Highways Infrastructure

I would like to make the following comments on the local plan:
1. The Plan does adequately describe how infrastructure and employment opportunities will be increased to meet the demands of an enlarged population.
2. The scale of the land areas identified for development in the Hullbridge area are excessively large in comparison to the existing development 3. The road network serving Hullbridge is barely adequate for its current size and will be put under further strain by the coming development adjacent to the Hullbridge Road. It would not be able to cope with any more large developments.
4. The site CFS099 is a potential flood area. If the sea wall was raised here to allow for development it would increase flooding risk in existing developed areas further down the river.

Unfortunately, I was unable to attend the consultation meeting in Great Wakering recently and have only just learned of the online access to the Issues and Options Document. I offer my comments below:

The variety of housing stock must be of quality standard and must include affordable housing catering for first time buyers and a range of income and age levels.

Local employment opportunities should be encouraged to save travel time and costs.

Wakering is not served by a nearby rail station, and the bus service to surrounding areas is not adequate, particularly into the evening. Entrance roads to the village are single-carriageway, mostly unlit, and some are prone to flooding due to poor drainage and uncleared ditches. The nearest station is Shoeburyness and no continuous footpath is provided from Wakering to the station. Given additional housing development, car usage is likely to increase further, resulting in additional road congestion, pollution, and parking needs. The roads are potholed and poorly maintained, 'patched up' instead of a thorough rebuild for longer term sustainability.

Capacity at doctors' surgeries (including parking), schools and for telecommunications/broadband is already stretched and sufficient additional capacity must be provided before any new residential development is occupied, funded in part at least by the developers. Depending on pupil numbers, this may mean a (new or extended) larger primary school for Wakering, and possibly a new senior school in Wakering, as King Edmund School in Rochford would no longer meet solely the increased demands of the combined Rochford and Wakering senior school catchment area. Bus transport to/from (whichever) senior school would also be impacted, together with a suitable pick-up / drop-off system.

Sufficient extra provision should also be made in time for occupancy in respect of increased sewerage, drainage, and water and power supplies.

Given the current trend for narrow congested roads on new tightly-packed housing developments to maximise developers' profits, consideration must be given in planning for safe access for emergency and services vehicles and machinery, and delivery vehicles, as well as adequate residents' and visitors' parking facilities.

The Green Belt must be protected, and our green space, footpath access, historic and wildlife environments must be preserved to provide healthy leisure and recreational facilities and benefits, and to help sustain those environments for future generations to still enjoy. Relevant advice must be sought, and acted upon, from local and other wildlife and historical organisations in planning, improving and implementing such facilities, not overriding such concerns to the detriment of the community, our local (including examples of rare) wildlife and historical artefacts. Also, consider reopening and refurbishing former Wakering Sports Centre for recreation and sports facilities? (closed previously when under private ownership). There are few leisure/recreational facilities for teenagers within Wakering, and the limited bus services restrict their involvement further afield.

However well-intentioned the Rochford District New Local Plan, it is difficult to envisage how these competing demands can be sufficiently funded, resourced, and satisfactorily implemented for the benefit of the community, given central and local government pressures, and the commercial needs of the developers.

Overall, I would object to the plan unless the various infrastructure etc needs and improvements are put in place prior to development, and to a level commensurate with the scale of development eventually approved. Also developments south of Poynters Lane would result in Shoebury effectively joining up with Wakering, resulting in Wakering losing its attractive and historic village identity.

May I first say that I have tried to use the website to leave this feedback but found the site too complicated for an average user to navigate and therefore contribute to this consultation, this has led me to leave this e-mail of which I hope you read and include. My name is Alan Pomroy and I reside at *redacted*
I am, as a resident, very frustrated with the policy of repeated development of the area that I live in and the surrounding towns that I travel through for work and social reasons. The south east of Essex has such a dense population of people due to employment opportunities that the infrastructure cannot cope at this time let alone with the future population growth that would occur with the proposed developments. In brief the points that deeply concern me are:
* Traffic issues. The main roads cannot cope with the current volumes of traffic without the increase due to development. This is so much in evidence that the introduction of tolls along the A127 to try and alleviate the congestion are being considered. Local pollution levels are on the increase due to the industrial demand and the road traffic issues causing health concerns.
* Water demands in the area. Hanningfield reservoir is a popular fishing resort I frequent. During the summer months and especially toward the end of summer the reservoir is regularly depleted of its resources thus causing the necessity to drain local rivers to supplement the demand. An increase in demand is simply not sustainable.
* Education. The schooling in the local area is insufficient at all levels if development continues. At primary level the local school has a 2 form entry that simply cannot cope. There is nothing on option locally for secondary school education other than to travel to surrounding schools placing demand on transport resources and the local population to those schools. Shortage of placements will impact on all adjacent areas and children will not necessarily gain their desired or nearest place of education. Schools are therefore regularly closed for extended periods during winter months due to adverse weather as the risks of travelling to these schools fails any risk assessments made thus leading to lost time in education.
* Health issues. The local doctors surgeries are already at capacity. Getting an appointment is almost an impossible task leading to people to attend the A & E at Southend hospital. A hospital already overloaded with demand and also a hospital that has exceeded its budget regularly and has been scrutinised for closure/partial closure to redeploy to other medical sites. This would be devastating for the area as it stands without further development. The demands on Southend Hospital are already too great and further demand on this institution should be unthinkable.
* Great Wakering is/was a village of which all local infrastructure and amenities represent. Due to constant demand for development the village is/has lost its identity as a village but these amenities and infrastructure has not changed. Great Wakering cannot take further development. The main high street consists of a number of listed buildings meaning updates/development of the road is impossible. The High street is barely passable at times for busses let alone this increase in local traffic. The surrounding areas suggested for development are based on flood risk sites, areas containing natural resources or areas of conservation.
* Recycling centres. The areas waste production is already out of control with increased demand to establish new local landfill sites ( another demand nobody wants on their doorstep ). Great Wakering recycling centre is miles away at Rayleigh although Southend is SO much closer. I am led to believe that plans are being considered to relocate this recycling centre even further from these local residents. This could lead to an increase in fly tipping or attempts to use the more local centre of Southend adding to their issues.
* Crime and policing. With an increase in population an increase in policing demands would naturally be required. This would impact on an already stretched law enforcement institution.
Taking all the above in account and the responsibilities we have to maintain the green and great British land I believe that this proposal should be rejected in all counts. I respect the need for increased housing that would align with an improvement for all amenities and local infrastructure but I strongly believe that there is enough evidence already to show and prove that the area cannot cope with the proposed increase in housing and therefore population.

To whom it may concern:

I am a Rayleigh resident and have lived in the area for 15 years. I now have a young family and have many concerns regarding the development of the area. I wish to say at this point I actually have no objection to new homes being built as I believe it is very important for people to have access to affordable housing. One of the proposed developments is adjacent to my own property and I will not be objecting to those homes being built ONCE FURTHER INFRASTRUCTURE IS IN PLACE.

As I live just off London Road, Rayleigh, I experience the large volumes of traffic on a daily basis.

I walk my daughter to school which is nearly 1 mile away. Myself and both my children are exposed to large amounts of pollution during this journey which seriously concerns me. I refuse to drive the journey as I will not contribute further to this and I want to teach my children healthy habits.

We have to cross London Road at some point during our journey. Should I chose to cross at the end of my road there are no viable crossing points. Some days I just give up altogether due to the volume of traffic. I can sometimes stand waiting with my children while 20 or 30 cars pass by on one side and I usually rely on a kind motorist waving us across. The two alternatives are either taking a very narrow path up to the nearest crossing point. This is also where the road narrows and where coaches and lorries pass down here they can get very close to the pavement. I do not chose this option. The other option I have is going a back route which adds a good 5 minutes to my journey.

