B, C, D

Paragraph 6.127 "The availability of broadband in more rural areas is a constraint to the development of tourism in the district; nowadays visitors need access to promotional and other material electronically to help them navigate around (although paper copies are still
important)." This is just not true. Do you mean broadband or do you mean 3G/4G phone coverage? Local businesses need broadband, tourists do not.

Tell Me More SP1.10: Tourism and rural diversification Option B

Tell Us More SP2.1: Retail and leisure Options A, B, C, D If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

Tell Us More SP2.2 Local facilities
This is outside of the council's sphere of influence and so there is no point in worrying about it. Pubs and local shops will close if there is insufficient trade to keep them going, while in new developments business will spring up once there is sufficient demand provided planning restrictions do not get in the way. Options A and B.

Tell Us More SP3.1 Roads
Paragraph 8.1 "The equality of infrastructure in terms of services and facilities is challenging across the district given that we have such a large rural area to the east, which can mean that isolation becomes an issue." If you embrace my previous suggestion and with Southend and Castle Point persuade central government to fund the new road, the large area to the east will no longer be rural and isolated. In paragraph 8.10 "It also includes
the area to the south of the River Roach in proximity to Great Wakering." you identify exactly the problem that this would address.

Paragraph 8.12 mentions a requirement for a bypass around Rayleigh but there is nowhere to build such a bypass even if it could be justified and funded. Part of the problem in Rayleigh is that in the evening rush hour the A127 towards Southend is so congested that traffic turns off either at the Weir or Fairglen interchange and diverts through Rayleigh. Also, traffic coming down the A130 and heading for Southend finds it quicker to divert through London Road, Rayleigh town centre, and Eastwood Road than to queue for the Fairglen interchange and Progress Road. A bypass is needed not around Rayleigh but from the A130 to the eastern side of Southend.

Paragraph 8.17 "upgrades have been completed at the Rayleigh Weir junction". Is there any evidence that these 'upgrades' have made any difference whatsoever? Local people think not.

Option C would be better than nothing. The others are only tinkering around the edges of the problem. What is really needed - although outside of RDC's control - is improvements to the strategic road network.

Paragraph 8.21. Option A is marginally better than doing nothing.

Tell Us More SP3.2: Sustainable travel
Paragraph 8.27. "Encouraging cycling within and through Rayleigh town centre are, in particular, supported to drive improvements to local air quality in this area, for example improved cycling storage." This is wishful thinking. Rayleigh is on top of a hill, of the four approaches, three involve cycling up hill in poor air quality. There are a few diehard cyclists (like my son) but normal people will not be influenced by improved cycle storage.

Paragraph 8.31. "study recommends several mitigation measures ..." These measures are just tinkering and are completely inadequate. More traffic lights are needed and some pedestrian crossings need to be moved or removed. I submitted a comprehensive plan for this previously.

Paragraph 8.34. "We could consider setting a more challenging mode share, for example 30/30/40 (public transport/walking and cycling/private vehicle)." This is wishful thinking. You can set what mode share you like but you cannot influence it.

Options A, C, and E are sensible. B will not help, D is impractical

Tell Us More SP3.3: Communications infrastructure Option B

Tell Us More SP3.4: Flood risk Options A and C

Tell Us More SP3.5: Renewable energy Option A

Tell Us More SP3.6: Planning Option A

Tell Me More SP4.1: Health Option D

Tell Me More SP4.2 Community facilities Option B

Tell Us More SP4.3: Education Option A and B

Tell Us More SP4.4: Childcare Option A and B

Tell Me More SP4.3: Open spaces and sports. [this number has been repeated]
These do no look like options. You seem to want to do all of them. What is there to choose?

Tell Me More SP4.4 Indoor sports and leisure [this number has been repeated] Option A

Tell Me More SP4.5: Young people Option A

Tell Me More SP4.6 Play spaces
Paragraph 9.57. "In order to reduce the amount of greenfield (undeveloped) land...." I do not entirely agree with this premise and think you should reconsider it. Most of the district is greenfield. Surely, building on some of that is better than trying to squash more and more development into the existing towns and villages. People in new houses can access their gardens every day, they possibly only 'go out east' to look at a field once or twice a year.
Option A

Paragraph 10.6 "A fundamental principle of the Green Belt is to keep a sense of openness between built up areas." Yes, that is what the green belt is for. However, most of the metropolitan green belt in Rochford District is maintaining a sense of openness between the built up areas to the west and the sea to the east.

Tell Us More SP5.1 Green belt vs homes Option B

Tell Us More SP5.2 Protecting habitats
Option A but leave it as it is; do not waste your time and our money worrying about climate change or wildlife corridors. There are plenty of wildlife pressure groups to do that. Also, implement options C, D, E, F, and H. Do not waste your time and our money with G.

Tell Us More SP5.3 Wallasea Island Options A and B

Tell Us More SP5.4 Landscape character
Paragraphs 10.35 to 10.45 - two and a half pages (!) written by someone who has gone overboard extolling the virtues of the countryside. I love the countryside and particularly the coastline and mudflats but this reads as though RDC councillors from the east have too much influence and want to protect their backyards (NIMBY) while pushing all the development to the west where, in fact, the majority of ratepayers actually live.
Options A and B

Tell Us More SP5.5 Heritage and culture Option A

Tell Us More SP5.6 Building design
I question whether there is any justification for doing this. Why not just follow the national guidelines, Essex Design Guide, and building regulations? Option A and K

Tell Us More SP5.7 Air quality
None of the actions proposed will make a significant difference to air quality. The biggest improvement will come from the gradual replacement of older vehicles with new ones built to a higher emissions standard and, ultimately, the introduction of hybrid and electric vehicles.
If you want to do anything in a faster time frame than that then steps must be taken to: reduce traffic congestion; avoid building new homes in areas that are already congested; build new homes in areas where the air quality is good.

