Education and Skills

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Many thanks,

I am informed that a greenbelt area (ref cfs054) at the rear of South View Close, in Rayleigh has been ear marked as a possible site for development and would like to inform you as follows:

The area does not have the infrastructure to accommodate a 23% increase in the housing for the following reasons: Our doctor's surgery recently changed their policy to "telephone appointments" as they do not have the sufficient number of doctors to cover the amount of face to face appointments requested, furthering the populace would indeed worsen the healthcare availability locally even further.

We also not have the schools capacity, the local junior school Wyburns is small and full to capacity now, would their funding be increased, would their property be extended, would they be allocated funds for further teachers?

We also find that the number of cars in Rayleigh has increased substantially in the last 5 years. There are only 2 main roads out of Rayleigh and at any given time they are extremely gridlocked, particularly the Weir/A127 junction. We currently add 10/15 minutes to enable us to get out of Rayleigh to any planned journey, we simply don't have the road capacity for another 23% increase in traffic.

Lastly we are somewhat shocked at the choice of this area, as we back onto that land and have serious flooding issues almost every winter, supplying our own sandbags on regular instances after rainfall and snowfall. Eastwood Brook is subject to overflowing on a regular basis.

Thank you for your attention. We would like logged that both my husband and I are highly apposed to this land being redeveloped.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Doctors surgeries are under pressure.

Additional school places seem to have no consideration.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards

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

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

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

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

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

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

To whom it may concern,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12.Local post office is stretched beyond capacity.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12.Local post office is stretched beyond capacity.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12.Local post office is stretched beyond capacity.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12.Local post office is stretched beyond capacity.

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

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

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

We have lived in this village for over 40 years. We have seen many changes, some of them good and now there seems to be a plan to change a nice place to live into an over populated town which will be desperately short of school places, doctor's appointments and just getting in and out of what is at present a village into a place that is difficult to arrive at. At present with the extra unwanted development going on in the village it is near impossible to get to an appointment without being in a traffic queue. We haven't yet seen the impact of impending present development, Bullwood Hall, Folly Grove, Waters and Stanton plot, and all the other single plots being developed into oversized flats.

The amount of pollution created by this increase in stationary traffic will have an adverse affect on our health and it is a very worrying scenario to think of our young people who will be facing health issues due to this increase when there will a shortage of doctors/hospital appointments.

We live in Folly Chase which is under threat of extra unwanted development when we already have the inconvenience of having large heavy lorries speeding on the wrong side of the bends In Folly Lane to get to the development on Pond Chase. This will in turn cause more traffic to arrive at the main road making more congestion. Folly Chase is as the name suggests a private lane, not wide enough for two cars and especially has no pavement. We worked very hard to obtain our property in a nice area and it seems the Council are adamant in ruining our local area. We have only just heard how the extra planned properties on the Pond Chase site was increased at the Council's request and were very annoyed no thought was given to the area or traffic congestion.

I am glad to say our grandchildren will be out of local education by the time this extra development is finished as schools at present are just adequate and we will soon be at the stage where there will be no room for our children to attend their own local school.
We believe ours should be a forward thinking council not one that gives quick fix solutions that will surely cause problems in the areas that they are currently thinking of developing. Thought should be given to look for a site to the east of the district where plans can be made to provide all amenities schools, doctors, services, sufficient roads etc.It could be planned properly from scratch rather than trying to alter an already overcrowded area which will be detrimental to large parts of the community.

We understand Redbridge Council has fought the government to reduce extra development there and suggest this should be a consideration as so many of our residents are angry over this issue and believe some consideration could be given to them.

To summarise, extra unwanted development will cause:
More pollution
More traffic queues
More pressure on present Doctors for appointments
No places for local children at schools
New settlement east of Hockley the best option.

This is an objection to land availability Assessment 2017 Appendix C

OBJECTION TO CF5065

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

EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES. POOR.

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

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

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

PUBLIC TRANSPORT SERVICE

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

EXISTING RESIDENTIAL AREAS. ADEQUATE

Adequate for the size of the village

HIGHWAYS ACCESS NOT NEEDED

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

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

Para 9.26. Stated that 800 new homes would generate need for a new primary school(what size?) north of London Road will have 550 agreed houses (although it now appears to be nearer 750 on three sites . St Nicholas has the capacity and has been designed to increase to 210 ,shoul that be the first option ?
There appears to be little provision for secondary education provision for 16 to 18 year statutory education .

