Green Belt

I respond to your letter. I strongly disapprove of this proposal for the following reasons, I am a local resident (Rayleigh Downs Road);

* This is a vital piece of greenbelt between boundaries of Rayleigh and Southend. It should remain as greenbelt.
* It has poor access, no proposed access points are suitable.
* It is right on A127, and therefore access to this road is dangerous, due to fast moving traffic. Traffic cannot be entering the A127 from development or Rayleigh Downs Road - deadly.
* The roads are narrow and could not cope.
* Congestion would also occur.
* The whole area floods quickly and regularly - a big issue, as a low lying flood plane.
* This development would impact greatly on residents of Bartletts and Rayleigh Downs Road.

This is very upsetting news and has impacted residents, many of whom are elderly.

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

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

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

Infrastructure
Areas needed to be in place before construction: -
- roads
- schools
- transport
- doctors
Developers to contribute to the above.

Monitoring of construction to be carried out at all times plus air quality to be monitored too.

Rochford District Council is a semi-rural area (predominantly Green Belt). How is a 30% increase in housing not going to impact Green Belt (GB)?

I note that you are formulating your Local Plan and that yet again it envisages significantly greater levels of Green Field Land being developed.

Like many people I do not have the time or capacity to consider these matters in detail, instead I place faith in our elected representatives to act in our best interests. However, I am now coming to the conclusion that my faith has been misplaced.

The consultation and review process seems designed to deliver the result which has already been decided upon. It starts from the perspective that large scale development in the area is both desirable and wanted by the residents. Furthermore, the Appraisal has been undertaken by an organisation with no involvement in the area and possibly little detailed knowledge of the history of the area and no real feel for the wants and needs of the local residents. The Appraisal merely looks at whether any problems caused by the plan can be minimised, surely some consideration needs to be given as to whether the Plans objectives are sound!

Having been a resident of the area since 1960 and brought up a family here, I sadly feel that this area is no longer somewhere where I am pleased to live and many of my family and friends feel the same.

There has been inadequate investment in the infrastructure and whilst there seems to be some mention of schemes to alleviate anticipated problems in the Plan, I have little faith that these will be implemented. I recall from media reports at the time that when the Airport expansion was proposed that concerns were expressed over inadequate road access. In spite of this, permission was granted seemingly in the hope that something could be done at some stage in the future to improve links to the A127. Given that at around this time the speed limit along the A127 was reduced because of the existing traffic volumes, the decision seems taken more in hope than any real expectation of a satisfactory outcome.

I note that Brown Field land in Rayleigh previously designated as being suitable for residential development has not found a developer willing to take it on. This tends to undermine the presumption that suitable land is in short supply. Before we even contemplate losing more farm land we should ensure that all other options have been been properly utilised. Whilst I do not know if it falls within Rochford District, I often wonder why the land by the Roundabout at the Airport has never been developed since the 'Prefabs' were demolished?

You intend to continue your existing policy of ''....seeking to direct development away from the Green Belt as far as possible.'' The Appraisal states that ''The government attaches great importance to Green Belts; the fundamental aim of the Green Belt policy being to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. This helps to protect the identity of settlements and communities within the District. Figure 4 shows that the majority of the District's land is designated as Green Belt land. ..............., detailed policy concerns are raised for all aspects of Green Belt development,'' By qualifying your Plan to protect the Green Belt ''as far as possible'' seems not to fulfil the Government aim to avoid urban sprawl.

In the light of my above comments may I hope that you will fundamentally reconsider your plans.

I note that you are formulating your Local Plan and that yet again it envisages significantly greater levels of Green Field Land being developed.

Like many people I do not have the time or capacity to consider these matters in detail, instead I place faith in our elected representatives to act in our best interests. However, I am now coming to the conclusion that my faith has been misplaced.

The consultation and review process seems designed to deliver the result which has already been decided upon. It starts from the perspective that large scale development in the area is both desirable and wanted by the residents. Furthermore, the Appraisal has been undertaken by an organisation with no involvement in the area and possibly little detailed knowledge of the history of the area and no real feel for the wants and needs of the local residents. The Appraisal merely looks at whether any problems caused by the plan can be minimised, surely some consideration needs to be given as to whether the Plans objectives are sound!

