Health and Well-being

Further to a recent open public meeting we would like to raise our concerns about the land that has been designated as being suitable for development in Great Wakering.

Our major concern is the development is not supported by an infrastructure to accommodate the increasing number of household occupants. The village has one infant/primary school and all children of secondary school age have to travel to Rochford (King Edmund catchment) or further afield and this arrangement has been in place ever since we have lived in the village (1981). This was only supposed to be a temporary measure.

The roads are already overcrowded as the majority of houses were not built to accommodate one car let alone 3 - 4 which is the average household now and with the extra volume of cars on the two roads out of Wakering, this will only lead to congestion and frustration.

The Doctors Surgery is already at capacity as they also serve patients from their old premises in Thorpe Bay so again with the added volume of people in the village, how can they possibly provide a caring service when they are already over stretched.

The sites that give us concern are: CFS057, CFS097, CFS070 CFS065 CFS011 CFS056 CFS034.

I understand that all areas have needed extra houses to be built to help with the housing crisis. However I believe enough has been built in the Hullbridge area or permission is already in place. Therefore I object to any further building. Our village would not be able to take any more developments for a number of reasons.

1. The road structure would not be able to cope with anymore cars. Rush hour is awful on Rawreth Lane, Watery Lane, through the whole of Hullbridge. Unfortunately traffic from Hockley, Rochford areas use Hullbridge as a route through to Chelmsford- watery lane cannot cope with the traffic and certainly wouldn't cope with anymore. Will that be made into a duel carriage way? After a day at work queuing to enter our home village just isn't on!

2. Schools- our local Senior schools are full so another one would need to be built. I'm not sure where the extra children from the 500 approved houses will go?! Our local primary school wouldn't cope with a huge influx of children either.

3. Agricultural land is disappearing quickly by being built on. We need to become more self sufficient rather than relying on imports from abroad if we want a successful brexit. Farmland needs to be looked after and successfully used.

4. I have grown up in Hullbridge and decided to buy my own house for my family in the village. Village being the important word, I wanted my children to experience the village lifestyle with fields and the river not boxed in like a town. Community spirit is important to me and that will be lost if Hullbridge expands anymore. If I wanted to live in a town that is where I would have bought. We used to have several parks throughout Hullbridge which have gradually sadly been built on.

5. Utilities how would they cope with more houses.

6. Many roads in Hullbridge are single track or unmade roads, which is fine with the current flow of traffic but certainly wouldn't cope with anymore cars.

7. I assume that now we are having 500 more houses built the buses will run more regularly and reliably. When I used to catch a bus to Sweyne school it would take me hours to get home as the buses couldn't fit enough people. What will happen now?

8. The correct infrastructure isn't in place now for the new houses costing the village money, therefore we do not need anymore.

9. Another doctors would need to be built as the current doctors has enough pressures and patients already.

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


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

General Response

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

18) Improved public transport links (buses etc.)

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

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

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

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









Replies to the consultation by paragraph and point number


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6.33 Option: A

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tell Us More SP1.6: Houseboats Option B

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tell Us More SP3.3: Communications infrastructure Option B

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

Tell Us More SP3.5: Renewable energy Option A

Tell Us More SP3.6: Planning Option A

Tell Me More SP4.1: Health Option D

Tell Me More SP4.2 Community facilities Option B

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

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

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

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

Tell Me More SP4.5: Young people Option A

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tell Us More SP5.5 Heritage and culture Option A

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tell Us More D.P1.5 Basements
Option A

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Interim Sustainability Appraisal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* We would not support the development of this site!

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

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

3.Planning ref. CFS 057

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

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

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

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

* All other issues apply.

5. Conclusion

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

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




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We would not support the development of this site!



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

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


3. Planning ref. CFS 057

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

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

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

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

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

* All other issues apply.

