Supporting Health, Community and Culture

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Infrastructure
Transport needs not provided - Essex County Council in their Paper on Growth & Infrastructure highlight £4.4 billion gap in this respect not matched by Government Investment. Therefore without complete new infrastructure, we cannot achieve the proposed housing numbers.

Education, Surgeries cannot be provided - e.g. the Hall Road 600 - developer accepted by Section 106 agreement to provide a primary school and surgery. Apparently the school cannot now be provided. Therefore, we hear the Westerings Primary School may double in size - access for children, parents is a problem now, as also for adjacent residents who have long found access and egress to B1013 a problem.

Green Belt - only way to achieve e.g. 7,500 housing is to utilize much of this - don't forget flooding - e.g. 1953

Key problem area is infrastructure.

- Roads
- Schools
- Doctors
- Hospitals

These must be agreed and in place at the start of Development with the developers contributing to all of the above.

There must also be extremely close monitoring of construction traffic and the impact on local roads and people.

The air quality is also a current issue prior to building and must be monitored closely.

Please find below the comments from Hockley Parish Council relating to the Issues and Options Document.

1. Infrastructure: There is little provision for improvement which must be given priority as the district cannot sustain the existing level of development.
2. Affordable Housing: Insufficient affordable or suitable housing for first time buyers.
3. Empty Houses: These should be brought back into use before allowing more new development.
4. Air Pollution: There is evidence that this has reached a dangerous level in many local areas which will only increase with more traffic on already over-congested roads.
5. Local Services: Hospitals, doctors, social services schools etc are struggling and there is serious concern that further increases in housing and the proposed merger of hospitals in Southend, Basildon and Colchester will add to the pressures on both providers and communities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Best. Regards - David Mullen (Hawkwell resident)

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

I have read the plan and I can understand the need for more houses in the UK for people to live in. However, I strenuously object to the plan because if makes inadequate provision for supporting infrastructure. The roads we have are already clogged and the school, doctors surgeries and hospital provision etc etc ("infrastructure") are inadequate for the people we have living here now. Building lots of new houses, without simultaneously upgrading and increasing the infrastructure, is simply not acceptable.

Politicians of all persuasions and at all levels need to start listening to the people on the ground and the people in the Rockford District are generally of the view that all of this building needs to stop until someone does something to improve the 'infrastructure" to cope with existing needs let alone the needs which will be created by the proposed allocation of land for building.

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

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

Thank you in advance for reading and considering my concerns

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Im writing in response to the documents published.

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

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

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

Whilst accepting the need for more housing all over the UK I am staggered to see the extent of potential development within Rayleigh bearing in mind the current state of its infrastructure.
Traffic jams at all times of the day have become the norm and with the potential increase of 7500 additional houses ( and an estimated 10,000 plus additional vehicles ) the future looks pretty bleak without a major overall of our local highways . I see no plans for additional roads/routes in or around Rayleigh.
I live at 49 Connaught Road, this road has Sewage tankers up and down it on a daily basis and is in a sorry state. We already have issues with double parking on this road plus the dental practice at the junction with Eastwood Road where parking is haphazard and dangerous at times. An increase in housing here will result in chaos unless some alternative route onto the Eastwood Road is planned for the developments cfs047,089,003,014,102,001,009,127. How is the increase in traffic from these options intended to access the Eastwood Road ? Check out the length of traffic queues on the Eastwood Road at the junctions with Progress Road and Rayleigh High street not to mention the tail backs at Rayleigh Weir and the A129 underpass.
The plot of land opposite my house has had at least 2 planning applications turned down in recent years but is now in your long term plan for development , has something changed ? I notice he has spent a considerable amount of time and expense recently clearing his land - is he aware that this is a done deal ?
Is there a plan to build more primary and secondary schools, hospitals , doctors surgeries ?
I understand this is a 20 year plan but I see no concrete proposals on how such an increase in the number of houses is to be supported by local infrastructure
Incidentally I attended the session at the WI in Rayleigh and left my email address but as of today no contact so I have joined your mailing list myself !

