Highways Infrastructure

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

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

I am writing to you with my concerns over the future housing Development in Barling . Under the land Availability Assessment 2017- Appendix C & B .

This has only just been brought to my attention, as we never receive any documents & planning proposals EVER from yourselfs .

I strongly disagree with this forcoming plans to build on land in this area . With have so much traffic now , this will only make things worst !!

Not alone loosing trees , wildlife etc .
You are already building on the old brick fields in star lane Wakering . Which is causing already delays in traffic. There is also more traffic then ever at shopland & Bournes green .

Wakering & Barling is not suitable for future planning . We haven't got enough doctors & schools to cover more people .

My doctors is Wakering Health centre , & I've been told they can't cover properly the people they have now .
What happened to GREEN BELT ?
Leave our green fields alone , & please find somewhere else . ?

I object to the proposal of the housing development in Poynters lane/ Shoebury Road.
Ref nos CFS057 CFS097 CFS034 CFS056 CFS070 CFS065 CFS011 and GF03.
Much of the land that is being considered for development is green belt and is enjoyed by locals and visitors for walks and watching wildlife, also the views of the countryside will disappear. The area is also a flood risk area with increasing difficulty of obtaining insurance. Poynters Lane will not be able to cope with the extra traffic that this development will produce. The amount of housing that is going to be built will have a huge impact on the local community, the development will be overwhelming, with increased pressure on the infrastructure, doctors, schools and public transport.

I object to both the scale and nature of the outlined proposal for the following reasons:

1. No matching funding for a supporting Infrastructure.
Our schools are already above capacity. I am aware of classes at local schools where there are already 35 children per class. There have been many threads on the local Rayleigh FaceBook pages from parents that have moved into our area who are unable to get their children into local schools. Many of these parents have had to place their children at schools out of the area that they live in or are still travelling long distances to their child's previous school. Enough new school places and schools must be guaranteed before more homes are built.
Our roads are frequently at a standstill even outside the rush hour. Before more houses are to be built, we need a better road system in place to stop our roads grinding to a halt. We are encouraged to use public transport, cycle or walk, but public transport in our area is not very good and expensive (I broke my arm last year and was unable to drive for 8 weeks so I can vouch for this!); cycle paths are virtually non existent in the district and many people feel that the roads are for too dangerous to use. ( I own a cycle but due to the lack of cycle paths [those that we do have don't really link up] and due to the amount of traffic on the road, I only use it when I go away on holiday!) Yes I do walk when I can, but I should be able to use my car sometimes!
2. No guarantees that Utilities can match extra demands.
3. No spare capacity within Health & Care Services.
At the moment, many people find it difficult to get a 'same day' appointment if they are ill as our Doctors Surgeries are at capacity. Our local hospitals are also struggling to cope with demand. Similarly, trying to get on an NHS dentists list in the district is very difficult, I know, I have tried! Those that I have tried in my locality have closed their books to new NHS patients. Our health and care services cannot cope with more people.
4. No let up in the sacrifice of the Green Belt & Air Quality.
RDC are already aware that the air quality in the High Street, Rayleigh and along stretches of the A127 are poor and above legal limits. How can you allow more homes to be built with the associated vehicles that come with them when you know that air quality and subsequently residents health is going to suffer?
5. No long-term LEGACY left for our future generations.

CUT THE TARGET NUMBERS TO NATURAL GROWTH LEVEL.

I am writing to you with my concerns over the future housing Development in Barling . Under the land Availability Assessment 2017- Appendix C & B .

This has only just been brought to my attention, as we never receive any documents & planning proposals EVER from yourselfs .

I strongly disagree with this forcoming plans to build on land in this area . With have so much traffic now , this will only make things worst !!

Let alone loosing trees , wildlife etc .
You are already building on the old brick fields in star lane Wakering . Which is causing already delays in traffic. There is also more traffic then ever at shopland & Bournes green .

Wakering & Barling is not suitable for future planning . We haven't got enough doctors & schools to cover more people .

My doctors is Wakering Health centre , & I've been told they can't cover properly the people they have now .
What happened to GREEN BELT ?
Leave our green fields alone , & please find somewhere else . ?

I am emailing regarding the above & wish to comment on the proposals. I have particular concerns on the effect on the local infrastructure & in turn its effect on the environment.

It was extremely disappointing to note that mature trees & the hedgerow on Lower Road in respect of the development to Malyons Lane have all been taken away. My concern is how much else will be destroyed due to these new plans.

I have other concerns in this matter as to how it affects the Hullbridge area as follows:

1. What will be the effect on local schools due to the obvious major increase in pupil numbers. Presumably new schools are proposed.

2. There will be an increased need for additional doctors, has any approach been made to the existing practice in Hullbridge to gain their views.

3. At present Lower Road is already very busy & these proposals will inevitably increase the amount of traffic using it. Currently a high proportion of traffic uses Watery Lane which is already inappropriate for the amount using it.

4. Will there be any extra thought given to the older population such as Sheltered Accommodation and perhaps including bungalows on any development.

5. Public transport facilities will have to be improved. Have the bus companies been approached to extend their current routes and provide new routes to any development where there is currently no service.

6. I live close to La Vallee Farm which is one of the proposed sites. I have a number of concerns with this site in particular as mentioned in the following points.

7. At present, this is designated as farmland and I would have thought that we should be preserving such land to provide food for a growing population. Who knows what effect Brexit will have on supply of food. There must be more appropriate land other than using productive farmland.

8. Also, the road outside La Vallee is prone to flooding with the water flowing down from higher ground above the farm. This, again, does not seem appropriate.

