Sustainable Travel

Firstly, it is not clear where I am supposed to submit comments on www.rochford.gov.uk/iao, therefore I am submitting this by email.

It is my understanding that you want to build 10,000 homes in the Rochford district over the course of the coming years.

I understand that developers are supposed to pay a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) that is supposed to be used to pay for infrastructure upgrades to support the increase in population, however, it is evident that this is not happening. Referencing the recent developments off of Brays Lane and Hall Road, the only infrastructure "upgrades" I can see are the addition of roundabouts. An infrastructure upgrade should bring an improvement. In the case of road infrastructure, the improvement should improve the flow of traffic. These roundabouts may help the residents of these housing estates, but that is it. For everyone else, they cause more delay.

In my relatively short time living in the area, traffic congestion has increased massively, not helped by ridiculous design decisions like removing the filter off the roundabout by Tesco (A127). You should be putting in more filters, not removing them! You've recently played around with the mini-roundabout adjacent to the railway bridge next to Rochford station. What did this achieve? You need "bite the bullet" and widen the bridge. Yes, it will cost a lot of money, but this is exactly what the CIL should pay for.

Where are all these people going to be working?
Assuming London, then one can assume the majority will travel by rail. Therefore, how are Greater Anglia going to manage the increase in passenger numbers? Under the current signalling system, trains are already running over-capacity. How will your local plan help Greater Anglia cope? Are you making sure Great Anglia's new rolling stock will be compatible with the new, automated signalling system when it come in? (this will greatly increase the number of trains able to run on the line).

Assuming nearby towns, it regularly takes an hour to do the 4 mile journey from Rayleigh to Hockley in peak times. Getting into Southend is just as bad. Trying to cross The Weir is a nightmare any time of day. This will only get worse, unless you make significant upgrades.

Does your local plan include provision for expansion to the hospital and an increase in doctor' surgeries?
Does your local plan include provision for new schools? All schools must have a suitable drop-off pick-up road system, away from the public highway that does not affect traffic flows. If there isn't local provision, then parents must be forced to pack their children up on a bus or remote locations sort, linked to the school by a tunnel or bridge.

I have also heard that you are letting the London Borough of Haringey build homes in the district. This is not viable and MUST BE STOPPED IMMEDIATELY.

Considering the massive profits these developers make, you need to adjust the CIL to reflect the true cost of all infrastructure upgrades and make sure these funds are directed towards infrastructure improvements. Improvements that help everyone, not just the new home owners. 100% of the funds should come from the CIL; the developers pockets, and not my (already unfair and extortionate) council tax.


Many thanks,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am informed that a greenbelt area (ref cfs054) at the rear of South View Close, in Rayleigh has been ear marked as a possible site for development and would like to inform you as follows:

The area does not have the infrastructure to accommodate a 23% increase in the housing for the following reasons: Our doctor's surgery recently changed their policy to "telephone appointments" as they do not have the sufficient number of doctors to cover the amount of face to face appointments requested, furthering the populace would indeed worsen the healthcare availability locally even further.

We also not have the schools capacity, the local junior school Wyburns is small and full to capacity now, would their funding be increased, would their property be extended, would they be allocated funds for further teachers?

We also find that the number of cars in Rayleigh has increased substantially in the last 5 years. There are only 2 main roads out of Rayleigh and at any given time they are extremely gridlocked, particularly the Weir/A127 junction. We currently add 10/15 minutes to enable us to get out of Rayleigh to any planned journey, we simply don't have the road capacity for another 23% increase in traffic.

Lastly we are somewhat shocked at the choice of this area, as we back onto that land and have serious flooding issues almost every winter, supplying our own sandbags on regular instances after rainfall and snowfall. Eastwood Brook is subject to overflowing on a regular basis.

Thank you for your attention. We would like logged that both my husband and I are highly apposed to this land being redeveloped.

RDC has permitted ugly, shoddy housing in key locations in Hockley. Any new housing must have properly dug, drained and levelled land before it is built. All new housing, especially affordable housing, must have solid brick walls throughout; quality wooden doors throughout; high grade roof tiles and window frames; and truly good design and features.

The map shows a very large area proposed for housing around Hall Road and Stroud Green. This would wipe out far too much beautiful countryside. It might require residents to won cars to access amenities just when we should be reducing car ownership.