Having received notifications of possible sites for more houses in Hullbridge I would like to comment on 2 sites on the list that directly effect myself & my partner .
We live at KIngsmans farm road which is a private road at the end of Pooles Lane & Long Lane .
Both possible sites are totally unsuitable due to the nature of the narrowness of pooles Lane very close to cottages & a park home site , playing field & houses in general .
Their is no way that this road is suitable for heavy machinery needed to build houses , The noise never mind the increased traffic on a tiny Lane .
You would be bringing however many more cars out of that road on a busy car park/school junction which is dangerous at the best of times .
I would also point out that I'm sure the school & doctors surgery will not be able to cope with the potential number of people these houses would bring to the area .
We were under the impression that these site were green belt .
It would appear that every piece of land empty is being taken to ruin what was always a village . We live here to enjoy the little bit of countryside NOT to live on housing estates, never mind however much disruption in all ways this would cause all residents In the village .
We hope that everyone concerned in these planning decisions visit the effected area at normal rush hour times noT when on a Sunday .
We will await our comments with interest & worry .

Looking at the map of areas being considered for possible development around the Hullbridge village we question the suitability of area CFS099, land west of Hullbridge. Unless this site is separated in some way from the existing village then access to Ferry Rd. and all the amenities will be through unadopted roads which have to be maintained by local residents. The alternative will be through the Malyons Farm site, which from the drawings we've seen, doesn't show a road substantial enough to carry large amounts of traffic. Sites CFS149 And CFS006, also west of Hullbridge, would both have to be accessed via Watery Lane or the Malyons farm site.

Sites CFS033 and CFS101 have only one access through Pooles Lane which is extremely narrow at the community centre, where, being on a narrow blind bend the risk of accidents will increase. As a walk leader for the council run "walking for health" group, I, Mr. Bowley, am always anxious for the safety of the walkers at this part of Pooles Lane as the path is narrow and cars get very close to pedestrians. Traffic from both these sites will have to pass the Hullbridge infants and junior school in Ferry Rd.

Access into and out of site CFS015,adjacent to Hullbridge Rd. and Lower Rd., will have a major impact on traffic movement. We understand there are plans to modify the junction with Watery Lane/Lower Road/Hullbridge Road with an additional roundabout to create easier access into the Malyons farm site. Traffic on this particular stretch of road is already heavy with queues often backed up beyond Hullbridge towards Ashingdon and Hockley and along Hullbridge Road and Watery Lane at peak periods. If any of the sites CFS128,CFS151,CFS100,CFS041 or CFS042,to the east of Hullbridge, were to be developed the pressure on the Ferry Rd./Lower Rd. junction plus the junction at Watery Lane would no doubt be regularly gridlocked at peak times. Lower Road is being used by drivers from further east of Hullbridge to gain access to the north and west of the county and is considered a more direct route as opposed to Hockley Road and Rawreth Lane in an attempt to bypass traffic on the A127. Since the building of sites elsewhere in the area there has already been a huge increase in traffic through Lower Road. Further development within the peninsula will make matters worse and the drop in air quality which is already detectable will deteriorate even further.

The question being asked by many Hullbridge residents is whether our doctors surgery and our local school will be able to cope with the population increase caused by the Malyons farm development, not forgetting the fact that Hullbridge has no senior school and the Schools in Rayleigh are oversubscribed with parents having to send their children outside their catchment area . Even Mark Francois MP has had to get involved(Evening Echo December 18th 2017).

My wife and I attended the meeting held 17th November where literature was available concerning future development. We were amazed by the way that finance is meant to be sourced (through rose tinted glasses). Given the current financial crisis, cut backs across the whole spectrum of government and developer's lust for profit, any infrastructural back up for further housing appears unlikely. Section 106 appears to be a magic wand.

The current population of Hullbridge and probably the rest of Rochford district has a large percentage of elderly people, of which we are both part, will not live forever and the houses we currently occupy will become available. Has this factor been taken into account? It won't help the immediate shortage of housing but then again neither is the current strategy of building large houses which are unaffordable. For the benefit of future generations why not build smaller homes which are affordable either to rent or buy, taking up less land and not using as much green belt. Could Rochford District Council NOT build as many large houses and allow the younger generation progress from affordable starter homes to houses which are currently being occupied by a decaying elderly population.

