Green Belt

I have had enormous difficulty trying to navigate your website to find where I can view comments that have been made and to voice my family's concerns. I have tried to call and used your web chat but neither has made it possible for me to do what I wanted so I have no other option than to e-mail you my comments.I have registered on the site.

Local Plan CFS 023 Map H 114 Land north and east of Malvern Road, Hockley, Essex SS5 5JA

This refers to your 'sites to call form' where you invited landowners to inform you of availability of their land.

I would like to object to this land being considered for usage for the following reason:

I was born in Hockley and was always lead to believe that Beckney Woods was an ancient wood and the houses could not be built close by as this would interfere with its natural balance of wild life, flowers and woodland. So an area of 50 - 100 metres should be left untouched surrounding the woods.

When my family bought *redacted* 40 years ago, we understood that the land at the back of the house was also green belt. This meant that it should be left untouched and only in exceptional circumstances could the classification of land type registered be changed.

So if this is an invite for landowners I do not see that this can be in anyway classed as exceptional circumstances so the classification of the land should remain the same and cannot be changed.

I do hope my comments will be added to the site. I am just sorry I have been unable to read other comments and add to them.

I realise the deadline has passed for the consultation, but I have been away on holiday and would still like to comment on the issue of possible developments to the East and South of Great Wakering

These future projects will devastate this quiet end of the village. Lives will be wrecked by over-population, traffic and lack of infrastructure to cope with it, plus the loss of prime agricultural land in the Green Belt.

I have lived here now for nearly 63 years and would have to consider moving to a place without the friends I grew up with if these developments went ahead.

Having recently attended a public meeting which identified areas in and around Great Wakering I would like to indicate my objection to planning being granted to the following sites.

CFS057, CFS097, CFS070 CFS065.

My main objection is that the areas indicated above are green belt agricultural land and should remain as such. Other objection to these areas being allowed to become housing developments are the current poor transport links. Increased housing will definitely put these under strain, not just here but also into Southend and beyond which during morning and evening rush hours often grind to a halt.

Lastly, we do not currently have sufficient infrastructure to cope with a large influx of new housing. This would include doctors, secondary schools, local shops and leisure facilities.

I object to the new local plan as follows:-

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

I OBJECT to COL38 in Appendix C

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

I object to both the scale and nature of the outlined proposal ,as follows: 1.
No matching funding for a supporting Infrastructure.

An ECC report has made it clear there are insufficient funds to provide the vital infrastructure for this plan. It's unsustainable and will adversely affect the quality ofl ife of current residents and will nor provide a good environment for those purchasing any property.

NHS Services are at full stretch - witness deaths over Christmas/New Year due to insufficient NHS provision locally.

Roads are already at full capacity.

Schools are largely full.

No provision for improvement to Police provision,

No provision for extra public transport capacity.

Some areas are already known to have bad air quality, which would worsen.

2.

No guarantees that Utilities can match extra demands.

The water companies have made it clear they cannot cope with this extra demand on resources, per the ECC infrastructure report.

No provision for increases in electricity and gas provision.

3.

No spare capacity within Health & Care Services.

Our hospital couldn't cope over Christmas/New Year 2017/18 - deaths ensued. Mny GP surgeries are already full.

4.
No let up in the sacrifice of the Green Belt & Air Quality.

Air quality known to be above set limits at places such as Rayleigh Weir and the Hockley Road where it enters the town, and Websters Way area, due to traffic queues occurring there. This must be addressed first.


5. No long-term LEGACY left for our future generations.

No figures as to how many affordable homes needed, and will be available for our younger residents needing first time homes. Likelihood is builders will erect larger more profitable houses. Also possibility of affordable homes being sild off to authorities the area - thus not solving our housing needs.

Destroying our Green Belt - as this Plan could do, leaves an area no longer fit to live in. This whole scheme in no way considers the welfare of current residents and possible future ones. This scheme will destroy this general district. Presumably RDC has no concerns over making this area part of a greater urban sprawl; and gaining the reputation as a council determined on destructive, uncontrollable and indiscriminate building at the cost of adversle affecting the welfare of residents.