You may as well stay with option A since options B and C will make no difference. I previously submitted a much more comprehensive plan for traffic management in the centre of Rayleigh which does address the congestion and air quality hot spots.

Tell Us More D.P1.1 Affordable homes Option F What happened to options A to E?

Tell Us More D.P1.2 Self build
You are making a mountain out of a molehill on this. No policy is needed. Anyone wishing to self build will have to find a plot of land first. They will then have to apply for planning permission and meet building regulations the same as anybody else would. All the council has to do is NOT to discriminate against such applications. From the self-builders point of view, negotiating the VAT maze is far more of a problem. New builds are zero rated but everything they buy will have VAT on it. The only way to claim back the VAT is to form a company and register it for VAT but that is difficult when it has no trading history and will only complete one project. This is all for central government to sort out, not local councils.
Option D

Tell Us More D.P1.3 Rural exception sites
Paragraph 11.16 "with the publication of the Housing White Paper in February 2017 the definition of what constitutes affordable homes could be amended" This is clearly out of date and needs updating. Was the paper published last year? Was the definition amended?

There is no point in wasting time and effort worrying about a situation that has not arisen yet and may not arise. Since there are so many possible variables in the circumstances any such policy would have to be extremely comprehensive. Wait until a planning application is made and then assess it on its merits. If there is no formal policy in place then this would have to be debated by the Development Committee. You could meet the NPPF requirement by putting a reference to rural exception sites on the council's website.
Option H

Tell Us More D.P1.4 Annexes and outbuildings
Option B which should say "...rely on case law", not "reply on case law".

Tell Us More D.P1.5 Basements
Option A

Tell Us More D.P1.6 Rebuilding in the green belt
Option B

Tell Us More D.P1.7 Agricultural occupational homes
Paragraph 11.42 ".... applications for the removal of agricultural occupancy conditions will not, therefore, be permitted except in the most exceptional circumstances." Are you sure this is sensible? If an agricultural home becomes empty would you rather let it remain empty and possibly become derelict than allow a non-agricultural worker to move into it? Option A
Tell Us More D.P1.8 Brownfield land in the green belt
Option B

Tell Us More D.P1.9 Extending gardens in the green belt
Option A

Tell Us More D.P1.10 Parking and traffic management
Options A and B

Tell Us More D.P1.11 Home businesses
A thriving home business could cause parking issues in the immediate area but it also provides local employment thereby reducing commuting out of the area. Also, noise and pollution issues have to be considered. This requires each case to be assessed on its own merits. Option A

Tell Us More D.P1.12 Altering businesses in the green belt
Option A

Tell Us More D.P1.13 Advertising and signage
Option A

Tell Us More D.P1.13 Light pollution [this number has been repeated]
Option B

Tell Us More D.P1.14 Contaminated land
Option A

The introduction is too verbose and will deter people from reading the whole document. A professional editor should have been employed to précis it down to a length that people will be willing to read. Some of the rest of the document is better but would still benefit from editing.

There are too many spelling, grammatical, and punctuation errors to make it worthwhile proof-reading this initial draft until it has been edited.



Interim Sustainability Appraisal

The first ten pages have been constructed by concatenating standard paragraphs, with minimal editing, in the same way than an accountant or surveyor prepares a report.

The rest of it consists of extracts from the Issues and Options document with meaningful, but not particularly incisive, comments.

Preparing this document was a legal requirement but it does not add much to the sum total of human knowledge.

The current pressure from Government on Local Authorities to build thousands of houses in rural areas and particularly on green-belt/fields is unacceptable and knee jerk reaction due to different sucessive Governments failure to plan strategically or forecast needs and exascerbated when Council Housing stock was sold off at excessively reduced cost under the "Right to Buy" knowing they did not have funding for building programmes to replace let alone increase the stock.

Rather than spreading the housing across the Country the focus is to build closer to London and other Cities and Towns where there are higher levels of employment therefore need. However, housing is limited and becomes more expensive due to demand from the increase of internal migration and imirgration, whether driven by social, family, economics, asylum or humanitarian. Inner City Authorities are already sending people to this area for emergency housing paying private landlords excessive amounts. In many areas including Hockley and its local towns and villages the infrastructure, in particular transport/healthcare/schools/social care/utilities, is currently not sufficient for existing residents let alone the recent and current medium/large building developments already passed by the Planning Department.

Having reviewed the Issues and Options Document (and draft Sustainability Appraisal) and Rochford District Council - Strategic Housing and Employment Land Availability Assessment 2017-Appendix C - Site Assessment Forms, I have the following General Objections for the overall Plan and @ TABLE 2 - Objections to Specific Site Assessments identified for proposed development.

