Green Belt

As a concerned resident living in Malvern Road Hockley, I refer you to RDC reference CFSO23/COL38.

Firstly CFSO23

Lack of privacy, Less than 40ft of garden and the substantial upward slope of the proposed development land, any new housing will overlook my ground floor and first floor ( bedroom )

Security

Development of this field will open up the land to vehicles and people so possibly increasing the bigger threat of burglary.

Flooding

There is a history of flooding to existing properties ( mine included ) due to a rise in the water table in the land behind Malvern Road after prolonged rainy periods.
Due to this, a spring occurs which follows the downward slope of the land and floods back gardens.
I am worried that any building on this land would effect the water table and increase the possible inability of the field to absorb any more rain and cause even more flooding to the
back gardens.

Water pressure.

My water pressure as it stands is not up to the standard required therefor the proposed number of houses may impact the pressure even more as the existing pumps and pipework
may not support any more development.

Access

The land available at the bottom of Harrogate Drive and Greensward lane is insufficient to gain access thereby making a safety issue for road users as any development of the land behind
Malvern Road will substantially increase the traffic flow. Accidents may occur as traffic entering or leaving Harrogate Drive will have to swing wide.

Loss of amenities

Loss of view of field and woodland, this will rob the residents of quality of life and enjoyment.

Green Belt Land

The proposed building of housing on this land bordering Beckney Wood could seriously effect this ancient woodland of its flora and forna which includes wood anemones, blue bells
celendine etc and which includes as its forna....Bats, Adders, Barn Owls, Green and Red Woodpeckers, Monk Jack deer, Badgers, Pheasants not to mention all the different kind of birds
that make the wood their home. a huge influx of people walking this wood will threaten the existance of this beautiful place.

RDC reference COL38

Small plot of land Malvern Road ( Childrens play area )

This area is used by Malvern Road families and the local residents to use this land as a play area and right of way for citizens to use every day. I have been using the land for the last 40 yrs
the steep incline and narrow access for vehicles makes it totally an inapropriate and dangerous junction and poses a threat to children etc.

Flash Flooding

With the development of this play area will give rise to the occasional flash flooding as water does run down the hill with increased rain fall into Malvern Road

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?

No homes should be built on Green belt land, only brownfield should be used

I would first like to say I don't to believe in consultations as they do not represents public opinion due to the lack of response from residents. This is mainly caused by making the online method too complicated with too many questions. The drop in presentation that were provided by RDC were pathetic with just two maps showing the areas put up for development. Is this the best RDC can do?

I would like to object to building any more homes on green belt land that joins existing villages an towns in Rochford District. The current building programme that runs until 2025 is already causing serious traffic jams on the existing roads with the resulting air pollution, even though building work has only just started. It has been stated that drivers in our area spend 30 hours per year in rush hour jams, the highest in our region. The second highest being Chelmsford at 23 hours per year.

I believe the existing infrastructure has taken on too much already and not just roads but services like electrics, gas, water, sewers and the health system, including the hospital, GP surgeries and dentists. RDC have indicated that they will include additional infrastructure this time but they have a very poor record on this so far, as the current increase in housing has produced practically none at all. I realise the reason for this is that additional housing comes from RDC and the infrastructure from Essex County Council (ECC) who provide the funds but so far this has not happened, as there aren't any.

We do need additional homes for our children to buy but unfortunately most are unaffordable and many end up being used to relocate people from London councils to relatively cheaper homes in our area. We also need retirement home developments in our area that would free up existing larger homes.

We live on a peninsular surrounded on three side by water, if we really have to have an additional 7,500 new houses in our district, I believe a new Garden Village could be located near South Fambridge and served by a new road from the north connecting to the B1012 would be the best solution. This road could cross the River Crouch near Fambridge linking to North Fambridge railway station.

If RDC allow more homes to be built adjacent to the existing B1013 and all the other already clogged up roads in our area, it will make the lives of our residents a misery and I believe they will not put up with it any more.

Following the Liberal Democrats leaflets regards the Local Plan, I missed the drop in in Rayleigh earlier this week but wish to lodge a objection to any building of new houses that are being considered West of Rayleigh in particular

Anyone living in Rayleigh knows full well the traffic problems that exist along the A127, Chelmsford Rd and London Road let alone East bound to the Southend area

Increasing housing will exacerbate the traffic issue as well as causing overflow on doctors (cannot get appointments if you work), schools etc

The impact on the area will be crazy - we have already had the Eon development on London Rd and awaiting the commencement of CFS146/CFS147 and CFS167

Anything beyond that and on Green land is ridiculous

It is far to overcrowded in the south east and the Rayleigh to Southend area as it is. Surely there must be another answer rather than build build build and suffocate stretched local resources