Another issue I have with this road is the only access I have to public transport is by crossing London Road where there are no crossing points. I sometimes chose to take the bus to/from the town rather than drive. This is more expensive than parking and also I worry about crossing London Road with my children - why should I bother when it is easier, safer and cheaper to drive?

Finally on this point, my childminder lives the other side of London Road to me. When I have to collect my children in the evenings I drive a journey that would take me 2 minutes to walk as during the evening it is just to treacherous to cross the road due to the volume of traffic. To cross at a proper crossing would be a 15 minute walk each way with my children when it is late and they are tired.

Although the road is posted as a 30 mph limit the speeds of vehicles vary dramatically, making it harder to assess when trying to cross. There needs to be some serious consideration to speed control measures, better signage as you enter Rayleigh and without a doubt there needs to be some form of crossing at the bottom end of London Road. This road was historically a 40mph road and there were no houses past Pearsons Farm as you leave Rayleigh on the North side of London Road. This has changed dramatically over the last few years and the infrastructure needs to catch up before more homes are put in. I would love to see one or two crossings or at the very least a crossing point (an island in the middle) down the bottom end of London Road.

I will also add in relation to the congestion on London Road that I regularly cycle down the road - in the dark I always use lights on my bike. Most drivers are considerate of cyclists. Despite this I have had many close calls where motorists have passed too close. When I come to turn into my road, often the traffic is so heavy I wait to turn and have to rely on someone letting me through.

I feel really strongly that we should be encouraging cycling in the town. It is pretty poor for cyclists in so many ways. I do not know all the answers but surely some cycle lanes would be good start. I do not know that we have any at all in Rayleigh?

As far as I can see any further development in the area would have a huge detrimental affect to a town that already has serious traffic issues. I love the town, the people, and I would like to remain living here. I have such serious concerns about the pollution levels and volume of traffic that I would seriously consider moving away from the area as I do not think it is right to subject the existing (and future) residents of Rayleigh to this.

Kind regards,

Eleanor Carmichael

To whom it may concern:

I am a Rayleigh resident and have lived in the area for 15 years. I now have a young family and have many concerns regarding the development of the area. I wish to say at this point I actually have no objection to new homes being built as I believe it is very important for people to have access to affordable housing. One of the proposed developments is adjacent to my own property and I will not be objecting to those homes being built ONCE FURTHER INFRASTRUCTURE IS IN PLACE.

As I live just off London Road, Rayleigh, I experience the large volumes of traffic on a daily basis.

I walk my daughter to school which is nearly 1 mile away. Myself and both my children are exposed to large amounts of pollution during this journey which seriously concerns me. I refuse to drive the journey as I will not contribute further to this and I want to teach my children healthy habits.

We have to cross London Road at some point during our journey. Should I chose to cross at the end of my road there are no viable crossing points. Some days I just give up altogether due to the volume of traffic. I can sometimes stand waiting with my children while 20 or 30 cars pass by on one side and I usually rely on a kind motorist waving us across. The two alternatives are either taking a very narrow path up to the nearest crossing point. This is also where the road narrows and where coaches and lorries pass down here they can get very close to the pavement. I do not chose this option. The other option I have is going a back route which adds a good 5 minutes to my journey.

Another issue I have with this road is the only access I have to public transport is by crossing London Road where there are no crossing points. I sometimes chose to take the bus to/from the town rather than drive. This is more expensive than parking and also I worry about crossing London Road with my children - why should I bother when it is easier, safer and cheaper to drive?

Finally on this point, my childminder lives the other side of London Road to me. When I have to collect my children in the evenings I drive a journey that would take me 2 minutes to walk as during the evening it is just to treacherous to cross the road due to the volume of traffic. To cross at a proper crossing would be a 15 minute walk each way with my children when it is late and they are tired.

Although the road is posted as a 30 mph limit the speeds of vehicles vary dramatically, making it harder to assess when trying to cross. There needs to be some serious consideration to speed control measures, better signage as you enter Rayleigh and without a doubt there needs to be some form of crossing at the bottom end of London Road. This road was historically a 40mph road and there were no houses past Pearsons Farm as you leave Rayleigh on the North side of London Road. This has changed dramatically over the last few years and the infrastructure needs to catch up before more homes are put in. I would love to see one or two crossings or at the very least a crossing point (an island in the middle) down the bottom end of London Road.

I will also add in relation to the congestion on London Road that I regularly cycle down the road - in the dark I always use lights on my bike. Most drivers are considerate of cyclists. Despite this I have had many close calls where motorists have passed too close. When I come to turn into my road, often the traffic is so heavy I wait to turn and have to rely on someone letting me through.

I feel really strongly that we should be encouraging cycling in the town. It is pretty poor for cyclists in so many ways. I do not know all the answers but surely some cycle lanes would be good start. I do not know that we have any at all in Rayleigh?

As far as I can see any further development in the area would have a huge detrimental affect to a town that already has serious traffic issues. I love the town, the people, and I would like to remain living here. I have such serious concerns about the pollution levels and volume of traffic that I would seriously consider moving away from the area as I do not think it is right to subject the existing (and future) residents of Rayleigh to this.

Kind regards,

Eleanor Carmichael

Are there plans to expand the Health Centre in Wakering to facilitate the extra people?
Are there plans to accommodate and educate the extra school age children in Wakering?
What plans are there to build in Rochford?
Is anything going to be done about the entrance to the site south of the High Street just about opposite the Health Centre? The approach is a quagmire and mud and stones spill out on to the pathway, where mothers and children walk every day to get to school.
People have to live somewhere but they also need a supporting infrastructure. So far I am not convinced any thought has been put into this.
I have raised these concerns on the Taylor Wimpey site (as suggested by them) but surprise surprise had no response. I do not understand why organisations ask for opinions then ignore them!

to whomever it may concern.

i am objecting to the new local plan, due to in part, to the following reasons

INFRASTRUCTURE; roads are already congested enough, on top of any accidents on the main roads, resulting in the road network grinding to a halt. watery lane, based on inspectors report, needs to be improved prior to any development, in fact all local roads need improvement.

GREENBELT; greenbelt is there for a reason! coastal protection or flood planes....there has been an increase in local flooding, due to flood planes being built on!

SCHOOLS; local children from hullbridge are having to travel to castle point schools due to over subscription. my 2 year old very possibly wont get into our catchment school. not good enough...this is our future. how can i expect to get my child to school over 5 miles away, on time, when the infrastructure doesnt allow. and why should he have to live 5+ miles away from any friends.

LOCAL SERVICES; our doctors surgery is always full, often a 2-3 week wait for an appointment. the only buses into the village is the number 20...and this is the first service to be withdrawn when there is staff shortage/snow/any other reason!

i hope my and my husbands views are seriously taken into consideration

Thank you for inviting Basildon Borough Council to provide comments as part of Rochford District Council's consultation on its Regulation 18 New Local Plan Issues and Options Document and Draft Sustainability Appraisal (SA) of the Rochford Local Plan 2017. Please accept this letter as the response of Basildon Borough Council to the consultation.

Rochford District Council is in the first stages of consultation on the review of their current Local Development Plan, to ensure that the policies are robust, effective and up-to-date, in accordance with the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
Basildon Borough Council acknowledges that this is the first stage of consultation on the new Local Plan for Rochford, and that a number of issues and options are being considered. It is acknowledged that the Local Plan consultation document does not identify specific sites, and that more detailed planning policies will evolve as each consultation stage on the new Local Plan progresses. In view of this, Basildon Borough Council has considered the consultation documentation, its role as a neighbouring planning authority, and strategic and cross boundary matters which are covered by the Duty to Cooperate, and wishes to make a series of observations which Rochford should take into consideration when it prepares the draft version of its Local Plan.

