Water and Flood Risk Management

I Object to Site CFS023 In Appendix C

1)There is a discrepancy on the site size RDC have it as 5.6 Ha but the SHELAA has it 3.97 Ha which is correct?
2)This will strip the Green Belt land bordering Beckney Woods which is Ancient woodland this in turn could damage the woods
3)We are concerned about the impact on the indigenous wild life in and around the woods, Bats, Adders ,Sparrow Hawks, Buzzards & Herons. Foxes, Badgers and Monk jack Deer rely on the woods and the fields.
4) The loss of hedgerows especially along Harrogate drive will endanger the bird population such as Blackbirds.
5) The proposed entrance via Harrogate Drive will be a very costly item for any Developer, including the loss of property at the entrance from Greensward lane in order to get a good sightline and splay.
6) The tranquillity required for the Cattery will be lost.
7) No main Sewer in Harrogate Drive are the other services adequate?
8) The Appendix C says the site has a slight incline to the North, I do not consider a rise of 60-80ft to be slight and would lead to a total loss of privacy
9) We suffer from fluvial flooding and any building would change the water table and increase the risk of flooding.
10) The housing density will impact on noise and yet more cars for the inadequate roads and will make the need for ECC Highways to address this infrastructure shortfall which has been go on far too long.(Spa Roundabout)
11) To alleviate these problems why not consider an alternative site for example plot CFS081 which is flat land and easy access to the road network thus help the Hockley pinch point problems and would be more inviting to a developer.

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

I strongly object to the planning application for several reasons:

Firstly I would like to point out the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government have issued new planning rules to deliver homes for everyone. The very first paragraph reinforces the need to maximise the use of land (i.e. affordable housing) and to strengthen the protection for Green Belt land. This came into place on 5.3.2018.

1. I object to the New Local Plan, particularly for all the green belt land that has been proposed, as this increased the amount of air pollution proposed in this plan, along with substantial overcrowding in areas of this District.

2. Your proposals, particularly CFS147, CFS146, CFS143, CFS170 and 171 (I acknowledge CFS167 has already been given permission on green belt land in spite of a high level of objections at the time) are all on green belt land and I ask that these proposals listed above be removed as per my first paragraph in the new planning rules in strengthening protection for green belt land.

3. In addition to this reason for the above said proposed new land an Essex County Council (ECC) 'Growth and Infrastructure Report 2016' states that to support current infrastructure costs are at £210million, in ECC's costings there is already a shortfall of £104 million. How will the New Local Plan infrastructure be funded? After all, I was at the meeting when RDC did agree that infrastructure will 'go in first'. I cannot see in any reports where this has been addressed, therefore I object to the New Local Plan until all necessary infrastructure is in place ( including the new A127/Fairglen interchange which is essential for the proposal numbers listed above as well as the general flow of traffic in and out of the RDC area.
No address has been made with regards to infrastructure for schools, doctors surgeries, our hospitals (if they remain as they are) are already overloaded, has RDC any guarantees of 'infrastructure first' for these to name a few essential services?

4. The risk of flooding in the West of Rayleigh has not been properly addressed either. No flood risk has been forthcoming in the New Local Plan, pretty pictures of landscaped 'parks' aka flood plains on land already given to development is not a flood risk assessment. I object strongly to the proposals listed above on the basis that the current green belt land also acts as its own flood plain, thereby keeping West Rayleigh safer from flooding. There is no evidence in the New Local Plan to suggest any alternative to flooding run-off areas.

5. The increasing number of Residents in RDC, particularly West of Rayleigh, yet in increase with the impending 500 additional homes will add to the current, already publicly shamed failure, with regard to air pollution within legal limits. With the proposed infrastructure 'improvements' at the A127/Fairglen interchange, the air pollution issue will increase along this corridor too - any further development will just accelerate this life threatening issue. I cannot believe any Council would proceed on this basis alone. I have to strongly object on the basis that clean air is a basic right that needs to be afforded to everyone. I cannot find any traffic flow/density assessments to address the above issues.

6. Consultation has not been carried out fully. Yes, sessions have been held with virtually no visual information. A few planning officers were left to 'field' the many people who had questions as there were no maps and one laptop available. The Housing Councillor was not present (yes, I attended two of them in Rayleigh). This was not a consultation, this was a box ticking exercise. You should re-run these properly and actually consult as opposed to leave your planning officers to deal with the hundreds of question which they were largely unable to answer as they did not have the information to hand. One laptop per meeting is woeful.

I have no confidence that the decisions about to be made by the Council members of the planning committee will be made in the best interests of the people of Rayleigh and surrounding areas. You did not take in account last time any matters objected to and since then you have held important meetings 'in cabinet' or as closed sessions, your lack of transparency is of great concern and I hope you prove me wring this time.

Thank you for taking the time to read this objection.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hullbridge is a very special community. Dont ruin it .

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

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

Sufficient new housing needs to be available & affordable for local people. Two bedroom properties might improve the 'statistics' but do nothing for parents with 2 children of different sexes. The prices of the 2 bedroom properties on Star Lane, £300k towards the end of the development, will only attract well paid London workers! Again, a windfall for the developers but demoralising for local people. The consultation which took place in the village in the 1980's made a point of saying it wanted more affordable housing. It hasn't happened!