Option 1

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

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

Planned growth in Rochford District should be supported by appropriate education facilities. Significant growth is proposed is South Woodham Ferrers in Chelmsford City Council's emerging Local Plan in proximity to Rochford District. Growth in Rochford District should not have adverse impacts on planned growth in South Woodham Ferrers by placing additional pressure on existing and proposed education facilities.

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

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

Having recently reviewed 'The New Local Plan' I am writing to try and convey my concern, even shock at some of the parcels of land under review especially with regard to plots, CFS: 045, 074, 078, 079, 080, 081, 082, 083, 084.

Some of the sites detailed above (especially 045 and 074) are prime greenbelt land, beautiful plots of land that we in the local area have enjoyed throughout our lives and (as with me), I am sure many of us now enjoy these areas with our children. This is part of the attraction of living in our beautiful environment. If we keep eating away at this land, before long, it will be gone forever.

In addition to the above moral issue, there is also the very real issue of infrastructure. We have already seen the building of many new houses locally whether near Clements Hall or Hall Road yet within all these additional new plans, I haven't seen any mention or consideration given to new schools, roads and medical care (just as examples).

Schools
Currently the local schools are overloaded. I live near The Westerings Primary school where (ridiculously) there are already expansion plans yet the local roads are already 'no go' areas during the school run and are over crowded during the day due to teachers parking - some days I cannot even get off of my driveway! In addition, my daughter goes to Greensward Academy but for some local children there are already not enough places and they have to travel to Rochford, Rayleigh, even further afield to go to school.

Roads / Transportation
The main routes into Hockley / Hawkwell are not large (or even minor) A roads, they are B roads that were originally built to accommodate large villages / small towns yet the Hockley / Hawkwell area is now morphing in to a medium sized town in it's own right with a vastly increased population for the capacity of our local roads. As a consequence, at any given time of the day it is often quite difficult to get out onto the B1013, let alone when it is rush hour / school run time when the whole area around The Spa and/or Potash Garden Centre becomes absolutely gridlocked. Slightly further afield, I travel to Leigh on sea train station every day as trains from Hockley are so unreliable, dirty, expensive and already absolutely bursting at the seams due to overcrowding (another issue!) but if I leave slightly late I am also held up in Cherry Orchard Lane. I am generally forced to leave early to miss the already heavy traffic during rush hour, a journey which at off peak takes me 15 minutes but at rush hour, this 8 mile journey can take up to 40 minutes! I am lucky that my daughter is slightly older so I can be flexible with my leaving times but for those people that aren't flexible, getting out of the local area by car is already horrific!

Medical Care
No matter how you look at it, the population of the UK is generally ageing and with lot's of older people locally in Hockley / Hawkwell we are probably actually ahead of the curve compared to many other parts of the UK. As a consequence trying to be accepted on to a local doctors surgery roster is already pretty much impossible and I would imagine that local dentists would be the same. My doctor is in Westcliff and my dentist in Southchurch just as an example!

Now, I absolutely get the need for new housing although I suspect the UK should probably take a 'rain-check' until we see the fallout of Brexit first but notwithstanding this, we need to stop overloading and destroying the few remaining rural areas of South Essex, areas with little infrastructure. If we are as a community forced to accept more housing, surely areas with direct links to major arteries into the area (i.e A roads) should be the areas that are highest on the priority list but even then, schooling and other services should be considered as a priority over just building, building, building new houses relentlessly.

I know that lot's of my neighbors also have the same concerns and I hope that they too take the time to write.