I Object to Site CFS023 In Appendix C

1)There is a discrepancy on the site size RDC have it as 5.6 Ha but the SHELAA has it 3.97 Ha which is correct?
2)This will strip the Green Belt land bordering Beckney Woods which is Ancient woodland this in turn could damage the woods
3)We are concerned about the impact on the indigenous wild life in and around the woods, Bats, Adders ,Sparrow Hawks, Buzzards & Herons. Foxes, Badgers and Monk jack Deer rely on the woods and the fields.
4) The loss of hedgerows especially along Harrogate drive will endanger the bird population such as Blackbirds.
5) The proposed entrance via Harrogate Drive will be a very costly item for any Developer, including the loss of property at the entrance from Greensward lane in order to get a good sightline and splay.
6) The tranquillity required for the Cattery will be lost.
7) No main Sewer in Harrogate Drive are the other services adequate?
8) The Appendix C says the site has a slight incline to the North, I do not consider a rise of 60-80ft to be slight and would lead to a total loss of privacy
9) We suffer from fluvial flooding and any building would change the water table and increase the risk of flooding.
10) The housing density will impact on noise and yet more cars for the inadequate roads and will make the need for ECC Highways to address this infrastructure shortfall which has been go on far too long.(Spa Roundabout)
11) To alleviate these problems why not consider an alternative site for example plot CFS081 which is flat land and easy access to the road network thus help the Hockley pinch point problems and would be more inviting to a developer.

This is a very short sited plan. Infrastructure is paramount before any further development is agreed.
I have major concerns at the development of the proposed sites in Hockley Ward. With this level of density, where are the proposals for travelling to and from work, access to schools, hospitals, doctor, dentists and the emergency services. Utilities will also be under pressure to cope with this level of development in the Rochford District. The whole area is almost gridlocked now and the future of Hockley is very bleak if all the proposals are agreed in the Local Plan.
Land to the North and East of Folly Chase running down to the railway line is a clear abuse of the green belt There has already been incursion into the designated green belt in Church Road Hockley which has caused considerable concerns to both existing and new residents with increased traffic flow and dangers of insufficient visibility on a narrow PR2 County Road with no pavement which has limited access at each end to join the main through traffic flow on the B1013 High Road Hockley and Lower Road Hockley.
Bullwood Hall Development, again on green belt, is listed as a potential additional site despite the reservations expressed in the original planning application to limit the site to within acceptable boundaries. There is still no satisfactory plan in place for the entrance/exit from Bullwood Road onto the B1013 at a junction at the top of a bend and hill without clear visibility.
Development at Lime Court and Popular Court is denying the elderly residents the little amenity space they have and increasing the traffic which consists of larger delivery or emergency vehicles using the entrance onto Greensward Lane just past a very busy junction controlled by traffic lights.
I am sure I am not the only resident who is despairing at the level of development in the area which is just not realistic when there are other brown field sites and vacant housing which could be redeveloped instead.

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

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

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

Not alone loosing trees , wildlife etc .
You are already building on the old brick fields in star lane Wakering . Which is causing already delays in traffic. There is also more traffic then ever at shopland & Bournes green .

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

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

I object to the proposal of the housing development in Poynters lane/ Shoebury Road.
Ref nos CFS057 CFS097 CFS034 CFS056 CFS070 CFS065 CFS011 and GF03.
Much of the land that is being considered for development is green belt and is enjoyed by locals and visitors for walks and watching wildlife, also the views of the countryside will disappear. The area is also a flood risk area with increasing difficulty of obtaining insurance. Poynters Lane will not be able to cope with the extra traffic that this development will produce. The amount of housing that is going to be built will have a huge impact on the local community, the development will be overwhelming, with increased pressure on the infrastructure, doctors, schools and public transport.

I understand from your recent Issues and Options plan that you are welcoming responses to the Plan before the deadline tomorrow.

Accordingly I would like to place on record my dismay that one of the sites up for consideration is that to the immediate North of Barling Road, Great Wakering/Barling and shown as Appendix C in your Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment 2017.

Development would not be in keeping with the area at all, these are green belt fields and this is a relatively rural area with already under pressure infrastructure, in particular roads (including Barling Rd) local primary schools and doctors surgery. The access is not sufficient and it would severely impact a large number of local residents in a detrimental fashion.

