Water and Flood Risk Management

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

I am 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.

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

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

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

2 roads: Infrastructure - no money for this. So how can more housing be built? Air Quality?
Schools are full. Hospitals are on black alert. Care in the community is stretched now. Affordable housing in 200 thousands. Flood plains to consider. Green Belt: Badgers/Bats/Foxes/Roe Deer. Urban sprawl - Eastwood joined to Rayleigh joined to Hockley Hawkwell etc.

Having looked at the new plan for 7500 house it seems unstainable on several counts.

There is no requirement for the house developers to contribute to the stainability at any level of the plan at any level.

There is no requirement on the house builder to recycle brown water.

The builder is not required to use geothermal heating or roof electricity generating panels or water heating panels

It is not accompanied with a plan to improve the road net-work with widening or by-passes.

Assuming the three hospitals in the area implement the plan to move patients between them road congestion will be an issue at certain times of the day. What is the plan?

Doctors surgeries are under pressure.

Additional school places seem to have no consideration.

Also to be considered are the utilities such as water with an addition of around 70 Cu M per house hold = approximately 500,000 cubic metres of water in total.

How is this water to be disposed of and the associated sewerage?

Building this number of houses will mean large amounts of rain water from the roofs will have to handled.

This number of houses will restricts the grounds ability to take up rain naturally thus adding to potential flooding some were in the area.

New house at affordable price and rents are no doubt needed but less than half the number proposed say 3000 over a period of twenty years would seem a more viable number.

I trust that the plan will be reconsidered taking into account environment, the financial consequences to the travelling public, the health and welling been of the residents and that the land owners and the developers make a contribution to the cost which will fall on the council.

Regards

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

I wish to object to potential development plans for the land at the end of Marylands Avenue, and behind Merryfields Avenue Hockley.

As a local resident this would have a major detrimental impact on the area. The main concerns as below:

Land is green belt and is there to protect countryside from being developed.

The land is next to the nature reserve and wildlife lives in the woods adjacent. There are various protected species in this area, including bats, badgers, and goshawks. These have all been seen in and around our garden several times over the last year.

Flooding issues would be increased as there is a stream running through the proposed area, and when there is heavy rainfall the water congregates at the end of Marylands Avenue

Access to the proposed site is narrow and limited. The area is a quiet residential street and many young families live in Marylands and Merryfields, therefore having site traffic would be dangerous

Developing on this land has previously been declined at the high courts, and should be declined again.

I wish to lodge my objection to the Second Local Development Plan for 2017 to 2037.

Local residence have already submitted (my self include) their objections in respect of the First Plan for 2011 to 2025
and their reasons are already known by RDC Planning Department.

The the proposed plan will be on Metropolitan Green Belt which is there to protect the countryside from inappropriate development.
This land is also outside the existing settlement boundary.

There is concern also over the close proximity to the Nature Reserve which has a host of wildlife for people to enjoy.
Although it does not affect my property,I understand that excessive amounts of water during heavy rainfall congregates at the end of Merrylands Avenue which the gulley's are unable to cope with.

Increased traffic during and after development will destroy what is currently a quiet residential family area.

I found it difficult to navigate the RDC website in order to find the appropriate comments page. If I have sent this e-mail to the wrong department I apologise and ask that it be forwarded to the correct one.

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

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

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

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

It has been brought to our notice by the local residents team, that further housing developments have been proposed for another 30 sites to the East of Rayleigh. As if the large development to the West between Rawreth Lane and the London Road is not enough!
Our roads, hospitals, sewerage system, doctor's surgeries, schools etc etc ...simply won't be able to COPE! It is ludicrous. Already the roads in and around Rayleigh get totally grid-locked at busy times.
It's been admitted that the government/county council have no money to improve the infrastructure in the area.
Doesn't anyone realise that the more agricultural farmland that is turned into housing..means more people to feed and less land to provide it?? If ever there is another 'conflict' the whole country will be in peril. It would be a simple matter to stop imports of food and provisions.......

I live opposite the Grove Wood school, and even more cars blocking the roads around here would prevent safe access for emergency vehicles. We have had a few flooding incidents in this area over the past few years, and building more houses on the woodland near the school and agricultural land to the north will only make the situation worse...as this area is right down in a 'dip'.
We trust common sense will prevail and you will reconsider these proposed plans.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My reasons for objections include the following:-

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

I would beg you to reconsider your proposals.

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

My reasons for objections include the following:-

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

I would beg you to reconsider your proposals.

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

My reasons for objections include the following:-

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

I would beg you to reconsider your proposals.