9. This area does not have mains drainage at present so this will inevitably have to be installed.

10. The present speed limit in this area is 40mph which must be decreased if further access onto Lower Road is required.

As stated, I am extremely concerned as to the effect on the local environment & trust that sufficient & exhaustive investigations will be undertaken before any sites are given planning permission

I refer to the proposal for the possible building of 7,000 plus new homes in the local areas to Hullbridge, Rayleigh and surrounding areas.

A vast amount of homes in these areas will cause total havoc because of the resulting congestion as well pollution and loss of wildlife and green spaces (which you wont ever get back) and even more flooding than we are experiencing already.

On top of this there will be a lack of school places. doctors patient places and Heaven knows what will happen to hospital waiting times.
In short A complete reduction in ANY quality of life in these areas.

The 550 homes already going ahead in Hullbridge will dramatically alter life here as it is without building more and making it worse.

Hullbridge is a very special community. Dont ruin it .

ROCHFORD DISTRICT COUNCIL STRATEGIC HOUSING & EMPLOYMENT LAND AVAILABILITY ASSESSMENT 2017 - APP. B, MAP Q
REPRESENTATION IN RESPECT OF:-FUTURE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT - GT. WAKERING

Whilst I accept growth and change is inevitable, the housing that has been erected i.e. (Small estate end of Seaview, Alexandra Road, and Star Lane), this unfortunately has not been Afford able for the local people.
I request also before any future development to the village that the infrastructure be first on your list.
The school is inadequate in size. I am told the school is unable to take the rising 5.
Please can you advise me how many coaches leave the village to transport the children to King Edmunds School, Rochford?
The doctors are barely coping. I now park in the recreational ground if I have an appointment as there is insufficient parking on site.
The transport is inadequate. During the resent bad weather the village was almost cut off again, thanks to local farmers we were able to keep appointments. The traffic flow has increased but unfortunately the road system has never been updated, I am now 68 and lived in the village all my life they have not changed.
I believe the A127 (Which is not under your umbrella) was the first duel carriageway to be build in this country, and this has not changed to cope with the demand of traffic in all these
Years.
NO NEW ROADS HAVE BEEN BUILT IN THE AREA OR PLANNED TO ALLEVIATE THE INCREASING TRAFFIC FLOW DURING THIS EXPANSION PROGRAMME!

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 DEVELOPMENT

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 30yrs. 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 'Surface Water ditch'. This ditch takes the runoff from the High Street.

* In 2016 Anglian Water had to create a new run-off from Chapel Lane as properties in Newstead Road where rear gardens were flooding on a regular basis . This new pipeline enters the surface Water ditch at the rear of 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.

* This site is all but a nature reserve, as well as the bird life, I believe there are newts, and I have film of badgers frequenting this area.
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 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.

SITE CFS023
We have a number of concerns and issues regarding the published proposal.
1. Our house borders the proposed access road {Harrogate Drive}. We currently rely on the shrubs along the side of this dirt road to offer privacy and prevent access to our property. There is no detail in the plans of what changes will be made to Harrogate Drive, however if the shrubs were to be removed this would reduce our privacy and security, potentally allowing easy access.
2. The current road gets only occasional traffic, but this access road would cause us a lot of traffic, noise and pollution. Our conservatory is only a metre from our boundary.
3. The proposed access road is not wide enough to cater for two lanes and a footpath.
4. When we purchased the house, we visited your planning department to see if development around our property. We were told by the planning office that development was unlikely due to the patchwork of land ownership which borders our property. This positive advice directly impacted our decision to purchase.
5. We currently have a flooding issue with water running off a Essex Highways maintained road {Tonbridge Road} onto our private road. This has never been addressed despite our complaints and paving or tarmacing Harrogate Drive will increasing the flooding issue due to water run off from the road.
On a more generic note, I have serious concerns that the infrastructure is not adequate to support the proposed development of thousands of additional houses in Hockley. I currently have a great deal of difficulty booking a doctor's appointment as it is and the schools are filled to capacity. Further, the roads are extremely busy now with delays and traffic jams being an almost daily occurence. Building a further 7000 homes would make exasperate the problem, creating additional pollution and noise.
Please provide us with confirmation that you have received and logged our concerns and comments to the proposals.
Additionally, please provide us with details of the plans for Harrogate Drive, as any changes to this road will have a direct impact on our property.

The above site CFS024 relates to Land north of Merryfields Avenue, Hockley, SS5 5AL

I am objecting to the proposed development of the above site, on the following basis:

It is green belt land and adjacent to a public open space. The development of this land will impact on the public open space and destroy a valued local amenity, serving also as a green lung to preserve air quality against heavy traffic on adjacent local roads.

The development is projected as min 30 , max 37 dwellings. This is an area where car use is high as public transport availability is not great; although a station is quite close, bus services - which in this rural area have a better reach, are pretty infrequent. Thus most people use cars, and with current car ownership trends, most families own at least 2 cars. This is a minium of 60 cars travelling in and out of this small existing developmen, and would impact it very badly. The estate has narrow estate roads and the impact on these roads would be severe. There are always many parked cars in these roads, too, and this extra traffic would cause major problems and potential vehicle damage. Construction traffic onto this land would be insupportable and damage the roads, too; the opening onto this land is relatively narrow and woud badly affect those residents living near this opening. There is a school nearby and parents travelling in and out by car have begun to use the larger road into which this estate's traffic enters and exits. At school opening and closing times the queues in and out of this area are already considerable. The station car park also vents onto the same road which takes school traffic and at busy times of day, the commuter traffic in and out of the station car park is already a problem. As a result of accidents on this road, extra parking restrictions have been imposed - extra cars coming into this area could cause even greater problems.

The local sewers in the past have been unable to cope. In the general local plan no assurances of provision for inccreased sewerage and water usage has been made; it's doubtful local sewers could cope with this extra usage and pressure.

