Q2. Do you agree with our draft vision for Rochford District?

Comment

Representation ID: 37577

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Mr MARTIN MCKENNA

Your vision is a contradiction. The green and pleasant place will soon be replaced with overpriced housing which none will go to local people but instead attract people from overflowing London and the trouble that brings.

“Rochford District will be a green and pleasant place with a focus on business and high quality homes supported by accessible and responsive services and facilities, creating healthy and sustainable communities.”

We need to protect our current green and farming land. The housing developments will soon mean yourself and Southend council bulldozing a dual carriageway through the town.

Support

Representation ID: 37587

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Mrs Laureen Shaw

I am Rochford District Councillor and I believe this is a good option, but infrastructure has to be addressed first

Object

Representation ID: 37635

Received: 03/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Ben Miller

I object. I feel Rochford District Council, and all surrounding councils in the South East's primary goal should be to push back against central government for central government's unreasonable demands with these new housing plans. Tell central government that if they want hundreds of thousands of new homes to be built to cope with the increasing population, then they should create new towns and cities to cope with the increase. Stuffing more into the south east is not possible because we're already full!

Object

Representation ID: 37664

Received: 04/08/2021

Respondent: Miss Marie McCarthy

Please explain how many of these houses will be affordable. Many local people cannot afford to buy in this area and end up leaving. Where is the demand for housing coming from?

Can you elaborate on what jobs will be created and where?

Can you provide more leisure facilties? Basildon/Southend/Castle Point areas all have more leisure facilities that us.

Object

Representation ID: 37700

Received: 06/08/2021

Respondent: Mrs jackie fealy

What is missing is that it is already overcrowded with housing, people and cars

Object

Representation ID: 37737

Received: 07/08/2021

Respondent: Miss Donna Thresher

You have not considered the type of roads in this part of Essex.

Object

Representation ID: 37753

Received: 08/08/2021

Respondent: Mrs Barbara Dale

I've walked the areas and noted the Green Belt loss. People must live somewhere but nature is necessary. Would it be possible to build maisonettes to house more than the buildings erected in the Rochford District There are many houses where 4 families could be housed on the same plot of land. Case in point, Hall Road area where a large number of expensive houses have been erected. Four families could live on the same footage. Developers dislike cheaper housing, far less profitable. Councils should prioritise quality of life rather than developers profit.. We need more not less natural areas.

Comment

Representation ID: 37762

Received: 08/08/2021

Respondent: Miss Alice Page

Many new homes have already been built. Infrastructure, climate change risks and jobs should be a much higher priority now. The local towns need to be desirable for all the new residents to visit. There should be protected green spaces, not just as borders, and some of the more character buildings should also be rejuvenated rather than torn down. Character of the towns should be considered. Traffic is already a problem, around Rayleigh in particular

Object

Representation ID: 37772

Received: 09/08/2021

Respondent: Richard Burstow

The first priority cannot be considered above the third priority as we need the infrastructure in place for transport, schools, doctors and dentists before allowing development, which may not be in the correct place. Additionally due to the low lying nature of the area not enough significance is attached to the need to increase flood protection measures, both from land and sea.

Object

Representation ID: 37787

Received: 09/08/2021

Respondent: Ms Helen Wright

You are not making provision for either the young or the elderly to be appropriately or economically housed. Allprposed developments I have seen would be out of the reach of most young people and unsuitable for the elderly (unless you intend them to live like battery hens)

Object

Representation ID: 37796

Received: 09/08/2021

Respondent: Mr clive heasman

Rayleigh is already bursting at the seams. We do not have the infrastructure to support this madness of continuing to build on local green field sites. I am particularly concerned at proposals to build further houses close/adjacent to Bull Lane. Enough is enough, I have spoken with many other local residents who feel like I do that green field sites should be protected and that if further local housing is required only local brown field sites should be considered. Please do not intentionally spoil our great town and locality if you want our continued support going forward.

Object

Representation ID: 37819

Received: 09/08/2021

Respondent: Ms Helen Wright

I do not consider that you are looking at the housing needs of your current residents. You need bungalows for the elderly and cheap apartments for first time buyers and I haven't seen plans for either so far. I do not agree with building 1,000 larger homes in order to deliver 10% (100) affordable ones. We do not need larger homes in Rochford. The only people who are homeless are council tenants and the young living at home. Neither of these groups require large expensive houses.

Comment

Representation ID: 37826

Received: 10/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Kevin James

I agree that more housing is necessary but should be developed in Hamlet style. Where farms are being closed, close to communities, these should be developed into Hamlet style, small developments that do not impact on existing areas, ensuring good public transport connections for commuting and shopping.

Comment

Representation ID: 37832

Received: 10/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Peter Wyatt

Road traffic along the Ashingdon Rd, and Southend Rd is already too much, dangerously so if emergency services need access. Until this issue is addressed, all other issues must be secondary.

Support

Representation ID: 37839

Received: 11/08/2021

Respondent: Mr David Flack

The vision seems appropriate and of nescessity broadly cast.

Object

Representation ID: 37877

Received: 12/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Denis Kovalenko

The strategy seems to be to build more homes and create more businesses. This goes against core values of our local community, which are that residents would like it to remain green/blue, less populated, with less housing developments and resulting traffic and infrastructure. Our priority should be in ensuring that the area significantly reduces its contribution to the current climate crisis; not exacerbates it. I urge the working group to study very carefully the United Nations IPCC Sixth Assessment Report and ensure that the strategy is aligned with its policy recommendations; and revise the strategy to its policy recommendations.