I am writing on behalf of my mother to confirm objection to the new housing
Reference CFS024 Land north of Merryfields Avenue Hockley MAP G 119

Pat Williams
45 Marylands Avenue
Hockley
Essex
SS5 5AH


Our family has lived there for 55 years and we are aware it is metropolitan green belt and is there to protect this sort of development so are surprised to see the application.
The land is known for its wild life and the nature reserve is the right environment for bats that we are aware are a protected species

The other concern is flooding as the existing gulley's cannot with heavy rainfall which we have seen over the years.

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

SUMMARY

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

Dear Sirs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SUMMARY

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

I would like to register my objections in the strongest possible terms to any proposed development of the land to the north of Malvern Road, Harrogate Drive and the childrens play area/ walk through to Beckney Woods Ref. CFS023/COL38 on the Land Assessment 2017- Appendix B.

This land is and has always been designated Green Belt. The Governments policy as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework document paragraphs 79 to 92 clearly sets out the responsibilities of a local planning authority.

Paragraph 89 states " A local planning authority should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in Green Belt", it goes on to list six exceptions, one of which is to provide limited affordable housing for local needs, which does not apply in this case.

I am concerned that this particular exception may have been used by the Council and the developers to falsely manipulate the system in order to gain planning for the recent development of Houses in nearby Hall Road Rochford,

The majority of houses built there, could no way be classified as affordable housing they are high value detached properties, there are of course some affordable housing most of which have been sold to Newham Council to rehouse their overflow of homeless tenants, again not providing housing for local community needs.

Also as far as the Hall Road development is concerned , the initial plans were to include the provision of a doctor's surgery and a school which have not been built, putting extra pressure on the existing infrastructure.

If this further development were to go ahead it would increase the population of Hockley considerably. The infrastructure is already at breaking point, the situation having not been helped by the addition of the Hall Road development.

The schools are already full, it takes forever to get a doctor's appointment and the roads in and out of Hockley are grid locked at peak times, they certainly could not cope with an additional 1000 cars in the area.

Vehicular access to the proposed site could only be through residential areas serviced by single track roads, totally unsuitable for any planned increase in traffic.

The proposed site is also surrounded by areas of high risk of surface water flooding, any increased development is likely to increase that risk to homes in the area.

This land is therefore totally unsuitable for development for the reasons I have stated, and I will strongly object to any future planning applications.

OBJECTION
PROPOSED SITE CFS 127

I STRONGLY OBJECT TO THE ABOVE-NAMED PROPOSAL.

One of the principles of Green Belt is to preserve the identity of individual communities and limit urban sprawl. Rayleigh and the surrounding areas have already lost a significant amount of Green Belt and to add to this will have devastating effects on the community.

Extremely poor access via Bartletts.
Narrow roads/congestion.
Infrastructure - I understand that a report issued in 2016 by the ECC concludes that the infrastructure cannot match the proposed growth due to high levels of under-funding. I believe that the utility companies have not proved their ability, nor given formal commitment to meeting extra demands.
Our schools and GP surgeries are already oversubscribed.
Poor air quality.
Flooding issues.

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

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

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.

Many of the roads in Hullbridge are unadopted and do not have drains for surface water, which often results in minor flooding. If a large number of new homes are built adjacent to these roads there is a risk that the problem could become worse once the surrounding farmland which absorbs water at present is built on.

CFS015 we have trouble with our garden flooding now with heavy rain, building on this site with more properties would only increase flooding as no where for water to go

In view of the very serious flooding in the vicinity of the proposed development, it would seem a poor choice of land!
My own house only just escaped flooding some years ago when the adjoining properties were seriously damaged by flood water to a depth of 3 ft or more when the gullies could not cope.

My house is situated at the low part of Plumberow Avenue and would be in serious risk of flooding if the natural woodland soakaway is removed. The existing drainage has already proved to be vulnerable to excess water and to add more housing and ground consolidation near to this low ground area would be a serious mistake.

When the last flooding occurred, home owners were out of their houses for some 8 months and this must not be allowed to happen again.

Also disruption to the wildlife Park and Greenbelt!

