Green Belt

to whomever it may concern.

i am objecting to the new local plan, due to in part, to the following reasons

INFRASTRUCTURE; roads are already congested enough, on top of any accidents on the main roads, resulting in the road network grinding to a halt. watery lane, based on inspectors report, needs to be improved prior to any development, in fact all local roads need improvement.

GREENBELT; greenbelt is there for a reason! coastal protection or flood planes....there has been an increase in local flooding, due to flood planes being built on!

SCHOOLS; local children from hullbridge are having to travel to castle point schools due to over subscription. my 2 year old very possibly wont get into our catchment school. not good enough...this is our future. how can i expect to get my child to school over 5 miles away, on time, when the infrastructure doesnt allow. and why should he have to live 5+ miles away from any friends.

LOCAL SERVICES; our doctors surgery is always full, often a 2-3 week wait for an appointment. the only buses into the village is the number 20...and this is the first service to be withdrawn when there is staff shortage/snow/any other reason!

i hope my and my husbands views are seriously taken into consideration

As discussed by phone with your planning department, I would like to make some comments/objections to proposed plots in the Strategic Housing & Employment Land Availability Assessment 2017 document.

The references are CFS 041 and CFS 042. These are farms with the potential for close on 200 houses to be built on Greenbelt. The following are the reasons why the building of this large number of homes is inappropriate for the location.

Lack of facilities: the location is 'poor' in your definitions as there are no shops, medical facilities, schools, etc within a reasonable distance. The now approved additional 500 houses being built in Hullbridge at the western end of Lower road and the many new houses recently constructed in Folly Lane will put a massive strain on local facilities even before additional houses are considered.

There is little public transport (approx. 1 bus each way a day) in Lower Road.

There is no mains sewerage and very poor mains drainage even before additional housing on such a large scale is considered. There is regular flooding of the road close to these farms due to the downhill nature of the surroundings with water coming down from fields. The sites are also not that far from the river with the future potential for flooding due to increases in sea levels and tidal surges.

Lower road has become, over the last 10 years, a major trunk route for fast moving lorries as well as commuters and farm traffic. It is now a 'dangerous' road for families with children. Air pollution due to these diesel lorries is already a major problem without the addition of up to 400 cars (2 cars per household is now the norm).

Farms will be more in demand as we need to become more self sufficient as a nation (particularly after Brexit) and the increase in numbers in South Essex would indicate more farm land rather than less.

If it is necessary to build further houses in Hullbridge then the brownfield site CFS 100 would be more appropriate rather than taking more greenbelt.

I am writing to express our concerns regarding the above planning site. We feel this would be totally unsuitable for the following reasons.

1. Southview Close is a narrow road and would not be able to cope with increased traffic levels.

2. This would put an enormous strain on the two nearest primary schools which are already oversubscribed with long waiting lists

3. It would spoil the outlook for the current residents who now have an uninterrupted view out onto Greenbelt land. We are constantly being told how important greenbelt land is to our well being but this would be lost if this goes ahead.

4. It would put an additional strain on the traffic flow in Eastwood Road which is already very busy.

5. There would be an increased risk of the brook flooding with the additional drainage required for any new properties being built.

Re: CFS024 Land north of Merryfield Avenue, Hockley: Mag G 119

We firmly object to the proposed development at the end of Marylands Avenue, north of Merryfields Avenue.

This land is Green Belt and is adjacent to Marylands Nature Reserve.

Building houses on this land would cause major disturbance to animals who live and use this as a corridor to the Nature Reserve. Bats, Badgers and Newts all live in this area, wildlife is already suffering in Hockley due to increased housing and population.

Marylands Nature Reserve and the proposed building site frequently floods and flood water could also back up to Marylands Avenue and Merryfield Avenue.

The sewage system that serves the Marylands area has often had problems.

The water pressure is already low, any extra housing will make this worse.

Broadband is ok at the moment, but will suffer with increased housing.

If the oak trees are ripped out it will cause heave in the future.

The only access to the land north of Merryfield Avenue is through the estate on narrow roads and is not in any way suitable for heavy lorries and potentially another 50+ residents cars.

In Hockley doctors surgeries and schools are full and our roads cannot cope with the traffic.

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

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


I also believe that a broad infrastructure needs study should be conducted by the council ahead of any planning permission decisions on new housing on the infrastructure required to support the appropriate number of houses required, paid for from the CIL generated from the housing proposed, and the appropriate permissions from planning and highways etc for the new schools, Drs surgeries, new roads, road improvements required to support the increase in demand for services is secured ahead of any development starting, so the infrastructure is built in tandem with the new housing required.