Having just moved into this area (two months ago), We are very upset to discover that the situation which affected us and drove us to move from our home of 29 years, is about to be implemented in this area also.

You said in your leaflet infrastructure would not be a consideration but it is the greatest problem facing any resident in any area.
How will people be served and who will pay for it?

If services are not a consideration then there will be severe and unfair problems.
The people who live and pay for the services are those who should have the greatest priority in any consideration of further development. If not the area will seriously deteriorate and on the back of that there will be an upsurge in crime, anger and frustration. We speak from experience.

In our previous residence the area was flooded with many people a lot of whom were state funded. This meant a great deal of pressure placed upon already over worked services. Not least schools where new class rooms were having to be added.
Doctors also not coping even when there were 4 doctors coming in. Waiting times (for an appointment) one month.
If this area of ashingdon were flooded with new residents the doctors we attend would never cope and the service would suffer.
Social housing is important but if these are not kept to a reasonable standard the whole area is affected.
The ashingdon road was obviously not built with the volume of traffic which would be generated by the increased housing in mind. Where will all that traffic go?

We have moved here believing we could enjoy a better standard of life. We have paid our way all of our lives. As home owner residents we expect to be shown the rights of such. If we were not to pay our council tax, our debts we would soon hear about it.

Serious questions need to be asked. We do know what we are talking about.

I note there are plans to build 7500 new houses. We are already suffering a, NEW TOWN, being built with three storey house for multiple occupation in Hall Road. WHERE on earth is the infrastructure to handle this? Our surgery is already FULL. Over the years I have seen the gradual destruction of our area, starting with beautiful open fields being built on; now known as Ashingdon Heights. Who is responsible for the mess to our rural habitation?

Please note that I find the above plan of up to 7500 new houses within the area totally unacceptable on the basis of unsustainability. Unsustainability being there is a complete lack of surgeries, schools and certainly no plans for further roads to ease the already overburdened traffic situation, let alone the fact that it is becoming more and more impossible to get a doctors appointment for residents already in the area. How will the overstretched NHS cope with the ever increasing population based on the occupancy of the planned houses? It is not feasible based on the gross under funding of road and rail links, already underfunded by £11 billion.

The lung that was put in place along Cherry Orchard is being depleted by the ever increasing industrial building occurring to further add houses on map j from Ark Lane to the Cherry Orchard Country Park just makes a mockery of this so called lung. Adding houses around Mount Bovers Lane, Victor Gardens, Windsor Gardens, the Railway Bridge, Ironwell Lane just takes out any boundary between Southend and Hawkwell. Thereby diminishing the character of Hawkwell which used to be considered a semi rural area. Where are the schools, surgeries, extra police, roads, ambulances, fire services to cater for this development? How can this plan be justified by RDC as helping the residents of the area create a harmonious place to live or for that matter for any incoming residents into these new builds be considered an enhancement to living a life well?

How many of the hierachy of the RDC actually live in the Rochford area I wonder? I wonder whether the tax payers of the area actually get heard.

Will RDC inform the residents as to what the consensus is of the residents eventually?

Further to my e mail yesterday re the above I would like to ask just how many brownfield sites are being considered before looking at agricultural land, e.g. field by Mount Bovers? As I understand it part of this field was once ocupied by Hockley Woods (even further back I recall reading something about the land having been common at one time) and was grubbed up for the war effort. To add housing to this area would just be a blow too much for the area as a whole. This field sits between Gusted Hall Woods and Hockley Woods - being a Site of Scientific Interest. By building on the field this action would gradually eradicate the nature of the area. If I recall correctly there are something like 22 brownfield sites in the area - are these marked on your Local Plan map and if so are they being considered first before putting more blots on our landscape?

I understand that the consultation into the local area development is open until 5pm on the 7th March and as a resident and Council tax payer in Rayleigh, I would like my objection to this to be registered.

