Q8. Are there any key spatial themes that you feel we have missed or that require greater emphasis?

I object to future planning for the reasons given below:

This is Wakering village not the London Borough of Wakering. Already there is too much development which the local shops, school, doctors cannot support and the volume of traffic is already excessive.


Environmentally it's a disaster, this is a hunting ground for bats and owls. The hedgerows and fields provide food and shelter for birds, bees and other wildlife which are all essential for our survival.

Already we see hedgehogs killed on the road by speeding vehicles without a care for wildlife or people's lives. Pollution is already at too high a level.

We are supposed to be trying to halt climate change by planting trees. You intend ripping them up and destroying rural vegetation which absorbs CO2 and H2O, so preventing flooding too.

There will not be enough food in the future we are told, so stop building on farmland. Build on brownfield sites, make more use of existing buildings.

Where am I supposed to live when I value a rural life - I am being pushed out by housing the hordes of people who care not of others or their environment.

CFS074

- It would have a major impact on the green belt.
- Public footpaths run through and around the field which is well used by walkers and cyclists and connects Hockley Woods and Gusted Hall Wood.
-The field is an important wildlife habitat and supports many native species and migrating birds.
- There would be a severe impact on traffic congestion on the B1013.
- With climate change and the increased use of plant based products, agricultural land should be retained and not used for development.

The Council seem intent on destroying the few remaining green sites in the area, which make it pleasant to live in!

1. ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE - The village of Hullbridge is served by ONE ROAD. Just one road to serve the village and all outsiders who use it as a rat run to avoid the congested A127. Building the BULK of RDC's housing target on Hullbridge's promoted sites will add approx 8,000 plus extra cars to this ONE ROAD. Access to schools, supermarkets and employment will all be outside the village and result in our ONE ROAD being at a stand still. Access to the rumoured new park will also require car travel as the bulk of the proposed housing is situated at the opposite end of the village.

Due to road congestion the Air Ambulance has landed here at least six times this year to avoid the road systems around Hullbridge. An increase in public transport is not viable and will only add to the traffic issues surrounding Hullbridge and Rayleigh.

2. HEALTH CARE - Hullbridge has a small GP surgery which has already taken on the David Wilson housing estate. The money received from David Wilson Homes cannot pay for expansion as the surgery does not have the footprint or parking to allow this. It cannot take on the patients from an extra 4,298 homes.

3. SCHOOLING - All secondary schooling is in Rayleigh, requiring pupils to travel out of Hullbridge on its ONE ROAD.

4. SHOPS - Hullbridge has three small food shops and limited parking. This volume of housing will result in traffic to supermarkets outside or delivery vehicles coming into Hullbridge. ONE ROAD.

5. EMPLOYMENT - There is no large scale employment here. Again more traffic to travel to work.

6. ENVIRONMENT - The promoted sites are all green spaces with ancient trees and hedgerows, and farmers fields. The native wildlife will be completely devastated by such plans for 4,298 homes. The rumoured new park is situated to the West and is outside the original boundary of Hullbridge. It will be no use to the bulk of housing being built to the East. There will be no open space this side.

7. AGRICULTURE - Majority of promoted sites are fields and woodland. Brexit was about this country being self-sufficient and self-reliant. Concreting over fields does not support this and is a lazy way to build.

8. CARBON FOOTPRINT - This volume of housing will concrete over fields, green spaces, trees and hedgerows. It will turn our ONE ROAD into a car park for cars with engines running. Pollution levels will soar. Wildlife will be trapped and devastated between the River Crouch and our ONE ROAD.

Hullbridge does not have any of the infrastructure for 4,298 homes out of the 7,000 RDC has been told to build. Choosing Hullbridge to ease this total number is both lazy and easy. It is counter-productive to environment and all who live in this corner of Rochford.

I object to the field site (CFS064) being used for housing. Housing on this field site will impact greatly on the traffic flor through the Betts Farm Estate. The B1013 is frequently congested and this CFS064 will increase the traffic. In the event of an emergency it is difficult to navigate swiftly, local residents experience slow moving traffic, increased traffic fumes and delays in journey times. Local doctors and schools are oversubscribed. There is no infrastructure in place to accommodate the additional planned housing. Losing yet more green land deprives residents especially children of footpaths and spoils the woodlands. There is no viable exit/entrance route that does not spoil the environment.
At a time when health of residents and especially children should be a higher priority than building on an area surrounded by woodland and removing the designated pathways would appear to take little account of the need for exercise, nor the hope of encouraging children to take an interest in their environment.

Housing on CFS064 will place 214 houses and probably a minimum of 321 additional cars in a vicinity already experiencing traffic congestion. Minor roads on the estate are not suitable for additional car use. Planning should take account of current residents and certainly of the infrastructure required for an additional 214 houses. Placing possibly 400+ adults and 400+ children requiring local services, this needs careful consideration. Are local services, e.g. fire, police, ambulance, refuse collection, schools, doctors, hospitals, clinics actually able to cope effectively with so many additional demands?

Certainly roads will be overcrowded. Cycling will not be a viable option. Child road safety will become an issue and yet children need to be able to play outside. The plan does not seem to work in the interests of a more healthy and greener Britain.

Dear Sirs,

Regrettably I am unable to take advantage of the interactive Local Plan electronically and would therefore ask you to take into accounts my observations by letter.

My guiding principle has been the Government statement that all future development must show a biodiversity net gain. I find it difficult to see where this plan meets this criteria.

The increase in building and consequential increase in population will by necessity create more pollution and greater demand on diminishing utilities. Far from the greener climate that is desired we will continue to pollute - a net loss.

I cannot find within the plan the data to support the construction of additional water reserves though I may have missed this point.

Far from protecting our towns and villages it would appear the long term plan is to create one large administrative area. Option 3a and b seek to offer some defence against the urban sprawl.

Much more information is required to make a genuine observation regarding additional doctors, medical centres, schools etc only that the present requirement is already insufficient.

The road system at the moment is vastly overstretched, the network so overcrowded that there is insufficient space to repair the crumbling surfaces. Any new roads will be too little to cope once they come on line. Is there a new major network plan?

Similarly town centre development, major flooding control and the use of simple flat pack development area areas of further consideration.

I hope that a simple solution can be found but over development, such I see here does not seem to be an improvement.

Thank you in advance for your attention.