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

1. Planning ref. CFS 153 - Land between Common Road & Chapel Lane
* This site is on the Dept. Of Environment's Flood Plain Map. We have been residents at this property for 30yrs. Over the past 5years it has become an increasing problem to obtain Household Insurance (Buildings & Contents). In fact many Insurers will not even quote!

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

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

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

* This site is all but a nature reserve, as well as the bird life, I believe there are newts, and I have film of badgers frequenting this area.
We would not support the development of this site!

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

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

3. Planning ref. CFS 057

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

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

(2)


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

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

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

* All other issues apply.

5. Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How do we plan for the extra local transport required.

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

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

Ref: CSF024

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

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

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

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

Please confirm receipt of this objection.

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

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

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

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

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

Comments Form - heard about consultation via letter.

Objection
Section: All
Option: All
Paragraph: All



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Il look forward tip your prompt response

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other points I wish to make are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Having perused the document I wish to comment as follows;: they are made from my stand[point as a resident of Hullbridge.:
1. Sites put forward by landowners are, to my mind, unsustainable.
2. Consideration be given to reducing the new homes target set to - say - about 3400 over the next 20 years. This equates to around 175 per year would meet the growth needed for local needs.
3. There is a need for affordable homes which should be split between affordable rent and to buy.. We have already seen what happens when small - say - bungalows are bought up by developers and houses emerging therefrom are priced far too high for your average would-be buyer.
4. Looking at the list of possible sites put forward by landowners - just in Hullbridge - at the minimum density (according to Council Policy) of 30 dwellings per hectare would equate to 2,558 new houses in the 85.47 hectares!
5. There are ongoing issues regarding RDC having been seen to ride rough-shod over the Hullbridge population's wishes regarding the present building work taking place in Hullbridge. Residents are balking at the thought of any further development being proposed.
6. Flooding, traffic flow,sufficient school places,and doctor surgery availability are the main sticking points. Add to that that there is only 1 main ingress and exit road to Hullbridge; the recent inclement weather proved that this village can be rendered almost inaccessible as it is. How on earth would there be a sustainable, sensible plan envisaged that would incorporate all these extra homes?

The current pressure from Government on Local Authorities to build thousands of houses in rural areas and particularly on green-belt/fields is unacceptable and knee jerk reaction due to different successive Governments failure to plan strategically or forecast needs and exacerbated when Council Housing stock was sold off at excessively reduced cost under the "Right to Buy" knowing they did not have funding for building programmes to replace let alone increase the stock.
Rather than spreading the housing across the Country the focus is to build closer to London and other Cities and Towns where there are higher levels of employment therefore need. However, housing is limited and becomes more expensive due to demand from the increase of internal migration and immigration, whether driven by social, family, economics, asylum or humanitarian. Inner City Authorities are already sending people to this area for emergency housing paying private landlords excessive amounts. In many areas including Hockley and its local towns and villages the infrastructure, in particular transport/healthcare/schools/social care/utilities, is currently not sufficient for existing residents let alone the recent and current medium/large building developments already passed by the Planning Department.

Having reviewed the Issues and Options Document (and draft Sustainability Appraisal) and Rochford District Council - Strategic Housing and Employment Land Availability Assessment 2017-Appendix C - Site Assessment Forms, I have the following General Objections for the overall Plan and @ TABLE 2 - Objections to Specific Site Assessments identified for proposed development.
General Objections:
No Cohesive Plan:
Reading the Site Assessments the sections headed Infrastructure Assessment indicate that other than 3 sites, there is no significant investment needed for utilities and no sites require significant investment for transport. Taken individually this might be the case but when 15 sites have the potential to accommodate 500+ dwellings @30 per Ha, it would seem to be a serious oversight by the Assessor. In any event this is a wider plan for the District and taken as a whole the number of proposed sites would indicate significant investments would be required and the following MUST be improved before any further development plans are passed or built in to the planning agreements, with no options to default.

