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

Local Action Plan - Spatial Options Consultation CFS194, CFS020, CFS169 & CFS150
I would like to lodge my concerns and objections to possible changes to the Local Action Plan that could result in the development of the above potentially resulting in as many as 801 houses being built.

My concerns and objections are as follows:

Infrastructure: whilst Essex County Council have started the process of reviewing the Road Network and Rochford District Council is seeking a consultancy report on Urban Capacity I believe neither of these has yet been completed. Without an infrastructure assessment in place how can Spatial Options be considered or go to consultation?

Living in Hawkwell (Rectory Road) I am naturally concerned that development of the sites CFS194, CFS020, CFS169 & CFS150 would lead to road congestion and bottlenecks on roads not capable of supporting increased traffic. This is unsustainable and therefore unacceptable for the development of further housing leading to increased private car journeys. The bus services (8 & 7) are not adequate as a viable alternative and cycling would likely become even more dangerous as cycles compete for road space with very busy traffic.

Air quality will also decrease further; given that with increased housing there will be increased traffic there will be an increase in air pollution which is likely to have a serious effect on residents, both the young and the elderly.

CS194 is near a Water Course. Hawkwell Brook is designated a tidal river by DEFRA. There were floods in 1968 and 2013 from this river. I am concerned the development of this site could lead to a flood risk for properties both on this site and along Rectory Road.

The sites above are either green belt or farm land. Wildlife has already been displaced by recent development of (for example) the Christmas Tree Estate. Where will wildlife go if development continues? The likelihood is it will decrease in population numbers.

I would also question whether local primary and secondary schools have the capacity to support an increased local population in Hawkwell, Hockley and Ashingdon? Another concern would be the capacity of local GP practices to support an increased population.

I appreciate that affordable housing is an issue but I do not feel the development of the above sites is justifiable or appropriate and strongly object.

I would like to voice my opinion on the new plans to build housing within Rochford Council specifically Rayleigh.
At the current time if you tried to drive through Rayleigh are certain times of the day such as three 5:30 8 o’clock in the morning it is impossible to not hit traffic there is so much traffic and so many cars up both sides of the hill by the train station and coming Back ontothe A127. As it is proposed to change some of our greenbelt but also just create new housing in Rayleigh even if this is 100 houses that means roughly around 150 to 200 cars on the street around Rayleigh the infrastructure will not be able to take this and it’ll become a tough place to live.
We don’t want our town taken over by flats housing and traffic we want to be able to enjoy our town as residents. I opposed to the decision within the next five years of building any new housing on top of the rawreth Estate already coming in.

Living in Hullbridge for many years, we have seen the green belt disappearing with alarming regularity.
Houses have and are still being built on what we know is a flood plain. Watery lane flooding, even with preventative measures in place.
The bus service often doesn’t run into Ferry Road owing to obstacles due to building and road works. We have been kept prisoner in Hullbridge, on many occasions for this reason.
The infrastructure we have would offer nothing to families in new builds, as the doctors surgery is full, the one primary school is full and all secondary school pupils have to get busses, the 820 to Sweyne school has just been cancelled, causing the parents and pupils much distress. How will they get to school.
There isn’t anywhere for the children to have fun. Pooled lanes has limited apparatus, which is mainly for small children.
This lack of amenities causes the children to get up to mischief with occasional damage to property.
The major problem is that a significant part of Hullbridge will be below sea level by 2040.
Madness to build here.
The better option is No 3
West of Rayleigh, North of Southend and East of Rochford.

I wish to give my views as a resident of many years - and hopefully many to come.

Rochford, and particularly Rayleigh where I live, is already overcrowded for the infrastructure - that is a fact.

The roads in and out of Rayleigh are already over capacity. When just one of the main routes in/ out of Rayleigh is disturbed, by for example roadworks, the whole town becomes gridlocked. This adds massively to air pollution, which is surely one the major issues that must be taken into account now and in the future.

Doctors are overwhelmed and, not just because of the Pandemic. The large Audley Mills practice for example has a queue (including many 70 year olds) early in the morning each day, trying to get an appointment.

Schools cannot cope with the places needed for pupils.

Option1 - No.
Will happen anyway to certain extent, but just adds to existing issues regarding gridlock on roads, lack of Doctors etc.
Option 2 - No.
Lazy option and same infrastructure issues as Option 1. Fact - Rayleigh cannot currently cope with traffic and doctors are overwhelmed. Plus, road congestion adds to pollution.
Option 3 - Yes.
Best option. Be bold and put all infrastructure in place so everyone benefits. Garden Village type development would surely be supported by Government.
Option 4 - No.
Take opportunity to do it right for current and future residents i.e. option 3

I wish to strongly object to the demolition and inclusion of Mill Hall Rayleigh, Essex site COL7 and the building of flats and houses in close proximity and adjacent to our 200 year old Grade 2 listed windmill which is also in a conservation area. This is used for weddings as indeed mine was. Future use will be compromised with the outdoor photos blighted with these new builds and loss of parking. Who is going to get married there?
I also object to Rayleigh Civic Site being lost locally especially as there are such beautiful rooms. You profess to be keen on reducing our carbon footprint yet seem intent on not only building significant numbers of flats and houses where the likely hood of truly affordable homes for our residents is highly unlikely. You are looking to demolish existing buildings with the wastage of raw materials. Priority should be given to ensure all empty homes are fully utilised first. Materials and land are finite. It seems to me Essex as a whole is taking more then their fare share amongst 27 counties in England.