This letter provides Gladman Developments Ltd (Gladman) representations in response to the Issues and Options consultation for the New Rochford Local Plan. Gladman specialise in the promotion of strategic land for residential development with associated community infrastructure and welcome the opportunity to comment at this early stage of the plan preparation. We look forward to assisting the Council and hope our comments are helpful and considered constructively to aid the development of a sound plan.
Gladman has considerable experience in the development industry in a number of sectors including residential and employment development. From that experience, we understand the need for the planning system to provide local communities with the homes and jobs that they need to ensure that they have access to a decent home and employment opportunities.
Gladman also has a wealth of experience in contributing to the Development Plan preparation process, having made representations on numerous local planning documents throughout the UK and having participated in many local plan public examinations. It is on the basis of that experience that the comments are made in this representation.
The National Planning Policy Framework sets out four tests that must be met for Local Plans to be considered sound. In this regard, we submit that in order to prepare a sound plan it is fundamental that it is:
* Positively Prepared - The Plan should be prepared on a strategy which seeks to meet objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements including unmet requirements from neighbouring authorities where it is reasonable to do so and consistent with achieving sustainable development;
* Justified - the plan should be the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives, based on a proportionate evidence base;
* Effective - the plan should be deliverable over its period and based on effective joint working on crossboundary strategic priorities; and
* Consistent with National Policy - the plan should enable the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in the Framework.
The White Paper and Revised NPPF
The Government White Paper ('Fixing our Broken Housing Market') issued in February 2017 is a very clear statement from Government on the importance of the delivery of housing to the wider economy. The Government are in no doubt
that the housing market in Britain is broken which, according to the Prime Minister, is one of the greatest barriers to progress in the country today. Average house costs are almost eight times average earnings which is an all-time record and soaring prices and rising rents caused by a shortage of the right homes in the right places has slammed the door of the housing market in the face of a whole generation. The reason for this crisis is that the Country is simply not building enough homes and has not done so for far too long. The consensus is that we need from 225,000 to 275,000 or more homes per year to keep up with population growth and to start to tackle years of under-supply.
Everyone involved in politics and the housing industry therefore has a moral duty to tackle this issue head on. The White Paper states quite unequivocally that 'the housing shortage isn't a looming crisis, a distant threat that will become a problem if we fail to act. We are already living in it.' Tackling the housing shortage is not easy. It will inevitably require some tough decisions. But the alternative, according to the White Paper, is a divided nation, with an unbridgeable and ever-widening gap between the property haves and have-nots. The challenge of increasing supply cannot be met by government alone. It is vital to have local leadership and commitment from a wide range of stakeholders, including local authorities, private developers, housing associations, lenders and local communities. The starting point is building more homes. This will slow the rise in housing costs so that more ordinary working families can afford to buy a home and it will also bring the cost of renting down. We need more land for homes where people want to live. All areas therefore need a plan to deal with the housing pressures they face.
Currently, over 40 per cent of local planning authorities do not have a plan that meets the projected growth in households in their area. All local authorities should therefore develop an up-to-date plan with their communities that meets their housing requirement based upon an honest assessment of the need for new homes.
Local planning authorities have a responsibility to do all that they can to meet their housing requirements, even though not every area may be able to do so in full. The identified housing requirement should be accommodated in the Local Plan, unless there are policies elsewhere in the National Planning Policy Framework that provide strong reasons for restricting development, or the adverse impacts of meeting this requirement would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. Where an authority has demonstrated that it is unable to meet all of its housing requirement, it must be able to work constructively with neighbouring authorities to ensure the remainder is met.
Plans should be reviewed regularly and are likely to require updating in whole or in part at least every five years. An authority will also need to update their plan if their existing housing target can no longer be justified against their objectively assessed housing requirement. Policies in Local Plans should also allow a good mix of sites to come forward for development, so that there is choice for consumers, places can grow in ways that are sustainable, and there are opportunities for a diverse construction sector including opportunities for SME housebuilders to deliver much needed housing.
In terms of rural areas, the Government expects local planning authorities to identify opportunities for villages to thrive, especially where this would support services and help meet the need to provide homes for local people who currently
find it hard to live where they grew up. It is clear that improving the availability and affordability of homes in rural areas is vital for sustaining rural communities, alongside action to support jobs and services. There are opportunities to go further to support a good mix of sites and meet rural housing needs, especially where scope exists to expand settlements in a way which is sustainable and helps provide homes for local people. This is especially important in those rural areas where a high demand for homes makes the cost of housing a particular challenge for local people.
Finally, the Government have made it clear through the White Paper that local planning authorities are expected to have clear policies for addressing the housing requirements of groups with particular needs, such as older and disabled
people.
The White Paper is the cornerstone of future Government policy on fixing the broken housing market. It provides the direction of travel the Government is intending to take and is a clear statement of intent that this Government is serious
about the provision of the right number of houses in the right places. The Local Plan therefore needs to consider these policy intentions now in order to ensure that it fulfils the Government's agenda and provides the homes that its local communities need.
Following the election, Sajid Javid re-iterated the Government's intentions for boosting housing growth stating that he wants areas that have benefitted from soaring property prices to play their role in solving the housing crisis. Mr Javid
pointed out that where property prices were particularly unaffordable, local leaders would need to take a long, hard and honest look to see if they are planning for the right number of homes. Consultation on the new proposed standardised methodology for calculating housing need took place in late 2017. This has now been followed by consultation on a revised NPPF, which opened on the 5th March. The Council should therefore be very mindful of the changes this will entail to the plan preparation process to ensure the requirements of the new NPPF will be met when the final version is published and implemented later this year. Many of the changes consulted on in the Housing White Paper will be brought forward in the revised NPPF and this will assist the Council in determining its preferred options and also housing requirement as the plan preparation progresses.
Duty to Cooperate
The Duty to Cooperate is a legal requirement established through Section 33(A) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, as amended by Section 110 of the Localism Act. It requires local authorities to engage constructively, actively and on an ongoing basis with neighbouring authorities on cross-boundary strategic issues throughout the process of Plan Preparation. If a Council fails to satisfactorily discharge its Duty to Cooperate, this cannot be rectified through modifications and an Inspector must recommend non-adoption of the Plan.
Whilst Gladman recognise that the Duty to Cooperate is a process of ongoing engagement and collaboration, as set out in the PPG it is clear that the Duty is intended to produce effective policies on cross boundary strategic matters. In
this regard, the Council must be able to demonstrate that it has engaged and worked with its neighbouring authorities, alongside the existing joint work arrangements, to satisfactorily address cross boundary strategic issues, and the
requirement to meet any unmet housing needs. This is not simply an issue of consultation but a question to ensure that the Housing Market Area's (HMA's) housing needs are met in full. Failure to satisfactorily discharge the duty to cooperate cannot be rectified by modifications and a Planning Inspector
must recommend non-adoption of the plan. An issue familiar within the Housing Market Area following Castle Point's withdrawal of its Local Plan after a failure to satisfactorily discharge the Duty to Cooperate. The revised NPPF will require
a statement of common ground between authorities within the HMA which would require the updating of the current memorandum of understanding between the authorities. This document currently lacks any certainty that housing needs will be met within the HMA and this will require clarification moving forward.
Sustainability Appraisal
In accordance with Section 19 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, policies set out in Local Plans must be subject to a Sustainability Appraisal (SA),and also incorporate the requirements of the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004 (the SEA regulations).