I am encouraged that the Council is developing an Infrastructure Delivery Plan (Para 1.21 page 5). This is vital to the success of the new Local Plan and addresses the concerns repeatedly raised by residents that the existing infrastructure (roads, schools, health services, etc) are insufficient to cope with further development.
With the 'duty to co-operate' those responsible for providing the infrastructure to support the new plan must provide estimates of the costs, locations and timings required to deliver the necessary infrastructure to support the plan. I would therefore support the following options in the paper:-
* Para 9.11 Page 103 option B - Ensure land is specifically allocated for healthcare
* Para 9.29 Page 108 option B - ensure land is specifically allocated for schools
* Para 9.36 Page 114 option B - Ensure land is specifically allocated for Schools, early years and childcare
I would also include requirements for other elements of infrastructure, in particular roads.
The total of all infrastructure costs will then be able to inform the amount of money needed to deliver the Plan and inform the calculation of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) (see below). The locations will enable the Plan to designate particular parts of proposed sites for infrastructure. For example, earmarking land alongside existing roads to be used for cycle paths, or land for new schools. The timings will also inform the Council when funding will be needed and whether this can be obtained by the CIL at that time.
2. Community Infrastructure Levy
The paper identifies section 106 agreements as a possible source of provision for infrastructure. Although such agreements can be made there is a belief that Developers are disaggregating developments in an attempt to avoid the costs, thereby leaving local councils to pick up the bill. The CIL, however, can be applied to all new houses and in many ways reflects a fairer way of funding changes caused by developments.
The CIL guidance suggests that Landowners are ultimately responsible for the CIL. It is a fact of life that the value of land increases significantly once planning permission is granted for a development. Even the inclusion in the plan as a preferred site will affect the value of the land. Therefore the Council needs to assess the current value of all land being considered for development so that if necessary a proportion of the 'gain' can be clawed back when development commences. Moreover, having established the total additional cost of infrastructure through the Infrastructure Delivery plan it would be possible to assign to each preferred development site a target contribution to the CIL.
Concerns have been raised that developers could try to avoid their responsibilities by declaring a development 'not viable' because of the costs of the CIL. However, providing the target as part of the local plan will make it clear what costs are involved and these can be addressed in any negotiations between the Landowner and the Developer.
Guidance on the CIL allows for a great deal of flexibility in how the levy is set. For example, it could be based on the overall size of the development or there could be rebates given to encourage provision of social housing. The Council needs to develop a 'Charging Schedule' in consultation with developers and other interested parties and again this will provide advanced notice which will allow Developers to bring forward plans that reflect the aims of the Council and the profitability of the development. To that end the Core Strategy policy CLT1 mention in Para 8.75 9, Page 99 needs to be reviewed
3. Mix and style of housing
The plan proposes a formula for the mix of housing types required and it is important that, particularly the major developments, offer the full range from small flats to large houses. The paper states (para 6.58 page 48) that the current policy (H5) on types of home provides flexibility to respond to market needs. If this is working I see no need for a more prescriptive approach and would therefore reject Option B in para 6.58 and also option E in Para 6.9.
Para 6.14 suggests the demand for residential care homes and sheltered housing is decreasing. At the same time the elderly population is said to be increasing. Given this apparent contradiction it would seem best to ''leave it to the market' to decide where and when such homes are needed. To that extent I would support the option A in para 6.36, page 41 and treat each application on its merits. My only proviso would be to ask (under the duty to co-operate) if the local healthcare providers or Essex County Council planned to provide such facilities in the district.
The Council's current policy on housing density sets a minimum of 30 houses per hectare. This equates to a maximum plot size of 333 M2 . This leaves little outside space for children to play in and provides little privacy for residents. There is a suggestion that this housing density could be increased particularly in existing residential areas. However, I believe the overcrowding and consequent impact on existing infrastructure would be detrimental to the quality of life of local residents and should be resisted. I would therefore strongly object to increasing the minimum density as proposed in options A and B in para 6.48 on page 45.
4. Residential development sites
Table 2 Page 32 and Table 3 page 33 and the maps in Appendix B and C have raised fears of uncontrolled development across the district. The recently circulated FAQs attempt to clarify the position and it may be beneficial for the Council to circulate these FAQs wider. Nevertheless the additional requirement of 4,600 to 5,200 represents a significant increase which will be difficult to absorb. Whilst this may be an 'off policy' number, if it represents the Objectively Assessed Need the Planning Inspector will expect the plan to show how it can be delivered.
The current plan has been unable to achieve its annual target of 250 new homes per year (Para 6.18 page 35). Therefore there must be some doubt as to whether the proposed target around 360 per year can be achieved over the next 20 years. The Council needs to investigate why the target is being missed and what it can (or cannot) do to improve matters.
There is a desire by the Council to focus new development within existing developed areas. However, as noted above, residents are concerned that, in particular, existing road infrastructure is unable to support current demand let alone that implied by the proposed developments. Furthermore, in many cases (for example residential estates) it is simply not possible to make improvements. I would therefore suggest that in considering whether or not to make a site a preferred site the council adopts a policy to 'reject any site with potential for more than say 10 - 15 houses (or 1/3 Hectare) that only has access through residential side streets or narrow lanes'
It is similarly not possible to make improvements to many of the main roads through the district although in general they have a greater capacity than the side roads. It may therefore be possible for 'the Council (subject to other considerations) to include sites for upto say 100 houses (or 3 hectares) which have direct access onto a main road'.
The council should also adopt a policy that 'Sites capable of delivering more than 100 houses should only be included where they are on the fringes of existing developments and have direct access to main roads where traffic would normally be directed away from those developments.
Finally, given the difficulties of making significant improvements to roads in the district I would recommend a policy that no sites should be included that deliver more than 500 houses'.
5. Green Belt
The plan states (Para 3.2 Page 9) that of the 16800 hectares of land covered by the district some 12481 are classified as green belt. It is not clear how much of the remaining land would be available for development but presumably much of it is already developed. It is also noticeable that very few of the proposed sites are not classified as being in the green belt area.
Para 6.38 (page 42) implies that there is already an acceptance that a small amount of green belt land (upto 1%) may need to be sacrificed to meet the need for new housing. Whilst this is regrettable, 1% of 12,481 hectares would yield 124 hectares of land which could accommodate around 3,750 houses. It should be possible, with some careful consideration, to identify a range of areas across the district that could be used. I would therefore support Option B in para 10.16 Page 124 to amend the current green belt policy.
6. Employment provision
Whilst I understand the Council's desire to improve employment opportunities in the district there is limited opportunity for them to achieve some of the aims set out in the paper. A significant proportion of the population commute into London and although the costs are high so are the salaries. Moreover they commute to London because the type of job they desire can only be found in London. Firms based in London do so because they have a large catchment area for staff and would be unlikely to limit this by relocating to Essex.
The Paper recognises the various existing employment areas but seems unsure what should be done with them. There have some thoughts about releasing the land for housing but the example of Star Lane (P64) shows that is not necessarily easy. Moreover, it seems perverse to remove employment space whilst trying to encourage business to set up in the District. Perhaps the problem is not so much with the allocation of land but the type of facilities that are provided and access to the sites.
Mention is made of the Brook Road estate in Rayleigh. This was designed in an era where large manufacturing facilities were required. They are unsuitable for the type of 'high end' businesses that we need to attract and the Council should perhaps be encouraging the property owners to redevelop the various sites to meet the new demands.
Purdey's Way has a number of businesses that use large lorries to collect and deliver to the site. However the surrounding roads were built when lorries were much smaller and it is difficult to see how the roads can be improved to accommodate such vehicles. Perhaps the Council should work with these businesses to find better and more accessible locations for their businesses whilst at the same time discouraging similar businesses from opening where access is difficult.
There is also a recognition of the need to provide 'grow- on' space for business expansion. This important as any business when faced with a need for more space will look at a range of options and may well decide to move out of the area. Again the Council's options are limited and encouraging property owners to redevelop sites to meet the perceived need may be all that can be achieved.