Having been a resident of the area since 1960 and brought up a family here, I sadly feel that this area is no longer somewhere where I am pleased to live and many of my family and friends feel the same.

There has been inadequate investment in the infrastructure and whilst there seems to be some mention of schemes to alleviate anticipated problems in the Plan, I have little faith that these will be implemented. I recall from media reports at the time that when the Airport expansion was proposed that concerns were expressed over inadequate road access. In spite of this, permission was granted seemingly in the hope that something could be done at some stage in the future to improve links to the A127. Given that at around this time the speed limit along the A127 was reduced because of the existing traffic volumes, the decision seems taken more in hope than any real expectation of a satisfactory outcome.

I note that Brown Field land in Rayleigh previously designated as being suitable for residential development has not found a developer willing to take it on. This tends to undermine the presumption that suitable land is in short supply. Before we even contemplate losing more farm land we should ensure that all other options have been been properly utilised. Whilst I do not know if it falls within Rochford District, I often wonder why the land by the Roundabout at the Airport has never been developed since the 'Prefabs' were demolished?

You intend to continue your existing policy of ''....seeking to direct development away from the Green Belt as far as possible.'' The Appraisal states that ''The government attaches great importance to Green Belts; the fundamental aim of the Green Belt policy being to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. This helps to protect the identity of settlements and communities within the District. Figure 4 shows that the majority of the District's land is designated as Green Belt land. ..............., detailed policy concerns are raised for all aspects of Green Belt development,'' By qualifying your Plan to protect the Green Belt ''as far as possible'' seems not to fulfil the Government aim to avoid urban sprawl.

In the light of my above comments may I hope that you will fundamentally reconsider your plans.

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

I am writing to air my deep concerns regarding a conversation I have had with a neighbour regarding a plot of land behind my home. He has shown me a map of the proposed site fs127 Eastwood nurseries off Bartletts SS6 7LN.
The area cannot be suitable for development due to; poor access
narrow roads that could not possibly cope with more traffic
there are already congestion problems with would only worsen
the field is always flooding
this is an important greenbelt area
I have often seen dear in the fields and in our road so where would they go
this area is on septic tanks and soakaways as the infrastructure is not suitable for new developments
the whole area is not suitable for development theres not enough access without destroying peoples homes and lives Please can we be informed on any decision regarding this proposal as it wasn't for my neighbour I would have known nothing about it. Neither did some of the others residents I have spoken to since.

I wish to object to potential development plans for the land at the end of Marylands Avenue, and behind Merryfields Avenue Hockley.

As a local resident this would have a major detrimental impact on the area. The main concerns as below:

Land is green belt and is there to protect countryside from being developed.

The land is next to the nature reserve and wildlife lives in the woods adjacent. There are various protected species in this area, including bats, badgers, and goshawks. These have all been seen in and around our garden several times over the last year.

Flooding issues would be increased as there is a stream running through the proposed area, and when there is heavy rainfall the water congregates at the end of Marylands Avenue

Access to the proposed site is narrow and limited. The area is a quiet residential street and many young families live in Marylands and Merryfields, therefore having site traffic would be dangerous

Developing on this land has previously been declined at the high courts, and should be declined again.

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

Although I am registered on line with Rochford District Council there appears to be a system problem to comment on the above.

Therefore I would like to register my non support of possible land availability at the above site to build new houses.

Reasons;

It is a metropolitan green belt - kindly recognise this protection or else there is the no point of such government coverage definition

The impact of introducing greater traffic to the immediate adjoining streets of Marylands , Merryfields and Plumberow plus others should not be underestimated if houses are built on this land.

Increased traffic impact to the surrounding residential area should be protected as people already living nearby matter for their quality of life.

This is a small piece of land but to build on it has big impact to others already in nearby location.

Let's please protect Hockley's vacant spaces which makes up one of the reasons people want to live there in a suitable greener environment where possible.

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

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

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

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

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

I wish to lodge my objection to the Second Local Development Plan for 2017 to 2037.