5. Conclusion

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

I am writing to object to the proposed developments in Great Wakering under the following reference numbers:
CFS057, CFS097, CFS070, CFS065, CFS011, GF03, CFS056 and CFS034
Whilst I am relatively new to the village only living here 10 years I have come to appreciate the country feel, closeness to nature and close-knit community in Great Wakering. I believe there are a number of areas where village life will be negatively impacted if more houses are built.
* School places, our school is great, friendly, rural, there are no / very few places spare, if new housing means impacts on teaching standards, higher pupil numbers, catchment areas, then this is a change for the worse for existing residents.
* Doctors Surgery - Very difficult to get appointments now when you want them, very limited new baby care (there is talk of weighing your own child instead of a professional weekly child session with healthcare workers) much degraded since my first child was born in 2009. I can only see this getting worse with more people demanding healthcare services from more houses in the vicinity.
* Merging of Wakering into Shoebury, as the "village" spreads out the green areas disappear, boundaries disappear and urban areas merge, this isn't what should happen to a historical village with history going back centuries.
* Wildlife we have access to open spaces, wildlife reserves, cross field walks and public footpaths. Whilst I am sure the footpaths will have to remain, walking through housing estates with patches of greenery isn't what this village life is about. People have an expectation of living standards and a reason for living in a village environment wholesale building affects all residents and may change the dynamic / type of residents within the "new" village. We have limited access to the MOD areas on one side of the village so building on greenfield areas on another side does have a negative impact on the countryside, nature, village life and wildlife.
* Shopping and Amenities - There is a co-op a butchers and a post office in the village, this is nice we are a village, we can get most essentials. I am concerned that wholesale building will have an impact on how these outlets cope, the quality of service , what's available, delivery schedules, parking, and traffic on the high street.
* Roads - We have one permanent zebra crossing and a very busy high street, poorly lit access roads and a lot of children and elderly residents, I am concerned there will be a knock on impact to the existing roads with increased housing. More cars and road users, impacts on street parking as many houses don't have drives and impacts during school runs.
* Public Transport - The bus service into Southend was degraded after the Star Lane new houses were built, whilst the bus now visits Thorpe Bay and parts of Shoebury it takes longer, is busier, and less frequent than before the new houses appeared. No notice was taken of complaints about the changes; I have very little faith that "public" voices are even heard when dealing with big money developments, what do more houses mean for public transport links?
* Building on green fields - I would like to understand more on the council's policy of building on these sites, I believed the Gov policy was to avoid them. I would like to understand what other areas have / are being considered by the council in bigger urban areas with better public transport links, better infrastructure and residents not having an expectation of living in a village surrounded by fields. This policy needs to be explained further.

Having tried unsuccessfully to register my objections on the rochford council iao link, I feel I must email you directly,

It seems that once again RDC is determined to allow further mass development in Great Wakering, without any thought to improving the infrastructure to our already stretched services, we have a small and already over stretched doctors surgery that is already struggling, a road system that is unable to cope and is totally inadequate for the amount of traffic using the roads around Great Wakering, and with such a limited public transport option most people who can, choose to drive because of the infrequent and limited service provided. We then have a infant/junior school that is not big enough for a mass influx of new children to educate, on top of this is the further need to transport the children of secondary school age to rochford, And let's not forget the recent weather problems and how parts of Great Wakering were cut off, yet RDC did nothing to rectify this, choosing to leave it to local farmers to clear roads, proving that RDC cannot cope with the problems we already encounter, without further housing to make matters worse. So in summary, I believe it is RDC's obligation to give us much better value for money for the council tax that we currently pay and give the people of the area services to warrant that and to make sure that our services and infrastructure are brought up to the required standards of the Village as it is today, then and only then should RDC consider allowing further development .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The reasons for our determined objections are as follows:-

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

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

I object to the new local plan as follows:-

1. Loosing green belt which is a buffer to Hockley sprawl, and .
2. The problem with infrastructure has been ongoing for more years than I care to remember the situation in Hockley just gets worse with the Spa pinch point, low funding?
3. No spare capacity for Health and care facilities including Adult social acre let alone for 7500 extra houses.
4. The number of affordable homes home for rent needs to increase from 35% and include quads in this category .
5. The type of houses need to be moderated, so it is not mainly high end and expensive.
6. Fewer but larger sites
7. Please make the next stage of public consultation easier for all to use, the present site is too cumbersome.