Object

Representation ID: 37898

Received: 13/08/2021

Respondent: Mrs Ernestine Ryan

I believe that the infrastructure in Rochford cannot take any more new homes, locals cannot afford them anyway. We need better roads, the traffic in and around Rochford is untenable, you have to time when you go out,, bearing in mind school times in, lunchtime and going home, dustbin day, and deliveries in Ashington Road are a nightmare.
We need more doctors and dentists As well.

Object

Representation ID: 37902

Received: 14/08/2021

Respondent: Mrs Claire Sumner

I do not agree with lots more of smaller developments for Rochford district. We have already been over developed in many areas with little or no infrastructure put in place to cope with the additional needs all the extra people and their cars require. I believe that a new significant larger development should be sought instead. The creation of a small town similar to what was done years ago creating South Woodham Ferrers, would answer all the areas housing needs much better.

Object

Representation ID: 37918

Received: 14/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Bryan Sumner

I don't believe that the infrastructure can support the houses that have already been approved let alone new houses. We live in a high flood area that will get worse with the new building projects. On top of that there is already a huge risk of traffic jams when something as simple as Watery lane is shut for servicing with our current housing. This is getting ridiculous.

Comment

Representation ID: 37934

Received: 15/08/2021

Respondent: Mrs Patricia Bowley

I do not agree with you vision because,
The infrastructure cannot support what buildings we have now, let alone with more buildings planed.
Affordable housing is needed, not £400.000 plus houses which would be out of reach for many people.
An elderly population, who when they pass away will leave many properties available for sale.
A need for smaller properties for people to downsize.
The routes in and out of Hullbridge are cut off when an incident occurs, (accident of bad weather) and buses are unable to get into Hullbridge.
No School provision for senior children in Hullbridge.

Comment

Representation ID: 37945

Received: 16/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Anthony Bowley

Present development is already overloading the infrastructure. Sewage and water supplies failing, medical facilities,education and roads are overwhelmed. Hullbridge and no doubt other parts of Rochford district have an ageing population which will inevitably release housing but has this been taken into account? Rochford district is on a peninsula having limited access and if a major road was built to cater for the current population, then developers would use it as an excuse for further expansion. I agree that a small amount of development around towns and villages will be necessary but not in such catastrophic numbers.

Comment

Representation ID: 37951

Received: 16/08/2021

Respondent: mr peter lawrence

I think not enough subjective look at the impact on schools/Doctors and public transport is given in these proposals

Object

Representation ID: 38002

Received: 18/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Norman Bright

the vision mentions nothing about environmentally friendly homes, or with the 'environment' at the heart of our vision. There seems to be a huge gap on consideration for the environment throughout this document so far - has this council not taken into account the environment bill?

Object

Representation ID: 38008

Received: 19/08/2021

Respondent: Mr david devine

Local services have not been improved over the period that I have lived (11 years) in the area and will continue to get worse with the planned development work that this council seems to have decided upon. Who actually makes these plans and who compiles the impact assessment reports? clearly its done in favor of the builders. Why are no new schools, doctors, dentists built? any new estate over a certain size (e.g. Hall Road) should be forced to build them instead of handing over cash to the council to supposedly improve what currently exists

Object

Representation ID: 38036

Received: 20/08/2021

Respondent: Philip Hitchman

No. This whole consultation presumes that there is a huge need for housing in the area whereas we all know that it is being driven by government allocations. There is no "vision". You are simply trying to squeeze too many houses into the area.

Support

Representation ID: 38059

Received: 22/08/2021

Respondent: Miss tracey gibson

MUCH emphasis needs to be made on the potential flood risk and poor infrastructure now - roads are congested and poorly maintained now, and yet i see local farmland appears to be possible redevelopment for housing? The internet coverage is rubbish at my house, fibre broadband through telephone wires - local roads subject to flood (fluvial and tidal) and roads simply not sufficient . Not enough doctors and yet you seem keen to bring even more residents in

Comment

Representation ID: 38087

Received: 23/08/2021

Respondent: Craig Cannell

It is positive to see that "Making suitable and sufficient provision for climate change mitigation and adaptation, conservation and enhancement of the natural and historic environment, including landscape", is listed as Strategic Priority 5. With that in mind it feels disjointed that the draft vision statement for Rochford in 2050 makes no mention of climate change mitigation.

Strategic Priority 2 has well intended Objectives listed however feels underwhelming when contrasted against challenges High Streets currently, and will continue to, face.

Object

Representation ID: 38099

Received: 23/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Keith Vaughan

I live in Western Road we often walk down to the Forest turning left parallel with the A127 it’s a lovely walk looking at the fields and nature’s wild peaceful aspect .we have been told for years to plant more trees and greenery you are proposing the opposite , shame on you if you allow this proposal to go ahead . We need our green spaces , the building on green belt land at Rawreth is more than enough stop now .

Object

Representation ID: 38146

Received: 25/08/2021

Respondent: Miss Jessica Clarke

The development vision is simply to vast for the district. It would overwhelm the residents and resources available such as the public services.

Object

Representation ID: 38147

Received: 25/08/2021

Respondent: Mrs Theresa Hewison

Moved to a smaller village for a better way of life, which now looks to be growing too big taking away our green space and why people live in great Wakering
So sad and unfair