SP1.1: Objectively Assessed Need (OAN)

Consideration has been given to the approach Rochford District Council has taken in determining its OAN for housing. It is clear from the evidence that the need identified within the Rochford District Issues and Options Report reflects more up-to-date national household projections, as required by the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG), taking into account matters such as economic growth and the need for affordable housing, and is informed by an up-to-date SHMA. A robust approach has been taken in considering the housing need within Rochford district, and no objection is being raised as to how the OAN figure has been calculated.
In relation to meeting its OAN, Rochford District Council is seeking to provide as much of the district's housing within the area, as far as possible, against the identified need, and given environmental and other constraints. Rochford District has also highlighted a commitment to work with neighbouring Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) to ensure that the housing need across the South Essex Housing Market Area is effectively met. In view of this, Basildon Council supports Rochford Council's intention to meeting its own needs, and to work effectively with neighbours to ensure that the need for housing in the South Essex Housing Market Area is collectively addressed. Basildon Borough Council will continue to support more effective joint working with Rochford as their new Local Plan emerges, in line with the Duty to Co-operate.
The aspiration to provide Rochford District residents with the opportunity to access a
percentage of new market homes on schemes as a priority is also noted. Basildon
Borough Council will recommend that any supporting policy requirement in relation to meeting the housing needs of residents should be backed with reasonable justification and evidence, in line with national policy and guidance.
Finally, attention is drawn to the emerging Basildon Borough Local Plan. Since the
Basildon Borough Draft Local Plan consultation in 2016, significant matters of principle in relation to the Basildon Local Plan have been considered and resolved. As a consequence, Basildon Council through several decision making processes, has taken the position that some changes should be made to either the Local Plan, or the process of preparing the Local Plan, in order to ensure it is sound. One of these changes arises from the fact that the suite of sites identified for inclusion in the Basildon Borough Local Plan does not meet the identified need for housing of between 19,440 and 19,720 homes. This gives rise to an unmet housing need, which when delivery issues are taken into account is around 4,000 homes for the plan period up to 2034. Following Basildon Borough Council's Infrastructure Growth and Development (IGD) Committee Meeting on the 16 January 2018, and in order to ensure that the Basildon Borough Local Plan is sound in regard to this matter, it has been recommended that assistance is formally sought from other LPAs in the Housing Market Area, to help Basildon Borough to meet its unmet housing need.
Basildon Borough Council therefore formally requests that Rochford District Council
considers whether they can assist in meeting some of Basildon Borough's unmet need in the Rochford District Local Plan.

SP1.5: Gypsy, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople

A need for 15 Gypsy and Traveller pitches up to 2018 was identified in the Rochford
District Core Strategy 2011. The Issues and Options Report however recognises the
recent changes made to legislation relating to Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling
Showpeople. Following the change in definition of Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling
Showpeople, a further Essex-wide Gypsy and Traveller and Travelling Showpeople
Accommodation Assessment (G&T and TS AA) was commissioned to understand the
implications for plan-making. A need for Gypsy and Traveller pitches was identified, but there was no need for Travelling Showpeople plots. The assessed need for Gypsy and Traveller pitches in Rochford District up to 2033 within the emerging G&T and TS AA 2017 for Rochford District could however still be met through the 15 pitch site allocated in the current Allocations Plan Policy GT1. This means that Rochford District can demonstrate a land supply up to 2033 (including a five year supply) for all Gypsy and Traveller households within the district, regardless of whether they meet the 2015 Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (PPTS) definition or not. Basildon Borough Council supports the approach Rochford District are taking in ensuring that their evidence base is up-to-date.

However, while the G&T and TS AA establishes a need for the plan period of 2013-2033, Rochford District's new Local Plan looks forward to 2037. It is therefore unclear how the Gypsy and Traveller needs for Rochford District will be met in the remainder of the plan period (2033-2037), and further evidence of this should be provided. Rochford District Council should carry out further work to re-assess the Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople needs up to 2037, and should the need for pitches change in light of this, Rochford District Council should seek to update the Rochford Local Plan accordingly to continue to meet their full objectively assessed needs for Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople.

There is also a concern that no acknowledgement has been made of the fact that there may be unmet needs arising from Greater Essex authorities for the provision of accommodation for Gypsies, Travellers & Travelling Showpeople within the Rochford Issues and Options Report, which is considered to be a shortcoming. Basildon Borough Council has agreed to work with Chelmsford City Council, Harlow District Council and Colchester Borough Council on behalf of the Essex Planning Officer's Association to develop a protocol for unmet Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople need, should this situation arise in any local planning authority in Greater Essex. It is envisaged that this work will be carried out in 2018. Rochford District Council should therefore recognise and support the principle of this approach going forward, to ensure that there will be a technical approach in place to support any neighbouring authorities with any potential unmet Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople need in the future. This is to ensure that a fair process is applied throughout Essex, and ensures compliance with the Duty to Cooperate.

SP3.1: Highways Infrastructure

The Rochford Issues and Options Report sets out different options for managing traffic in and around Rochford District. The report recognises that the A127 has known capacity and congestion issues. Consequently, Rochford Council has proposed to work with Essex County Council and Southend-on-Sea Borough Council, to develop a transport model for South Essex, which will cover the length of the A127. Basildon Borough Council supports this approach. Rochford Council's commitment within paragraph 8.18, to continue to work with neighbouring local authorities and the Highway Authority to promote strategic and more localised improvements to the highway network is also noted. This initiative is supported by Basildon Council. In particular, reference was made within paragraph 8.18, to the potential for a new link road from the A127 at Pound Lane/Cranfield Park Road to link to the A130 in Rochford District.

It should be noted that the proposed grade separated junction on the A127 at Pound
Lane, with the new link road to the A130 was identified within the Policy TS2 of the
Basildon Borough Draft Local Plan 2016 as part of the provision for new and improved transport infrastructure, essential to mitigate the impact of future housing and economic growth in Basildon Borough. It is expected that this junction will serve the development proposed at East Basildon and South Wickford, improve access to the A127 enterprise corridor, reduce pressure at the A132 Nevendon Interchange and Fairglen Interchange, as well as freeing up capacity for local traffic. This junction will therefore provide significant benefits for both the strategic and local road network. However, this proposal is substantially more expensive at around £130m, and raises issues around development viability.

The proposed improvement to highway infrastructure will therefore require support and funding from neighbouring authorities, to supplement developer contributions from the Department for Transport and South East Local Enterprise Partnership. As Rochford District communities could potentially benefit from the provision of the proposed grade separated junction on the A127 at Pound Lane, with the new link road to the A130, Basildon Borough Council formally requests that Rochford District Council should account for part funding of this junction within the new Local Plan for Rochford. As part of the transport modelling to support the Rochford Local Plan, and also within the Rochford Local Plan itself, Rochford District Council needs to also consider its relationships with neighbouring authorities when allocating growth locations. Basildon Borough is most likely to be affected if growth is concentrated to the west. It is therefore important that Rochford District Council ensures collaborative engagement and continual working between local planning authorities, with the highway authority, and with transport providers to ensure that strategic transport links are capable of accommodating the additional transport pressures that are likely to arise as a result of future population growth, particularly to the west of the Rochford District area.

SP3.2: Sustainable Travel

The main road linking Basildon Borough with Rochford District is the A127, which is well documented to experience capacity challenges, particularly in peak periods. Rochford District Council should ensure that new development have accessible services, and enables people to reduce the need to travel by private car, as much as possible, particularly as the district experiences high levels of car ownership and high levels of outcommuting. In addition, the South Essex Economic Development Needs Assessment (EDNA) 2017 identifies the A127 Enterprise Corridor as an important employment location in South Essex. The role of this corridor will be retained and grown, with the aim of attracting new investors to the corridor. Enhanced public transport connectivity between towns in Rochford District and this employment area in Basildon Borough should therefore be sought by Rochford District as part of the strategy for improving sustainable travel choices across the District and into South Essex.