What is the point of me spending my hard earned money to live in the countryside only for you and the government to be hell bent on destroying England’s green and pleasant land ?

Everyone I know has objected to the housing developments in Hall Road, Rochford, Hullbridge and Rawreth Lane, Rayleigh yet planning permission was granted on every occasion.

Can you explain why ?

The only people benefitting from this are the developers (and probably the council !) where you use the excuse of providing affordable housing but when they are completed they are totally out of reach for anyone under 25 who have no chance of getting onto the property ladder.

NO LOCAL RESIDENT WANTS THESE DEVELOPMENTS – WHY DO YOU NOT LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE WHO PUT YOU INTO POWER ?

No doubt you’ll continue doing as you please – your actions disgust me !

Following delivery of a leaflet produced by the Liberal Democrats on Rochford C.C detailing your outline plan showing the areas which could be released for future development in our area. Quite frankly I was appalled to see the extent of what is planned for this area. We moved to Rayleigh twenty five years ago as it was unique in the area as having the look and feel of an old 'Ancient Market Town' as described by the town sign, but, in recent years, it has gone downhill dramatically. It has started to look scruffy with the added help of graffiti artists around the town. The traffic is becoming horrendous, with constant queues entering the town from all directions. We are not 'Nimbies' and we can accept the need for some sustainable housing developments but this is totally out of keeping with the area. Ten thousand dwellings in this area could potentially bring at best an extra 20,000 people plus associated vehicles, to an already congested area. How will it ever cope?

Also, whatever happened to the Tory promise of maintaining and protecting the Green Belt in this area? This amount of development will effectively remove Green Belt land from around our town stretching from the east - Southend/Eastwood up to Rawreth and Wickford to the west and north of the town plus to the Southend Arterial to the south of the town. What's next "London Borough of Rochford"?

Cynically perhaps, but I'm sure this consultation is just a public relations exercise (as was the west of Rayleigh Development scheme) and it's a 'Done Deal', but the Council should think on about the consequences of such actions before following the instructions from your masters in Westminster of perpetuating mass urbanisation and destroying what's left of our town and the environment. We are Tory voters, as are many people we know, and the only way we can probably fight this proposal is through the Ballot Box in future elections.

Until an Infrastructure Assessment has been carried out I believe the Spatial Options Consultation is premature.

We need to know the results of ECC’s review on the Road Network before we start considering sites for more housing bearing in mind that air quality in this area has decreased in recent years and that any incident on our local roads causes massive tailbacks with current traffic volumes.

When building any new houses there should be a balance of leisure activities provided.

Have reviewed the serious number of pages on this not easy to read local plan.
We have lived in Rayleigh 37 years and prior to that in Benfleet.
If you live in Rayleigh you will be well aware of the constant road traffic congestion at most times every day of the week .Rayleigh Weir in particular has grown into a nightmare to get through or even enter from any of the roads near the Weir onto the High street to access the Weir.
Similarly entering or exiting Rayleigh from Hockley or Eastwood is just as bad. With more housing being proposed especially on sites CFS055,CFS121,CFS077 and CFS087 the road infrastructure will just not cope. Add that to the already over burdened Doctors surgeries and Hospitals let alone the schools our current infrastructure will not cope.
Surely a more sensible plan in co-operation with Southend Council to create a new village ( believe the Government call them garden villages) in the East of the district close to Fossetts Way bordering Southend. This would we believe allow room to create a full infrastructure for roads,housing,schools and Doctor surgeries / hospital / clinics. At the same time putting in new major Roads,Rail and Bus services.
We would like to be kept in formed of any proposed plans please which will hopefully be a more sensible solution to the overcrowding of Rayleigh.

Too many houses being built already. Everywhere you go it looks like toy towns springing up. No more please!!!

I wish to comment on the above plan, specifically site references and CFS146/147.

Combing the two sites this would mean approx 1500 proposed houses, on top of the existing housing development which is underway on north of London Road.

The access to bus services for CFS146 is noted at a score of 1 and train access is 2. This would mean a huge amount of increase in traffic along the already congested London Road in order to access the station, town centre, schools, etc. Currently, this road is heavily congested at peak times, school days, etc and just one incident can completely grid lock the road right up to the High Street. There would also be a direct impact on pollution levels in this area, caused by all these extra vechicles on the road.

There is no mention in the plans for providing extra GP surgeries for all these new homes, an access score of 4 for example does not actually mean they will be able to register at the existing local GP surgeries (which currently must be fit to burst) - the access score means getting to a surgery via transport is possible, but actually registering with a GP is another issue/problem.

I was in Rochford recently and someone asked me for information on local walks in the area. The lady told me she had moved to Rochford recently from London and was dismayed at the lack of parks in the area, she commented that London had numerous parks and green spaces and she couldn't believe how few green spaces were in the local area! What a statement this is and it's sad that looking at these plans it means more of our green spaces will disappear under concrete. Of course, I realise housing is needed but surely the proposed sites could be smaller and more spread out in the county.