Inadequate Transport Network
Road - The road system can barely accommodate the current population let alone the new developments currently under construction, particularly those in Rochford, Ashingdon, Hawkwell. Rochford District has 1 designated Orange Secondary Road which joins Rayleigh-Hockley-Hawkwell-Southend and this has already been highlighted in Local Authority Reports as needing urgent improvements/widening due to volume of traffic-we are still waiting for a feasible solution! All other roads are designated Yellow-less than 4 metres or White-Other Road drive-track. The location of the River Crouch, it's tributaries and marsh lands, to the north of the district means any expansion of road systems is restricted to existing populated areas. Even if it was possible it would impact Maldon District which also has a poor road network. Planning must also take account of the commercial vehicles-cars, which have increased with more online purchasing not just the domestic vehicles approx. 1-2 per household for current population and proposed from current and future developments.
The road networks, with recognised pinch points, Rochford/Ashingdon/Hockley railway bridges; Spa roundabout; Rawreth mini roundabout; Rayleigh one way system, are just a few, to the wider road system. There are only 4 A roads A127; A130; A13; A12, all of which are already congested and access to the A13 & A12 is via the A127 & A130. This impacts journeys to local jobs/schools as well as those travelling further to the M25, all junctions of which are congested on a daily basis during rush hours. The development and growth of Southend Airport although beneficial to Commerce has brought more traffic in to the area too.
The development plans identify sites adjacent to many of the existing roads so if they are built before the road sysetm is improved how can they be widened or land made available for new roads [not just access roads and ornate roundabouts to the sites].
Even if the local road system was improved the increase in local traffic to the already congested A Roads which could not cope. The Plans indicate working with other Government and Highways Departments to improve the wider infrastructure but there is nothing concrete and overall austerity and poor road conditions, pothole epedemic would indicate these Plans are not realistic. During normal road conditions vehicles queue to access most junctions on the A roads and during rush hours and/or bad conditions they queue to get on and off at junctions from Wickford to Southend.

Inadequate Rail Services - trains are already very busy and on the Southend to Liverpool Street Line people who pay thousands of pounds per year normally have to stand from Billericay. The C2C Line is a little better but the increase in housing will increase passengers from the start of each line meaning more people will be standing unless Rochford Concil can confirm the Railways have the ability to invest at the same time in order to accommodate the expected numbers by adding trains or carriages. Again how realistic is this, schedules are already tightly timed and there is limited ability to add trains especialy where lines converge at Shenfield, Wickford, Romford, Stratford etc., extra carriages may be limited by the current length of platforms and in many cases there is no potential to expand because of lack of land/access.
Inadequate Bus Services - routes and timetables are limited leading to many people using private vehicles.
Supply of Utilities [water/electricity/gas/telecoms/waste treatment/recycle] - privately operated companies have not proven their ability or commitment to meeting extra demands for the Essex County target of 185,000 new homes. The land in this area consists of waterways, marshland and prone to flooding. Over development will place additional pressure on the waterways, sewage, drains which cannot cope with the resulting runoff, struggling now.
Inadequate Civic Amenities - to date austerity programmes and historic lack of investments for schools, health, transport, roads and maintenance have eroded Civic Amenities and Services, in particular Health and Care Services to the point of crisis. Outsourcing and so called partnerships with private companies such as Carillion failing catetrophically leading to tax payers having to fund losses to keep essential services being delivered. Local Authrites current plans are to reduce/cost save and merge in line with the lack of funding not to increase, impove which would be needed to prepare for this radical Plan. This is not scaremongering but supported by the intended merger of Basildon, Southend and Broomfield Hospitals. Identifying Car Parks, Police Stations, Council Offices and Land for development to residential when the need for these will increase with the proposed increase in population. How can Planners think an increase in housing and resulting population needs can be met when Government and Local Authorities do not have a cohesive plan, most only have 3-5 year plans anticipating changes in governments and local authorities which result in different priorities, back-tracking and ultimately wasting money, time and resources.
Land Identification & Development
Table 1 below is a breakdown by location and site. There are a total of 226 sites identified which allocate approximately 1084 hectres and calculating properties @30 per Ha totals over 32519, which is much higher than the 7500 required. This means that not all the sites will be required.
Table 1 Breakdown of the Site Assessments
Location Ashingdon Canewdon Great Stambridge/ Stambridge Wakerings [Great/Little] Hawkwell Hockley Hullbridge Leigh/ Southend Rawreth Rayleigh/Eastwood Rochford Wickford
# Sites Identified 16 10 4 17 14 22 22 4 11 55 49 2
Ha Identified 49.6 38.4 11.28 121.79 67.1 64.7 87 9.26 103 252 275 5.76
Proposed No @30 per Ha 1487 1151 338 3654 2013 1941 2601 278 3093 7555 8235 173

I object to any sites being adopted that will not provide the housing required by Government/Local Authority Quotas to provide social/affordable housing due to the size of the site and/or impacting the green-belt/field land, in particular woodland/vacant/open/grassland and historic land/buildings and placing additional burden on the existing poor road networks and civic communities.
Those sites designated as Woodlands, most of which have ancient relevance in this area and particuarly Hockley, ancient/listed buildings, open spaces, community buildings, car parks and any land where the development would impact a public/official right of way, footpath; bridlepath as well as any adopted one's should be removed from consideration. In fact they should be ring fenced from future plans and maintained or invested in for the use and enjoyment of the current and expected increase in population.
Land Identified as Gypsy & Traveller's Sites
I object to the proposed sites for Gypsy & Traveller's. The 10 sites account for 16.5 hectres which for normal housing allocation would equate to 495. This is excessive for the area when there are only 12 authorised sites in Essex - 1 in Basildon @25 plots; 2 chelmsford @ 22 plots & 2 Maldon @ 26 plots, not including the current 3 unauthroised plots in Leigh and Rawreth. Locating sites adjacent to agricultural/open land could encourage unauthorised spread and the traditional trades/work they do could lead to build up of and unlawful disposal of scrap metal, hazardous high risk waste, rubble and other construction waste & materials, which will adversely impact wildlife, land, waterways and the environment generally.

