Q4. Do you agree with the strategic priorities and objectives we have identified?

Object

Representation ID: 37579

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Mr MARTIN MCKENNA

It is clear from this plan that the protection of the countryside is just an attempt to disguise the fact the council want to make a killing from housing developments which will not benefit local residents one little bit.

Support

Representation ID: 37588

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Mrs Laureen Shaw

None

Object

Representation ID: 37637

Received: 03/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Ben Miller

I object. The council's priorities should be to push back against central government for central government's unrealistic and dangerous demands. The council will have the full support of every residents in the Rochford District Council to push back against government demands.

Comment

Representation ID: 37666

Received: 04/08/2021

Respondent: Miss Marie McCarthy

As long as they are all considered. Housing is important but so is leisure facilties/ education/ health facilities.

Object

Representation ID: 37702

Received: 06/08/2021

Respondent: Mrs jackie fealy

what needs to be included is more green spaces , gp surgeries , and less vehicles on the roads

Comment

Representation ID: 37719

Received: 06/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Graham Smedley

I don't believe I see any details indicating a SWOT type analysis of the Region that would inform/support the development of a 'joined up' set of objectives/resource planning for the Region to become a hub of excellence across a select range of growing business/emerging sectors.

Object

Representation ID: 37739

Received: 07/08/2021

Respondent: Miss Donna Thresher

We would all be better off building a whole new town rather than trying to continue to squeeze in more and more into this small corner of the county. The infrastructure is not there to handle more cars and more people.

Support

Representation ID: 37755

Received: 08/08/2021

Respondent: Mrs Barbara Dale

Overall the objectives are O.K. The actual way of achieving them could be tweaked.

Comment

Representation ID: 37764

Received: 08/08/2021

Respondent: Miss Alice Page

Priorities are in the wrong order as already mentioned. Many houses have already been built, priorities should be infrastructure, climate change risks and jobs

Object

Representation ID: 37788

Received: 09/08/2021

Respondent: Ms Helen Wright

Your objectives are laudable, so far I have not read how you plan to deliver them. Niche shops? A range of community activities? Where? There is nothing here apart from a few church halls. We have community facilities at Mill Hall and The Rochford Freighthouse. Last I heard you intend to get rid of them.

Object

Representation ID: 37820

Received: 09/08/2021

Respondent: Ms Helen Wright

Our strategic priority should firstly be the environment since the area is a flood risk, increasingly polluted through heavy traffic, barely any public transport and today's Climate Report is entitled "code red for humanity"

Our strategic objectives should centre on how we will: be carbon neutral by 2050; provide eco--friendly housing for both the young and elderly of the district; facilitate the provision of subsidised public transport; and detail plans to generate local jobs.

Comment

Representation ID: 37828

Received: 10/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Kevin James

Improvement of infrastructure must be completed before any development. This area has been neglected in many ways. From weak provision of water and sewage to inadequate road structure and repair. Roads from all directions are insufficient to cope with the traffic increases in the last twenty years. Building work increases the volume and weight of vehicles using existing infrastructure causing damage and huge amounts of pollution.

Object

Representation ID: 37843

Received: 11/08/2021

Respondent: Mr David Flack

Strategic option 2 fails to address the problem of the aging population within the district. This is in large part due to the failure to provide adequate low rent social housing to enable young people to remain in the District and to develop stable family units. The failure of Housing associations to meet this need is well documented nationally & locally the largest Housing association Sanctuary has a poor record of maintaining properties and honouring contractual promises made when the Councils housing stock transferred. The strategy should provide Council housing (preferably directly managed) with genuinely affordable rents and secure tenancies.

Object

Representation ID: 37878

Received: 12/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Denis Kovalenko

Strategic priority 5 should become Strategic priority 1. And stronger commitment must be made under SO 23. We should not be adapting to climate change. Instead, we should be pioneering and leading on solutions. Instead of supporting the effort to use natural resources more efficiently, we should develop ways to significantly reduce the area's contribution to climate crisis and lead on their implementation/show case solutions to other areas in the UK. Let's be a bit bold and committed here, and please let's stop this crazy housing/infrastructure development effort. Thanks!

Object

Representation ID: 37884

Received: 12/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Samuel Martin

I agree with the priorities but feel they are in the opposite order. The highest priority should be Making suitable and sufficient provision for climate change mitigation and adaptation with Meeting the need for homes and jobs in the area being the lowest.

With this area being in a major flood risk area it doesn't make sense to me to have the highest priority being increased homes and commercial if we are not conserving what exists and any new infrastructure/homes etc are more at risk. I still agree that homes/jobs are a priority but not this ranking.

Object

Representation ID: 37904

Received: 14/08/2021

Respondent: Mrs Claire Sumner

I live in Hullbridge which is currently enduring already a large development which will significantly impact the village and all we have by way of infrastructure is a single roundabout. Now we are being targeted again for even more houses, turning us from a small town into a much larger town, but with still no facilities. We do not have a train station, only a very poor bus service. Only 1 primary school. There is no mention on the plan for any increase to facilities for Hullbridge on the plan at all!

