Q6. Which of the identified strategy options do you consider should be taken forward in the Plan?

I applaud your efforts to make a possible plan for future development. However I am disappointed that you seem to concentrate on green belt areas. Surely you should concentrate on brown field areas and infill land.
To build on green fields you contribute to global warming whereas brown fields would be more or less neutral, Also you cannot keep building over good arable land and areas that soak up rainfall, hence causing flooding.
On what might affect me personally, I live in Nelson Road and the possible building on the field behind could cause great problems.
Firstly the land is higher than Nelson Road and there is a ditch with running water between our property and the field. If the field is built on the rainwater will not be absorbed and we will be at great risk of flooding.
Secondly the water pressure in Nelson Road is very poor, I believe not far above minimum requirements, any extra properties will seriously lower this more.
Thirdly the electricity power supply comes from Uplands Park Primary Substation which is already near maximum limits. All new build would also be supplied from there. All the building at Rawreth Lane/London Road is also fed from there.
Lastly the local roads ie. Hockley Road etc. are clogged with traffic now and will struggle to cope with any more. There is only one small general store locally, no Doctors etc.

Having reviewed (briefly) the proposals within the Local Plan, I consider that the only viable option to achieve a major expansion of housing stock is to create a new ‘village’ in the east of the Rochford district. This could be served by new road (and possibly light-rail) infrastructure with all relevant services and amenities provided locally.

To further develop the already congested areas within the Rayleigh area would be an unmitigated disaster. Many of the roads already become grid-locked at times with excess traffic, much of which is simply passing through the town, and these volumes would be significantly reduced by a new northern approach road to the new ‘village’ encompassing access to Hockley, Hawkwell, Hullbridge, Ashingdon, Rochford etc. along its route.

To remove the scant protection of the existing Green Belt across multiple areas of the town would be pure community vandalism and destroy the lifestyle of thousands of existing residents. In particular, the area closest to my property (reference CFS087) cannot surely be sensibly proposed for housing as there is no reasonable access from there to any of the main roads without swamping the existing estates, creating a road safety nightmare and further gridlock.

I sincerely hope that good sense will prevail and a completely new environment can be created to satisfy the housing needs as set out.

Local plan (Core strategy) - Spatial options consultation
I am writing to give you my objections to the above I am staggered by the extent of the plans given that at present the infrastructure is currently not able to support the existing number of houses in the area. This must be obvious to anyone in terms of the congestion on the roads, pressure on doctors surgeries, pressure on schools, pressure on the hospitals, pressure on the police in the area. To add to the number of houses on anything like the scale being consider is madness and any council members supporting such proposals is being disrespectful to the community that they are supposed to be serving, guaranteeing that there is sufficient supporting infrastructure in place first.

I am emailing as I have major concerns of more housing in the area.

I use these roads to go to work & find the congestion at times unacceptable. We do not have the infrastructure to cope with the increased traffic.

Do the schools doctors & dentists have the capacity too?
Going to hospital appointments are worrying as there are often delays. I was late to an emergency appointment to see a doctor in dowsett ward recently due to traffic problems.

Our beautiful footpaths & bridleways could be lost.

I have developed asthma at age 63. Air quality is a problem & is affecting me.

Please reconsider my request to rethink as our area is full of wildlife with beautiful walks.

With regard to the local plan consultation documents we wish to object in the strongest terms to the area we live in being overrun. Its already difficult to drive anywhere without traffic jams at any time of day. It takes 2-3 days to get a doctors appointment if you're lucky. Do they intend to build schools, do they intend to open more surgeries & bring in more doctors to the area. I don't think so. As long as people continue to vote for concrete councillors this awful overcrowding and building will continue.

Please find below our objections to the proposed developments in the Rochford local plan given the level of already occurring development and primarily based on the following three criteria:

• Ecological
• Green Belt
• Rayleigh infrastructure and road network
Ecological
With the current ecological position of the world It would be madness to further develop the agricultural and green belt land in the area, for example the three fields lying alongside Nelson Road, Bull Lane, Napier Road and Albert Road, which are near to where we live in Rayleigh; however looking at the wider map this also goes for the land in the Sutton and Shopland Road area adjacent the Southend boundary, this is also of interest us because we have property we let out in the Prittlewell area.

I am fully aware of the current ecological position of the world, which is being ably highlighted by professional people like Chris Packham, Monty Don and the recent Honeybee and pollinators awareness campaign on Radio 2. This is by no means exhaustive and is also being flagged-up by many others in similar positions.