Please develop Eldon Way and other sites close to community centres, shops and stations so that residents can walk to what they need. All leisure facilities should be top quality and in town centres.

Having read through most of the plan, I have some real concerns.

The first is that although there is a lot of talk about "affordable homes", most of these are clearly not affordable to the majority of young people. Plus they are becoming exponentially less affordable as time passes. Therefore what is needed are family homes at an affordable rent, and this area is woefully short of these!

The second concern, I have is that our roads are already hopelessly congested and whilst we continue to build numerous houses without improving road space, we are adding to an already appalling problem. This is also having a detrimental effect on air quality and no consideration seems to have been given to the future health of our children and future generations.

It is not only road space which needs expanding, but doctors' surgeries, schools, hospitals and all of the other services essential to our community.

Large proportion of people commute to London from this area, so will the current rail system cope with a large increase in population.

In conclusion although it is obvious that we are in desperate need of more housing, we must have the infra structure to support the resultant increase in population if we are to maintain the character of this area and, more importantly, the quality of life of the residents.

Best. Regards - David Mullen (Hawkwell resident)

p.s. Why has Hawkwell not been included as a district particularly as it has a higher population than Hockley?

As a resident of Western road I really need to voice my concerns over the proposed developments as listed above. Whilst recognising the need for more housing across the county we have already started to creep on areas enjoyed by wildlife and where the community, our children and our pets are able to enjoy walks and exercise. Some areas I accept that have been selected in recent times are prime sites given their size and location but I cannot understand or accept why you would be considering this development in Great Wheatley's. In addition to my comments above I would add we already have a lack of schools and services in the area and above all I really don't see how the roads can sustain what is effectively a new village. The routes in and out of my road and Great Wheatley would completely disrupt the feel to our road, and local community, and totally transform (for the worse) the family environment I bought in to when I moved in to the area 11 ag o.

I really hope when you consider all of your options you will take my comments, and those of my fellow friends and residents, very seriously as I really see big infrastructure issues with this project. That is the practical plea the more emotional one is that it will totally transform what is a very nice part of Rayleigh with a good mix of housing and green belt. An area where people inside the town go out of their way to come and enjoy walks and family days out.

Thank you in advance for reading and considering my concerns

As a resident of Western road I really need to voice my concerns over the proposed developments as listed above. Whilst recognising the need for more housing across the county we have already started to creep on areas enjoyed by wildlife and where the community, our children and our pets are able to enjoy walks and exercise. Some areas I accept that have been selected in recent times are prime sites given their size and location but I cannot understand or accept why you would be considering this development in Great Wheatley's. In addition to my comments above I would add we already have a lack of schools and services in the area and above all I really don't see how the roads can sustain what is effectively a new village. The routes in and out of my road and Great Wheatley would completely disrupt the feel to our road, and local community, and totally transform (for the worse) the family environment I bought in to when I moved in to the area 11 ag o.

I really hope when you consider all of your options you will take my comments, and those of my fellow friends and residents, very seriously as I really see big infrastructure issues with this project. That is the practical plea the more emotional one is that it will totally transform what is a very nice part of Rayleigh with a good mix of housing and green belt. An area where people inside the town go out of their way to come and enjoy walks and family days out.

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

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

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

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

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

Im writing in response to the documents published.

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

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

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

The plans for all these houses in the area of hullbridge is ludicrous, the roads are already gridlocked, without them, also there is no mention of schooling and doctors shops etc.

There is no infrastructure mentioned, and no thought for existing residents.

If all this green belt is being released any where, why not create a complete new village On a large amount of green belt, where you could put in new roads schools doctors, And shops like they did at Woodham Ferrers, which was a great success.

I am struggling to find where to comment on the New Local Plan so would appreciate it if you could upload my comments to the portal. The New Local Plan will make Rochford and the surrounding areas grossly overdeveloped. The infrastructure (roads/schools/doctors etc.) will need to be vastly improved to accommodate the considerable increase in housing - the current infrastructure can barely cope as it is. Getting anywhere at rush hour or weekends is already a nightmare and this will only add to the problems.

In regards to the strategic Housing and Employment Land Availability Assessment, I would like to state the below points, why land with reference number GF03, CFSO11, CFSO65, CFSO70, CFSO56, CFSO57, CFSO34, CFSO97, and GFO3 - Great Wakering, should not be developed:

1. Infestation of rats throughout the local area. This has happened in the past on building sites in the village such as Havengore close and Star Lane.