The road adjacent to the entrance to the site is subject to severe flooding at times of heavy rain:-



Development of this land will hinder the dispersal of this flood water - probably into the proposed properties.

There is a stream on this land which takes off runwater from the public open space; this must not therefore be built over.

The woods are a habitat for badgers - it's illegal to disturb them or their habitat. There are slow worms in the area and these are protected. Bats are also present - and also a protected species. such a wildlife-rich area cannot legally be developed without disturbing these creatures.

it's understood there are tree preservation orders in place.

This is a vital peace of wildlife rich green belt land quite densely covered in trees and its developed would cause serious detriment to the local environment in general -the govt is supposed to be improving air quality, not encouraging its deterioration by allowing the destruction of trees!

I am writing to make my objection to the above mentioned New Local Plan for the following reasons;
Any additional housing development in the Rayleigh area, particularly to the west alongside the old A130, would make the already considerable traffic congestion all along the London Rd. untenable. Indeed throughout the routes in and out of Rayleigh, the
traffic congestion is so bad it is a constant topic of local complaint, the main roads in the area are not only at standstill at 'rush hour' times (which have become extended to include much of the weekday and weekend), buses have no chance of keeping to their shedules, people miss appointments, emergency services struggle to get through, air quality is suffering greatly due to the amount of vehicles standing still, the new 'intelligent' traffic lights at the Weir already cannot cope and have wasted taxpayers money, the schools in the area are full and new comers to the area are having their children refused entry and are therefore adding to the traffic by having to take them to outlying areas, the trains in the week are so packed there is never enough seats for the expensive commute, hospital services are stretched beyond capacity (we know this from 2 friends who are nurses), and as for the recent rumour that councillors have suggested a congestion charge for the A127 at peak times, I can only assume this to be a joke. Rate payers should be charging the councils for the congestion which is impacting on our daily lives and which has been allowed to get out of hand for decades by not addressing the contributing factors. South east Essex is grinding to a halt. There is not enough room left to build our way out of the mess we are already in let alone adding to the population.

Future housing development. Ref: CFS:071 Access Road CFS125.

Reasons for our objections to the development of site are as follows;

. The site is not big enough to take the amount of proposed housing

. The access to and from the site is not viable, also the volume of traffic will cause congestion on an already dangerous road that has no pathways to protect pedestrians

There is a number of species of wildlife in the fields, that some of which will be protected, I propose a full investigation should be taken out as destroying protected wildlife is a criminal offence. We have bats that currently nest in our roof which I understand are protected.

I wish to raise the following objections to the proposed planning of addition houses.

The area at the end of Eastwood rise in particular ends with a single track unmade road which makes it impractical to accommodate the increased traffic which would appear. This is a semi rural area and should remain so, as it gives access to Edwards hall park and cherry orchard nature reserve.

The plans for additional houses at the Eastwood end of Rayleigh would also cause problems with increased traffic and warrant the need for another school to accommodate the additional families that would move to the area.

I think this area should remain as it is with some green spaces around as that is the reason a lot of people bought houses here in the first place.

I find your Local Plan for extra housing in the Hullbridge, Essex area alarming and very worrying for the following reasons.

How will the infrastructure be delivered to support these new homes. New infrastructure such as schools, medical facilities,
shops, places of worship, recreational facilities, etc.

What is the plan for the many and different types of houses required.

Where are all the new roads to be for this housing and development plan. What is the plan for the upgrade of existing roads to
facilitate the influx of the extra vehicles which will accompany the vast amount of extra population. Who will pay for these new
and upgraded roads.
If a new major road structure is not planned for then this area will become gridlocked and people will be trapped within
the area of the development.

With the extra traffic due to the rise in population how will this affect the pollution that is now quite high.

How do we plan for open spaces, nature conservation, green areas for people to enjoy the countryside.

How do we plan for the extra local transport required.

Flooding is one great worry with a high percentage of the possible building land on flood plains and also very near to the River Crouch.
What thought has been given to the strengthening of the river bank and drainage of the land on lower levels.

Do you really think that your plan to build this amount of houses within such a small area with no plan or thought of how all
the infrastructure required is to be delivered is at all possible.

Comments Form - heard about consultation via Hockley Living Community Magazine Issue 66, Jan. 2018

Section 8, Paragraph 14
Once again we joined the queue of traffic at 3.30 p.m. from Rayleigh at 'The Gattens' towards Hockley (B1013). This queue to various lengths lasts until at least 6.30 p.m. every weekday evening. Since no amount of re-jigging of the Spa roundabout junction is likely to solve the problem, perhaps you could let us know how your plans for considerable extra houses in the area will help the congestion.

Around 1970 a plan was mooted to build a relief road from Rockford via the Hullbridge area to join the A130. You could progress this with Essex Highways.

I am writing regarding the proposed development of another 7, 500 homes to be built in my region.

I don't see how our infrastructure will cope with the extra burden!
Our roads will become overcrowded! Also where are the provisions for extra Schools, Doctors & Dental Surgeries?

I propose such extensive building work!

Ref: CSF024

We are writing to you with our concerns regarding the potential build of 37 dwellings at the end of Marylands Avenue and north of Merryfields Avenue, Hockley. We object to this land being used for development for the following reasons;
- concern that should this land be used for building, there is a likelihood of flooding to the properties at the end of Marylands Avenue when there is excessive rainfall.
- Marylands Avenue is currently a quiet road with minimal traffic and noise, should the development go ahead there is going to be increased traffic from the lorries used to transport the building materials and then upon completion there will be an increase in traffic due to those who will living on the new development, this is a safety risk for children in the road when it is currently such a quiet road.
- 37 dwellings will put pressure on our current infrastructure such as schools and doctors surgeries, who currently have high volumes.
- Next to the proposed site is a nature reserve this is an area we frequently go with our children, should the build go ahead the nature reserve and its inhabitants will be at risk.
- There are preservation orders on the trees on some of the site. Should these be removed the nearby properties are at risk of heave/subsidence.