SP4.3: Open Space and Outdoor Sports and Recreation

Basildon Council welcomes the opportunity to work with Rochford District Council and other neighbouring authorities in South Essex, to prepare more strategic level evidence of needs across the sub-region for open space, sports and recreation, in line with national policy, and to identify ways to improve connectivity between green spaces through the provision of green corridors.

Duty to Co-Operate

In order for the Rochford District Local Plan to be found procedurally sound, it will need to take account of a broader range of issues and opportunities affecting neighbouring areas and the wider region, considering and addressing strategic cross-boundary issues.
Attention is drawn to the joint-working that is underway in South Essex, which aims to deliver a more coordinated planning, regeneration and investment agenda to benefit the combined local communities. It is expected that the development of a Joint Strategic
Planning and Infrastructure Framework (SPIF) would set the strategic growth objectives for South Essex and provide the "effective mechanism" required to determine how unmet development needs from individual local authority areas would be met.
Building on this foundation, it is also relevant to mention the South Essex 2050 which is a unified long-term place vision for the South Essex area, with the addition of Brentwood Borough Council. This work, due to conclude in early 2018, is expected to determine how the work on the Joint SPIF and its inter-relationships to South Essex Local Plans will be prepared and managed in the future, and could accelerate the conditions needed to deliver the shared housing & job ambitions, enabled by significant improvements to transport & other infrastructure.
This shared support demonstrates that LPAs across the region have been engaging
constructively and actively, to maximise the effectiveness of Local Plan preparation in the context of strategic cross-boundary matters, and contribute to fulfilling the requirement for Local Planning Authorities to work together under the "Duty to Co-operate", as set out in the Localism Act 2011.
Basildon Borough Council is satisfied with the degree of engagement with regard to the Rochford District New Local Plan, and welcomes the opportunity to continue to work with Rochford District Council and other neighbouring authorities in the region on the content of the new Local Plan and its approach to strategic, cross-boundary matters such as housing growth, employment growth, and infrastructure provision through the Duty to Cooperate.

General Observations

It is noted that some of the evidence base, which will inform and support Rochford District Council's emerging Local Plan, is still underway. Some of this has been commissioned jointly with other LPAs, including Basildon Council. While it is not possible for Basildon Council to comment on the forthcoming evidence at this time, Basildon Borough Council will continue to work with Rochford District Council in the preparation of any joint evidence base work to ensure that it is comprehensive and appropriate for what the Local Plan will cover.

Rochford District Council should further identify options, strategic growth areas and
policies informed by up-to-date evidence and, through publication of a draft Local Plan, invite further representations from LPAs and other stakeholders.

Basildon Borough Council welcomes further engagement with Rochford District Council to ensure that the observations raised in this response are duly considered and to continue working together on strategic planning priorities through the Duty to Co-operate.

Draft Sustainability Appraisal of the Rochford Local Plan

Basildon Borough Council has reviewed the content of the Draft Sustainability Appraisal of the Rochford Local Plan, and can confirm that on this occasion, Basildon Borough Council has no comments to make, as it covers all the matters you would expect to see in such a document.

OBJECTIONS TO NEW LOCAL PLAN
1. I wish to object to the proposals in the New Local Plan.

2. I have lived in Hawkwell for over 48 years and of course have seen many changes in the area over that time. I accept that an area has to grow and change but I believe that the level of development in the Plan is unsustainable and that the Council should limit itself to providing housing for its own local needs which may been in the region of 150/175 new houses per year over the period of the Plan.

3. One of my principal concerns is the effect that the proposed developments would have on the local road network and particularly the B1013. This road is already overcrowded and simple things like a van making deliveries or refuse collections lead to long tailbacks and delays. It is difficult at the moment for traffic joining form Hill Lane, Milestone Close, Thorpe Road (for Christmas Tree Farm estate) and Highwell Gardens to join B1013, particularly at peak times and even at a conservative estimate of 1.5 vehicles per new household, the additional traffic that the larger developments would create would simply gridlock the road.

4. I accept that one cannot expect individual site developers to solve the problems of the B1013 but the situation is not even tolerable at present and we need a lot more from the Council than vague platitudes about working to alleviate the problems.

5. To my mind, there are also problems relating to individual sites eg CFS093, CFS5017, CFS088, CFS150 and CFS169 are all situated on unmade roads while CFS020 appears to have access only to Rectory Road near a railway bridge where the one-way traffic is controlled by traffic lights. CFS118 appears to be an attempt to develop a small strip "left over" from the Christmas Tree development which provides a welcome green buffer between that estate and Rectory Road.

6. The larger sites CFS074, CFS002, CFS082, CFS081, CFS083,CFS079, CFS080, CFS078, CFS084, CFS022, if developed, and taken with the new Cherry Orchard Business Park, would have the effect of joining up Hawkwell with Rochford and Southend. They would take up a large area of good arable land and Metropolitan Green Belt. As I understand it, one of the purposes of the Green Belt is to provide a "breathing space" between built up areas and this space would certainly be destroyed if these developments took place.

7. Certainly I believe that most residents of Hawkwell and the wider area like the area pretty much as it is, achieving a reasonable balance of what they want. Certainly there are weaknesses in the local infrastructure, not just confined to B1013, and these would be greatly exacerbated if the scale of development envisaged by the Plan were allowed.

8. While as I say, I have no objection to limited development and growth to meet the District's own needs, I object most strongly to the level of development in the Plan. I believe that that level of development is unsustainable and would totally exchange the nature of Rochford District, and not for the better. Please do not ruin this area; let it continue to be a place where people want to live and not just a soulless housing estate.

As discussed by phone with your planning department, I would like to make some comments/objections to proposed plots in the Strategic Housing & Employment Land Availability Assessment 2017 document.

The references are CFS 041 and CFS 042. These are farms with the potential for close on 200 houses to be built on Greenbelt. The following are the reasons why the building of this large number of homes is inappropriate for the location.

Lack of facilities: the location is 'poor' in your definitions as there are no shops, medical facilities, schools, etc within a reasonable distance. The now approved additional 500 houses being built in Hullbridge at the western end of Lower road and the many new houses recently constructed in Folly Lane will put a massive strain on local facilities even before additional houses are considered.

There is little public transport (approx. 1 bus each way a day) in Lower Road.

There is no mains sewerage and very poor mains drainage even before additional housing on such a large scale is considered. There is regular flooding of the road close to these farms due to the downhill nature of the surroundings with water coming down from fields. The sites are also not that far from the river with the future potential for flooding due to increases in sea levels and tidal surges.

Lower road has become, over the last 10 years, a major trunk route for fast moving lorries as well as commuters and farm traffic. It is now a 'dangerous' road for families with children. Air pollution due to these diesel lorries is already a major problem without the addition of up to 400 cars (2 cars per household is now the norm).

Farms will be more in demand as we need to become more self sufficient as a nation (particularly after Brexit) and the increase in numbers in South Essex would indicate more farm land rather than less.

If it is necessary to build further houses in Hullbridge then the brownfield site CFS 100 would be more appropriate rather than taking more greenbelt.

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 successive Governments failure to plan strategically or forecast needs and exacerbated 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 immigration, 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 developments 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.

I am writing to express our concerns regarding the above planning site. We feel this would be totally unsuitable for the following reasons.

1. Southview Close is a narrow road and would not be able to cope with increased traffic levels.

2. This would put an enormous strain on the two nearest primary schools which are already oversubscribed with long waiting lists

3. It would spoil the outlook for the current residents who now have an uninterrupted view out onto Greenbelt land. We are constantly being told how important greenbelt land is to our well being but this would be lost if this goes ahead.

4. It would put an additional strain on the traffic flow in Eastwood Road which is already very busy.

5. There would be an increased risk of the brook flooding with the additional drainage required for any new properties being built.