2.Massive impact on wildlife and nature throughout the whole area.

3.The local junior school is full to capacity and seniors school students have to travel to Rochford. Therefore, this would mean excessive amounts of buses and slow traffic in rush hour plus excessive children out in poor lit areas.

4.All areas of farmland are on top quality A grade soil. We will be required to produce our own crops now we are leaving the EU.

5.Local doctors and dentists surgeries are full to capacity already, so additional housing will cause unacceptable issues.

6.We do not have sufficient shops within the area to sustain more housing.

7.There is only one zebra crossing in the village therefore additional housing will impact on safety.

8.All areas are within a flood zone. Local residents home insurance prices reflect this and it is a high risk to build in such areas with the UKs current flooding issues.

9.All entrance roads to Great Wakering are single-track roads. Most are liable to flooding, do not have street lights are prone to slow moving farm traffic. There are already traffic issues in rush hour or school times and new housing will add enormous pressure to this current problem.

10.The vast majority of new residents would be required to travel out of the local area for work. Already Trains, A127,A13 and A130 plus local roads are at maximum capacity in morning and evenings, this would undoubtedly cause major issues for emergency services to attend if required.

11.Local NHS services are already stretched beyond workable capacity.

12.Local post office is stretched beyond capacity.

13.There are no local leisure facilities despite the council stating there is.

14.There are also parking concerns within the village with the current amount of cars and issues with the amount of delivery drivers.

15.There is no regular public transport services. You are unable to walk to Shoeburyness station. The Parking at Shoeburyness station is at max capacity therefore there is no infrastructure for more houses.

In regards to the strategic Housing and Employment Land Availability Assessment, I would like to state the below points, why land with reference number GF03, CFSO11, CFSO65, CFSO70, CFSO56, CFSO57, CFSO34, CFSO97, and GFO3 - Great Wakering, should not be developed:

1. Infestation of rats throughout the local area. This has happened in the past on building sites in the village such as Havengore close and Star Lane.

2.Massive impact on wildlife and nature throughout the whole area.

3.The local junior school is full to capacity and seniors school students have to travel to Rochford. Therefore, this would mean excessive amounts of buses and slow traffic in rush hour plus excessive children out in poor lit areas.

4.All areas of farmland are on top quality A grade soil. We will be required to produce our own crops now we are leaving the EU.

5.Local doctors and dentists surgeries are full to capacity already, so additional housing will cause unacceptable issues.

6.We do not have sufficient shops within the area to sustain more housing.

7.There is only one zebra crossing in the village therefore additional housing will impact on safety.

8.All areas are within a flood zone. Local residents home insurance prices reflect this and it is a high risk to build in such areas with the UKs current flooding issues.

9.All entrance roads to Great Wakering are single-track roads. Most are liable to flooding, do not have street lights are prone to slow moving farm traffic. There are already traffic issues in rush hour or school times and new housing will add enormous pressure to this current problem.

10.The vast majority of new residents would be required to travel out of the local area for work. Already Trains, A127,A13 and A130 plus local roads are at maximum capacity in morning and evenings, this would undoubtedly cause major issues for emergency services to attend if required.

11.Local NHS services are already stretched beyond workable capacity.

12.Local post office is stretched beyond capacity.

13.There are no local leisure facilities despite the council stating there is.

14.There are also parking concerns within the village with the current amount of cars and issues with the amount of delivery drivers.

15.There is no regular public transport services. You are unable to walk to Shoeburyness station. The Parking at Shoeburyness station is at max capacity therefore there is no infrastructure for more houses.

In regards to the strategic Housing and Employment Land Availability Assessment, I would like to state the below points, why land with reference number GF03, CFSO34, CFSO11, CFSO65,CFSO70, CFSO56, CFSO57, and CFSO97 - Great Wakering, should not be developed:

1. Infestation of rats throughout the local area. This has happened in the past on building sites in the village such as Havengore close and Star Lane.

2.Massive impact on wildlife and nature throughout the whole area.

3.The local junior school is full to capacity and seniors school students have to travel to Rochford. Therefore, this would mean excessive amounts of buses and slow traffic in rush hour plus excessive children out in poor lit areas.

4.All areas of farmland are on top quality A grade soil. We will be required to produce our own crops now we are leaving the EU.

