Water and Flood Risk Management

We appreciate the need for increased housing in the area, however, releasing small pockets of green land is not alleviating true housing shortage but is changing the face of our village forever. Removing these small envelopes of green belt does not seem very productive. This site in particular is heavily wooded, would have a considerable cost element per hectare than one of the larger potential development sites which could provide more diverse housing. See our objections below:
Flooding
During heavy rain it is clear to see at the back of our property the field floods and the ditch overflows into our garden and the cul de sac at the end of Marylands Avenue floods encroaching into our drive and that of our opposite neighbour. Without the current woodland to absorb runoff, more serious flooding would occur.
Sewerage
Marylands Ave and Merryfields Road have a history of periodic sewerage overflow, as the system struggles to cope. It has not been updated since it was originally put in in the 1960's and is not maintained by the Council.
Nature
This narrow strip of land runs adjacent to the Nature Reserve, maintained by Hockley Parish Council, and if built on would have a detrimental effect on the current wildlife population which includes bats, woodpeckers etc.
One of our main objections, as we live adjacent to the site in question, is that this land is green belt and is subject to a TPO, ref no 02/00. If major tree clearance were to take place, this could have a serious effect on the stability of our property as was stated in Rochford District Council letter to us dated 23rd January 2001.
When the document is submitted for independent examination?
When the Inspectors Report is published?
When document is adopted?

We appreciate the need for increased housing in the area, however, releasing small pockets of green land is not alleviating true housing shortage but is changing the face of our village forever. Removing these small envelopes of green belt does not seem very productive. This site in particular is heavily wooded, would have a considerable cost element per hectare than one of the larger potential development sites which could provide more diverse housing. See our objections below:
Flooding
During heavy rain it is clear to see at the back of our property the field floods and the ditch overflows into our garden and the cul de sac at the end of Marylands Avenue floods encroaching into our drive and that of our opposite neighbour. Without the current woodland to absorb runoff, more serious flooding would occur.
Sewerage
Marylands Ave and Merryfields Road have a history of periodic sewerage overflow, as the system struggles to cope. It has not been updated since it was originally put in in the 1960's and is not maintained by the Council.
Nature
This narrow strip of land runs adjacent to the Nature Reserve, maintained by Hockley Parish Council, and if built on would have a detrimental effect on the current wildlife population which includes bats, woodpeckers etc.
One of our main objections, as we live adjacent to the site in question, is that this land is green belt and is subject to a TPO, ref no 02/00. If major tree clearance were to take place, this could have a serious effect on the stability of our property as was stated in Rochford District Council letter to us dated 23rd January 2001.
When the document is submitted for independent examination?
When the Inspectors Report is published?
When document is adopted?

I attended a meeting yesterday at Great Wakering Old School to discuss with my local councellor your plans regarding new housing
estates in and around Great Wakering.

I am especially concerned with the proposed development of CFS056 and have the following objections to the proposals.

1) The proposed development is on a flood plain.Where are the proposals to strengthen the sea wall.
2) It is stated that the transport links are good. A bus every one and a half hours from the end of Victoria Drive into Southend via Barling or down to Shoeburyness railway station is not good.
I have seen no proposals to improve this.

Regarding the rest of the proposals:-

1) The Doctors Surgery in Great Wakering is running at full capacity now, It cannot take more patients.Is there a proposal to build another surgery
2) Great Wakering School is full and could not cope, A new school would have to be built just to take all the extra children that would move to these houses with their parents.
Where will this be going.
3) Access to Great Wakering is through narrow country lanes , eg Poynters Lane and Southend Road.
I do not see any proposals to widen these roads. And if they are not widened,building all these homes would result in great congestion.
4) Most of the land is designated agricultural land and should not be build on.

With ref to the current consultation regarding proposed building of houses to the North of Merryfields Avenue Hockley.

I must strongly object to the proposed building of houses within this area.

This is a small estate that simply cannot sustain further development. Hockley village suffers every day to traffic congestion. The main and local side roads are full to capacity and are becoming a danger to pedestrians and all road users alike.

There is not enough infrastructure available in the area to deal with further homes. Not enough doctors, dentists, schools etc.

The area being talked about is a Metropolitan Green Belt area and should be preserved not destroyed. There is a nature reserve adjacent to the area which should be sacrosanct as wildlife is being pushed from one place to another causing them to lose their environment and therefore perish as a result.

The area being considered is also of great risk to flooding which was the case only a couple of years ago. If houses are built as proposed then excess water will not be able to drain away in to the nature reserve and wooded area, a natural soakaway and therefore put our homes at risk to flooding.

I could go on and on about this but feel it would fall on deaf ears.

Please take on aboard mine and other points of view about this proposed building area and do not go ahead with it.

The owner of this land has tried in the past to build on this land for just total profit and without any concern for local nature and further continual agony for other residents. Please do not let him get his way this time.

Reference CFS024 Land north of Merryfields Avenue, Hockley: Map G, 119

I wish to Object to the plan of houses at the end of Marylands Avenue north of Merryfields Avenue.

1) This land is Green Belt and adjacent to the Marylands Nature Reserve. Many animals use this area as a corridor and major disturbance and destruction of their ancient paths would put their numbers under considerable pressure. Badgers inhabit Crab Tree Wood, and Plumberow Avenue and are regularly seen around Marylands Wood. Their runs crisscross the land north of Merryfields Avenue. Plumberrow Mount is adjacent to the Marylands Nature Reserve and any building right next to the other side of the Reserve would sandwich all the naturally occurring creatures and plants. The stream runs from Marylands Wood, across the land north of Merryfields Avenue where wild flowers and newts can be seen.

2) I have lived here for more than four decades and this area has flooded many times causing problems to the sewerage. There is a natural stream which overflows often in winter.

3) The number of bats seen in our garden beside Marylands Wood have recently increased, and they are known to inhabit wood on the land behind Merryfields. Housing would seriously disrupt the bats' habitat, obstructing their recovery in this area.

4) Children play in the street in Marylands Avenue, but an increase in traffic would be a danger and cause pollution. The only access to the land north of Merryfields Avenue is through the estate on narrow roads not in the least suitable for heavy lorries.

5) Our water pressure is low, and extra housing would reduce the water flow further.

6) The gas pressure dips on my hob at times, and this would be put under further pressure.

7) It is already difficult for local children to find places at local schools, and this would be made worse by extra housing. Local Doctors' Surgeries are overflowing and Plumberow Avenue is really busy all the time.

I object most strongly to houses being built north of Merryfields Avenue for all these reasons.

One of the biggest selling points of not only my house, but of Great Wakering as a village, was the beautiful scenery and sense of community spirit amongst the local residents. As a mother with three young children, it was definitly the place I wanted to raise my present and future family. I could see myself living here until my retirement and then some. Especially since I was given complete assurance that the surrounding farm land would never be sold on for any other purposes, or used for development as it is classed as 'top grade land'.

I feel that this proposal of development is a terrible idea. Not only because I strongly beleive that our country side and wildlife should be nurtured and protected, but because this development makes no sense.

Firstly, Great Wakering exists in a red alert, high flood risk zone. Whenever we experience exceptionally high tides or adverse weather, Great Wakering is always on high alert for flood warnings and on stand by for evacuation. With the development of both Alexandra Road and Star Lane, we are already experiencing high levels of traffic in and out of the village, without another 7,000 plus households being introduced to the area. On average each home houses two cars. That's an additional 14,000 cars populating the roads of Great Wakering. Roads that are already well in need of maintainance*. Can you imagine the disruption a frenzy of residents populating 9,000 homes trying to evacuate a small area that only has two ways out will cause?