It’s totally against the needs of nature to develop more farm and meadow land as we are constantly being told by the like of the above people that the world dearly needs this environment.

With the recent problems, a sustainable supply of home-grown food is becoming ever more important so to lose farmland will only make this situation worse.

Green Belt
In the 1930’s it was deemed necessary to create green belt land in order to stop urban sprawl, and this came into action in the mid-1950’s. The further erosion of this belt will go against the original plan as set out in the 1930’s.

It’s a case of where will it end, with the gradual erosion of one field or meadow now, and then another next time, and another etc., etc., and eventually the green belt will have been completely eroded and urban sprawl will have occurred i.e., Between Rayleigh and Hockley, and also between Rochford and Shopland and the neighbouring Prittlewell area of Southend. Sadly, the development of green belt, farm and meadowland is seen as a cheap and easy option for the developers.

Rayleigh infrastructure and road network
The Rayleigh infrastructure is already overloaded with grid lock in the town plus the schools are at capacity and oversubscribed, as are doctor surgeries and such like. We are already overpopulated in this area of the Southeast and adding to it is just sheer madness. This is without the impact of the completion from the current developments occurring in the area, so adding to those will simply push it over the edge so to speak!

Summary
To sum up its complete and utter madness to develop the area as laid out in the plan. I fully understand this is a directive from central government, but the time has come for the local people and council to say to central government “NO MORE” and do what is right for both the local area and the world! Despite all the rhetoric the priority here is building houses and not protecting the environment. I would like to think my Grandchildren will be able to play and walk in the neighbouring fields and meadows as I did as child.

To whom it may concern,

As a resident of Rectory Road, I herewith object to the earmarking of CFS194, CFS169, CFS150 and CFS020 for development.

The infrastructure in Rochford is simply not able to handle such big developments. Doctors are overstretched, water systems are not able to cope and the roads are not designed for such an increase in traffic.

If anything, I suggest looking into the option of constructing a link between the Potash roundabout directly to the A127 to avoid filtering all commuting traffic through Hockley and Rayleigh.

New local plan - potential impact on Hullbridge
I have been a resident in Hullbridge since 2009. During this time the addition of 500 houses in Hullbridge alongside the large housing estate being built just outside on Rawreth Lane has resulted in significant strain on the local road infrastructure. I commute to Chelmsford and this can often take over an hour (up to 2 when watery Lane is closed). Despite the existing houses there is repeated issues with the roads and often residents are trapped in the village. The potential for more houses in this area will need consideration to improve the roads. We have received additional houses which have already put strain on our GP surgery and small village school which will not be able to accommodate an increase in residents in the area.

The spatial options could lead to 20 sites in Hullbridge with over 4000 houses. I am particularly concerned about the extension to the new houses at the end of Grasmere Avenue. This area is liable to flooding and would destroy a vineyard which is creating business for the community. Access would also be down roads which are unmade and therefore not suitable for heavy machinery.

I have concerns with the impact on the impact on natural habits and destruction of wildlife. Hullbridge is a village with greenbelt which has already been built on. I am an avid walker/runner and the new proposed houses will mean the loss of footpaths.

I am unsure how the houses fit with preserving our rural costal village outlook because Hullbridge will effectively become a town but without the resources to support this. There is no youth centre in the village and there is a lack of amenities, this will worsen and likely lead to increased anti-social behaviour.

The plan provides inaccurate information regarding public transport. For example the bus service does not run 4-7 times per hour.

Looking at the local plan I would recommend focusing the houses in one area rather than destroying villages. The area towards the a130 near the back of wickford seems to he the most sensible option. It is close to main roads and the existing town.

Objection to Local Plan 2021
As a Hawkwell resident I would like to add my voice to the objections against the absurd proposals in the so-called "Local Plan".

The Rochford area is already massively over-developed and it should go without saying that there will be no more large-scale housing development here. Kindly deposit the ludicrous plan in the nearest waste bin, forget it, and tell the Government once and for all that Rochford is full up.