From an additional personal standpoint given how many difficulties I had in eventually obtaining permission from the council for a very modest extension in that area (because of entirely the issues raised above and your wish to avoid over development) it would be pure hypocrisy and capitulation of the highest order to now permit large scale development directly behind.

I strongly object to the planning application for several reasons:

Firstly I would like to point out the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government have issued new planning rules to deliver homes for everyone. The very first paragraph reinforces the need to maximise the use of land (i.e. affordable housing) and to strengthen the protection for Green Belt land. This came into place on 5.3.2018.

1. I object to the New Local Plan, particularly for all the green belt land that has been proposed, as this increased the amount of air pollution proposed in this plan, along with substantial overcrowding in areas of this District.

2. Your proposals, particularly CFS147, CFS146, CFS143, CFS170 and 171 (I acknowledge CFS167 has already been given permission on green belt land in spite of a high level of objections at the time) are all on green belt land and I ask that these proposals listed above be removed as per my first paragraph in the new planning rules in strengthening protection for green belt land.

3. In addition to this reason for the above said proposed new land an Essex County Council (ECC) 'Growth and Infrastructure Report 2016' states that to support current infrastructure costs are at £210million, in ECC's costings there is already a shortfall of £104 million. How will the New Local Plan infrastructure be funded? After all, I was at the meeting when RDC did agree that infrastructure will 'go in first'. I cannot see in any reports where this has been addressed, therefore I object to the New Local Plan until all necessary infrastructure is in place ( including the new A127/Fairglen interchange which is essential for the proposal numbers listed above as well as the general flow of traffic in and out of the RDC area.
No address has been made with regards to infrastructure for schools, doctors surgeries, our hospitals (if they remain as they are) are already overloaded, has RDC any guarantees of 'infrastructure first' for these to name a few essential services?

4. The risk of flooding in the West of Rayleigh has not been properly addressed either. No flood risk has been forthcoming in the New Local Plan, pretty pictures of landscaped 'parks' aka flood plains on land already given to development is not a flood risk assessment. I object strongly to the proposals listed above on the basis that the current green belt land also acts as its own flood plain, thereby keeping West Rayleigh safer from flooding. There is no evidence in the New Local Plan to suggest any alternative to flooding run-off areas.

5. The increasing number of Residents in RDC, particularly West of Rayleigh, yet in increase with the impending 500 additional homes will add to the current, already publicly shamed failure, with regard to air pollution within legal limits. With the proposed infrastructure 'improvements' at the A127/Fairglen interchange, the air pollution issue will increase along this corridor too - any further development will just accelerate this life threatening issue. I cannot believe any Council would proceed on this basis alone. I have to strongly object on the basis that clean air is a basic right that needs to be afforded to everyone. I cannot find any traffic flow/density assessments to address the above issues.

6. Consultation has not been carried out fully. Yes, sessions have been held with virtually no visual information. A few planning officers were left to 'field' the many people who had questions as there were no maps and one laptop available. The Housing Councillor was not present (yes, I attended two of them in Rayleigh). This was not a consultation, this was a box ticking exercise. You should re-run these properly and actually consult as opposed to leave your planning officers to deal with the hundreds of question which they were largely unable to answer as they did not have the information to hand. One laptop per meeting is woeful.

I have no confidence that the decisions about to be made by the Council members of the planning committee will be made in the best interests of the people of Rayleigh and surrounding areas. You did not take in account last time any matters objected to and since then you have held important meetings 'in cabinet' or as closed sessions, your lack of transparency is of great concern and I hope you prove me wring this time.

Thank you for taking the time to read this objection.

I object to both the scale and nature of the outlined proposal for the following reasons:

1. No matching funding for a supporting Infrastructure.
Our schools are already above capacity. I am aware of classes at local schools where there are already 35 children per class. There have been many threads on the local Rayleigh FaceBook pages from parents that have moved into our area who are unable to get their children into local schools. Many of these parents have had to place their children at schools out of the area that they live in or are still travelling long distances to their child's previous school. Enough new school places and schools must be guaranteed before more homes are built.
Our roads are frequently at a standstill even outside the rush hour. Before more houses are to be built, we need a better road system in place to stop our roads grinding to a halt. We are encouraged to use public transport, cycle or walk, but public transport in our area is not very good and expensive (I broke my arm last year and was unable to drive for 8 weeks so I can vouch for this!); cycle paths are virtually non existent in the district and many people feel that the roads are for too dangerous to use. ( I own a cycle but due to the lack of cycle paths [those that we do have don't really link up] and due to the amount of traffic on the road, I only use it when I go away on holiday!) Yes I do walk when I can, but I should be able to use my car sometimes!
2. No guarantees that Utilities can match extra demands.
3. No spare capacity within Health & Care Services.
At the moment, many people find it difficult to get a 'same day' appointment if they are ill as our Doctors Surgeries are at capacity. Our local hospitals are also struggling to cope with demand. Similarly, trying to get on an NHS dentists list in the district is very difficult, I know, I have tried! Those that I have tried in my locality have closed their books to new NHS patients. Our health and care services cannot cope with more people.
4. No let up in the sacrifice of the Green Belt & Air Quality.
RDC are already aware that the air quality in the High Street, Rayleigh and along stretches of the A127 are poor and above legal limits. How can you allow more homes to be built with the associated vehicles that come with them when you know that air quality and subsequently residents health is going to suffer?
5. No long-term LEGACY left for our future generations.

CUT THE TARGET NUMBERS TO NATURAL GROWTH LEVEL.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I refer to the proposal for the possible building of 7,000 plus new homes in the local areas to Hullbridge, Rayleigh and surrounding areas.

A vast amount of homes in these areas will cause total havoc because of the resulting congestion as well pollution and loss of wildlife and green spaces (which you wont ever get back) and even more flooding than we are experiencing already.

On top of this there will be a lack of school places. doctors patient places and Heaven knows what will happen to hospital waiting times.
In short A complete reduction in ANY quality of life in these areas.

The 550 homes already going ahead in Hullbridge will dramatically alter life here as it is without building more and making it worse.

Hullbridge is a very special community. Dont ruin it .

Ref. Appendix B - Maps P and Q.

1. If all shaded areas - CFS097, CFS034 and CFS056 were to be built on this would mean there was no green belt 'buffer' between Rochford and Shoebury at this point, therefore in effect, Wakering becomes part of the Borough of Southend.
2. The area marked CFS057 covers the wooded area and fishing lakes. Surely this whole area is sacrosanct for both fishermen and the people of Wakering?
3. Infrastructure first! Before large area 'builds' are considered is there to be a new surgery on one of the sites? Or an extension of the existing medical centre to cope with the already overcrowded demand? If so, where are the doctor's coming from?
4. Great Wakering's only Primary school is full. Without taking the playing field there's no room for expansion. A new school then? Necessary with the potential hundreds of children likely!
On an original plan there was an option for a new school to be built in area CFS057 just south of the new Wyborne Park development. Will that come to fruition?
5. Where would secondary schoolchildren go? Would King Edmund, already a very large school, be able to take them?
6. Affordable housing. It's a sad state of affairs that many young couples cannot get on the housing ladder! An affordable home should cost £200,000 or less. The present norm is, I believe, 30 per cent of new houses should be affordable. Why not make if 50%? Yes, the big companies like Taylor Wimpey, Persimmon, etc. will state such a percentage of affordable homes at the above suggested prices would not be sustainable. Although already making inflated profits their argument would be they're looking after their shareholders!
Why not form a conglomerate of local builders? They're all professional and could work from similar plans and are only interested in making a profit! It would be good for the local economy too!
7. Not directly appertaining to new buildings but, what facilities are there for young people, especially teenagers and younger children? The sports centre is now a Private Dance School. The children's playground is a disgrace (take a look at Shoebury and Southchurch Parks' playgrounds)! With the area now likely to be flooded with new families surely they/we all deserve something better!

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

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

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




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Planning ref. CFS 057

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

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

(2)


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

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

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

* All other issues apply.

5. Conclusion

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

The above site CFS024 relates to Land north of Merryfields Avenue, Hockley, SS5 5AL

I am objecting to the proposed development of the above site, on the following basis:

It is green belt land and adjacent to a public open space. The development of this land will impact on the public open space and destroy a valued local amenity, serving also as a green lung to preserve air quality against heavy traffic on adjacent local roads.