Section: Land Availability Ass.
Option: Greenbelt Land
Paragraph: 2

As stated in my previous letter we chose to purchase a house in 'Bartletts' from the 'drawing board' being assured at that time by the then 'Rayleigh' District Council that the land which is a beautiful greenfield to the rear of Bartletts would remain greenbelt. We moved into Bartletts in 1971 and brought up our family of four in these pleasant surroundings. Over the years there have been so many changes in Rayleigh. We lost our cinema and proposed gym to Clements Hall when Rochford Council took over and now have so few facilities for young people.

I am unclear as to the access proposed to site "CES127" but can assure you access onto Eastwood Road from Bartletts at peak times of the day can be so busy!! I worked for many years at Rochford and Southend hospitals and to turn right at the exit from Bartletts was frustrating eleven years ago and must be much worse now!!

We all know what strains we have with regard to existing infrastructure especially doctors and hospitals.

Am now a widow since eleven years and am well aware of the need to house young families. We all benefit from what pleasant open space remains. Please Rochford Council protect what little greenbelt remains.

Our first objection is to the strip of beautiful woodland at the end of Marylands Avenue, running behind Merryfields Avenue and adjacent to the Nature Reserve in Hockley, being offered up as a possible site to build houses on.

The reasons being:

1. This is Metropolitan Green Belt and is there to protect the countryside from being developed inappropriately. This land is also outside the existing settlement boundary.
2. The concern over the close proximity to the Nature reserve and the detrimental effect this will have on wildlife in this area. This land is teaming with wildlife and supports the nature reserve itself as it is undisturbed by humans and provides ideal nesting sites. Bats, a protected species, can often be seen circling around in the summer months. We have seen badgers in our garden on two occasions. My neighbour spotted a Muntjac deer, that she reported to yourselves. You said that you had seen footprints nearby in the Nature reserve. My neighbour also spotted a protected species of bird, a type of bullfinch, which is on the red danger list, near to extinction.
3. The trees are protected by a tree preservation order by yourselves, the council, we have been told by another neighbour.
4. Flooding: During heavy rain, excessive amounts of water streams down the hill and congregates at the end of Marylands Avenue which the gulleys cannot cope with. The woodland provides a natural soakaway.
5. Access to this site is too narrow by far. Marylands Avenue itself is a quiet, residential family orientated street and to have heavy traffic weaving it's way up and down this road is extremely dangerous and quite unthinkable and would impact on all residents lives.
Objection to 7500 houses being built in our area over the next 20 years, including using green belt land.

1. Funding/Infrastructure: Infrastructure cannot match the proposed growth due to high levels of underfunding (by a 2016 report issued by the ECC.)
2. Utilites: The privately operated Utility companies have not proven their ability, nor given formal commitment to meeting the extra demands for the Essex County target of 185,00 new homes - (water/electricity/gas/telecoms/waste treatment/recycle.)
3. Greenbelt law: The RDC area of responsibility is 74% classified as Green Belt status, a housing project of this size can only be achieved by sacrificing the GB principals, quote - "...to prevent urban sprawl and preclude one settlement coalescing into another."
4. Civic Amenities: The 10 years (so far) of an Austerity programme has eroded civic amenities and services to the point of crisis (health and care services.) This same situation is now starting to impact Education and Emergency services due to lack of capacity - the plus 30% loading is just not feasible or sustainable.
5. Commuting: Commuting out and into the District is the root cause of rush-hour congestion, this clearly underlines that the existing housing to local workplace ratio is out of balance. Obviating the need to long-distance commute by the generation of local employment must be one of the main drivers for a project of this nature and should limit the scale accordingly.
We, as residents like living in our semi rural area. A project of this size would change our living environment to one that we did not choose, when we decided to live here. We like the feeling of open space and we enjoy driving through the countryside to get to one place or the other. We like to see trees and fields, hear birds sing, see horses in fields. We like feeling safe and knowing that we live in a settled, long standing community. A project like this would inevitably cause a lot of people to feel stressed, unsettled. A lot of people would move away. It would not be such a pleasant place to live anymore. The current resident's quality of life needs to be considered. The wildlife, nature, character of our district needs to be considered.
There simply isn't enough room, there isn't the infrastructure, amenities or utilities to consider a project of this scale. A few more houses may need to be built, but not to the detriment of the people already living here.

I would appreciate a response to my objections please.

I trust you will take into consideration my feelings on this subject.

Our first objection is to the strip of beautiful woodland at the end of Marylands Avenue, running behind Merryfields Avenue and adjacent to the Nature Reserve in Hockley, being offered up as a possible site to build houses on.

The reasons being:

1. This is Metropolitan Green Belt and is there to protect the countryside from being developed inappropriately. This land is also outside the existing settlement boundary.
2. The concern over the close proximity to the Nature reserve and the detrimental effect this will have on wildlife in this area. This land is teaming with wildlife and supports the nature reserve itself as it is undisturbed by humans and provides ideal nesting sites. Bats, a protected species, can often be seen circling around in the summer months. We have seen badgers in our garden on two occasions. My neighbour spotted a Muntjac deer, that she reported to yourselves. You said that you had seen footprints nearby in the Nature reserve. My neighbour also spotted a protected species of bird, a type of bullfinch, which is on the red danger list, near to extinction.
3. The trees are protected by a tree preservation order by yourselves, the council, we have been told by another neighbour.
4. Flooding: During heavy rain, excessive amounts of water streams down the hill and congregates at the end of Marylands Avenue which the gulleys cannot cope with. The woodland provides a natural soakaway.
5. Access to this site is too narrow by far. Marylands Avenue itself is a quiet, residential family orientated street and to have heavy traffic weaving it's way up and down this road is extremely dangerous and quite unthinkable and would impact on all residents lives.
Objection to 7500 houses being built in our area over the next 20 years, including using green belt land.