Local residence have already submitted (my self include) their objections in respect of the First Plan for 2011 to 2025
and their reasons are already known by RDC Planning Department.

The the proposed plan will be on Metropolitan Green Belt which is there to protect the countryside from inappropriate development.
This land is also outside the existing settlement boundary.

There is concern also over the close proximity to the Nature Reserve which has a host of wildlife for people to enjoy.
Although it does not affect my property,I understand that excessive amounts of water during heavy rainfall congregates at the end of Merrylands Avenue which the gulley's are unable to cope with.

Increased traffic during and after development will destroy what is currently a quiet residential family area.

I found it difficult to navigate the RDC website in order to find the appropriate comments page. If I have sent this e-mail to the wrong department I apologise and ask that it be forwarded to the correct one.

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.

This is an objection to new local plans for more new houses to be built around the Rayleigh area.
ROADS ARE GRID LOCKED AT VARIOUS TIMES OF DAY ALREADY WE NEED A RING ROAD PUT IN BEFORE ANY MORE NEW DEVELOPMENT ITS SIMPLE NO NETWORK IMPROVEMENT NO BUILDING MAKE THE DEVELOPERS PAY

POLLUTION WILL INCREASE

GYPSY SITES ALREADY IN RAYLEIGH ARE SPREADING WITH NO COUNCIL CONTROL SO MAKE PROVISION FOR THEM IN LESS OVERPOPULATED TOWNS

LEAVE OUR OPEN FIELDS AS THEY HAVE BEEN FOR DECADES TO FILTER FUMES AND TO DRAIN OUR WATER AWAY WHEN WE GET FLASH FLOODING

WE ALL LIKE TO SEE GREEN AREAS BETWEEN OUR TOWNS MARKING BORDERS AND STOPPING THE SPREAD OF MORE CONCRETE

ARE PLANES GOING TO BE FORCED TO TAKE OFF OVER SEA OTHERWISE IF THEY ENCOUNTER ANY PROBLEMS THERE WILL BE NO OPEN SPACES TO TRY TO LAND


IF WE HAVE GOT TO BUILD WHY NOT IN SMALLER NUMBERS OVER MORE YEARS ALLOWING PEOPLE TO MAKE SURE THEY CAN COPE IN HOSPITALS AND ALL SERVICES

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

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

CUT THE TARGET NUMBERS TO NATURAL GROWTH LEVEL.

Having reviewed the second local housing plan, I would like to register my strong objection to the proposed plan as the consequences of this level of development would have a detrimental effect on people getting to work, schools, hospitals and shops. In addition, the ability for the police, ambulance and fire services to undertake their duties would be severely impacted. I would like to propose that the number of new houses be reduced to 3,500 over the next 20 years, equating to 175 a year, which is more than the government target the growth we need for our own local needs. The development on Greenbelt land on the proposed sites will also lead to the current individual communities to lose their identities and result in yet more urban sprawl.

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

1 No matching funding for a supporting infrastructure.

2 No guarantees that Utilities can match extra demands.

3 No spare capacity within Health and Care Services.

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

CUT THE TARGET NUMBERS TO NATURAL GROWTH LEVELS.

I live in Bartletts, which, as you're aware, is a very small road, consisting of 16 semi-detached houses. This quiet cul-de-sac is surrounded by greenbelt land, which I understand should not be built on. Therefore, I strongly object to any such proposals being given permission for development.

My reasons for objections include the following:-

Heavy plant traffic, would not only be disruptive to the existing neighbourhood, but have a serious effect on the value of our houses.
The land is a flood plain, therefore unsuitable for development, also very risky.
I understand that the intention is to use Bartletts as access to the site. The road is not strong enough for the large number of heavy vehicles that would be using it as a thoroughfare.
There would be no infrastructure to cope with the amount of dwellings that you seem intent on erecting.
As the new residents would need vehicles to access, this would cause major congestion everywhere in this vicinity.

I would beg you to reconsider your proposals.

I live in Bartletts, which, as you're aware, is a very small road, consisting of 16 semi-detached houses. This quiet cul-de-sac is surrounded by greenbelt land, which I understand should not be built on. Therefore, I strongly object to any such proposals being given permission for development.