I am absolutely appalled that the Council are putting local residents into this position. If you put aside that you are building thousands of homes on green belt land that originally attracted people to the area, I would like to make the following points.

- These homes are going to create AT LEAST 2,000 new residents in Hall Lane, Rochford, as well as all of the other developments including between Rawreth Lane and London Road in Rayleigh. Where are all of these people going to register at a doctors? I am well aware that the Developers in Hall Road "paid off" the local health trust with approx £384,000 to do with as they please, instead of providing the originally promised new doctors surgery but that money has not worked its way back into the system, it has not provided a new surgery or additional doctors at already established ones, it has more than likely gone to pay debt. But it doesn't make the race for appointments any shorter. RESIDENTS LOSE.

- Where are all of these children going to go to school? It is well documented in the local area that there is a shortage of school places. People who have moved here independently over the recent months are unable to get their child into a local school. Where are these new schools that are supposed to be a condition of development? RESIDENTS LOSE.

- 2,000 more residents per development, means thousands of more cars. Where are you intending to put them? You cannot move in this area at peak times of the day and we live on a peninsula, there is NO WHERE for the cars to filter to. There has been NO consideration for this, NO allowances for additional infrastructure. Meaning that traffic and accidents will become a lot worse if all of this goes ahead. The air ambulance has landed on London Road, Rayleigh twice in the past six months due to how busy the road has got.

SO

The Developers win, as they are selling thousands of houses.

The Council win, as that's millions of pounds extra income from Council tax.

The Health Trust win, as they receive a large lump sum, with no questions as to why this hasn't been put back into the system.

Everyone wins EXCEPT THE RESIDENTS. The people who pay the bills, live their lives and are affected by EVERY decision that is made. We will get to the point where our children can't go to school in their local area, we won't be able to get a doctors appointment or use the hospital. We won't be able to get to work on our roads or to pick the kids up when they go to school miles away!

Awful circumstances, please register my objection.

As a local residents of the Rochford area for 35yrs plus we were truly concerned to receive a residents letter informing of a plan for another 7500 to be built on top of the 1500 already planned in our area.
Anyone who has lived and know the area as long as us would have sincere concerns being ;

INFRASTRUCTURE!

The Ashingdon rd is already a nightmare with heavy traffic for the schools and queuing on the main rd for Golden cross shops at busier periods as the main supermarket in Rochford has Closed along with all our Banks (you only have to see what happens when we have the numerous roadwork's in the area everything is at a standstill (it has taken me well over an hour just to get to the hospital by car)
So how is building an extra 9000 houses going to improve the situation? and everyone's way of life.

The Hall Road development for instance... We were all led to believe this would include a School, Doctor's etc this is a classic example of the power's that be saying anything to get what they want and then backtracking !

It takes me approx. 10 days to get a Doctor's app approximately so building this amount of houses with no infrastructure is surely not thought through ?
Although our children are grown up (the Ashingdon rd was a problem then) presumably new residents will have children that need to go to school on Ashingdon rd and need to get there on an already over clogged up road god forbid there is ever an emergency and vehicles need to get through because there are times when the whole area becomes gridlocked. People get sick and will naturally need Doctor's & Dentists.

We are looking on at the moment to see what happens but as long term residents it's about quality of life & we can already see the negatives so are seriously considering moving completely away from the area

As local residents, living presently in Hockley and previously in Rochford, altogether over more than 40 years, my wife and I feel compelled to write to you having read a pamphlet issued by 'Rochford District Residents', the contents of which you are doubtless aware.

Frankly we are appalled by the number of new houses being proposed in addition to those already under construction, in the light of lack of additional/improved infrastructure including adequate roads, adequate hospitals and health services, adequate policing and adequate schools.

The local council must surely be familiar with the existing traffic congestion experienced in these local areas not only in the traditional 'rush hour' periods, but at other times during the day, for example at schools' opening and closing times, refuse collection times, and emergency or routine road repair occasions. Currently this can do nothing for local air quality, and increased traffic can only worsen the situation.