General Objections:

No Cohesive Plan:

Reading the Site Assessments the sections headed Infrastructure Assessment indicate that other than 3 sites, there is no significant investment needed for utilities and no sites require significant investment for transport. Taken individually this might be the case but when 15 sites have the potential to accommodate 500+ dwellings @30 per Ha, it would seem to be a serious oversight by the Assessor. In any event this is a wider plan for the District and taken as a whole the number of proposed sites would indicate significant investments would be required and the following MUST be improved before any further development plans are passed or built in to the planning agreements, with no options to default.

Inadequate Transport Network

Road - The road system can barely accommodate the current population let alone the new developoments currently under construction, particularly those in Rochford, Ashingdon, Hawkwell. Rochford District has 1 designated Orange Secondary Road which joins Rayleigh-Hockley-Hawkwell-Southend and this has already been highlighted in Local Authority Reports as needing urgent improvements/widening due to volume of traffic-we are still waiting for a feasible solution! All other roads are designated Yellow-less than 4 metres or White-Other Road drive-track. The location of the River Crouch, it's tributaries and marsh lands, to the north of the district means any expansion of road systems is restricted to existing populated areas. Even if it was possible it would impact Maldon District which also has a poor road network. Planning must also take account of the commercial vehicles-cars, which have increased with more online purchasing not just the domestic vehicles approx. 1-2 per household for current population and proposed from current and future developments.

The road networks, with recognised pinch points, Rochford/Ashingdon/Hockley railway bridges; Spa roundabout; Rawreth mini roundabout; Rayleigh one way system, are just a few, to the wider road system. There are only 4 A roads A127; A130; A13; A12, all of which are already congested and access to the A13 & A12 is via the A127 & A130. This impacts journeys to local jobs/schools as well as those travelling further to the M25, all junctions of which are congested on a daily basis during rush hours. The development and growth of Southend Airport although beneficial to Commerce has brought more traffic in to the area too.
The development plans identify sites adjacent to many of the existing roads so if they are built before the road sysetm is improved how can they be widened or land made available for new roads [not just access roads and ornate roundabouts to the sites].

Even if the local road system was improved the increase in local traffic to the already congested A Roads which could not cope. The Plans indicate working with other Government and Highways Departments to improve the wider infrastructure but there is nothing concrete and overall austerity and poor road conditions, pothole epedemic would indicate these Plans are not realistic. During normal road conditions vehicles queue to access most junctions on the A roads and during rush hours and/or bad conditions they queue to get on and off at junctions from Wickford to Southend.

Inadequate Rail Services - trains are already very busy and on the Southend to Liverpool Street Line people who pay thousands of pounds per year normally have to stand from Billericay. The C2C Line is a little better but the increase in housing will increase passengers from the start of each line meaning more people will be standing unless Rochford Concil can confirm the Railways have the ability to invest at the same time in order to accommodate the expected numbers by adding trains or carriages. Again how realistic is this, schedules are already tightly timed and there is limited ability to add trains especialy where lines converge at Shenfield, Wickford, Romford, Stratford etc., extra carriages may be limited by the current length of platforms and in many cases there is no potential to expand because of lack of land/access.

Inadequate Bus Services - routes and timetables are limited leading to many people using private vehicles.

Supply of Utilities [water/electricity/gas/telecoms/waste treatment/recycle] - privately operated companies have not proven their ability or commitment to meeting extra demands for the Essex County target of 185,000 new homes. The land in this area consists of waterways, marshland and prone to flooding. Over development will place additional pressure on the waterways, sewage, drains which cannot cope with the resulting runoff, struggling now.

Inadequate Civic Amenities - to date austerity programmes and historic lack of investments for schools, health, transport, roads and maintenance have eroded Civic Amenities and Services, in particular Health and Care Services to the point of crisis. Outsourcing and so called partnerships with private companies such as Carillion failing catetrophically leading to tax payers having to fund losses to keep essential services being delivered. Local Authrites current plans are to reduce/cost save and merge in line with the lack of funding not to increase, impove which would be needed to prepare for this radical Plan. This is not scaremongering but supported by the intended merger of Basildon, Southend and Broomfield Hospitals. Identifying Car Parks, Police Stations, Council Offices and Land for development to residential when the need for these will increase with the proposed increase in population. How can Planners think an increase in housing and resulting population needs can be met when Government and Local Authorities do not have a cohesive plan, most only have 3-5 year plans anticipating changes in governments and local authorities which result in different priorities, back-tracking and ultimately wasting money, time and resources.

Land Identification & Development

Table 1 below is a breakdown by location and site. There are a total of 226 sites identified which allocate approximately 1084 hectres and calculating properties @30 per Ha totals over 32519, which is much higher than the 7500 required. This means that not all the sites will be required.

Table 1 Breakdown of the Site Assessments
Location Ashingdon Canewdon Great Stambridge/ Stambridge Wakerings [Great/Little] Hawkwell Hockley Hullbridge Leigh/ Southend Rawreth Rayleigh/Eastwood Rochford Wickford
# Sites Identified 16 10 4 17 14 22 22 4 11 55 49 2
Ha Identified 49.6 38.4 11.28 121.79 67.1 64.7 87 9.26 103 252 275 5.76
Proposed No @30 per Ha 1487 1151 338 3654 2013 1941 2601 278 3093 7555 8235 173

I object to any sites being adopted that will not provide the housing required by Government/Local Authority Quotas to provide social/affordable housing due to the size of the site and/or impacting the green-belt/field land, in particular woodland/vacant/open/grassland and historic land/buildings and placing additional burden on the existing poor road networks and civic communities.
Those sites designated as Woodlands, most of which have ancient relevance in this area and particuarly Hockley, ancient/listed buildings, open spaces, community buildings, car parks and any land where the development would impact a public/official right of way, footpath; bridlepath as well as any adopted one's should be removed from consideration. In fact they should be ring fenced from future plans and maintained or invested in for the use and enjoyment of the current and expected increase in population.