My reasons for objections include the following:-

Heavy plant traffic, would not only be disruptive to the existing neighbourhood, but have a serious effect on the value of our houses.
The land is a flood plain, therefore unsuitable for development, also very risky.
I understand that the intention is to use Bartletts as access to the site. The road is not strong enough for the large number of heavy vehicles that would be using it as a thoroughfare.
There would be no infrastructure to cope with the amount of dwellings that you seem intent on erecting.
As the new residents would need vehicles to access, this would cause major congestion everywhere in this vicinity.

I would beg you to reconsider your proposals.

I live in Bartletts, which, as you're aware, is a very small road, consisting of 16 semi-detached houses. This quiet cul-de-sac is surrounded by greenbelt land, which I understand should not be built on. Therefore, I strongly object to any such proposals being given permission for development.

My reasons for objections include the following:-

Heavy plant traffic, would not only be disruptive to the existing neighbourhood, but have a serious effect on the value of our houses.
The land is a flood plain, therefore unsuitable for development, also very risky.
I understand that the intention is to use Bartletts as access to the site. The road is not strong enough for the large number of heavy vehicles that would be using it as a thoroughfare.
There would be no infrastructure to cope with the amount of dwellings that you seem intent on erecting.
As the new residents would need vehicles to access, this would cause major congestion everywhere in this vicinity.

I would beg you to reconsider your proposals.

I am very concerned about the plans to build more houses in this area, whilst I can see that more homes are needed our roads are at a crisis point. They become completely gridlocked especially at peak times. I go to Rayleigh three days a week and it takes me 20 minutes to get out of Hockey then another 20 minutes to get through Rayleigh. Whichever route you take you end up sitting in traffic. The same happens if you go the other way through Ashingdon. The doctors do there best but it is rare that you can get an appointment the same day. There are problems with power cuts and the sewage system in Hawkwell. The answer is NOT to build more houses but sort out the infrastructure. Do not destroy the green belt land otherwise this area will just become a congested polluted concrete jungle.

I am writing on behalf of my mother to confirm objection to the new housing
Reference CFS024 Land north of Merryfields Avenue Hockley MAP G 119

Pat Williams
45 Marylands Avenue
Hockley
Essex
SS5 5AH


Our family has lived there for 55 years and we are aware it is metropolitan green belt and is there to protect this sort of development so are surprised to see the application.
The land is known for its wild life and the nature reserve is the right environment for bats that we are aware are a protected species

The other concern is flooding as the existing gulley's cannot with heavy rainfall which we have seen over the years.

I was just expressing my concern for the planning permission on Lubards farm for 1300 houses to be built, I was mainly wondering what the fate of all the small business that are currently on the farm could be? would these be knocked down and replaced by the houses? Or are the houses to be built on the surrounding fields?

We feel that although a very few of the indicated sites in Hullbridge/ Rawreth area are Brownfield the majority are Green Belt and are not sustainable for the following reasons:- In connection with the Green Belt the proposed 30% increase in housing for RDC can only be achieved by sacrificing Green Belt as the call for sites
maps illustrate. The Government has stated that the fundamental aim of
Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open, the essential characteristics of Green Belt are their openness and
their permanence. The majority of this district's land mass is
designated as Green Belt land and should only be released under exceptional circumstances. When we recently asked a RDC Planning Officer what is meant by exceptional circumstances he confirmed that this has not been defined.
The Green Belt is supposed to serve five purposes 1. To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas.
2. To prevent neighbouring towns/villages merging into one.
3. To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.
4. To preserve the setting & special character of historic
towns/villages.
5. To assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of
derelict and other urban land.
RDC have released large areas of Green Belt for development all over this district including Hall Rd. Rochford, Xmas Tree Farm Hawkwell, Mushroom Farm Folly Lane, Bullwood Hall Rayleigh, Hockley Rd. Rayleigh, London Rd.
Rayleigh & Malyons Farm Hullbridge. Yet, as previously mentioned, all Brownfield sites are being ignored.
In connection with the proposed new Local Plan, the submitted Map A for the local Hullbridge area shows the majority of the proposed larger sites are Green Belt with the exception of a proportion of CFS 100 Brownfield Site being a lorry/heavy goods breakers yard, formerly a car breakers yard,
which is obviously a highly contaminated site. Sites CFS006, CFS138,
CFS149, CFS099, GY01 & GY02 are not in Hullbridge Parish but are actually in Rawreth Parish but if developed will obviously still use all the facilities in Hullbridge including the Riverside Surgery which is already overstretched. These sites will also require access off the narrow, weight restricted Watery Lane/Beeches Road, and will merge the villages of Rawreth & Hullbridge CFS is 50% in the flood plain. CFS151 will require access off an existing single track in Long Lane and CFS120, CFS026, CFS107, CFS106, CFS110, CFS108 & CFS109 will require access of an unmade single track in Kinsway, all of which will require a major upgrade to provide the required road widths including footpaths/cycle ways as recommended by the Essex Design Guide Highway Standards.