The development is projected as min 30 , max 37 dwellings. This is an area where car use is high as public transport availability is not great; although a station is quite close, bus services - which in this rural area have a better reach, are pretty infrequent. Thus most people use cars, and with current car ownership trends, most families own at least 2 cars. This is a minium of 60 cars travelling in and out of this small existing developmen, and would impact it very badly. The estate has narrow estate roads and the impact on these roads would be severe. There are always many parked cars in these roads, too, and this extra traffic would cause major problems and potential vehicle damage. Construction traffic onto this land would be insupportable and damage the roads, too; the opening onto this land is relatively narrow and woud badly affect those residents living near this opening. There is a school nearby and parents travelling in and out by car have begun to use the larger road into which this estate's traffic enters and exits. At school opening and closing times the queues in and out of this area are already considerable. The station car park also vents onto the same road which takes school traffic and at busy times of day, the commuter traffic in and out of the station car park is already a problem. As a result of accidents on this road, extra parking restrictions have been imposed - extra cars coming into this area could cause even greater problems.

The local sewers in the past have been unable to cope. In the general local plan no assurances of provision for inccreased sewerage and water usage has been made; it's doubtful local sewers could cope with this extra usage and pressure.

The road adjacent to the entrance to the site is subject to severe flooding at times of heavy rain:-



Development of this land will hinder the dispersal of this flood water - probably into the proposed properties.

There is a stream on this land which takes off runwater from the public open space; this must not therefore be built over.

The woods are a habitat for badgers - it's illegal to disturb them or their habitat. There are slow worms in the area and these are protected. Bats are also present - and also a protected species. such a wildlife-rich area cannot legally be developed without disturbing these creatures.

it's understood there are tree preservation orders in place.

This is a vital peace of wildlife rich green belt land quite densely covered in trees and its developed would cause serious detriment to the local environment in general -the govt is supposed to be improving air quality, not encouraging its deterioration by allowing the destruction of trees!

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.

I wish to raise the following objections to the proposed planning of addition houses.

The area at the end of Eastwood rise in particular ends with a single track unmade road which makes it impractical to accommodate the increased traffic which would appear. This is a semi rural area and should remain so, as it gives access to Edwards hall park and cherry orchard nature reserve.

The plans for additional houses at the Eastwood end of Rayleigh would also cause problems with increased traffic and warrant the need for another school to accommodate the additional families that would move to the area.

I think this area should remain as it is with some green spaces around as that is the reason a lot of people bought houses here in the first place.

We the undersigned oppose the further conversion of greenbelt land into brownfield for the purpose of building homes. There are enough Brownfield sites, unused houses, empty blocks that should be used first. RDC have not come forth with infrastructure and Essex is suffering. The local plan should be stopped right now and serious independent reviews taken and the data should be supplied by independent residents not those in the pay of the councils. The councils should listen to the people and not the Government that want to just line their greedy pockets. We do not need lots of massive houses, we need small retirement homes, we need small affordable homes and these need to be built sustainable!

In response to Rochford District Councils Local Development Plan for 2017 to 2037, I whole heartedly object to the allocation of land, reference CFS024 Land North of Merryfields Avenue, Hockley, MAP G, 119. The justification for this objection are outlined below.

- This land is Metropolitan Green Belt and is there to protect the countryside from being developed. With the land being situated outside the existing settlement boundary it would further breakdown the rural town scape and expand the already overdeveloped area of Hockley.
- Local infrastructure, public amenities and educational facilities within Hockley are already over subscribed, with little thought given to the greater urban area of Rochford District Council when allocating this area of land. Thought should be given to identify areas of land which can provide much needed public facilities to accommodate the numerous housing developments within the Councils jurisdiction which have recently or are nearing completion.
- The area of land neighbours the Nature Reserve which is used by local residents and child for leisure and educational purposes. In developing this site it will be detrimental to wildlife inhabiting this site and the neighbouring Nature Reserve.
- Access to the site is severely restricted, with the need for large construction vehicles and equipment to be taken along quiet residential roads to enable the development. Once the potential development is complete, it will create a rat run of roads leading to numerous cul-de-sac, of which the new development will be due to the linear nature of the site.

I hope my concerns are listened to. Could you please confirm receipt to this email (I found it incredibly difficult to find the location to lodge my concerns on your website).