*As a side note to this - maybe addressing the poor conditions of the local roads should be priority over building new homes! i.e. St John's Road, Cupids Chase, North Street to name a few.

The infrastructure of the local area is already struggling to cope. The local primary school barely has enough available spaces for children already living in Great Wakering, without the addition of more resisdents moving into the area. The doctors surgery is also already bursting at the seems, struggling greatly to accommodate the vast number of patients it has on its books. Both services will be put under even more undue strain if this proposal goes ahead!
As a person with a severe health condition, I am massively concerned that I will not be able to be seen by my doctor when I am experiencing an exaserbation of my COPD. If you know anything about the condition, you will know that it is extremely unpredicatbale, and potentially life threatening in left untreated. Occationally, I have no choice but to go into hospital, but given the low immune system I have, this is not advisable if it can be avoided at all. Access to my doctor and her time to make house calls is vital to the upkeep of my health.

No less important, is the impact these developments will have on the depletion in house values in the area. Many people have purchased family homes in Great Wakering, sold (like me) by the landscapes and community vibes. We are so lucky living where we do. We get the best of all worlds - being right on the outskirts of Southend town and only a short train journey away from the city of London, while experiencing life surrounded by country side, but being a stones throw away from the sea.
Home owners are going to lose money and interest in investments they would not necessarily have made, had they known that these developments would be going ahead.

Another issue that I feel has gone without consideration but will prove to be a big issue upon development, is that the internet speed is severely below average in the area, with an average speed of anything between 2-10gb. With the internet, and the way we use it, continuously progressing, it is important that we are given the access to a decent internet connection. This is not currently available in Great Wakering, and until this is addressed, will always be an issue.

It is for these reasons, I wish to express my profound objection the the proposals of local development in Great Wakering. I understand that society is growing at an expediated rate, and new homes are a necessity; however, I strongly believe that there are other plots of land locally that would be better suited for development. Plots of land that are not arable, and would also lend themselves to keeping travellers away!

I would be extremely greatful if you would seriously consider my comments, and take the time to look at alternative options for these proposed developments.

We have already lost the 'great' in Great Britain. Please don't take away the 'great' of Great Wakering too!

As a concerned resident living in Malvern Road Hockley, I refer you to RDC reference CFSO23/COL38.

Firstly CFSO23

Lack of privacy, Less than 40ft of garden and the substantial upward slope of the proposed development land, any new housing will overlook my ground floor and first floor ( bedroom )

Security

Development of this field will open up the land to vehicles and people so possibly increasing the bigger threat of burglary.

Flooding

There is a history of flooding to existing properties ( mine included ) due to a rise in the water table in the land behind Malvern Road after prolonged rainy periods.
Due to this, a spring occurs which follows the downward slope of the land and floods back gardens.
I am worried that any building on this land would effect the water table and increase the possible inability of the field to absorb any more rain and cause even more flooding to the
back gardens.

Water pressure.

My water pressure as it stands is not up to the standard required therefor the proposed number of houses may impact the pressure even more as the existing pumps and pipework
may not support any more development.

Access

The land available at the bottom of Harrogate Drive and Greensward lane is insufficient to gain access thereby making a safety issue for road users as any development of the land behind
Malvern Road will substantially increase the traffic flow. Accidents may occur as traffic entering or leaving Harrogate Drive will have to swing wide.

Loss of amenities

Loss of view of field and woodland, this will rob the residents of quality of life and enjoyment.

Green Belt Land

The proposed building of housing on this land bordering Beckney Wood could seriously effect this ancient woodland of its flora and forna which includes wood anemones, blue bells
celendine etc and which includes as its forna....Bats, Adders, Barn Owls, Green and Red Woodpeckers, Monk Jack deer, Badgers, Pheasants not to mention all the different kind of birds
that make the wood their home. a huge influx of people walking this wood will threaten the existance of this beautiful place.

RDC reference COL38

Small plot of land Malvern Road ( Childrens play area )

This area is used by Malvern Road families and the local residents to use this land as a play area and right of way for citizens to use every day. I have been using the land for the last 40 yrs
the steep incline and narrow access for vehicles makes it totally an inapropriate and dangerous junction and poses a threat to children etc.

Flash Flooding

With the development of this play area will give rise to the occasional flash flooding as water does run down the hill with increased rain fall into Malvern Road

As a concerned resident living in Malvern Road Hockley, I refer you to RDC reference CFSO23/COL38.

Firstly CFSO23

Lack of privacy, Less than 40ft of garden and the substantial upward slope of the proposed development land, any new housing will overlook my ground floor and first floor ( bedroom )

Security

Development of this field will open up the land to vehicles and people so possibly increasing the bigger threat of burglary.

Flooding

There is a history of flooding to existing properties ( mine included ) due to a rise in the water table in the land behind Malvern Road after prolonged rainy periods.
Due to this, a spring occurs which follows the downward slope of the land and floods back gardens.
I am worried that any building on this land would effect the water table and increase the possible inability of the field to absorb any more rain and cause even more flooding to the
back gardens.

Water pressure.

My water pressure as it stands is not up to the standard required therefor the proposed number of houses may impact the pressure even more as the existing pumps and pipework
may not support any more development.

Access

The land available at the bottom of Harrogate Drive and Greensward lane is insufficient to gain access thereby making a safety issue for road users as any development of the land behind
Malvern Road will substantially increase the traffic flow. Accidents may occur as traffic entering or leaving Harrogate Drive will have to swing wide.

Loss of amenities

Loss of view of field and woodland, this will rob the residents of quality of life and enjoyment.

Green Belt Land

The proposed building of housing on this land bordering Beckney Wood could seriously effect this ancient woodland of its flora and forna which includes wood anemones, blue bells
celendine etc and which includes as its forna....Bats, Adders, Barn Owls, Green and Red Woodpeckers, Monk Jack deer, Badgers, Pheasants not to mention all the different kind of birds
that make the wood their home. a huge influx of people walking this wood will threaten the existance of this beautiful place.

RDC reference COL38

Small plot of land Malvern Road ( Childrens play area )

This area is used by Malvern Road families and the local residents to use this land as a play area and right of way for citizens to use every day. I have been using the land for the last 40 yrs
the steep incline and narrow access for vehicles makes it totally an inapropriate and dangerous junction and poses a threat to children etc.

Flash Flooding

With the development of this play area will give rise to the occasional flash flooding as water does run down the hill with increased rain fall into Malvern Road

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?

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.

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

The reasons being:

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

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

I would appreciate a response to my objections please.

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

OBJECTION: REF CFS024 MAP G, 119. To the land north of Merryfeilds Avenue being offered for consideration as a proposed building site.
I am writing to you to express my concerns over this area being considered in your Development Plan, as an area for possible development. I live in Brackendale Close and so my garden borders onto this land. I have lived here for 11 years and so I am able to comment on the abundance of wildlife that exists. The animals, birds, insects and reptiles that inhabit the nature reserve spill over into land and provides a peaceful nesting site for them. In my garden I have witnessed a multitude of birds, including birds of prey, and various reptiles such as, grass snakes, slow worms, toads and salamanders. In the summer months bats (a protected species) can be most evenings circling in the gardens. Any development of this land would have a drastic effect on the wildlife living there, as it would disturb their natural habitats and nesting areas.
Alongside this I am also concerned about the effect that the building of more houses would have on the prospect of flooding. In heavy rain my garage is constantly flooded and I feel at risk of my house being also flooded. The garden and woodland are used as a natural soakaway. In the flooding in Hockley of August 2013, with the bone-dry earth in my garden, approximately two feet of water collected at the bottom of my land and was only able to disperse through the woodland. Without this drainage I would almost certainly have experienced flooding throughout my ground floor.
This estate is a small, quiet, residential area and the access to the proposed site is very limited. This will undoubtedly cause traffic problems and pose risks to the families that live here. Development would cause tremendous disruption and the onset of heavy vehicles in a small confined area is extremely dangerous. Please could you consider the alarming impact that development of the site will cause both the wildlife and residents of the area.