1. Funding/Infrastructure: Infrastructure cannot match the proposed growth due to high levels of underfunding (by a 2016 report issued by the ECC.)
2. Utilites: The privately operated Utility companies have not proven their ability, nor given formal commitment to meeting the extra demands for the Essex County target of 185,00 new homes - (water/electricity/gas/telecoms/waste treatment/recycle.)
3. Greenbelt law: The RDC area of responsibility is 74% classified as Green Belt status, a housing project of this size can only be achieved by sacrificing the GB principals, quote - "...to prevent urban sprawl and preclude one settlement coalescing into another."
4. Civic Amenities: The 10 years (so far) of an Austerity programme has eroded civic amenities and services to the point of crisis (health and care services.) This same situation is now starting to impact Education and Emergency services due to lack of capacity - the plus 30% loading is just not feasible or sustainable.
5. Commuting: Commuting out and into the District is the root cause of rush-hour congestion, this clearly underlines that the existing housing to local workplace ratio is out of balance. Obviating the need to long-distance commute by the generation of local employment must be one of the main drivers for a project of this nature and should limit the scale accordingly.
We, as residents like living in our semi rural area. A project of this size would change our living environment to one that we did not choose, when we decided to live here. We like the feeling of open space and we enjoy driving through the countryside to get to one place or the other. We like to see trees and fields, hear birds sing, see horses in fields. We like feeling safe and knowing that we live in a settled, long standing community. A project like this would inevitably cause a lot of people to feel stressed, unsettled. A lot of people would move away. It would not be such a pleasant place to live anymore. The current resident's quality of life needs to be considered. The wildlife, nature, character of our district needs to be considered.
There simply isn't enough room, there isn't the infrastructure, amenities or utilities to consider a project of this scale. A few more houses may need to be built, but not to the detriment of the people already living here.

I would appreciate a response to my objections please.

I trust you will take into consideration my feelings on this subject.

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

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

CUT THE TARGET NUMBERS TO NATURAL GROWTH LEVEL.

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

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

I would like to make the following comments:-

Whilst I accept the need for more housing (particularly affordable - for renting and purchase) there needs to be more adequate provision for the infrastructure which will be substantially affected by the proposal to build upto 7500 homes particularly the roads, public transport, health facilities and schools. These improvements need to be made before the houses are occupied. I am also unclear as to when green belt land is green belt and when it isn't. I am also not convinced that adequate investigation has been carried out into the feasibility of using brownfield sites.

Dear Sir/ Madam

With respect to the above mentioned plans please see below my objections and comments to the above mentioned plan

I've lived in Rayleigh for the best part of 60 years and seen changes good and bad. Rarely have I involved myself in local politics although I must confess to having strongly objected to the London Road/ Rawreth Lane proposals for many reasons. This process did make me realise that mass developments such as these need heavy scrutiny and the need for individuals and local communities to stand up and state their alternative views and hope that the voice of reason is carried.

I would like to see a 20 year plan for Rayleigh and the surrounding area that considers the following;

Decision makers putting the wishes and concerns of the local community at the forefront of all large scale planning applications/options.

A strong focus given to the impact of increased traffic flow that would result from any large scale future planning applications/developments. This should take into account both congestion problems together with health and pollution issues.

Property developments only to be considered as and when sufficient infrastructure is already in place (or proven it will be in an acceptable timeframe) and considered adequate to cope with the consequences of any such developments.

All decisions should keep in mind the need to avoid developments that support or negatively influence the culture of anti-social behaviour. Presently this is moving very quickly in the wrong direction in Rayleigh and as such gives rise to much concern. The mid and long term effects of this should not be under-estimated and is an important consideration if we are to maintain Rayleigh as a desirable place to live or visit.

Where there is insufficient room for new or very much improved roads then no large scale developments should be permitted.

There should be no intrusion into designated "green belt" areas, it was labelled green belt for a reason and those reasons still hold good today. We need to keep in mind that our trees and vegetation are linked to an important eco system that benefits us all.

MOST IMPORTANTLY I WOULD LIKE TO SEE LOCAL GOVT STAND UP TO THE CENTRAL GOVT. WHO ARE IMPOSING THESE QUOTAS AND CHALLENGE THEM WHEN IT CAN BE DEMONSTRATED THAT IN ALL PROBABILITY THE PROPOSALS WILL RESULT IN A NEGATIVE IMPACT TO THE EXISTING RESIDENTS/ENVIRONMENT.

I believe in a democratic society local councils should have a moral duty to support and stand up for the desires and wishes of the local communities they represent rather than accept any ill thought -out and unwelcome impositions of central government.

As long as I can remember Rayleigh has always been a desirable place to live. At the moment however it is on the cusp of slip sliding away into something far less desirable. Now is the time to reject what is not in our best long term interests and for the local Council to submit a more acceptable and realistic planning proposal that fits with the wishes of the local community and takes into account the foregoing objections and comments.

I am lead to believe that there is a proposed development to 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 RDC Land Assessment 2017 - Appendix B).

Myself, my wife Patricia, my children Jessica and Christopher Olivares are vehemently against such a development.

This would destroy a beautiful piece of greenbelt land which is vital to local wild life and a pleasant area of Malvern Road
which was always designated as a safe children's play area for our road. Does the council have no regard for the safety of our young children?

It is hard enough to get an appointment at the local doctors, dentists or blood clinic. It is hard enough to get a parking spot
in the village. If there are more houses, you will put an even more intolerable strain on our (already) struggling services and village infrastructure..

Keep your "dirty hands" off of our wonderful green area. You should be ashamed of even considering such a development!

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

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

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

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

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

5. Utilities how would they cope with more houses.

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

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

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

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

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


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

General Response

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

18) Improved public transport links (buses etc.)

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

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

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

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









Replies to the consultation by paragraph and point number


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6.33 Option: A

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tell Us More SP1.6: Houseboats Option B

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tell Us More SP3.3: Communications infrastructure Option B

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

Tell Us More SP3.5: Renewable energy Option A

Tell Us More SP3.6: Planning Option A

Tell Me More SP4.1: Health Option D

Tell Me More SP4.2 Community facilities Option B

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

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

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

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

Tell Me More SP4.5: Young people Option A

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tell Us More SP5.5 Heritage and culture Option A

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tell Us More D.P1.5 Basements
Option A

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Interim Sustainability Appraisal

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

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

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

Firstly may I thank the officers of the Council for their time at the public meeting held on 16 January 2018. I note with regret that more senior members of council planning staff were not available to justify or answer questions about the plans and hope that they will be more visible to residents in the future.

Before I raise specific issues about the plan, I feel I must point out that in drafting the document, the Council has started from an incorrect position from which it will now be very difficult to recover, namely that there is a need for 7,500 new dwellings in the area. As your council planning officer explained the figure of 7,500 is based on a standard model developed by the Government and takes into account no local factors. However, unfortunately this ludicrous figure of 7,500 has now set the bar of expectation with both opposition (the majority of residents) and pro-development (developers and land-owners) parties.

