Q37. Are there areas in the District that you feel have particularly severe capacity or access issues relating to community infrastructure, including schools, healthcare facilities or community facilities? How can we best address these?

Strong Objection to Proposed Building in Hockley (CFS023 & COL38)
We strongly oppose the proposed building works in the vicinity of Malvern Road, Hockley (namely CFS023 & COL38).
Having lived in Malvern Road for nearly 25 years (no. xx), we feel that the local roads could not support the increased level of traffic, should these houses be built. The local GP surgeries are at full capacity, the local schools are too. Where will these people go if they need a dentist, for instance?
The local area is greenbelt and the wildlife will be devastated.
On a personal note, we don't want trees getting ripped down at the bottom of the garden, to make way for an access road. This will destroy many habitats for the local wildlife and will cause a serious intrusion to many householders' privacy and will undoubtedly be a security risk to us Malvern Road house owners.
Additionally, with the proposed building works in Ashingdon, our Ashingdon Road (heading into Southend or Hockley), will become even more congested and exhaust omissions will poison the local air, badly effecting people with breathing issues.
Please, do not build in these areas as it will effectively be the "death knell of the local countryside."

Further to the plans which have been submitted to build on the farmers field at the back of Folly Chase I would like to submit my reasons for why this would be an absolutely ridiculous idea.

Firstly we moved to Folly Lane 7 years ago and I am absolutely astounded by the amount of new builds which have gone up in the area within the last 7 years. The roads are absolutely ridiculous. Not only is the amount of traffic becoming unbearable but the noise and amount of cars passing through Folly Lane and surrounding areas is just becoming silly. The roads are just not equipped to deal with this amount of traffic and congestion. The amount of people living in Hockley is just too much. The current infrastructure cannot cope and I see there are no plans to adapt this!!.

Secondly myself and my family are so sad to hear that you are now thinking of granting permission to build on the section of land at the back of Folly Chase. This piece of land is used by so many local people to get out for some fresh air, dog walks, ride bikes and spend family time. It is so lovely to be able to have this on our doorstep. During COVID [redacted - personal details] who suffers terribly with Depression and Anxiety decided to take an overdose. Due to the absolutely shocking response and lack of support from the NHS and Mental Health team in Rochford the only option and help was to walk for miles around the surrounding areas including this route which we did on many occasions to help her on her worst days. How many other people are using this for their mental well being in the area? Have you thought about this? The elderly, the lonely, young and old.

Thirdly. Have you thought about the pressure it is putting on the local doctors surgeries, schools and hospitals with the amount of houses/flats etc that are being built in the area. The schools are already oversubscribed and the current waiting time for a dentist appointment in this area to see an NHS dentist is 6 months!! This will only get worse.

Please think of the people currently living in the area and also the families of Folly Chase. It is absolutely disgusting. The building needs to be stopped in this area!!

Dear Planners

COL38
I notice you can no longer comment by clicking on the Spatial option map, is this because you have realised it should not be used for building, as in July 2000 it was agreed by RDC it should go to Ashingdon Parish Council to continue as a play space on a Peppercorn rent for 100 yrs (I was at the council meeting when it was agreed )

CFS023

1) This will strip the Green Belt land Bordering Beckney woods which is ancient woodland which in turn could damage the woods
2) The tranquillity required for the cattery would be lost.
3) The site does not have a gentle slope as mentioned in an earlier SHELAA report it is 60-80 ft North south and west east
4) We suffer from fluvial flooding due to the slopes and as there is blue clay needing deeper foundations this would exacerbate the problem by changing the water table
5) There would be a large impact on the wild life, a large variety of birds bats and adders also Foxes Badgers Muntjac deer .Crested newts have appeared in ponds.
6) Harrogate Drive is very narrow single track no footpath and there is no main Sewer. Wild life would suffer from loss of hedge rows
7) The entrance to Harrogate drive and the site would require a major change to the entrance from Greensward lane including losing property .The owner of [redacted] Greensward lane is adamant it is not for sale so it should be in white on option map.(How many more are like that?)
8) Any houses built would loose any privacy we have due to the large slopes
9) We already suffer from low water pressure and any more houses would worsen the situation