I am writing to you to express my concerns over this area being considered in your Development Plan, as an area for possible development. I live in Brackendale Close and so my garden borders onto this land. I have lived here for 23 years and so I am able to comment on the abundance of wildlife that exists. The animals, birds, insects and reptiles that inhabit the nature reserve spill over into land and provides a peaceful nesting site for them. In my garden I have witnessed a multitude of birds, including birds of prey, and various reptiles such as, grass snakes, slow worms, toads and salamanders. In the summer months bats (a protected species) can be seen most evenings circling in the gardens. Any development of this land would have a drastic effect on the wildlife living there, as it would disturb their natural habitats and nesting areas.
Alongside this, I am also concerned about the effect that the building of more houses would have on the prospect of flooding. In heavy rain my drive is constantly flooded and I feel at risk of my house being also flooded.
We lost the whole contents of our house due to the flood of 2013 and this has left me feeling so worried every time we have heavy rain. The garden and woodland are used as a natural soakaway. In the flooding in Hockley of August 2013, with the bone-dry earth in my garden, approximately two feet of water collected at the bottom of my land which was only able to disperse through the woodland. Without this drainage I would undoubtedly be flooded again.
This estate is a small, quiet, residential area and the access to the proposed site is very limited. This will undoubtedly cause traffic problems and pose risks to the families that live here. Development would cause tremendous disruption and the onset of heavy vehicles in a small confined area is extremely dangerous. Please could you consider the alarming impact that development of the site will cause both the wildlife and residents of the area.

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

Dear Sir/Madam

Rochford local plan - Issues and Options

Thank you for the opportunity to consider your issues and options document produced as part of your new local plan. We have provided comments related to our remit.

Section 6 - Delivery homes and jobs

We welcome option A, supporting the effective use of brown sites, provided they are not of high environmental value. The justification for such a policy should set out how the local authority will deal with any contamination issues to ensure the protection of human health, ecological systems, property and the environment. The policy should refer to a tired approach to the development of contaminated land which meets good practice (CLR 11). We suggest the policy which outlines the steps to be taken for dealing with contamination, as detailed below

 A preliminary Risk Assessment (PRA) which has identied all previous uses and contaminants associated with those uses. A conceptual model of the site identifying sources, pathways and receptors and any unacceptable risks arising from contamination at the site.

 A site investigation and detailed assessment of risk to all potential receptors both on and off the site.
 An options appraisal and remediation strategy giving details of remediation measures proposed and how they will be undertaken.
 A verification report demonstrating completion of the remedial works.

Section 6.6.1.- Gypsy, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople

We feel this section should include the flood risk posed to pitches that maybe occupied by Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople. Caravans, mobile homes and park homes intended for permanent residential use are classed as Highly Vulnerable. 'Highly vulnerable' development should not be permitted in Flood Zone 3 and the Exception Test is required in Flood Zone 2. If users of the development function as residents rather than holiday makers, in the event of a flood, they may have no other place of residence available and could lose all of their possessions. You should consider the flood zone 'compatibility' in accordance with Table 3 of the PPG.

Section 6.79 - Houseboats and Liveaboards

We feel that the houseboat section should include information in regards to flood
risk.
Although boats are water compatible, if the use of the boat is to be residential we
would then classify the development use as 'More Vulnerable'. Table 3 of the PPG
makes clear that this type of development is not compatible with Flood Zone 3b and
should not therefore be permitted. However if LPA confirmed they would classify
houseboats as 'water compatible' we would review our position.

We feel this section should also consider the pollution potential of houseboats. Our
main concern with the use of houseboats is the potential for waste water (including
but not limited to sewage) being discharged from boats into the environment. The
nutrients therein have the potential to cause deterioration of the water quality and
have a knock-on impact on the ecology and wildlife. We therefore ask that any policy on houseboats seeks to ensure that waste water is disposed of by a method other than direct discharge, and that it is passed through appropriate treatment before discharge to the environment. Protection of environmentally sensitive areas are identified within the plan but it should be noted that the Crouch and Roach estuaries are used for shellfish cultivation which is reliant on good water quality. A
deterioration in water quality could impact on this business and so houseboats in
these locations could have a particular impact.

Section 8 - Delivering Infrastructure - Waste Water

We feel that the plan should include recognition of the importance of waste water
infrastructure. We would recommend liaison with water companies and ourselves
throughout the plan period to ensure adequate capacity is available. Water
resources; security of supply in this zone remains at 100% according to the latest
update to Essex and Suffolk Waters WRMP. However, a new WRMP is currently at
draft stage, and plans should be checked against this document as soon as it
becomes available.

Southend and Rayleigh East Water Recycling Centres (WRC) are over capacity with
regards to their permit. Rayleigh West and Rochford have considerable capacity
remaining, so it is recommended that, in the short term, development be planned to
go to these two WRC. In the longer term we would strongly suggest remaining in
regular touch with Anglian Water regarding the preferred locations for development
and the possibility of upgrade works at Rayleigh East and Southend. The LPA
should be aware that Anglian Water are reluctant to commit to upgrades until there is development firmly planned, but that can take up to 10 years.

Section 8 - Water and Flood Risk Management

We welcome the reference to the Thames Gateway South Essex Flood Risk
Assessment (SFRA) and the South Essex SWMP. These are useful supporting
documents to understand the potential impacts on the flood risk management
infrastructure.
The DEFRA document "Flood and Coastal Resilience Partnership Funding - DEFRA
policy statement on an outcome-focused, partnership approach to funding flood and
coastal erosion risk management" is another useful document to support evidence
base with regard to funding deliverability of new and replacement flood defence
infrastructure. This document could be used to enhance the flood risk management
policy.
We continue working in partnership with Rochford Distric Council and the local Flood
Risk Management Authorities (RMA's) including and the local communities on
developing flood alleviation schemes for both fluvial and surface water flooding in
Rochford. These are discussed at the District Council led Rochford Flood Forum and
the Community Action Group meetings. Any additional partnership funding that could be generated from new development will help to enhance and accelerate their
delivery.

The proposed new development allocations should ensure that where possible
development does not impact on the Main Rivers of Crouch, Roach and their
associated tributaries and their modelled floodplains. As highlighted in the new Local
Plan development in areas should be located in Flood Zone 1 (low probability) less
than 1 in 1000 year (<0.1%) of fluvial flooding. This ensures that development is
sustainable and compliant with the principles of National Planning Policy Framework
(NPPF). It should contribute and minimise the risk of river flooding and flood
inundation to existing and future development in major conurbations in Rochford
District.
For all new development proposals there must be a robust application of the National Planning Policy Frameworks (NPPF) Sequential Test to avoid development in areas of flood risk wherever possible and to maintain the function of these land areas for natural processes. Any new proposals relating to flood defence schemes should draw on the guidelines highlighted in the attached documents.
Any development allocations highlighted in Local Development Plan should be
appropriately located according to the requirements of the National Planning Policy
Framework (NPPF) and any proposals in Flood Zone 3 highlighted blue on the
attached plan will be required to pass the Exception Test in the NPPF.
Any works associated with the development in, over, under or within 8m byelaw
distance of the "Main Rivers" may need our formal permit.

We believe the water and flood risk management section should also consider the
following points which are relevant to all proposed developments and whose
inclusion would enhance policy.

