Biodiversity, Geology and Green Infrastructure

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

The reasons being:

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

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

I would appreciate a response to my objections please.

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

OBJECTION: REF CFS024 MAP G, 119. To the land north of Merryfeilds Avenue being offered for consideration as a proposed building site.
I am writing to you to express my concerns over this area being considered in your Development Plan, as an area for possible development. I live in Brackendale Close and so my garden borders onto this land. I have lived here for 11 years and so I am able to comment on the abundance of wildlife that exists. The animals, birds, insects and reptiles that inhabit the nature reserve spill over into land and provides a peaceful nesting site for them. In my garden I have witnessed a multitude of birds, including birds of prey, and various reptiles such as, grass snakes, slow worms, toads and salamanders. In the summer months bats (a protected species) can be most evenings circling in the gardens. Any development of this land would have a drastic effect on the wildlife living there, as it would disturb their natural habitats and nesting areas.
Alongside this I am also concerned about the effect that the building of more houses would have on the prospect of flooding. In heavy rain my garage is constantly flooded and I feel at risk of my house being also flooded. The garden and woodland are used as a natural soakaway. In the flooding in Hockley of August 2013, with the bone-dry earth in my garden, approximately two feet of water collected at the bottom of my land and was only able to disperse through the woodland. Without this drainage I would almost certainly have experienced flooding throughout my ground floor.
This estate is a small, quiet, residential area and the access to the proposed site is very limited. This will undoubtedly cause traffic problems and pose risks to the families that live here. Development would cause tremendous disruption and the onset of heavy vehicles in a small confined area is extremely dangerous. Please could you consider the alarming impact that development of the site will cause both the wildlife and residents of the area.

I am writing to you to express my concerns over this area being considered in your Development Plan, as an area for possible development. I live in Brackendale Close and so my garden borders onto this land. I have lived here for 23 years and so I am able to comment on the abundance of wildlife that exists. The animals, birds, insects and reptiles that inhabit the nature reserve spill over into land and provides a peaceful nesting site for them. In my garden I have witnessed a multitude of birds, including birds of prey, and various reptiles such as, grass snakes, slow worms, toads and salamanders. In the summer months bats (a protected species) can be seen most evenings circling in the gardens. Any development of this land would have a drastic effect on the wildlife living there, as it would disturb their natural habitats and nesting areas.
Alongside this, I am also concerned about the effect that the building of more houses would have on the prospect of flooding. In heavy rain my drive is constantly flooded and I feel at risk of my house being also flooded.
We lost the whole contents of our house due to the flood of 2013 and this has left me feeling so worried every time we have heavy rain. The garden and woodland are used as a natural soakaway. In the flooding in Hockley of August 2013, with the bone-dry earth in my garden, approximately two feet of water collected at the bottom of my land which was only able to disperse through the woodland. Without this drainage I would undoubtedly be flooded again.
This estate is a small, quiet, residential area and the access to the proposed site is very limited. This will undoubtedly cause traffic problems and pose risks to the families that live here. Development would cause tremendous disruption and the onset of heavy vehicles in a small confined area is extremely dangerous. Please could you consider the alarming impact that development of the site will cause both the wildlife and residents of the area.

Dear Sir/Madam

Rochford local plan - Issues and Options

Thank you for the opportunity to consider your issues and options document produced as part of your new local plan. We have provided comments related to our remit.

Section 6 - Delivery homes and jobs

We welcome option A, supporting the effective use of brown sites, provided they are not of high environmental value. The justification for such a policy should set out how the local authority will deal with any contamination issues to ensure the protection of human health, ecological systems, property and the environment. The policy should refer to a tired approach to the development of contaminated land which meets good practice (CLR 11). We suggest the policy which outlines the steps to be taken for dealing with contamination, as detailed below

 A preliminary Risk Assessment (PRA) which has identied all previous uses and contaminants associated with those uses. A conceptual model of the site identifying sources, pathways and receptors and any unacceptable risks arising from contamination at the site.

 A site investigation and detailed assessment of risk to all potential receptors both on and off the site.
 An options appraisal and remediation strategy giving details of remediation measures proposed and how they will be undertaken.
 A verification report demonstrating completion of the remedial works.