SUMMARY

RDC have not assessed, previously, any of the alternatives in terms of major impacts/sustainability especially in connection with the Malyons Site in Hullbridge including other major developments recently completed or under construction, we therefore have no confidence that this will change in any future emerging new Local Plan for this district. ECC report concludes that housing targets cannot be matched by infrastructure provisions due to a massive shortfall of £billions in funding, none of which is referenced in the RDC Plan who need to take into account further carbon emissions, traffic congestion, flooding & further drains on existing infrastructure.

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

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

CUT THE TARGET NUMBERS TO NATURAL GROWTH LEVEL.

Dear Sirs

For the past 27 years, I have lived in Great Wakering and I would like to register my comments on the Rochford District Council's New Local Plan (and sustainability appraisal)
I strongly object to the continued loss of green belt (which I believe should be protected at all costs for us and future generations) and the amount of new housing already been approved and the possibility of even more houses in Great Wakering. The village is changing beyond all recognition and not in any ways that benefit existing residents. The increase in population is at the expense of those who already live in the village as no real investment or contribution to our village has been made by way of schools, doctors or roads etc, to name just a few (i.e. the infrastructure).

All of the legitimate concerns which residents raised before the Star lane estate and the estate behind the high street were approved, (which were ignored) are now even more critical as more population are sharing the existing infrastructure which has not been improved or enhanced. This is having a detrimental effect to the standards of living of residents.

I also refer to the "call for land" and the submission of CFS153 on Map P, the land west of the Common. I believe this land is the highest level of flood plan (Zone 3) and that the Governments recommendation that this should only ever be built on as a last resort. If this was to proceed, it would mean more traffic having to navigate very narrow streets, past a historic church, through a conservation area and past village assets of the Duck pond and the Common. I also believe that part of this plot is within the Rochford District Council's Wildlife site (which covers both sides of Common Road). Therefore any more housing so close to this area and the Common would have an effect on the local wildlife. For full transparency I declare that I am the Chairman of the trustees of the registered charity the "Friends of Wakering Common". Therefore can you kindly confirm that this area will not even be put forward for consideration.

I accept there is a need for housing, but looking at most of the properties in the Star lane these appear not to seem to contribute to the need for "affordable housing" as the asking prices are higher than many of the existing houses for sale in Wakering, therefore these properties would have been sold if affordability was the issue.

The road network from Great Wakering across through Rochford and Southend is often completely blocked and Sutton road into Rochford is almost unusable in the rush hour and more housing this side of the district would make thing much worse.

The High Street in Great Wakering is a historic and very narrow road in the conservation area and struggles with the existing traffic at the church end. Where it is narrows buses (let alone emergency services) often cannot get past the Co-op due to the amount of cars. Therefore to approve any further building to the east of the village of Great Wakering would result in more traffic through this area and exasperate the problem. This would ruin what is a very attractive focal point of the village, which should be protected. The traffic will also effect the primary school, preschools, numerous old people's homes, all of whom are vulnerable to the dangers of increased traffic.