Overall

A) Once again infrastructure should come 1st the report should have been with the consultation.We have been complaining for years and nothing has improved I went to Rayleigh last week and there were queues from Spa Road to Hambro Hill no roadworks or bin lorries holding things up and it was not the rush hour!!
B) It would be far better to have a large site nearer main roads e.g. Lubbards Farm area it could also benefit from the power available from the Solar Farm addition to the Rayleigh substation. Instead of a collection of bits as proposed along Greensward lane
C) No space at local surgeries so more doctors
D) Schools are already close to max capacity
E) More facilities and care required for the ageing community
F) More Hospital beds
G) RDC should agree an overall plan for a new village in conjunction with Southend and Castle point
H) The action plan would have more comments if it was simpler to use for the older population.
I) Any development should have affordable housing not all high end, Hall Road suffers from that.

As a Hullbridge resident I have tried to understand the very complex and I believe deliberately word intensive New Local Plan and I have came to the following


The Vision statement has not been completed with resident feedback as it was written without consultation it would be a good idea for those involved to spend time with people that live within these areas to find out what the real impact on them and the local area would really be.

Of the Spatial/Strategy Options given I believe the most agreeable would be Strategy 3 Given that all infrastructure would be built in as the development was built and therefore less of an impact on local roads and services.

Of the Hullbridge sites put forward, I am aware of the need for housing but as proved with the new estate already being built within Hullbridge the houses are priced so high they are not helping to house the local people and the impact on our village has been immense especially the roads.

There seems to be a lot of green belt included in the proposed building plots which is going to be very detrimental to wildlife and residents combined. We have already had building on our flood plain with the High Elms development.

As a village we are proud of our environment and the services within however the local doctors practice is already over subscribed and unable to cope with demand and the local public transport is extremely unreliable even to get the children to school let alone people to work on time. It would be nice if there was a check that First bus are running the number 20 bus as regularly as they say they do and ask why that now schools have returned they have CUT the regular school bus.

It has been proved that access to open spaces and amenities is beneficial to people's health and wellbeing and this is something that should be considered especially with our overstretched health system.
We have lost footpaths and bridleways already and those left need to be protected and not 'conveniently' lost once building is approved as in the case of the High Elms development.
With the drive to reduce our carbon footprint as proposed by the government It seems counter intuitive to reduce the amount of agricultural land that could be used to produce food and save the cost and fuel of transporting from far afield.
It would be nice if the infrastructure was in place to serve those already here before trying to add to our numbers. There is one road in and through the village which is getting more dangerous recently, with 2 incidents in the last week that needed the air ambulance to attend.

The potential for the regional park to the West of Hullbridge would be a nice addition to the local area.
As would the protection of our local wildlife, geological and specific scientific interest sites, the Hullbridge meadows and Hullbridge Foreshores

I hope that more consideration is taken with these proposals and the community feedback than has been in the past.

I strongly object to the field site CFS064 being used for housing.

This field is green belt and farmed regularly. It is surrounded by 3 ancient woodlands and is an important wildlife habitat - these would be severely impacted by a housing development.

The field is surrounded by a local public footpath that is well used and loved by locals. My family and I take regular walks/bike rides here as it’s such a beautiful spot, and we feel lucky to have this right on our doorstep.

Our schools (especially the closest school to this site) doctors surgery’s and dentists are already over subscribed.

The roads feeding to this site are already severely congested, particularly the B1013.

Any developments in the area will put the B1013 under considerable additional strain, especially as most sites are not walkable to local amenities.

The infrastructure of Hockley can not cope with its existing resident numbers, it will not be able to cope with any more housing developments.