I am writing to object to the vast housing plans that have been proposed.
Born here well over 50 years ago, I have seen huge changes. Some good, some bad and some really quite indifferent but these, all of these are way in excess of the infrastructure available.
The roads cannot cope as it is, and neither can the council in keeping them roadworthy. Bus services are inadequate at best and trains are not available to everybody, particularly those living too far from the station to be able to afford a taxi too.
We are supposed to be mindful of our environment but once natural habitats are destroyed, they are gone for good.
Furthermore, the added traffic will only add to the already high air pollution and this will only exacerbate the amount of children with breathing difficulties.
Many have become aware of the wonderful walks that have been rediscovered in recent difficult times. These too will be affected.
I recall all too well the floods of 1968 and 2013. With climate change, serious consideration needs to be given to the effects of this.
There are not enough schools, doctors surgeries, dentists and other basic requirements now. Isn't now a good time to be considering that every home should be within walking distance to, at the very least, a doctor, a dentist, school - both primary and secondary. This will free up some of the routes at certain times of day.
The hospital is currently on its knees after the pandemic and this will not improve when it is added to by higher volumes of cases. Waiting lists are already increased with new cases having to jump through hoops to be referred. I have been rejected only this morning for a condition of many years standing. I would object but there's little point when I am so aware that others are in similar/worse positions.
I would also like to point out that much of the information given is less than honest and plays on the fact that some simply don't know. There are many elderly in our community that don't have access to the internet. Let's be mindful of these citizens that have made such a contribution that may now not be aware of what is happening around them.
Until such a time that the infrastructure is more secure, now is not the time to be investing in such huge changes.

I am extremely disappointed at the contents of the local plan issued and would make the following comments:-
The plan is based on outdated data (especially now that we are no longer members of the EU and have now suffered one of the worst pandemics in modern history)
My main criticisms are that the existing infrastructure is totally inadequate to support any further development and until new and vastly improved infrastructure is in place there should be no further development
It is not sufficient for RDC to state that new roads, doctors, community facilities etc will be provided within the plans as past history tells us that this will not happen.
I cannot remember the name of the RDC employee that told me this at an open evening a couple of year ago at the WI Hall in Rayleigh (if I could remember I would probably be suing RDC) that all Infrastructure was the responsibility of ECC and would be in 100% before any works were started on new housing (I now appreciate how stupid I was to believe what I was being told) when I see the 500 house Hullbridge scheme completed and the 500 house Rawreth Lane scheme well on its way but both missing any substantial infrastructure.
I do not think that building on "Green Belt" land is acceptable - - there is sufficient other land available.
Also, before finalising any plans for future developments, the Central Government should be told to recalculate the housing requirements for this country and rethink their blinkered approach to filling up the South East of the country with housing when it is already the most densely populated area in England
I do not believe RDC have the right to build on land designated conservation areas or anywhere near it that detracts from the beauty of the conservation area
I do not believe that RDC have the right to build on land that will be subject to flooding

Regarding the Mill Hall / Barringtons fiasco as proposed by the council, there is so much wrong with their proposals (including their unwillingness to listen to any objections) that it would take at least 24 hours to complete a critique but I list some of the items which the council need to consider / answer before any decisions are made
A full survey / renovation project should be worked up by the council and put forward for approval
A proper survey of existing / expected occupancy of the existing Mill Hall and/or the proposed mini hall proposed next to (and too close to) the Windmill
A recalculation around the major proposed loss of car parking at Mill Hall site
The justification for new council offices - there is none as far as the public can see
The justification for selling off valuable assets (ie Barringtons site and Mill Hall site) to profiteering so called Partners from Birmingham
Please also stop using the innapropriate term of "Partner" when referring to Consultants - there is no partnership just a contract
Why has the Mill Hall not been maintained by Fusion / RDC leading to RDC stating it would be cheaper to knock it down and build e new hall 9ma7ybe this is true but RDC are not prosing to build a new hall - they are proposing to build a tiny inadequate hall next to a much loved Windmill
There now has to be a proper public consultation (not the arbitrary tokens we've had so far (vastly overcomplicated and meant to confuse the public) and the consultation should not be limited to 2 minutes per speaker (after all the councillors get unlimited time to hatch there misleading and arrogant plans - trying to tell the public that they know best)
Hopefully I will get opportunities, in the future, to comment further but, such is my lack of faith in the people in charge, I doubt it.

As a young person who has grown up playing in the green belt land, providing a sort of escapism from the every day life. It's Incredibly tough to watch you build and continue to propose green belt land as a place to built yet more poor quality new residential areas that will be unaffordable to the people that grew up playing on that very land. What is the purpose of green belt land? When it can get so quickly written away from a map by a small selection of individuals. Whilst all the comments you will receive on this consultation will be mostly negative, you will continue to see the quick profit to be made at the cost of nature and the mental health of the residents.