I OBJECT to COL38 in Appendix C

1. In 2000 this Play space was given to Ashingdon Parish Council on a Peppercorn rent for 100yrs.
2. We now find it is called a Former Play Space.
3. It was registered with HM Land Registry Title No. EX739404 on 5th February 10.12.2004 as Malvern Road Play Space.
4. In Mr Martin Elliot's report on 1st December 2014 ( this was over a proposed Bridleway)
He stated :-The route across the play area is deemed a public right of way due to its use by pedestrians over a period of time, in his report (point 39) he records that there was significant concern expressed by the objectors (RDC and local residents) to the need to protect the public open space from development

I am writing to you with my concerns over the future housing Development in Barling . Under the land Availability Assessment 2017- Appendix C & B .

This has only just been brought to my attention, as we never receive any documents & planning proposals EVER from yourselfs .

I strongly disagree with this forcoming plans to build on land in this area . With have so much traffic now , this will only make things worst !!

Let alone loosing trees , wildlife etc .
You are already building on the old brick fields in star lane Wakering . Which is causing already delays in traffic. There is also more traffic then ever at shopland & Bournes green .

Wakering & Barling is not suitable for future planning . We haven't got enough doctors & schools to cover more people .

My doctors is Wakering Health centre , & I've been told they can't cover properly the people they have now .
What happened to GREEN BELT ?
Leave our green fields alone , & please find somewhere else . ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Planning ref. CFS 057

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

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

(2)


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

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

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

* All other issues apply.

5. Conclusion

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

I am writing to make my objection to the above mentioned New Local Plan for the following reasons;
Any additional housing development in the Rayleigh area, particularly to the west alongside the old A130, would make the already considerable traffic congestion all along the London Rd. untenable. Indeed throughout the routes in and out of Rayleigh, the
traffic congestion is so bad it is a constant topic of local complaint, the main roads in the area are not only at standstill at 'rush hour' times (which have become extended to include much of the weekday and weekend), buses have no chance of keeping to their shedules, people miss appointments, emergency services struggle to get through, air quality is suffering greatly due to the amount of vehicles standing still, the new 'intelligent' traffic lights at the Weir already cannot cope and have wasted taxpayers money, the schools in the area are full and new comers to the area are having their children refused entry and are therefore adding to the traffic by having to take them to outlying areas, the trains in the week are so packed there is never enough seats for the expensive commute, hospital services are stretched beyond capacity (we know this from 2 friends who are nurses), and as for the recent rumour that councillors have suggested a congestion charge for the A127 at peak times, I can only assume this to be a joke. Rate payers should be charging the councils for the congestion which is impacting on our daily lives and which has been allowed to get out of hand for decades by not addressing the contributing factors. South east Essex is grinding to a halt. There is not enough room left to build our way out of the mess we are already in let alone adding to the population.

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

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

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

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

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

We live at 46 Barling Road and are writing to advise that we strongly object to any future housing developments relating to CS071 & CS5125. We already have to pay large amounts of council tax and have no footpaths or adequate street lighting etc. With no infrastructure being put in place it would be a catastrophe, as the only doctor's in Great Wakering is already under extreme duress, since building took place at Star Lane. The schools are fit to burst and there is only one road in and one road out which is used as a rat run for the entire area now. Public Transport is virtually non existent in this area.

I am a Great Wakering resident and have grave concerns regarding the many proposed development sites in the village.