I refer to the piece of land off of Folly Chase ( CFS064 ) earmarked for development. My reasons against this piece of land being developed are as follows:-
1. The land is surrounded by three ancient woodlands which would need to be demolished if permission were to be given to housing. In the spring there is an abundance of wild flowers in these woods including many areas of anemonies which grow at the rate of six feet in a hundred years which demonstrates how old these woods are. This is a habitat for many birds bees and butterflies. Can we really justify demolishing years and years of woodland just to line builder’s pockets? There is a suggestion that we should plant trees to save our planet and how can demolishing an old woodland demonstrate this. This is also an area where badgers roam freely at night, there are many sets on the waste land at the back of the new estate off of Folly Lane.
2. Since lockdown we have seen a considerable number of people with or without dogs wandering down our Folly chase for a stroll and into the woodlands surrounding it. The numbers have not decreased as this is now a well known spot for people to walk for exercise and enjoy the flora and fauna,birds and butterflies we still have in this area before it all disappears under the developer’s machinery.
3. During heavy rain this year the field became very waterlogged and the adjoining lane was just a big lake. As the new estate in Folly Lane has had enormous problems with sewerage just how can it be contemplated to add sewerage from another 214 houses when sewerage from the extra 75 houses cannot cope now.
4. The access to the site is very poor. Folly Chase is not wide enough for two cars to pass by. Entry via the Community Centre would lose the grassland surrounding the Community Centre which again is used by walkers, dog training club and the childrens nursery. Access via the school is not safe with small children around.
5. Traffic congestion along High Road is a constant problem, there is frequently long delays if a delivery is made anywhere in the vicinity causing exhaust pollution and that is before all the extra traffic any more houses will generate. Our children are encouraged to walk to school but how many will develop asthma from the constant exhaust fumes that will be generated by more cars stuck in traffic jams.
6. On a general note with future housing development in this area No plans as far as we know have been made to provide new schools, more doctors surgeries and new roads to cope with this influx of people and cars more building will create. As we know from the Hall Road site the builders manipulated the situation flaunting the rules meaning they did not have to provide the schools and doctors surgery as promised. Will the Council ensure that adequate provision is made and that this loophole is not used again?

To whom it may concern,

Please take this email as a formal objection to

Site reference: CFS258
Address: Little Wakering Road
Initial site assessment indicates a potential for x11 houses

My reasons for this, first and foremost is the infrastructure of our village. It cannot cope with more housing developments. With the increase in housing in Shoplands and Barrow Hall (once they are fully occupied) our schools and nurseries will be full (Nurseries and Great Wakering school already full). Our Doctors are already buckling, and the roads and parking (especially around the schools and nurseries) will be absolutely manic.

Further consideration is also split into the following:

Connectivity i.e. public transport
Current public transport options are limited, schedules and availability worse. With this being the case, it means that more people will HAVE to use their cars in order to drop children at their school or pre-school care options. Consideration must be made into safe access for all residents across the village, and the road infrastructure in this village is poor. It seems to be becoming a through road but is not big enough to handle the congestion that we are already experiencing. Walking will also be difficult where possible due to the number of roads without pavements.
Traffic and pinch points/congestion
Already exist areas of concern due to traffic and congestion as well as safety due to blind bends, existing parking, pedestrians, horses, speed etc. There are limited roads in and out of the village, as many of us have experienced when road works are in place, problems very quickly arise.
Parking
Roadside parking often leaves limited space with reports of access concerns for emergency services and safety risks. The impact around schools result in tension and concerns for children’s safety. Consideration must also be taken for those with disabilities or wheelchair users who often find footpaths blocked by poor parking and few suitable access points/pathways.
Doctors and medical
As previously mentioned, the Doctors surgery appears to already be under pressure. Limited local medical services i.e. dentist.
Wildlife and nature
There is great beauty in the local area, and Barling and Great Wakering has always prided itself on the wildlife that thrives in this area. Some rare species have been observed and we would like this to continue..
Drainage
Problems are already widely reported within this area, especially Kimberly Road and next to the Rascals nursery (very close to this proposed site).
Flood risk
Risk from the existing creek should water levels continue to rise as expected, considerations must be taken into future viability.