First I must say having tried to plough my way through these documents I wonder what it is actually trying to tell me.
There is a great amount of information, but no firm details other than identifying sites to build yet more housing.

What is missing is any detailed information regarding to increase capacity of the road network to cope with all the extra and present housing.

I was reading the display at Hockley railway station on the coming of the railways, the open statement and I quote “ Getting around this part of Essex in the early 1800’s was notoriously difficult and slow as the roads were very poor”, this statement is as true today as in the 1800’s.

The roads infrastructure has never been improved since Hockley and surrounding area has been developed since the 1950’s.

The current road network in in a poor state of repair no doubt due to the Maintenance Budget from Central Government not raised inline with the increase in traffic volumes.
The B1013 the main road is now used as a bypass to the problems of the A127, and not just getting to and from Hockley

There is mention of improving cycle routes, what is to be gained by this. Who will use them and for what. The days have gone where workers lived within sight of the factory gates and travelled by bike. How far are people expect to ride to and from work.
Where will these cycle routes be, there isn’t room on our narrow road to safely accommodate motor traffic and cycles.

There is no overall District wide Transport planning just minor local improvements. West bound traffic from Ashingdon has to go through Hockley, the joint traffic then meets up to have go through Rayleigh, how is Rayleigh town centre going to cope. The alternative to go down Rawreth Lane or London Road A129 will be reduced due to the massive development of the area south of Rawreth Lane, north of London Road. These roads are the only access to the north bound A130.

I understand the need for more housing and the pressure put on local government by central government to build more, but funding must come from central government to pay for the necessary improvement to infrastructure , not just roads but schools and heath facilities.

Rochford DC needs to pressure Central Government to provide the funds, they simple need to say if we build housing you provide the infrastructure, no infrastructure no housing.

Rochford DC. have a duty to provide to it’s rate paying residents a pleasant, and clean and healthy environment to live and work not just a massive housing area from one end of the district to the other.

With regards to specific areas identified for housing, site GF01 Land north west of Hockey station. This is currently the station car park. Where will train users park?

Thank you for bringing the planned housing developments to our attention via the Rochford District Residents, Residents Representing Residents.

I am absolutely gobsmacked that there is serious consideration being given to sites that could house up to an additional 6,236 houses in the area. I live in a new build development myself, Aaron Lewis Close that is 7.5 years old so I'm not adverse to new homes but given the continued development since I've lived here - our local infrastructure just can't absorb this volume of development or disruption!

Roads, public services, schools, wildlife etc will all be significantly impacted but if I had to call one thing out, it's the roads. Hockley is a nightmare at - what is increasingly becoming - any time of day, getting out onto A127 or A13 means you end up in standstill traffic. You can queue all the way into Rayleigh, Ashingdon is stop start - that's with what we've got. I can't understand how it is even considered that we could house all these new developments and homes. This is an area of outstanding beauty - now it's becoming one of congestion, pollution and frustration and it's losing its history and charm through a significant reduction in bridleways, footpaths, walking spaces, wildlife etc.

I don't have children but know that come the morning school run, the roads a grid locked as parents are like bees around a honeypot to drop kids off at the too sparse schools for the volume of homes; Greensward, King Edmonds, Fitz and Sweyne - the traffic between Rochford, Hockley and Rayleigh is gridlock, the trains are already at capacity transiting children between home and school and add the commuters, surely it's madness to think that we can absorb another 6000+ houses! By the time you get to Rayleigh people are already standing and with this volume that starts at Hockley and we're not talking health and safety hazards; road and rail.

It's very disappointing to think what might happen to our beautiful area and community. I understand that houses need to be built but I agree with the Infrastructure Assessment First approach to ensure that all parties receive an objective analysis.

I am writing to you to express my concerns over your proposed extensive building project the impacts faced by the residents of Rochford and the surrounding areas.
From the information that I have seen it seems that you are planning to build in the region of 6,000 new properties in said vicinity. I wish to register my objections to this excessive building proposal. I provide below details of some of my major concerns:
Infrastructure-the extreme volume of property developments will place extraordinary demands on already stressed local infrastructure, including medial services and a public transport system that is already insufficient for the area.
Education - I question whether there are adequate educational facilities to accommodate the arrival of the consequent large number of families that would accompany the building of 6,000 new homes.
Roads and highways - Over 6,000 properties - of which nearly 4,500 are earmarked close to Brays Lane - will generate a minimum of a similar number of extra vehicles on the existing highway infrastructure. It is evident that the existing road infrastructure is inadequate for current traffic volumes and therefore it is difficult to understand how adding such a significant increase in traffic volume can be deemed to be acceptable.
Air quality – The U.K Government’s Green strategy sets out aggressive ambitions to force a significant reduction in pollution in this country. As discussed, your building proposals will create a marked increase in pollution levels. It is difficult to reconcile the consequence of your proposals with this Government’s Green strategy
As I noted, these are only some of my concerns. Other concerns include flooding and accessibility to vital services along with impact on the openness of the general area.