I write today to add my voice to your current building plans.
We need more housing for our current residents "YES" but of the right type and in the right place!
As the 500 house development is still under construction in Rochford, you cannot be sure that only locals will purchase, and only residents will purchase or rent their properties, it is safe to say that migration will occur adding to the liability of the council for decades to come!
Putting even more strain on services that are barely coping now. Some schools may have capacity now, but look 10 years into the future
and the sums will be different.

Details assessment of the current development "must" be undertaken before any further development can commence, Schools, roads, Health services, transport etc.
It is a published fact the in Essex we have more cars per mile of road than any other county in England, and a good proportion of Essex is fields, the concentration of development is affecting businesses in lost working hours, deliveries are difficult and slow, costing lost revenue.
In the short term small developments, of 50 properties or less would ease infrastructure problems.
Building retirement bungalows within every village, town or settlement would free up family homes and retired couple would not have to leave their community, where they have friends and support.
Please remember that for every action their is an opposite reaction, the consequences are huge for the future of our district.

Re: CFS024 Land north of Merryfield Avenue, Hockley: Mag G 119

We firmly object to the proposed development at the end of Marylands Avenue, north of Merryfields Avenue.

This land is Green Belt and is adjacent to Marylands Nature Reserve.

Building houses on this land would cause major disturbance to animals who live and use this as a corridor to the Nature Reserve. Bats, Badgers and Newts all live in this area, wildlife is already suffering in Hockley due to increased housing and population.

Marylands Nature Reserve and the proposed building site frequently floods and flood water could also back up to Marylands Avenue and Merryfield Avenue.

The sewage system that serves the Marylands area has often had problems.

The water pressure is already low, any extra housing will make this worse.

Broadband is ok at the moment, but will suffer with increased housing.

If the oak trees are ripped out it will cause heave in the future.

The only access to the land north of Merryfield Avenue is through the estate on narrow roads and is not in any way suitable for heavy lorries and potentially another 50+ residents cars.

In Hockley doctors surgeries and schools are full and our roads cannot cope with the traffic.

I am writing on behalf of myself and father, both of us residents of Hockley for more than 50 years in my case and more than 75 years for my father.

Our concerns relate to the proposed number of houses within the development sites for Hockley.

The every growing development for this area is causing an ever increasing strain on the infrastructure and facilities that are not being updated to cater for such developments. The proposed over development of the village is going be unsustainable on a number of levels

These include:

Access to the sites proposed.
Many of the proposed sites do not have easy access and such an increase in housing numbers and related traffic for each of the sites would over stretch already very busy, over parked and narrow roads. Movement along the Main Road through Hockley is already difficult during many times of the day. Traffic jams often stretch for a considerable distance in all directions around the Spa pub area ( most especially traffic travelling from Rayleigh where queues often stretch for more than a mile in distance). The large number of proposed housing and the increased number of vehicles that would result, would make movement around the area unsustainable.

Public health.
Apart from access, the risk to health is of concern.
Vehicle fumes from increased queuing traffic is a risk to health for everyone.
Doctors lists are huge and it is very difficult to get doctors appointments in the village. There seems to be no proposal to provide another doctors surgery. Despite doing there best doctors are under enormous pressure. Building the proposed number of homes will mean appropriate health care in the area becoming unsustainable.

Education.
The schools in Hockley are all very full and some over subscribed. Despite plans to extend the Westerings School, with so many of new homes being built, a modest extension to one school is not going to provide the required number of school places.

Development suitability
Within this plan there should also be clear requirements for developers to commit to providing affordable housing, for the younger generation, alongside housing suitable for an ever increasing older generation. Having visited Australia, New Zealand and Canada in recent years all three countries do an amazing job of building small and affordable properties in areas for senior living. These are beautiful developments and desperately needed across this area. Such inclusion in the development plan would free up family size properties. We do not need the priority to be houses costing more than £1,000,000 to be built. The local plan should suit the local need not the profits for the developers.

We therefore urge the council to reconsider and reject the proposed numbers of up to 9000 new homes which would simply be unsustainable, as noted above, on so many levels. We urge the council to consider reducing their targets to a much more realistic number to 3500 over the next 20 years and for there to be appropriate consideration given to the type of properties built. Targets should be realistic and meet the needs of our own local community, to enable us to continue to thrive.

I live opposite Hockley stn. - there is nowhere now for rush hour traffic, definitely disagree with using green belt areas.

The road is falling apart, big lorries use station ground, using huge cranes etc. I oppose this scheme, too dangerous for all local people involved.

I have largely restricted this to housing and the environment.

Housing Needs
An additional 7000+ dwellings would almost certainly be unsustainable without severe 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.

As regards Hullbridge, further developments at Malyons Farm which currently has outline planning permission and was described by RDC as providing a (defensible green belt boundary) and numerous small developments, as an example of these smaller developments, in Ferry Rd, north of Riverside School 6 dwellings have been replaced by 40+.

Highways Infrastructure
I would be opposed to highway changes which could encourage even more traffic on Lower Road and Watery Lane.

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

Green Belt
The green belt to the east and west of Hullbridge village is important due to its proximity to the environmentally sensitive and protected River Crouch and 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 green belt boundary).

Air Quality
Will only get worse with more cars & heavy transport. Rayleigh is already one of the worst air quality in the district.

Health and Well-Being
Our doctors and hospitals are already at critical levels and are only likely to get worse with a bigger housing developments.

Delivering Jobs
Hullbridge is a large village and is getting bigger. There is no industry or large commercial developments here, all workers have to leave and return to Hullbridge daily, adding to congestion of our roads and air quality readings.

Housing Needs
A additional 7000 plus dwelling would almost certainly be unsustainable without severe damage to the environment and character of the district. Any future housing should be affordable and for local community.

Infrastructure

The roads around Hullbridge are already gridlocked twice a day at rush hours air quality will only get worse with more cars and housing.

Schools

These secondary schools have little room for expansion.

Wellbeing and Health

Our doctors and hospitals are already overloaded and are likely to get worse over time.

Green Belt

The green belt is there to stop urban sprall and should be kept as such.

Jobs and Commercial Development

Hullbridge is a commuter village with little jobs all work has to be travelled to and from.

In response to the proposed developments in the local Hockley, Hawkwell and Rochford area, I would like to make the following points:-

While I agree that there is a need for a sensible amount of new housing, as a long time resident of the Hockley and Hawkwell area, I would make the following observations:

* the road system is, at present, under great strain. One delivery van or lorry can snarl up the whole area, leading to missed appointments and real dangers in terms of getting to people who depend on we residents.
* the effect on children and vulnerable adults due to air pollution, from all the extra cars that a large amount of new housing would entail, would be very detrimental to the health of residents.
* the loss of green fields, farmland and woodland will further add to the detrimental effects on the environment, in terms of ecology, air quality and bio diversity.
* New school buildings would be needed with a substantial increase in pupil numbers. This would need to be planned and finished before any new families move in. As as a retired headteacher, I well understand the effect that a sudden influx of new pupils can have on a school community. These increases in roll need to be managed very carefully. Are skilled head teachers, teachers, assistants and support staff readily available when there are the current recruitment problems in teaching and school leadership? How is this being addressed in the planning for the district?
*new shops, leisure facilities and amenities would need to be put in place. The building of these would put further pressure on the present road systems.
* the health services in terms of GPs, clinics and hospitals, are already under great strain. There is a growing population who cannot find adequate treatment options already. Lots of new housing would substantially increase these pressures. I work as a volunteer at the hospital and I see these pressures first hand. There is a current recruitment problem with GPs, nurses and hospital staff. How is this being addressed in the planning for the district?
* the local ageing population cannot presently find adequate care facilities, whether from councils or privately. New developments would put further strain on this situation. How is this being addressed in the planning for the district?
* the police service is presently under pressure after funding cuts, what plans have been made to address this?
* the ambulance services are already under severe pressures and can take too long to respond to accidents. My 94 year old neighbour broke her femur and had to wait for over 2 hours for a paramedic. This isn't civilised. How is this being addressed in the planning for the district?