My concerns are as follows:
- Traffic/congestion on the 2 access roads serving the village are already extremely busy without the extra traffic that development would bring
- The only school in the village already being at maximum capacity
- Doctors surgery. At the moment the waiting time to see a GP is several days (my sister-in-law only this week had to wait 7 days to see a GP)
- Noise pollution
- Disruption to residents daily lives over the months and years of building work
- Destruction to the local wildlife
- Commuting time to work will increase
- My choice to reside in the village came about from wanting to raise my young family in an environment where we have open land around us and not a concrete jungle!!!!!!!!

Proposed development sites:
- CFS070
- CFS065
- CFS153
- EXP11
- GF02
- BFR1
- CFS115/SER9
- CFS060

I am writing as part of Rochford District Council's public consultation in regard to the Issues and Options Document and the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) of the Rochford Local Plan (Interim SA Report).
NB: I have attached a copy of this email/letter as a Word document, should you need it.
I am particularly concerned about any housing developments that might be proposed in the Rochford, Ashingdon, Hawkwell and Hockley areas. These areas already have significant traffic congestion problems that would inevitably increase with any further building of new homes. It also seems that the Council is struggling to properly maintain the roads in these areas (I assume this is because of budgetary constraints). Furthermore, the GP practices in these areas are already oversubscribed and getting an appointment with a local GP is difficult enough and would be made more difficult with an expanding population. I believe that the schools that serve these areas are also fully subscribed.
Referring to Rochford District Council's - Strategic Housing and Employment Land Availability Assessment 2017 and it's Appendix B 'Find Your Site' and Area Maps I see that a large number of potential housing development sites within the Rochford, Ashingdon, Hawkwell and Hockley areas have been identified.
I object to any proposed developments in these areas based upon the problems identified above, particularly the SER8, CFS007, CFS013, CFS119, CFS129, CFS130, CFS131 (Map R) all east of Ashingdon Road, which would only exacerbate the current traffic congestion on the Ashingdon Road (where there have been a number of serious traffic accidents, some involving pedestrians and some fatal) and Bradley Way/Southend Road.
The additional traffic volume resulting from any further housing developments could result in total gridlock at busy times and would have a negative impact on residents' quality of life, local businesses ability to transport goods and receive deliveries and make the air quality even poorer than it already is. The extra strain on GP practices, schools etc. also cannot be ignored.
Similarly, the potential sites in Map I (CFS020 and CFS169 - South of Magnolia Road, CFS150, CFS093 - around Victor Gardens, CFS118, CFS036, CFS018, CFS132, CFS140 - around Rectory Road and Ironwell Lane) would result in the same problems and would eat up precious greenbelt land that currently provides a buffer between existing housing developments and is enjoyed by local residents walking on the many rural and semi-rural public footpaths.
I would also have the same concerns regarding traffic etc. from the sites identified around central Rochford on Map M, although I recognise that these sites are not as large as some of the other sites I have referred to.
Other sites in Map I (CFS02, CFS082, CFS081 - North of Hall Road opposite The Lawns) and Map J (CFS084) could also add to the problems noted above as well as making traffic congestion, air pollution etc. worse on the Southend Road towards Hawkwell and Hockley. The same would apply to CFS074 - North of Gusted Hall Lane and CFS045 - Belchamps.
I also note that the sites that I have referred to were in the Local Development Framework - Adopted 25 February 2014 - Allocations Plan, but were given different policy numbers as noted below.
Brownfield Residential Land Allocations (Page 17 onwards)
Policy BFR2 - Eldon Way/Foundry Industrial Estate, Hockley:
This would add to traffic congestion in Spa Road, Southend Road (B1013) and Aldermans Hill.
Policy BFR3 - Stambridge Mills, Rochford:
This would add to traffic congestion in Rochford Town Centre, Southend Road, Bradley Way and Ashingdon Road. This development also has flood risk problems.
Settlement Extension Residential Land Allocations (Page 35 onwards)
Policy SER2 - West Rochford/Policy SER3 - West Hockley/Policy SER4 - South Hawkwell/Policy SER5 - East Ashingdon/Policy SER7 - South Canewdon/Policy SER8 - South East Ashingdon:
The problems that I have laid out regarding the CFS sites also apply to these 'policies'.
Finally, I do recognise that RDC sometimes grants planning and development permissions based upon the provision of amenities by developers. However, I note that in the February 2014 Allocations Plan the already agreed and now being built SER2 of West Rochford (north of Hall Road development - 600 houses) the Allocation Plan states that there will be "New primary school with commensurate early years and childcare provision", yet I understand that this has now been dropped.
It also states that there will be "Local highway capacity and infrastructure improvements" but Bradley Way and Ashingdon Road will nevertheless get more congested due to the extra traffic created by the residents of this development as these roads cannot be widened to allow better traffic flow.
Please take into account the objections/issues that I have raised as part of your public consultation which runs until 5pm on 7th March 2018.