I hope you look at all of the replies that you receive and decide to leave our village as exactly that or to at least pump in a lot of money in order for our infrastructure to survive your plans. This has always been a place of beauty, please keep it that way.

Kind regards

Jenny White

My reasons for this, first and foremost is the infrastructure of our village. It cannot cope with more housing developments. With the increase in housing in Shoplands and Barrow Hall (once they are fully occupied) our schools and nurseries will be full (Nurseries and Great Wakering school already full). Our Doctors are already buckling, and the roads and parking (especially around the schools and nurseries) will be absolutely manic.

Further consideration is also split into the following:

Connectivity i.e. public transport
Current public transport options are limited, schedules and availability worse. With this being the case, it means that more people will HAVE to use their cars in order to drop children at their school or pre-school care options. Consideration must be made into safe access for all residents across the village, and the road infrastructure in this village is poor. It seems to be becoming a through road but is not big enough to handle the congestion that we are already experiencing. Walking will also be difficult where possible due to the number of roads without pavements.
Traffic and pinch points/congestion
Already exist areas of concern due to traffic and congestion as well as safety due to blind bends, existing parking, pedestrians, horses, speed etc. There are limited roads in and out of the village, as many of us have experienced when road works are in place, problems very quickly arise.
Parking
Roadside parking often leaves limited space with reports of access concerns for emergency services and safety risks. The impact around schools result in tension and concerns for children’s safety. Consideration must also be taken for those with disabilities or wheelchair users who often find footpaths blocked by poor parking and few suitable access points/pathways.
Doctors and medical
As previously mentioned, the Doctors surgery appears to already be under pressure. Limited local medical services i.e. dentist.
Wildlife and nature
There is great beauty in the local area, and Barling and Great Wakering has always prided itself on the wildlife that thrives in this area. Some rare species have been observed and we would like this to continue..
Drainage
Problems are already widely reported within this area, especially Kimberly Road and next to the Rascals nursery (very close to this proposed site).
Flood risk
Risk from the existing creek should water levels continue to rise as expected, considerations must be taken into future viability.

I hope you look at all of the replies that you receive and decide to leave our village as exactly that or to at least pump in a lot of money in order for our infrastructure to survive your plans. This has always been a place of beauty, please keep it that way.

Please take this email as a formal objection to

Site reference: CFS192
Address: Little Wakering Road
Initial site assessment indicates a potential for x423 houses

My reasons for this, first and foremost is the infrastructure of our village. It cannot cope with more housing developments. With the increase in housing in Shoplands and Barrow Hall (once they are fully occupied) our schools and nurseries will be full (Nurseries and Great Wakering school already full). Our Doctors are already buckling, and the roads and parking (especially around the schools and nurseries) will be absolutely manic.

Further consideration is also split into the following:

Connectivity i.e. public transport
Current public transport options are limited, schedules and availability worse. With this being the case, it means that more people will HAVE to use their cars in order to drop children at their school or pre-school care options. Consideration must be made into safe access for all residents across the village, and the road infrastructure in this village is poor. It seems to be becoming a through road but is not big enough to handle the congestion that we are already experiencing. Walking will also be difficult where possible due to the number of roads without pavements.
Traffic and pinch points/congestion
Already exist areas of concern due to traffic and congestion as well as safety due to blind bends, existing parking, pedestrians, horses, speed etc. There are limited roads in and out of the village, as many of us have experienced when road works are in place, problems very quickly arise.
Parking
Roadside parking often leaves limited space with reports of access concerns for emergency services and safety risks. The impact around schools result in tension and concerns for children’s safety. Consideration must also be taken for those with disabilities or wheelchair users who often find footpaths blocked by poor parking and few suitable access points/pathways.
Doctors and medical
As previously mentioned, the Doctors surgery appears to already be under pressure. Limited local medical services i.e. dentist.
Wildlife and nature
There is great beauty in the local area, and Barling and Great Wakering has always prided itself on the wildlife that thrives in this area. Some rare species have been observed and we would like this to continue..
Drainage
Problems are already widely reported within this area, especially Kimberly Road and next to the Rascals nursery (very close to this proposed site).
Flood risk
Risk from the existing creek should water levels continue to rise as expected, considerations must be taken into future viability.