Section 6.6.1.- Gypsy, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople

We feel this section should include the flood risk posed to pitches that maybe occupied by Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople. Caravans, mobile homes and park homes intended for permanent residential use are classed as Highly Vulnerable. 'Highly vulnerable' development should not be permitted in Flood Zone 3 and the Exception Test is required in Flood Zone 2. If users of the development function as residents rather than holiday makers, in the event of a flood, they may have no other place of residence available and could lose all of their possessions. You should consider the flood zone 'compatibility' in accordance with Table 3 of the PPG.

Section 6.79 - Houseboats and Liveaboards

We feel that the houseboat section should include information in regards to flood
risk.
Although boats are water compatible, if the use of the boat is to be residential we
would then classify the development use as 'More Vulnerable'. Table 3 of the PPG
makes clear that this type of development is not compatible with Flood Zone 3b and
should not therefore be permitted. However if LPA confirmed they would classify
houseboats as 'water compatible' we would review our position.

We feel this section should also consider the pollution potential of houseboats. Our
main concern with the use of houseboats is the potential for waste water (including
but not limited to sewage) being discharged from boats into the environment. The
nutrients therein have the potential to cause deterioration of the water quality and
have a knock-on impact on the ecology and wildlife. We therefore ask that any policy on houseboats seeks to ensure that waste water is disposed of by a method other than direct discharge, and that it is passed through appropriate treatment before discharge to the environment. Protection of environmentally sensitive areas are identified within the plan but it should be noted that the Crouch and Roach estuaries are used for shellfish cultivation which is reliant on good water quality. A
deterioration in water quality could impact on this business and so houseboats in
these locations could have a particular impact.

Section 8 - Delivering Infrastructure - Waste Water

We feel that the plan should include recognition of the importance of waste water
infrastructure. We would recommend liaison with water companies and ourselves
throughout the plan period to ensure adequate capacity is available. Water
resources; security of supply in this zone remains at 100% according to the latest
update to Essex and Suffolk Waters WRMP. However, a new WRMP is currently at
draft stage, and plans should be checked against this document as soon as it
becomes available.

Southend and Rayleigh East Water Recycling Centres (WRC) are over capacity with
regards to their permit. Rayleigh West and Rochford have considerable capacity
remaining, so it is recommended that, in the short term, development be planned to
go to these two WRC. In the longer term we would strongly suggest remaining in
regular touch with Anglian Water regarding the preferred locations for development
and the possibility of upgrade works at Rayleigh East and Southend. The LPA
should be aware that Anglian Water are reluctant to commit to upgrades until there is development firmly planned, but that can take up to 10 years.

Section 8 - Water and Flood Risk Management

We welcome the reference to the Thames Gateway South Essex Flood Risk
Assessment (SFRA) and the South Essex SWMP. These are useful supporting
documents to understand the potential impacts on the flood risk management
infrastructure.
The DEFRA document "Flood and Coastal Resilience Partnership Funding - DEFRA
policy statement on an outcome-focused, partnership approach to funding flood and
coastal erosion risk management" is another useful document to support evidence
base with regard to funding deliverability of new and replacement flood defence
infrastructure. This document could be used to enhance the flood risk management
policy.
We continue working in partnership with Rochford Distric Council and the local Flood
Risk Management Authorities (RMA's) including and the local communities on
developing flood alleviation schemes for both fluvial and surface water flooding in
Rochford. These are discussed at the District Council led Rochford Flood Forum and
the Community Action Group meetings. Any additional partnership funding that could be generated from new development will help to enhance and accelerate their
delivery.

The proposed new development allocations should ensure that where possible
development does not impact on the Main Rivers of Crouch, Roach and their
associated tributaries and their modelled floodplains. As highlighted in the new Local
Plan development in areas should be located in Flood Zone 1 (low probability) less
than 1 in 1000 year (<0.1%) of fluvial flooding. This ensures that development is
sustainable and compliant with the principles of National Planning Policy Framework
(NPPF). It should contribute and minimise the risk of river flooding and flood
inundation to existing and future development in major conurbations in Rochford
District.
For all new development proposals there must be a robust application of the National Planning Policy Frameworks (NPPF) Sequential Test to avoid development in areas of flood risk wherever possible and to maintain the function of these land areas for natural processes. Any new proposals relating to flood defence schemes should draw on the guidelines highlighted in the attached documents.
Any development allocations highlighted in Local Development Plan should be
appropriately located according to the requirements of the National Planning Policy
Framework (NPPF) and any proposals in Flood Zone 3 highlighted blue on the
attached plan will be required to pass the Exception Test in the NPPF.
Any works associated with the development in, over, under or within 8m byelaw
distance of the "Main Rivers" may need our formal permit.