The SA/SEA is a systematic process that should be undertaken at each stage of the Plans preparation, assessing the effects of the emerging proposals on sustainable development when judged against all reasonable alternatives. The Council should ensure that the future results of the SA clearly justify its policy choices. In meeting the development needs of the area, it should be clear from the results of this assessment why some policy options have progressed and others have been rejected. This must be undertaken through a comparative and equal assessment of each reasonable alternative, in the same level of detail for both chosen and rejected alternatives. The Council's decision making and scoring should be robust, justified and transparent.
Objectively Assessed Need
Gladman are concerned that the realistic options that have been identified for establishing the Objectively Assessed Needs and housing requirement for the plan are not actually realistic options and instead Options A and B are fundamental requirements for the plan making process whilst there is no sound basis for following option C.
Until the formal publication of the Government's standardised approach to assessing housing needs is published and implemented Gladman would suggest using the approach as established in the South Essex SHMA. This is currently considered to be a sound basis for assessing housing needs, with the upper range of the Objectively Assessed Need (OAN) for Rochford being a very similar figure to the standard methodology as currently proposed. Gladman suggest that this upper figure is aimed for now to reduce delay later in the plan preparation process. Whilst the Council are right to consider constraints on development within the Borough, environmental capacity should not be the sole reason for reducing its housing requirement. This is only one dimension of sustainable development and the Council should consider the social and economic benefits of housing delivery and whether these would outweigh the negative environmental impacts. Further, mitigation of these environmental impacts should be a consideration before deriving at the decision that the environmental capacity would not enable the delivery of full
objectively assessed housing needs. Should it be established that the Council cannot meet its own housing requirements this will require collaboration with
authorities in the HMA to ensure that these needs do not go unmet.
Affordable Housing
Gladman would suggest the use of a viability assessment to establish the level of affordable housing that will be sought in the Borough in the plan period. This should be at a level that does not affect the viability of development or push it to the margins. Until a viability assessment has been undertaken it is not possible to determine the correct approach to the level of affordable housing that should be provided. The level of affordable housing that development can reasonably support will vary in relation to the infrastructure required, the nature of the development strategy being taken forward and other policies in the plan, such as the optional technical standards.
Specialist Accommodation, Homes for Older People and Adults with Disabilities
The provision of specialist housing to meet the needs of older people is of increasing importance and the Council need to ensure that this is reflected through a positive policy approach within the Local Plan. The Councils need a robust understanding of the scale of this type of need across the Borough.
Specialist housing with care for older people is a type of housing which provides choice to adults with varying care needs and enables them to live as independently as possible in their own self-contained homes, where people are able to access high quality, flexible support and care services on site to suit their individual needs (including dementia care). Such schemes differ from traditional sheltered/retirement accommodation schemes and should provide internally
accessible communal facilities including residents' lounge, library, dining room, guest suit, quiet lounge, IT suit, assisted bathroom, internal buggy store and changing facilities, reception and care managers office and staff facilities.
Given the existing evidence in relation to ageing populations, and the national strategy in relation to housing for older people, Gladman recommend that the new Local Plan should include a specific policy in relation to the provision of specialist accommodation for older people. The following text provides an example of the type of policy which could be included in the new Local Plan:
"The provision of purpose built and/or specialist accommodation with care for older people in sustainable locations will be supported in Principle Settlements. Schemes should also be considered in other sustainable settlements where there is a proven need. Apartments should be restricted for occupation by only those with care needs, include minimum compulsory care packages, should also include age restrictions and an extensive range of communal facilities.
Schemes are expected to be promoted in partnership with an onsite 24/7 care provider to safeguard the delivery of care and support to residents.
Such schemes fall wholly within the auspices of C2 use, meet an otherwise unmet need for specialist accommodation for older people, deliver care and communal facilities and will not therefore be required to contribute towards affordable housing."
Delivering New Homes
Gladman suggest that a mix of options will be needed to ensure the delivery of the spatial strategy and housing requirement. To maximise housing supply the widest range of sites, by size and market location, are required so that house builders of all types and sizes have access to suitable land in order to offer the widest possible range of products.
The key to increased housing supply is that number of sales outlets. A wider variety of sites in the widest possible range of locations ensures all types of house builder have access to suitable land which in turn increase housing delivery.
Good Mix of Homes
Gladman do not consider it appropriate to set a target for the development of bungalows. Bungalows will have a much larger footprint than two and three-story homes of the same floor area and as such have a significant impact on viability
due to the reduction in the number of units that can be delivered on a site. The Council must also remember that there is a need to maximise development on each site and the delivery of bungalows will significantly reduce the capacity of each site. This will require the Council to release more land or set higher density targets than the 30 dwellings per hectare, as identified as an option on page 50, if it is to meet housing needs.
Green Belt
Gladman urge the Council to undertake a full review of the Green Belt within the Borough to identify areas that are no longer meeting the five purposes of Green Belt as set out in the Framework. Once established these areas should be considered for release from the Green Belt to help meet the OAN for the Borough. Without having undertaken this work the Council will not be able to justify not meeting its own needs, especially if other authorities indicate they will not be
able to help Rochford meet any unmet needs.
Conclusions
We hope you find these comments helpful and if you require clarification on any of the issues raised in this letter please contact me. If you could add me to your mailing list for the new Local Plan and any supporting documents I would be most grateful.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have largely restricted this to housing and the environment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Infrastructure
The effect on footways must be considered and well as Highways. In rural areas if there is no dedicated footway Pedestrians may be forced to walk in the road. If development increases traffic then consideration must be given to the safety of these pedestrians both within the development and on affected roads. An example of this is Southend Road, Great Wakering there is a "Country Path" from Star Lane roundabout to Oldbury Cottages, this is a section of the verge which I understand has some gravel on it where grass/vegetation grows through. Even when the vegetation is cut this is impassable for people pushing pushchairs/buggies and so young women push their children in pushchairs in the road. With the increase in traffic with the new and planned development this is a disaster waiting to happen.
This section needs making into a permanent footway. I have attempted to use this myself and as you can't see what you are treading on most of the time I felt safer walking in the road and only taking refuge from traffic on the embankment when I had to get out of the way of vehicles. I could have easily stumbled and fallen into the path of a car. Another example is Pointers Lane Great Wakering where most of this has no footway.
2. Development Strategy
What RDC need is a Strategy to serve them for the next 50 years. One way might be to plan a new town which is created in a way that it is extendable, or be forever tacking bits onto existing settlements - at what time does this become impractical?.
A properly planned new town with Doctors, Schools, Shops, roads and planned interface with existing road and rail is far better than piece meal unplanned sprawl.
Accumulated effects of piecemeal development. You cannot keep tacking bits onto an existing settlements and not increase the roads serving the settlement. Also small developments do not attract the same infrastructure eg schools.
3. Section 106 and CIL
Any Section 106 or Cil improvements must be proved to be practical before they are built into the Planning agreement. In Wakering for York Mews there was an agreement to change the kerbs at a bus stop in the High Street, but when they came to do the work it was impractical due to the position of existing crossovers, so the money was lost which could have been put into another nearby project
The Parish Council's opinion should be sought regarding what is needed in the area plus the Local Highways Panels should be consulted to see what improvements have been suggested.
4. Local Wildlife sites and green sites
We are not alone and careful consideration needs to be made before changes are made to the environment. Some orchids need a specific environment and Bee Orchids have been destroyed where someone, without careful consideration, or sheer ignorance, put building rubble on a track, within a Wildlife Site. The Pyamidal Orchids also have not been seen for the past 2 years. It is so simple to destroy an eco-climate.

