Health and Well-being

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Many thanks,

I have great concerns regarding the infrastructure around the Hockley area. The roads at present are congested and additional housing will only add to this problem as it seems impossible to widen access to these areas. Additional high street stores would add to the problem with their deliveries, as we had with Sainsburys in Spa Road when their lorries blocked the main road.

I am also concerned about the lack of provision for additional GP services and schools. In June I wrote to Rochford Council to express my concerns about GP surgeries with regard to the Hall Road development. I was advised that no new surgeries would be built although there are an additional 600 homes planned. This would probably mean around 2000 additional residents, and it is very difficult to get appointments already.

I was told that the Primary Care Trust has sought a contribution from the developers of £383,689 towards health care infrastructure and that the Council has no influence in how this is spent. They could just use it to pay off current deficits. This is no help at all for existing residents.

I also wrote to Mark Francois and attach a copy of his reply.

I would advise that I will be looking closely at who approves these plans which will reflect in who I vote for at future Council elections. I believe that many others share this opinion according to posts on local social media sites and feel that Councillors should bear this in mind.

I wish to object to developments when there is no improvement in access roads, schools and GP surgeries.

I have read with dismay the proposals for possibly 7,500 new houses to be built in and around the Rochford area. I assume that the criteria for the purchase of these new homes is as follows. 1. You are not able to own a car because the surrounding roads are unable to cope sometimes with the amount of traffic already using them. 2. You cannot be a parent of a child still at school age as the local schools are struggling to deal with the number of children they already have. 3. Your health must be extremely good with no existing ill health issues as the local G.P's cannot cope with the numbers of patients they already have. Yours sincerely

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

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

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

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

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

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

Doctors surgeries are under pressure.

Additional school places seem to have no consideration.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards

My family and I live in Rochford District (Hillside Avenue, Hawkwell/Hockley). We are very concerned by the proposals to build up to 7500 new houses in the area. There are already significant delays and traffic jams on a frequent basis and there seems to be no investment in the roads planned. It is also extremely difficult to get doctor's appointments at any of the local surgeries due to the increase in the number of residents in recent decades. My wife is a school teacher and very aware of the pressure that the education system is currently under. Local services and infrastructure is not coping at the moment. It will not cope with an additional 7500 homes in the area.
We have been advised to provide 'facts' as part of any challenges/objections. We would like the council to adopt a target of 3500 new homes over the next 20 years (no more than 175 new homes per year). This will allow further investment in infrastructure and for the services to 'catch up' with the demands being placed on them. We do not want to see any development take place in Hockley or Hawkwell. This would be disasterous.

I am writing to express my concerns after reading about the proposed building of an additional 7,500 new homes across the district. I cannot see how the area can cope with any more. The roads are in a poor condition. Potholes on many of the main roads. The main road through Hockley has had two burst water mains in the last six months causing chaos to the roads. It was not intended for heavy goods lorries to pass through either and quite often we have a situation where they cannot pass under the railway bridge.

Traffic is a big problem. Congestion both through the town into Rayleigh and the other direction towards Ashingdon. We regularly have to put up with temporary traffic lights for maintenance that compounds this problem further. Some Saturdays you can queue in traffic from the top of the hill at aldermans hill near Bullwood Hall down to the Hockley Spa roundabout. At rush hour and peak times traffic is crawling all along this road and through the Hockley high street from the station. The route from Hockley to Rayleigh should only take 10 mins with flowing traffic but more often than not it is three times this amount.

My children attend Plumberow primary academy. This is a large 3 form school already. It would not be able to take additional pupils. We walk to school but many children that attend the school live out of catchment and have to drive to school causing problems with parking at both entrances to the school as well as increases the traffic situation. I understand similar problems are experienced at Hockley primary and Westerings school.

I have also heard people complaining about how hard it is to get a doctors appointment because they are busy. Could they cope with additional patients? The high demand on the Southend a&e and hospital is worrying at present without additional local population adding to this.

In summary I am concerned that you are considering further homes in this area. I appreciate the pressures you have from government but additional homes in this area will not be the solution, only causes other problems. I therefore urge you to reconsider this area.