We believe the water and flood risk management section should also consider the
following points which are relevant to all proposed developments and whose
inclusion would enhance policy.

General Flood Risk Comments

All development proposals within the Flood Zone (which includes Flood Zones 2 and
3,as defined by the Environment Agency) shown on the Policies Map and Local
Maps, or elsewhere involving sites of 1ha or more, must be accompanied by a Flood
Risk Assessment.

Planning Practice Guidance (PPG)

The Local Plan should apply the sequential test and use a risk based approach to
the location of development. The plan should be supported by a Strategic Flood risk
Assessment (SFRA) and should use the NPPF Planning Practice Guidance (PPG).
The PPG advises how planning can take account of the risks associated with
flooding and coastal change in plan-making and the planning application process.
The following advice could be considered when compiling the Local Plan to ensure
potential development is sequentially sited or if at flood risk it is designed to be safe
and sustainable into the future.

Sequential Approach

The sequential approach should be applied within specific sites in order to direct
development to the areas of lowest flood risk. If it isn't possible to locate all of the
development in Flood Zone 1, then the most vulnerable elements of the development should be located in the lowest risk parts of the site. If the whole site is at high risk (Flood Zone 3), an FRA should assess the flood characteristics across the site and direct development towards those areas where the risk is lowest.

Finished Floor Levels

We strongly advise that proposals for "more vulnerable" development should include
floor levels set no lower than 300 millimetres above the level of any flooding that
would occur in a 1% (1 in 100) / 0.5% (1 in 200) Annual Exceedence Probability
(AEP) flood event (including allowances for climate change). We are likely to raise
an objection where this is not achieved in line with Paragraphs 060 of the NPPF's
Planning Practice Guidance which advises that there should be no internal flooding
in more vulnerable developments from a design flood.
We recommend "less vulnerable" development also meet this requirement to
minimise disruption and costs in a flood event. If this is not achievable then it is
recommended that a place of refuge is provided above the 0.1% AEP flood level.

Safe Access

During a flood, the journey to safe, dry areas completely outside the 1% (1 in 100) /
0.5% (1 in 200) AEP flood event, including allowances for climate change, should not involve crossing areas of potentially fast flowing water. Those venturing out on foot in areas where flooding exceeds 100 millimetres or so would be at risk from a wide range of hazards, including, for example; unmarked drops, or access chambers
where the cover has been swept away. Safe access and egress routes should be
assessed in accordance with the guidance document 'FD2320 (Flood Risk
Assessment Guidance for New Developments)'. We would recommend that you
refer your SFRA which has produced hazard maps following a breach/overtopping of
the defences?

Emergency Flood Plan

Where safe access cannot be achieved, or if the development would be at residual
risk of flooding in a breach, an emergency flood plan that deals with matters of
evacuation and refuge should demonstrate that people will not be exposed to flood
hazards. The emergency flood plan should be submitted as part of a FRA and will
need to be agreed with yourselves. As stated above refuge should ideally be located
300mm above the 0.1% AEP flood level including allowances for climate change. If
you do produce a flood safety framework as mentioned above, it will be important to
ensure emergency planning considerations and requirements are used to inform it.

Flood Resilience / Resistance Measures

To minimise the disruption and cost implications of a flood event we encourage
development to incorporate flood resilience/resistance measures up to the extreme
0.1% AEP climate change flood level. Information on preparing property for flooding
can be found in the documents 'Improving the Flood performance of new buildings'
and 'Prepare your property for flooding'.

Betterment

Every effort should be made by development to improve the flood risk to the local
area, especially if there are known flooding issues. Opportunities should also be
taken to provide environmental enhancements as part of the design, for example
naturalising any rivers on the site with a buffer zone on both sides.