Objections to Specific Site Assessments
TABLE 2 - Objections to Specific Site Assessments
Ref Address Designation Ha Dwellings @30pHa
CFS024 Land north of Merryfields Avenue, Hockley, SS5 5AL Woodland 1.25 38
The land is a long thin strip behind a residential area and to the other side the Marylands Nature Reserve with open land tracks and footpaths recreational areas beyond that. This is a small development which would have a very poor access/layout and not benefit the government quotas for social/affordable housing. The Woodland area supports and protects the existing Nature Reserve from the negative impact of the existing domestic dwellings. Nature does not stop at the current boundary of the Nature Reserve and has naturally spread to the woodland. Development would severely impact the existing wildlife from birds, bats, badgers, foxes, butterflies and their food sources including vegetation, insects and their habitat in this area and those from the Nature Reserve which benefit from the woodland, some of which will have spread to this area with nests/burrows or territories/tracks. The development has an awkward, sloped, narrow access through narrow congested roads to reach Plumberow Avenue. The Woodland is currently providing a natural soak away but there is still a build up during heavy rainfall at the end of Marylands Avenue, where the access would be, because of the poor drainage system. As a small development they would not have to contribute to improving the infrastructure nor allocate social/affordable housing so for the overall Development Plan it should not be adopted as other sites would provide more properties to meet the government/local authority quotas and contribute to improving the infrastructure.
GF01 Land north west of Hockley Station, Hockley, SS5 5AE - Railway embankment Vacant-wooded area 0.37 11
This land has no current vehicular access and is part of the railway embankment made up of a long thin strip. Access could only be achieved from a section of Mount Crescent which is a narrow access road to a small development of semi-detached bungalows. The specific section only has a footpath on the opposite side to the site and sharp bends to both ends which could cause pedestrian and vehicular hazards. Although the dimensions of the site are not clear the size would only accommodate 11 or less individual dwellings if the proposed development was in keeping with the current housing stock. The land size and proximity to the railway does not afford itself to this type of housing stock but flats would not be in keeping with the current housing stock and overlook existing dwellings living accommodation impacting their privacy as the majority have extended their living accommodation and bedrooms in to their loft. Looking at buildings along the existing railway track in the vicinity there are none that are built as close as this proposed development and I assume there is a reason for this, whether from the point of view of residents who would be on top of the railway and affected by noise/vibration of the busy train services from Southend to London Liverpool Street, which will have to increase. Or the need for the railway provider to maintain the railway and a sufficient boundary to expand or protect the line from anything that could impact it i.e. building fire. The wooded area although not designated as part of the ancients woods is linked to Marylands Wood to one side thereby supporting and protecting the existing wildlife from birds, bats, badgers, foxes, butterflies, voles etc. and their food sources including vegetation, insects in this area and those from the nearby Nature Reserve benefiting which benefit from the wooded area, some of which will have spread to this area with nests/burrows or territories/tracks. The wooded area currently provides a natural soak away for the existing houses protecting the railway, which will be lost and the new development and runoff could adversely impact the railway. As a small development it will not contribute to the goal of the government quotas to increase social housing stock nor will it have to contribute to the local infrastructure, therefore, as part of the overall Development Plan it should not be adopted as other sites would provide more properties to meet the government/local authority quotas and contribute to improving the infrastructure.
CFS019 Land adjacent to Newhall Road and Lower Road, Hockley, SS5 5JU Woodland/Vacant 1 30
The land is behind a current residence and adjacent to a well-used track accessing walks and open spaces. If full potential of dwellings was agreed it would not be in keeping with existing land use or residence and could lead to a precedence to use other vacant/woodland adjoining to be developed. The development would have to join a country road with limited lighting near a bend. As a small development they would not have to contribute to improving the infrastructure nor allocate social/affordable housing so for the overall Development Plan it should not be adopted as other sites would provide more properties to meet the government/local authority quotas and contribute to improving the infrastructure
CFS023 Land north and east of Malvern Road, Hockley, SS5 5JA Grass Field/Track 5.6 168
The land is adjacent to a residential area on one side but the majority would be adjacent to Beckney Woods and open land tracks and footpaths with very few dwellings. These open spaces, footpaths, adopted tracks connect the existing ancient woods from Hockley, Ashingdon, Rochford, Hawkwell. If full potential of dwellings was agreed it would begin to box in the Woods which will severely impact the access the open spaces for human use but more importantly access from one area to another for wildlife from birds, badgers, foxes, butterflies and their food sources including vegetation, insects. The development would have to join a minor road with limited lighting and at the bottom or an existing hill. As a small development they would not have to contribute to improving the infrastructure nor allocate social/affordable housing so for the overall Development Plan it should not be adopted as other sites would provide more properties to meet the government/local authority quotas and contribute to improving the infrastructure
CFS030 Creek View, Beckney Avenue, Hockley, SS5 5NR - Vacant/Woodland 0.18 5
The land is adjacent woodland on all sides adjacent to Beckney Woods with no dwellings. These woods lead to adjacent open spaces, footpaths, adopted tracks connecting the existing ancient woods from Hockley, Ashingdon, Rochford, Hawkwell. Such a small development will have little benefit to the focus of the Government quotas for social housing but will severely impact the access to the open spaces for human use but more importantly access from one area to another for wildlife from birds, badgers, bats, foxes, butterflies and their food sources including vegetation, insects and their habitat. The development would have to join a track with limited lighting with one access to road system joining Plumberow Avenue which is already congested. As a small development they would not have to contribute to improving the infrastructure nor allocate social/affordable housing so for the overall Development Plan it should not be adopted as other sites would provide more properties to meet the government/local authority quotas and contribute to improving the infrastructure