It is our understanding that there have been previous attempts to build on this land, the last attempt was to build 16 properties, however this was rejected, we cannot see how when plans to build 16 properties have been rejected and yet there is now a proposal of 37 properties, when the reasons for rejection have not changed, this makes no sense.

As local residents to this area, we are saddened to hear of such proposals which will lead to over development and increase in population in an already densely populated area, this will have a huge impact on our infrastructure that there appears to be very little plans to make changes to in order to cope with these developments.

We would like it clearly noted we OBJECT to the proposal of 37 dwellings being built north of Merryfields Avenue, Hockley.

Please confirm receipt of this objection.

Strategic Housing & Employment Land Availability Assessment
Looking at the information supplied at the Future Housing Development Open Public Meeting 22 February 2018 at the Great Wakering Community Centre I would like to put forward the following points for discussion by the District Council to consider in their planning strategy:
1. Village Roads - not substantial enough to take additional traffic
The village roads are not robust enough to take the traffic that would grow with the proposed housing developments CFS065 CFS070 and CFS011 adjacent to the Shoebury Road. In particular CFS065 the largest proposed site. We need to avoid a gridlock.
- There is only single lane access for traffic at the bottom of Great Wakering High Street from the Co-operative store to the church which already causes congestion.
The sharp bend at Cupids Corner on the Shoebury Road is dangerous, especially for large vehicles such as buses and lorries which reduces two-way traffic
- These are the only roads out of the village and there is no room for widening either of these roads to create improved access. I believe that some of the properties on the High Street are listed buildings.
- Traffic on these roads out of the village are already busy during the rush hours causing queues towards Bournes Green.
- More traffic through the village could potentially affect the quality of the air.

2. Flood risk area
I understand that the areas highlighted as CFS065, CFS011 and GF03 were all flooded in 1953 with the water having reached Shoebury Road, covering all of New Road, Landwick to the house on the corner of Shoebury Road and Cupids Corner.

3. Village facilities - not sufficient to meet the needs of the potential population
Health Care
The existing GP surgery is not capable of providing services for the current village population let alone further residents! Many residents already go elsewhere for their GP services.
There is no dentist in the village.
The village pharmacy is adequate for meeting the existing population's demands.
Schools
We have insufficient schools with young adults travelling to King Edmund School, Rochford by double decker buses which clog up the roads to Rochford. Does the King Edmund school have the capacity to take the potential increase in population from Great Wakering and the other areas of development?
The Great Wakering primary school does not have the capacity to take the number of children potentially living in developments of the proposed size.
Additional educational places are limited

4. Local shops
We have limited retail facilities in the village - not sufficient to meet the demands of the potential larger community.

Conclusion
For the reasons stated above I strongly object to the building on the proposed sites of CFS065, CFS070 and CFS011
It would make more sense to build any additional houses on the outskirts of the village towards Southend Borough Council to avoid congestion in and through the village.

We live at 46 Barling Road and are writing to advise that we strongly object to any future housing developments relating to CS071 & CS5125. We already have to pay large amounts of council tax and have no footpaths or adequate street lighting etc. With no infrastructure being put in place it would be a catastrophe, as the only doctor's in Great Wakering is already under extreme duress, since building took place at Star Lane. The schools are fit to burst and there is only one road in and one road out which is used as a rat run for the entire area now. Public Transport is virtually non existent in this area.

In response to Rochford District Councils Local Development Plan for 2017 to 2037, I whole heartedly object to the allocation of land, reference CFS024 Land North of Merryfields Avenue, Hockley, MAP G, 119. The justification for this objection are outlined below.

- This land is Metropolitan Green Belt and is there to protect the countryside from being developed. With the land being situated outside the existing settlement boundary it would further breakdown the rural town scape and expand the already overdeveloped area of Hockley.
- Local infrastructure, public amenities and educational facilities within Hockley are already over subscribed, with little thought given to the greater urban area of Rochford District Council when allocating this area of land. Thought should be given to identify areas of land which can provide much needed public facilities to accommodate the numerous housing developments within the Councils jurisdiction which have recently or are nearing completion.
- The area of land neighbours the Nature Reserve which is used by local residents and child for leisure and educational purposes. In developing this site it will be detrimental to wildlife inhabiting this site and the neighbouring Nature Reserve.
- Access to the site is severely restricted, with the need for large construction vehicles and equipment to be taken along quiet residential roads to enable the development. Once the potential development is complete, it will create a rat run of roads leading to numerous cul-de-sac, of which the new development will be due to the linear nature of the site.

I hope my concerns are listened to. Could you please confirm receipt to this email (I found it incredibly difficult to find the location to lodge my concerns on your website).

Please be advised that as the owner of 16 Barling Road I have some serious concerns regarding any possibility of building taking place on the fields to the North of my property.

Firstly any new buildings on this plot would be out of sync with the density of housing along Barling Road. There are parts of the road that have a property on only one side and in some stretches there are none on either side of the road. It therefore feels ridiculous to consider building behind properties along Barling road when the road itself has space for further properties.

Secondly I feel access to the plot would be extremely dangerous. Both possible entry points from the map would create blind spots on to country roads where significant traffic flow from a new development would likely cause a significant level of traffic incidents. This extra traffic would also make it a lot more dangerous for us as residents trying to leave our driveways.