With all of the above in mind, I truly hope that some time is taken to very seriously consider the topics raised (among others) before potentially (and quite disastrously in my view) moving ahead with these local proposals.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rochford district is at gridlock because of bad planning over a number of years. The housing policy across the whole country is flawed. Lobbying by large house builders and media scare stories of a housing crisis has lead to a knee jerk reaction by government which has resulted in hundreds of soulless communities being built with all profit going to large corporations. This rush to build at all costs has meant the wrong type of housing has been built as house builders will always go for maximum profit. Therefore a lot of four and five bedroom properties have been built instead of affordable homes. Also, in this area there are a lot of people aged sixty plus who probably would have downsized but new properties have not been built with that age group in mind. Older housing stock has usually been extended. Sadly the majority of these houses have not been built with sustainability in mind i.e. solar panels and heat exchange systems, this truly is inexcusable.
It is now imperative that a more sustainable house program is planned. The target for the next twenty years should be closer to three thousand properties which works out at approximately one hundred and fifty a year. There should be a thorough review of what type of properties are required. These should then be built by local builders on much smaller sites which involve between ten to twenty properties so as not to totally overwhelm an area. There must be no more large building sites as this area's roads and infrastructure cannot cope with the population it already has. The quality of life of residents has suffered tremendously from bad planning decisions and if this continues I can see it leading to poor mental health.
Some of the proposed sites should not be built on at all they are:- 1. Belchamps scout camp, this is an educational site with good public transport links (I will be writing to the scouts to let them know how disappointed I am that they have proposed their site. Better ethics are required from people who are educating our future generations).
2. Farmland next to Mount Bovers Lane. We should not be building on anymore farmland. This is also an important visual amenity. To have potentially six hundred and sixty houses on this site means in the region of approximately one thousand three hundred and twenty cars all going on to the already gridlocked main road.
3. Nursery Corner and plot of farmland running down the main road to the B1013 Cherry Orchard Way roundabout. Building on farmland is unacceptable. Cherry Orchard was built as a relief road to relieve the already congested roads, the building that has taken place around here should never have been allowed. No more development should be allowed around Cherry Orchard.
4. Ark Lane to the Cherry Orchard Country Park, the same reasons as above. The council will lose all credibility if it allows anymore development around a road that was built as a relief road.
5. Ashingdon Road is already very congested so any proposed sites whose access is onto the Ashingdon Road should be refused. Any farmland in this area and the Brays Lane area should not be built on.
6. Meadowbrook Farm which is at the end of Ironwell Lane should have no development as it is also farmland.
Why have Rochford District Council put Hockley and Rayleigh car parks forward? I am struggling to think where else Hockley could have a car park. If there is a plan, residents should have been notified first.
It is now imperative that before new sites are released, all existing sites with planning permission are developed first, so it can be monitored how roads and infrastructure are coping.
Any new sites should be brownfield. Hockley high street could also be much better utilised as there is scope to have shops with flats above.

Please find below the Comments that Rawreth Parish Council wish to submit with regards to the Issue and Options Document (and draft Sustainability Appraisal)


Objectively Assessed Need (OAN) page 38
Section 6.30
A combination of both Option A & C. Seek to provide as much of the Districts housing need within out District given our environmental and other constraints, giving a percentage of new homes to residents to purchase on a first come first served basis for a limited period of time, bearing in mind we need to co-operate with neighbouring authorities.

Affordable Homes page 39
Section 6.31
A combination of A & C. Reduce the threshold for the provision of affordable homes in line with emerging residential policy.

Section 6.32
A combination of D & E. need to maximise the provision so wherever possible increase above the 35% but, this should be the minimum on all sites.

Homes for Older People and Adults with Disabilities
Section 6.33
Support integration within new developments to provide for various needs.

Section 6.36
Support option B.

Delivering our Need for Homes
Section 6.37
In order of preference support Options A, B, E, C, D. Density should be increased near to Town Centres and Transport hubs. Large extension to existing residential areas are becoming too remote from Town hubs, eg Hall Road, Ashingdon Road and Land to the North of London Road. Hence the possibility of a new settlement South West of Rayleigh, East of Hullbridge around Lower Road, north of Ashingdon but only if infrastructure is improved with national investment (we have responded separately on this point under Transport and Access)

Section 6.59
Support Options B & F. We need to preserve our existing stock of bungalows and restrict permitted development rights to enable the increasing elderly population to remain in independent living. To monitor the need for new bungalows in proposed mixed developments.

Gypsy, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople
Section 6.78
Support Option B combined with Option E. We support the Michelins Farm site provided it is in the District Council's control and strictly monitored with provisions for very limited natural expansion as the needs arise.

Paragraph 6.74 States that unauthorised sites are pursued through enforcement powers, there is no evidence to this in the case of the Cherry Hill Site on the A1245 which continues to increase in numbers.

Houseboats and Liveaboards
Section 6.86
Support Option c to safeguard the open apsects of the shoreline of the River Crouch and the River Roach.