What are young people meant to do in this area? I have seen no investments in the areas I used to go to. How about the BMX track at grove park? A place used to be used by a passionate community of individuals which brought many people into the sport and off the streets. Flattened many years ago but never replaced with anything. Or how about the paths or signage around the walkways throughout the greenbelt land. Many sign posts rotten and unreadable, with walkways not even walkable by most. Or how about the parking at grove wood park? All the lighting has been destroyed, the fences have fallen apart, the trash bins overflowing most of the time. These are just a few examples why I feel failed by this council. When you take away these green areas, no kids will grow up connected to nature. You will have continued rising cases of mental health issues, putting NHS further at risk. Continued increase in crime within areas which I felt safe to go as a kid, which now seem like safe havens for crime. Further increasing road pollution, poisoning the kids wandering round the streets due to nothing else to do in this town.

Don't you see the problems you cause by taking away this green belt land whilst not investing in community resources. Whilst I ain't naïve to believe this will make a difference to the older generation that will hear it, at least I'm providing a voice to the people who grew up around me.

Plans for the proposed new housing in the Hullbridge Rayleigh and Rochford areas.
We are horrified to hear of all the new housing designated for this area. As receivers of in excess of 500 new houses currently being built in Hullbridge and having to suffer the consequences of this building scheme we are horrified to hear of the further number being designated not only for us but also the outrageous quantity for our neighbouring towns.

Our infrastructure cannot take this!

Roads ,which are under stress at the normal time but in the frequent event of road works ,any repair works and improvements? The area comes to a standstill.

Hospital and health care which is under pressure and Covid has added to is going to take at least 5 years plus to get under control.

Our green spaces are disappearing fast farms and spaces for our horses to be stabled going.

Leisure facilities for our children and older residents and families are going fast.

The environment and habitats for wildlife is under serious threat. It seems our priorities are for ourselves only and we do not know how the disappearance of species will affect lives in the future

This is the turning point for our planet do not pay lip service to our problems we are the ones who will be judged in the future. You are supposed to be OUR representatives and OUR VOICES

To try and halt the destruction of our planet.

It seems we are trying to make things better with the pollution on things we have. or things we do but you are not considering the impact that all these house s which are

Adding at least 2 new cars and at least doubling the number of people to all of the above . It fills me with dread for mine and other families as to how their lives will be in years to come.

Education in this are is stretched and I wonder how it will cope with the extra children joining the system. New schools will have to be built with the extra cars as the parents take them to school.

| AM SURE I COULD LIST MANY MORE THOUGHTS AND OBJECTIONS BUT AT THE MOMENT IAM TOO UPSET AT THE THOUGHT OF SUCH FEW VOICES ARE SPEAKING FOR SO MANY OF US .(AS WINSTON CHURCHILL WOULD HAVE SAID)

I object strongly on ANYMORE development in this area, the road network can't cope, the doctors can't cope, the whole infrastructure can't cope as it is.
It is the same problem for the whole of South East Essex, why can't RDC, Southend and Castle Point get together and put forward a wholesale objection pointing out the fact that this area is already over developed for the infrastructure in place?
Just political dogma and stubbornness maybe?

I have two comments on the local plan:

1. Options 2a and 2b. The proposed development in and around Rayleigh is far in excess of what the town can cope with. The roads and infrastructure are already incapable of dealing with the existing demands. Any new major building will overwhelm the area. Demand for new housing should be allocated to the east of the council area, and Options 3a and 3b give a much better solution close to Fossets Way, away from existing towns.

2. Page 28 Col 7. The Mill Hall is an essential facility for a town the size of Rayleigh. The proposal to demolish it and release the land for building flats is opposed. This will destroy the appearance of the conservation area and is to the detriment of Rayleigh Town centre. The proposed smaller replacement for the Mill Hall is totally inadequate for the type of function that Rayleigh residents want to take place.

Spatial options comments
Thank you for your response but as you can imagine this has caused real anxiety and fear for local residents who's lives may be completely ruined by this. I have spent further time looking at the map and trying to be positive, so would like the following to be included in the feedback please as a potential opening statement from the council
1. Whilst recognising the need to provide homes for residents and their families the Council is also cognance of the effects of any major house building. To this end the Council is committed to building new houses on land which has the least affect on existing residents.