General Flood Risk Comments

All development proposals within the Flood Zone (which includes Flood Zones 2 and
3,as defined by the Environment Agency) shown on the Policies Map and Local
Maps, or elsewhere involving sites of 1ha or more, must be accompanied by a Flood
Risk Assessment.

Planning Practice Guidance (PPG)

The Local Plan should apply the sequential test and use a risk based approach to
the location of development. The plan should be supported by a Strategic Flood risk
Assessment (SFRA) and should use the NPPF Planning Practice Guidance (PPG).
The PPG advises how planning can take account of the risks associated with
flooding and coastal change in plan-making and the planning application process.
The following advice could be considered when compiling the Local Plan to ensure
potential development is sequentially sited or if at flood risk it is designed to be safe
and sustainable into the future.

Sequential Approach

The sequential approach should be applied within specific sites in order to direct
development to the areas of lowest flood risk. If it isn't possible to locate all of the
development in Flood Zone 1, then the most vulnerable elements of the development should be located in the lowest risk parts of the site. If the whole site is at high risk (Flood Zone 3), an FRA should assess the flood characteristics across the site and direct development towards those areas where the risk is lowest.

Finished Floor Levels

We strongly advise that proposals for "more vulnerable" development should include
floor levels set no lower than 300 millimetres above the level of any flooding that
would occur in a 1% (1 in 100) / 0.5% (1 in 200) Annual Exceedence Probability
(AEP) flood event (including allowances for climate change). We are likely to raise
an objection where this is not achieved in line with Paragraphs 060 of the NPPF's
Planning Practice Guidance which advises that there should be no internal flooding
in more vulnerable developments from a design flood.
We recommend "less vulnerable" development also meet this requirement to
minimise disruption and costs in a flood event. If this is not achievable then it is
recommended that a place of refuge is provided above the 0.1% AEP flood level.

Safe Access

During a flood, the journey to safe, dry areas completely outside the 1% (1 in 100) /
0.5% (1 in 200) AEP flood event, including allowances for climate change, should not involve crossing areas of potentially fast flowing water. Those venturing out on foot in areas where flooding exceeds 100 millimetres or so would be at risk from a wide range of hazards, including, for example; unmarked drops, or access chambers
where the cover has been swept away. Safe access and egress routes should be
assessed in accordance with the guidance document 'FD2320 (Flood Risk
Assessment Guidance for New Developments)'. We would recommend that you
refer your SFRA which has produced hazard maps following a breach/overtopping of
the defences?

Emergency Flood Plan

Where safe access cannot be achieved, or if the development would be at residual
risk of flooding in a breach, an emergency flood plan that deals with matters of
evacuation and refuge should demonstrate that people will not be exposed to flood
hazards. The emergency flood plan should be submitted as part of a FRA and will
need to be agreed with yourselves. As stated above refuge should ideally be located
300mm above the 0.1% AEP flood level including allowances for climate change. If
you do produce a flood safety framework as mentioned above, it will be important to
ensure emergency planning considerations and requirements are used to inform it.

Flood Resilience / Resistance Measures

To minimise the disruption and cost implications of a flood event we encourage
development to incorporate flood resilience/resistance measures up to the extreme
0.1% AEP climate change flood level. Information on preparing property for flooding
can be found in the documents 'Improving the Flood performance of new buildings'
and 'Prepare your property for flooding'.

Betterment

Every effort should be made by development to improve the flood risk to the local
area, especially if there are known flooding issues. Opportunities should also be
taken to provide environmental enhancements as part of the design, for example
naturalising any rivers on the site with a buffer zone on both sides.

Increases in Built Footprint (excluding open coast situations)

When developing in areas at risk of flooding consideration should be given to
preventing the loss of floodplain storage. Any increase in built footprint within the 1% AEP, including allowances for climate change, flood extent will need to be directly compensated for to prevent a loss of floodplain storage. If there are no available areas for compensation above the design flood level and compensation will not be possible then a calculation of the offsite flood risk impacts will need to be
undertaken. If this shows significant offsite impacts then no increases in built
footprint will be allowed. Further guidance on the provision of compensatory flood
storage is provided in section A3.3.10 of the CIRIA document C624.

Climate Change

The Environment Agency guidance 'Flood risk assessments: climate change
allowances' should be used to inform the spatial distribution of growth and the
requirements of Flood Risk Assessments (FRA) for individual applications.
The National Planning Practice Guidance provides advice on what is considered to
be the lifetime of the development in the context of flood risk and coastal change.
The 'Flood risk assessments: climate change allowances' guidance provides
allowances for future sea level rise, wave height and wind speed to help planners,
developers and their advisors to understand likely impact of climate change on
coastal flood risk. It also provides peak river flow and peak rainfall intensity
allowances to help planners understand likely impact of climate change on river and
surface water flood risk. For some development types and locations, it is important to assess a range of risk using more than one allowance. Please refer to this guidance.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/flood-risk-assessments-climate-change-allowances.
This advice updates previous climate change allowances to support NPPF and may
result in flood extents being greater than they have been in the past. This does not
mean out flood map for planning has changed, as these maps do not consider
climate change, but fluvial flood maps that may have been produced as part of
SFRAs and other flood risk studies may be out of date. FRAs submitted in support
of new development will need to consider the latest climate change allowances.

Environmental Permit for Flood Risk Activities

An environmental permit for flood risk activities may be required for work in, under,
over or within 8 metres (m) from a fluvial main river and from any flood defence
structure or culvert or 16m from a tidal main river and from any flood defence
structure or culvert.
Application forms and further information can be found at:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/flood-risk-activities-environmental-permits. Anyone
carrying out these activities without a permit where one is required, is breaking the
law.
The Local Plan should consider this when allocating development sites adjacent to a
'main river'. A permit may be required and restrictions imposed upon the work as a
result in order to ensure the development does not have a detrimental impact upon
the environment and flood risk.

Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS)

We agree with the promotion of the use of SUDS within the policy on all
developments where geological conditions permit. However in order to ensure the
protection of the water environment, we feel any development must incorporate
appropriate pollution prevention measures and a suitable number of SUDS treatment
train components in line with requirements of Ciria C753 and the SUDS Manual.

Policy 10 - Biodiversity, Geology and Green Infrastructure

We welcome the inclusion of Strategic Objective 19: To protect, maintain and
enhance our district's natural environment, geology and biodiversity, including our
open spaces, recreational areas and our extensive coastline, as well as support
wildlife, to create habitat networks and reduce fragmentation.
We also welcome the inclusion of Strategic Objective 22: To mitigate and adapt to
the forecasted impacts of climate change, including the water environment, air
quality, biodiversity and flooding, support more efficient use of energy and natural
resources and facilitate an increase in the use of renewable and low carbon energy
facilities. We hope that innovative solutions to the issue of climate change be found,
including the use of natural flood management techniques.
Whilst we broadly support the policy protecting and enhancing the environment, but
feel more importance should be given to the water environment. The policy needs to
refer to the Water Framework Directive and all development need to show that it will
not have a negative impact on water bodies. We feel this is important in regards to
the proposed marina development at Wallasea Island. This could cause serious
impacts on the protected estuarine habitat and birdlife as well as a deterioration in
the WFD status of the Crouch and Roach Estuaries.
We welcome the importance given to green infrastructure and the benefits it can
provide to human health and the environment. We feel the policy could also promote
the enhancements developments could provide for overall biodiversity. Setting a
requirement that all new development must create a new priority habitat would
support Local Planning Authoritys duty under the Natural Environments Rural
Communities (NERC) Act 2006. Priority habitats include new wetlands created as
part of SuDs schemes, deciduous woodlands and wildflower meadows.