Increases in Built Footprint (excluding open coast situations)

When developing in areas at risk of flooding consideration should be given to
preventing the loss of floodplain storage. Any increase in built footprint within the 1% AEP, including allowances for climate change, flood extent will need to be directly compensated for to prevent a loss of floodplain storage. If there are no available areas for compensation above the design flood level and compensation will not be possible then a calculation of the offsite flood risk impacts will need to be
undertaken. If this shows significant offsite impacts then no increases in built
footprint will be allowed. Further guidance on the provision of compensatory flood
storage is provided in section A3.3.10 of the CIRIA document C624.

Climate Change

The Environment Agency guidance 'Flood risk assessments: climate change
allowances' should be used to inform the spatial distribution of growth and the
requirements of Flood Risk Assessments (FRA) for individual applications.
The National Planning Practice Guidance provides advice on what is considered to
be the lifetime of the development in the context of flood risk and coastal change.
The 'Flood risk assessments: climate change allowances' guidance provides
allowances for future sea level rise, wave height and wind speed to help planners,
developers and their advisors to understand likely impact of climate change on
coastal flood risk. It also provides peak river flow and peak rainfall intensity
allowances to help planners understand likely impact of climate change on river and
surface water flood risk. For some development types and locations, it is important to assess a range of risk using more than one allowance. Please refer to this guidance.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/flood-risk-assessments-climate-change-allowances.
This advice updates previous climate change allowances to support NPPF and may
result in flood extents being greater than they have been in the past. This does not
mean out flood map for planning has changed, as these maps do not consider
climate change, but fluvial flood maps that may have been produced as part of
SFRAs and other flood risk studies may be out of date. FRAs submitted in support
of new development will need to consider the latest climate change allowances.

Environmental Permit for Flood Risk Activities

An environmental permit for flood risk activities may be required for work in, under,
over or within 8 metres (m) from a fluvial main river and from any flood defence
structure or culvert or 16m from a tidal main river and from any flood defence
structure or culvert.
Application forms and further information can be found at:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/flood-risk-activities-environmental-permits. Anyone
carrying out these activities without a permit where one is required, is breaking the
law.
The Local Plan should consider this when allocating development sites adjacent to a
'main river'. A permit may be required and restrictions imposed upon the work as a
result in order to ensure the development does not have a detrimental impact upon
the environment and flood risk.

Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS)

We agree with the promotion of the use of SUDS within the policy on all
developments where geological conditions permit. However in order to ensure the
protection of the water environment, we feel any development must incorporate
appropriate pollution prevention measures and a suitable number of SUDS treatment
train components in line with requirements of Ciria C753 and the SUDS Manual.

Policy 10 - Biodiversity, Geology and Green Infrastructure

We welcome the inclusion of Strategic Objective 19: To protect, maintain and
enhance our district's natural environment, geology and biodiversity, including our
open spaces, recreational areas and our extensive coastline, as well as support
wildlife, to create habitat networks and reduce fragmentation.
We also welcome the inclusion of Strategic Objective 22: To mitigate and adapt to
the forecasted impacts of climate change, including the water environment, air
quality, biodiversity and flooding, support more efficient use of energy and natural
resources and facilitate an increase in the use of renewable and low carbon energy
facilities. We hope that innovative solutions to the issue of climate change be found,
including the use of natural flood management techniques.
Whilst we broadly support the policy protecting and enhancing the environment, but
feel more importance should be given to the water environment. The policy needs to
refer to the Water Framework Directive and all development need to show that it will
not have a negative impact on water bodies. We feel this is important in regards to
the proposed marina development at Wallasea Island. This could cause serious
impacts on the protected estuarine habitat and birdlife as well as a deterioration in
the WFD status of the Crouch and Roach Estuaries.
We welcome the importance given to green infrastructure and the benefits it can
provide to human health and the environment. We feel the policy could also promote
the enhancements developments could provide for overall biodiversity. Setting a
requirement that all new development must create a new priority habitat would
support Local Planning Authoritys duty under the Natural Environments Rural
Communities (NERC) Act 2006. Priority habitats include new wetlands created as
part of SuDs schemes, deciduous woodlands and wildflower meadows.