CFS098, CFS027 and CFS105
I live in Albert Road and in 2020/21 the winter was no more wet than usual. The land all around us though was boggy all winter and the road flooded a few times.
If you build houses to the rear of Albert Road, on flood land, you will make the problem far worse, especially as our winters are forecast to get wetter.
The farm land to the north of Napier Road brings an abundance of wildlife to the area. Why do we need to build on farm land? There are enough brownfield site throughout Essex. We will need all the farm land we have because of Brexit, and because we must move to a more traditional / sustainable way of farming.
We do not have the land of population growth in the UK to warrant doubling the amount of housing in Rayleigh.
Rayleigh's infrastructure , ESPECIALLY ROADS, already cannot cope with the traffic, so how does the Council propose to remedy this?
The pandemic is reducing the need for housing close to London - Don't give permission for houses we don't need.

I have been reading and looking at the plans I collected from the hullbridge community centre meeting, and also reading other articles and info online. I just do not understand how these plans can be thought of, to build on all those sites surrounding our village. Yes village. But it will not be if this building is done it will become a town. It will have a severe impact on the community and education and medical facilities. Also local transport, and other facilities. We all know we need more housing, but I agreee with the option suggested as east of rochford, (3c) as there has to be consideration given to the climate change and whatever plans, national and local that will have to be adhered to. We already have flooding problems in this area, and it seems that much work was needed when the recent area of development was carried out. So I say leave Hullbridge alone.

Why is it that we never see plans for more simple housing solutions, like renovating old buildings , including houses, small hotels etc. We only ever see plans of people and probably companies, who want to rip up the countryside and spoil things.

Also all this stuff we have to read and what we have to do to object is made complicated and hard to understand, and therefore many people won’t bother to do anything at all, which is probably what you hope for.

Objection to Local Plan
Despite the awful system that has been put in place by RDC to allow residents to comment on various aspect of the spatial Options or new local plan I have managed to make some comments.

However it should be noted that the system is not user friendly, issuing a separate email to each and every question, I feel the system has been deliberately made arduous for the general public to use and this is completely unfair to residents.

I ardently object to any new local plans being drawn up until there is a full and current infrastructure study completed on the whole of Essex and that should be updated yearly to properly inform and advise residents and the council alike of the impact of any housing.

Any new housing in Hullbridge will severely impact the current infrastructure as the current building of 500 very shoddy houses (not yet at completion) has already done so. The roads are not fit for purpose, schools are underfunded and the local services such as doctors so stretched it is impossible to get appts, just to name a few issues.

I urge the council to push back to the government that Essex is already part of an Urban Sprawl with a severe reduction in greenbelt and it needs to stop now!

Ref Local Spatial Options Paper 2021 Date 06/09/21

Comments on the overall local spatial plan for the RDC area

1)We have very limiting road infrastructure to support really any proposed housing developments
The existing road structure and layout has for years been under strain of pure numbers of cars and cyclists and is more prevalent at peak times and when temporary closures / restrictions are in place. What commercial traffic there is either is trying to get into or out of the area from and to west and no provision has been taken for the expansion of this in the future. Tinkering with junctions does not resolve the overall effect of more cars per household in the area. We have great issues with total lack of joined up public transport or the total lack of it in any case. Assumptions and the use of section 106 monies to encourage the reduction in car traffic have miserable failed. Over charging rural commuters are having now been placed in housing areas outside the main transport hubs, but who to have use cars to get into these hubs, for carparking spaces. This has led to the use of draconian road traffic limits on residential roads for on street parking.
2) Promised proposals from Housing developers
We have seen many housing developments been accepted on proposals put down to entice not only the local residents but the sitting members of the District Council. Promises of cheap affordable housing, can someone please tell me what is now the acceptable “cheap affordable”. Inclusion of Doctors and Health Clinics, New Schools, open spaces, not just landscaped areas. Many have been proposed then dropped as the initial developer splits his permission to build up into smaller companies and thus is not within the requirements to have these much-required facilities.
3) The total lack of medical facilities in the area.
Doctors appointment waiting lists are now at breaking point, Dentist are the same. Hospitals are working in their A & E departments at near breaking point due to the shortages in GPs appointments. Yet we still apply more population into an overloaded system. Till this is fixed with capacity to take surges we can’t continue.
4) Environmental concerns
We been told we have reduce our green emissions, yet we have more people coming into the area, regardless of how we move them around we will, due to the pure numbers never make a substantial drop in those figure from todays.
Yes, we need more essential housing but to ensure all have that, we have to stop the building of oversized properties where the numbers of rooms far exceeds the needs of the families. Costs need to be such that those who want to purchase their own can. Dumping estates outside the main residential areas is not the answer. The cultural mix of those who have never lived in the country needs to be taken into consideration. Comments on the recent completed Canewdon site “I just can’t wait to live in the countryside” followed a few months later, “What’s that awful smell” “do they need to run bird scarers all day as it frightens my dog”
One answer given is to build on “Brown sites” we have very few and every lost brown site means, no local industry and jobs and we have to migrate our working population some 75% out of our area every working day. The proposals originally for the Saxon Business Park (now the Southend Airport site) was to be for a place of Aeronautical Excellence, changed to an area of Medical Excellence. Both with no warehousing, looks like its changing again and the developer have the whip hand, go in with a super proposal then change it to what he wanted in the first case, cheap builds.
Please don’t just listen to your London Political masters but think outside the box for a change as to what you and they are going to cause to the existing local residents in the near future? I moved to the area when I was 9 years old from South London, I worked the farms and grew up as the area slowly changed, in some cases not for the best. I ran a local engineering business and employed many sub-contractors in the area. Sadly, that’s now becoming an impossible task and for what is being called progress. I asked a previous Leader of the Authority what did his party want, a commercial business growth area or a residential dormant area. I think you already know the answer.