I have reviewed the map[ of the district and have identified approx 21 sites which would not affect existing residents and therefore provide least resistance, these sites could provide 8423 new dwellings, they are
Bolt hall farm CFS043 192 houses
Land east of bend CFS012 16 houses
Land btwn Lambourne Hall Rd CFS061 112 houses
Takeley Creeksea Ferry Road CFS 173 16 house
Site on Hal lRd CFS213 52 houses
Paglesham church end CFS166 72 houses
Lane Field watery lane CFS149 476 houses
Land north of Vanderbilitore CFS 246 17 houses
Land south

Spatial options comments
Thank you for your response but as you can imagine this has caused real anxiety and fear for local residents who's lives may be completely ruined by this. I have spent further time looking at the map and trying to be positive, so would like the following to be included in the feedback please as a potential opening statement from the council
1. Whilst recognising the need to provide homes for residents and their families the Council is also cognance of the effects of any major house building. To this end the Council is committed to building new houses on land which has the least affect on existing residents.

I have reviewed the map[ of the district and have identified approx 21 sites which would not affect existing residents and therefore provide least resistance, these sites could provide 8423 new dwellings, they are
Bolt hall farm CFS043 192 houses
Land east of bend CFS012 16 houses
Land btwn Lambourne Hall Rd CFS061 112 houses
Takeley Creeksea Ferry Road CFS 173 16 house
Site on Hal lRd CFS213 52 houses
Paglesham church end CFS166 72 houses
Lane Field watery lane CFS149 476 houses
Land north of Vanderbilitore CFS 246 17 houses
Land south

I would like to comment on the potential to build at the bottom of Wellington Road, Rayleigh.

First though I would like to comment on the over complex nature of the consultation: I am 100% sure that requiring someone to answer the number of questions you have included in your consultation process will persuade a large proportion of people not to bother. Not only because the questions ask for opinions on matters the person might not care about but the length of the process also acts as a deterrent to completion. These reasons are in fact why I have chosen to email rather than complete the online forms. I might also mention that artranging the face to face consultations during the working day is also divisive! In case your response is that people can email like I have, the option to email is at the end of the extremely long web page, just to give an idea how long it is I have copied it below - see if you can be bothered to read it all and get to the bottom! I don't know if it is true but it really looks like you are trying to limit the number of people who respond, or it is simply a very poor consultation portal.

Secondly I would like your response to a statement and a couple of questions. I am sure that almost all the people who respond to your consultation will be objecting to the change in their environment, as I am. The change in the view from the house, traffic on the street, impact on infrastructure (schools, doctors, dentists, opticians, clubs etc.) are all negative; there is no positive for residents.
1. Why is there not an alternative solution of building a new conurbation away from existing residential buildings? This alternative solution would be funded privately and so have no costs for local residents or the council.
2. If all the responses to your plan are negative what will you do? I ask because the purpose of consultation should be to be cognisant of the views of those who respond and changing plans to better fit their views (after all we are the public that the council serves - not the other way around); and if you intend to go ahead anyway it seems that the process is pointless.

Finally to Wellington Road and the land at the end of the road. The road would become an access road and is not wide enough to manage 2 way traffic. If you include the number of houses suggested at the bottom of the road it will become a cut through like Nelson Road and be congested. I know then the council will look for solutions like limited parking; which in turn will mean that all the houses in the street will have problems parking vehicles and particularly when they have visitors. I will add that changing our dead end road to a cut-through will impact on every resident adversely - we have a safe and excellent community which will be decimated by the intrusion of constant traffic, please don't do that to us.

New Local Plan - OBJECTION
I have been a Hawkwell resident for many years & have welcomed many newcomers to the area.

This e-mail is to register my opposition to & extreme concern about the several proposed housing plans by Rochford District Council.

Building more & more properties with all the additional pressures they will bring to every aspect of local life i.e. ROADS, MEDICAL FACILITIES, INFRASTRUCTURES, SCHOOLING, POLLUTION, QUALITY OF LIFE, etc etc is unsustainable & defies common sense.

Planning for new homes must reflect the practicalities on EVERY level not just numbers.

I write with the following comments on the suitability of various sites for development. I have considered the following sites because of their proximity to my address at 65b, Victor Gardens, Hawkwell, but many of my comments would apply in respect of other sites too.

Specifically regarding CFS088, CFS150, CFS093, CFS017, CFS194, CFS169 and CFS242, the following comments apply:

Impact on Metropolitan Green Belt
Many of the sites are within the Metropolitan Green Belt. Creation and maintenance of the Green Belt is critically important, and proposed development must be resisted. As you are aware, Green Belt exists:

• To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas
• To prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another
• To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment
• To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns
• To assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.

The generalised need for housing and other development, when considered at this early stage, does not provide a special benefit and is not a special circumstance that outweighs the harm that would be caused to the green belt. This is a criterion for decisions about development in Green Belt. Therefore, the assumption should be that these sites would be discarded as options from the outset.