Meeting Business Needs
Section 6.96
Support Option C. Paragraph 6.95 states that "the local road network also needs investment to improve accessibility", there needs to be connectivity with the national network to attract new business, as the imbalance between available employment and outflow to other areas needs urgently addressing.

Need for Jobs
Section 6.111.
Support a combination of Options A, C, E F with option B being worth of consideration . Paragraph 6.109. The increasing leisure use on some industrial sites makes these sites unattractive to further business use it also suggests that there was a surplus or business premises, possibly because of the inaccessibility of some sites due to congestion or poor roads, eg Brook Road, Eldon Way and Purdeys Way.





Tourism
Section 6.128
Support Option A. Paragraph 6.120 & 6.121 why does the "Crouch Coastal Community Team" not include the river up to the bridging point at Battllesbridge? Chelmsford City Council, Rawreth Parish Council and Rettendon Parish Council need to be involved.

Commercial Development
Section 7.20
Support Option A. Parking issues ie cost and accessibility restrict the enjoyment of facilities in the Town Centres, the draw of free parking at out of Town shopping centres, A127, Lakeside and Southend Airport divert resources away from small independent shops to large national chains. The Government promised that a levy on free parking was to be introduced this should help subsidise local centres, this needs addressing by National action.

Highways Infrastructure
Section 8.20
Object to Option C, Support Option B. Paragraph 8.4 note that 14,000 commute out of the District daily, 63% by car which puts pressure on the road network. The need to attract inward employment could reduce pressure on the system. The A127/A130 junction improvements are due to be operational 2022/23. The District is a peninsula therefore there is only one way out, westwards if the Government insists on expansion in Rochford, Southend and Castle Point then Central Government should invest in our future by alieving the congestion by a river crossing between Hulllbridge and Fambridge to link with the Burnham Road to bypass South Woodham Ferrers dual carriageway to the Turnpike/A130. The whole road should go through to the Tesco's roundabout on the A127, this could be linked to a new settlement as previously mentioned and relieve congestion around South Woodham Ferrers.

Sustainable Travel
Section 8.37
Support Option A, C and E. Paragraph 8.32, Green Grid strategy was promised in the Core Strategy for the Land North of London Road Rawreth, however it seems to have disappeared in the Countryside plans. There is a need for joined up pedestrian/cycle ways to provide a meaningful and safe network. The subtrans national cycle route via Beeches Road/Watery Lane seems have disappeared, its unsafe because of the volume of traffic. Buses need to be convenient and cost effective alternatives to private vehicles.

Water and Flood Risk Management
Section 8.58
Support Options A & C which should be combined. Paragraph 8.45 Zone 2 and 3 areas of Rawreth are at risk from development upstream of the Brook system which drains Rayleigh, Thundersley, Bowers Gifford; Basildon and Wickford, all areas with development pressures. We need to co-operate with each authority to minimise risk in Rawreth and the River Crouch. Some areas of Rawreth are protected by sea defences which need upgrading to match the height of the North Bank. Because of the geology of the area in exceptionally wet years the impermeable clay can become saturated and ground water becomes an issue. The Rayleigh ridge is of mainly permeable Bagshot beds sitting on a clay base which gives rise to ground water. Flood risk from Highways improvements have to be properly modelled, for example the Fairglen interchange. Paragraph 8.49 the Water Cycle Study 2015 recommendation needs updating to take account of new future housing.

Health and Wellbeing
Section 9.11.
Support Option D with land allocation support.

Education
Section 9.29
Support Option A, B D and E Paragraph 9.26 stated that 800 new homes would generate a need for a new Primary School. Land to the North of London Road will generate 550 homes but this is not enough to generate a new school. St Nicholas School Rawreth was designed to be expanded to 210 pupils, it is currently half that, will expansion be an option?
Each new development should be treated individually to ensure adequate land is set aside for school sites if the demand can be shown. The Secondary School provision for age 16 to 19 years needs to be considered and addressed.

Open Space and Outdoor Sports Recreation
Section 9.42
Paragraph 9.39 "Depending on their size and scale these are considered appropriate in certain circumstances taking into account the impact on the Green Belt" So do the pitches in Old London Road Rawreth fit that criteria? In the SA Report it is stated that there were only about 30 pitches in Rochford District. There should be a re-appraisal and a comprehensive census of all sports facilities in Rochford. Why are most Council owned facilities underused and of poor quality? If private landowners can make a profit on pitches then the Council should review their facilities and invest in improvements to attract profitable use.