My opinions on The New Local Plan.
Whilst I am fully aware of the need for new homes, the number proposed vastly exceeds any infrastructure we currently have or are likely to get in the foreseeable future.
A) Roads. The A127, A129 and Rawreth Lane are already well above capacity at peak times of 4:30-6:00pm with traffic queueing for up to 30 minutes belching out polluting fumes. Tackling this issue with a congestion charge which has been mooted would be an unsatisfactory solution as there is no alternative. We cannot park then use an "underground" like London. The B1013 on which I live, moves either at snails pace at peak times or traffic exceeds the speed limit on blind bends, an accident risk which will be worse with the new developments on Folly Lane and Bullwood Hall.
The number of cars for 7500 houses will probably add at least 10000 extra cars to our already congested roads.
B) Doctors. The local surgeries are currently difficult to get appointments and doctors are leaving the NHS and can't be easily replaced. Who will care for the new residents?
C) Schools. The schools are mainly already oversubscribed. New schools will have to be built to educate new children.
D) Hospital and community care. Southend University Hospital is under threat of being downgraded and acute patients transferred to Basildon and Chelmsford. Apart from disagreeing with this for our current population, it will be even worse with more residents and times for transfer will increase due to the extra congestion on the roads.
Some of the proposed new sites affect places where the local care homes are. It is essential to plan not just for new homes but also new high quality care homes. It is not just the elderly that need care. Young and middle aged adults also need good quality care. For an exemplary style of care for disabled adults please see "Scotts Project Trust" https://www.scottsproject.org.uk in Kent which is no more expensive than other places.
It is essential that the council puts the horse before the cart, not the other way round and puts in infrastructure and new roads BEFORE any further new homes.
General Strategic Planning:
The green belt is essential and as little of it as possible should be used for new development. It is the lungs of our society and not only improves physical health but also mental health of residents. I believe firmly also that sunshine and access to nature promotes mental wellbeing which goes on to improve physical health and the follow on of less pressure on health resources. Thus I feel that the planners must consider light, shade and views when arranging new housing. It seems that the present developments are creating tiny gardens in the shade of neighbours. Wherever possible as many south facing gardens should be planned. It is not only good for the residents' health and plant growth, but solar panels can be added inconspicuously to roofs on the non-dominant aspect of the home.
Also, I don't think the Rochford area caters well to the "better off" older people. The assumption that a very small garden is desired and a small home is untrue. There are many in my position who would like a slightly smaller garden than they have, but a more accessible home that could cater for a wheel chair as time goes on. Therefore having new homes with space left for a domestic lift and fully flat floors would be desirable. This would be more flexible and not necessitate someone moving as they became less mobile.

To whom it may concern,

PLEASE, PLEASE stop this over development of Hawkwell, Hockley Rochford and Ashingdon. It is well documented that the air quality in this area is one of the worse in the country and the Council want to make it even worse. More children are now suffering from asthma with the increase in pollution. As it is we need an additional Hospital in this area to cope with the many thousands of people pouring in from outside of the area (many from the London boroughs) Once the fields have been concreted over the ability to grow food for the increased population will be gone for good.
Quality of life in this area is getting worse as the stress many residents are suffering just being stuck in traffic as they try to get to work let alone trying to get home again.

Where are the children that will live on Elizabeth Gardens going to go to school? Some surely will no doubt be going to Westering Primary. So how are those parents going to get them there? By car (no doubt) on already congested roads
I wonder if this is all about money and the additional Council Tax the Government will receive. As it is white lines on the roads have not been freshened up for years let alone getting the pot holes filled in.
Please Please listen to mine and the view of the majority of long standing (I have lived in this area all my life) residents in this area.

I wish to protest at the housing developments proposed for land to the west of Rayleigh. I moved into Danbury Road in 1975 & since then hundreds of houses have been built without any improvement to the roads - London Road & Rawreth Lane - which are jammed solid every day between 8am & 9am and between 5 pm & 7 pm. We have lost 1 senior school(Park) & gained 1 primary school with 1 primary school being moved from Rawreth. All the schools are full to capacity. There are only, I believe, 2 doctor's surgeries both of which are over subscribed.

Before any more homes are built something needs to be done about the infra structure & Community facilities in the area.

OBJECTION
PROPOSED SITE CFS 127

I STRONGLY OBJECT TO THE ABOVE-NAMED PROPOSAL.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12.Local post office is stretched beyond capacity.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12.Local post office is stretched beyond capacity.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12.Local post office is stretched beyond capacity.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12.Local post office is stretched beyond capacity.

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

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

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

This is an objection to land availability Assessment 2017 Appendix C

OBJECTION TO CF5065

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

EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES. POOR.

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

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

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

PUBLIC TRANSPORT SERVICE

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

EXISTING RESIDENTIAL AREAS. ADEQUATE

Adequate for the size of the village

HIGHWAYS ACCESS NOT NEEDED

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

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

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

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

The infrastructure in Rochford is not suitable for any more housing developments. 60 residents have already voiced their opinion on this which is being ignored for the South Street developments.

During peak hours the traffic is at a stand still down South Street, Bradley Way, the roundabout at Whittinghams garage, Sutton Road and other areas. This is also before the development of 600 houses in a mini-town in Hall road shows any impact. Surely you can see we cannot take any more development. Most of these people are also being brought down from London and it is not a local housing problem. The roads are not built for this amount of traffic.

