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

I object to development of site CFS027.
Firstly it is inside the green belt which has been one of the most successful protection measures for achieving a good balance between the need for housing and for precious countryside and wildlife.
There is already development on the Hockley Road side and old prison site that overlooks and denudes the green space around Hockley woods.
Hockley Woods, the walkways and fields provide very important long views and open space enjoyment to help with peoples mental well fare.
Part of the generally calm atmosphere of the Rayleigh community are the views, access and closeness of open fields and wooded areas, further urbanising will lead to diminished collective harmony.
Continually encroaching onto the woods will create the impression they are no longer viewed as important and lead to more antisocial use of them than there is already.
The roads cannot support more traffic as it is, so this will inevitably lead to further erosion of green space and country side to accommodate the increased population.
More development leads to more air pollution from traffic and poorer air quality. The traffic fumes are noticeably worse than 1o years ago on many roads through Rayleigh.
The current level of amenities, especially doctors and dentists cannot support increased population without further detrimental effect to the existing population.

I strongly object to any new development within and around the borders of Rayleigh. When I moved to Rayleigh nearly 40 years ago it was a very attractive town with plenty of surrounding green countryside for my children and grandchildren to enjoy.
Now our roads are continually congested, it takes ages to travel anywhere, and I am extremely concerned on the affect this has on the air we breathe and especially the health of my grandchildren.
Over the years there has been constant development and I really feel that now is the time to say enough is enough.

Reading the local plan, it sounds like we are going to be living in some sort of Utopia. The intentions stated are completely different to what the council has been allowing recently. It's stated that the council will use previously developed land first, and build affordable housing. In the past 2 years, the council has allowed 2 new developments on green fields, namely Wolsey Park on Rawreth Lane & High Elms Park just outside Hullbridge. The cheapest house on Wolsey Park at present is £415,000 & at High Elms Park, £429,995, exactly how is this affordable? There doesn't appear to be any provision for income families or first time buyers. This is also contrary to the council's stated policy of building on previously developed land.
The local plan states an intention to deal with infrastructure but does not state how exactly infrastructure will be improved/provided. it is already difficult to get a doctor's or hospital appointment, or to get from one side of Rayleigh to the other without getting stuck in traffic.

By building more housing it will have significant impact on green spaces. The more we reduce open green spaces we are limiting production of oxygen, causing more pollution and increasing the likelihood for flooding due to lack of natural spaces for drainage. We must learn from other areas in the UK who are now consistently being flooded. The effects of climate change can’t be ignored.

No infrastructure. No available space or desired building by residents

I don’t see how your vision of “a green and pleasant place” is compatible with the current and planned over development of our green spaces.

Its certainly not green or pleasant for the people who have had their properties impacted by over development and the villages being turned into small towns.

More affordable housing to the East of Hullbridge

First, I support the need for a vision and a plan but there are some some elements that need to be addressed in more detail so that residents have a more comprehensive understanding. One of the main concerns is that the existing infrastructure of roads, schools, medical could not cope with the potential developments - it would be useful to give an indication of what infrastructure upgrades would be required, e.g. will new roads be constructed? It would make some of the developments more palatable if it was stated that some more open space would be created.

I agree with your grand aspirations. You do not have responsibility for all these visions, so do not promise what you cannot deliver

Option 3a is on green belt land, an extension of a village added to west Rayleigh with no added infrastructure on flood plains.
Unrealistic to add even more housing to this part of the area with nothing added.
West of Rayleigh had taken its fair share of housing- with an additional 222 being added to the original number agreed.
Enough

The 'vision' focuses on housing. There are no proposals for more support services (doctors, hospitals - indeed Government wants to shut Southend Hospital A&E!, schools, roads). I do not see any proposals to improve social and outdoor spaces (what is the larger community expected to do?)- indeed this plan seeks to destroy them. This community needs more social planning (better leisure facillites, clubs and protect outdoor space).
During lockdown we have come to rely on the outdoor spaces that we are privileged to have in Hockley. This is crucial to the mental health and wellbeing of the local community.

The quality of life is deteriorating, in terms of community resources, pollution, traffic congestion, and maintenance of green spaces and our foot paths network.
The quality of social housing is poor and there is no thought to sustainability or locations. Social housing is squeezed into the centre of more profitable developments and do not meet the need.
Building urban country parks on land not so favourable to developers is a compromise.
We should increase the access to all the beautiful countryside in the crouch valley, and be creative in providing employment in leisure and tourism.

No

I do not agree with your vision, I think it is unnecessary and greedy. There is already an issue with infrastructure in the area, lack of schools, doctors, roads etc are not being maintained in line with your current builds. The area cannot support this and an increase in homes will also have a detrimental effect on values of homes in areas such as Hockley.