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

Infrastructure

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

Schools

These secondary schools have little room for expansion.

Wellbeing and Health

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

Green Belt

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

Jobs and Commercial Development

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would welcome your response.

Here is the reason I don't want the buildings to take place.

The fields in Great Wakering are the main part of the village as this village has been around more then 100 years and farming has been at the heart of it. Also the fields are still in use today. Another reason is that the wildlife is very important because every morning when i go to school I can here the birds singing and i like looking, at the fields as me and my friends walk down to the bus stop. Finally, everybody bascilly know each other which is very good.

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

I object to both the scale and nature of the outlined proposal ,as follows :
1. No matching funding for a supporting Infrastructure.
2. No guarantees that Utilities can match extra demands.
3. No spare capacity within Health & Care Services.
4. No let up in the sacrifice of the Green Belt & Air Quality.
5. No long-term LAGACY left for our future generations.

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

1. No matching funding for a supporting Infrastructure.

2. No guarantees that Utilities can match extra demands.

3. No spare capacity within Health & Care Services.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I will list my comments in numbered form (see below):

1) General Communication - The document as presented on the Council's website is not easy to navigate and a significant amount of detail is difficult to locate. This view has been expressed by a number of people, including professional IT workers.

2) At this stage I would expect all possible sites to form part of this document, so it is curious that a particular prominent site in Great Wakering is missing. The site of the "Red Lion Public House" has not been identified. It is well known that this site will at some point be developed in the future. I would also suspect that this site would be considered a "Brownfield Site". It must be included.

3) A "Greenbelt Assessment" is currently taking place, but surely this should have been completed prior the completion of the Issues & Options Document, and before it was circulated for public consultation. Therefore, residents are commenting without a complete picture of the process, and this could hinder their ability to give a comprehensive view.

4) Site CFS011, CFS070 & CFS065 - Currently designated Metropolitain Greenbelt. A significant part of the site (CFS011) is in Flood Zone 3, which would normally be considered unsuitable for housing development. The site falls within Policy S8 of the ECC Minerals Local Plan. There could be issues with regard to an appropriate access road onto the site, and the main access road would lead into a difficult bend at Cupids Corner. Site CFS065 would have issues if an access point was considered from New Road, which is a narrow country lane. Access through the village via the High Street would lead to increased traffic flow and congestion at a very narrow part. This is also the "Conservation Area" of the village. Is it appropriate to look to develop a site in the far eastern part of the District, when industry and employment is located more to the west.

5) Site CFS153 - Currently designated Metropolitain Greenbelt. The whole of the site falls within Flood Zone 3. Mitigation of the flood risk would be expensive for any future developer, and therefore could make it unattractive. Why have a site that may not be economic to bring forward? Access onto Common Road would be difficult, and will impact on the local wildlife as the "Village Duck Pond" is located close by. The pond is inhabited all year round by a considerable mount and range of wildfowl.

6) Site CFS057 & CFS097 - CFS057 is an awkward shaped site and is broken down into 3 sections. Some of the western section forms part of the Council's existing Local Plan. Both sites are currently designated as Metropolitain Greenbelt, and site CFS057 may have some issues with flood risk as some of the site falls within Flood Zone 3. Both sites falls within Policy S8. Site CFS097 may also be bound by legal constraints.

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

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

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

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

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

5. Utilities how would they cope with more houses.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I write to place my objection to the future development with regard to Map Ref CFS 065.
I feel that Great Wakering has had enough new building in the last year to now say that Great Wakering has lost its village status. It appears that no one in the Council is giving much thought into how busy the roads are, there are problems all over with double parking not allowing proper space for buses, lorries, dustcarts to pass, constant parking on grass verges and half way onto paths as most resident have more than one vehicle. The public transport in this area is not good so very few people will give up their cars.
The local Surgery in the High Street is stretched to capacity and its difficult for patients to get routine appointments leave alone an emergency one.
How are the local school supposed to meet the demands of new residents.
The area behind my home is supposed to be at risk of flooding so how will new residents get a decent insurance cover.
When we bought this property over 30 years ago we were at the time led to believe this was "Green Belt" and is the main reason for our purchase.

Further to the Council's consultation on the Issues and Options, I should like to offer the following feedback:

* Site S001 - Rayleigh Garden Centre - This appears to be a suitable development site within Rayleigh as it is of a decent scale to deliver both market and affordable housing; it benefits from ingress and egress the Eastwood Road; and there could be suitable buffers to neighbouring properties to limit nuisance during development and post completion.

* Site S102 - Land to the north of Rayleigh Garden Centre - This also appears to be a suitable site for development as it is of sufficient size to generate some affordable housing and it could be buffered from neighbours.

* Site CF S068 - Land to the south of Daws Heath Road at Lower Wyburns Farm - This does not appear to be a suitable site as it is greenbelt stopping the ribbon development down Daws Heath Road; Daws Heath Road will be unable to cope with additional traffic as it not built to a suitable standard; the increased traffic leading on to the A127 will add to the existing danger at this difficult junction; and the additional development will exacerbate an existing problem with drainage as highlighted by the 2014 flooding within existing properties.

* Site CF S069 - Land to the north of Daws Heath Road at Lower Wyburns Farm - This does not appear to be a suitable site as, just like site CF S068, it is greenbelt stopping the ribbon development down Daws Heath Road; Daws Heath Road will be unable to cope with additional traffic as it not built to a suitable standard; the increased traffic leading on to the A127 will add to the existing danger at this difficult junction; and the additional development will exacerbate an existing problem with drainage as highlighted by the 2014 flooding within existing properties.

> I am writing this email to express my concern about the proposed New Local plan and in particular CFS074 (adjoining Mount Bovers Lane).
>
> This particular site is not only of outstanding beauty and enjoyed by many of the local people it would significantly add to the already congested roads in the immediate area (eg Potash roundabout and Spar roundabout) during peak travel times.
>
> Overall the number of different sites/houses being proposed is very concerning as I understand there are no plans to provide additional roads and infrastructure. Therefore I would urge the council to reduce their overall target to something that is more sustainable to the area.
>

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 wish to inform you of my objections for the following sites you are looking to build on:
GF03
CFS011
CFS065
CFS070
CFS056
CFS034
CFS097
CFS057
CFS004
CFS142
CFS103
CFS071
CFS125
CFS153
CFS060
CFS115/SER9
BFR1
GF02
EXP11
The reasons for my objection are:
Poor infrastructure; too many cars for the local roads, no pavements for pedestrians to walk to the nearest station, lack of more frequent buses.
Lack of schools, particularly senior school. Lack of space at the Doctors' surgery and increased pressure on local hospital. Destruction of plants and wildlife. Most of the land is greenbelt, this should remain sacred.
I have lived in this village for 25 years. I chose to live in the village for its community spirit and because it's small and quiet.
I totally understand the need for more housing but Great Wakering and Barling are not the places.

OBJECTION

1) I OBJECT because the approach roads to the proposed site are too narrow:
a) for construction vehicles
b) for extra traffic from new properties.