The Council should have started from a position that given the known opposition of existing residents to plans for major development, evidenced by the huge opposition to the Hall Road development (of 620 houses), combined with the factors weighing against further development, little additional development is considered appropriate in the local area and a figure of perhaps 250 homes offered as the most that could be absorbed. The starting position adopted by the Council is a major strategic error for which the Director of Planning must take full responsibility.

It is clear both from the factors outlined below and the opposition to the plan from existing council tax paying residents, that any further development of significant scale is unsustainable and the council should rethink this plan to arrive at a more acceptable and sustainable solution.

Major traffic congestion - The B1013 is the main road through Hawkwell and Hockley connecting the towns to Rochford and Rayleigh. This road is already heavily congested at peak periods such as "rush hour" and "school run" times. It also carries traffic to what is becoming a major airport and the major business park at the airport that is currently undergoing very significant expansion. Of particular concern is the junction of Spa Road, Woodlands Road and Southend Road (the mini-roundabout opposite The Spa public house), which is a major "pinch-point".

Impact on public safety - The two Fire Stations managed by Essex County Fire & Rescue Service at Hawkwell and Rochford, respectively, are manned on a "retained" basis. This means that fire crews are alerted to incidents by means of a radio-pager and aim to reach the fire station within 4-5 minutes. Additional traffic created by further residential and commercial development in the area will increase turn-out times thereby increasing the time it takes the Fire Service to attend incidents, placing those needing assistance at additional risk.

Air polution - At certain times of the day, the air pollution caused by current major traffic congestion in some parts of Hockley and Hawkwell is already likely to be in breach of the standards set by the European Commission (Directives 2008/50/EC and 2004/107/EC). However, as the Council has been reluctant to carry out appropriate air quality monitoring it has been left to a group of independent councillors to undertake a 12 month study the results of which are due shortly. Clearly, the additional traffic resulting from further housing and commercial development will add to the toxic level of pollution in the atmosphere adding to the misery of those suffering with respiratory medical conditions and to the detriment of the health of residents. However, it is not only the excessive vehicle traffic that causes high levels of pollution. It must be appreciated that having a significant airport within the immediate vicinity is a major cause of both air and noise pollution.

Green Belt Development - Major developments suggested on major areas of green belt land between Gusted Hall Lane and Mount Bovers Lane would cause significant damage to the environment and have a dramatically negative impact on the landscape of the area. Not only would it destroy an important wildlife area but also productive arable farming land would be lost forever. Greenbelt land should be protected with any development limited to Brownfield and "in-fill" development to ensure the essential character of Hawkwell is maintained.

Developments absent from the plan and errors in mapping - There appears to be developments that have been approved that are absent from the plan. For example, the approval of circa. 70 homes on the site of the former Bullwood Hall prison are not even mentioned and their impact is not considered. The area marked on the map for prospective development in Hillside Avenue, Hawkwell is a small rear garden with no access and unsuitable for development. These are important omissions and errors that need to be corrected.

Independence of AECOM - Within the document, the Council refers to the draft scoping report prepared by "independent consultants" AECOM. A look at AECOM's annual report for 2017 shows very clearly, large multi-national and highly aggressive organisation focussed primarily on its own commercial objectives. For such an organisation to be successful it will be dependent on strong relationships with developers and construction companies, who stand to benefit from large building projects. The Council may wish to consider this when preparing tenders for further work and ensuring that any relationships AECOM may have with parties who stand to benefit from large developments are fully transparent and to seek assurances that no conflict of interest is present.

Information Asymmetry - The council tax payers expect the council planning team to be the "experts" in the area of planning policy and we expect them to produce credible proposals to safeguard the integrity and existing nature of the local area for residents. Instead what has been produced is a long, meandering and sometimes complex document containing vast quantities of largely irrelevant data and very little by way of evidence, with the apparent purpose of deterring engagement from residents. Even simple traffic surveys and existing air quality data are absent from the document, presumably because the facts would not support the case for over development that the Council is clearly promoting. Residents expect the council to be protecting their interests in discussions such as these as residents do not have access to the amount of information and resources that parties such as developers and large construction companies have at their disposal.

Conclusion - In conclusion, there are sadly very few, if any, positive proposals in the plan for existing residents and I am left wondering what we are in fact paying our council tax for?

The New Local Plan document does not, as it claims, "set out a shared vision for the future of our district" as it does not take any account of the strong views of most existing residents who are opposed to this so called "vision".

The Council planning team has missed a significant opportunity to put forward proposals to improve the district for the residents of Hawkwell and surrounding areas and instead is bending over backwards to support major developers who are only concerned about profit and greedy landowners who see an opportunity to make a "killing" from their assets, to the detriment of the majority of residents.

I call for far greater transparency in the communications that have clearly been ongoing between prospective site owners and Council officials to ensure that the public have a full picture of how this initial set of sites has been derived.

Given that a plan already exists up until 2025, it is far too early to consider further development as the alleged "evidence" on which the proposals are based will change e.g. the increased level of traffic from developments under construction but not yet completed. The proposals put forward are clearly not sustainable and do not strike the right balance between environmental, economic and social factors and are not in the best interests of current residents of the area.

Re New Local Plan - Hullbridge

We have submitted just 2 items on your online missive site in regards to the proposed developments, however this is very combusome and therefore have now resorted to email to be able to put our sentiments across.
We wish to also point out that all of your documentation appears to be biased in favour of Rochford, Hockley and Rayleigh, but every item has an impact on the village of Hullbridge which going by the census of
2011 was only 2000 less inhabitants than that of Rochford!

ENGAGING WITH RESIDENTS

Submitted: ID 35330
Rochford District Council have REFUSED to meet with the TAX PAYERS of Hullbridge where a vast majority of the building works are suggested for planning.

GREENBELT

Submitted: ID 35333
WHATS THE POINT OF CALLING AN AREA AS GREENBELT IF YOU ARE GOING TO IGNORE THE ACCOMPANYING PROTECTION THAT THIS BRINGS.

BIODIVERSITY

Hullbridge is classed as a SPA as per your map. Building more houses will threaten this protection and reduce the amount of wildlife currently seen.