Land Identified as Gypsy & Traveller's Sites

I object to the proposed sites for Gypsy & Traveller's. The 10 sites account for 16.5 hectres which for normal housing allocation would equate to 495. This is excessive for the area when there are only 12 authorised sites in Essex - 1 in Basildon @25 plots; 2 chelmsford @ 22 plots & 2 Maldon @ 26 plots, not including the current 3 unauthroised plots in Leigh and Rawreth. Locating sites adjacent to agricultural/open land could encourage unauthorised spread and the traditional trades/work they do could lead to build up of and unlawful disposal of scrap metal, hazardous high risk waste, rubble and other construction waste & materials, which will adversely impact wildlife, land, waterways and the environment generally.

Objections to Specific Site Assessments
TABLE 2 - Objections to Specific Site Assessments
Ref Address Designation Ha Dwellings @30pHa
CFS024 Land north of Merryfields Avenue, Hockley, SS5 5AL Woodland 1.25 38
The land is a long thin strip behind a residential area and to the other side the Marylands Nature Reserve with open land tracks and footpaths recreational areas beyond that. This is a small development which would have a very poor access/layout and not benefit the government quotas for social/affordable housing. The Woodland area supports and protects the existing Nature Reserve from the negative impact of the existing domestic dwellings. Nature does not stop at the current boundary of the Nature Reserve and has naturally spread to the woodland. Development would severely impact the existing wildlife from birds, bats, badgers, foxes, butterflies and their food sources including vegetation, insects and their habitat in this area and those from the Nature Reserve which benefit from the woodland, some of which will have spread to this area with nests/burrows or territories/tracks. The development has an awkward, sloped, narrow access through narrow congested roads to reach Plumberow Avenue. The Woodland is currently providing a natural soak away but there is still a build up during heavy rainfall at the end of Marylands Avenue, where the access would be, because of the poor drainage system. As a small development they would not have to contribute to improving the infrastructure nor allocate social/affordable housing so for the overall Development Plan it should not be adopted as other sites would provide more properties to meet the government/local authority quotas and contribute to improving the infrastructure.

GF01 Land north west of Hockley Station, Hockley, SS5 5AE - Railway embankment Vacant-wooded area 0.37 11
This land has no current vehicular access and is part of the railway embankment made up of a long thin strip. Access could only be achieved from a section of Mount Crescent which is a narrow access road to a small development of semi-detached bungalows. The specific section only has a footpath on the opposite side to the site and sharp bends to both ends which could cause pedestrian and vehicular hazards. Although the dimensions of the site are not clear the size would only accommodate 11 or less individual dwellings if the proposed development was in keeping with the current housing stock. The land size and proximity to the railway does not afford itself to this type of housing stock but flats would not be in keeping with the current housing stock and overlook existing dwellings living accommodation impacting their privacy as the majority have extended their living accommodation and bedrooms in to their loft. Looking at buildings along the existing railway track in the vicinity there are none that are built as close as this proposed development and I assume there is a reason for this, whether from the point of view of residents who would be on top of the railway and affected by noise/vibration of the busy train services from Southend to London Liverpool Street, which will have to increase. Or the need for the railway provider to maintain the railway and a sufficient boundary to expand or protect the line from anything that could impact it i.e. building fire. The wooded area although not designated as part of the ancients woods is linked to Marylands Wood to one side thereby supporting and protecting the existing wildlife from birds, bats, badgers, foxes, butterflies, voles etc. and their food sources including vegetation, insects in this area and those from the nearby Nature Reserve benefiting which benefit from the wooded area, some of which will have spread to this area with nests/burrows or territories/tracks. The wooded area currently provides a natural soak away for the existing houses protecting the railway, which will be lost and the new development and runoff could adversely impact the railway. As a small development it will not contribute to the goal of the government quotas to increase social housing stock nor will it have to contribute to the local infrastructure, therefore, as part of the overall Development Plan it should not be adopted as other sites would provide more properties to meet the government/local authority quotas and contribute to improving the infrastructure.

CFS019 Land adjacent to Newhall Road and Lower Road, Hockley, SS5 5JU Woodland/Vacant 1 30
The land is behind a current residence and adjacent to a well-used track accessing walks and open spaces. If full potential of dwellings was agreed it would not be in keeping with existing land use or residence and could lead to a precedence to use other vacant/woodland adjoining to be developed. The development would have to join a country road with limited lighting near a bend. As a small development they would not have to contribute to improving the infrastructure nor allocate social/affordable housing so for the overall Development Plan it should not be adopted as other sites would provide more properties to meet the government/local authority quotas and contribute to improving the infrastructure