Section 10 - Air Quality

Whilst we have no direct comments in regards to the air quality policy it is worth
noting that any new development of within 250-500m of a site permitted by the us
could result in the proposed development being exposed to impacts, e.g. odour,
noise, dust and pest impacts. The severity of these impacts will depend on local
factors such as the size of the facility, the nature of the activities and the prevailing
weather conditions. If the operator can demonstrate that they have taken all
reasonable precautions to mitigate these impacts, the facility and community will coexist, with some residual impacts. In some cases, these residual impacts may cause local residents concern, and there are limits to the mitigation the operator can apply. Only in very exceptional circumstances would we revoke the operators permit. These factors should be considered when identifying areas suitable for development. The locations of waste sites can be found on our public register at
https://environment.data.gov.uk/public-register/view/search-all
We trust the advice we have given is useful and will contribute to the soundness of
the emerging local plan. We will continue to provide further advice and comments at
future statutory stages of the emerging local plan. Should you wish us to review any draft policies and text as well as technical documents and background studies, such
as strategic flood risk assessments or water cycle studies which may be used to
support your plan, we can offer this as part of our planning advice service.

This service will ensure that your evidence documents fully support the local plan
and ensure that environmental issues are addressed in an effective and timely way
contributing to sustainable development. As part of the planning advice service we
will provide you with a single point of contact who will co-ordinate access to our
technical specialists who will be able to provide bespoke advice and help you
prepare any supporting documents. We will be pleased to provide you with an
estimated cost for any work we would undertake as part of the service.

I am lead to believe that there is a proposed development to the land to the north of Malvern Road, Harrogate Drive and
the childrens' play area/ walk through to Beckney Woods (ref CFS023 / COL38 on the RDC Land Assessment 2017 - Appendix B).

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

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

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

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

Re New Local Plan - Hullbridge

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

ENGAGING WITH RESIDENTS

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

GREENBELT

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

BIODIVERSITY

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

FLOOD PLAIN - CFS099

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

INFRASTRUCTURE:

Unadopted Roads: - to name but a few

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

Rawreth Lane:

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

Tree Preservation Orders - TPO - CFS099:

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

Sewerage:

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

Soakaways:

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

Schools:

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

Emergency Services:

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

Hospital:

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

CURRENT HULLBRIDGE INHABITANTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We would not support the development of this site!



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

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


3. Planning ref. CFS 057

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

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

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

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

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

* All other issues apply.

5. Conclusion

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

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

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

Re: Site Ref. No's: CFS060, CFS115/SER9, CFS057, CFS097, CFS153, CFS070, CFS065, CFS011, CFS034, CFS056

I am writing to voice my concern and object to any proposed future housing development on the above sites in Great Wakering. I have lived in Great Wakering for 16 years and it is the place where I chose to settle down and start a family. I liked the strong sense of community and the fact that it is separate from the bustle of Southend and other nearby developments such as Shoeburyness and Thorpe Bay. If development is allowed to go ahead, particularly on sites CFS057 and CFS097, then Great Wakering will no longer feel like village, as it will merge into other areas of Southend and the tight-knit community spirit will be lost.

I am also concerned about the lack of amenities for such developments. Great Wakering Primary Academy, where my daughter attends, is a wonderful school with hard-working and dedicated staff. However, the school is already full. Even if it were to expand, to allow for increased numbers, this would have a negative impact on the school environment and the school community. My daughter currently enjoys school and mixes with children from across a number of year groups. I fear this would no longer be possible if the school were to expand as the community-feel would be lost. Yet, on the other hand, the alternative of overcrowding within the school to accommodate increased numbers is equally undesirable.

Great Wakering Medical Centre also has some excellent staff, but over the years I have lived in Great Wakering, it has become increasingly difficult to book an appointment. The development of further housing would only add to this problem and is likely to lead to people seeking help elsewhere, such as the A&E department at Southend Hospital, which is already ridiculously over-stretched.

Access roads are currently insufficient to support further development and the increased traffic would make the area more dangerous. The High Street is already very busy at peak times, yet if roads were improved, this would cause further disruption after the lengthy roadworks in Star Lane, caused by recent developments.