Comments Form - heard about consultation via letter.

Objection
Section: All
Option: All
Paragraph: All



We object to any future development in the immediate area for following reasons:

* Any future funding council received would undoubtedly be overstretched trying to cover new obligations as well as obligations that should and must be covered already. All utilities would need more money put into them to make them viable and are they receiving enough from government now to cover this? Health/care, education and emergency services would suffer too as a result.

* Green belt land should be untouched. Housing for all should be made available right across the country not just in little towns making landowners richer!

* The whole infrastructure would suffer. Not only roads busier, rail networks the same but overstretched services could not cope. Mainly:

 Health and care services
 Emergency services
 and education

Comments Form - heard about consultation via letter.

Objection
Section: All
Option: All
Paragraph: All



We object to any future development in the immediate area for following reasons:

* Metropolitan green belt land should remain untouched to protect the countryside and stop overdevelopment.

* The nature reserve should not be encroached upon by building all around it. The wildlife would not remain and be pushed out of its home.

* Flooding could be made worse. We live in Mount Avenue and heavy rain runs quickly down our turning and more houses could make it worse.

* This is a quiet estate with narrow roads and more houses inevitably would make all roads on estate busier. Lorries which would need to come down small roads would cause considerable noise and inconvenience to residents. One building site at bottom of turning ruining pavement and verges nearby.

Comments: Objection to the ROC new local plan. I object to both the scale and nature of the outlined proposal.
* No matching funding for a supporting infrastructure. Roads are already so congested.
* No guarantee that utilities can match extra demands.
* No more capacity within the health care services. It's already difficult enough to get an appointment at the Doctors!
* Green belt areas are destroyed forever!

I wish to register my objection to the new housing development planned for the site West of Little Wakering Road and South of Barrow Hall Lane. There has already been a significant new housing development built along Star Lane which although not yet complete is causing considerable traffic congestion on exit and entry to the village. Too much of the green belt land "buffer" around Wakering has been lost. The continuing expansion of Wakering will mean it will no longer be a village but a sprawling extension of Shoeburyness and Southend. I moved to Wakering over a decade ago because it was quiet and away from urban sprawl and high density living. From the plans it is clear that the only access to this new housing estate is via Barrow Hall Lane on to Little Wakering Road. Both of these roads are minor and will become busy and congested by the influx of hundreds of cars from the new estate. The local schools and medical centre are already significantly over subscribed. This situation can only get worse with the ever increasing population.

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

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

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

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

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

Bungalows

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

Houseboats

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

Tourism and Rural Diversification

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

Highways Infrastructure

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

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

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

Education

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

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

Greenbelt

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

Wallasea Island

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

Outbuildings

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

Hullbridge Sewage Plant

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

Air Quality

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

Employment Land

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

Hospitals/Health Centres

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

Traveller Sites

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

I write to oppose the latest proposal of development in Hullbridge.
The highways are already overstretched and the infrastructure is not sufficient to cope with an increase in population and vehicles.
Any closure to Watery Lane already brings the traffic to a halt,

Many areas already flood due to the bad drainage systems, any further development will only Make the situation worse?.

Much of the land around Hullbridge is green belt which proved very popular when we purchased properties here over the past 25 years. If the development proceeds how does the developer or council propose to compensate existing occupants with the devaluation of there properties?.
To think the council can decide to develop this land is unacceptable.

Have you considered impact on the wildlife, there will eventually be nowhere for there habitat, and there numbers will decline, or is this just money driven with no consideration of the consequences?.

I can promise I will do everything in my power to ensure this unacceptable proposal is unsuccessful .

Il look forward tip your prompt response

I wish to object and/or comment on the following Strategic Priorities in the IAO document:

SP1:1. Homes and jobs needed in the area: the IAO document talks about 'prioritising the use of previously developed land i.e brownfield first'. However, there are already 500 new houses to be built in Hullbridge on previously undeveloped land so this priority has not been adhered to in this instance.

SP2:8 IAO refers to 'support continued use and sustainability of our village and neighbourhood centres'. How can we sustain the centre of Hullbridge when it will be put under immense pressure with the advent of 500 additional properties and therefore approximately 1,000 extra vehicles? The proposed dwellings in addition to the 500 would make the village situation untenable. Indeed, it would no longer be a village but a town. We want Hullbridge to remain a village.