FLOOD PLAIN - CFS099

The flood plain is one of the plots highlighted on your proposed map.
Surely this has major implications for people trying to get a mortgage.
This is the protection for the current inhabitants. Building on this plot can potentially have an effect on the current properties in relation to the settling of the earth (clay soil) which can cause subsidence to the current structures closest to the proposed sites ie:
shrinkage of the soil.

INFRASTRUCTURE:

Unadopted Roads: - to name but a few

As per Windermere Road (unadopted), Grasmere Avenue is also an unadopted road. Which at present can not sustain the current throughfare as people use for West Avenue (also unadopted) and used to get to the top of Windermere Road and also gives access to the Drive (also unadopted).

Rawreth Lane:

In the main is a single carriageway in both directions and struggles to maintain the passability in the rush hours. This causes knock on effects for the locality concerning visitors to schools, doctors, and those relying on the emergencies services. Not forgetting the state of the current tarmac road.

Tree Preservation Orders - TPO - CFS099:

There are a number of TPO's in place which again need to be considered when deciding on areas to be developed. There are a number around this area.

Sewerage:

These systems are currently inadequate to sustain the amount that is flushed down them. Building new houses will increase the burden on the current structure.

Soakaways:

Many houses have soakaways which feed into CFS099. Where will these be relocated?

Schools:

The current scenario is unable to maintain intake for the catchment school.

Emergency Services:

These already have to come through Rayleigh to get to Hullbridge.
Increasing the housing and population, and not having adequate Road system in place will delay times of response.

Hospital:

Needless to say that has the knock on effect been taken into account in regards to Southend Hospital.

CURRENT HULLBRIDGE INHABITANTS

We feel that the population of Hullbridge has NOT been given a fair voice in this matter as many of the aged inhabitants are less able to respond via computer or understand the impact it potentially will have on them - Refer Engaging with Residents.

Re: CFS024 Land North of Merryfields Ave, Hockley, Map G, 119

I would like to object to the above proposal, to build (37 houses?) on the land mentioned in the reference above. These are my reasons why:

1. The land is very close to the nature reserve. I am not aware if any of the trees in the Nature Reserve have a TPO, but am anticipating that some do. If this is the case, I understand that building cannot take place within 25m of such trees.
2. The area is Metropolitan Green Belt. We really need to preserve these areas for future generations to enjoy.
3. The area is prone to flooding. Increased building and paving of the area would intensify this issue.
4. It has been suggested that bats live in the Nature Reserve. As they are a protected species, building so close to them will surely be detrimental.

I would be very grateful if you could submit my views and I look forward to hearing from you.

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

RDC is still not able to access the impacts of current and approved future development, since a large amount has not been completed we are already noticing issues of gaining access to medical services and traffic congestion.

Development of the area should take in to account the unique geography being a peninsular.



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.

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

RDC is still not able to access the impacts of current and approved future development, since a large amount has not been completed we are already noticing issues of gaining access to medical services and traffic congestion.

Development of the area should take in to account the unique geography being a peninsular.



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.

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




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We would not support the development of this site!



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

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


3. Planning ref. CFS 057

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

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

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

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

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

* All other issues apply.

5. Conclusion

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

Please see my objection to developments proposed in the new local plan.

The existing and 'New' local plan amount to a potential 30% increase in housing for the Rockford District - the following legitimate restraints will indicate that the plan is not viable nor sustainable.

1. Funding

The Principal Consultee (ECC) have issued a 2016 report (Greater Essex Growth & Infrastructure Framework) that concludes that infrastructure cannot match the proposed growth due to high levels of under funding.

2. Utilities

The privately operated Utility companies have not proven their ability, nor given formal commitment to meeting the extra demands for the Essex County target of 185,000 new homes (water/electricity/gas/telecoms/waste treatment/recycling)

3. Green Belt Law

The RDC area of responsibility is 74% classified as Green Belt status. A housing project of this scale can only be achieved by sacrificing of the GB principals, quote:
"..to prevent urban sprawl and preclude one settlement coalescing into another"

4. Civic Amneties

The 10 years (so far) of an Austerity Programme has eroded Civic Amenities and Services to the point of crisis (health & care services). This same situation is now starting to impact education and emergency services due to a lack of capacity. 30% loading is just not feasible - let alone sustainable.

5. Commuting

Commuting out and back into the district is the root cause of rush-hour congestion, this clearly underlines the the existing housing to local work place ratio is out of balance. Obviating the need to long-distance commute by the generation of local employment must be one of the main drivers for a project of this nature = and should limit the scale accordingly