The loss of open space would also have a negative effect on general well-being, aswell as the local wildlife. We have regular visits from a variety of birds in our garden, for example, robins, bluetits, woodpeckers have also seen a sparrow hawk. The loss of habitat that development on areas of greenbelt land would cause, would have a knock-on effect on the population of these species.

The potential for flooding in the area is also of major concern. By building on areas of undeveloped land, areas of natural drainage will be reduced. Having had at least two flood warnings in the few years I have lived at this address, it seems the current drainage systems are unable to cope sufficiently. Therefore, building further housing could have a catastrophic effect on existing homes during heavy rainfall.

To summarise, any future housing development in Great Wakering, particularly those on areas of previously undeveloped land would have a detrimental effect on many aspects of life. I am therefore strongly opposed to any future housing development in the area.

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.

We have unsuccessfully been trying to get onto the gov.uk/lao site.
So We are hoping that this email will still qualify as We strongly object the development of more housing in the Great Wakering area.

The reasons for our determined objections are as follows:-

* Any subsequent housing will destroy the village which is already highly over populated.
* The schools including Great Wakering Primary and The King Edmund School cannot physically take in any more children. Classes will become over populated, how can teaching staff give their upmost to a class with just to many pupils ? the schools do not have enough budget to employ more staff, teaching assistant jobs have already been cut back to a bare minimum.
* More pupils would mean more traffic on the roads with Rochford already congested, it would be unthinkable for this to happen.
* Subsequent schools in the local area are too over subscribed.
* The Wakering Medical Centre is already under stress to be able to fulfill the quota of patients already on their system this has an effect on the whole community not being able to get appointments, GPs leaving the practice due to the anxiety of not being able to keep to their high quality medical practitioner position trying to deal with the high (already) can hardly imagine a higher influx of patients.
* The roads and highways are becoming increasingly busy with only 2 ways into the village.
* Wildlife will suffer uprooting their natural surroundings and habitats.
* The Village will no longer be a village but a town, already we notice how its becoming due to being over populated with the Star land development.
* The village will suffer long term as we are aware that Great Wakering is a flood plain, more housing will have a detrimental effect to the once beautiful village the Great will almost be taken from its title name.

We trust you ready each and every comment we have made that the planning for building in Great Wakering does NOT go ahead.

Relating to CFS024 - Land North of Merryfields Avenue, Hockley, Essex, MAP G, 119

I am concerned about the proposed development of the above land (37 houses) for the following reasons:

* This area of land is low lying and prone to flooding. In the Summer of 2013, the lower, downhill part of Plumberow Avenue and the roads leading off (e.g. Oak Walk and The Acorns) were flooded. Multiple residents' homes were also flooded, and it took several months to clear and clean. Further residential development of green belt land would exacerbate this problem as the green land acts as drainage for excess water flow. Indeed, this whole area of lower Hockley, reaching from Hockley Railway Station all the way along Plumberow Avenue down to Lower Road, and all the other roads leading off Plumberow Avenue, is predominantly marshy with poor natural drainage. To further increase the residential numbers would increase, I believe, the problems of residential flooding.
* Proximity to Maryland Woodland Area: this is a beautiful and well-maintained nature reserve, enjoyed by local people. To develop so nearby would in all likelihood disturb the natural habitats of the wildlife. Residential homes and wildlife must co-exist together, and if we wish to provide pleasant residential living spaces for our future generations, then consideration needs to be given to green spaces. If we destroy our flora and fauna, once lost, will be lost forever. Indeed, the appeal of Hockley for many new people is the fact that it is such a green and nature-filled area (e.g Plumberow Mount, Beckney Woods, Hockley Woods). Surely, we don't wish to destroy the very appeal that makes new people wish to set up homes here.
* Traffic issues: the residential areas of Merryfields Avenue and Marylands Avenue are accessed by small and narrow roads, built several decades ago when car use was much less. In their current state, it could increase the likelihood of road traffic accidents as these small roads were simply not built for such an increase in traffic volume. These areas are full of families and elderly people; I wouldn't like to see an increase in fatalities in such a quiet residential area.
* Suitability for Hockley: as we all know, Hockley is historically a small village, with not even a high Street. Shops and facilities are clustered around the Spa Road area, which also serves as the main access into and out of Hockley. I'm sure I don't need to point out the traffic congestion that we see through the heart of Hockley, especially at the school run and commuter times of travel. Whilst it is always nice to welcome new people into the area, appropriate consideration must be given to the traffic problem, so that all residents, new and existing, can enjoy the benefits of living in such a lovely village as Hockley. If all the natural spaces are built on, no one will be able to enjoy the character of Hockley, old and young, new and existing.
* Facilities: with this proposed increase in housing, it seems unlikely that the existing schools and medical facilities will be able to cope with increased demand. Is there a plan to increase both of these things?