Comments: Hullbridge Parish Council agreed at the Full Council Meeting on Monday 12th February 2018 the following response regarding the Issues and Options Document:
Housing needs

An additional 7000+ dwellings would almost certainly be unsustainable without sever damage to the environment and character of the district. According to the Environmental Capacity Study 2015, only small scale expansion of existing settlements could be sustained. This might also rule out a new settlement although, because of the scale of the suggested housing need, that could well be the best option as it would likely include a new secondary school and employment opportunities.

As regards Hullbridge, further development, other than small infills within the main body of the village, would be unsustainable. Including the Malyons Farm development, which currently has outline planning permission and was described by RDC as providing a 'defensible greenbelt boundary', and numerous small developments, Hullbridge will have seen a 20%+ increase in dwellings since this stage of the current District Plan. As an example of those smaller developments, in Ferry Rd, North of Riverside School, 6 dwellings have been replaced by 40+. The village is over 5km from the nearest secondary school, railway station and shopping centre and, with only a single bus route, there is already a high level o traffic movement on local routes. This is compounded by through traffic to and from parts of the district further West. Even within the village, there is considerable traffic movement, particularly at the start and end of the school day.

It has been reported that some London councils have been bulk-buying properties on some of the large developments in the district. If this has happened, it is not natural migration and must be resisted in order to meet local need without overdevelopment.

Bungalows

There is a need to limit conversion/expansion in order to maintain supply. If new bungalows were designed with a low roof pitch this would prevent their conversion under permitted development rights and would also limit their visual impact, particularly on previously undeveloped land. It seems likely that many older homeowners, who wish to retain their independence but are looking to a future when they may become less active, would like to downsize to a small bungalow with a little garden rather than an apartment. Market versions of developments like Rydal Close and Mayfield Ave could well fill that need.

Houseboats

No live-aboard boats should be allowed outside existing marinas.

Tourism and Rural Diversification

Although tourism is welcomed, I am concerned that additional accommodation, businesses and tourist numbers could affect environmentally sensitive locations. Although dogs are required to be kept on leads in Hullbridge's Kendal Park Nature Reserve, there is no such restriction along the rest of the river bank where they can often be seen venturing onto the salt marsh and river bed, disturbing wildlife.

Highways Infrastructure

I would be opposed to highway changes or developments to the East which could encourage even more traffic on Lower Road. The previously-suggested Rochford Outer Bypass or a similar proposal would be equally unwelcome as it would increase pressure for development along its route, particularly where it linked to local routes. It would also, almost certainly, cross the Rayleigh Club golf course, making that use of the greenbelt between Hullbridge and Rayleigh no longer viable.

However they maybe potential to widen the A127 from 4 to 6 lanes from the M25 to as far east as the Bell without major impact of

I note that Lower Rd, East of Ferry Rd is shown as a bus route although there is no regular service except for school buses.