Our area is already under strain in terms of support services, resources, roads and environment. There is limited scope, using brown field rather than green field sites, for a huge increase in housing stock. I agree that first time buyers and local residents who need affordable rental property, are very much under strain. They should be a priority. However, there is only so much building, and the subsequent increase in population, that can be absorbed into our local area.

I understand that the situation is complex and needs very careful planning but I doubt that the pre-planning can be done in time for any proposed building. Houses spring up in our area at an alarming rate, ignoring the views of local residents. The need for central government building and housing targets to be met puts further pressure on the system.

I doubt if the carefully considered views of local residents, like myself, will really have any weight in your planning. I know that this is a consultation but will it really be a consideration?

However, I cannot sit idly by and fail to register my concerns.

I would welcome your response.

I would like to register my objection to the plan to build 7,500 new houses in the Rochford area on the grounds that we do not have the infrastructure to deal with the current population, so would not be able to contend with the population increase that these houses would bring. Also, I am at a loss to understand how the government has the right to demand this housing increase when, it has given I believe, £100,000 to Basildon and Rochford councils to monitor the nitric oxide levels on the A127 with a view to implement road charges to restrict the amount of traffic using it. 7,500 house could mean a possible increase in road vehicles to 11250 or more. I ask, if the A127 is restricted, and no other roads are built, where would all this extra traffic go?

I am not a nimbi, I do realise that we need more homes, however, common sense must prevail, we must not build at all costs and therefore ruin the quality of life for all.

My comments are as follows:

Page 38 , item 6.30
OPTIONS we must provide our own District housing quota. RDC has a significant green belt area, our neighbouring authorities are largely built up. If we opted to pool future development Rochford would inevitably lose open land other areas cannot provide.

Page 42, Table 5, also pages 44 and 45.
I strongly object to Rochford District Council's 'Settlement Heirarchy'. In my opinion this system is obsolete and inappropriate going forward. Past waves of development in the same areas have led to reduced living standards for residents in the more urban parts of the District. Negligible infrastructural improvements have been provided to offset this development.
If the level of development envisaged in SHMA addendum 2017 were agreed for the District as a whole (Page 33, Table 3), then I consider the development should be either:
A) Evenly distributed through all the parishes in the District creating about 25 homes per parish per annum.
or
B) The creation of a Locally Led Garden Village or Town as per government's recent policy guidance. Ideally this would be close to a pre-existing major artery A Road, such as the A1159. It should be noted that this area benefits from retail and leisure facilities, it also has easy access into Southend, which is asper page 10 Figure 2, is the destination for the largest number of residents leaving Rochford District every day for work (more than the number that go to inner and outer London combined).
The Rochford District area ( Fossetts Farm), close to the A1159 is I believe green belt. However the District will inevitably be obliged to release green belt land and we should not assume the boundaries of existing urban areas are the only green belt to be re-categorised. We must put the lives and wellbeing of our resident above our noble principles of preserving remote parts of the green belt.

Page 78 Highway Infrastructure 8.3
Although, as stated, Rayleigh is close to a number of 'A' roads, those same highways create significant problems for Rayleigh and the western part of Rochford District.
The major multi lane A roads are all at the edge of the Rochford District or beyond its boundary. However most other A roads and main B roads within Rochford District are over 150 years old in modernised/upgraded form. Indeed most of the main roads in the western part of the District can be found on the 1875 County Series O.S. Map. It is truly astonishing that so much development has been added over the following 140 years with the same, if improved, roads. In essence we have a vastly expanded population funnelled down pre 20th century roads. This explains the traffic problems on roads in Rayleigh. Effectively no wholly new transport infrastructure has been added in 150 years to the western end of the District. This results in delays and difficult traffic movements throughout the week.
However one positive point we should not lose under any circumstances is the current traffic system in the centre of Rayleigh at least preserves the town centre. Were it returned to the former one way system, with it's race track effect, the District's most successful town centre would be greatly harmed and cease being a pleasant place to shop.
Traffic from all the adjoining communities Hockley, Hullbridge and Hawkwell flow through Rayleigh on the afore mentioned 200 hundred plus year old roads.
Another problem adversely effecting the traffic in Rayleigh and the western part of the District, is that congestion and frequent problems on the A127, which funnels many vehicles through the town in a west /east or reverse direction.
I submit that these road factors, which create delay and pollution in the western District, preclude further significant development in Rayleigh or Rawreth (above and beyond that already agreed).

Air Pollution
Tackling air pollution from road traffic should be at the heart of our new local plan. We are fortunate to have a good railway system running through the District. On a small scale cycling is rising in popularity and good for both the environment and also for the health and well being of residents, however cycling is poorly catered for in Rochford District. Adding cycle lanes in the overcrowded and somewhat dangerous main roads in our urban areas may be rather too challenging. However if RDC does opt for the 'Locally Led Garden Village or Town' option we should ensure safe cycle lanes are included in any scheme.

Historic Buildings , Conservation Areas and Local Lists
I am concerned that Local Lists have been somewhat down graded by Rochford District Council over recent decades. Whilst not giving the almost guaranteed protection of national Listing they do confer significant protection especially in Conservation Areas.
Conservation Areas / the Historic Core of Towns and villages are an efficient way of protecting historic and attractive areas of the District. I recommend that as part of the Local Plan process Conservation Area boundaries should be reviewed, with a view to extension, subject to local Public Consultation (not just County Council advice).

Accommodation for independent older age group residents in or close to town centres
In recognition of increasing older age group numbers within our District, we should a guidance note to allow town centre older age group units for independent mobile residents. These may come with shared garden / recreational areas. With the changing nature of our town centres and the erosion of some retail and public facilities such as Police Stations, the Council should encourage the conversion of historic buildings and the redevelopment of the more modern inappropriate and unappealing town centre buildings for elderly person accommodation. This is not to suggest that all modern buildings are bad and all old buildings good, however popular support for historic buildings in Conservation and adjacent areas should be given weight when considering planning applicatons. All development within Conservation Areas should meet the highest standard of architecture as in any historic towns in the country, furthermore elderly person units should be required to provide good sound proofing especially in town centre locations.

Page 39 6.31 Affordable housing
Developers do not want to include affordable housing within their schemes as it adversely affects their profit margins. A significant number of new residents have been coming from the London area where they are able to sell houses for extremely high values compared with the local housing stock, this has caused additional house inflation and has led to a greater demand for large housing units out of the reach of many local young people hoping to get a first foothold on the housing ladder. The new Local Plan should recognise and address this problem. Simple requirement for affordable housing within schemes may not be successful going forward. It would be good for RDC local policies to explore the possibility and practicality of requiring large scale developers to sell small parcels of land at reduced price to Housing Associations either for rental property or part rent part purchase schemes.

Page 41 6.36 Care Homes
Care Home finances are under severe financial pressures, which lead to problems for the NHS. Policy option B would be the best response in current circumstances of rising demand and limited supply.

I am writing to you with respect to the planning applications around Hullbridge. I have seen a number of the documents describing the different housing developments.

I have a number of concerns on these various applications. While I appreciate we have to build new housing which I fully support, it is the vast number of house being planned around Hullbridge. There seems to be a significant lack of infrastructure planning. Before any significant housing is planned or built, the infrastructure must be addressed.

The roads into Hullbridge are currently not satisfactory to take increased traffic. Rawreth Lane is the dominate root, but Watery Lane is also a major root for people travelling from the Chelmsford direction. Watery Lane needs to be improved, not only for flooding; it also needs a width extension.