Loss of Amenity
A significant rise in local population and in recent dog ownership means that sites like these (e.g., CFS194), if developed, would reduce options for walking and simple enjoyment of the environment. A knock-on effect of development in land adjacent to both Clements Hall Lane (e.g., CFS088) and Victor Gardens (e.g., CFS093) would be that dog-walking and horse-riding (Clements Hall Lane is a bridleway) would both suffer as quiet country lanes would give way to busy traffic. Even if the roads themselves were not developed, examples like the use of White Hart Lane and Magnolia Road as an unofficial short cut between Hockley and Hawkwell show that the level of traffic would increase, and be a potential safety risk to walkers and riders alike.

Damage to the Environment
As you will have seen during your site appraisals, many species of wildlife – plants and animals – exist in these sites. For example, large birds of prey are frequently seen circling above and nesting in CFS150 and CFS169. The RSPB’s research indicating the decline of many UK species of bird attributes this up to 95% decline (e.g., Tree Sparrow) as being due to the change in use of agricultural and wooded land.

Insufficient Infrastructure (e.g., Roads, Healthcare) / Effect on Safety and Environment
Site Assessments Ratings may be misleading as a policy tool regarding development decisions. ‘Distance to strategic road network’ is meaningless if that strategic road network is already very busy, and indeed congested (e.g., much of the B1013, Hall Road etc). Likewise ‘Access to healthcare facilities’ may mean it’s physically possible to approach a doctor’s surgery but isn’t related to the likelihood of being able to book an appointment! We all know that this area is becoming much busier than its existing infrastructure was designed to accommodate. Development should, therefore, take this into account.

Victor Gardens is a busy road with many residential properties and the risk in terms of safety (traffic using this road to access new estates at the east end of Victor Gardens) would be significant, e.g., risk to cyclists and children playing. Development at these sites would also have an effect on local air quality, as the amount of traffic increases.

Overall
Overall, I would urge the Council to consider more suitable locations such as Rayleigh, with nearby, extendable links to the major road network (e.g., A127), or indeed to use available brown-field sites. The Council can also work to accommodate required housing numbers through its treatment of individual planning applications and the use of land by private individuals where, for example, a few large executive houses are built instead of several, smaller houses.

Additionally, the shoe-horning in of development into sites such as those I’ve mentioned doesn’t make sense if compared with developing sites CFS081 or CFS078, for example, where at least the relative lack of surrounding urbanisation means the opportunity to co-develop appropriate new infrastructure, widen roads etc is more easily fulfilled. Potential sites around the Cherry Orchard area are adjacent to road connections and ongoing development related to the airport, and therefore more suitable.

I would like to express my concern for the proposed numerous housing developments being considered by Rochford council.

There are already several very large developments underway in the local area and as far as I am aware no infrastructure has been put in place for any of them. In what is already a very populated area surely this is madness, or more likely wealthy developers doing whatever they want with no comeback.

No new schools, no new doctors, roads that are already struggling to cope with existing traffic. Children will end up having to go to school miles away meaning more traffic! How long before the area grinds to a halt completely!

Surely the Developers have a duty to provide certain services on such big developments? They get away with it by building in stages so they don’t have to and make more profit with no concern for the problems it will cause.

Shouldn’t the council be more concerned about stopping this over development of the area and ensuring the developers put this infrastructure in place.

As for the environmental concerns and the erosion of our ‘green spaces’ that just doesn’t seem to matter at all and will have long term effects for everyone.

Clearly money talks!

Objection to proposed development of 47 Victor Gardens Hawkwell
I am contacting you concerning the proposed planning to develop 14 houses at 47 Victor Gardens Hawkwell. I live on the road and feel that the road is already congested with parked cars and used as a rat run by many drivers (especially during the school run) and additional cars are not welcome.

We will be also losing many trees that provide habitat for the few birds and wildlife we have left in what was once a country village. The houses will not be affordable for our young generation and will not bring any benefit to the population of the area.

I am also concerned about the disruption the development will cause, especially access to large vehicles etc. We also have young families and elderly people in the street and the noise pollution during building will also be an inconvenience. We also have issues with the drainage in the area and when it rains the road flows like a river, so the converting of more green space will only make this worse.

This along with the other developments proposed in the area are outrageous and I know you will hide behind the 'we are told by the government' line and not stick up for your residents, however COVID has brought us into a new world, with people working from home and access to areas around London are no longer essential. Say no to this and tell the government that they should regenerate deprived areas in the country and encourage people to work from home in those areas.

Anyway, I guess you can look forward to more council tax funds but I am sure you will still find an excuse not to provide roads without potholes.