I hope you look at all of the replies that you receive and decide to leave our village as exactly that or to at least pump in a lot of money in order for our infrastructure to survive your plans. This has always been a place of beauty, please keep it that way.

Kind regards

Jenny White

My reasons for this, first and foremost is the infrastructure of our village. It cannot cope with more housing developments. With the increase in housing in Shoplands and Barrow Hall (once they are fully occupied) our schools and nurseries will be full (Nurseries and Great Wakering school already full). Our Doctors are already buckling, and the roads and parking (especially around the schools and nurseries) will be absolutely manic.

Further consideration is also split into the following:

Connectivity i.e. public transport
Current public transport options are limited, schedules and availability worse. With this being the case, it means that more people will HAVE to use their cars in order to drop children at their school or pre-school care options. Consideration must be made into safe access for all residents across the village, and the road infrastructure in this village is poor. It seems to be becoming a through road but is not big enough to handle the congestion that we are already experiencing. Walking will also be difficult where possible due to the number of roads without pavements.
Traffic and pinch points/congestion
Already exist areas of concern due to traffic and congestion as well as safety due to blind bends, existing parking, pedestrians, horses, speed etc. There are limited roads in and out of the village, as many of us have experienced when road works are in place, problems very quickly arise.
Parking
Roadside parking often leaves limited space with reports of access concerns for emergency services and safety risks. The impact around schools result in tension and concerns for children’s safety. Consideration must also be taken for those with disabilities or wheelchair users who often find footpaths blocked by poor parking and few suitable access points/pathways.
Doctors and medical
As previously mentioned, the Doctors surgery appears to already be under pressure. Limited local medical services i.e. dentist.
Wildlife and nature
There is great beauty in the local area, and Barling and Great Wakering has always prided itself on the wildlife that thrives in this area. Some rare species have been observed and we would like this to continue..
Drainage
Problems are already widely reported within this area, especially Kimberly Road and next to the Rascals nursery (very close to this proposed site).
Flood risk
Risk from the existing creek should water levels continue to rise as expected, considerations must be taken into future viability.

I hope you look at all of the replies that you receive and decide to leave our village as exactly that or to at least pump in a lot of money in order for our infrastructure to survive your plans. This has always been a place of beauty, please keep it that way.

Please take this email as a formal objection to

Site reference: CFS153
Address: Common Road
Initial site assessment indicates a potential for x67 houses

My reasons for this, first and foremost is the infrastructure of our village. It cannot cope with more housing developments. With the increase in housing in Shoplands and Barrow Hall (once they are fully occupied) our schools and nurseries will be full (Nurseries and Great Wakering school already full). Our Doctors are already buckling, and the roads and parking (especially around the schools and nurseries) will be absolutely manic.

Further consideration is also split into the following:

Connectivity i.e. public transport
Current public transport options are limited, schedules and availability worse. With this being the case, it means that more people will HAVE to use their cars in order to drop children at their school or pre-school care options. Consideration must be made into safe access for all residents across the village, and the road infrastructure in this village is poor. It seems to be becoming a through road but is not big enough to handle the congestion that we are already experiencing. Walking will also be difficult where possible due to the number of roads without pavements.
Traffic and pinch points/congestion
Already exist areas of concern due to traffic and congestion as well as safety due to blind bends, existing parking, pedestrians, horses, speed etc. There are limited roads in and out of the village, as many of us have experienced when road works are in place, problems very quickly arise.
Parking
Roadside parking often leaves limited space with reports of access concerns for emergency services and safety risks. The impact around schools result in tension and concerns for children’s safety. Consideration must also be taken for those with disabilities or wheelchair users who often find footpaths blocked by poor parking and few suitable access points/pathways.
Doctors and medical
As previously mentioned, the Doctors surgery appears to already be under pressure. Limited local medical services i.e. dentist.
Wildlife and nature
There is great beauty in the local area, and Barling and Great Wakering has always prided itself on the wildlife that thrives in this area. Some rare species have been observed and we would like this to continue..
Drainage
Problems are already widely reported within this area, especially Kimberly Road and next to the Rascals nursery (very close to this proposed site).
Flood risk
Risk from the existing creek should water levels continue to rise as expected, considerations must be taken into future viability.