5.Local doctors and dentists surgeries are full to capacity already, so additional housing will cause unacceptable issues.

6.We do not have sufficient shops within the area to sustain more housing.

7.There is only one zebra crossing in the village therefore additional housing will impact on safety.

8.All areas are within a flood zone. Local residents home insurance prices reflect this and it is a high risk to build in such areas with the UKs current flooding issues.

9.All entrance roads to Great Wakering are single-track roads. Most are liable to flooding, do not have street lights are prone to slow moving farm traffic. There are already traffic issues in rush hour or school times and new housing will add enormous pressure to this current problem.

10.The vast majority of new residents would be required to travel out of the local area for work. Already Trains, A127,A13 and A130 plus local roads are at maximum capacity in morning and evenings, this would undoubtedly cause major issues for emergency services to attend if required.

11.Local NHS services are already stretched beyond workable capacity.

12.Local post office is stretched beyond capacity.

13.There are no local leisure facilities despite the council stating there is.

14.There are also parking concerns within the village with the current amount of cars and issues with the amount of delivery drivers.

15.There is no regular public transport services. You are unable to walk to Shoeburyness station. The Parking at Shoeburyness station is at max capacity therefore there is no infrastructure for more houses.

In regards to the strategic Housing and Employment Land Availability Assessment, I would like to state the below points, why land with reference number GF03- Great Wakering, should not be developed:

1. Infestation of rats throughout the local area. This has happened in the past on building sites in the village such as Havengore close and Star Lane.

2.Massive impact on wildlife and nature throughout the whole area.

3.The local junior school is full to capacity and seniors school students have to travel to Rochford. Therefore, this would mean excessive amounts of buses and slow traffic in rush hour plus excessive children out in poor lit areas.

4.All areas of farmland are on top quality A grade soil. We will be required to produce our own crops now we are leaving the EU.

5.Local doctors and dentists surgeries are full to capacity already, so additional housing will cause unacceptable issues.

6.We do not have sufficient shops within the area to sustain more housing.

7.There is only one zebra crossing in the village therefore additional housing will impact on safety.

8.All areas are within a flood zone. Local residents home insurance prices reflect this and it is a high risk to build in such areas with the UKs current flooding issues.

9.All entrance roads to Great Wakering are single-track roads. Most are liable to flooding, do not have street lights are prone to slow moving farm traffic. There are already traffic issues in rush hour or school times and new housing will add enormous pressure to this current problem.

10.The vast majority of new residents would be required to travel out of the local area for work. Already Trains, A127,A13 and A130 plus local roads are at maximum capacity in morning and evenings, this would undoubtedly cause major issues for emergency services to attend if required.

11.Local NHS services are already stretched beyond workable capacity.

12.Local post office is stretched beyond capacity.

13.There are no local leisure facilities despite the council stating there is.

14.There are also parking concerns within the village with the current amount of cars and issues with the amount of delivery drivers.

15.There is no regular public transport services. You are unable to walk to Shoeburyness station. The Parking at Shoeburyness station is at max capacity therefore there is no infrastructure for more houses.

In regards to the strategic Housing and Employment Land Availability Assessment, I would like to state the below points, why land with reference number GF03, CFSO11, CFSO65, CFSO57, CFSO34, CFSO56, and Land CFSO70 - Great Wakering, should not be developed:

1. Infestation of rats throughout the local area. This has happened in the past on building sites in the village such as Havengore close and Star Lane.

2.Massive impact on wildlife and nature throughout the whole area.

3.The local junior school is full to capacity and seniors school students have to travel to Rochford. Therefore, this would mean excessive amounts of buses and slow traffic in rush hour plus excessive children out in poor lit areas.

4.All areas of farmland are on top quality A grade soil. We will be required to produce our own crops now we are leaving the EU.

5.Local doctors and dentists surgeries are full to capacity already, so additional housing will cause unacceptable issues.

6.We do not have sufficient shops within the area to sustain more housing.

7.There is only one zebra crossing in the village therefore additional housing will impact on safety.

8.All areas are within a flood zone. Local residents home insurance prices reflect this and it is a high risk to build in such areas with the UKs current flooding issues.

9.All entrance roads to Great Wakering are single-track roads. Most are liable to flooding, do not have street lights are prone to slow moving farm traffic. There are already traffic issues in rush hour or school times and new housing will add enormous pressure to this current problem.