Section 10 - Air Quality

Whilst we have no direct comments in regards to the air quality policy it is worth
noting that any new development of within 250-500m of a site permitted by the us
could result in the proposed development being exposed to impacts, e.g. odour,
noise, dust and pest impacts. The severity of these impacts will depend on local
factors such as the size of the facility, the nature of the activities and the prevailing
weather conditions. If the operator can demonstrate that they have taken all
reasonable precautions to mitigate these impacts, the facility and community will coexist, with some residual impacts. In some cases, these residual impacts may cause local residents concern, and there are limits to the mitigation the operator can apply. Only in very exceptional circumstances would we revoke the operators permit. These factors should be considered when identifying areas suitable for development. The locations of waste sites can be found on our public register at
https://environment.data.gov.uk/public-register/view/search-all
We trust the advice we have given is useful and will contribute to the soundness of
the emerging local plan. We will continue to provide further advice and comments at
future statutory stages of the emerging local plan. Should you wish us to review any draft policies and text as well as technical documents and background studies, such
as strategic flood risk assessments or water cycle studies which may be used to
support your plan, we can offer this as part of our planning advice service.

This service will ensure that your evidence documents fully support the local plan
and ensure that environmental issues are addressed in an effective and timely way
contributing to sustainable development. As part of the planning advice service we
will provide you with a single point of contact who will co-ordinate access to our
technical specialists who will be able to provide bespoke advice and help you
prepare any supporting documents. We will be pleased to provide you with an
estimated cost for any work we would undertake as part of the service.

I am writng to you with shock and to voice my concerns over the amount of land that is being put forward for land availability, it is obvious to anyone that the person that has said that facilities in Great Wakering are all good has never set foot in the Wakering or surrounding area. We are short on infant and primary school places and have to bus our secondary school children out of the village to Rochford because we have not got a secondary school of our own, public transport ( that is the bus ) are very few and far between, shopping facilities are totally inadaquate for anymore housing as are the roads, CFS057, CFS070, CFS065, CFS011, GF03, CFS056, CFS034, CFS097, are all on a flood plains god forbid we have another flood like 1953! in the light of recent events such as the heavy snowfall the village is virtually cut off. I urge all of the planning committee to look into all of these issues properly and honestly and i feel sure they will come to the same conclusion as myself and a majority of Wakering residents that these plans are ludicrous.

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


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

General Response

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

18) Improved public transport links (buses etc.)

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

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

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

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









Replies to the consultation by paragraph and point number


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6.33 Option: A

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tell Us More SP1.6: Houseboats Option B

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tell Us More SP3.3: Communications infrastructure Option B

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

Tell Us More SP3.5: Renewable energy Option A

Tell Us More SP3.6: Planning Option A

Tell Me More SP4.1: Health Option D

Tell Me More SP4.2 Community facilities Option B

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

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

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

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

Tell Me More SP4.5: Young people Option A

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tell Us More SP5.5 Heritage and culture Option A

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tell Us More D.P1.5 Basements
Option A

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Interim Sustainability Appraisal

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

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

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

ROCHFORD DISTRICT COUNCIL STRATEGIC HOUSING & EMPLOYMENT LAND AVAILABILITY ASSESSMENT 2017 - APP. B, MAP Q
REPRESENTATION IN RESPECT OF:-
FUTURE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT - GT. WAKERING
1. Gt. Wakering is once again in the spotlight for new housing developments. The Star Lane Brickworks site is more or less complete. There are 2 more sites in the pipeline. The next will be land south of the High Street adjacent to the Star Lane Development. SER9b. After this SER9a - Land west of the Little Wakering Road.
2. Any new housing development will put additional pressures on the local amenities & infrastructure.
3. All developments in Gt. Wakering will make demands on its schools/medical facilities/transport/roads.
4. All statements on the latest documentation state that Amenities are either Excellent or Good
5. Already the parents of the rising 5's are being refused the local school of their choice. There are no obvious choices for alternatives in the catchment area. Local research on the Star Lane site has revealed that parents have in the main chosen to keep their children at their previous schools. It has to be said that many of these new arrivals are former Rochford residents, so for the time being the problem has not been identified.
6. The medical facilities whilst reasonable at the moment are under daily pressures. This will not ease even if the local developments are limited to the current 3 approved sites.
7. The development of the Garrison Site in Shoeburyness has vastly increased the traffic using the cross country roads from the Anne Boleyn Pub on the Rochford Road, Sutton Road, Shopland Road, to the Rose Inn Pub at Silchester Corner. Traffic then turns left onto the Southend Road, onto Star Lane, Poynters Lane to Wakering Road & the Garrison Site.
8. NO NEW ROADS HAVE BEEN BUILT IN THE AREA TO ALLEVIATE THE INCREASING TRAFFIC FLOW DURING THIS EXPANSION PROGRAMME!
9. Neither Gt. Wakering nor Shoebury have benefitted in any significant way. The land from the old school 'Hinguar', has been turned into a 'Housing Development'. The new school was a necessity not a luxury!
10. Access & Egress for residents of Gt. Wakering all converge on the High Street/Shoebury Road and also now Star Lane. The residents of Alexandra Road already suffer daily chaos with Street Parking which was acutely aggravated by the development at its Southern End - Meeson Meadows.
11. Sufficient new housing needs to be available & affordable for local people. Two bedroom properties might improve the 'statistics' but do nothing for parents with 2 children of different sexes. The prices of the 2 bedroom properties on Star Lane, £300k towards the end of the development, will only attract well paid London workers! Again, a windfall for the developers but demoralising for local people. The consultation which took place in the village in the 1980's made a point of saying it wanted more affordable housing. It hasn't happened!
(1)
RDC STRATEGIC HOUSING & EMPLOYMENT LAND AVAILABILITY ASSESSMENT 2017 APP B
SPECIFIC COMMENTS RE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTS

1. Planning ref. CFS 153 - Land between Common Road & Chapel Lane
* This site is on the Dept. Of Environment's Flood Plain Map. We have been residents at this property for 40yrs. Over the past 5years it has become an increasing problem to obtain Household Insurance (Buildings & Contents). In fact many Insurers will not even quote!

* The proposed site is bordered on the Chapel Lane side by a 'Foul Water ditch'. This ditch takes the run off from the High Street.

* Although by law the land owner is required to maintain this ditch no attempt has been made to support a free running flow of water.

* In 2016 Anglian Water had to create a new run-off from properties in Newstead Road where rear gardens were flooding on a regular basis . This new pipeline enters the Foul Water ditch opposite our property.

* Heavy rainfall already causes localised flooding on Chapel Lane. By building on this land the current problem is likely to be exacerbated because of the loss of natural drainage.

* We would not support the development of this site!

2 .Planning refs. CFS 070, CFS 065, CFS 011,GF 03
* These sites all fall within the existing recognised boundaries of the village of Gt. Wakering.
* CFS 065 quite possibly falls within the Dept of the Environment's Flood Plain Map. Therefore householders will experience problems in obtaining Household Insurance, This is already a problem for householders on the most recent development off Seaview Drive.

* The same problems with regards to Infrastructure/Medical facilities/Schools & Transport will apply to these developments if granted Planning Permission.

3.Planning ref. CFS 057

* This site appears to encompass all the remaining land bounded by Star Lane, Poynters Lane & Alexandra Road & includes the Wild Life Site.