Objections to planning policy
I would like to raise our objections to Rochford council plan for house building in Rochford district. The land stretching from Clements Hall to the railway line(CFS194) (CFS169) (CFS150) (CFS020) is a great area for wildlife with lots of old hedgerows and mature trees ,it would be criminal to knock all this down. The land around the old Clements hall at the bottom of Victor Gardens and around the old Green Acres site has been left for many years and has naturally developed int a fantastic wildlife site with plenty of Bats ,Badgers ,Muntjac deer, Tawny Owls and many other species of all sorts.
And is also criss crossed with well used footpaths and bridle paths ,there are lots of stables and horses around here where will they go? As for the other sites in and around Hockley and Hawkwell it would be awful to ruin the lovely vista around the St Mary’s Church and the view across the fields at the Mount Bovers site. We should be preserving our farm land for production of food to feed us and not to become reliant on imported food. As for the infrastructure the B 1013 is already overwhelmed at peak times and if there any temporary traffic lights for road repairs it’s totally gridlocked and is in very poor state. It’s very difficult to get a doctors appointment at the best of times and Southend Hospital is at times overwhelmed, if we are going to build all these houses we need massive investment in the local Hospitals , Doctors , Schools , Roads.
As for the proposal for 4000 houses on Brays lane feeding on to Ashingdon road is total madness , the road is overwhelmed now and and if there is any hold up in traffic in Rochford town in Southend road or Sutton road due to road works or someone in Sutton road having a delivery or rubbish collection the traffic comes to a stand still creating more pollution and poor air quality . I know we need more housing but I think the answer is to build new towns with the correct infrastructure to accommodate the population not to keep building in existing areas with exhausted roads , Hospitals, schools etc.

To whom it may concern,

Please stop building huge housing estates in Rayleigh!

(I prefer the garden village option).

Our towns infrastructure CANNOT support these additional homes:
I can never get a doctors appointment because they have too many patients.
The roads are always busy.
Our roads are a state.
The water mains have been bursting all over town under the strain.
Our secondary schools have been disrupted with building work to accommodate the additional places needed, on top of COVID these kids have not had a fair school life experience.
If you allow housing to be developed between Wellington Road and Albert road I am concerned that we will be affected by flooding, without the fields and trees to drain the rain water.
Stop building on farm land, a growing population needs food, if you build on all of the arable land we are not going to have enough food to support ourselves.
I am totally opposed to the plans for the Mill Hall site. A town that has grown so much needs a large space to host events, it also needs to be fit for purpose; your plan’s aren’t.
Before COVID the trains were always busy, with many commuters having to stand for their journey. As people start to return to work are they even going to be able to get on a train; with everywhere along the line having increased their populations by hundreds of people?
Please do something about the recycling centre on Castle Road, it is ridiculous the amount of traffic jams it causes with people waiting to use it.

I believe any large site to the east of Ashingdon Road would put an unbearable strain on the surrounding roads. Access to these areas of Rochford are already restricted by poor road infrastructure. Crossing Ashingdon Road to head towards the A127 often requires that in you have to pass via pinch points created by narrow railway bridges in Hall Road & Rectory Road. The Ashingdon Road is already heavily congested with through traffic to and from Southend, at commuter times traffic often tails back from the Anne Boleyn pub to Rectory Road. Any roadworks, accidents or bin collections along the Ashingdon Road, Southend Road or Bradley Way results in Rochford town being grid locked with traffic queuing back to Stambridge Road/ Malting Villas Road junction.

We object to the proposed development of the following sites
CFS261 4447 Homes Land East of Oxford Road
CFS141 231 Homes Stewards Elm Farm Great
Stambridge
CFS116 411 Homes Land South Coombes Farm

CFS111 104 Homes Land North Coombes Grove

CFS124 63 Homes Land East Little Stambridge
Hall

I object to all the above sites as all would increase existing traffic problems on access routes via Ashingdon Road, Bradley Way the Rochford One Way system Stambridge Road and would have a negative impact to those living in these areas due to increase noise pollution and added inconvenience of negotiating more congested roads.

In addition the site CFS116 is not suitable for housing due to close proximity with the Purdeys Industrial estate any homes on Coombes with suffer from the industrial noises and odours of materials that are handled on the site. Should homes be built on Combes site said properties would be under the flight path to Southend Airport and as a result residents would be plagued by aircraft noise too.

I also raise objection to the any further development to areas
COL83 Millview Meadows
CFS050 Land Of Former Adult Community College
These areas are much used safe amenity for the local community and any loss of this green space would have a negative impact to all that enjoy use of this land.

I would support the following developments
CFS084 251 Homes Land South of Hall Road
CFS078 360 Homes Land West of Cherry Orchard

These sites will have little impact on the congested roads of Rochford Town, said sites would also have good access onto the A127 and the train station is easily walkable from these sites.