Education

It seems likely that the current secondary schools have little room for further expansion and is questionable whether there is a suitable location for a new one, other than possibly in a new large settlement.

In Hullbridge we have at least two pre-schools not one as in the document.

Greenbelt

The greenbelt to the East and West of Hullbridge village is important due to its proximity to the environmentally sensitive and protected River Crouch and that to the South is needed to prevent any merging with Rayleigh/Hockley. As previously stated, the currently-proposed Malyons Farm development was described by RDC as providing a 'defensible greenbelt boundary'.

Wallasea Island

Although this would seem to be a worthwhile project there have been comments from more than one source, that this has increased flow rates and erosion upstream on both the Crouch and Roach.

Outbuildings

Their use as living accommodation should only be allowed if they were originally built and used for another legitimate purpose and must remain ancillary to the main home and not allowed in greenbelt.

Hullbridge Sewage Plant

We do not think it will have the capacity to be able to cope with the proposed Malyons Farm Development let alone any other additional dwellings in the village or neighbouring Parishes.

Air Quality

Rayleigh Town was recorded as the highest for poor air quality, further developments will have impact and will intensity the situation.

Employment Land

We welcome land being used for Employment including Retail/Shops in the District.

Hospitals/Health Centres

Our local Hospitals and Health Centres would not be able to support people from any additional large scale development without considerable investment.

Traveller Sites

We would like the Michelin Farm Site to be developed as a proper site for Travellers.

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

Are there plans to expand the Health Centre in Wakering to facilitate the extra people?
Are there plans to accommodate and educate the extra school age children in Wakering?
What plans are there to build in Rochford?
Is anything going to be done about the entrance to the site south of the High Street just about opposite the Health Centre? The approach is a quagmire and mud and stones spill out on to the pathway, where mothers and children walk every day to get to school.
People have to live somewhere but they also need a supporting infrastructure. So far I am not convinced any thought has been put into this.
I have raised these concerns on the Taylor Wimpey site (as suggested by them) but surprise surprise had no response. I do not understand why organisations ask for opinions then ignore them!

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have largely restricted this to housing and the environment.

Housing Needs
An additional 7000+ dwellings would almost certainly be unsustainable without severe damage to the environment and character of the district. According to the environmental capacity study 2015 only small scale expansion of existing settlements could be sustained.

As regards Hullbridge, further developments at Malyons Farm which currently has outline planning permission and was described by RDC as providing a (defensible green belt boundary) and numerous small developments, as an example of these smaller developments, in Ferry Rd, north of Riverside School 6 dwellings have been replaced by 40+.

Highways Infrastructure
I would be opposed to highway changes which could encourage even more traffic on Lower Road and Watery Lane.

Education
It seems likely that the current secondary schools have little room for further expansion and is questionable whether there is a suitable location of new one, other than possibly in a new large settlement.

Green Belt
The green belt to the east and west of Hullbridge village is important due to its proximity to the environmentally sensitive and protected River Crouch and to the south is needed to prevent any merging with Rayleigh & Hockley, as previously stated, the currently proposed Malyons Farm development was described by RDC as providing a (defensible green belt boundary).

Air Quality
Will only get worse with more cars & heavy transport. Rayleigh is already one of the worst air quality in the district.

Health and Well-Being
Our doctors and hospitals are already at critical levels and are only likely to get worse with a bigger housing developments.

Delivering Jobs
Hullbridge is a large village and is getting bigger. There is no industry or large commercial developments here, all workers have to leave and return to Hullbridge daily, adding to congestion of our roads and air quality readings.

Housing Needs
A additional 7000 plus dwelling would almost certainly be unsustainable without severe damage to the environment and character of the district. Any future housing should be affordable and for local community.

Infrastructure

The roads around Hullbridge are already gridlocked twice a day at rush hours air quality will only get worse with more cars and housing.

Schools

These secondary schools have little room for expansion.