* Substantial improvements to the Access & Egress appear to be vital. However, In the past, Rochford District Council has always maintained that it was against any Access /Egress onto Poynters Lane as it would effectively join Gt. Wakering to Southend on Sea. Will this Policy change? If so, at what cost to the residents?
(2)
4. Planning refs. CFS 097, CFS 034, CFS 056

* All 3 of these proposed Housing Development sites lie to the South of Poynters Lane. Although technically within the Rochford District boundaries they will greatly increase the urbanisation of the existing Shoebury Housing Estates.

* Potentially creating problems for Southend on Sea, Unitary Authority as stated above.

* All other issues apply.

5. Conclusion

The current planned developments under SER9b will add 400 new housing units to a village of approximately 2500 dwellings. This Community does not have access to a User FriendlyTransport system. There is no public transport to Shoeburyness Station for commuters. The existing bus routes now take much longer to reach Southend Central Bus Station due to re-routing. The last bus during the week does not support shift workers with evening & night shifts. Several hundred more vehicles (from the current developments) will be added to the already inadequate road structure. There appears to be a tendency when evaluating the local amenities (as per this latest plan) to assess them as being Excellent or Good. Even Good is stretching it a bit. This latest proposal would clearly see new units in excess of 1000 being added to the already saturated area. Just because it is a Greenfield shouldn't mean it's an easy target for Developers & Councils alike!
It will not be possible to support any of these proposals without a substantial investment in the local infrastructure.

Re New Local Plan - Hullbridge

We have submitted just 2 items on your online missive site in regards to the proposed developments, however this is very combusome and therefore have now resorted to email to be able to put our sentiments across.
We wish to also point out that all of your documentation appears to be biased in favour of Rochford, Hockley and Rayleigh, but every item has an impact on the village of Hullbridge which going by the census of
2011 was only 2000 less inhabitants than that of Rochford!

ENGAGING WITH RESIDENTS

Submitted: ID 35330
Rochford District Council have REFUSED to meet with the TAX PAYERS of Hullbridge where a vast majority of the building works are suggested for planning.

GREENBELT

Submitted: ID 35333
WHATS THE POINT OF CALLING AN AREA AS GREENBELT IF YOU ARE GOING TO IGNORE THE ACCOMPANYING PROTECTION THAT THIS BRINGS.

BIODIVERSITY

Hullbridge is classed as a SPA as per your map. Building more houses will threaten this protection and reduce the amount of wildlife currently seen.

FLOOD PLAIN - CFS099

The flood plain is one of the plots highlighted on your proposed map.
Surely this has major implications for people trying to get a mortgage.
This is the protection for the current inhabitants. Building on this plot can potentially have an effect on the current properties in relation to the settling of the earth (clay soil) which can cause subsidence to the current structures closest to the proposed sites ie:
shrinkage of the soil.

INFRASTRUCTURE:

Unadopted Roads: - to name but a few

As per Windermere Road (unadopted), Grasmere Avenue is also an unadopted road. Which at present can not sustain the current throughfare as people use for West Avenue (also unadopted) and used to get to the top of Windermere Road and also gives access to the Drive (also unadopted).

Rawreth Lane:

In the main is a single carriageway in both directions and struggles to maintain the passability in the rush hours. This causes knock on effects for the locality concerning visitors to schools, doctors, and those relying on the emergencies services. Not forgetting the state of the current tarmac road.

Tree Preservation Orders - TPO - CFS099:

There are a number of TPO's in place which again need to be considered when deciding on areas to be developed. There are a number around this area.

Sewerage:

These systems are currently inadequate to sustain the amount that is flushed down them. Building new houses will increase the burden on the current structure.

Soakaways:

Many houses have soakaways which feed into CFS099. Where will these be relocated?

Schools:

The current scenario is unable to maintain intake for the catchment school.

Emergency Services:

These already have to come through Rayleigh to get to Hullbridge.
Increasing the housing and population, and not having adequate Road system in place will delay times of response.

Hospital:

Needless to say that has the knock on effect been taken into account in regards to Southend Hospital.

CURRENT HULLBRIDGE INHABITANTS

We feel that the population of Hullbridge has NOT been given a fair voice in this matter as many of the aged inhabitants are less able to respond via computer or understand the impact it potentially will have on them - Refer Engaging with Residents.

I have recently viewed the plan of the housing development proposal.
Whilst I acknowledge a certain number of new dwellings have already had the go ahead to be developed, I wish to lodge my objection to the future release of land for further development for the following reasons:

1. No funding has been allocated to cater for the increase use of public services eg : Schooling, Medical Centre, Library, Policing and recreational ground.
2. The extra area of housing foundations will have a detrimental effect on natural water drainage. Hullbridge already has drainage problems.

Re: CFS024 Land North of Merryfields Ave, Hockley, Map G, 119

I would like to object to the above proposal, to build (37 houses?) on the land mentioned in the reference above. These are my reasons why:

1. The land is very close to the nature reserve. I am not aware if any of the trees in the Nature Reserve have a TPO, but am anticipating that some do. If this is the case, I understand that building cannot take place within 25m of such trees.
2. The area is Metropolitan Green Belt. We really need to preserve these areas for future generations to enjoy.
3. The area is prone to flooding. Increased building and paving of the area would intensify this issue.
4. It has been suggested that bats live in the Nature Reserve. As they are a protected species, building so close to them will surely be detrimental.

I would be very grateful if you could submit my views and I look forward to hearing from you.

I write with much concern over the proposed New Local Plan for up to 7500 houses in this area! I believe the building that is currently going on in this area is far greater than the infrastructure can cope with!
I realise there is a need for more housing but with some of the affordable housing being around £350,000 how is this going to help our young people? If affordable housing is necessary shouldn't it be at a price that first time buyers can actually afford? Also perhaps smaller properties such as bungalows or suitable properties for the elderly could be considered which would then release larger properties on the marker. Surely common sense tells us that with all the traffic jams and problems in the area at the moment we cannot carry on building at this rate without consideration being given to improved infrastructure! This area of the country is simply FULL UP!!
If you happen to live in this area you will be aware of the chaos that is caused by even the refuge collections every week! Simply vans delivering to the local businesses in Hockley, which cannot park, can cause several miles of traffic queueing back in all directions! Road works of course are a necessity but can cause absolute chaos especially at time when it has been decided to dig up all surrounding roads at the same time!!
I would also be interested in knowing how the infrastructure would be improved because apart from knocking down half the houses on the main roads I fail to see what can be done! Local flooding can also be a problem and will not be helped by continued building on such a scale!
Our local hospitals, doctor surgeries, schools are not coping now so I fail to see how they will they cope with everything that is proposed in this phase so I believe the allocation for the next phase should be dramatically cut and certainly avoid any further building directly adjacent to the Rayleigh to Hockley main road and also the main Ashingdon Road to Rochford!