Object

Representation ID: 37920

Received: 14/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Bryan Sumner

What have they proposed to do about the flooding in the area? What have they proposed to do about the traffic? With traffic what do they propose to to do about emergency services with that issue as there is nothing in the village. It all has to come from Hockley, Rochford, Rayleigh or other areas. Another oversight that will end up costing the citizens money and lives.

Comment

Representation ID: 37936

Received: 15/08/2021

Respondent: Mrs Patricia Bowley

The Doctors will struggle to cope with ever increasing residents.
More recreation is needed for all ages with open space and no more building by the coastline, which is in a poor state at the moment.
Promoted sites surrounding Hullbridge will take away the rural village community spirit. No thought has been taken into the impact of the un-adopted roads that will lead from the proposed sites. Serious thought as to the make up of these roads at the cost of the Council before any thought of building new properties, due to the safety of existing residents.

Comment

Representation ID: 37947

Received: 16/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Anthony Bowley

I agree with strategies 14 to 19 but many currently require improvement. In Hullbridge, Strategy 17 is of major concern regarding safety.
Much of any development will tend to use unadopted single roads. Not only will the structure of those roads be destroyed by developers traffic but a danger to pedestrians, especially children going to the primary and junior school.

Comment

Representation ID: 37953

Received: 16/08/2021

Respondent: mr peter lawrence

As previous comments plus Roads are under pressure to cope with traffic and increase in delivery vechiles

Object

Representation ID: 38000

Received: 18/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Norman Bright

Affordable homes' - look to build homes that local people can buy - affordability should be based on average income v mortgage attainment - which means 'affordable' homes needs to be less than £150k
Where is the inclusion that homes should be environmentally friendly - helping to reduce the carbon footprint not increase.
objective 13 - flood risk - but no mention of the impact of climate change on this? so existing flood zone areas are only to increase, sea levels rise, surface water increase. In this area Anglian water has already said this area cannot cope with more development.

Object

Representation ID: 38009

Received: 19/08/2021

Respondent: Mr david devine

For a council that shouts about being green there certainly seems to be a lot of planned development on existing green space. Moving the area along the environmental green route is clearly just another way of this council raking in more cash from its residents.

Where does the money go as I see no improvements and neither do any of the residents I speak to

Object

Representation ID: 38038

Received: 20/08/2021

Respondent: Philip Hitchman

No I don't agree, because the priorities are being driven from government, not from local needs.

Object

Representation ID: 38061

Received: 22/08/2021

Respondent: Miss tracey gibson

There is NO evidence of improvement to flood risk, nor transport ie roads, in the areas where it appears potential housing may 'appear'. There is little previously built on land to use for housing. Out rural sites are under threat, impacting on flood management, and quality of environment nature

Comment

Representation ID: 38096

Received: 23/08/2021

Respondent: Craig Cannell

The 5 categories and 23 objectives are sensible and I give them my support.

As mentioned in an earlier response (Q2), I believe the council could have an additional objective in Strategic Priority 2 with the aim of 'Shaping our High Streets so that they are best positioned to react to changing social trends and demands'.

Object

Representation ID: 38150

Received: 25/08/2021

Respondent: Miss Jessica Clarke

I agree with some of your strategic objectives. However you have not taken into consideration your current residents and their views on the growth.

Also where I currently live we do not have enough infrastructure or health facilities, education yet new homes are still being built so with the proposal how will be responsible in ensuring the objectives are all fully met

Object

Representation ID: 38152

Received: 25/08/2021

Respondent: Mrs Theresa Hewison

The facilities in great Wakering suit the number of people who live in the village and can not support additional dwellings.
Why are this plans not used in
Towns / villages who are much smaller than Great Wakering who has 6000 + and smaller ares are not even in the high 100
Really doesn’t make sense feel like we are being discriminated/ bullied to to something no one wants

Object

Representation ID: 38227

Received: 26/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Stuart Greengrass

I believe RDC has not taken account of the impact from recent developments on community resources and infrastructure - these developments have had really significant detrimental impact on existing communities leading to a loss of confidence and trust in RDC and cynical view of future planning.
This is exacerbated by the huge windfall land value profits made by landowners and developers at the cost to local communities who are left to live with the negative implications.
The RDC Strategic Priorities should take account of this impact and effect on public perceptions.

Object

Representation ID: 38258

Received: 29/08/2021

Respondent: Mrs Keeley Pullen

Currently the areas surrounding Hullbridge for example are severely impacted by increased growth to the area. Traffic congestion is becoming a daily problem. This is made worse when there is heavy rain. Flooding is already occurring when it rains for more than a day. This causes further traffic congestion. More development in and around the areas will make this worse. By building more houses etc the impact on flooding will be worsened. There is no point more building living in an area when they can’t actually commute to their places or work due to flooding and traffic congestion

Object

Representation ID: 38298

Received: 31/08/2021

Respondent: Mr John Whatley

I believe that the small villages within Rochford need separate strategic priorities to protect them from being lost as villages.