I am writing to object to the following site reference number developments in Great Wakering:
CFS057, CFS097, CFS070, CFS065, CFS011, GF03, CFS056 and CFS034
I was born in Great Wakering 40 years ago and the greatest qualities in the village is the Community, peace, safety and being surrounded by people who you know. If, the above planning goes ahead this will be lost for the following reasons.
School
The Great Wakering Academy is full and would not be able to take the planned volume of children. If the plans went ahead siblings of the current families may miss out on spaces and have to commute to other schools. As most schools start at similar times how would parents get their children to different schools. We are not within walking distance of other schools and do not have frequent public transport. With the school being the size it is there is an excellent family feel to it, this would be lost if the village was to expand. Currently there is a lollypop lady at the beginning and end of the day but she does not cover after school activities or breakfast club times. With no permanent crossing and an increase in traffic the children's safety would be a major concern.
Roads
We do not have the roads to cope with the increase in traffic volume and they would not be fit for purpose. When they built the Star Lane development there was often delays caused by traffic lights, access vehicles, clearing of mud on the road etc. The High Street in Great Wakering is the main road and already has cars parked on both sides, which leads to single lane use. This increase in traffic will lead to a loss of on-road parking which is a loss of valuable residential amenity. The reason for such parking on the roads is because we are a village with old cottages that do not have off road parking.
The only other access is Poynters Lane. Locals tend not to use this road as it has poor visibility, dangerous speeds are used and pedestrians sometimes walk along it. With increased traffic and building vehicles this would increase the dangers. We are not close to major roads such as the A127 or the main part of the A13. There are plenty of other towns with the potential for development which have good access to the A127 and A13, transport and amenities.
There is one crossing in Great Wakering at the doctors surgery. Increase in cars travelling and parked will become a danger to pedestrians.
Public Transport
The number 4 bus serviced this village for years, twice an hour and took around 20/25 minutes into Southend. About a year and a half ago this was replaced with the number 7/8 bus. This bus can now take 45 minutes to get to Southend as it goes around Shoebury, Thorpe Bay and Woodgrange before finally reaching Southend. It was supposed to be 3 times an hour but now it's twice an hour. So since the Star Lane development our public Transport has actually got worse. Some of the behavior I have seen on the bus has not been nice due to the areas it goes through and my working day has increased as I have a longer journey. The bus is also full and sometimes you cannot get a seat from Southend. When the changes happen it was sold as a better service as it would go past Thorpe Bay train station, well the number 4 went past Southend East so that wasn't improving the service. If these plans were to go ahead this bus service would not cope. I thought we were trying to move away from car based communities not build them!
Surroundings
Great Wakering has beautiful surroundings and many residents look out onto fields with uninterrupted views and great privacy. Children play in the surrounding fields, we exercise in the open space. According to our Human Rights Protocol 1 Article 1 we are entitled to peaceful enjoyment of possessions. The developments would destroy our enjoyment of peace by bringing busy roads, all the current walks across the fields would have developments either side, increased noise, smell from work, people, vehicles and over-crowded amenities. By losing the fields this would increase the risk of flooding which Wakering has a history of. We should be protecting Green Belt as a valuable flood prevention not building on it. I believe the Government model for this district is 7,500 homes but with the rate of growth it should be 3,500. Green Belt land should not be used just to ease housing targets it has greater uses such as food production and stopping our village from joining up to the next town and losing the village forever. In the Rochford District Historic Environment Characterisation Project document on the Rochford.gov.uk website,it was said that the historic environment has a powerful influence on peoples' sense of identity and civic pride. Pages 69-70 have some points about Great wakerings history and how a few of the original boundaries survive and every effort should be made to preserve them.
Wildlife
In my garden alone I have squirrels, foxes, birds, hedgehogs and I have heard bats in the village. Day and night the wildlife can be seen. Green buffers between developments would not be enough to keep this wildlife and yet another use for Green belt. Villagers enjoy the walks and seeing the wildlife. With over development to a village, this wildlife would be destroyed.
Amenities
We have one coop which is busy and only has a small car park with tight access. When there are deliveries cars and pedestrians have to stop whilst the lorry reverses into the car park. With an increase for the coop how would it cope with the deliveries and customers. Our local tip is over 30 minutes drive away and then there is often a queue.
Security and Crime
Great Wakering is a very low crime and secure village. The children are happy and parents have confidence in them being allowed out in the village. I have never felt unsafe day or night. But if the village grew to the size of the proposals then this would change. We would not know the people around us and there is hardly any police presence in this village.
Employment
Developments should bring employment but already Star Lane housing has taken some away, with the selling of Star Lane industrial estate. Also Southend is declining in employment opportunities so what are all these new residents going to do for work. My work in Southend will be going in the next few years.
Great Wakering
It is a village and that is why we live here these plans are inappropriate for a village and it will be destroyed. Our previous Prime Minister said that" protecting Green Belt is paramount".

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

Having recently read your plan of proposed sites I have some objections, as well as improvements for sites, mainly focused around the Hockley area, of which I am familiar. Firstly site CFS064 (the land to the north and east of Folly Chase). When I first heard about this site being proposed for development I thought it was some poor attempt humor, not least because at the time we were sitting a tail back along the High Road, a very common occurrence as anyone who commutes regularly will know. Throwing in around 250 houses (the rumored number than I have heard) into an area where the only road (track) in and out of the site is essentially a single track drive which leads straight out onto a very sharp bend in Folly Lane, then onto the already congested High Road surely really shows abysmal lack of planning. The potential for accidents and even greater tail backs is a serious problem around this area. The development at CFS040 will also enhance this, as will the development adjacent to Bullwood Hall (though I personally feel that development is a feasible one). There are also environmental implications - Folly Chase and the surrounding countryside, north towards the rail bridge, is a beautiful area, peaceful, historic, popular with walkers ect. It would be a great loss to Hockley if this development went ahead, essentially turning Betts Farm, Folly area & this new development into one mass of urban sprawl. Hockley Primary's environment is also under threat, currently nestled within a quite, crime-free area, with ample access to green space. A good example of a school in which you would feel comfortable sending your kids to study at. Dumping a whole new estate directly adjacent to it's grounds could really damage it's outlook. A crying shame. How it would cope with the increase in pupil numbers is also an interesting question.

A site I am on board with is the industrial estate at BFR2, a potentially brilliant site for creating a solid area of housing with good town, school and commuting links. If done effectively this could provide a really healthy community atmosphere, whilst also bringing to life a currently detached and lackluster area of the town. Planning this out to be a green, 'Garden Town' (or at least an estate with decent green areas) would massively enhance Hockley center, both socially and environmentally, minimising the impact of the inevitable increase in pollution in the town center, if these building projects were to go ahead, whilst turning a pretty dire area into an aesthetically pleasing part of town.
The only potential downside is, again, traffic flowing directly out onto Spa Road, an already congested area. Though one could minimise this by limiting development upstream at CFS064.
CFS023 is also a pretty solid area for development, the only site in Hockley with potential for a decent access route which doesn't spill out onto an already congested road. The only thing I will say is that any development backing so close onto Beckney Woods needs to be sympathetically planned, with plenty of greenery (wildlife corridors) within the estate, funneling towards the wood. The developers of Etheldor and Wood estates did this pretty well, by keeping lots of mature trees and planting many more, creating a very pleasant area. Though this could be improved on by the linking of these green spaces together more effectively.
CFS169 and CFS020 would also pose a significant challenge regarding access, with only the small Windsor Gardens? and a tiny piece of access at the far SE of the site leading onto Rectory Road, just prior to the bridge, creating a problem of further bottle necks at this point. Though CFS150, 017 and 093 are good sites with Park and Victor Gardens providing enough access.

All round I think pretty much everyone who has seen these plans or even heard of the number of houses proposed to be built knows this area is unable to cope with such a large en-mass building scheme. Not only do we not have the necessary investment in infrastructure and local resources to cope with the influx, the potential of eventually linking Southend, Rochford, Rayleigh, Ashingdon and Hockley together as one vast mass of urban sprawl is not an idea which anyone desires, but one which if this level of building goes ahead, could become a reality in the near future. One of the overwhelming reasons why this area of Essex is so popular for those wanting to start a family outside of the city is because of Hockley's tranquil setting. Lets not bugger it up completely. Cut the number of houses in half to around 3500 and you might find yourself with a realistic plan.