ROCHFORD DISTRICT COUNCIL STRATEGIC HOUSING & EMPLOYMENT LAND AVAILABILITY ASSESSMENT 2017 - APP. B, MAP Q
REPRESENTATION IN RESPECT OF:-FUTURE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT - GT. WAKERING
1. Gt. Wakering is once again in the spotlight for new housing developments. The Star Lane Brickworks site is more or less complete. There are 2 more sites in the pipeline. The next will be land south of the High Street adjacent to the Star Lane Development. SER9b. After this SER9a - Land west of the Little Wakering Road.
2. Any new housing development will put additional pressures on the local amenities & infrastructure.
3. All developments in Gt. Wakering will make demands on its schools/medical facilities/transport/roads.
4. All statements on the latest documentation state that Amenities are either Excellent or Good
5. Already the parents of the rising 5's are being refused the local school of their choice. There are no obvious choices for alternatives in the catchment area. Local research on the Star Lane site has revealed that parents have in the main chosen to keep their children at their previous schools. It has to be said that many of these new arrivals are former Rochford residents, so for the time being the problem has not been identified.
6. The medical facilities whilst reasonable at the moment are under daily pressures. This will not ease even if the local developments are limited to the current 3 approved sites.
7. The development of the Garrison Site in Shoeburyness has vastly increased the traffic using the cross country roads from the Anne Boleyn Pub on the Rochford Road, Sutton Road, Shopland Road, to the Rose Inn Pub at Silchester Corner. Traffic then turns left onto the Southend Road, onto Star Lane, Poynters Lane to Wakering Road & the Garrison Site.
8. NO NEW ROADS HAVE BEEN BUILT IN THE AREA TO ALLEVIATE THE INCREASING TRAFFIC FLOW DURING THIS EXPANSION PROGRAMME!
9. Neither Gt. Wakering nor Shoebury have benefitted in any significant way. The land from the old school 'Hinguar', has been turned into a 'Housing Development'. The new school was a necessity not a luxury!
10. Access & Egress for residents of Gt. Wakering all converge on the High Street/Shoebury Road and also now Star Lane. The residents of Alexandra Road already suffer daily chaos with Street Parking which was acutely aggravated by the development at its Southern End - Meeson Meadows.
11. Sufficient new housing needs to be available & affordable for local people. Two bedroom properties might improve the 'statistics' but do nothing for parents with 2 children of different sexes. The prices of the 2 bedroom properties on Star Lane, £300k towards the end of the development, will only attract well paid London workers! Again, a windfall for the developers but demoralising for local people. The consultation which took place in the village in the 1980's made a point of saying it wanted more affordable housing. It hasn't happened!




RDC STRATEGIC HOUSING & EMPLOYMENT LAND AVAILABILITY ASSESSMENT 2017 APP B
SPECIFIC COMMENTS RE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTS

1. Planning ref. CFS 153 - Land between Common Road & Chapel Lane
* This site is on the Dept. Of Environment's Flood Plain Map. We have been residents at this property for 40yrs. Over the past 5 years it has become an increasing problem for us to obtain Household Insurance (Buildings & Contents). In fact many Insurers will not even quote!

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

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

* The proposed site is bordered on the Chapel Lane side by a 'Foul Water ditch'. This ditch takes the run off from the High Street.

* Although by law the land owner is required to maintain this ditch no attempt has ever been made to support a free running flow of water.

* In 2016 Anglian Water had to create a new run-off from properties in Newstead Road where rear gardens were flooding on a regular basis. This new pipeline enters the Foul Water ditch opposite our properties.

* Every time we have heavy rainfall it already causes localised flooding on Chapel Lane. By building on this land the current problem is likely to be exacerbated because of the loss of natural drainage.

We would not support the development of this site!



2 .Planning refs. CFS 070, CFS 065, CFS 011, GF 03
* These sites all fall within the existing recognised boundaries of the village of Gt. Wakering.
* CFS 065 quite possibly falls within the Dept of the Environment's Flood Plain Map. Therefore householders will experience problems in obtaining Household Insurance, This is already a problem for householders on the most recent development off Seaview Drive.

* The same problems with regards to Infrastructure/Medical facilities/Schools & Transport will apply to these developments if granted Planning Permission.


3. Planning ref. CFS 057

* This site appears to encompass all the remaining land bounded by Star Lane, Poynters Lane & Alexandra Road & includes the Wildlife Site.

* Substantial improvements to the Access & Egress appear to be vital. However, in the past, Rochford District Council has always maintained that it was against any Access /Egress onto Poynters Lane as it would effectively join Gt. Wakering to Southend on Sea. Will this Policy change? If so, at what cost to the residents?

4. Planning refs. CFS 097, CFS 034, CFS 056

* All 3 of these proposed Housing Development sites lie to the South of Poynters Lane. Although technically within the Rochford District boundaries they will greatly increase the urbanisation of the existing Shoeburyness Housing Estates.

* Potentially creating problems for Southend on Sea, Unitary Authority as stated above.

* All other issues apply.

5. Conclusion

The current planned developments under SER9b will add 400 new housing units to a village of approximately 2500 dwellings. This Community does not have access to a User Friendly Transport system. There is no public transport to Shoeburyness Station for commuters. The existing bus routes now take much longer to reach Southend Central Bus Station due to re-routing. The last bus during the week does not support shift workers with evening & night shifts. Several hundred more vehicles (from the current developments) will be added to the already inadequate road structure. There appears to be a tendency when evaluating the local amenities (as per this latest plan) to assess them as being Excellent or Good. Even Good is stretching it a bit. This latest proposal would clearly see new units in excess of 1000 being added to the already saturated area. Just because it is a Greenfield shouldn't mean it's an easy target for Developers & Councils alike!
It will not be possible to support any of these proposals without a substantial investment in the local infrastructure.

I am writing to object to the following site reference number developments in Great Wakering:
CFS057, CFS097, CFS070, CFS065, CFS011, GF03, CFS056 and CFS034
I was born in Great Wakering 40 years ago and the greatest qualities in the village is the Community, peace, safety and being surrounded by people who you know. If, the above planning goes ahead this will be lost for the following reasons.
School
The Great Wakering Academy is full and would not be able to take the planned volume of children. If the plans went ahead siblings of the current families may miss out on spaces and have to commute to other schools. As most schools start at similar times how would parents get their children to different schools. We are not within walking distance of other schools and do not have frequent public transport. With the school being the size it is there is an excellent family feel to it, this would be lost if the village was to expand. Currently there is a lollypop lady at the beginning and end of the day but she does not cover after school activities or breakfast club times. With no permanent crossing and an increase in traffic the children's safety would be a major concern.
Roads
We do not have the roads to cope with the increase in traffic volume and they would not be fit for purpose. When they built the Star Lane development there was often delays caused by traffic lights, access vehicles, clearing of mud on the road etc. The High Street in Great Wakering is the main road and already has cars parked on both sides, which leads to single lane use. This increase in traffic will lead to a loss of on-road parking which is a loss of valuable residential amenity. The reason for such parking on the roads is because we are a village with old cottages that do not have off road parking.
The only other access is Poynters Lane. Locals tend not to use this road as it has poor visibility, dangerous speeds are used and pedestrians sometimes walk along it. With increased traffic and building vehicles this would increase the dangers. We are not close to major roads such as the A127 or the main part of the A13. There are plenty of other towns with the potential for development which have good access to the A127 and A13, transport and amenities.
There is one crossing in Great Wakering at the doctors surgery. Increase in cars travelling and parked will become a danger to pedestrians.
Public Transport
The number 4 bus serviced this village for years, twice an hour and took around 20/25 minutes into Southend. About a year and a half ago this was replaced with the number 7/8 bus. This bus can now take 45 minutes to get to Southend as it goes around Shoebury, Thorpe Bay and Woodgrange before finally reaching Southend. It was supposed to be 3 times an hour but now it's twice an hour. So since the Star Lane development our public Transport has actually got worse. Some of the behavior I have seen on the bus has not been nice due to the areas it goes through and my working day has increased as I have a longer journey. The bus is also full and sometimes you cannot get a seat from Southend. When the changes happen it was sold as a better service as it would go past Thorpe Bay train station, well the number 4 went past Southend East so that wasn't improving the service. If these plans were to go ahead this bus service would not cope. I thought we were trying to move away from car based communities not build them!
Surroundings
Great Wakering has beautiful surroundings and many residents look out onto fields with uninterrupted views and great privacy. Children play in the surrounding fields, we exercise in the open space. According to our Human Rights Protocol 1 Article 1 we are entitled to peaceful enjoyment of possessions. The developments would destroy our enjoyment of peace by bringing busy roads, all the current walks across the fields would have developments either side, increased noise, smell from work, people, vehicles and over-crowded amenities. By losing the fields this would increase the risk of flooding which Wakering has a history of. We should be protecting Green Belt as a valuable flood prevention not building on it. I believe the Government model for this district is 7,500 homes but with the rate of growth it should be 3,500. Green Belt land should not be used just to ease housing targets it has greater uses such as food production and stopping our village from joining up to the next town and losing the village forever. In the Rochford District Historic Environment Characterisation Project document on the Rochford.gov.uk website,it was said that the historic environment has a powerful influence on peoples' sense of identity and civic pride. Pages 69-70 have some points about Great wakerings history and how a few of the original boundaries survive and every effort should be made to preserve them.
Wildlife
In my garden alone I have squirrels, foxes, birds, hedgehogs and I have heard bats in the village. Day and night the wildlife can be seen. Green buffers between developments would not be enough to keep this wildlife and yet another use for Green belt. Villagers enjoy the walks and seeing the wildlife. With over development to a village, this wildlife would be destroyed.
Amenities
We have one coop which is busy and only has a small car park with tight access. When there are deliveries cars and pedestrians have to stop whilst the lorry reverses into the car park. With an increase for the coop how would it cope with the deliveries and customers. Our local tip is over 30 minutes drive away and then there is often a queue.
Security and Crime
Great Wakering is a very low crime and secure village. The children are happy and parents have confidence in them being allowed out in the village. I have never felt unsafe day or night. But if the village grew to the size of the proposals then this would change. We would not know the people around us and there is hardly any police presence in this village.
Employment
Developments should bring employment but already Star Lane housing has taken some away, with the selling of Star Lane industrial estate. Also Southend is declining in employment opportunities so what are all these new residents going to do for work. My work in Southend will be going in the next few years.
Great Wakering
It is a village and that is why we live here these plans are inappropriate for a village and it will be destroyed. Our previous Prime Minister said that" protecting Green Belt is paramount".