CFS023 Land north and east of Malvern Road, Hockley, SS5 5JA Grass Field/Track 5.6 168
The land is adjacent to a residential area on one side but the majority would be adjacent to Beckney Woods and open land tracks and footpaths with very few dwellings. These open spaces, footpaths, adopted tracks connect the existing ancient woods from Hockley, Ashingdon, Rochford, Hawkwell. If full potential of dwellings was agreed it would begin to box in the Woods which will severely impact the access the open spaces for human use but more importantly access from one area to another for wildlife from birds, badgers, foxes, butterflies and their food sources including vegetation, insects. The development would have to join a minor road with limited lighting and at the bottom or an existing hill. As a small development they would not have to contribute to improving the infrastructure nor allocate social/affordable housing so for the overall Development Plan it should not be adopted as other sites would provide more properties to meet the government/local authority quotas and contribute to improving the infrastructure

CFS030 Creek View, Beckney Avenue, Hockley, SS5 5NR - Vacant/Woodland 0.18 5
The land is adjacent woodland on all sides adjacent to Beckney Woods with no dwellings. These woods lead to adjacent open spaces, footpaths, adopted tracks connecting the existing ancient woods from Hockley, Ashingdon, Rochford, Hawkwell. Such a small development will have little benefit to the focus of the Government quotas for social housing but will severely impact the access to the open spaces for human use but more importantly access from one area to another for wildlife from birds, badgers, bats, foxes, butterflies and their food sources including vegetation, insects and their habitat. The development would have to join a track with limited lighting with one access to road system joining Plumberow Avenue which is already congested. As a small development they would not have to contribute to improving the infrastructure nor allocate social/affordable housing so for the overall Development Plan it should not be adopted as other sites would provide more properties to meet the government/local authority quotas and contribute to improving the infrastructure

CFS040 Eastview House and Haslemere, Church Road, Hockley SS5 4SS Residential 1.3 39
The land is already residential but backs on to open land and opposite/near two new developments under construction. This is a minor road which is a cut through for traffic trying to avoid Rayleigh/Rawreth and is already very busy and current developments increasing use of these minor roads. It passes some very old properties and church has limited access under railway bridge and one way system to reach the access road at a difficult point on Aldermans Hill. The stables and other horse-riders use these back roads to access the bridleways in Hockley/Hullbridge. Such a small development will have little benefit to the focus of the Government quotas for social housing but will severely impact the access roads and further impact on local wildlife and habitat. As a small development they would not have to contribute to improving the infrastructure nor allocate social/affordable housing so for the overall Development Plan it should not be adopted as other sites would provide more properties to meet the government/local authority quotas and contribute to improving the infrastructure

CFS039 Plots 1/2/3 New Hall Estate, Greensward Lane, Hockley, SS5 5J Trinity Wood House Woodland 0.18 5
CFS064 Land north and east of Folly Chase, Hockley, SS5 4SF - Agricultural/Vacant/Residential/Woodland 9.03 271
CFS074 Land south of Mount Bovers Lane, Hockley SS5 4J Agricultural 22 660
CFS150 Land on the north side of Victor Gardens, Hockley SS5 4DY Woodland/Vacant 2.02 61
CFS160 Northlands Farm, 65 High Road, Hockley, Essex, SS5 4SZ Farm 5.94 178
CFS161 57 High Road, Hockley, Essex, SS5 4SZ Dwelling 1.6 48
CFS169 Meadowlands, Victor Gardens, Hockley, SS5 4DY Residential with Large Garden 5.15 155
COL96 Grass SLA, Appleyard Avenue, Hockley, SS5 5AY Vacant-woodland-Council 0.07 2
EXP09 Land Opposite Maryon House, Bullwood Hall Lane, Hockley SS5 4TD Agricultural 0.16 5
The above proposed sites have similar reasons for not being adopted within the Plan. They are adjacent to Ancient Woods/Open Spaces/Listed or Ancient Buildings/Monuments some have TPOs. These open spaces, footpaths, adopted tracks connect the existing ancient woods from Hullbridge, Hockley, Ashingdon, Rochford, Hawkwell. If full potential of dwellings was agreed it would begin to box in the Woods and open spaces which will severely impact the access the open spaces for human use but more importantly access from one area to another for wildlife from birds, badgers, bats, foxes, butterflies and their food sources including vegetation, insects and their habitat. The developments are close to new medium/large developments some still under construction off of Hall Road, Rectory Road, Main Road, and full impact on local infrastructure and roads yet to be assessed. The developments would have to join already busy, poorly maintained yellow designated roads or minor roads which feed in to yellow designated roads some of which would create awkward junctions either at top/bottom of existing hills. The small developments would not have to contribute to improving the infrastructure nor allocate social/affordable housing so for the overall Development Plan they should not be adopted as other sites would provide more properties to meet the government/local authority quotas and contribute to improving the infrastructure. I am not aware of the requirements for medium developments to contribute to the social/affordable housing stock but it would be minimal. Although I as many would prefer no development the overall Development Plan should look at potential sites which will provide the housing required whilst impacting the least woodland/vacant/open/grassland and historic land/buildings in our green belt/field land and impact on road and civic communities. That means larger sites outside of the existing villages/towns with the potential to meet the government/local authority quotas, address the need for social housing, contribute to improving the infrastructure, civic amenities, utilities and incorporate an appropriate road network and more access roads to the existing road, which may also have tolerance around to widen roads with least impact during and after construction i.e. CFS097/CFS121.

CFS156 Lime Court and Poplar Court, Greensward Lane, Hockley, Essex, SS5 5HB & SS5 5JB Residential Care Home 0.6 18
This is a care home in the village and valued by many people. How would reducing care facilities within the village benefit the overall Plan? Renovation and improvements should mean that it can remain in use without significant cost or impact on the community.