Air Quality

Because of the above traffic the fumes in our house peak during peak hours can be smelt. This is not good for people's health and also our house is covered in exhaust which has to be washed off regularly.

There are not doctors in the area to take more development - I have waited over two weeks to see my doctor. Again before the Hall Road Development kicks in.

Southend General has been on black alert for months and has cancelled all orthopaedic operations for over a year. How will they cope with all this development. The only way to see a dentist now in this area is to pay privately.

Even English Heritage is questioning your developments so why are you still going ahead with all these developments.

I write to register my objection to the use of the children's play area (Your Reference CFS023/COL38). Apart from its recognised use as a children's play area it is also a valuable walk through / short cut to Branksome Avenue and to Beckney Woods. This route is used daily basis and I use it regularly to access the woods and friends in Etheldore Avenue. Horse riders also use the route to when they exit the Beckney Woods. If this access was lost it would mean walking along Tonbridge Road, Orchard Avenue, Russet Way, Ash Way and Branksome Avenue to reach the woods. From a drainage perspective the green is at the top (high) part of the road. I live in the lower end of the road, at times of high rain we already see the drainage system is inadequate if we lost the drainage on the green as it is concreted over the situation will only get worse. The green is used by more than children, I have personally seen people enjoying the area using it to do their studies and revise. It is an asset to local people and would be a sad loss; as towns expand pockets of public green space become ever more valuable to residents and in short supply.
Looking at the larger building plan the area around Harrogate Drive. Unless public services are increased in line with any future development then our existing services will become overwhelmed. Doctor's appointments are already difficult to obtain placing more people on the register will only worsen the situation. When my children started their school career class sizes were no larger than 30 by the end the classes were larger. More houses more people, more children larger classes degraded education. I used to live in Rayleigh (my sister still does), and it is a good example of the effects of mass building in a town. Rather than bringing increased trade traffic congestion (traffic gridlock for parts of the day. Listen to local radio and you can hear how often Rayleigh is mentioned) reduces trade as it's easier to go out of town. I avoid going to or though Rayleigh if I can. It would be a disaster for Hockley if we followed the same route.

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

We are writing to you today with serious concerns about the future housing development in Great Wakering and Shoeburyness.
Looking at Rochford District Council Strategic Housing and Employment Land Availability Assessment 2017-Appendix B Map Q
if this land was built on you would be changing the face of this area ,community and wildlife forever and will change great Wakering from a village into a town.As it is it is near on impossible to get a doctors appointment with out waiting weeks ,School places are also extremely limited, the roads and infrastructure are weak at best so getting in and out of just southend alone is a nightmare ,parking would also be an issue these problems can not be solved already ,so increasing the population and building on all this land would only make all these problems worse ,The roads as they are are in a very poor condition and could not handle more traffic as you are aware we are forever under cut backs which is another reason why this building project would be a bad idea ,we also have poor public footpaths that are not kept up to a good standard and in some places there is no footpaths or transport to get you to parts of Shoeburyness ,and the impact on the wildlife alone would be devastating ,these have been open farm fields always and as residents who was born growing up in this area and playing in these areas would find it a tragic loss .The amount of land that has been built on over the years in shoeburyness and wakering has already taken large sums of the open fields we feel that if we lost these the feel of the village lifestyle would be gone forever and before long we would just be like southend ,I would also like to point out that most of the houses that are going to be built will not be sold to locals but to the London community that are selling there houses at a great profit then snapping up houses down here and simple out bidding the locals.

I am writing to you to strongly object to the planning application 17/00862/REM PP-06533180 dwellings of up to 180 houses between Star Lane and Alexander Road.
There are a number of reasons for my objection to this planning application, firstly I live with my family at 279 High Street Great Wakering therefore the proposed planning backs directly onto our back garden causing considerable upset to us, not only will we be losing our beautiful view of open fields (one of the reasons for buying our house in the first place) but also the massive amount of noise and mess that we will have to endure for a number of years whilst 180 dwellings are built. There will be massive detrimental disruption to all the wildlife that dwells on or around this proposed development including to wild birds, bats, newts (in the lakes) etc. Plus I believe our infrastructure and services I.e, schools , doctors, local shops and roads to name but a few things, our local junior schools are already over subscribed and we have no senior school in the nearby vicinity children having to get onto council provided buses into Ashingdon. We live opposite the local doctors and can already see how difficult it is to get an appointment and how busy they are without the proposed extra 180 potential familys moving in. As for local shops there are only 2 or 3 convenience shops in Great Wakering all extremely busy with limited parking spaces. And finally road infrastructure as within most of the Rochford borough the roads are already overly busy and within Great Wakering we have a very limited bus service so if the proposal goes ahead roads will at certain times I'm sure become grid locked. But lastly and I think most importantly most of the local people of Great Wakering do not want this building proposal to go ahead, Great Wakering is a small village with a nice community atmosphere we do not want this spoilt with over development.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I attended an 'open' meeting last week at the Wakering Community Centre regarding the above.
Looking at the various maps, especially the larger maps, P and Q, I was astounded to see the vast areas of hatching. Obviously I don't know whether all these areas will be built on and what the time scales might be (all at the same time or spread over a number of years). This is in addition to recent developments in and around the village (Star Lane being the most recent).