SP3:9 IAO talks of ensuring 'that all new homes...are supported by appropriate, timely and necessary infrastructure including transport, utilities, .....flood risk, education, health etc. Where is the infrastructure that is talked about here? Hullbridge has no planned or prior infrastructure to support new homes.

SP3:10. IAO says there will be 'meaningful improvements to the local highway network'. Where are these improvements to be found to support the village of Hullbridge?

SP3:11. IAO talks of 'reducing out-commuting' but how is this possible for a village like Hullbridge which has little or no industry meaning that most residents have to travel by car to other larger towns for work? How can we deliver realistic and meaningful travel options for our communities like Hullbridge over the next 20 years?

SP3:13 How do we address water and flood risk management especially in our river and coastal regions? There remains flood risk on Watery Lane and environs despite intervention.

SP4: 14 IAO talks of 'access to good quality social and health and well-being services' but there is only one gp surgery in Hullbridge so how will this cope with the influx of people from 500 new houses, let alone any further proposed houses? Well-being is emphasised throughout the IAO document but there is such a long wait for counselling that I have had to pay privately to attend sessions.

SP5: 19 IAO speaks of the need 'to protect, maintain and enhance our natural environment... support wildlife'. However, hedges and trees have already been cut down along the approach to Hullbridge in readiness for building houses and these fields are home to an abundance of wildlife including foxes, squirrels, birds etc Where will these wild creatures go for their habitat?

SP5 20: IAO speaks of ensuring 'Green Belt retains openness of area, protecting valued landscapes, retaining physical separation between towns and villages'. In Hullbridge, we value our openness of area and have highly valued landscapes, particularly to the SW of the village which are in danger of being destroyed by building. Any further building will result in there being no separation between village and towns, just a merging of dwellings and a destruction of individual characteristics of place. How do we protect our beautiful natural habitats and meet the five Green Belt purposes?

SP5 22: the South Essex SHMA and The Environmental Capacity Study' are 'uncertain that the district has the capacity to accommodate the level of growth ' needed i.e 240 pus homes a year to 2025 and beyond.

Other points I wish to make are:

The Core Strategy has 'recognised congestion and capacity issues' in terms of traffic and that these 'could have a detrimental affect on environment and health' in the local area. It has been found that there is a 'lack of resilience on the local highway network with large volumes of traffic queuing at key junctions and stationery vehicles along main routes'. This has a negative impact on journey times and ability of residents to not only reach their destinations in a timely manner but also to leave their village or town. The residents of Hullbridge have expressed concern about being able to exit the village and on a number of occasions there has been gridlock meaning that I have been unable to get to work at all. The traffic issues are very stressful and would only become worse with additional homes and vehicles in the area. The Essex County Council's Sustainable Modes of Travel Strategy 2016 require residential travel plans for schemes of 250 plus new houses. Where can these be found? How can traffic management be improved?

On page 121 of the IAO document, reference is made to national policy where 'planning should minimise vulnerability and provide resilience to impacts of climate change, flood risk, landscape etc The River Crouch is recognised for its wildlife and natural habitats and must retain its open rural character. The Ramsar Convention is just one directive in place to protect wildlife.
On page 131 the Essex Wildlfe Trust identify the River Crouch as 'living landscape' and it would be criminal to destroy such landscape. Land to the SW of Hullbridge is designated Coastal Protection Belt and therefore not available/ suitable for building upon. We are urged to 'protect and enhance our distinctive landscapes and plan for biodiversity', not cover them with concrete.
We are proud of our green landscape and wish to preserve it.
Pages 140 and 163 mention air quality and light pollution. How can these be managed now and in the future? Air quality is already very poor in some areas and would worsen if more houses and vehicles were introduced into an already densely populated area. This could affect health and well-being of residents, particularly the young and elderly.
Light pollution has a negative effect on ecology and wildlife, obscures vision of the stars, spoils the rural fell of the area and causes stress and anxiety.

All these concerns and more I am registering here. As a resident of Hullbridge, I am proud to live in a village and moved here to dwell in a village. I wish Hullbridge to remain a village and retain its unique character.