BFR2 Eldon Way Land next to station - close to railway line, where will industry go to if all changed to residential Industrial/Leisure 4.6 138
This is an existing industrial estate with mechanics, physiotherapist, chiropodists; tyre dealer, upholsterer etc. There are very few local mechanics to take vehicles to this is close to the station so beneficial for those dropping off vehicles. Although there are some unused buildings they should be completed and current site renovated with local industry in mind. Many cannot relocate to high street because the type of business is not retail or they cannot afford to relocate to the high street. The local businesses need to remain. Making this residential will increase vehicular and pedestrian access to an already busy cul-de-sac, which joins the access road at an awkward and busy junction. The number of houses would not benefit the overall Plan and aim for social housing.

COL22 Public Car Park, Southend Road, Hockley, SS5 4PZ Public Car Park 0.24 7
This is the only car park in Hockley and used by many to access local shops, library, doctors, pharmacist and other essential amenities. Local minor roads are narrow and although they have various parking restrictions they are normally for 1 or 2 hours within the day therefore people will choose the times they shop and any parking will cause congestion. The main road is the only designated secondary road through Hockley and parking on the main route will cause unnecessary congestion.

EXP14 Warren House 10-20 Main Road, Hockley SS5 4QS - Retail/Offices 0.03 1
This is an existing retail and residential building. The High Street is dying already because of high rates and little help for small businesses changing this to residential would not seem to benefit the goal of the government quotas for social housing or help the local community. Hockley High Street needs support and funding to improve the shopping experience, encourage new business, to bring in money and commerce. Development will severely impact the only main road through Hockley. This site should not be developed.

General Comments

With regards to the planned developments the lack of funding from Government and Local Authorities in housing has led to the need for "Partnerships" with private developers. Historically this has proven to be less beneficial to the community if not managed and audited by relevant authorities. Realistically developers are there to make profit and now the need has aligned with a boyant housing market they are using this to pressurise local authorities to agree planning on a signifcant amount of land some of which has been stockpiled for years during the recession. Although these developments include some social/affordablel housing the majority will be for sale and the people who need the housing i.e. low paid, homeless, emergency housed or private landlords receiving benefits, elderly, disabled, key personnel, will not be able to afford them outright or access funds thereby not reducing the population the local authority will still be obliged to house through emergency/private landlords.

There should be an open and transparent review of the recent developments Planning have passed and balance the real value to the Community and whether the quotas have reduced pressure for housing on the local authorities:
* How many homeless/registered council tennants/emergency housed have or will be accommodated
* What contribution did they make:
o No of Schools or monetary contributions
o No of Healthcare centres or monetary contributions
o No of Road widening/improvement to existing or monetary contributions to highways
o No of improvements to existing utilities/drainage/sewage or monetary contributions to providers
before passing any future planning.
Also whether they made the most of the land to reduce the need for future developments, not just focussing on the profit. The "partnership" between private and local authorities must be more focussed on benefiting both parties not loaded towards the developers and shareholders, fair profit margins and more social/affordable housing is essential. Also focus on designs that make the most of the land available not the developers preferred "detached family homes" because it is not suitable for today's diverse families or sustainable. We are an Island and will run out of land eventually and those requiring homes do not fit mum, dad and 2.1 children. Local Authorities should be making developers focus on developing properties that benefit the people that need social/affordable housing and capitalize on the space including utilizing basements for parking or additional accommdation; apartments for 1st time buyers, 1 parent familities and GF accommodation for elderly and disabled to encourage more community living, play areas, retail, health care, schools etc. We cannot continue to canabalise the green belt and agricultural land. Local Authorities should be valuing open spaces for the future environment and support farmers to use the agriculture land to benefit the community and increase productivity at reasonable prices rather than importing the majority of food stuffs we could grow.

That means that first choice should be brown-belt, then larger green-belt/field sites to meet the quotas, but outside of the existing villages/towns, with the potential to include the requirement for social housing and affordable housing, contribute to improving the infrastructure, civic amenities, utilities and incorporate an appropriate road network during construction as well as increasing access roads to the existing road, which may also have tolerance around to widen roads using land from the new site as well as having the least impact during and after construction i.e. CFS097/CFS121. Any developments that will be adjacent to a greenbelt/greenfield designated land should have an enforced 3 metres boundary to reduce the impact on any wildlife, plants and habitat that exists.

Firstly may I thank the officers of the Council for their time at the public meeting held on 16 January 2018. I note with regret that more senior members of council planning staff were not available to justify or answer questions about the plans and hope that they will be more visible to residents in the future.

Before I raise specific issues about the plan, I feel I must point out that in drafting the document, the Council has started from an incorrect position from which it will now be very difficult to recover, namely that there is a need for 7,500 new dwellings in the area. As your council planning officer explained the figure of 7,500 is based on a standard model developed by the Government and takes into account no local factors. However, unfortunately this ludicrous figure of 7,500 has now set the bar of expectation with both opposition (the majority of residents) and pro-development (developers and land-owners) parties.

The Council should have started from a position that given the known opposition of existing residents to plans for major development, evidenced by the huge opposition to the Hall Road development (of 620 houses), combined with the factors weighing against further development, little additional development is considered appropriate in the local area and a figure of perhaps 250 homes offered as the most that could be absorbed. The starting position adopted by the Council is a major strategic error for which the Director of Planning must take full responsibility.