I don’t agree with all the housing, I don’t see in the plan HOW the infrastructure is going to be built to support all the new homes. It’s very hard to comment on where and how many homes to be built without knowing when/where or if any gp, hospital, schools roads are going to be put in place. We moved here from London to enjoy the green spaces and quieter area, Rayleigh will be nothing like the area we decided to raise our family in.

Too much emphasis has been focused on Rayleigh and most of not all the extra housing being within in Borders. If this were to be done.The vision of a thriving town for 2040 would be achieved as the population of people and cars would overwhelm the town and pollution would increase.

Problem: current overcrowding of roads. More houses, more people, more cars, crowded roads. Is the provision of roads and supporting infrastructure within the RDC remit? Increased road traffic, wear on roads will be made worse if developments outlined are carried through, particularly building a great number of houses. No supporting road (and road repair) development = problems for residents; traffic flow problems; travel time for emergency services, pollution. Where to site extra roads? Green belt must be protected, or strategic objective 20 will be compromised, along with quality of life for residents with increased pollution and loss of green spaces.

I completely agree with the vision that Rochford should be a green and pleasant place so I do not agree with releasing green belt land for development.

Development of land between Rivendell, Brookside and Napier Rd Grid ref CFS086. Land at Turret Farm Ref CFS029, Land north of Bull lane ref CFS027. North of Napier Rd Ref CFS098 and South of wellington Rd Ref CFS053.
This land currently provides an easily accessible local area of countryside with public right of way. It provides fresh air and tranquillity which is essential to mental health and wellbeing. It is rich in wildlife. The amount of damage to habitat and wildlife lost developing this land cannot be overstated. Vital Wildlife corridors will be lost They will be replaced with a sterile housing development with new garden which take years to establish.
There will be Increased traffic flow leading to more noise pollution and air pollution. More strain on local services such as Schools and Doctors. It is already extremely difficult to get a Doctors appointment.

the conservative policy is no new builds on green belt land, why are you ignoring your own party policy.
This country can not afford to loose agriculture land, america had a draught the world was short of grain, now with climate change this will happen more often.
I have spoke to my neighbours they say what is the point, remember when 10,000.signed a partition to stop the new builds on green belt land between London road and rawreth lane, so why would you expect the public to comment on your plans, there appears to be no point,you only ignore that large majority against that policy.

The vision statement for the Rochford was written without any consultation from our local community in Hullbridge. It demonstrates a clear lack of understanding.

Mostly, although I do not feel you have included enough information on how you might achieve housing for the hidden homeless or those on low incomes, emergency housing provision, schemes to allow the elderly in large houses to be able to downsize or how you plan to provide suitable commercial units of varying sizes, to allow businesses to up or downsize into a suitably sized premises without them needing to relocate into another area.

Levels of pollution from increased traffic must be on the rise and adding further housing to Rayleigh will only increase this.

I disagree with all house proposals in and round Ashingdon Road particularly proposals for building north of Brays Lane and proposals around Ashingdon Primary School. This is for the same reasons as provided in the recent objections to the proposed Bloor development (SER8) - Ashingdon Road is already heavily conjested and simply cannot cope with more housing, there is no means to expand Ashingdon Road and provide extra suitable infrastructure to relieve an already heavily conjested road. Refer to objections for SER8.

No improvement to the local infrastructure ever appears in these developments.
Rochford district has had more than its fair share of development in recent years, enough is enough!
The local roads are choked with traffic already, any more houses and there will be gridlock every day.
We should not be covering valuable farmland with houses then importing food and incurring food miles.

I feel the draft vision infers a model of infinite housing development for Rayleigh and other small towns. (Rayleigh has already lost much green belt land and open space) This is fundamentally misguided in my view and leads to a lower quality of life over time.
I believe significant new housing development should be should be based on creating new towns along with required infrastructure transport, schools etc. It would be good to see evidence of local councils petitioning central government to make such new towns a priority.

The vision does not appear to address the infrastructure of the District, roads, schools, gps, hospital etc. more homes will place increased pressure on all of these

demolitishing Mill Hall and building homes in our conservation area which will desecrate an outstanding area do not seem to match with the vision you describe. Nor does the building of flats around the Barringtons both it seems to finance plush new offices which given covid will probably be a white elephant and certainly won't be to be benefit of Rayleigh people I strongly oppose not respecting our town.

Why are you refusing an independent study on mill hall. We do NOT want housing built here. The building should be refurbished if needed, not knocked down for flats.

The amount of housing proposed to be built in this area is excessive and not able to be supported by our infra-structure. The boundaries between towns are being reduced to an unacceptable and unncessary amount. If this is considered with the extra housing proposed by our surrounding councils the impact on our landscape, greenbelt, agricultural land, wildlife habitats etc. will be totally detrimental to our area. If housing is not built here then people will not move here. It is not essential to our country's economy that this area is over developed.