I hope you look at all of the replies that you receive and decide to leave our village as exactly that or to at least pump in a lot of money in order for our infrastructure to survive your plans. This has always been a place of beauty, please keep it that way.

Kind regards

Jenny White

My reasons for this, first and foremost is the infrastructure of our village. It cannot cope with more housing developments. With the increase in housing in Shoplands and Barrow Hall (once they are fully occupied) our schools and nurseries will be full (Nurseries and Great Wakering school already full). Our Doctors are already buckling, and the roads and parking (especially around the schools and nurseries) will be absolutely manic.

Further consideration is also split into the following:

Connectivity i.e. public transport
Current public transport options are limited, schedules and availability worse. With this being the case, it means that more people will HAVE to use their cars in order to drop children at their school or pre-school care options. Consideration must be made into safe access for all residents across the village, and the road infrastructure in this village is poor. It seems to be becoming a through road but is not big enough to handle the congestion that we are already experiencing. Walking will also be difficult where possible due to the number of roads without pavements.
Traffic and pinch points/congestion
Already exist areas of concern due to traffic and congestion as well as safety due to blind bends, existing parking, pedestrians, horses, speed etc. There are limited roads in and out of the village, as many of us have experienced when road works are in place, problems very quickly arise.
Parking
Roadside parking often leaves limited space with reports of access concerns for emergency services and safety risks. The impact around schools result in tension and concerns for children’s safety. Consideration must also be taken for those with disabilities or wheelchair users who often find footpaths blocked by poor parking and few suitable access points/pathways.
Doctors and medical
As previously mentioned, the Doctors surgery appears to already be under pressure. Limited local medical services i.e. dentist.
Wildlife and nature
There is great beauty in the local area, and Barling and Great Wakering has always prided itself on the wildlife that thrives in this area. Some rare species have been observed and we would like this to continue..
Drainage
Problems are already widely reported within this area, especially Kimberly Road and next to the Rascals nursery (very close to this proposed site).
Flood risk
Risk from the existing creek should water levels continue to rise as expected, considerations must be taken into future viability.

I hope you look at all of the replies that you receive and decide to leave our village as exactly that or to at least pump in a lot of money in order for our infrastructure to survive your plans. This has always been a place of beauty, please keep it that way.

Please take this email as a formal objection to

Site reference: CFS115
Address: Little Wakering Road
Initial site assessment indicates a potential for x120 houses

My reasons for this, first and foremost is the infrastructure of our village. It cannot cope with more housing developments. With the increase in housing in Shoplands and Barrow Hall (once they are fully occupied) our schools and nurseries will be full (Nurseries and Great Wakering school already full). Our Doctors are already buckling, and the roads and parking (especially around the schools and nurseries) will be absolutely manic.

Further consideration is also split into the following:

Connectivity i.e. public transport
Current public transport options are limited, schedules and availability worse. With this being the case, it means that more people will HAVE to use their cars in order to drop children at their school or pre-school care options. Consideration must be made into safe access for all residents across the village, and the road infrastructure in this village is poor. It seems to be becoming a through road but is not big enough to handle the congestion that we are already experiencing. Walking will also be difficult where possible due to the number of roads without pavements.
Traffic and pinch points/congestion
Already exist areas of concern due to traffic and congestion as well as safety due to blind bends, existing parking, pedestrians, horses, speed etc. There are limited roads in and out of the village, as many of us have experienced when road works are in place, problems very quickly arise.
Parking
Roadside parking often leaves limited space with reports of access concerns for emergency services and safety risks. The impact around schools result in tension and concerns for children’s safety. Consideration must also be taken for those with disabilities or wheelchair users who often find footpaths blocked by poor parking and few suitable access points/pathways.
Doctors and medical
As previously mentioned, the Doctors surgery appears to already be under pressure. Limited local medical services i.e. dentist.
Wildlife and nature
There is great beauty in the local area, and Barling and Great Wakering has always prided itself on the wildlife that thrives in this area. Some rare species have been observed and we would like this to continue..
Drainage
Problems are already widely reported within this area, especially Kimberly Road and next to the Rascals nursery (very close to this proposed site).
Flood risk
Risk from the existing creek should water levels continue to rise as expected, considerations must be taken into future viability.