It is clear both from the factors outlined below and the opposition to the plan from existing council tax paying residents, that any further development of significant scale is unsustainable and the council should rethink this plan to arrive at a more acceptable and sustainable solution.

Major traffic congestion - The B1013 is the main road through Hawkwell and Hockley connecting the towns to Rochford and Rayleigh. This road is already heavily congested at peak periods such as "rush hour" and "school run" times. It also carries traffic to what is becoming a major airport and the major business park at the airport that is currently undergoing very significant expansion. Of particular concern is the junction of Spa Road, Woodlands Road and Southend Road (the mini-roundabout opposite The Spa public house), which is a major "pinch-point".

Impact on public safety - The two Fire Stations managed by Essex County Fire & Rescue Service at Hawkwell and Rochford, respectively, are manned on a "retained" basis. This means that fire crews are alerted to incidents by means of a radio-pager and aim to reach the fire station within 4-5 minutes. Additional traffic created by further residential and commercial development in the area will increase turn-out times thereby increasing the time it takes the Fire Service to attend incidents, placing those needing assistance at additional risk.

Air polution - At certain times of the day, the air pollution caused by current major traffic congestion in some parts of Hockley and Hawkwell is already likely to be in breach of the standards set by the European Commission (Directives 2008/50/EC and 2004/107/EC). However, as the Council has been reluctant to carry out appropriate air quality monitoring it has been left to a group of independent councillors to undertake a 12 month study the results of which are due shortly. Clearly, the additional traffic resulting from further housing and commercial development will add to the toxic level of pollution in the atmosphere adding to the misery of those suffering with respiratory medical conditions and to the detriment of the health of residents. However, it is not only the excessive vehicle traffic that causes high levels of pollution. It must be appreciated that having a significant airport within the immediate vicinity is a major cause of both air and noise pollution.

Green Belt Development - Major developments suggested on major areas of green belt land between Gusted Hall Lane and Mount Bovers Lane would cause significant damage to the environment and have a dramatically negative impact on the landscape of the area. Not only would it destroy an important wildlife area but also productive arable farming land would be lost forever. Greenbelt land should be protected with any development limited to Brownfield and "in-fill" development to ensure the essential character of Hawkwell is maintained.

Developments absent from the plan and errors in mapping - There appears to be developments that have been approved that are absent from the plan. For example, the approval of circa. 70 homes on the site of the former Bullwood Hall prison are not even mentioned and their impact is not considered. The area marked on the map for prospective development in Hillside Avenue, Hawkwell is a small rear garden with no access and unsuitable for development. These are important omissions and errors that need to be corrected.

Independence of AECOM - Within the document, the Council refers to the draft scoping report prepared by "independent consultants" AECOM. A look at AECOM's annual report for 2017 shows very clearly, large multi-national and highly aggressive organisation focussed primarily on its own commercial objectives. For such an organisation to be successful it will be dependent on strong relationships with developers and construction companies, who stand to benefit from large building projects. The Council may wish to consider this when preparing tenders for further work and ensuring that any relationships AECOM may have with parties who stand to benefit from large developments are fully transparent and to seek assurances that no conflict of interest is present.

Information Asymmetry - The council tax payers expect the council planning team to be the "experts" in the area of planning policy and we expect them to produce credible proposals to safeguard the integrity and existing nature of the local area for residents. Instead what has been produced is a long, meandering and sometimes complex document containing vast quantities of largely irrelevant data and very little by way of evidence, with the apparent purpose of deterring engagement from residents. Even simple traffic surveys and existing air quality data are absent from the document, presumably because the facts would not support the case for over development that the Council is clearly promoting. Residents expect the council to be protecting their interests in discussions such as these as residents do not have access to the amount of information and resources that parties such as developers and large construction companies have at their disposal.

Conclusion - In conclusion, there are sadly very few, if any, positive proposals in the plan for existing residents and I am left wondering what we are in fact paying our council tax for?

The New Local Plan document does not, as it claims, "set out a shared vision for the future of our district" as it does not take any account of the strong views of most existing residents who are opposed to this so called "vision".

The Council planning team has missed a significant opportunity to put forward proposals to improve the district for the residents of Hawkwell and surrounding areas and instead is bending over backwards to support major developers who are only concerned about profit and greedy landowners who see an opportunity to make a "killing" from their assets, to the detriment of the majority of residents.

I call for far greater transparency in the communications that have clearly been ongoing between prospective site owners and Council officials to ensure that the public have a full picture of how this initial set of sites has been derived.

Given that a plan already exists up until 2025, it is far too early to consider further development as the alleged "evidence" on which the proposals are based will change e.g. the increased level of traffic from developments under construction but not yet completed. The proposals put forward are clearly not sustainable and do not strike the right balance between environmental, economic and social factors and are not in the best interests of current residents of the area.

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.

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!




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 5 years it has become an increasing problem for us to obtain Household Insurance (Buildings & Contents). In fact many Insurers will not even quote!

* There are known badgers living on this land and they and their Sets are protected under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992.

* As well as the badgers who have lived on this site for as long as the residents in both Chapel Lane and Newstead Road there are an abundance of wild birds and other mammals on this land. Where are they going to go if you continue to take away their habitats?