Of all the sites proposed we believe the sites closest to the A127 would be the best location for development
CFS121 1347 Homes Land North of A127
CFS222 3491 Homes Land Dollymans Farm

I feel these large developments in close proximity of A127 could provide new neighbourhoods built with all essential services like Schools Retail and Healthcare each neighbourhood could have its own unique identity.


I note the report states Rochford has an ageing population, we would hope that due consideration would be given to providing more homes suitable for the retired including bungalows and possibly retirement villages. At present it seems the only retirement properties being built in the area are in the form of blocks of flats, retirees may want a smaller property to suit their changing needs but not all want to give up a garden and be left with just a balcony, building homes suitable for the senior market would give opportunity for those occupying large family homes to move to more suitable accommodation and free up larger homes for young families.

Spatial Consultation is overly complicated, very confusing and difficult to answer, particularly for elderly people with and without computers. |Far too many questions being asked and how to respond is extremely difficult.

The amount of housing proposed will have severe impact on highways. RDC have already refused an application in Ashingdon because they deemed the development would result in severe impact on the local highway network. The toxic fumes caused from constant traffic congestion will cause health problems and is totally unacceptable. Without large scale road building and infastructure no further housing should be built in this area. Enough is enough
.
Piece meal development should be avoided. A dedicated new town with all infastructure (doctors/dentist/schools/hospitals etc) should be planned to accommodate the total number of future housing needs. Garden villages although a better option are not enough, its just another name for a large housing estate. South East Essex has already had its fair share of house building. Any more house building would be completely unfair to current inhabitants lifestyles. Too many people already find it difficult to get appointments with doctors/dentist and schools are over subscribed.

RDC's objectives with regard to utilizing brownfield sites for house building should be strictly adhered to and on no account should any more greenfield/agricultural sites be used. Our greenbelt is essential not only to prevent urban sprawl by creating green boundaries between towns and villages but it is also needed for biodiversity/flood prevention/reducing air pollution and combating climate change.

Apart from the site put forward for housing in Castle Road, Rayleigh (waste disposal site which should be re-located to a more suitable area), no other sites should be used for housing in Rayleigh, especially not in Rayleigh Town centre a CONSERVATION area. Both the Mill Events Centre (Mill Hall) and Civic Suite (Council Offices) have been put forward in this Spatial Consultation and WITHOUT prior consultation with residents, RDC have ALREADY earmarked these sites for housing with Voyage Partnership and contracts have been signed.

Rochford DC requested Essex CC's opinions on document prepared by Place Services - High Level Heritage Assessment of the Heritage input for 270 potential site allocations for Rochford's New Local Plan. The assessments for:

Mill Events Centre (Mill Hall) COL7 is assessed as MODERATE ADVERSE - Medieval town extent and impacts scheduled monument of mott and bailey and lies within Conservation Area. The development of this site will cause considerable harm to a HERITAGE ASSET and this harm is considerable. There are likely NO options for mitigation. Proposals causing this level of harm to the significance of a heritage site should be AVOIDED.
Civic Suite(Council Offices) - COL20 is assessed as MAJOR ADVERSE - Lies within Rayleigh Conservation and Historic area and contains Barringtons a Grade 2 listed building. Development of this site will cause substantial harm to a HERITAGE ASSET.There are likely NO options for mitigation. Proposals causing this level of harm to the significance of a heritage asset should be AVOIDED.

Given RDC's assessments of the above sites, it is impossible to understand the reason they were included in this Spatial Consultation and RDC's Asset Delivery Plan in the first place. This not only goes against the opinions of the vast majority of residents in this area, (the Asset Delivery Plan was decided upon by RDC together with Voyage Partnership in private meetings) residents were denied the opportunity to debate it properly in the public forum, but it also conflicts with its own Rayleigh Centre Action Plan which was adopted in October 2020.

RDC's Strategic Objectives 15 & 16 are completely at odds with regard to the Mill Events Centre (Mill Hall). This is the only multi purpose space equipped for theatre/arts/dance/fitness and community purposes and to consider replacing it with a much smaller hall that is not fit for purpose and include yet more unwanted housing is NOT PROTECTING cultural facilities in the district but REDUCING them.

Instead of accepting this unwanted level of housing in this area, imposed on them by Government, it is RDC's duty on behalf of its residents to challenge these Government figures.

COMMENTS - re Spatial options Paper

I write with my views concerning the Spatial Options Put forward by RDC.

Firstly I attended one of your road show presentations which I thought was wholly inadequate, in terms of available literature and venue (car park at the old fire station) and availability for a serious questions and answers session. Your representative (Daniel Goodman?) did an admiral job, but was unable to satisfy the concerns of people asking questions.

Secondly, I have found your web site a time consuming exercise and unsatisfactory as it was directing me to hundreds of documents which quite frankly the common layman would be hard pushed to read let alone fully understand, and therefore of no practical use. I found the information and guidance provided in a paper produced by "Rochford District Residents" much ore useful and informative.