Rawreth Lane, itself coming into Hullbridge and Rayleigh at the mini roundabout struggles with traffic congestion during peak times. This supports some action in infrastructure is mandatory to maintain the current air quality. Increasing traffic jams, will have a negative effect on the environment and air quality. I have heard comments of increased traffic of 2 cars/hour, which given the extent of the development is not correct. I would like to review the figures of this study, and I sure I could help with the correct estimate. I have searched on the council site and can't find the actual figures anywhere, please could these be supplied.

One of the developments at the west of Hullbridge (in-between Hullbridge and Battlesbridge) is being planned on a flood plan, which poses a significant risk to any home owner in the future. In addition, a cost to flood defence agency (Government), these will need to be improved, and an analysis completed to understand what impacts this would have on the surrounding areas.

Currently there are a number of un-adopted roads, which have been built to facilitate light traffic, and will not support significant weight and magnitude of building traffic.

In summary I don't support the significant housing development plan around the Hullbridge area, and find it strange the council has not tried to old any meeting in Hullbridge to discus with residents, so can only assume this is not a serious proposal.

OBJECTION

1) I OBJECT because the approach roads to the proposed site are too narrow:
a) for construction vehicles
b) for extra traffic from new properties.

2) I OBJECT because this is next to the nature reserve and will disrupt natural habitat and living conditions.

3) I OBJECT because the site is too small to sustain the proposed development.

4) I OBJECT because this IS Greenbelt and another intrusion into it.

5) I OBJECT because this small area is totally unsuitable for more housing.

6) I OBJECT because this area floods already and will cause major problems with water flow if built on.

Map R

What is going to be done about infrastructure? Nothing as far as I can see! I took this up with the Council in 1980 as I could see where development would be going to!

In the area near to where I live there are 682 properties being built South of King Georges Playing Field, behind Newton Hall Gardens. 500 are going up in the vicinity of Oxford Road, possibly rising to 700! Making 1382. Then 516 on Meadowbrook Farm plot at the end of Ironwell Lane. This makes 1898 houses as well as the 620 in Hall Road.

The Ashingdon Road will take the brunt of thousands more cars, lorries, refuse vehicles, vans, etc. This road was originally built for horses and carts, it is not even a "B" Road, just a residential Rd. Already we have a great deal of congestion at times, especially toward the junction with Hall Road at the mini roundabout and Brays Lane. In the other direction it is often bad getting through Hockley onto B1013, the only "B" road from there to the other side of the River Crouch. The whole of this area is a flood plain area and in my opinion this is unsustainable!!

Attachment

What about the provision of VITAL services such as Doctors, Dentists, Schools, Hospital facilities, Supermarket.

With potentially 7,500 new properties planned for the area of Hockley, Hawkwell, Ashingdon and Rochford, I find it breath-taking that such irresponsible development is being considered! Life looks like becoming unbearable in the future in this area. God help anyone who needs medical attention with grid-locked roads.

A few weeks ago I was travelling from Rayleigh to Ashingdon School, it took me 50 minutes to make that journey because of congestion on the B1013 and Ashingdon Road. I was 1/2 hour late arriving at the school to collect my granddaughter! This is totally unacceptable but could soon become common place!

I understand that developers are not obliged to provide VITAL services unless they build above a certain number of properties in one place. So what do they do they do, in conjunction with the Council? They share the development with another Contractor. If this is the case, it is quite immoral!!

A few years ago Keith Hudson said there would be no further development in this area in his lifetime! This was obviously not the truth.

Any development should be to service the needs of the people in that area.

In this particular area, I know for a fact, the one thing which older members of the community need is BUNGALOWS. If these were provided it would free up the affordable small family homes.

Older residents have nowhere to move to, especially if they are self-sufficient. Not everyone wants sheltered accommodation or a flat.

Also, bungalows, which normally have 2 bedrooms, can later be adapted to 3 bedrooms if a young couple purchase it later. This would meet the need of changing family structures, it's a win, win situation.

Response to Rochford District Council's New Local Plan Issues and Options Document
8P1.3 How do we plan for the and facilite the delivery of our need for new homes over the 20 years within the District?

6.48 The most redistrict option would be a new option of a settlement in the west of the district in the Battlesbridge/Rawreth area, thus allowing easier access to London, Chelmsford, Basildon Southend and Thurrock, because of the supherb highway network. Ifrastructure would be provided as the village was build thus reducting the pressure on existing villages. Garden villages are supported by the government therefore Option E would be the best option, although option C is supported by many resdients the effect is to urbanise existing villages.

Table six implied size of housing required 2014-2017
6.59 A need for smaller properties in particular bungalows has been identified, therefore, option a combination of E and F should be considered to ensure an mixed community. Any increase in density on new sites although allowing for less land to be developed would reduce the enjoyment for existing residents.

Highway Infrastructure
SP31 What is the realistic options P83 option B should be supported. Prioritise local highways and junctions between Rayleigh, Hockley and Rochford (B1013) and support direct funds to improve local highway network. I would not support option C, this option would ecourage use of the route through winding roads that are unsuitable for further traffic movements.

P105 Education and skills
SPH.3 How do we facilitate the delivery of education skills development for the next 20 years. Would support the combination Option A&B. It is essential that land allocated for schools must not be allowed to be used for other puposes once it been set aside.

Page 109 Early years and childcare provision
9.36 What are the realistic options Page 114 would support option B.

Page 162 Advertizing and signage
DP13 How do we manage signage across the district?
11.72 What are the realistic options?
Liked A but feel it be strengthened over the last few year there has been increase on advertising boards on side of building grass verges with no reference to adjacent business and A board blocking pavements to the determent of people with poor vision disabled persons bugies and mobility scooters.

Most of the local plan first phase has been provided in the Hawkwell/Rochford parishes and this along with post 2021 phase between Oxford Road and The Drive Rochford with a further 500+ houses will provide 2000 house in the Ashingdon Road Rectory Road Hall Road area causing even greater pressure of these roads which already apparent. The main problem is lack of infrastructure.

Page 76 SP2.2 Villages and Local Neighhood Centres
What are realistic options?
I would support Option A retaining the existing core strategy policy. It is important to retain facilities and not all as shops to be turned into housing and other not retail uses. Without these facilities villages will die and lack community intergration and cohesion.

Page 67 6117 Would support D Core Strategy T2 seek to improve roads providing surface excess to London Southend Airport.

Table 10 requirement for economic land in Rochford District.
Land provided for industrial or office use should be kept as such and not allowed to be used for retail or leisure such as purdys and eldenway estates this just means we have to supply more employment land in the future.

CFS 011, CFS 034, CFS 056, CFS 057, CFS 065, CFS 070 & CFS 097

I wish to register by objections to the above on the following grounds:
The additional traffic from any new developments going through already busy roads such as Bournes Green Junction and Shopland Road/Sutton Road junction. These roads are extremely congested at busy times already.

In the busiest times of the day the High Street in Great Wakering is extremely busy and can be very dangerous when walking along with a buggy as the pavements are so narrow.

Great Wakering Primary school is a very small and friendly school. The teachers know all the children and their families and the children know all the children in other years as well as their own. We don't want to see the ethos change.

We have not been given any information as to how the hundreds and hundreds of new school children of all ages will be schooled within their local area. Bearling in mind that the majority of year 7's and above from the Wakering area have to bussed to King Edmund School Rochford and, therefore, all the year 7's who will have to travel to get to school on buses along the same roads that are also expected to take hundreds if not thousands of additional cars each day if more houses are built.

With additional housing the Doctors will be taking on many hundreds of more patients onto their lists. At the moment it does not offer reasonably timed appointments.

If we keep building on the fields which are good agriculture lands where will we eventually grow the crops?

All building work has detrimental effect on wildlife.

Surely other areas such as Canewdon and Stambridge could have more houses built as I feel we have had more than our fair share of new buildings.