I do hope my above concerns will be taken into consideration as I would like to see Hockley remain a beautiful and friendly place to live, having grown up here myself, and enjoyed all the benefits of a village life.

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.

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 . ?

ref CFS024 land north of merryfields ave hockley MAP G 119
i object to this land being developed it belongs to the wild life and should remain so

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 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 .

The proposals for housing in this area must be rejected on grounds that the area cannot sustain more impact on roads, sewerage - already under strain with the new development off Folly Lane, schools, health etc. The area is already affected by constant traffic jams in Hockley and the small country roads through Folly Lane, Fountain Lane, Church Road etc just cannot be kept safe or well-maintained with the constant traffic.

There is little enough space for wildlife and the proposal of removing even more arable land from the area is potentially catastrophic.
Footpaths and local walks will be inaccessible.

Schools are already over-subscribed and underfunded and it is the same with all public services and health providers. It is near impossible to get into a doctor's or dental surgery let alone get an appointment when needed.

There is no space for road widening or by-passes and this makes the area less pleasant to live in and more dangerous for our children. Even the houses being built are not 'affordable' for local people so it is clear that there is an element of migration into the area. There are no new places of work - where are the jobs going to be for all these new residents?

Please think again - this number of houses is unsustainable!

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!

Future housing development. Ref: CFS:071 Access Road CFS125.

Reasons for our objections to the development of site are as follows;

. The site is not big enough to take the amount of proposed housing

. The access to and from the site is not viable, also the volume of traffic will cause congestion on an already dangerous road that has no pathways to protect pedestrians

There is a number of species of wildlife in the fields, that some of which will be protected, I propose a full investigation should be taken out as destroying protected wildlife is a criminal offence. We have bats that currently nest in our roof which I understand are protected.

I am in receipt of a pamphlet regarding future housing in Great Wakering. I only received this on 5th March 2018 with a closing date, to make comment, of 7th March 2018. I would like to point out that there is not really sufficient time available to make a full comment and it is fortunate that I happen to be at home this week and not away on business for as little as two days, otherwise I would have been excluded from passing comment.

The document refers to a previous meeting. I did not receive any notification of this previous meeting.

My comments are limited to the "Appendix C - Rochford District Council Strategic Housing and Employment land Availability Assessment 2017" map in the document (I cannot see any Site Number on the map) as follows:

* The area shown on the map, is almost completely cut off from Barling Road, there being only a narrow track between two properties to provide access. This would be insufficient width for the necessary roadway and safe walking and safe vehicular access to the area behind the existing houses. This would only be achieved by the demolition of existing housing.

* The increased traffic resulting from such a housing development scheme would place further safety concerns in relation to the schools in Wakering Road, and increased pressure on the already overcrowded roads towards both Southend and Rochford.

* Since the housing development would by its nature, bring adults and children, there would be a dramatic increase in casual walkers onto roads that have no formal pavement.

* There could be an detrimental impact on the bats and other wildlife that inhabit the area

* Public transport is insufficient.


I am unable to comment, at such short notice, on the suitability of the land and without knowledge of the number of houses and styles, etc. on the impact on the environment.

| would like to see a specific policy to create a new country park in the west of the district to serve Rayleigh, Hullbridge and Rawreth by the gradual expansion of the existing large Rawreth playing field in a eastwards direction towards Rayleigh and Hullbridge.