Objection to proposed development of 47 Victor Gardens Hawkwell
I am contacting you concerning the proposed planning to develop 14 houses at 47 Victor Gardens Hawkwell. I live on the road and feel that the road is already congested with parked cars and used as a rat run by many drivers (especially during the school run) and additional cars are not welcome.

We will be also losing many trees that provide habitat for the few birds and wildlife we have left in what was once a country village. The houses will not be affordable for our young generation and will not bring any benefit to the population of the area.

I am also concerned about the disruption the development will cause, especially access to large vehicles etc. We also have young families and elderly people in the street and the noise pollution during building will also be an inconvenience. We also have issues with the drainage in the area and when it rains the road flows like a river, so the converting of more green space will only make this worse.

This along with the other developments proposed in the area are outrageous and I know you will hide behind the 'we are told by the government' line and not stick up for your residents, however COVID has brought us into a new world, with people working from home and access to areas around London are no longer essential. Say no to this and tell the government that they should regenerate deprived areas in the country and encourage people to work from home in those areas.

Anyway, I guess you can look forward to more council tax funds but I am sure you will still find an excuse not to provide roads without potholes.

Opposition to spatial options plans
I am emailing to express my strong opposition to the proposals to build yet more housing in Rayleigh and Rochford district more widely. I am very concerned for the following reasons.

1. The severe impact on the road network. Rayleigh suffers from bad traffic with the existing housing and there are currently just under 1000 more homes already being built in Rayleigh West. The road infrastructure is incredibly vulnerable to any disruption caused by for example utility repairs. A road closure or installation of temporary traffic lights brings the entire town to a standstill resulting in children not getting to school on time, carers not getting to their vulnerable clients and emergency services struggling to respond, not to mention the lost hours for businesses and individuals. The entire A127 corridor has grown so rapidly in the past 15 years that it has reached saturation point. I personally have regularly experienced days where it is impossible to get anywhere in a timely manner. This has an impact on my mental health and physical health as it erodes any leisure time I might otherwise have. I hear that businesses have declined basing themselves in this region due to the unreliable journey times. I fear that if the local authorities don’t sound the alarms at full volume to central government and refuse to meet the targets for housing that this region will end up a deprived, undesirable place to live where people and businesses are unable to function successfully due to the complete inability of the current road infrastructure to cope with the immense demands all this housing puts on it. If people can’t travel they can’t access work, essential services or businesses. There are already days when a 20 mile journey takes over 2 hours, it should take 35 minutes.

Rayleigh suffers particularly badly as a town from severe traffic problems, there aren’t any strategic roads in or out.

No more housing in this area without a billion pound road building project to overcome all the problems identified above.

Rayleigh west is not accessible by public transport and is too far for most people to walk to the town centre and station, this means lots more journeys by car.

2. I’m opposed to the plans for more housing in Rayleigh because the town lacks essential services, school places, doctor surgeries, NHS dentists etc. We don’t have a public swimming pool or a cinema. This part of the country suffers from the longest hospital waiting times anywhere. No more housing without all the key services.

3. I believe we are in a climate emergency and this government is committed to the environment and green policies. How does building on green belt land in Rochford match up with this rhetoric. I’m opposed to building on green field sites as these are habitat for wildlife and essential sponges to absorb water, key in these climate change times. Once green land is lost it is lost forever. More housing means more boilers, more pollution, how can we meet our climate change emission goals by building all these houses. Green space is essential to good mental health and clean air. Things that Rayleigh is sadly losing.

Thanks for your consideration of the above points.

Object to the idea
Absolutely disgraceful, I have read the document and three things stand out, firstly it states it’s evidence based so where is the evidence that the residents want this, secondly, who wrote the vision statements not somebody who lives in the area that for sure, absolute rubbish about us wanting more shops, more transport links more industry more more more when the opposite is true, lastly the document then talks about villages and hamlets retaining their character, again what a joke when you look at the proposals, who makes this up.

I wish to make the following comments.

Rayleigh has had a disproportionate amount of development already. This has resulted in increased traffic congestion and high levels of air pollution in Rayleigh. Option 2A and 2B exacerbate these problems.

I accept Rochford Council has to meet Government targets so would favour Option 3A and 3B , a new garden village close to Fossets Way.It would deliver the housing without worsening existing traffic congestion and air pollution caused by overdevelopment of Rayleigh.