I found it difficult to get around the Rochford website, thus the paper copy.

RE: CFS 011, CFS 034, CFS 056, CFS 057, CFS 065, CFS 070 & CFS 097
I wish to register by objections to the above on the following grounds:
The additional traffic from any new developments going through already busy roads such as Bournes Green Junction and Shopland Road/Sutton Road junction. These roads are extremely congested at busy times already.

In the busiest times of the day the High Street in Great Wakering is extremely busy and can be very dangerous when walking along with a buggy as the pavements are so narrow.

Great Wakering Primary school is a very small and friendly school. The teachers know all the children and their families and the children know all the children in other years as well as their own. We don't want to see the ethos change.

We have not been given any information as to how the hundreds and hundreds of new school children of all ages will be schooled within their local area. Bearing in mind that the majority of year 7's and above from the Wakering area have to be bussed to King Edmund School Rochford and therefore, all the year 7's who will have to travel to get to school on buses along the same roads that are also expected to take hundreds if not thousands of additional cars each day if more houses are built.

With additional housing the Doctors will be taking on many hundreds of more patients onto their lists. At the moment it does not offer reasonably timed appointments.

If we keep building on the fields which are good agriculture lands where will we eventually grow the crops?

All building work has detrimental effect on wildlife.

Map Ref CFS065

I am writing this letter with regards to a meeting that was held at Great Wakering Community Centre. This meeting took place on Thursday, 22 February it was about the proposed buying of land by the council to build more houses.

We oppose the amount that is being allowed to be built as this is classified as a village and is fast becoming part of Shoeburyness due to the amount that ha already been allowed to be built. Look at Alexandra Road. This should have been only 38 homes there is in excess of 140 on many days it would be hard to get Emergency services down there due to insurficent parking, and people parking on the pavement which results in broken pavements thus resulting in claims against the Council.

a. The land at the back of Shoebury Road where I live is arm greenbelt land, this was one of the factor that made use buy this property plus the estuary views, this reflected in the price that was paid, and should this land be sold and built on it would devalue all of our properties that surround this area, therefore we will be seeking compensation for our losses.

b. There is also other facts like infurstructure, when every we have heavy rainfull the drains cannot cope where Shoebury Rd meets New Rd it always floods plus other area along the High St.

c. The bus service is most of the time unreliable, if they turn up many are cancelled for the return journey. This is not suitable for people who have had treatment for cancer, this leaves the patient tired, and does not want the added stress of a bad public service.

d. Pollution recently this has been above the legal requirement of the W A O Pollution contributes to 46000 premature deaths per year, traffic is a big factor in pollution.

e. There is an argument stating these new homes will provide jobs, these are only temp. Or we need affordable homes, a majority of homes being built are second homes that's put up for rent, keeping house prices high.

f. Schools, Doctors, Hospitals, cannot cope now let alone with the extra volume of people flooding into the area.

g. There is in excess of 380,000 empty properties across Essex, this is 38yrs of our allocated build. Therefore once you allow building on greenbelt land to take place our future generations will suffer as there will not be fresh Veg, Fruit, meat. This will affect the economy as we will have to import. Also many cancers are caused through proceesed food.

h. It is a fact that Wakering cannot cope with parking as many of these properties are over 100yrs old. The council are paying out £millions on claims due to broken pavements due to cars parking on them, plus the amount it cost with litter this cost the country £146 million per year.

i. What about the amount of houseowners/rented that dont pay council tax for what ever reason.

j. It can take up to 45 mins to get to cuckcoo corner, therefore if an ambulance was needed? How many lives will be lost through this.

k. Most of this land that the council are trying to buy and sell off for building is farm/greenbelt, therefore this government stated would not be used.

l. As for flood plains, surely the more concreate that's put down the more floods will be a result of this, thus making many properties uninsureable.

Map Ref. CFS065

I am writing this letter with regards to a meeting that was held at Great Wakering Community Centre. This meeting took place on Thursday 22 February it was about the proposed buying of land by the council to build more houses.

In my opinion and many others that live here, we oppose the amount that is being allowed to be built as this was a village and is fact becoming part of Shoeburyness, my reasons are laid out as follows.

a. The land at the back of Shoebury Road where I live is farm land, and this was one of the factors that made me buy this property and the estuary views, this reflected in the price that was paid, and should this land be sold and built on it would devalue all of our properties that surround this area, therefore, we will be seeking compensation for our losses.

b. There is also other facts like infurstructure, when every we have heavy rainfall the drains cannot cope where Shoebury Rd meets New Rd it always floods plus other area along the High St.

c. The bus service is most of the time unreliable, if they turn up many are cancelled for the return journey. This is not suitable when you have had treatment for cance, you feel very tired and just want to get home.

d. Pollution recently this has been above the legal requirement of the W.O.A. Pollution contributes to 46000 premature deaths per year, traffic is a big factor in pollution.

e. There is an argument stating these new homes will provide jobs, these are only temp. Or we need affordable homes, a majority of homes being built are second homes that's put up for rent, keeping house prices high.

f. Schools, Doctors, Hospitals cannot cope now let along with the extra volume of people flooding into the area.

g. There is in excess of 380,000 empty properties across Essex, this is 38 yrs of our allocated build. Therefore once you allow building on greenbelt land to take place our future generations will suffer as there will not be fresh Veg, Fruit, meat. This will affect the economy as we will have to import. Also many cancers are caused through processed food.

h. It is a fact that Wakering cannot cope now with parking as many of these properties are over 100 yrs old. The council are paying out £millions on claims due to broken pavements due to cars parking on them, plus the amount it cost with litter this cost the country £146 million per year.

i. What about the amount of houseowners/rented that don't pay council tax for what ever reason.

j. It can take up to 45 mins to get to cuckoo corner, therefore if an ambulance was needed? How many lives will be lost through this.

Map Ref. CFS065

I am writing this letter with regards to a meeting that was held at Great Wakering Community Centre. This meeting took place on Thursday 22 February it was about the proposed buying of land by the council to build more houses.

In my opinion and many others that live here, we oppose the amount that is being allowed to be built as this was a village and is fact becoming part of Shoeburyness, my reasons are laid out as follows.

a. The land at the back of Shoebury Road where I live is farm land, and this was one of the factors that made me buy this property and the estuary views, this reflected in the price that was paid, and should this land be sold and built on it would devalue all of our properties that surround this area, therefore, we will be seeking compensation for our losses.

b. There is also other facts like infurstructure, when every we have heavy rainfall the drains cannot cope where Shoebury Rd meets New Rd it always floods plus other area along the High St.

c. The bus service is most of the time unreliable, if they turn up many are cancelled for the return journey. This is not suitable when you have had treatment for cance, you feel very tired and just want to get home.

d. Pollution recently this has been above the legal requirement of the W.O.A. Pollution contributes to 46000 premature deaths per year, traffic is a big factor in pollution.

e. There is an argument stating these new homes will provide jobs, these are only temp. Or we need affordable homes, a majority of homes being built are second homes that's put up for rent, keeping house prices high.

f. Schools, Doctors, Hospitals cannot cope now let along with the extra volume of people flooding into the area.

g. There is in excess of 380,000 empty properties across Essex, this is 38 yrs of our allocated build. Therefore once you allow building on greenbelt land to take place our future generations will suffer as there will not be fresh Veg, Fruit, meat. This will affect the economy as we will have to import. Also many cancers are caused through processed food.

h. It is a fact that Wakering cannot cope now with parking as many of these properties are over 100 yrs old. The council are paying out £millions on claims due to broken pavements due to cars parking on them, plus the amount it cost with litter this cost the country £146 million per year.

i. What about the amount of houseowners/rented that don't pay council tax for what ever reason.

j. It can take up to 45 mins to get to cuckoo corner, therefore if an ambulance was needed? How many lives will be lost through this.