Thirdly all views of the countryside would be decimated for all residents with properties to the North of Barling Road, changing the area significantly This is an area of Rochford that it not in a town and is simply a rural country road, with no local amenities except for the Rose Inn pub. Surely the logical place to build would be on the edge of a town where all local amenities are already situated and could take the stain of an extra development as well as have less of an impact on residents views.

Fourthly, Barling road would not be able to cope with all this extra traffic. Traffic is getting considerable worse in Rochford and Southend with recent properties being built and there being no extra infrastructure provided to cope with all the extra housing. It is now normal for it to take 30 minutes or more by car to get to Progress Road during the day and from there being able to access a significant and flowing main road.

In Summary this is simply a rural road, and not a plot on the edge of a town where if you wanted to build new homes it would make more sense. There are no amenities here, the roads are busy at the best of times. Building on this plot would be a disaster anyway, yet to do so when considering how many better local alternative plots there are would be ludicrous.

I am a Great Wakering resident and have grave concerns regarding the many proposed development sites in the village.

My concerns are as follows:
- Traffic/congestion on the 2 access roads serving the village are already extremely busy without the extra traffic that development would bring
- The only school in the village already being at maximum capacity
- Doctors surgery. At the moment the waiting time to see a GP is several days (my sister-in-law only this week had to wait 7 days to see a GP)
- Noise pollution
- Disruption to residents daily lives over the months and years of building work
- Destruction to the local wildlife
- Commuting time to work will increase
- My choice to reside in the village came about from wanting to raise my young family in an environment where we have open land around us and not a concrete jungle!!!!!!!!

Proposed development sites:
- CFS070
- CFS065
- CFS153
- EXP11
- GF02
- BFR1
- CFS115/SER9
- CFS060

Comments Form - heard about consultation via letter.

Objection
Section: All
Option: All
Paragraph: All



We object to any future development in the immediate area for following reasons:

* Metropolitan green belt land should remain untouched to protect the countryside and stop overdevelopment.

* The nature reserve should not be encroached upon by building all around it. The wildlife would not remain and be pushed out of its home.

* Flooding could be made worse. We live in Mount Avenue and heavy rain runs quickly down our turning and more houses could make it worse.

* This is a quiet estate with narrow roads and more houses inevitably would make all roads on estate busier. Lorries which would need to come down small roads would cause considerable noise and inconvenience to residents. One building site at bottom of turning ruining pavement and verges nearby.

I wish to register my objection to the new housing development planned for the site West of Little Wakering Road and South of Barrow Hall Lane. There has already been a significant new housing development built along Star Lane which although not yet complete is causing considerable traffic congestion on exit and entry to the village. Too much of the green belt land "buffer" around Wakering has been lost. The continuing expansion of Wakering will mean it will no longer be a village but a sprawling extension of Shoeburyness and Southend. I moved to Wakering over a decade ago because it was quiet and away from urban sprawl and high density living. From the plans it is clear that the only access to this new housing estate is via Barrow Hall Lane on to Little Wakering Road. Both of these roads are minor and will become busy and congested by the influx of hundreds of cars from the new estate. The local schools and medical centre are already significantly over subscribed. This situation can only get worse with the ever increasing population.

I am writing as part of Rochford District Council's public consultation in regard to the Issues and Options Document and the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) of the Rochford Local Plan (Interim SA Report).
NB: I have attached a copy of this email/letter as a Word document, should you need it.
I am particularly concerned about any housing developments that might be proposed in the Rochford, Ashingdon, Hawkwell and Hockley areas. These areas already have significant traffic congestion problems that would inevitably increase with any further building of new homes. It also seems that the Council is struggling to properly maintain the roads in these areas (I assume this is because of budgetary constraints). Furthermore, the GP practices in these areas are already oversubscribed and getting an appointment with a local GP is difficult enough and would be made more difficult with an expanding population. I believe that the schools that serve these areas are also fully subscribed.
Referring to Rochford District Council's - Strategic Housing and Employment Land Availability Assessment 2017 and it's Appendix B 'Find Your Site' and Area Maps I see that a large number of potential housing development sites within the Rochford, Ashingdon, Hawkwell and Hockley areas have been identified.
I object to any proposed developments in these areas based upon the problems identified above, particularly the SER8, CFS007, CFS013, CFS119, CFS129, CFS130, CFS131 (Map R) all east of Ashingdon Road, which would only exacerbate the current traffic congestion on the Ashingdon Road (where there have been a number of serious traffic accidents, some involving pedestrians and some fatal) and Bradley Way/Southend Road.
The additional traffic volume resulting from any further housing developments could result in total gridlock at busy times and would have a negative impact on residents' quality of life, local businesses ability to transport goods and receive deliveries and make the air quality even poorer than it already is. The extra strain on GP practices, schools etc. also cannot be ignored.
Similarly, the potential sites in Map I (CFS020 and CFS169 - South of Magnolia Road, CFS150, CFS093 - around Victor Gardens, CFS118, CFS036, CFS018, CFS132, CFS140 - around Rectory Road and Ironwell Lane) would result in the same problems and would eat up precious greenbelt land that currently provides a buffer between existing housing developments and is enjoyed by local residents walking on the many rural and semi-rural public footpaths.
I would also have the same concerns regarding traffic etc. from the sites identified around central Rochford on Map M, although I recognise that these sites are not as large as some of the other sites I have referred to.
Other sites in Map I (CFS02, CFS082, CFS081 - North of Hall Road opposite The Lawns) and Map J (CFS084) could also add to the problems noted above as well as making traffic congestion, air pollution etc. worse on the Southend Road towards Hawkwell and Hockley. The same would apply to CFS074 - North of Gusted Hall Lane and CFS045 - Belchamps.
I also note that the sites that I have referred to were in the Local Development Framework - Adopted 25 February 2014 - Allocations Plan, but were given different policy numbers as noted below.
Brownfield Residential Land Allocations (Page 17 onwards)
Policy BFR2 - Eldon Way/Foundry Industrial Estate, Hockley:
This would add to traffic congestion in Spa Road, Southend Road (B1013) and Aldermans Hill.
Policy BFR3 - Stambridge Mills, Rochford:
This would add to traffic congestion in Rochford Town Centre, Southend Road, Bradley Way and Ashingdon Road. This development also has flood risk problems.
Settlement Extension Residential Land Allocations (Page 35 onwards)
Policy SER2 - West Rochford/Policy SER3 - West Hockley/Policy SER4 - South Hawkwell/Policy SER5 - East Ashingdon/Policy SER7 - South Canewdon/Policy SER8 - South East Ashingdon:
The problems that I have laid out regarding the CFS sites also apply to these 'policies'.
Finally, I do recognise that RDC sometimes grants planning and development permissions based upon the provision of amenities by developers. However, I note that in the February 2014 Allocations Plan the already agreed and now being built SER2 of West Rochford (north of Hall Road development - 600 houses) the Allocation Plan states that there will be "New primary school with commensurate early years and childcare provision", yet I understand that this has now been dropped.
It also states that there will be "Local highway capacity and infrastructure improvements" but Bradley Way and Ashingdon Road will nevertheless get more congested due to the extra traffic created by the residents of this development as these roads cannot be widened to allow better traffic flow.
Please take into account the objections/issues that I have raised as part of your public consultation which runs until 5pm on 7th March 2018.