I have various concerns regarding these developments like building on Green Field and Green Belt lands, surely there must be Brown Belt or Brown Field sites which could be developed first.
My main concern is that if all these areas are built on (I've heard that it would be up to 3000 homes), then the infrastructure of Great Wakering would be swamped. The doctors surgery appears full, likewise, the school. At many times during the day, the parking in the high street is full and it is the same for shops like the Co-op. Also, these maps don't show the road entrances or exits to the proposed sites. Many of the side roads are double parked, and traffic flow, at times, is very congested (Alexandra road for one) so any extra traffic would make this even worse.

My wife and I moved here nearly 4 years ago and one of the reasons for coming was that this is a lovely village with wildlife and fields. Looking at these plans Great Wakering will turn in to a not so nice small town.

I realise that more houses have to be built, and if it goes ahead, you must improve the facilities here (another surgery/school/more shops).

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

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

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

Regarding the rest of the proposals:-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I strongly object to the planning proposal to flood this local authority district with a disproportionate and unacceptable volume of planning applications for residential accommodation
without any consideration to the effect this will have on the infrastructure needed to make these proposals sustainable. It is unacceptable that local district councils are permitted to give permissions to implement their housing policies and at the same time turn a blind eye and wash their hands on issues that can only be resolved at county council level so as to make these developments sustainable. It should be imperative that the two tiers of local authority organisations take a corporate approach and joint responsibility to ensure that the substantial increase in the number of houses to be developed will be sustainable in the environment as a whole.
B1013
1. Any competent planning officer with integrity and a feel for the concerns of the local community must already know that the B1013 road which runs between Rayleigh Weir and Rochford Town Centre is no longer fit for purpose. The need to reduce congestion and provide a free flow of traffic on this road demands that urgent proposals be put in place in the following areas so as to avoid the present slow moving, costly and time wasting movement of traffic causing unacceptable levels of atmospheric pollution in the environment;
The junction between Rayleigh High Street and Eastwood Road, the junction between Hockley Road and Websters Way, the junction between Hambro Hill and Hockley Road, the junction between Main Road Hockley and Buckingham Road, the junction between Southend Road, Spa Road and Main Road Hockley, the junction between Rectory Road and Hall Road and the junction between Hall Road and Bradley Way Rochford.
I understand that in future it is intended to build a substantial number of new houses on green field sites at Mount Bovers Lane, Ironwell Lane, Nursery Corner and Cherry Orchard Way. These developments have the potential of producing another approximately 3 500 vehicles, all of which which will need access to the B1013. In nineteen years time the demand for private motor cars serving these dwellings could easily rise to exceed an additional 7000. This is in addition to the demands already made from the recently built sites of 175 houses in Rectory Road and 600 houses in Hall Road.
I would be pleased to receive all the information that you may have concerning improvements to the B1013 to avoid any future grid lock occurring in this main access to several cccccccccc c local routes, so as to make the New Local Plan sustainable.
It is absurd and a planning folly of unmeasurable incompetence to inflict this number of additional vehicles on a road system which even now is unfit for purpose.
A possible solutions may be to provide two completely separate new access routes to the A127 and A130 to make these proposals sustainable and relieve congestion on the over-used B1013.
County Council Issues
2. In addition to providing an efficient and satisfactory transport network of highways to allow the free movement of traffic throughout the region, further measures will be needed to accommodate
the predicted increase in population by 2037. I would be obliged if you could inform me of the provision to be made for additional nursery, primary and secondary schools and college facilities in the wider area, to accommodate the predicted increase in children and young persons educational needs during the next 19 years.
3. As it is predicted that there will be an increase in the number of elderly people requiring care in the community, are additional measures being taken in the wider area for residential care homes to be provided to meet this need?
NHS Issues
4. With the predicted future increase in the population in 2037, the Mid&South Essex Hospital Trusts will need to assess the future requirements to provide a sufficient number of new hospitals and medical centres to meet the increase demand for these services.

It is high time that councillors and planning officers at district council level looked beyond the increased revenue incentive received from the New Build Bonus grants issued by the central government and focus their attention on the long term effect that these proposals will have on the environment now being provided by local district councils for future generations to come.

I object to both the scale and the 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.

I think your plan is over ambitious and you seriously need to think about the impact on the infrastructure and green belt land to the proposals you are putting forward.

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