2) I OBJECT because this is next to the nature reserve and will disrupt natural habitat and living conditions.

3) I OBJECT because the site is too small to sustain the proposed development.

4) I OBJECT because this IS Greenbelt and another intrusion into it.

5) I OBJECT because this small area is totally unsuitable for more housing.

6) I OBJECT because this area floods already and will cause major problems with water flow if built on.

GENERAL CONCERN
The development of Hockley, Rayleigh, Rochford and surrounding areas with an additional 9,000 homes by 2037 will have a serious and adverse impact on the quality of life for existing residents. By its own admission the RDC make plain that money has to be found to alleviate the resulting increase in pressure on our roads, our hospital, GP practices, care home facilities, the schools, leisure facilities and more besides.

Central Government simply does not have the funds available now or in the future to finance NHS England, the Highway Agency and others in order to provide the necessary infrastructure, (and its ongoing maintenance,) to keep pace with the proposed increase in the local population brought about by an additional 9,000 homes.

Furthermore, the developers themselves are not interested in shouldering any of the ongoing maintenance costs of public buildings. For example, the developer of the Hall Road housing estate has refused to pay for the cost of maintaining the proposed school.

In the worst case scenarios residents will pay with their own lives if local government does not have the necessary funding in place. For example, the stark reality of an NHS at breaking point has been laid bare this winter.

SPECIFIC CONCERN
I am also writing to voice my reasons why the land to the north of Malvern Road, described as CFS023 and also the land at the head of Malvern Road, described as COL38 in the Strategic Housing and Employment Land Availability Assessment (SHELAA) 2017 is NOT suitable for housing development for reasons of topography, geography and ecology as detailed in the two documents attached.

By contrast the Council is better advised to consider other parcels of the land such as those adjacent to Mount Bovers Lane and also the land behind the "Cock Inn" and adjacent to the roundabout at the northern end of Cherry Orchard Lane. These are flat expanses making them less expensive to develop; are well connected to Hall Road and better linked to the A127. Also, they are in close proximity to the development of industrial units adjacent to Cherry Orchard Lane and the planned expansion of business at Southend Airport making it a more suitable location for employees moving into the area.

Please find enclosed 2 documents attached which should be read in conjunction with this e-mail.

Objections to the development of the small plot of land at the head of Malvern Road - "Play Area"
Rochford District Council Plan to 2037 - site identification COL38 refers.
What follows are objections to the development of land at the head of Malvern Road (Council reference COL38,) and why the Council should remove it from the Strategic Housing and Employment Land Availability Assessment (SHELAA) 2017 document and any future editions.
1. Designated Children's Play Area
This area is designated a children's play area. Families living in Malvern Road and the surrounding area exercise their right to access and enjoyment of this land.
It was inspected about 3 years ago by Rochford District Council and its use as a children's play area upheld after a proposal to make it a bridal way was rejected.
2. Access to Beckney Woods and the surrounding area
This area of land is also used every day by numerous walkers as an access to Beckney Woods.
3. Recognised Public Right of Way
In 2014 an inquiry recognised the existence of a public right of way across the Children's Play Area. The report also records the concern expressed by objectors, (to the bridleway,) for the need to protect the public open space from any development.
The Inquiry was opened on 21st May 2014 (then adjourned until to 21st October due to ill health of one of the representatives.)The Inspector, Mr Martin Elliott published his report on 1st December 2014. In it he recognises the route used by pedestrians across the Children's Play Area over a period of time and ruled it to be a public right of way.
In his concluding remarks (point 39) he also records the significant concern expressed by the objectors, (including local residents,) for the need to protect the public open space from development.
4. Inappropriate access for vehicles via Malvern Road
The steep gradient (estimated at 15%) and narrow width make the thin strip of land connecting the Play Area with Malvern Road a dangerous junction for motorists and hence poses a threat to pedestrians. Its use as access for any development on the Play Area is wholly unacceptable.
5. Flash Flooding
There is a real concern that the increasing frequency of extreme weather caused by the impact of global warming on our climate coupled with any development of the Play Area will give rise to the nuisance of "flash flooding" in Malvern Road caused by the inability of drainage to cope with extreme volumes of rain water.