* 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 ever 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 properties.

* Every time we have heavy rainfall it 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 Wildlife 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?

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 Shoeburyness 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 Friendly Transport 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.

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.

Re: Site Ref. No's: CFS060, CFS115/SER9, CFS057, CFS097, CFS153, CFS070, CFS065, CFS011, CFS034, CFS056

I am writing to voice my concern and object to any proposed future housing development on the above sites in Great Wakering. I have lived in Great Wakering for 16 years and it is the place where I chose to settle down and start a family. I liked the strong sense of community and the fact that it is separate from the bustle of Southend and other nearby developments such as Shoeburyness and Thorpe Bay. If development is allowed to go ahead, particularly on sites CFS057 and CFS097, then Great Wakering will no longer feel like village, as it will merge into other areas of Southend and the tight-knit community spirit will be lost.

I am also concerned about the lack of amenities for such developments. Great Wakering Primary Academy, where my daughter attends, is a wonderful school with hard-working and dedicated staff. However, the school is already full. Even if it were to expand, to allow for increased numbers, this would have a negative impact on the school environment and the school community. My daughter currently enjoys school and mixes with children from across a number of year groups. I fear this would no longer be possible if the school were to expand as the community-feel would be lost. Yet, on the other hand, the alternative of overcrowding within the school to accommodate increased numbers is equally undesirable.

Great Wakering Medical Centre also has some excellent staff, but over the years I have lived in Great Wakering, it has become increasingly difficult to book an appointment. The development of further housing would only add to this problem and is likely to lead to people seeking help elsewhere, such as the A&E department at Southend Hospital, which is already ridiculously over-stretched.

Access roads are currently insufficient to support further development and the increased traffic would make the area more dangerous. The High Street is already very busy at peak times, yet if roads were improved, this would cause further disruption after the lengthy roadworks in Star Lane, caused by recent developments.

The loss of open space would also have a negative effect on general well-being, aswell as the local wildlife. We have regular visits from a variety of birds in our garden, for example, robins, bluetits, woodpeckers have also seen a sparrow hawk. The loss of habitat that development on areas of greenbelt land would cause, would have a knock-on effect on the population of these species.

The potential for flooding in the area is also of major concern. By building on areas of undeveloped land, areas of natural drainage will be reduced. Having had at least two flood warnings in the few years I have lived at this address, it seems the current drainage systems are unable to cope sufficiently. Therefore, building further housing could have a catastrophic effect on existing homes during heavy rainfall.

To summarise, any future housing development in Great Wakering, particularly those on areas of previously undeveloped land would have a detrimental effect on many aspects of life. I am therefore strongly opposed to any future housing development in the area.

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.

Relating to CFS024 - Land North of Merryfields Avenue, Hockley, Essex, MAP G, 119

I am concerned about the proposed development of the above land (37 houses) for the following reasons:

* This area of land is low lying and prone to flooding. In the Summer of 2013, the lower, downhill part of Plumberow Avenue and the roads leading off (e.g. Oak Walk and The Acorns) were flooded. Multiple residents' homes were also flooded, and it took several months to clear and clean. Further residential development of green belt land would exacerbate this problem as the green land acts as drainage for excess water flow. Indeed, this whole area of lower Hockley, reaching from Hockley Railway Station all the way along Plumberow Avenue down to Lower Road, and all the other roads leading off Plumberow Avenue, is predominantly marshy with poor natural drainage. To further increase the residential numbers would increase, I believe, the problems of residential flooding.
* Proximity to Maryland Woodland Area: this is a beautiful and well-maintained nature reserve, enjoyed by local people. To develop so nearby would in all likelihood disturb the natural habitats of the wildlife. Residential homes and wildlife must co-exist together, and if we wish to provide pleasant residential living spaces for our future generations, then consideration needs to be given to green spaces. If we destroy our flora and fauna, once lost, will be lost forever. Indeed, the appeal of Hockley for many new people is the fact that it is such a green and nature-filled area (e.g Plumberow Mount, Beckney Woods, Hockley Woods). Surely, we don't wish to destroy the very appeal that makes new people wish to set up homes here.
* Traffic issues: the residential areas of Merryfields Avenue and Marylands Avenue are accessed by small and narrow roads, built several decades ago when car use was much less. In their current state, it could increase the likelihood of road traffic accidents as these small roads were simply not built for such an increase in traffic volume. These areas are full of families and elderly people; I wouldn't like to see an increase in fatalities in such a quiet residential area.
* Suitability for Hockley: as we all know, Hockley is historically a small village, with not even a high Street. Shops and facilities are clustered around the Spa Road area, which also serves as the main access into and out of Hockley. I'm sure I don't need to point out the traffic congestion that we see through the heart of Hockley, especially at the school run and commuter times of travel. Whilst it is always nice to welcome new people into the area, appropriate consideration must be given to the traffic problem, so that all residents, new and existing, can enjoy the benefits of living in such a lovely village as Hockley. If all the natural spaces are built on, no one will be able to enjoy the character of Hockley, old and young, new and existing.
* Facilities: with this proposed increase in housing, it seems unlikely that the existing schools and medical facilities will be able to cope with increased demand. Is there a plan to increase both of these things?

I do hope my above concerns will be taken into consideration as I would like to see Hockley remain a beautiful and friendly place to live, having grown up here myself, and enjoyed all the benefits of a village life.

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.