Comments: Hullbridge Parish Council agreed at the Full Council Meeting on Monday 12th February 2018 the following response regarding the Issues and Options Document:
Housing needs

An additional 7000+ dwellings would almost certainly be unsustainable without sever damage to the environment and character of the district. According to the Environmental Capacity Study 2015, only small scale expansion of existing settlements could be sustained. This might also rule out a new settlement although, because of the scale of the suggested housing need, that could well be the best option as it would likely include a new secondary school and employment opportunities.

As regards Hullbridge, further development, other than small infills within the main body of the village, would be unsustainable. Including the Malyons Farm development, which currently has outline planning permission and was described by RDC as providing a 'defensible greenbelt boundary', and numerous small developments, Hullbridge will have seen a 20%+ increase in dwellings since this stage of the current District Plan. As an example of those smaller developments, in Ferry Rd, North of Riverside School, 6 dwellings have been replaced by 40+. The village is over 5km from the nearest secondary school, railway station and shopping centre and, with only a single bus route, there is already a high level o traffic movement on local routes. This is compounded by through traffic to and from parts of the district further West. Even within the village, there is considerable traffic movement, particularly at the start and end of the school day.

It has been reported that some London councils have been bulk-buying properties on some of the large developments in the district. If this has happened, it is not natural migration and must be resisted in order to meet local need without overdevelopment.

Bungalows

There is a need to limit conversion/expansion in order to maintain supply. If new bungalows were designed with a low roof pitch this would prevent their conversion under permitted development rights and would also limit their visual impact, particularly on previously undeveloped land. It seems likely that many older homeowners, who wish to retain their independence but are looking to a future when they may become less active, would like to downsize to a small bungalow with a little garden rather than an apartment. Market versions of developments like Rydal Close and Mayfield Ave could well fill that need.

Houseboats

No live-aboard boats should be allowed outside existing marinas.

Tourism and Rural Diversification

Although tourism is welcomed, I am concerned that additional accommodation, businesses and tourist numbers could affect environmentally sensitive locations. Although dogs are required to be kept on leads in Hullbridge's Kendal Park Nature Reserve, there is no such restriction along the rest of the river bank where they can often be seen venturing onto the salt marsh and river bed, disturbing wildlife.

Highways Infrastructure

I would be opposed to highway changes or developments to the East which could encourage even more traffic on Lower Road. The previously-suggested Rochford Outer Bypass or a similar proposal would be equally unwelcome as it would increase pressure for development along its route, particularly where it linked to local routes. It would also, almost certainly, cross the Rayleigh Club golf course, making that use of the greenbelt between Hullbridge and Rayleigh no longer viable.

However they maybe potential to widen the A127 from 4 to 6 lanes from the M25 to as far east as the Bell without major impact of

I note that Lower Rd, East of Ferry Rd is shown as a bus route although there is no regular service except for school buses.

Education

It seems likely that the current secondary schools have little room for further expansion and is questionable whether there is a suitable location for a new one, other than possibly in a new large settlement.

In Hullbridge we have at least two pre-schools not one as in the document.

Greenbelt

The greenbelt to the East and West of Hullbridge village is important due to its proximity to the environmentally sensitive and protected River Crouch and that to the South is needed to prevent any merging with Rayleigh/Hockley. As previously stated, the currently-proposed Malyons Farm development was described by RDC as providing a 'defensible greenbelt boundary'.

Wallasea Island

Although this would seem to be a worthwhile project there have been comments from more than one source, that this has increased flow rates and erosion upstream on both the Crouch and Roach.

Outbuildings

Their use as living accommodation should only be allowed if they were originally built and used for another legitimate purpose and must remain ancillary to the main home and not allowed in greenbelt.

Hullbridge Sewage Plant

We do not think it will have the capacity to be able to cope with the proposed Malyons Farm Development let alone any other additional dwellings in the village or neighbouring Parishes.

Air Quality

Rayleigh Town was recorded as the highest for poor air quality, further developments will have impact and will intensity the situation.

Employment Land

We welcome land being used for Employment including Retail/Shops in the District.

Hospitals/Health Centres

Our local Hospitals and Health Centres would not be able to support people from any additional large scale development without considerable investment.