The unsuitability of the land for development at the rear of Malvern Road and Harrogate Drive
Rochford District Council Plan to 2037 - site identification CFS023 refers.
What follows are the reasons why the land to the north of Malvern Road (Council reference CFS023,) is considered the least suitable for development and why the Council should remove it from the Strategic Housing and Employment Land Availability Assessment (SHELAA) 2017 document and any future editions.
1. Excessive gradient of the land
Any housing development will require deep piling and foundations to take account of the gradient of the land. This will add additional costs making it more expensive to build on.
Along an east-west axis the land rises by approximately 25 meters (85 feet.) Along a south-to-north axis behind existing houses in Malvern Road the land rises by approximately 20 meters (66 feet) when measured from number 50 Malvern Road to the high ground at top of the field.
2. Clay and Blue Clay - subsidence
In addition to an excessive gradient, the land sits on clay making it necessary to construct deeper foundations in order to resist subsidence. This will add additional costs making it more expensive to build on.
Also there is a possibility that areas of blue clay exist. At the time Malvern Road was developed 40 years ago work was interrupted and it is believed that an area of blue clay was investigated.
3. Rain water - history of flooding
Any development will significantly increase the risk of flooding to existing properties backing onto the fields. Residents already suffer flooding of their land caused by a spring which appears in the higher elevation at the south west boundary of the field after prolonged periods of wet weather. It is understood that it is fed by the corresponding rise in the level of the water table beneath the field. The resulting stream follows the downward slope of the land in a west to east direction adjacent to the existing garden fence line, but also overspills in a north to south direction and so floods into existing back gardens.
The concern is that building on top of the water table will have an adverse impact on the natural ability of the land to absorb periods of wet weather and therefore will increase the frequency of the spring appearing and hence increase the episodes when existing back gardens flood.
4. Rain water - flash flooding
Also, there is real concern that the increasing frequency of extreme weather caused by the impact of global warming on our climate coupled with any development of the land behind Malvern Road will give rise to the nuisance of "flash flooding" caused by the inability of drainage to cope with extreme volumes of rain water and hence give rise to even more frequent flooding of the gardens to existing properties.
Any development of the land will require a developer to incur the extra cost of foul drainage, "swails" and balancing ponds.
5. Infrastructure - insufficient water pressure
There is a fear that the existing system of pumps and pipe work maintained by the water utility companies are insufficient to support any more development in the area adjacent to Malvern Road. It is understood that the fresh water pumps work at near capacity to maintain a sufficient pressure. Already there are occasions when some residents suffer periods of reduced water pressure.
The proposed number/density of housing together with the elevated nature of the land will, it is believed, require a water utility company to design and install a system of new pumps and more pipework to cope thereby making this area of land more expensive to develop.
6. Infrastructure - undeveloped access
There is not the land available to widen the junction at the bottom of Harrogate Drive with Greensward Lane to make it safe for the dramatic increase in the volume of traffic turning into or out Harrogate Drive. The existing bungalows and their gardens (with trees planted in one garden,) come hard up to the junction of both roads.
It is suggested that the Council would have to make a compulsory purchase of the gardens & perhaps even one of the bungalows in order to widen the junction and make it safe for vehicles joining or leaving the busy Greensward Lane and so avoid having to swing into the path of oncoming traffic.
In addition, Harrogate Drive is an unmade road. Also, at the northern end it is bounded by thick boarders of hedgerow and at least two existing telegraph poles almost opposite one another making the upper stretch too narrow for two way traffic and pedestrian pavements.
A developer would have the added cost of developing Harrogate Drive. In the process of doing so it would mean the resulting loss of hedgerow habit for nesting birds such as Black Birds. See later objection.
7. Infrastructure - Harrogate Drive - no mains sewage
Not all of Harrogate Drive is connected to mains sewage. One or more properties rely on a septic tank.
A developer will have the added expense of survey and installation costs.
8. Pristine Green Belt Land
Any development of the fields behind Malvern Road will strip Hockley of important green belt land bordering Beckney Woods and has the potential to seriously damage the wood itself. See later.
The fields under threat of development have only been used for grazing. They have not been sprayed with insecticides or similar chemicals therefore the land is afforded pristine ecological value.
9. Damage to Beckney Woods (ancient woodland) and Loss of Hedgerows
The proposed density of new housing will threaten the ecology, fauna and flora that currently thrive in and around Beckney Woods. A sharp rise in the number of people walking through the wood will threaten the existence of Blue Bells, Wood Anemones and Wood Celendine that carpet the ground.
The wood is believed to have existed for hundreds of years. Natural England confirm that Beckney Wood is classified as "ancient woodland".
Also, the proposed access via Harrogate Drive will strip the existing hedgerow and so deprive a vital habitat for wildlife in the area including nesting blackbirds.
10. Protected animals and loss of habitat
There is concern about the impact of development on the indigenous wildlife in Beckney Woods and the surrounding fields. Bats and Adders are regularly observed by residents. Barn Owls, Sparrow Hawks, Buzzards, and also Herons, Pheasants plus Red and Green Woodpeckers are also seen in the field or flying overhead. Foxes, muntjac deer and a badger set rely on the wood and fields. Pond owners in Malvern Road have observed Great Crested Newts in the past.
11. Encroachment on Privacy
Any development of the field behind Malvern Road will result in a total loss of privacy for up to 17 residents whose houses back onto the land. These properties have small back gardens measuring less than 40ft in some cases. And so the fact that the land behind is substantially elevated combined with the associated excessive gradient means that any new houses will overlook the ground floor, the first floor and the gardens belonging to most of the existing 17 residents.
12. Impact on the character of the neighborhood and loss of amenities
The proposed density of new housing will have an adverse impact on the existing character of what has always been a very quiet and peaceful neighborhood for more than 40 years. It will mean that in addition to the total loss of loss of privacy, residence will also be adversely impacted by an increase in nuisance caused by more noise generated by a large increase in the number of neighbors; the noise from a 100 or more extra vehicles accessing Harrogate Drive and motoring about the housing development; and for residents backing onto any new development the nuisance of light pollution caused by street lighting and exterior house lighting.
At present existing residents enjoy good air quality. Any development will take this away. Existing residents will have to suffer the nuisance caused by an increase in exhaust emissions from vehicles accessing and moving within any new development. The slower vehicle speeds, sub 30 mph, will mean the associated carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides and 'particulate matter' will take longer to disperse and so will adversely impact what is a very quiet neighborhood with good air quality.
13. Loss of amenities - view of fields and woodlands
The development being proposed will rob the residents of enjoyment and a quality of life afforded by the views of the fields and woodland. Many have lived in the road for more than 20 years and some are the original residents of Malvern Road going back 40 years.

Map Ref CFS065

I am writing this letter with regards to a meeting that was held at Great Wakering Community Centre. This meeting took place on Thursday, 22 February it was about the proposed buying of land by the council to build more houses.

We oppose the amount that is being allowed to be built as this is classified as a village and is fast becoming part of Shoeburyness due to the amount that ha already been allowed to be built. Look at Alexandra Road. This should have been only 38 homes there is in excess of 140 on many days it would be hard to get Emergency services down there due to insurficent parking, and people parking on the pavement which results in broken pavements thus resulting in claims against the Council.

a. The land at the back of Shoebury Road where I live is arm greenbelt land, this was one of the factor that made use buy this property plus the estuary views, this reflected in the price that was paid, and should this land be sold and built on it would devalue all of our properties that surround this area, therefore we will be seeking compensation for our losses.

b. There is also other facts like infurstructure, when every we have heavy rainfull the drains cannot cope where Shoebury Rd meets New Rd it always floods plus other area along the High St.

c. The bus service is most of the time unreliable, if they turn up many are cancelled for the return journey. This is not suitable for people who have had treatment for cancer, this leaves the patient tired, and does not want the added stress of a bad public service.

d. Pollution recently this has been above the legal requirement of the W A O Pollution contributes to 46000 premature deaths per year, traffic is a big factor in pollution.

e. There is an argument stating these new homes will provide jobs, these are only temp. Or we need affordable homes, a majority of homes being built are second homes that's put up for rent, keeping house prices high.

f. Schools, Doctors, Hospitals, cannot cope now let alone with the extra volume of people flooding into the area.

g. There is in excess of 380,000 empty properties across Essex, this is 38yrs of our allocated build. Therefore once you allow building on greenbelt land to take place our future generations will suffer as there will not be fresh Veg, Fruit, meat. This will affect the economy as we will have to import. Also many cancers are caused through proceesed food.

h. It is a fact that Wakering cannot cope with parking as many of these properties are over 100yrs old. The council are paying out £millions on claims due to broken pavements due to cars parking on them, plus the amount it cost with litter this cost the country £146 million per year.

i. What about the amount of houseowners/rented that dont pay council tax for what ever reason.

j. It can take up to 45 mins to get to cuckcoo corner, therefore if an ambulance was needed? How many lives will be lost through this.

k. Most of this land that the council are trying to buy and sell off for building is farm/greenbelt, therefore this government stated would not be used.

l. As for flood plains, surely the more concreate that's put down the more floods will be a result of this, thus making many properties uninsureable.