I believe that any future housing plans should respect the wishes of local residents and look to minimise disruption and negative effects on existing residents. If development is to happen it should enhance and bring benefits to all of the residents not lower their standard of living by saturating the services and infrastructure until they break.
As elected local and district councillors I believe that the councils should be looking putting the interests of those who elected you and live here before those who wish to come to the area to live.

With regard to the proposed new Local Plan, the submitted Map A for the local Hullbridge area shows the majority of the proposed larger sites are in the Green Belt with the exception of a portion of CFS100 Brownfield Site being a lorry/heavy goods breakers yard, formerly a car breakers yard, which is obviously now a highly contaminated site.
Sites CFS006, CFS138, CFS149, CFS099, GY01 and GY02 are not located in Hullbridge Parish but are actually in Rawreth Parish but will obviously still use all the facilities in Hullbridge including the Riverside Surgery which is already overstretched. These sites will obviously require access off the existing narrow, weight restricted Watery Lane/Beeches Road, and
will merge the villages of Rawreth and Hullbridge. CFS015 has 50% of the
site in the flood plain.
CFS151 will require access off the existing single track in Long Lane and CFS120, CFS 026, CFS107, CFS106, CFS110, CFS108 & CFS109 will require access off the unmade single track in Kingsway, all of which will require a major upgrade to provide the required road widths including footpaths/cycle ways as recommended by the Essex Design Guide Highway Standards.

SUMMARY

RDC have not assessed, previously, any alternatives in terms of major impacts and sustainability especially in connection with the Malyons site in Hullbridge and all the other major developments recently completed or under construction, we therefore have no confidence that this will change
in any future emerging new Local Plan for this district. ECC report
concludes that housing targets cannot be matched by infrastructure provisions due to a massive shortfall of £billions in funding (ECC/AECOM GIF Report 2016).
RDC need to take into account further carbon emissions, overcrowding, traffic congestion, flooding and further drains on the existing infrastructure.

I am writing to express my views on the above document, and more specifically the Land Availability Assessment concerning the Great Wakering area.

I have noted that much of the farmland and fields surrounding the area are being considered for new development. While I fully appreciate the need for housing in the current crisis, I do disagree with Rochford District Council considering certain areas of land available for development. The land I am referring to is marked on your Land Availability Assessment as CFS057, CFS097, CFS034 and CFS056.

My concerns are as follows;
- Lack of existing or plans for future infrastructure proportionate to the scale of current and suggested development. Wakering Medical Centre is already not able to register all residents of the Wakering and Barling areas as patients. A lack of shops / stores means already car traffic on the roads around the village is high as most are reliant on cars to reach amenities. With further residential dwellings this will be worse.

- Destruction of wildlife areas/habitats. Much of the land being assessed, including the lakes East of Star Lane and the surrounding fields is a highly valued wildlife reserve that is regularly visited and enjoyed by the local community. It would be a great shame to destroy the habitat of wildlife residing in this area for the sake of residential dwellings but also to deprive current residents of an open space, with clean air, to enjoy the surrounding countryside.

- Minimal green belt land separating Shoeburyness and Great Wakering. Any development to the South or to the West of Southend Road, Alexandra Road, and Poynters Lane will mean Great Wakering will become near continuous with Shoeburyness. This is already the case where Star Lane and Poynters Lane meet where one side of the road is Great Wakering and the other is North Shoebury. And this also currently occurs along Wakering Road in Shoeburyness, just before it meets Poynters Lane where there are houses that have a Shoeburyness address literally next door to a house whose address is Great Wakering. Any further development between the two will take away from the identity of the village and also eliminate any visible separation of the two Council's districts.

- Financial hardship to existing residents. Many existing residents own mortgaged property whose value has been boosted by the desirable countryside, aesthetic views and rural setting. Development in certain areas to disrupt this could cause those in these areas with mortgaged property to experience financial hardship due to their property's value decreasing.