CFS040 Eastview House and Haslemere, Church Road, Hockley SS5 4SS Residential 1.3 39
The land is already residential but backs on to open land and opposite/near two new developments under construction. This is a minor road which is a cut through for traffic trying to avoid Rayleigh/Rawreth and is already very busy and current developments increasing use of these minor roads. It passes some very old properties and church has limited access under railway bridge and one way system to reach the access road at a difficult point on Aldermans Hill. The stables and other horse-riders use these back roads to access the bridleways in Hockley/Hullbridge. Such a small development will have little benefit to the focus of the Government quotas for social housing but will severely impact the access roads and further impact on local wildlife and habitat. As a small development they would not have to contribute to improving the infrastructure nor allocate social/affordable housing so for the overall Development Plan it should not be adopted as other sites would provide more properties to meet the government/local authority quotas and contribute to improving the infrastructure
CFS039 Plots 1/2/3 New Hall Estate, Greensward Lane, Hockley, SS5 5J Trinity Wood House Woodland 0.18 5
CFS064 Land north and east of Folly Chase, Hockley, SS5 4SF - Agricultural/Vacant/Residential/Woodland 9.03 271
CFS074 Land south of Mount Bovers Lane, Hockley SS5 4J Agricultural 22 660
CFS150 Land on the north side of Victor Gardens, Hockley SS5 4DY Woodland/Vacant 2.02 61
CFS160 Northlands Farm, 65 High Road, Hockley, Essex, SS5 4SZ Farm 5.94 178
CFS161 57 High Road, Hockley, Essex, SS5 4SZ Dwelling 1.6 48
CFS169 Meadowlands, Victor Gardens, Hockley, SS5 4DY Residential with Large Garden 5.15 155
COL96 Grass SLA, Appleyard Avenue, Hockley, SS5 5AY Vacant-woodland-Council 0.07 2
EXP09 Land Opposite Maryon House, Bullwood Hall Lane, Hockley SS5 4TD Agricultural 0.16 5
The above proposed sites have similar reasons for not being adopted within the Plan. They are adjacent to Ancient Woods/Open Spaces/Listed or Ancient Buildings/Monuments some have TPOs. These open spaces, footpaths, adopted tracks connect the existing ancient woods from Hullbridge, Hockley, Ashingdon, Rochford, Hawkwell. If full potential of dwellings was agreed it would begin to box in the Woods and open spaces which will severely impact the access the open spaces for human use but more importantly access from one area to another for wildlife from birds, badgers, bats, foxes, butterflies and their food sources including vegetation, insects and their habitat. The developments are close to new medium/large developments some still under construction off of Hall Road, Rectory Road, Main Road, and full impact on local infrastructure and roads yet to be assessed. The developments would have to join already busy, poorly maintained yellow designated roads or minor roads which feed in to yellow designated roads some of which would create awkward junctions either at top/bottom of existing hills. The small developments would not have to contribute to improving the infrastructure nor allocate social/affordable housing so for the overall Development Plan they should not be adopted as other sites would provide more properties to meet the government/local authority quotas and contribute to improving the infrastructure. I am not aware of the requirements for medium developments to contribute to the social/affordable housing stock but it would be minimal. Although I as many would prefer no development the overall Development Plan should look at potential sites which will provide the housing required whilst impacting the least woodland/vacant/open/grassland and historic land/buildings in our green belt/field land and impact on road and civic communities. That means larger sites outside of the existing villages/towns with the potential to meet the government/local authority quotas, address the need for social housing, contribute to improving the infrastructure, civic amenities, utilities and incorporate an appropriate road network and more access roads to the existing road, which may also have tolerance around to widen roads with least impact during and after construction i.e. CFS097/CFS121.
CFS156 Lime Court and Poplar Court, Greensward Lane, Hockley, Essex, SS5 5HB & SS5 5JB Residential Care Home 0.6 18
This is a care home in the village and valued by many people. How would reducing care facilities within the village benefit the overall Plan? Renovation and improvements should mean that it can remain in use without significant cost or impact on the community.
BFR2 Eldon Way Land next to station - close to railway line, where will industry go to if all changed to residential Industrial/Leisure 4.6 138
This is an existing industrial estate with mechanics, physiotherapist, chiropodists; tyre dealer, upholsterer etc. There are very few local mechanics to take vehicles to this is close to the station so beneficial for those dropping off vehicles. Although there are some unused buildings they should be completed and current site renovated with local industry in mind. Many cannot relocate to high street because the type of business is not retail or they cannot afford to relocate to the high street. The local businesses need to remain. Making this residential will increase vehicular and pedestrian access to an already busy cul-de-sac, which joins the access road at an awkward and busy junction. The number of houses would not benefit the overall Plan and aim for social housing.
COL22 Public Car Park, Southend Road, Hockley, SS5 4PZ Public Car Park 0.24 7
This is the only car park in Hockley and used by many to access local shops, library, doctors, pharmacist and other essential amenities. Local minor roads are narrow and although they have various parking restrictions they are normally for 1 or 2 hours within the day therefore people will choose the times they shop and any parking will cause congestion. The main road is the only designated secondary road through Hockley and parking on the main route will cause unnecessary congestion.
EXP14 Warren House 10-20 Main Road, Hockley SS5 4QS - Retail/Offices 0.03 1
This is an existing retail and residential building. The High Street is dying already because of high rates and little help for small businesses changing this to residential would not seem to benefit the goal of the government quotas for social housing or help the local community. Hockley High Street needs support and funding to improve the shopping experience, encourage new business, to bring in money and commerce. Development will severely impact the only main road through Hockley. This site should not be developed.