Despite my two initial comments I am aware that as a result of an ever increasing population (both natural population increase and influx of immigrants seeking UK citizenship) and therefore the need to increase the available housing stock. However whether it be RDC or other councils around the country it appears there is only "lip service" to improving the local infrastructure to accommodate such developments, and the exercise presently being undertaken by RDC is a "tick box" exercise. Any development must accommodate plans for extra schooling, doctors, essential services, transport, communications, road usage and development access, as well as local/social amenities.

It appears to me that much of the Hockley area is already suffering from the impact of development (mainly extensions and single new builds on available land) with an increase in the volume of traffic. Of course with the ever increasing price of properties, many young adults are living longer with their parents whilst saving for deposits or inability to secure reasonably priced rental accommodation. Hence side roads are seeing an increase in the volume of parked cars, and many areas, including main roads have an increasing number of cars reversing onto drives, or off drives onto busy roads, with the consequent delays to moving traffic and potential for accidents. With people travelling further afield to obtain work cars volumes are increasing because the public transport is either uneconomic or impractical.

As it is I feel that RDC has not maintained the main thoroughfares, and some I would consider unfit for purpose as the state of repair of some roads is causing drivers to veer from the normal driving line to avoid pot holes etc (the main road between the Bull public house and Folly Lane is a prime example). Many side roads as so blocked with parked cars that larger vehicles (including RDC's own vehicles) need to cut corners across the paved pedestrian areas, and consequent damage to kerb sides and drainage covers etc.

This problem exists NOW and would only be exacerbated with further development. Hence my concerns that the infrastructure needs to be put in place before any such development not simply promised as a "to do" item for a later date. My comments here applies to ALL future developments - large or small. I would also highlight the recent traffic delays along the main street when the road was subjected to traffic controls whilst overhead cables were renewed, and other works near the Cock public house, as well as other occasional road works, causing delays.

Notwithstanding the need to improve the infrastructure I feel that any development as suggested in the spatial options paper, consideration should also be given to (i) social housing and (ii) affordable housing (eg how can a price tag of, say, £250,000. be consider affordable for a young couple who may be earning £30/40,000 between them in terms of savings for a deposit or repayment of a comparatively large mortgage - I speak as a father of 4 young adults [2 living in the area who want to improve their living arrangements] and 4 young grandchildren who have a number of years ahead of them before getting on the property ladder).

Finally, I recognise the need to consult with the residents of Rochford and regretfully RDC is never going to please all of the people all of the time, but communication is necessary where ALL appropriate information is made available in a manner that can be understood by all without the inundation of papers/plans which frustrate people in trying to glean what is actually going on.

I have not even considered potential flooding or saturation of water courses or even sewerage etc, as I would hope that this has or will be a major consideration by RDC in any proposals (ie no building on know flood plains etc).

Objection to Rochford's new local plan
I have been a Hockley resident for 33 years and I strongly object to any new homes being built in Rochford district. There are too many new developments already and I do not believe that the infrastructure, especially roads, will be able to cope with a further increase of demand.

In particular, under no circumstances do I believe that the site ref CFS023 should be considered for housing. This would mean a further loss of vital natural woodland (Beckney woods) which had already been reduced around 20 years ago by the development of Etheldore Avenue/Wood Avenue. Building on this site (COL38), so close to the adjacent Malvern Road and Branksome Avenue, would in my opinion cause a great amount of distress to residents. I also can not see how the destruction of natural woodland to build houses can be considered in keeping with Rochford's environmental credentials.

Hullbridge
Please may I suggest if new houses have to be placed some where that they are placed at the Potential cross-boundary point on the A130? I believe Rawreth originally wanted development there so they didn't feel like a disjointed community and the have easy access to a130, a127 and a12 plus train access at Wickford, Battlesbridge and Rayleigh.
I do not think anymore homes should come east of that point as the roads just cannot take any more traffic. Also the 820 school bus has just been taken away from Hullbridge, the children are currently fighting with commuters on the 20 bus for transport to and from Rayleigh.
The strategy option I would chose is option 3.
Fingers crossed the new homes will be more affordable for our kids this time. The Hullbridge ones are ridiculously overpriced!

It has been bought to our attention that there are ’New Local Plan/s’ for new homes in the area we live in Hawkwell and the neighbouring areas Hockley, Rochford and Ashingdon, all of which would have a devastating effect on the local area and collapse the already struggling infrastructure and the natural environment and habitat for the wildlife. The B1013 is already struggling to cope with the amount of traffic due to the huge amount of new houses already built over the past years, why build more!!
Whilst we agree that there is a need for new houses we feel there is an in balance on the % for the above areas. If there is that much need for new houses then the Government and Councils should be looking into areas that they can build the necessary roads and infrastructure not piggy backing off existing ones!

We live on Spencers in Hawkwell which is a development of 40 houses, it was built 35 years ago and is accessed off the B1013 main road into Thorpe road into Spencers. This was not too much of a problem until recent years when the Govenment Core Strategy / Councils struck a deal to build the 167 houses on the Christmas tree land. We now have trouble getting out of Thorpe Road onto the B1013 at particular times of the day.