Map Ref CFS065

I am writing this letter with regards to a meeting that was held at Great Wakering Community Centre. This meeting took place on Thursday, 22 February it was about the proposed buying of land by the council to build more houses.

We oppose the amount that is being allowed to be built as this is classified as a village and is fast becoming part of Shoeburyness due to the amount that ha already been allowed to be built. Look at Alexandra Road. This should have been only 38 homes there is in excess of 140 on many days it would be hard to get Emergency services down there due to insurficent parking, and people parking on the pavement which results in broken pavements thus resulting in claims against the Council.

a. The land at the back of Shoebury Road where I live is arm greenbelt land, this was one of the factor that made use buy this property plus the estuary views, this reflected in the price that was paid, and should this land be sold and built on it would devalue all of our properties that surround this area, therefore we will be seeking compensation for our losses.

b. There is also other facts like infurstructure, when every we have heavy rainfull the drains cannot cope where Shoebury Rd meets New Rd it always floods plus other area along the High St.

c. The bus service is most of the time unreliable, if they turn up many are cancelled for the return journey. This is not suitable for people who have had treatment for cancer, this leaves the patient tired, and does not want the added stress of a bad public service.

d. Pollution recently this has been above the legal requirement of the W A O Pollution contributes to 46000 premature deaths per year, traffic is a big factor in pollution.

e. There is an argument stating these new homes will provide jobs, these are only temp. Or we need affordable homes, a majority of homes being built are second homes that's put up for rent, keeping house prices high.

f. Schools, Doctors, Hospitals, cannot cope now let alone with the extra volume of people flooding into the area.

g. There is in excess of 380,000 empty properties across Essex, this is 38yrs of our allocated build. Therefore once you allow building on greenbelt land to take place our future generations will suffer as there will not be fresh Veg, Fruit, meat. This will affect the economy as we will have to import. Also many cancers are caused through proceesed food.

h. It is a fact that Wakering cannot cope with parking as many of these properties are over 100yrs old. The council are paying out £millions on claims due to broken pavements due to cars parking on them, plus the amount it cost with litter this cost the country £146 million per year.

i. What about the amount of houseowners/rented that dont pay council tax for what ever reason.

j. It can take up to 45 mins to get to cuckcoo corner, therefore if an ambulance was needed? How many lives will be lost through this.

k. Most of this land that the council are trying to buy and sell off for building is farm/greenbelt, therefore this government stated would not be used.

l. As for flood plains, surely the more concreate that's put down the more floods will be a result of this, thus making many properties uninsureable.

I would endorse Ruth Gwinnell's comments below but would add that the proposals represent an over development - Hullbridge would lose its character. I am also concerned about building on a flood plain - will people get affordable buildings/contents insurance for these properties? If not, they could risk being left standing empty.

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.

RDC ref: COL38. MALVERN ROAD
Object is hereby made into possible inclusion of this site in the proposed development plan.

It is a designated play area and should remain as such.



LETTER
Land availability, local plan. Ref: CFS023 Site south of Beckney Wood

I object to the proposal by RDC to build 7500 additional homes in the District.

Existing infrastructure is struggling to cope at the present time, for example low mains pressure, access to A and E and G.P. appointments and additional homes will only add to the problems. The road network is barely able to cope even at present levels with long queues at peak times, with the resulting frustrating delays and the additional pollution caused by exhaust fumes and stationery vehicles. I can find no evidence of the existence of significant plans to improve the road infrastructure.

I object to the proposal to include land to the south of Beckney Wood in the Local Plan as a possible development site. Beckney Wood is registered by Natural England, Ref: 1120652 as 'Ancient woodland with semi-natural priority habitat'. The site in question is immediately south and is designated 'Green Belt' and as such should not be development unless there are 'very special circumstances', and I do not believe that they currently exist. Case law from Court judgements in 2014 and 2015 established that 'shortfall of land supply very rarely warrants grants for permission' and that the drawing up of a new Local Plan does not constitute 'exceptional circumstances'.

One of the listed functions of the Green Belt is to 'provide a contiguous habitat network for wild plants, animals and wildlife. The identified site, where legend has it, the dead from the Battle of Assendune were laid out and subsequently buried has been grazed continuously until 2016. Flora and fauna, invertebrates large and small have been able to thrive on the site free from cultivation, mechanical disturbance, ploughing and the pesticide spraying of modern farming practices.
As such it provides a much richer and varied habitat than the same area of cultivated farmland. The site is a buffer to the ancient woodland of Beckney Wood. Buffer areas next to ancient woodlands are set out as a requirement in the National Planning Policy Document. Furthermore, paragraph 118 of the Document goes on to say that 'planning permission should be refused for development resulting in loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats including ancient woodland'.

The site was not granted planning permission back in c1976 when the whole field was then considered for development. Malvern Road was set down as the northern limit of development in order to allow this buffer zone to be established.

As I write, I note that there is currently a White Paper before Parliament which is seeking to given even more protection for ancient woodland.

I object to the proposal on the basis that there would be an increased risk of flooding to the properties in Malvern road. During periods of heavy rain there is extensive run off which would be made worse by development.

I object because development of the site which has a significant slope to the existing houses in Malvern Road would cause a lack of privacy and intrusion on a greater scale than if the site were level.

I object because development of the site would increase the traffic using Greensward Lane which would in turn lengthen the queues during rush hours at Hockley Spa. If the Council is of a mind to allow extensive development in the Rochford District then it would seem preferable to locate it at the west of the District in the Rayleigh area where access to main A roads is much closer. Similarly, access to the A127 would be easier from the Hall Road/Cherry Orchard area.

In conclusion, I would urge the Council to resist excessive development to the District which affects the quality of life for us all and to prevent the site adjacent to Beckney Wood from being in any development Plan.

Introduction

Para 1.15 Response: The Borough Council welcomes the acknowledgement of the importance of working in partnership and the important role that the Association of South Essex Local Authorities has in providing the guidance and framework for the preparation of local plans in south Essex through the preparation of a Joint Spatial Plan.

Spatial Challenges

Rochford Challenge - how do we deliver new jobs that residents can access?

Following Para 4.5 Response: The Borough Council considers it essential that the Rochford District works closely with the Borough to ensure the effective delivery of employment provision to meet future needs in both Southend and Rochford and welcomes the comments that it needs 'to work closely with our neighbouring areas to ensure that our plans across the sub-region take into consideration future projected growth in homes and jobs'.

Rochford Challenge - how do we deliver infrastructure to support new homes and jobs?

Following Para 4.6 Response: The Borough Council considers it essential that proposals for infrastructure provision are developed in partnership with neighbouring authorities, particularly Southend Borough.

Rochford Challenge - how do we work with our neighbours to meet the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate?