10.The vast majority of new residents would be required to travel out of the local area for work. Already Trains, A127,A13 and A130 plus local roads are at maximum capacity in morning and evenings, this would undoubtedly cause major issues for emergency services to attend if required.

11.Local NHS services are already stretched beyond workable capacity.

12.Local post office is stretched beyond capacity.

13.There are no local leisure facilities despite the council stating there is.

14.There are also parking concerns within the village with the current amount of cars and issues with the amount of delivery drivers.

15.There is no regular public transport services. You are unable to walk to Shoeburyness station. The Parking at Shoeburyness station is at max capacity therefore there is no infrastructure for more houses.

I am emailing in order to raise an objection to the proposed development of land (reference number CFS070) in Great Wakering.
I believe that this land is unsuitable for development for the following reasons;
* Development will lead to loss of green belt land
* Substantial lose of wildlife habitat
* Insufficient sewage, drainage and water clearance which increases risk of flooding
* Poor public transportation links
* Lack of public footpaths in Poynters lane
* Inadequate road infrastructure such as Poynters lane which is totally unsuitable for the increase in traffic

I am emailing in order to raise an objection to the proposed development of land (reference number CFS070) in Great Wakering.
I believe that this land is unsuitable for development for the following reasons;
* Development will lead to loss of green belt land
* Substantial lose of wildlife habitat
* Insufficient sewage, drainage and water clearance which increases risk of flooding
* Poor public transportation links
* Lack of public footpaths in Poynters lane
* Inadequate road infrastructure such as Poynters lane which is totally unsuitable for the increase in traffic

I am emailing in order to raise an objection to the proposed development of land (reference number CFS070) in Great Wakering.
I believe that this land is unsuitable for development for the following reasons;
* Development will lead to loss of green belt land
* Substantial lose of wildlife habitat
* Insufficient sewage, drainage and water clearance which increases risk of flooding
* Poor public transportation links
* Lack of public footpaths in Poynters lane
* Inadequate road infrastructure such as Poynters lane which is totally unsuitable for the increase in traffic

This is an objection to land availability Assessment 2017 Appendix C

OBJECTION TO CF5065

New Road Shoebury Road & Seaview Drive. Also any other sites within the boundaries of Great Wakering CF5057, CF5034, CF5056, CF5070
These sites are all Agricultural land growing food produce for many hundreds of years.
Suitability assessment for housing NO.

EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES. POOR.

We have I junior school in Wakering High Street. Our Seniors boys & girls have to travel by bus to Rochford to St. Edmunds School. Two day nursery's .

HEATH CARE
One Doctors surgery with five regular doctors. With the new house built in Star Lane is putting extra strain on the surgery already with the new amount of housing it will not be able to cope. POOR

Retail facilities we have a Co.Op metro type store's and that is it. POOR

PUBLIC TRANSPORT SERVICE

The public transport is insufficient at this moment about 8 buses a day equivalent 2 hour. The roads infrastructure is insufficient to take the public road traffic through the village and adjoining road lanes and routes. Poor

EXISTING RESIDENTIAL AREAS. ADEQUATE

Adequate for the size of the village

HIGHWAYS ACCESS NOT NEEDED

To get access to these small village roads an increase in Volume of cars these roads would not able to cope.
Significant investment in utilities needed if these projects were to come to fruition it would be a massive cost to the council which would be passed on to the households by the council, we are happy as we are.
What ever investment was put sustainable transport would again be put onto the rate payers. Not fair

These farmers and landowners that wish to sell agricultural land and have for years been accepting grants for this land want to sell and make more money.
What happens when we leave the E U we will need this land to help to sustain the growth of produce for British people and not for housing migrants.

I have lived in Hockley for 41 years and in that time housing has inceased three fold. Along with traffic delays and difficulty in getting a doctors appointment. Cars parked in residential roads is becoming a real hazard. Hockley village has no parking but for a few spaces in the road. This area and surrounding areas are saturated, further housing being built would be a disaster. Southend Hospital is bursting at the seams and to put 20,000 or more new residents in the mix would be madness.

Surely some one in RDC has the common sense to oppose this ?????

Support options 135 . There is a need for joined up pedestrian/cycleways to provide a meaningful and safe network .The green grid network was promised in the core strategy but there is little mention in the plans for north of London Road .
Sustrans national network has become unsustainable because of the volume of traffic in Watery Lane and Beeches Road . This could reappear if a north south link was completed .
Buses need to be cost effective and convenient alternatives to private vehicles . If east west routes were less congested journey times could reduce.