CFS074 in Hawkwell, earmarked for 498 houses, is of great concern for the following main reasons
- The B1013 is not a road that can be made wider and has so many bottle necks along its route especially in the areas that would be affected by the ‘New Local Plans’. The condition of this road is awful and continually breaks up due to the heavy amount of traffic already!
- the impact that it would displace the wildlife let alone the endangered species. We have so much wildlife around this area including badgers, Bats.

- the increase of air pollution. Our clean air is being violated no one is thinking about protecting the environment we live in.

- the flood risks. We back onto Hawkwell Brook which already reaches high levels at points during the year if heavy rain fall, especially near Clements Hall since all those extra house were built.

- Our doctors , Jones Family Practice’ cannot cope with the number of people on their books as it is. When we call last week for an appointment we were number 22 in the queue. We hear other surgery’s are the same.

- not enough school places

- what about the water and sewage ! The drains cannot cope as it is.

Perhaps people should think about spending money on repairing or improving the vital services in place not adding strain to them.


Just combining the known below
CFS074 earmarked for 498 houses
CFS160 & CFS161 earmarked for 124 houses
CFS194, CFS169, CFS150 & CFS020 earmarked for 801 houses
CFS261 earmarked for 4,447 houses

Totals 5,870 houses planned in our immediate area all potentially having at least one car if not two feeding into/onto the B1013 how can anyone say the infrastructure can support or sustain this!

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE don’t let this happen

My objections to the planned house building are many; lack of infrastructure, loss of public footpath, destruction of wildlife, flooding, lack of schools and medical facilities, the ridiculous increase in traffic and the pollution that would follow, and the greed.

We have read through the plan and have the following observations/comments.

Page 17 - Mentions working alongside Neighbourhood Planning groups. Who are they and how do we contact them as there is no other information or reference we could find in the plan that would help

Infrastructure

According to this plan, and whilst the planning process links the number of houses being built with social planning e.g. schools, healthcare facilities etc, road infrastructure planning is not aligned. Decisions should not be made to increase additional numbers to the area without a strategy and an agreed plan for roads. It is clear that road infrastructure is not strategically or planned to align with the proposed increase numbers of house/people/cars coming into the area.

Within the plan where is the attention to other land infrastructure such as sewage and waters supplies given that in the last few years Rayleigh has suffered more flooding due to more concrete, drier summers and little to no thought out plan to disperse the excess water?

Surely continued house building should not go ahead at pace unless the above can be aligned?.

Housing Developments

A lot of the housing developments with planned momentum which are being carried out, now always seem to reach an advanced stage before local objections can be made; almost always resulting in a fait a compli. Why? As our council, is there not a thought as to why these decisions anger people in the community and end up causing more grief because it is not transparent? An example is the now public proposed development around Albert Road and Grove Road and surrounding farmland in Rayleigh. What role did the Neighbourhood Planning Group have in this? Again, who are they and how are they contactable?

Crime and Policing

Where in the plan is the strategy to combat excess crime which naturally happens when more people come into the area whether we like this fact or not? In fact there is no mention of Police funding at all in the plan.

Why are these people who are making these plans so short sighted ?
Did 2020 not prove how valuable green spaces are ?
In a world that is more hectic than ever people need space.
Health authorises recommend walks in nature it calms people connects people to nature which is very healing, when the space is away from roads breathing in the cleaner air helps chest conditions.
I have lived in Hockley for 13 years and my children really apricated the open spaces and my husband loves to walk especially in the evening he has seen barn owls, hares (which are rare) and badgers.
Where will all this wildlife go ? not forgetting the insects that feed the birds, the birds will have nowhere to nest, the bees need help.
Taking away our valuable green spaces would just be another blow to an already vulnerable eco system.
If these people get their way maybe they should consider building a museum which could contain pictures of how it used to be so the future generations could see what open spaces containing wildlife looked like.
Also in the time I have been here the roads have become more congested, even more cars means there will be gridlocks.

I am emailing my comments regarding the planned developments particularly as it affects Lower Road between Hullbridge and land to the west of Wadham Park Avenue.

The plan for more houses in this area, without substantial improvements to the existing road network, would continue to worsen what is already a saturated situation. As a pedestrian, it is somewhat dangerous to walk along the unpathed part of this road & the additional traffic would exacerbate the situation.

Notwithstanding this, there are virtually no public transport links along Lower Road eastward from Ferry Road. This matter would need to be sorted.

Due to what would seem to be a lack of a master plan from the Government, it would seem that a piecemeal approach is being taken with regard to some of the planned areas of development. Surely, it would be more appropriate to continue to expand the existing new development in Hullbridge to the west rather than to the east. This area is, at least, closer to existing transport links. Alternatively, perhaps it would be more appropriate to build the majority of the houses required at a purpose-built site where adequate facilities & utilities could be constructed.

It would appear that none of the planned growth is being matched or considered, at present, by any increase in local infrastructure (such as doctors, dentists, roads & public transport) and also that any developer contributions are almost minimal in this regard.

There would also be substantial damage environmentally as the vast majority of the proposals are on Green Belt/agricultural land which supports large amounts of wildlife, some of which are in danger. We must not allow this constant need to build on such sites with a total disregard of the damage caused.

I appreciate that no final decision has yet been made as to which sites will be developed but would request that due consideration be made to the impact each will have on its locality. We should endeavour to ensure that financial interests do not outweigh environmental interests.