General Comments
With regards to the planned developments the lack of funding from Government and Local Authorities in housing has led to the need for "Partnerships" with private developers. Historically this has proven to be less beneficial to the community if not managed and audited by relevant authorities. Realistically developers are there to make profit and now the need has aligned with a boyant housing market they are using this to pressurise local authorities to agree planning on a signifcant amount of land some of which has been stockpiled for years during the recession. Although these developments include some social/affordablel housing the majority will be for sale and the people who need the housing i.e. low paid, homeless, emergency housed or private landlords receiving benefits, elderly, disabled, key personnel, will not be able to afford them outright or access funds thereby not reducing the population the local authority will still be obliged to house through emergency/private landlords.
There should be an open and transparent review of the recent developments Planning have passed and balance the real value to the Community and whether the quotas have reduced pressure for housing on the local authorities:
* How many homeless/registered council tennants/emergency housed have or will be accommodated
* What contribution did they make:
o No of Schools or monetary contributions
o No of Healthcare centres or monetary contributions
o No of Road widening/improvement to existing or monetary contributions to highways
o No of improvements to existing utilities/drainage/sewage or monetary contributions to providers
before passing any future planning.
Also whether they made the most of the land to reduce the need for future developments, not just focussing on the profit. The "partnership" between private and local authorities must be more focussed on benefiting both parties not loaded towards the developers and shareholders, fair profit margins and more social/affordable housing is essential. Also focus on designs that make the most of the land available not the developers preferred "detached family homes" because it is not suitable for today's diverse families or sustainable. We are an Island and will run out of land eventually and those requiring homes do not fit mum, dad and 2.1 children. Local Authorities should be making developers focus on developing properties that benefit the people that need social/affordable housing and capitalize on the space including utilizing basements for parking or additional accommdation; apartments for 1st time buyers, 1 parent familities and GF accommodation for elderly and disabled to encourage more community living, play areas, retail, health care, schools etc. We cannot continue to canabalise the green belt and agricultural land. Local Authorities should be valuing open spaces for the future environment and support farmers to use the agriculture land to benefit the community and increase productivity at reasonable prices rather than importing the majority of food stuffs we could grow.
That means that first choice should be brown-belt, then larger green-belt/field sites to meet the quotas, but outside of the existing villages/towns, with the potential to include the requirement for social housing and affordable housing, contribute to improving the infrastructure, civic amenities, utilities and incorporate an appropriate road network during construction as well as increasing access roads to the existing road, which may also have tolerance around to widen roads using land from the new site as well as having the least impact during and after construction i.e. CFS097/CFS121. Any developments that will be adjacent to a greenbelt/greenfield designated land should have an enforced 3 metres boundary to reduce the impact on any wildlife, plants and habitat that exists.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have become aware that the Council are trying to buy the land directly to the side and behind my house. My address is Great Wakering. I have lived here for 24 years and will be devastated if this land becomes a dreadful new housing estate. The light in my house will signigicantly reduce if my whole garden is surrounded by two story houses. My house will be overlooked by lots of other houses. The reason I moved here was to avoid this. The price of my house will decrease - it probably already has now these proposals are common knowledge! In the last few years I have been under the impression the area could be prone to future flooding. Please refer to http://www.greatwakeringparishplan.org.uk/sea-defences/ I cannot understand the sense of building new homes in this area when problems such as this exist. It is nigh on impossible to get an appointment at the Doctor's surgery due to all the new hones which have already been built. You can dial fifty times before you even get through to speak to someone! Our local schools are full to bursting and we do not even have a local senior school. Hundreds of students have to be bussed to Rochford to go to school. We have no tip to dispose of our rubbish as we are not allowed to use the one in Southend we have to go to Rayleigh. Fly tipping is becoming a massive problem because of this. New Road is more or less a dead end as no-one is allowed to go onto Foulness but you want to bring even more people here so it becomes conjested.