Traveller Sites

We would like the Michelin Farm Site to be developed as a proper site for Travellers.

I would like to formally object to the proposed building consultation for the land behind Merryfields avenue, hockley. There are several reasons why this planning should not go ahead. Firstly, we have frequent flooding in the garage of our property at no.20 Merryfields Avenue whenever there is heavy or sudden rainfall. At the moment, the rain drains down the garden into a rover/ditch in the land behind our property. If this is built on, I am sure this will worsen the flooding damage.

Secondly, the area is an important nature reserve. There are a multitude of bird species living in the wooded area, along with a family of badgers and a fox set. These habitats would all be destroyed by building works.

Lastly, my concern is regarding the roads and infrastructure. Merryfields avenue and Maryland's avenue are already fairly busy roads with lots of cars parked on the road. Accessibility to a building site would be very difficult and new housing would put a strain on traffic. The possible number of new houses would also put a train in local amenities such as schools and doctors which are already over subscribed.

I really do believe that this proposal would have a severely negative impact on not only local residents and wildlife, but also Rochford council who would have to pay for increased infrastructure.

I write to oppose the latest proposal of development in Hullbridge.
The highways are already overstretched and the infrastructure is not sufficient to cope with an increase in population and vehicles.
Any closure to Watery Lane already brings the traffic to a halt,

Many areas already flood due to the bad drainage systems, any further development will only Make the situation worse?.

Much of the land around Hullbridge is green belt which proved very popular when we purchased properties here over the past 25 years. If the development proceeds how does the developer or council propose to compensate existing occupants with the devaluation of there properties?.
To think the council can decide to develop this land is unacceptable.

Have you considered impact on the wildlife, there will eventually be nowhere for there habitat, and there numbers will decline, or is this just money driven with no consideration of the consequences?.

I can promise I will do everything in my power to ensure this unacceptable proposal is unsuccessful .

Il look forward tip your prompt response

I wish to object and/or comment on the following Strategic Priorities in the IAO document:

SP1:1. Homes and jobs needed in the area: the IAO document talks about 'prioritising the use of previously developed land i.e brownfield first'. However, there are already 500 new houses to be built in Hullbridge on previously undeveloped land so this priority has not been adhered to in this instance.

SP2:8 IAO refers to 'support continued use and sustainability of our village and neighbourhood centres'. How can we sustain the centre of Hullbridge when it will be put under immense pressure with the advent of 500 additional properties and therefore approximately 1,000 extra vehicles? The proposed dwellings in addition to the 500 would make the village situation untenable. Indeed, it would no longer be a village but a town. We want Hullbridge to remain a village.

SP3:9 IAO talks of ensuring 'that all new homes...are supported by appropriate, timely and necessary infrastructure including transport, utilities, .....flood risk, education, health etc. Where is the infrastructure that is talked about here? Hullbridge has no planned or prior infrastructure to support new homes.

SP3:10. IAO says there will be 'meaningful improvements to the local highway network'. Where are these improvements to be found to support the village of Hullbridge?

SP3:11. IAO talks of 'reducing out-commuting' but how is this possible for a village like Hullbridge which has little or no industry meaning that most residents have to travel by car to other larger towns for work? How can we deliver realistic and meaningful travel options for our communities like Hullbridge over the next 20 years?

SP3:13 How do we address water and flood risk management especially in our river and coastal regions? There remains flood risk on Watery Lane and environs despite intervention.

SP4: 14 IAO talks of 'access to good quality social and health and well-being services' but there is only one gp surgery in Hullbridge so how will this cope with the influx of people from 500 new houses, let alone any further proposed houses? Well-being is emphasised throughout the IAO document but there is such a long wait for counselling that I have had to pay privately to attend sessions.

SP5: 19 IAO speaks of the need 'to protect, maintain and enhance our natural environment... support wildlife'. However, hedges and trees have already been cut down along the approach to Hullbridge in readiness for building houses and these fields are home to an abundance of wildlife including foxes, squirrels, birds etc Where will these wild creatures go for their habitat?

SP5 20: IAO speaks of ensuring 'Green Belt retains openness of area, protecting valued landscapes, retaining physical separation between towns and villages'. In Hullbridge, we value our openness of area and have highly valued landscapes, particularly to the SW of the village which are in danger of being destroyed by building. Any further building will result in there being no separation between village and towns, just a merging of dwellings and a destruction of individual characteristics of place. How do we protect our beautiful natural habitats and meet the five Green Belt purposes?

SP5 22: the South Essex SHMA and The Environmental Capacity Study' are 'uncertain that the district has the capacity to accommodate the level of growth ' needed i.e 240 pus homes a year to 2025 and beyond.

Other points I wish to make are:

The Core Strategy has 'recognised congestion and capacity issues' in terms of traffic and that these 'could have a detrimental affect on environment and health' in the local area. It has been found that there is a 'lack of resilience on the local highway network with large volumes of traffic queuing at key junctions and stationery vehicles along main routes'. This has a negative impact on journey times and ability of residents to not only reach their destinations in a timely manner but also to leave their village or town. The residents of Hullbridge have expressed concern about being able to exit the village and on a number of occasions there has been gridlock meaning that I have been unable to get to work at all. The traffic issues are very stressful and would only become worse with additional homes and vehicles in the area. The Essex County Council's Sustainable Modes of Travel Strategy 2016 require residential travel plans for schemes of 250 plus new houses. Where can these be found? How can traffic management be improved?