I hope you look at all of the replies that you receive and decide to leave our village as exactly that or to at least pump in a lot of money in order for our infrastructure to survive your plans. This has always been a place of beauty, please keep it that way.

Please take this email as a formal objection to

Site reference: CFS097
Address: Thithe Park, Poynters Lane
Initial site assessment indicates a potential for x749 houses

My reasons for this, first and foremost is the infrastructure of our village. It cannot cope with more housing developments. With the increase in housing in Shoplands and Barrow Hall (once they are fully occupied) our schools and nurseries will be full (Nurseries and Great Wakering school already full). Our Doctors are already buckling, and the roads and parking (especially around the schools and nurseries) will be absolutely manic.

Further consideration is also split into the following:

Connectivity i.e. public transport
Current public transport options are limited, schedules and availability worse. With this being the case, it means that more people will HAVE to use their cars in order to drop children at their school or pre-school care options. Consideration must be made into safe access for all residents across the village, and the road infrastructure in this village is poor. It seems to be becoming a through road but is not big enough to handle the congestion that we are already experiencing. Walking will also be difficult where possible due to the number of roads without pavements.
Traffic and pinch points/congestion
Already exist areas of concern due to traffic and congestion as well as safety due to blind bends, existing parking, pedestrians, horses, speed etc. There are limited roads in and out of the village, as many of us have experienced when road works are in place, problems very quickly arise.
Parking
Roadside parking often leaves limited space with reports of access concerns for emergency services and safety risks. The impact around schools result in tension and concerns for children’s safety. Consideration must also be taken for those with disabilities or wheelchair users who often find footpaths blocked by poor parking and few suitable access points/pathways.
Doctors and medical
As previously mentioned, the Doctors surgery appears to already be under pressure. Limited local medical services i.e. dentist.
Wildlife and nature
There is great beauty in the local area, and Barling and Great Wakering has always prided itself on the wildlife that thrives in this area. Some rare species have been observed and we would like this to continue..
Drainage
Problems are already widely reported within this area, especially Kimberly Road and next to the Rascals nursery (very close to this proposed site).
Flood risk
Risk from the existing creek should water levels continue to rise as expected, considerations must be taken into future viability.

I hope you look at all of the replies that you receive and decide to leave our village as exactly that or to at least pump in a lot of money in order for our infrastructure to survive your plans. This has always been a place of beauty, please keep it that way.

Please take this email as a formal objection to

Site reference: CFS060
Address: Little Wakering Road
Initial site assessment indicates a potential for x27 houses
My reasons for this, first and foremost is the infrastructure of our village. It cannot cope with more housing developments. With the increase in housing in Shoplands and Barrow Hall (once they are fully occupied) our schools and nurseries will be full (Nurseries and Great Wakering school already full). Our Doctors are already buckling, and the roads and parking (especially around the schools and nurseries) will be absolutely manic.