I am concerned about the plans for the amount of new housing to be developed. My issues are around the following points:-

1. traffic will increase significantly
2. insufficient school capacity
3. commute increase in people travelling by train to either Southend or Liverpool Street
4. Insufficient GP surgeries with the capacity to cope
5. Subsequent pressure on Southend and Basildon Hospital
6. More rubbish and impact on waste collection
7. General deterioration of the area
8. Impact on wildlife

Please find below the Comments that Rawreth Parish Council wish to submit with regards to the Issue and Options Document (and draft Sustainability Appraisal)


Objectively Assessed Need (OAN) page 38
Section 6.30
A combination of both Option A & C. Seek to provide as much of the Districts housing need within out District given our environmental and other constraints, giving a percentage of new homes to residents to purchase on a first come first served basis for a limited period of time, bearing in mind we need to co-operate with neighbouring authorities.

Affordable Homes page 39
Section 6.31
A combination of A & C. Reduce the threshold for the provision of affordable homes in line with emerging residential policy.

Section 6.32
A combination of D & E. need to maximise the provision so wherever possible increase above the 35% but, this should be the minimum on all sites.

Homes for Older People and Adults with Disabilities
Section 6.33
Support integration within new developments to provide for various needs.

Section 6.36
Support option B.

Delivering our Need for Homes
Section 6.37
In order of preference support Options A, B, E, C, D. Density should be increased near to Town Centres and Transport hubs. Large extension to existing residential areas are becoming too remote from Town hubs, eg Hall Road, Ashingdon Road and Land to the North of London Road. Hence the possibility of a new settlement South West of Rayleigh, East of Hullbridge around Lower Road, north of Ashingdon but only if infrastructure is improved with national investment (we have responded separately on this point under Transport and Access)

Section 6.59
Support Options B & F. We need to preserve our existing stock of bungalows and restrict permitted development rights to enable the increasing elderly population to remain in independent living. To monitor the need for new bungalows in proposed mixed developments.

Gypsy, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople
Section 6.78
Support Option B combined with Option E. We support the Michelins Farm site provided it is in the District Council's control and strictly monitored with provisions for very limited natural expansion as the needs arise.

Paragraph 6.74 States that unauthorised sites are pursued through enforcement powers, there is no evidence to this in the case of the Cherry Hill Site on the A1245 which continues to increase in numbers.

Houseboats and Liveaboards
Section 6.86
Support Option c to safeguard the open apsects of the shoreline of the River Crouch and the River Roach.


Meeting Business Needs
Section 6.96
Support Option C. Paragraph 6.95 states that "the local road network also needs investment to improve accessibility", there needs to be connectivity with the national network to attract new business, as the imbalance between available employment and outflow to other areas needs urgently addressing.

Need for Jobs
Section 6.111.
Support a combination of Options A, C, E F with option B being worth of consideration . Paragraph 6.109. The increasing leisure use on some industrial sites makes these sites unattractive to further business use it also suggests that there was a surplus or business premises, possibly because of the inaccessibility of some sites due to congestion or poor roads, eg Brook Road, Eldon Way and Purdeys Way.





Tourism
Section 6.128
Support Option A. Paragraph 6.120 & 6.121 why does the "Crouch Coastal Community Team" not include the river up to the bridging point at Battllesbridge? Chelmsford City Council, Rawreth Parish Council and Rettendon Parish Council need to be involved.

Commercial Development
Section 7.20
Support Option A. Parking issues ie cost and accessibility restrict the enjoyment of facilities in the Town Centres, the draw of free parking at out of Town shopping centres, A127, Lakeside and Southend Airport divert resources away from small independent shops to large national chains. The Government promised that a levy on free parking was to be introduced this should help subsidise local centres, this needs addressing by National action.

Highways Infrastructure
Section 8.20
Object to Option C, Support Option B. Paragraph 8.4 note that 14,000 commute out of the District daily, 63% by car which puts pressure on the road network. The need to attract inward employment could reduce pressure on the system. The A127/A130 junction improvements are due to be operational 2022/23. The District is a peninsula therefore there is only one way out, westwards if the Government insists on expansion in Rochford, Southend and Castle Point then Central Government should invest in our future by alieving the congestion by a river crossing between Hulllbridge and Fambridge to link with the Burnham Road to bypass South Woodham Ferrers dual carriageway to the Turnpike/A130. The whole road should go through to the Tesco's roundabout on the A127, this could be linked to a new settlement as previously mentioned and relieve congestion around South Woodham Ferrers.