I am opposed to the demolition of the Mill Hall to build flats and a smaller hall. Flats are not in keeping with the area. Also Rayleigh has already absorbed a lot of housing development with very little spent on amenities. The Mill Hall is an important asset and prior to it becoming a vaccination centre and Covid it was used for exercise classes, craft fairs, weddings, parties, Rayleigh Operatic and Dramatic Society productions, concerts and more. A smaller hall would not be suitable. In the light of all the new housing currently being built in Rayleigh there is likely to be an even greater need for the Mill Hall.

I strongly object to any more building in this area (Hockley, Hawkwell, Ashingdon, Rochford, Hullbridge, Rayleigh).
In the UK there are over 600,000 (six hundred thousand) empty unused buildings. Why do councils not concentrate on bringing some of these buildings back into use.
My objections are probably the same as everyone else. Schools, doctors, hospital, wildlife, open spaces (small areas of green don’t count), large supermarket, roads, infrastructure, congestion etc.
Over 99% of meadows have been lost since the end of WW2. How can the council even consider building on land off of Greensward Lane (and other sites) some of the last remaining meadows around. A breathing space for people and animals.
Rochford mustn’t become like Westcliff, Leigh etc where there is no countryside.

Overview of Spatial Options Plan shows general lack of forethought on following items :-

1 Lack of Public consultation BEFORE production of the strategies, which will affect all residents.
This approach reflects the general public opinion- the public are not important and RDC will do “their own thing “ so this leads to apathy.

2 Harmful Impact on natural resources, including farming, wildlife and outdoor activities.

3 Danger to drainage, flood risk areas and therefore health- due to effluence etc.

4 Higher pollution -traffic increase. (resulting traffic standing in queues at peak times.)

5 Lack of connected cycle paths and safe bridal paths and safe pedestrian crossings.

6 Understanding of School/ college accessibility .

7 Understanding of medical needs.

8 The smaller villages are now becoming dormitories .

9 The B type roads are rat runs.

Just build a new homes on brown field sites like old Police Station Rochford, Old flour mill Rochford , Old site next to airport shops -hard standing still there so flat pack village could be a possible solution , corner of Ashingdon Road, near St Teresa’s school garage .

I refer to all options listed but more specifically to those listed below.

The Rochford district is a unique geography, occupying an isthmus that is surrounded by water on three sides. It has suffered from over development without, the accompanying infrastructure considerations. Rochford district council has presided over the the poor previous development, and has ignored all previous concerns of residents. There exists a complete lack of trust in the motivations of RDC in this process. How can you suggest further development when the impact of current proposals are not yet understood pr deliberately ignored.

CFS045
CFS064
CFS160
CFS161
CFS074
CFS194
CFS169
CFS150
CFS020
CFS261

I object to all of the above for the following reasons.

Location
Most of these are Green Belt, and will impact the immediate area due to lack of road infrastructure.

Highway issues. Congestion a complete lack of road development. Currently the roads are not maintained to cope with the current increasing volumes of traffic. Additionally the main arteries out of Essex are already close to maximum capacity.

Infrastructure: The council has not invested in travel alternatives like cycle ways or buses, additional development will cause further congestion and pollution.

Green Belt this is continually eroded, changing the very nature of the area, with no serious attempts at conserving nature.

Impact from other districts. These developments should not be considered in isolation of development in other districts, Southend and Castle point will also impact the Rochford district. this is a disingenuous way of consulting the residents.

I refer to all options listed but more specifically to those listed below.

The Rochford district is a unique geography, occupying an isthmus that is surrounded by water on three sides. It has suffered from over development without, the accompanying infrastructure considerations. Rochford district council has presided over the the poor previous development, and has ignored all previous concerns of residents. There exists a complete lack of trust in the motivations of RDC in this process. How can you suggest further development when the impact of current proposals are not yet understood or deliberately ignored.

CFS045
CFS064
CFS160
CFS161
CFS074
CFS194
CFS169
CFS150
CFS020
CFS261

I object to all of the above for the following reasons.

Location
Most of these are Green Belt, and will impact the immediate area due to lack of road infrastructure.

Highway issues. Congestion a complete lack of road development. Currently the roads are not maintained to cope with the current increasing volumes of traffic. Additionally the main arteries out of Essex are already close to maximum capacity.

Infrastructure: The council has not invested in travel alternatives like cycle ways or buses, additional development will cause further congestion and pollution.

Green Belt this is continually eroded, changing the very nature of the area, with no serious attempts at conserving nature.

Impact from other districts. These developments should not be considered in isolation of development in other districts, Southend and Castle point will also impact the Rochford district. this is a disingenuous way of consulting the residents.