A few years ago the farmer on the field I am referring to applied to the council to have poly tunnels on the land and this was refused. Years ago we ourselves applied to have a garage built in our garden but this too was refused on the grounds that our garden was green belt land and therefore could not be built on.

We have very few amenities as we are a village. We have no police presence. We have very little employment opportunities. We have no access to a train line unless we drive to a station or have an exceptionally long walk. Now don't get me wrong I like living in this sort of environment which is why I moved here. This was a beautiful village giving a delightful country way of life. This will significantly change with the amount of new housing you want to create. This village is at the end of the line so to speak there are only two routes out. All this additional housing will end up causing a gridlock situation like those in Rochford.

I have been informed there are over 38,000 properties empty across Essex. Essex is estimated to build 10,000 per year. This would be our allocation for the next 38 years!

The pavement along New Road needs re-doing, someone is going to trip and really hurt themselves. Should our village not be looked after before even more houses are built and its ruined forever.

* Houses prices in the immediate vicinity will drecrease.
* I will lose light throughout my house.
* I will be overlooked by other properties.
* I will face disruption and noise, dirt and dust for probably years.
* Green belt land - I was not allowed to build.
* The Farmer in the field was not allowed to erect poly tunnels
* Limited public transport.
* Flood plain
* Doctors becoming impossible to get an appointment.
* School full to bursting
* No Senior School provision without hundreds of students being bussed to Rochford.
* Only two routes in and out of the village.
* We are a village struggling to stay a village
* Little local employment.
* Few local amenities.
* WHAT ARE YOU THINKING OF ROCHFORD DISTRICT COUNCIL - PLEASE HELP US SAVE GREAT WAKERING BEFORE ITS TOO LATE!!!

With reference to the council's plans for housing development, my wife and I would like to make the following comments :
CFS011 and GF03 are both category 3 flood plain
Sites CFS011, GF03 and CFS070
Your documents show good open spaces/leisure facilities THERE ARE NONE
Your documents show good Retail facilities, an expensive COOP in the village
Your documents show good Public transport services HA HA
Our neighbour works at southend hospital and it takes her 2 hours by bus !!
Investment in utilities WILL be required in all areas
Investment in sustainable transport WOULD be required
Finally we would like to remind the council that in this country we do not have public transport (Transport that is owned by the public and operated on their behalf for the benefit of the public) we have commercial transport operated by private companies for their own, and their shareholders benefit.

Having personally attended the recent Future Housing Development Public Meeting 22nd February 2018, at the Old School in Great Wakering, I wish to raise the following objections.

Infrastructure: It is quite obvious to the residents that the current infrastructure is struggling to cope.

Health: The Wakering Medical Centre has insufficient Doctors or parking facilities.

Education: The school is nearly full to bursting with 30 pupils to a class.

Flood Risk: A lot of the area within and surrounding Great Wakering has already been identified by Rochford Council
as at a risk of flooding. In fact the area identified as CFS153 is already a designated flood zone.

Emergency Services: Very limited access and would be a danger to the public.

Services: Even now currently stretched resulting in power cuts in Electricity.

Protected Areas: Careful consideration for the nature reserve in CFS057 not given at public meeting.

Public parking: Heavy traffic regularly causing congestion.

Shops: Existing very limited and under current plans unable to expand in particular the Co-op

Finally I have been a resident of 20 years in October this year and have seen many changes that have gradually eroded the idea that Great Wakering is a village.

This Future Housing Developments / Availability is a step too far.

I will list my comments in numbered form (see below):

1) General Communication - The document as presented on the Council's website is not easy to navigate and a significant amount of detail is difficult to locate. This view has been expressed by a number of people, including professional IT workers.

2) At this stage I would expect all possible sites to form part of this document, so it is curious that a particular prominent site in Great Wakering is missing. The site of the "Red Lion Public House" has not been identified. It is well known that this site will at some point be developed in the future. I would also suspect that this site would be considered a "Brownfield Site". It must be included.

3) A "Greenbelt Assessment" is currently taking place, but surely this should have been completed prior the completion of the Issues & Options Document, and before it was circulated for public consultation. Therefore, residents are commenting without a complete picture of the process, and this could hinder their ability to give a comprehensive view.

4) Site CFS011, CFS070 & CFS065 - Currently designated Metropolitain Greenbelt. A significant part of the site (CFS011) is in Flood Zone 3, which would normally be considered unsuitable for housing development. The site falls within Policy S8 of the ECC Minerals Local Plan. There could be issues with regard to an appropriate access road onto the site, and the main access road would lead into a difficult bend at Cupids Corner. Site CFS065 would have issues if an access point was considered from New Road, which is a narrow country lane. Access through the village via the High Street would lead to increased traffic flow and congestion at a very narrow part. This is also the "Conservation Area" of the village. Is it appropriate to look to develop a site in the far eastern part of the District, when industry and employment is located more to the west.