Rochester District Council
Issues & Options Local Plan Consultation

Question SP1.3: How do we plan for and facilitate the delivery of our need for new homes over the next 20 years within the District ?
Answer SP1.3:
The Council's approach taken to date through the current adopted Core Strategy in seeking to maximise the use of previously developed (brownfield) land to deliver new homes to meet objectively assessed housing needs is supported. Nevertheless, it is submitted that this approach has limitations and the scale of housing delivery now needed is such that there will be a requirement for release of Green Belt land to ensure that housing need can be met.
The Issues & Options Local Plan correctly identifies the need to assess potential suitable sites for residential currently within the Green Belt by assessing the contribution that sites make towards the 5 purposes of the Green Belt. This is an established and sound approach endorsed by national planning guidance.
The Issues & Options Local Plan also sets out six potential options for delivering new homes. It is submitted that option C (several small extensions to the existing residential area) and option D (a number of fewer larger extensions to the existing residential area) are the most appropriate and most likely options to ensure delivery of sufficient new homes within the emerging Plan period. Continued focus on increasing densities within the existing urban areas, and increasing densities on existing allocated sites (options A and B) is unlikely to result in speedy delivery of new homes, and is equally likely to result in poor quality living environments and detrimental impacts on residential amenity for existing and future new residents. Creation of a new settlement (option E) would not represent the best approach for Rochford, due to the significant infrastructure, delivery and longer lead in timescales, as well as the Green Belt status of the majority of the District.
It is therefore submitted that Rochford District Council should focus through the emerging Local Plan on identifying the most suitable small and some larger extensions to the existing residential areas. Sites should be selected as residential allocations were the release for housing would be sustainable and logical taking account of the degree to which sites contribute towards the purposes of the Green Belt, and the ability for sites to contribute towards sustainable forms of development.

Land at Clements Hall Lane, Hockley, SS5 4DT (as submitted through the Call for Sites) represents a highly suitable site for residential, being within the boundary of Hockley which is a Tier 1 Settlement. The site is close to public transport with Hockley train station 0.8 miles away and bus stops for the No. 8 and 815 only 0.4 miles away. Local amenities, such as shops and community facilities located on Main Road also within walking distance only 0.4 miles from the site. The site is at very low risk of flooding and the site does not contribute significantly towards the five purposes of the Green Belt as follows:
* development of land at Clements Hall Lane would not result in unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;
* new housing at the Clements Hall Lane site would not result in neighbouring towns merging into one another;
* the Clements Hall Lane site does not contribute significantly towards assisting in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;
* the site at Clements Hall Lane does not contribute significantly towards preservation of the setting and special character of a historic town; and
* whilst the Clements Hall Lane being subject to Green Belt policies to date has assisted in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land, the overwhelming need for housing within the District and the unavailability of sufficient previously developed (brownfield) land means that development of the Clements Hall Lane site would represent a logical and sustainable form of development to deliver new homes within the District.














Rochester District Council
Issues & Options Local Plan Consultation

Question SP5.1: How do we balance protection of the district's Green Belt that meets the five Green Belt purposes, against the need to deliver new homes and jobs across the district, and the wider South Essex area?
Answer SP5.1:
It is submitted that the only realistic and reasonable approach available to be taken that will ensure delivery of new homes to meet objectively assessed housing need in Rochford District is set out within the Issues & Options as option B (amend the current Green Belt policy in the Core Strategy).
Option A (retaining the existing Green Belt), and Option C (do not have a policy on the Green Belt) are both considered to be untenable. There is a need to amend the Green Belt to ensure that housing needs can be met for at least the next Local Plan period. It is clear that neighbouring authorities, such as Castle Point and Basildon, have similar Green Belt and environmental constraints as well as high housing requirements of their own, which means that the prospects of neighbouring authorities assisting Rochford in helping to meet housing needs are remote. Conversely, the Green Belt is long established and provides a valuable planning tool to prevent unrestricted sprawl, encroachment in to the countryside and coalescence of adjoining settlements and the enduring over-arching benefits of the Green Belt should be retained through the new Local Plan. Removal, in its entirety, of the Green Belt planning policies that protect the majority of Rochford District from development would be an inappropriate response to the District needs for new homes.
Option B represents the only viable and tenable approach. It is therefore submitted that there is an urgent need for Rochford Council to progress a thorough and detailed Green Belt review to ensure that amendments made to the Green Belt can be permanent in the long term, and capable of enduring beyond the Plan period, perhaps for two Plan periods.
For the reasons set out within our response to questions SP1.3, land at Clements Hall Lane, Hockley, SS5 4DT represents a logical and sustainable location for new homes. Whilst an amendment to the Core Strategy would be required to remove the Clements Hall lane site from the Green Belt, the site does not contribute significantly towards the five purposes of the Green Belt. An appropriate balance would therefore be struck by releasing the Clements Hall Lane site from the Green Belt to contribute towards meeting housing needs within the emerging Local Plan period.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I write to object to the developments proposed in the new local plan. These plans are not realistic or sustainable, from what I have read there is not enough funding to provide an adequate infrastructure for the proposed amount of development. The majority of the sites in question involve building on our greenbelt land. This land is of vital importance not only for future generations, and to stop negative impact on the environment but also for preventing urban sprawl and the merging of our towns. The greenbelt land should be protected and it is stated that it should only be overruled in extreme circumstances. What are these extreme circumstances? The civic amenities and services in this area are already stretched beyond sustainability we do not have the services to cater for so much growth in the area; the hospitals, schools, doctors surgeries and emergency services are under enough strain already. Speaking about Rayleigh specifically as it is the town I am most familiar with, the area already suffers with extreme congestion and we do not have the road system to effectively cope with more commuters, not to mention that the air quality in some places is already at dangerous levels. In regards specifically to the area outlined in map E a lot of these plots are flood risk 2 and 3 ,and regarding Daws heath road, the road itself is not wide enough to handle more traffic as it already has the overflow from the a127 in peak times as well as having poor drainage, flooding and awful potholes year after year it simply could not cope with more traffic from extra adjacent housing sites. I ask you to cut the target amount to sustainable levels and protect our greenbelt for the sake of all residents.