Sustainable Travel
Section 8.37
Support Option A, C and E. Paragraph 8.32, Green Grid strategy was promised in the Core Strategy for the Land North of London Road Rawreth, however it seems to have disappeared in the Countryside plans. There is a need for joined up pedestrian/cycle ways to provide a meaningful and safe network. The subtrans national cycle route via Beeches Road/Watery Lane seems have disappeared, its unsafe because of the volume of traffic. Buses need to be convenient and cost effective alternatives to private vehicles.

Water and Flood Risk Management
Section 8.58
Support Options A & C which should be combined. Paragraph 8.45 Zone 2 and 3 areas of Rawreth are at risk from development upstream of the Brook system which drains Rayleigh, Thundersley, Bowers Gifford; Basildon and Wickford, all areas with development pressures. We need to co-operate with each authority to minimise risk in Rawreth and the River Crouch. Some areas of Rawreth are protected by sea defences which need upgrading to match the height of the North Bank. Because of the geology of the area in exceptionally wet years the impermeable clay can become saturated and ground water becomes an issue. The Rayleigh ridge is of mainly permeable Bagshot beds sitting on a clay base which gives rise to ground water. Flood risk from Highways improvements have to be properly modelled, for example the Fairglen interchange. Paragraph 8.49 the Water Cycle Study 2015 recommendation needs updating to take account of new future housing.

Health and Wellbeing
Section 9.11.
Support Option D with land allocation support.

Education
Section 9.29
Support Option A, B D and E Paragraph 9.26 stated that 800 new homes would generate a need for a new Primary School. Land to the North of London Road will generate 550 homes but this is not enough to generate a new school. St Nicholas School Rawreth was designed to be expanded to 210 pupils, it is currently half that, will expansion be an option?
Each new development should be treated individually to ensure adequate land is set aside for school sites if the demand can be shown. The Secondary School provision for age 16 to 19 years needs to be considered and addressed.

Open Space and Outdoor Sports Recreation
Section 9.42
Paragraph 9.39 "Depending on their size and scale these are considered appropriate in certain circumstances taking into account the impact on the Green Belt" So do the pitches in Old London Road Rawreth fit that criteria? In the SA Report it is stated that there were only about 30 pitches in Rochford District. There should be a re-appraisal and a comprehensive census of all sports facilities in Rochford. Why are most Council owned facilities underused and of poor quality? If private landowners can make a profit on pitches then the Council should review their facilities and invest in improvements to attract profitable use.

Green Belt
Section 10.16
Paragraph 10.6, Does this mean that the Green Belt can be expanded as well as reduced to facilitate development. Paragraph 10.7 there should be a sixth principle in food production and encouragement of locally produced sustainable food. Paragraph 10.15 the western boundary and strips of Green Belt are becoming too narrow as Basildon District, Shotgate expansion is built almost to the Rochford boundary. Is the land to the west of the western boundary of the land to the North of London Road still classified as Green Belt?

Air Quality
Section 10.72
Support Option B. We need to improve air quality by encouraging sustainable travel, also clean non polluting renewable energy. All new housing must incorporate PV panels or tiles on the roof.

Rural Exception Sites.
Section 11.19
Recognise the need for affordable housing in rural areas by small well designed sites in villages to retain the generations of families in their environment who can be supportive as a family unit, relieving pressure on social and health care services and reducing travel. Continue need for agricultural workers where new demand appears. Developments could be instigated by Parish Councils (see page 4&5 section on Community Led Planning)

Development of Previously Developed Land in the Green Belt
Section 11.49
In the guidance notes it was suggested that derelict agricultural/forestry areas should be excluded from the definition of Brownfield. Each site should be judged on its merits. In the case of Hambro Nurseries Rawreth where there are several hectares of un-used and underused greenhouses as well as areas of scrub and concrete, it should be looked at as on its own advantages it would be a development adjoining an existing residential area as was stated in the previous Core Strategy this Parish Council would support this area to consolidate and create a meaningful hub for the Village of Rawreth, the disadvantages put forward by the District Council were grossly exaggerated.