. Land between star lane and Alexandra road 180 dwellings.
I would like to strongly abject to this proposed building .This will back right on to the back of my garden, I bought this house because of all the beautiful open views from the back of my house. This was listed as a selling point when I bought the house on the estate agents description. I would like compensation for lack of view. So far a beautiful old willow tree has been destroyed apparently it did not have a C.P.O. on it, although I cant believe why not, it was not even in the way, its just blatant destruction. I was assured by a Taylor Wimpey employee that further planting will take place but a few old shrubs will not replace this beautiful tree. The other concerns are the wildlife that live in the field particularly the bats badgers, frogs, toads, newts that all live by the lakes not to mention the birds woodpeckers and hawks. Light pollution is another concern particularly for the bats that are common here.Also flooding is another risk with all this land concreted over the field proposed is often flooded but does soak it up eventually this will not happen when its built on Great Wakering has already flooded years ago There is also the more obvious concerns of the fact that the local doctors are full you cannot get and appointment the car park is always full. The primary school is full and there is no senior school( even though we have been promised one for years)the senior children have to go in by bus to other schools out of the area. There is only the local co-op and one small shop to serve the growing community. There has already been a lot of building in Great Wakering its a small village and cannot take these extra houses. THEY ARE NOT WANTED HERE BY MOST RESIDENTS.

My husband and I wish to object in the most strongest terms to the proposed new housing on the rear of our property for the following reasons:

a) The new housing in Star Lane has already had an impact on the infrastructure on the village. Current policy at the GP Surgery is that if you wish to make an appointment to see the Doctor or Nurse you telephone at 8.00.a.m. I can assure you, when you can eventually get through, all appointments have been taken and if it is very important then you are told to visit the Hospital (more pressure on them, which they can well do without. (Having worked there in the past, I have plenty of experience). Patients become very aggressive with Receptionists when they cannot get an appointment, plus you need a referral letter from a GP to see a Consultant, more work for already over-worked Doctors. Has anybody thought of this? and it is no good saying "go private" because the same thing happens there.

b) Now to go onto Schools. Our Son went to Great Wakering Primary and unfortunately had an unhappy time there due to his issues and lack of educational funding - this can only get worse. Where are the new children supposed to go, this then rolls on to King Edmonds in Rochford. Do they have any spare capacity?

c) The most important issue affecting us is the lovely view of the countryside with its' varied and unusual wildlife. The whole reason why we bought this house over 40 years ago. Whilst on this subject, will our property suffer a down valuation as we would be overlooked?

We do not recall anything about this proposal in the manifesto at the last election!!

Having attended the Open Meeting, I am given to understand that new properties in Seaview Drive have had the foundations raised to avoid the risk of flooding Therefore will the new housing in Great Wakering be the same thus inccurring additional cost. Also will the newly created wetland at Wallasea Island increase the risk of flooding should we get another exceptionally high tide as in 1953?

LEAVE OUR VILLAGE ALONE - GREEN BELT MEANS GREEN BELT AND SHOULD NOT BE BUILT ON.

The levels of house building in in Rochford District in recent years has started to escalate at an alarming rate. The new plans outlined in your leaflet indicate a plan which is disastrous to the local semi-rural lifestyle that we currently enjoy.
The building project in Hall Road is still under way, but already we experience increased traffic especially at the roundabout at Bradley Way / Ashingdon Road / Hall Road. This will become very severe once the Hall road project is complete. The proposed building projects near Mount Bovers lane, Nursey Corner and Cherry Orchard Way will cause a serious loss of open green belt as well as jamming our country lanes such as Hall Road, main Road (Hockley) and Rectory Road.
The recent developments in Brays Lane has noticeably added to delays in Ashingdon Road, and if another 1,182 to 1,382 houses were to be built it would be a disaster in terms of loss good, open farmland, massive congestion in the whole area between Rochford and Rayleigh and an overload on other resources such as parking at local shops. Three and four bedroom houses usually have between two and four cars per house, these would need to be parked off street; are sufficient spaces designed into the projects for this? Once these cars are mobile and going to work, school runs, shops, social trips etc, the journey times will be horrific. Emergency services will experience unacceptable journey times with lives put at risk.
On the subject of emergency services, we have all been aware of the demise of Rochford Police Station. Increased Police presence ought to be incorporated into any housing plan on a pro - rata basis of new houses; also Fire and Medical services. Yet the NHS have apparently merged Southend, Basildon and Broomfield (Chelmsford) Hospitals with a view to transferring injured and ill patients between hospitals; the road congestion already makes this a slow process. The New Local Plan makes it inevitable that more people would suffer more and an increased death rate is bound to occur.
Essex has the lowest rainfall of any county in the UK, with Great Wakering being the driest village of all. So, the strain on water supplies would be very great and with massive housing projects springing up all over Essex, (Rochford, Witham, Bealieu near Chelmsford, Braintree etc etc) the water supply is not going to support all these proposed houses.
In summary, I am appalled by the proposed New Local Plan for Rochford District, and hope that our responsible local democratic councillors can bring sense to the rest of RDC and minimise these plans by a massive percentage, or stop them outright.

Your Sincerely,
John Chapman