Green Belt
Section 10.16
Paragraph 10.6, Does this mean that the Green Belt can be expanded as well as reduced to facilitate development. Paragraph 10.7 there should be a sixth principle in food production and encouragement of locally produced sustainable food. Paragraph 10.15 the western boundary and strips of Green Belt are becoming too narrow as Basildon District, Shotgate expansion is built almost to the Rochford boundary. Is the land to the west of the western boundary of the land to the North of London Road still classified as Green Belt?

Air Quality
Section 10.72
Support Option B. We need to improve air quality by encouraging sustainable travel, also clean non polluting renewable energy. All new housing must incorporate PV panels or tiles on the roof.

Rural Exception Sites.
Section 11.19
Recognise the need for affordable housing in rural areas by small well designed sites in villages to retain the generations of families in their environment who can be supportive as a family unit, relieving pressure on social and health care services and reducing travel. Continue need for agricultural workers where new demand appears. Developments could be instigated by Parish Councils (see page 4&5 section on Community Led Planning)

Development of Previously Developed Land in the Green Belt
Section 11.49
In the guidance notes it was suggested that derelict agricultural/forestry areas should be excluded from the definition of Brownfield. Each site should be judged on its merits. In the case of Hambro Nurseries Rawreth where there are several hectares of un-used and underused greenhouses as well as areas of scrub and concrete, it should be looked at as on its own advantages it would be a development adjoining an existing residential area as was stated in the previous Core Strategy this Parish Council would support this area to consolidate and create a meaningful hub for the Village of Rawreth, the disadvantages put forward by the District Council were grossly exaggerated.


Contaminated Land
Section 11.81
Paragraph 11.80 it is stated that Rochford District Council don't have any formally declared contaminated land, what then is Michelins Farm?

I have issue with the infrastructure surrounding all the new housing developments in and around Wakering.
Whilst I'm happy for new homes to be built, it appears no thought whatsoever has been given to access roads and schooling . We have 1 primary school in the village, which, as I understand is already at capacity with rather large classes of 30 children per class. Then our allocated upper school is miles away in Rochford. Not only does KES have to take on pupils from the villages it also has ts own in Rochford. The housing development in Rochford is also high so you have a massive increase of children from both rochford and Wakering. Where are all these extra children going to go?
They need to go somewhere? I have not heard of any plans for extra schooling facilities?
If you look at the number of increase in children within this catchment area it could fill a whole school.
Where are these extra children going?
I'd like to see some plans for infrastructure development in the village before even more new developments are allowed to build. This is crazy.
It is looking to us villagers that the council's, are only interested in profits and what they can gain financially from these developments.
I strongly oppose any further new housing developments until other facilities are put in place .

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

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

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

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

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.

I am writing to express my concern at the plan to build more new homes and increased development in Hockley. I have recently moved to the area, from Romford, which used to be a traditional market town; however, that was before the council decided to build thousands of new homes. It is now a built up town, with an extremely high crime rate and is far from the nice market town it once was. I have seen first hand how it has gone from a desirable area to a no go town, which is something I and the residents of Hockley would be devastated if this were to happened here. Please see below some key points/questions that concern myself and the people of Hockley:

- Already, the village experiences high congestion at peak times - how exactly is it supposed to cope with an extra 28, 000 cars on the road?

- The extra pollution? How will this affect our health and also the beautiful countryside and wildlife?

- Hockley is desirable due to its village appeal. With increased development this will disappear and it will be like other overdeveloped towns, with no character and the issues that come with the increased activity

- Will there be sufficient infrastructure to cope with the increased pressure on doctors' surgeries and the nearest hospitals? The wait for appointments is already far too long meaning health is out at risk. How will it cope with 7,500 more people needing treatment?

- How will the schools cope? With increased class size, children's education will suffer. This will have a detrimental effect.

- It is well documented that the crime rate in built up areas is higher than that in less populated villages and towns.

Please consider these points. This is an extremely important issue for Hockley residents and something that needs much consideration - it would mean changing the village for ever and not for the better. It is a strong opinion that the focus should be on preserving the local area and village feel.

Many thanks for taking the time to read this email and consider the points above.