On page 121 of the IAO document, reference is made to national policy where 'planning should minimise vulnerability and provide resilience to impacts of climate change, flood risk, landscape etc The River Crouch is recognised for its wildlife and natural habitats and must retain its open rural character. The Ramsar Convention is just one directive in place to protect wildlife.
On page 131 the Essex Wildlfe Trust identify the River Crouch as 'living landscape' and it would be criminal to destroy such landscape. Land to the SW of Hullbridge is designated Coastal Protection Belt and therefore not available/ suitable for building upon. We are urged to 'protect and enhance our distinctive landscapes and plan for biodiversity', not cover them with concrete.
We are proud of our green landscape and wish to preserve it.
Pages 140 and 163 mention air quality and light pollution. How can these be managed now and in the future? Air quality is already very poor in some areas and would worsen if more houses and vehicles were introduced into an already densely populated area. This could affect health and well-being of residents, particularly the young and elderly.
Light pollution has a negative effect on ecology and wildlife, obscures vision of the stars, spoils the rural fell of the area and causes stress and anxiety.

All these concerns and more I am registering here. As a resident of Hullbridge, I am proud to live in a village and moved here to dwell in a village. I wish Hullbridge to remain a village and retain its unique character.

I wish to object and/or comment on the following Strategic Priorities in the IAO document:

SP1:1. Homes and jobs needed in the area: the IAO document talks about 'prioritising the use of previously developed land i.e brownfield first'. However, there are already 500 new houses to be built in Hullbridge on previously undeveloped land so this priority has not been adhered to in this instance.

SP2:8 IAO refers to 'support continued use and sustainability of our village and neighbourhood centres'. How can we sustain the centre of Hullbridge when it will be put under immense pressure with the advent of 500 additional properties and therefore approximately 1,000 extra vehicles? The proposed dwellings in addition to the 500 would make the village situation untenable. Indeed, it would no longer be a village but a town. We want Hullbridge to remain a village.

SP3:9 IAO talks of ensuring 'that all new homes...are supported by appropriate, timely and necessary infrastructure including transport, utilities, .....flood risk, education, health etc. Where is the infrastructure that is talked about here? Hullbridge has no planned or prior infrastructure to support new homes.

SP3:10. IAO says there will be 'meaningful improvements to the local highway network'. Where are these improvements to be found to support the village of Hullbridge?

SP3:11. IAO talks of 'reducing out-commuting' but how is this possible for a village like Hullbridge which has little or no industry meaning that most residents have to travel by car to other larger towns for work? How can we deliver realistic and meaningful travel options for our communities like Hullbridge over the next 20 years?

SP3:13 How do we address water and flood risk management especially in our river and coastal regions? There remains flood risk on Watery Lane and environs despite intervention.

SP4: 14 IAO talks of 'access to good quality social and health and well-being services' but there is only one gp surgery in Hullbridge so how will this cope with the influx of people from 500 new houses, let alone any further proposed houses? Well-being is emphasised throughout the IAO document but there is such a long wait for counselling that I have had to pay privately to attend sessions.

SP5: 19 IAO speaks of the need 'to protect, maintain and enhance our natural environment... support wildlife'. However, hedges and trees have already been cut down along the approach to Hullbridge in readiness for building houses and these fields are home to an abundance of wildlife including foxes, squirrels, birds etc Where will these wild creatures go for their habitat?

SP5 20: IAO speaks of ensuring 'Green Belt retains openness of area, protecting valued landscapes, retaining physical separation between towns and villages'. In Hullbridge, we value our openness of area and have highly valued landscapes, particularly to the SW of the village which are in danger of being destroyed by building. Any further building will result in there being no separation between village and towns, just a merging of dwellings and a destruction of individual characteristics of place. How do we protect our beautiful natural habitats and meet the five Green Belt purposes?

SP5 22: the South Essex SHMA and The Environmental Capacity Study' are 'uncertain that the district has the capacity to accommodate the level of growth ' needed i.e 240 pus homes a year to 2025 and beyond.

Other points I wish to make are:

The Core Strategy has 'recognised congestion and capacity issues' in terms of traffic and that these 'could have a detrimental affect on environment and health' in the local area. It has been found that there is a 'lack of resilience on the local highway network with large volumes of traffic queuing at key junctions and stationery vehicles along main routes'. This has a negative impact on journey times and ability of residents to not only reach their destinations in a timely manner but also to leave their village or town. The residents of Hullbridge have expressed concern about being able to exit the village and on a number of occasions there has been gridlock meaning that I have been unable to get to work at all. The traffic issues are very stressful and would only become worse with additional homes and vehicles in the area. The Essex County Council's Sustainable Modes of Travel Strategy 2016 require residential travel plans for schemes of 250 plus new houses. Where can these be found? How can traffic management be improved?

On page 121 of the IAO document, reference is made to national policy where 'planning should minimise vulnerability and provide resilience to impacts of climate change, flood risk, landscape etc The River Crouch is recognised for its wildlife and natural habitats and must retain its open rural character. The Ramsar Convention is just one directive in place to protect wildlife.
On page 131 the Essex Wildlfe Trust identify the River Crouch as 'living landscape' and it would be criminal to destroy such landscape. Land to the SW of Hullbridge is designated Coastal Protection Belt and therefore not available/ suitable for building upon. We are urged to 'protect and enhance our distinctive landscapes and plan for biodiversity', not cover them with concrete.
We are proud of our green landscape and wish to preserve it.
Pages 140 and 163 mention air quality and light pollution. How can these be managed now and in the future? Air quality is already very poor in some areas and would worsen if more houses and vehicles were introduced into an already densely populated area. This could affect health and well-being of residents, particularly the young and elderly.
Light pollution has a negative effect on ecology and wildlife, obscures vision of the stars, spoils the rural fell of the area and causes stress and anxiety.

All these concerns and more I am registering here. As a resident of Hullbridge, I am proud to live in a village and moved here to dwell in a village. I wish Hullbridge to remain a village and retain its unique character.