Wellbeing and Health

Our doctors and hospitals are already overloaded and are likely to get worse over time.

Green Belt

The green belt is there to stop urban sprall and should be kept as such.

Jobs and Commercial Development

Hullbridge is a commuter village with little jobs all work has to be travelled to and from.

In response to the proposed developments in the local Hockley, Hawkwell and Rochford area, I would like to make the following points:-

While I agree that there is a need for a sensible amount of new housing, as a long time resident of the Hockley and Hawkwell area, I would make the following observations:

* the road system is, at present, under great strain. One delivery van or lorry can snarl up the whole area, leading to missed appointments and real dangers in terms of getting to people who depend on we residents.
* the effect on children and vulnerable adults due to air pollution, from all the extra cars that a large amount of new housing would entail, would be very detrimental to the health of residents.
* the loss of green fields, farmland and woodland will further add to the detrimental effects on the environment, in terms of ecology, air quality and bio diversity.
* New school buildings would be needed with a substantial increase in pupil numbers. This would need to be planned and finished before any new families move in. As as a retired headteacher, I well understand the effect that a sudden influx of new pupils can have on a school community. These increases in roll need to be managed very carefully. Are skilled head teachers, teachers, assistants and support staff readily available when there are the current recruitment problems in teaching and school leadership? How is this being addressed in the planning for the district?
*new shops, leisure facilities and amenities would need to be put in place. The building of these would put further pressure on the present road systems.
* the health services in terms of GPs, clinics and hospitals, are already under great strain. There is a growing population who cannot find adequate treatment options already. Lots of new housing would substantially increase these pressures. I work as a volunteer at the hospital and I see these pressures first hand. There is a current recruitment problem with GPs, nurses and hospital staff. How is this being addressed in the planning for the district?
* the local ageing population cannot presently find adequate care facilities, whether from councils or privately. New developments would put further strain on this situation. How is this being addressed in the planning for the district?
* the police service is presently under pressure after funding cuts, what plans have been made to address this?
* the ambulance services are already under severe pressures and can take too long to respond to accidents. My 94 year old neighbour broke her femur and had to wait for over 2 hours for a paramedic. This isn't civilised. How is this being addressed in the planning for the district?

Our area is already under strain in terms of support services, resources, roads and environment. There is limited scope, using brown field rather than green field sites, for a huge increase in housing stock. I agree that first time buyers and local residents who need affordable rental property, are very much under strain. They should be a priority. However, there is only so much building, and the subsequent increase in population, that can be absorbed into our local area.

I understand that the situation is complex and needs very careful planning but I doubt that the pre-planning can be done in time for any proposed building. Houses spring up in our area at an alarming rate, ignoring the views of local residents. The need for central government building and housing targets to be met puts further pressure on the system.

I doubt if the carefully considered views of local residents, like myself, will really have any weight in your planning. I know that this is a consultation but will it really be a consideration?

However, I cannot sit idly by and fail to register my concerns.

I would welcome your response.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Public parking: Heavy traffic regularly causing congestion.

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

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

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

OBJECTION to the RDC New Local Plan ( Issues & Options stage ):-

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.

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.

I would like to object to the proposed developments of 7500 new houses in the Rochford District Council Area. The key issues I feel are unacceptable for so many houses especially in the Hullbridge area are:-

1. Roads cannot cope now with the volume of traffic going in and out of Hullbridge, when Watery Lane is shut then for people to get to work and get home is causing considerable congestion now, how are they going to cope with all those extra people and cars.

2. Schools already now are over subscribed, where are these children going to go to school. They shut Park School down many years ago to build houses on so don't tell me they will build another school. Waste of money.

3. At the moment its impossible to get an appointment at the Doctors when you want to, and far as I'm aware there are no proposals to expand, how are we going to see a doctor with those extra people.

Our Village of Hullbridge will no longer be a village, how can Green belt be used for so many houses.