Reasons:

1. To protect the Green Belt and prevent its release in the longer term for development.
2. To provide a large open space to serve the considerable amount of residential development (both existing and planned) in the west of the district.
3. To create a greenways corridor linking Rawreth, Hullbridge and Rayleigh (it should be possible to create a green link through to the existing Wheatley woodland that runs along beside the railway line on the other side of the A129 - which would considerably enhance the value of both the woodland and the new country park by bringing them together as a single linked open space, even if the link is relatively narrow). Link could be at Rayleigh end via John Fisher Rec or front side A1245.
4. Contribute to the district's green tourism offer. (Good traffic link to A127 via A1245, with existing car park at Rawreth playing field capable of expansion).
5. Enhance the value of the, at present, rather isolated Rawreth playing field by linking it through to the larger urban areas of Rayleigh and Hullbridge.
6. Improve nature conservation opportunities and landscape enhancement opportunities in the area.

Ref: CSF024

We are writing to you with our concerns regarding the potential build of 37 dwellings at the end of Marylands Avenue and north of Merryfields Avenue, Hockley. We object to this land being used for development for the following reasons;
- concern that should this land be used for building, there is a likelihood of flooding to the properties at the end of Marylands Avenue when there is excessive rainfall.
- Marylands Avenue is currently a quiet road with minimal traffic and noise, should the development go ahead there is going to be increased traffic from the lorries used to transport the building materials and then upon completion there will be an increase in traffic due to those who will living on the new development, this is a safety risk for children in the road when it is currently such a quiet road.
- 37 dwellings will put pressure on our current infrastructure such as schools and doctors surgeries, who currently have high volumes.
- Next to the proposed site is a nature reserve this is an area we frequently go with our children, should the build go ahead the nature reserve and its inhabitants will be at risk.
- There are preservation orders on the trees on some of the site. Should these be removed the nearby properties are at risk of heave/subsidence.

It is our understanding that there have been previous attempts to build on this land, the last attempt was to build 16 properties, however this was rejected, we cannot see how when plans to build 16 properties have been rejected and yet there is now a proposal of 37 properties, when the reasons for rejection have not changed, this makes no sense.

As local residents to this area, we are saddened to hear of such proposals which will lead to over development and increase in population in an already densely populated area, this will have a huge impact on our infrastructure that there appears to be very little plans to make changes to in order to cope with these developments.

We would like it clearly noted we OBJECT to the proposal of 37 dwellings being built north of Merryfields Avenue, Hockley.

Please confirm receipt of this objection.

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).

I am a Great Wakering resident and have grave concerns regarding the many proposed development sites in the village.

My concerns are as follows:
- Traffic/congestion on the 2 access roads serving the village are already extremely busy without the extra traffic that development would bring
- The only school in the village already being at maximum capacity
- Doctors surgery. At the moment the waiting time to see a GP is several days (my sister-in-law only this week had to wait 7 days to see a GP)
- Noise pollution
- Disruption to residents daily lives over the months and years of building work
- Destruction to the local wildlife
- Commuting time to work will increase
- My choice to reside in the village came about from wanting to raise my young family in an environment where we have open land around us and not a concrete jungle!!!!!!!!

Proposed development sites:
- CFS070
- CFS065
- CFS153
- EXP11
- GF02
- BFR1
- CFS115/SER9
- CFS060

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.

I would like to formally object to the proposed building consultation for the land behind Merryfields avenue, hockley. There are several reasons why this planning should not go ahead. Firstly, we have frequent flooding in the garage of our property at no.20 Merryfields Avenue whenever there is heavy or sudden rainfall. At the moment, the rain drains down the garden into a rover/ditch in the land behind our property. If this is built on, I am sure this will worsen the flooding damage.

Secondly, the area is an important nature reserve. There are a multitude of bird species living in the wooded area, along with a family of badgers and a fox set. These habitats would all be destroyed by building works.

Lastly, my concern is regarding the roads and infrastructure. Merryfields avenue and Maryland's avenue are already fairly busy roads with lots of cars parked on the road. Accessibility to a building site would be very difficult and new housing would put a strain on traffic. The possible number of new houses would also put a train in local amenities such as schools and doctors which are already over subscribed.

I really do believe that this proposal would have a severely negative impact on not only local residents and wildlife, but also Rochford council who would have to pay for increased infrastructure.