I refer to the proposal for the possible building of 7,500 new houses in the local area to Hullbridge, Rayleigh and surrounding area.

I strongly object to this vast number of houses being built in this area due to congestion, pollution, lack of school places, lack of patient places at doctors, loss of wildlife and green areas, reduction of quality of life in what is a small village now and which would become a town.

With the type of soil in the village of Hullbridge building on such a vast scale could cause flooding.

We are already having to accept 550 houses which will dramatically alter life here without another load being built.

I believe roads will be totally congested with just the 550 houses and cannot imagine how horrendous it would be with this huge extra number of properties. Rayleigh is already known to be a very polluted town with a poor air quality in parts which is injurious to health and this will just increase across the whole of this area making it unpleasant to live and travel in. Considering we are all supposed to be more environmentally aware I'm amazed the council would want this much pollution. The roads just could not support the increase in traffic this building project would bring.

On top of this it appears funding for this whole project looks pretty dire with secured funding a tiny percentage of what is required.

Please think again on this disastrous plan so we aren't drowned in a sea of concrete and pollution. Hullbridge has a very special community which our local council seems determined to ruin.

I am emailing regarding the above to share my concerns regarding the level of proposed new housing over the coming years particularly with regard to the enviroment in the Hullbridge area where I reside.

1. There will need to be consideration for additional schools to accommodate the anticipated increased pupil numbers. Is this in the plans.

2. Has any thoughts been given to the increased traffic numbers which will inevitably be seen. At present, Lower Road, in particular, is very busy as are other roads in the area. Appropriate speed limits will have to be put in place, especially on Lower Road. Access will also be a severe problem at busy times.

3. There will need to additional Doctors, has the local practice been appraised of the situation as it is not always easy to get an appropriate appointment at the moment.

4. Are additional bus routes planned where necessary & are the local bus companies likely to provide new routes or extra services.

5. Will there be an allowance for Sheltered Housing in any of the proposed sites particularly in view of the aging population. A number of bungalows on each site could be appropriate.

6. Some of the proposed sites do not have mains drainage at present. As this will obviously need to be provided on new developments, will existing homes in those areas have the opportunity to have this provided.

7. We reside in Lower Road opposite La Vallee Farm which is one of the proposed sites. I am surprised that land designated as farmland will be considered for housing development.

8. Perhaps, in view of Brexit, we might consider that we should maintain our farmland to provide for our population in view of the potential increase in costs of imports which may occur.

9. With regard to La Vallee Farm & adjacent sites, you may be aware that the road in that area is presently prone to flooding with water coming down from the higher ground above the farm. Hopefully, this will be a further consideration to take on board.

10. As mentioned earlier, the speed limit of 40mph in this area will be excessive if a residential development is allowed. Certainly, appropriate access to Lower Road is paramount as traffic levels on this road are likely to substantially increase.

I hope that the above points will be considered on any of the proposed sites with stringent reviews undertaken before plans are approved.

The infrastructure must be able to cope with the additional population in what is generally a very rural area.

I write to object to the developments proposed in the new local plan. These plans are not realistic or sustainable, from what I have read there is not enough funding to provide an adequate infrastructure for the proposed amount of development. The majority of the sites in question involve building on our greenbelt land. This land is of vital importance not only for future generations, and to stop negative impact on the environment but also for preventing urban sprawl and the merging of our towns. The greenbelt land should be protected and it is stated that it should only be overruled in extreme circumstances. What are these extreme circumstances? The civic amenities and services in this area are already stretched beyond sustainability we do not have the services to cater for so much growth in the area; the hospitals, schools, doctors surgeries and emergency services are under enough strain already. Speaking about Rayleigh specifically as it is the town I am most familiar with, the area already suffers with extreme congestion and we do not have the road system to effectively cope with more commuters, not to mention that the air quality in some places is already at dangerous levels. In regards specifically to the area outlined in map E a lot of these plots are flood risk 2 and 3 ,and regarding Daws heath road, the road itself is not wide enough to handle more traffic as it already has the overflow from the a127 in peak times as well as having poor drainage, flooding and awful potholes year after year it simply could not cope with more traffic from extra adjacent housing sites. I ask you to cut the target amount to sustainable levels and protect our greenbelt for the sake of all residents.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have unsuccessfully been trying to get onto the gov.uk/lao site.
So We are hoping that this email will still qualify as We strongly object the development of more housing in the Great Wakering area.

The reasons for our determined objections are as follows:-

* Any subsequent housing will destroy the village which is already highly over populated.
* The schools including Great Wakering Primary and The King Edmund School cannot physically take in any more children. Classes will become over populated, how can teaching staff give their upmost to a class with just to many pupils ? the schools do not have enough budget to employ more staff, teaching assistant jobs have already been cut back to a bare minimum.
* More pupils would mean more traffic on the roads with Rochford already congested, it would be unthinkable for this to happen.
* Subsequent schools in the local area are too over subscribed.
* The Wakering Medical Centre is already under stress to be able to fulfill the quota of patients already on their system this has an effect on the whole community not being able to get appointments, GPs leaving the practice due to the anxiety of not being able to keep to their high quality medical practitioner position trying to deal with the high (already) can hardly imagine a higher influx of patients.
* The roads and highways are becoming increasingly busy with only 2 ways into the village.
* Wildlife will suffer uprooting their natural surroundings and habitats.
* The Village will no longer be a village but a town, already we notice how its becoming due to being over populated with the Star land development.
* The village will suffer long term as we are aware that Great Wakering is a flood plain, more housing will have a detrimental effect to the once beautiful village the Great will almost be taken from its title name.

We trust you ready each and every comment we have made that the planning for building in Great Wakering does NOT go ahead.

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

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

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

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