5) Site CFS153 - Currently designated Metropolitain Greenbelt. The whole of the site falls within Flood Zone 3. Mitigation of the flood risk would be expensive for any future developer, and therefore could make it unattractive. Why have a site that may not be economic to bring forward? Access onto Common Road would be difficult, and will impact on the local wildlife as the "Village Duck Pond" is located close by. The pond is inhabited all year round by a considerable mount and range of wildfowl.

6) Site CFS057 & CFS097 - CFS057 is an awkward shaped site and is broken down into 3 sections. Some of the western section forms part of the Council's existing Local Plan. Both sites are currently designated as Metropolitain Greenbelt, and site CFS057 may have some issues with flood risk as some of the site falls within Flood Zone 3. Both sites falls within Policy S8. Site CFS097 may also be bound by legal constraints.

I record my objection against the above proposed scheme CFS153 on the following grounds;
1) Part of the development is within a 1 in 70 year Flood Area as defined by the Government Body The Environment Agency
2) Insurance companies are reluctant to accept the risk for residents who wish to purchase Buildings and Contents Insurance.
3) Residents not only in the designated Flood Area but within a half mile distance from the Flood area are also finding insurance difficult to obtain
4) The proposed development would place unreasonable and unacceptable traffic pressure on the roads onto which would have to be used for access including Common Road, White Hall Road and Chapel Lane.
5) Dust and noise pollution created by the building works.
6) Reduced access to residents own homes during the building phase.
7) Along with other prospective development sites in the locality there would be even more pressure on the main village High Street, Doctor's surgery, the State local school

I have become aware that the Council are trying to buy the land directly to the side and behind my house. My address is Great Wakering. I have lived here for 24 years and will be devastated if this land becomes a dreadful new housing estate. The light in my house will signigicantly reduce if my whole garden is surrounded by two story houses. My house will be overlooked by lots of other houses. The reason I moved here was to avoid this. The price of my house will decrease - it probably already has now these proposals are common knowledge! In the last few years I have been under the impression the area could be prone to future flooding. Please refer to http://www.greatwakeringparishplan.org.uk/sea-defences/ I cannot understand the sense of building new homes in this area when problems such as this exist. It is nigh on impossible to get an appointment at the Doctor's surgery due to all the new hones which have already been built. You can dial fifty times before you even get through to speak to someone! Our local schools are full to bursting and we do not even have a local senior school. Hundreds of students have to be bussed to Rochford to go to school. We have no tip to dispose of our rubbish as we are not allowed to use the one in Southend we have to go to Rayleigh. Fly tipping is becoming a massive problem because of this. New Road is more or less a dead end as no-one is allowed to go onto Foulness but you want to bring even more people here so it becomes conjested.

A few years ago the farmer on the field I am referring to applied to the council to have poly tunnels on the land and this was refused. Years ago we ourselves applied to have a garage built in our garden but this too was refused on the grounds that our garden was green belt land and therefore could not be built on.

We have very few amenities as we are a village. We have no police presence. We have very little employment opportunities. We have no access to a train line unless we drive to a station or have an exceptionally long walk. Now don't get me wrong I like living in this sort of environment which is why I moved here. This was a beautiful village giving a delightful country way of life. This will significantly change with the amount of new housing you want to create. This village is at the end of the line so to speak there are only two routes out. All this additional housing will end up causing a gridlock situation like those in Rochford.

I have been informed there are over 38,000 properties empty across Essex. Essex is estimated to build 10,000 per year. This would be our allocation for the next 38 years!

The pavement along New Road needs re-doing, someone is going to trip and really hurt themselves. Should our village not be looked after before even more houses are built and its ruined forever.

* Houses prices in the immediate vicinity will drecrease.
* I will lose light throughout my house.
* I will be overlooked by other properties.
* I will face disruption and noise, dirt and dust for probably years.
* Green belt land - I was not allowed to build.
* The Farmer in the field was not allowed to erect poly tunnels
* Limited public transport.
* Flood plain
* Doctors becoming impossible to get an appointment.
* School full to bursting
* No Senior School provision without hundreds of students being bussed to Rochford.
* Only two routes in and out of the village.
* We are a village struggling to stay a village
* Little local employment.
* Few local amenities.
* WHAT ARE YOU THINKING OF ROCHFORD DISTRICT COUNCIL - PLEASE HELP US SAVE GREAT WAKERING BEFORE ITS TOO LATE!!!

I write to place my objection to the future development with regard to Map Ref CFS 065.
I feel that Great Wakering has had enough new building in the last year to now say that Great Wakering has lost its village status. It appears that no one in the Council is giving much thought into how busy the roads are, there are problems all over with double parking not allowing proper space for buses, lorries, dustcarts to pass, constant parking on grass verges and half way onto paths as most resident have more than one vehicle. The public transport in this area is not good so very few people will give up their cars.
The local Surgery in the High Street is stretched to capacity and its difficult for patients to get routine appointments leave alone an emergency one.
How are the local school supposed to meet the demands of new residents.
The area behind my home is supposed to be at risk of flooding so how will new residents get a decent insurance cover.
When we bought this property over 30 years ago we were at the time led to believe this was "Green Belt" and is the main reason for our purchase.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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