Please do not take offence at my suggestions, I am not a council planner myself and I am grateful for the work Rochford District Council do for our community. I do however feel disappointed that beautiful rural areas are being considered for development when there are so many unoccupied and even derelict commercial properties that could be repurposed as residential dwellings with minimal destruction of countryside and minimal requirements for improved infrastructure. Examples I am aware of include; the vast expanse of land on Eastern Esplanade in Southend next door to the Premier Inn Hotel, the disused car park behind the Foresters Arms just off Marine Esplanade in Southend, the land behind the BP/SPAR petrol garage at Toomey Motor Village, the disused land South of Ashingdon Youth Football ground and North of the new Airport Business Park development just off of Cherry Orchard Lane, to name a few.

I can assure you that my concerns are echoed by the vast proportion of the residents of Great Wakering and the surrounding area and I would appreciate it that our concerns are listened to and considered when planning and future development in our community.

I would like to register my objections in the strongest possible terms to any proposed development of the land to the north of Malvern Road, Harrogate Drive and the childrens play area/ walk through to Beckney Woods Ref. CFS023/COL38 on the Land Assessment 2017- Appendix B.

This land is and has always been designated Green Belt. The Governments policy as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework document paragraphs 79 to 92 clearly sets out the responsibilities of a local planning authority.

Paragraph 89 states " A local planning authority should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in Green Belt", it goes on to list six exceptions, one of which is to provide limited affordable housing for local needs, which does not apply in this case.

I am concerned that this particular exception may have been used by the Council and the developers to falsely manipulate the system in order to gain planning for the recent development of Houses in nearby Hall Road Rochford,

The majority of houses built there, could no way be classified as affordable housing they are high value detached properties, there are of course some affordable housing most of which have been sold to Newham Council to rehouse their overflow of homeless tenants, again not providing housing for local community needs.

Also as far as the Hall Road development is concerned , the initial plans were to include the provision of a doctor's surgery and a school which have not been built, putting extra pressure on the existing infrastructure.

If this further development were to go ahead it would increase the population of Hockley considerably. The infrastructure is already at breaking point, the situation having not been helped by the addition of the Hall Road development.

The schools are already full, it takes forever to get a doctor's appointment and the roads in and out of Hockley are grid locked at peak times, they certainly could not cope with an additional 1000 cars in the area.

Vehicular access to the proposed site could only be through residential areas serviced by single track roads, totally unsuitable for any planned increase in traffic.

The proposed site is also surrounded by areas of high risk of surface water flooding, any increased development is likely to increase that risk to homes in the area.

This land is therefore totally unsuitable for development for the reasons I have stated, and I will strongly object to any future planning applications.

Believe this plan has still not had a proper consultation with the local population. Posting something on a web site does not constitute consultation.

The size and value of this development is significant and should have been discussed properly with open and honest discussion.

This in the the context of our village is a very important thing and will change the fabric of the community.

The people responsible for the passing of the plans have shown a complete lack of honesty and integrity.

As someone who grew up in the Laindon area of basildon during the sixties and seventies i witnessed the true effects of "Planning Blight", I wonder if the people responsible are aware of sheer hatred and loathing that will follow these developments.

i am astonished by sheer lack of imagination of the variouse developments. Rather then look forgetter alternatives to building on "green belt"/green areas at a stroke they have allowed plans to be passed on areas the the entire population of this country have grown up to view as sacred.

If we allow these green areas to be developed there is no going back they are lost forever, I wonder how future genarations will view this.

I am fully aware of the need for affordable housing, but what we are faced with is totally unacceptable and will inevitably lead to some bitter disputes in the future.

- As it is the roads surrounding Hullbridge are at busy times almost gridlocked. When Waterylane for example floods it causes chaos.

- Whatever road study was done it could not have been done at normal times of day or more likely during the school holidays when traffic is lighter, as best this is deceitful and at worst corrupt.

- Had you allowed less houses per acre there may have been a chance some of this may have been viewed as a positive thing, but by building so many houses per acre you inflicting gridlock on the surrounding roads and effectively sticking two fingers up to the local population.

- Is the "Elephant in the room" a Government driven panicked response the brexet negotiations to create a 'housing boom" to help balance to books. if so this most cynical panicked approach is not necessary and will lead to a further fragmentation of communities.

- There many brownfield and empty properties that could be used to help solve the housing problem.