Contaminated Land
Section 11.81
Paragraph 11.80 it is stated that Rochford District Council don't have any formally declared contaminated land, what then is Michelins Farm?

Forming the first stage of the Local Plan review, the Issues and Options Document identifies a series of strategic priorities and objectives to support the draft vision for the future of Rochford District. These are supported by key planning issues that have been identified for a number of themes, and potential options to deal with these issues.

Document Page, Policy and/or Paragraph Number

Comments

Our Vision and Strategic Objectives

5. Our Vision and Strategic Objectives 5.8

Maldon Council supports a number of key ideas and themes
that have come from paragraph 5.8. Improving the strategic
infrastructure network is a shared objective for both authorities;
the Southminster branch line holds a significant relationship with
the Southend train line, which must be safeguarded and
enhanced.

Delivering Homes and Jobs

Pg. 32. Para. 6.9 The revised OAN now expresses a range of between 331 and
361 homes per year. To effectively meet the revised OAN, all
possible options must be considered including a review of
Green Belt land. With the current pressures on housing need as
a national issue, there needs a balance between serving
strategic housing allocations and mitigating the consequences,
such as loss of greenfield land.

Pg. 39. Para. 6.31 Provided the national threshold for affordable housing is 10
units or 1000sqm, which has been widely adopted by most local
authorities, it would seem appropriate to use this threshold as
local policy given the pressures on affordable housing as a
national issue.

Pg. 56. Para. 6.86 Retention of or amendments to strengthen the existing policy
would be supported by the Council. Any amendments which
would be detrimental to the landscape, ecology and/or
biodiversity of the River Crouch would be objected to.

Pg. 58. Para. 6.91 With a revised OAN of 6620-7220 homes from 2017-2037, the
assessed need of up to 16 hectares of 'new' employment land between 2016-2036 would need to be appropriately situated to align with a vision that seeks increased provisions for sustainable transport and sustainable communities.

Delivering Infrastructure

Pg. 85. Para. 8.26 Although there are limitations on the level of influence local
planning authorities have on the level of provision with regard to public transport, the level of provision is based on the use of services. When identifying strategic housing allocations within the district, this must be taken into consideration. Protecting and Enhancing our Environment

Pg. 127. Para. 10.26 It should be emphasised that there will be a close working
relationship between all contributing authorities in the preparation and production of the Essex Coastal Recreational Avoidance and Mitigation Strategy and that there must be a Duty to Cooperate.

Pg. 127. Para. 10.27 Retaining or amending policy ENV1 to strengthen the current policy is supported.

To whom it may concern:

I wish to state my strong objection to the proposed future housing development in Little & Great Wakering and I refer in particular to the areas shown as site reference CFS115 - Land to the west of Little Wakering Road and the various areas depicted on Map Q.

At a rough estimate it would appear that the village will be increased in size by at least 30%. A more worrying aspect of the entire proposal is that no where is there any reference to the ancilliary services; I refer in particular to the disposal of sewerage which has already created problems from the former brickfield site in Star Lane.

I note with interest and amazement that the suitability assessment states that educational, transport links, and healthcare facilities are 'good'. This belies the fact that the school is at full capacity, the doctor's surgery is working to full capacity and is often inaccessible in terms of appointment availability and contact. Secondary school children are still being taken to King Edmund school from the village by coach. What is proposed to alleviate these very crucial and critical problems which should be addressed before any further agreement on development is concluded?

Rail links to London Fenchurch Street from Shoeburyness are good, however, there are few parking facilities available and parking permits have been introduced in Shoeburyness to attempt to alleviate this problem which will only increase with further housing development.

Employment opportunities in Southend and the surrounding areas are virtually non existent with London Southend Airport being quoted at all times as a magic source of employment for the new residents of the proposed housing. I raise this with reference to the parking issues at the closest mainline station to Southend, Basildon and London.

During the severe weather we have suffered powercuts on two occassions as the grid in this area is already at full capacity. Indeed, during the recent construction of flats and houses at Mason Way cables were unable to take the extra load of power supplies.

Finally, I am aware that there is a high pressure gas pipeline to the west of site CFS115 and I believe that British Gas require development to be situated at least 40 feet either side of the location of the main. Has this been taken into consideration?

I request constructive answers to the issues raised above, and seek clarity as to how it is conceivable for planning to be proposed under such circumstances.

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