Link the foregoing with the present pressure not only on existing medical services including general practitioners, hospital wards and hospital staff, but also on the ambulance service. Potential increased traffic on, in places, deteriorating roads and the diminution in policing seen on the streets and in local towns, combined with increasing pressure on education facilities are all detrimental to the anticipated future quality of life for all levels of society.

Surely local and county planners must be aware of the possibility for regular traffic gridlock, extended criminal activity and, we are sorry to say,the potential for patient deaths with the new systems under consideration between local hospitals.

We realise the foregoing will doubtless be seen as negative comment, but sites do exist between the above areas and Chelmsford for the provision of new hospital and housing facilities with better access to main traffic routes of the A12 and A127 via the A130.

Can we please, therefore, ask that the Council do at least take the foregoing comments, which we do feel are prevalent amongst a number of local residents, into consideration in their deliberations regarding future housing developments - surely it is possible to say to Central Government 'enough is enough'. We would mention that we have also written to our local MP, Mr Mark Francois, on this matter and await his response.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I object to both the scale and nature of the outlined proposal ,as follows :

1. No matching funding for a supporting Infrastructure.
2. No guarantees that Utilities can match extra demands.
3. No spare capacity within Health & Care Services.
4. No let up in the sacrifice of the Green Belt & Air Quality.
5. No long-term LAGACY left for our future generations.

CUT THE TARGET NUMBERS TO NATURAL GROWTH LEVEL.

I am not a NIMBY and am well aware of the need for extra housing in this area both for first time buyers and for social housing but I felt compelled to raise objections to the large number of proposed housing schemes targeted around the Raweth Lane and London Road area.
The traffic congestion during peak times is well documented and no one can fail to notice the state of the roads at present - I cannot imagine how much worse both would be if all 4,540 houses (as noted in the Lib Dem's FOCUS pamphlet) were to be built. I can see how much extra revenue in the form of Council Taxes would be raised by these and how this is a very attractive proposition but the infrastructure and facilities are not in place to support this number. It is impossible to get a doctor's appointment in under a week at present in my surgery and it is again well documented that surgeries have difficulty in recruiting GPs let alone how the NHS is stretched generally in this area.
I have no doubt that planning for some of the housing schemes will be passed but I do hope that a great deal of care and consideration will be given to each on merit and with an eye on the bigger picture for the area.

I object to both the scale and nature of the outlined proposal as follows.

1 No matching funding for a supporting infrastructure.

2 No guarantees that Utilities can match extra demands.

3 No spare capacity within Health and Care Services.

4 No let up in the sacrifice of the green belt and air quality
.
5 No long term Legacy left for our future generations.

CUT THE TARGET NUMBERS TO NATURAL GROWTH LEVELS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Looking at the map of areas being considered for possible development around the Hullbridge village we question the suitability of area CFS099, land west of Hullbridge. Unless this site is separated in some way from the existing village then access to Ferry Rd. and all the amenities will be through unadopted roads which have to be maintained by local residents. The alternative will be through the Malyons Farm site, which from the drawings we've seen, doesn't show a road substantial enough to carry large amounts of traffic. Sites CFS149 And CFS006, also west of Hullbridge, would both have to be accessed via Watery Lane or the Malyons farm site.

Sites CFS033 and CFS101 have only one access through Pooles Lane which is extremely narrow at the community centre, where, being on a narrow blind bend the risk of accidents will increase. As a walk leader for the council run "walking for health" group, I, Mr. Bowley, am always anxious for the safety of the walkers at this part of Pooles Lane as the path is narrow and cars get very close to pedestrians. Traffic from both these sites will have to pass the Hullbridge infants and junior school in Ferry Rd.