Following Para 4.7 Response: The Borough Council considers it essential that Rochford District continues to work closely with Southend and other south Essex Local Authorities as part of the Association of South Essex Local Authorities and through cooperation on plan making issues of mutual interest and value.

Rochford Challenge - how do we work with our neighbouring areas to address strategic, cross boundary issues, and in particular any unmet need for new homes and jobs?

Following Para 4.17 Response: The Borough Council considers that joint working as part of the Association of South Essex Local Authorities is an effective way to address strategic cross boundary issues, particularly unmet need for new homes and jobs and through cooperation on plan making issues.

Southend is a land constrained authority and may not be able to meet local housing needs in full and therefore continued cooperation is required with Rochford Council and the other authorities of South Essex to ensure that housing need can be met across the housing market area.

Given the extensive boundary between Rochford and Southend and numerous shared assets, joint working between the authorities will be essential to consider strategic issues, particularly around London Southend Airport and environs, building upon the existing Joint Rochford and Southend Area Action Plan.

Rochford Challenge - how do we work with other areas, such as London, to address strategic, cross boundary issues, and in particular any unmet need for new homes and jobs?

Following Para 4.18 Response: The Borough Council considers that the most effective way of working with other areas such as London, is to engage with them as a member of the Association of South Essex Local Authorities.

Vision and Strategic Objectives

Response: The Borough Council welcomes the approach put forward as part of the vision and key themes particularly the recognition in the strategic objectives of the need to work with neighbouring authorities in south Essex and to continue to support 'London Southend Airport as a thriving regional airport, serving London and the South East, as well as supporting the continued growth and innovation at the Airport Business Park'.
However, under the key theme of 'environment' the Borough Council is concerned to ensure that the new local plan takes into full account the identified development needs in the sub-region, particularly in relation to housing provision. As currently drafted 'we have retained our open character and extensive Metropolitan Green Belt designation, whilst providing for the needs of future communities, as far as possible', implies that the there is little scope for meeting future needs outside the current urban areas. The Borough Council considers that this aspect of the theme should be redrafted to recognise the importance of meeting future development needs.

Delivering Homes and Jobs

Para 6.3 Response: Whilst local job growth outside of the main centres should be promoted in sustainable locations and for certain 'bad-neighbour' or 'large footprint' land uses, significant job growth should be prioritised at those major centres that are supported by an adequate resident workforce population and are well served by frequent and extensive public transport, thus facilitating sustainable commuting patterns.

Para 6.29 Response: Detailed scrutiny will be required of the Environmental Capacity Study 2015. Rochford has one of the lowest population densities in the County and the conclusion that there may not be environmental capacity to meet housing need is surprising. The emphasis should be on sustainable development and a balance of social, economic and environmental considerations.

Para. 6.60 Response: Retention of a density policy advocating 30 dwellings per hectare (dph) is overly restrictive with higher densities likely to be sustainable and appropriate in many circumstances, particularly on brownfield land and in areas in close proximity to public transport. A blanket density of 30 dph is not likely to facilitate efficient use of land.

Response: The recognition of the need to work with neighbouring local Authorities in meeting future housing needs is welcomed by the Borough Council and the second option of working 'with neighbouring Local Planning Authorities to ensure that housing need across the South Essex Housing Market Area is effectively met' is supported. The Borough Council also welcomes the recognition that the Green Belt needs to be reassessed as part of the new local plan preparation process. In relation to business needs the Borough Council considers it important that the current employment growth policy is updated to reflect future needs, broadband provision and speed is improved and that the need for supporting sustainable travel options and promoting highways improvements as part of any scheme is essential (paragraph 6.96 options two, three and five).

London Southend Airport

Response: The Borough Council welcomes the recognition of the need to continue to support the growth potential of London Southend Airport. It supports options three and four (paragraph 6.117) to retain the policies contained in the JAAP and to seek to improve surface access to the Airport.

Supporting Commercial Development

Response: The Borough Council considers it essential that local retail policy is developed in accordance with the sub-regional strategy that will emerge as part cooperation across South Essex. The Borough Council therefore supports option 5 (paragraph 7.20) to review current action area policies to take into account the provisions of the sub-regional retail strategy.

Delivering Infrastructure
Highway Infrastructure

Response: The Borough Council welcomes the recognition of the need for highway improvements to support economic growth in the sub-region and supports the first option in paragraph 8.21 to 'support improvements to the strategic highway network.'

Sustainable Travel

Response: The Borough Council welcomes the recognition of the need to work in partnership to improve sustainable travel facilities and supports option 1 paragraph 8.37 to improve connectivity across the wider South Essex area. It would prefer to see the option for taking forward SERT (option 2 paragraph 8.37) retained pending further sub-regional work on the development of a Joint Spatial Plan.
Renewable Energy Generation
Response: The Borough council supports option 2 paragraph 8.66 to install new electric vehicle charging points in appropriate areas across the Rochford District. New public fast charging points in all areas of South Essex are crucial components to encourage the adoption of the electric car which the Borough Council sees as a realistic method of reducing air pollution in South Essex leading to the subsequent removal of AQMAs in both Rochford and Southend. Southend Borough council supports the installation of a wide network of electric chargers and fast chargers to aid with maintaining good quality air for the residents.
Supporting Health, Community and Culture

Response: The Borough Council considers it to be essential that partnership working to deliver appropriate future health care facilities continues with health organisations and providers and as part of the wider joint working of the Association of South Essex Local Authorities. The Borough Council supports the options 2 and 4 (paragraph 9.11)to ensure that land is specifically allocated for healthcare facilities and future planning policy builds on the existing healthcare policy to address wider health and well-being issues.

Protecting and Enhancing the Environment
Green Belt

Response: The Borough Council welcomes the recognition that Green Belt policy will need to be reviewed objectively as part of local plan preparation. The Borough Council considers that this should be undertaken in partnership and as part of the wider south Essex planning work. It is considered that option 2 (paragraph 10.16) to 'amend the current Green Belt policy in the Core Strategy' should be the preferred option.

Biodiversity, Geology and Green Infrastructure

Response: The Borough Council supports options 1 and 8 (paragraph 10.27) to protect and enhance the sites of nature conservation importance and to develop greenways providing for important walking and cycling corridors which promote biodiversity and connectivity of habitats.

Landscape Character

Response: The Borough Council considers that a landscape assessment should be undertaken in partnership as an integral part of the Green Belt assessment referred to above.

Detailed Policy Considerations
Mix of Affordable Homes

Response: The Borough Council considers it essential that a clear and objective policy is retained to meet affordable housing taking into account any possible future changes in national planning policy - options 6 and 7 (paragraph 11.5).