Access into and out of site CFS015,adjacent to Hullbridge Rd. and Lower Rd., will have a major impact on traffic movement. We understand there are plans to modify the junction with Watery Lane/Lower Road/Hullbridge Road with an additional roundabout to create easier access into the Malyons farm site. Traffic on this particular stretch of road is already heavy with queues often backed up beyond Hullbridge towards Ashingdon and Hockley and along Hullbridge Road and Watery Lane at peak periods. If any of the sites CFS128,CFS151,CFS100,CFS041 or CFS042,to the east of Hullbridge, were to be developed the pressure on the Ferry Rd./Lower Rd. junction plus the junction at Watery Lane would no doubt be regularly gridlocked at peak times. Lower Road is being used by drivers from further east of Hullbridge to gain access to the north and west of the county and is considered a more direct route as opposed to Hockley Road and Rawreth Lane in an attempt to bypass traffic on the A127. Since the building of sites elsewhere in the area there has already been a huge increase in traffic through Lower Road. Further development within the peninsula will make matters worse and the drop in air quality which is already detectable will deteriorate even further.

The question being asked by many Hullbridge residents is whether our doctors surgery and our local school will be able to cope with the population increase caused by the Malyons farm development, not forgetting the fact that Hullbridge has no senior school and the Schools in Rayleigh are oversubscribed with parents having to send their children outside their catchment area . Even Mark Francois MP has had to get involved(Evening Echo December 18th 2017).

My wife and I attended the meeting held 17th November where literature was available concerning future development. We were amazed by the way that finance is meant to be sourced (through rose tinted glasses). Given the current financial crisis, cut backs across the whole spectrum of government and developer's lust for profit, any infrastructural back up for further housing appears unlikely. Section 106 appears to be a magic wand.

The current population of Hullbridge and probably the rest of Rochford district has a large percentage of elderly people, of which we are both part, will not live forever and the houses we currently occupy will become available. Has this factor been taken into account? It won't help the immediate shortage of housing but then again neither is the current strategy of building large houses which are unaffordable. For the benefit of future generations why not build smaller homes which are affordable either to rent or buy, taking up less land and not using as much green belt. Could Rochford District Council NOT build as many large houses and allow the younger generation progress from affordable starter homes to houses which are currently being occupied by a decaying elderly population.

I am writing to voice my objections to the plans for excessive additional housing development in the Rochford Local Plan, particularly, but not exclusively, in the London Road, Rawreth Lane and Lubbards Farm areas in Rayleigh.

Since we moved here over 30 years ago Rayleigh has become more and more congested, the doctors are more and more difficult to see and the place grinds to a halt with exhaust pollution poisoning the air, every time there is an incident on the A127.

The area does not have the infrastructure to support more house- building and yet we hear no plans on this front, with developers wringing their hands and saying that it is not their problem. Our daughter works near Rayleigh Weir a journey which of late has taken more than 30 minutes in the rush hour from our home in Downhall Park Way.This is madness.

Rayleigh is being destroyed.

We moved to Rayleigh in search of something better and we thought for a good few years we had found it. Now we may as well change the name to Basildon or Romford. We are turning into their back-yards.

Please don't let this happen

I am writing to voice my objections to the plans for excessive additional housing development in the Rochford Local Plan, particularly, but not exclusively, in the London Road, Rawreth Lane and Lubbards Farm areas in Rayleigh.

Since we moved here over 30 years ago Rayleigh has become more and more congested, the doctors are more and more difficult to see and the place grinds to a halt with exhaust pollution poisoning the air, every time there is an incident on the A127.

The area does not have the infrastructure to support more house- building and yet we hear no plans on this front, with developers wringing their hands and saying that it is not their problem. Our daughter works near Rayleigh Weir a journey which of late has taken more than 30 minutes in the rush hour from our home in Downhall Park Way.This is madness.

Rayleigh is being destroyed.

We moved to Rayleigh in search of something better and we thought for a good few years we had found it. Now we may as well change the name to Basildon or Romford. We are turning into their back-yards.

Please don't let this happen

I object to both the scale and nature of the outlined proposal ,as follows:

1. No matching funding for a supporting Infrastructure.
2. No guarantees that Utilities can match extra demands.
3. No spare capacity within Health & Care Services.
4. No let up in the sacrifice of the Green Belt & Air Quality.
5. No long-term legacy left for our future generations.

CUT THE TARGET NUMBERS TO NATURAL GROWTH LEVEL.