Further consideration is also split into the following:

Connectivity i.e. public transport
Current public transport options are limited, schedules and availability worse. With this being the case, it means that more people will HAVE to use their cars in order to drop children at their school or pre-school care options. Consideration must be made into safe access for all residents across the village, and the road infrastructure in this village is poor. It seems to be becoming a through road but is not big enough to handle the congestion that we are already experiencing. Walking will also be difficult where possible due to the number of roads without pavements.
Traffic and pinch points/congestion
Already exist areas of concern due to traffic and congestion as well as safety due to blind bends, existing parking, pedestrians, horses, speed etc. There are limited roads in and out of the village, as many of us have experienced when road works are in place, problems very quickly arise.
Parking
Roadside parking often leaves limited space with reports of access concerns for emergency services and safety risks. The impact around schools result in tension and concerns for children’s safety. Consideration must also be taken for those with disabilities or wheelchair users who often find footpaths blocked by poor parking and few suitable access points/pathways.
Doctors and medical
As previously mentioned, the Doctors surgery appears to already be under pressure. Limited local medical services i.e. dentist.
Wildlife and nature
There is great beauty in the local area, and Barling and Great Wakering has always prided itself on the wildlife that thrives in this area. Some rare species have been observed and we would like this to continue..
Drainage
Problems are already widely reported within this area, especially Kimberly Road and next to the Rascals nursery (very close to this proposed site).
Flood risk
Risk from the existing creek should water levels continue to rise as expected, considerations must be taken into future viability.

I hope you look at all of the replies that you receive and decide to leave our village as exactly that or to at least pump in a lot of money in order for our infrastructure to survive your plans. This has always been a place of beauty, please keep it that way.

Please take this email as a formal objection to

Site reference: CFS056
Address: Stewards Yard, Great Wakering
Initial site assessment indicates a potential for x33 houses

My reasons for this, first and foremost is the infrastructure of our village. It cannot cope with more housing developments. With the increase in housing in Shoplands and Barrow Hall (once they are fully occupied) our schools and nurseries will be full (Nurseries and Great Wakering school already full). Our Doctors are already buckling, and the roads and parking (especially around the schools and nurseries) will be absolutely manic.

Further consideration is also split into the following:

Connectivity i.e. public transport
Current public transport options are limited, schedules and availability worse. With this being the case, it means that more people will HAVE to use their cars in order to drop children at their school or pre-school care options. Consideration must be made into safe access for all residents across the village, and the road infrastructure in this village is poor. It seems to be becoming a through road but is not big enough to handle the congestion that we are already experiencing. Walking will also be difficult where possible due to the number of roads without pavements.
Traffic and pinch points/congestion
Already exist areas of concern due to traffic and congestion as well as safety due to blind bends, existing parking, pedestrians, horses, speed etc. There are limited roads in and out of the village, as many of us have experienced when road works are in place, problems very quickly arise.
Parking
Roadside parking often leaves limited space with reports of access concerns for emergency services and safety risks. The impact around schools result in tension and concerns for children’s safety. Consideration must also be taken for those with disabilities or wheelchair users who often find footpaths blocked by poor parking and few suitable access points/pathways.
Doctors and medical
As previously mentioned, the Doctors surgery appears to already be under pressure. Limited local medical services i.e. dentist.
Wildlife and nature
There is great beauty in the local area, and Barling and Great Wakering has always prided itself on the wildlife that thrives in this area. Some rare species have been observed and we would like this to continue..
Drainage
Problems are already widely reported within this area, especially Kimberly Road and next to the Rascals nursery (very close to this proposed site).
Flood risk
Risk from the existing creek should water levels continue to rise as expected, considerations must be taken into future viability.

I hope you look at all of the replies that you receive and decide to leave our village as exactly that or to at least pump in a lot of money in order for our infrastructure to survive your plans. This has always been a place of beauty, please keep it that way.

Please take this email as a formal objection to

Site reference: CFS057
Address: Star Lane/Poynters Lane
Initial site assessment indicates a potential for x1001 houses

My reasons for this, first and foremost is the infrastructure of our village. It cannot cope with more housing developments. With the increase in housing in Shoplands and Barrow Hall (once they are fully occupied) our schools and nurseries will be full (Nurseries and Great Wakering school already full). Our Doctors are already buckling, and the roads and parking (especially around the schools and nurseries) will be absolutely manic.

Further consideration is also split into the following:

Connectivity i.e. public transport
Current public transport options are limited, schedules and availability worse. With this being the case, it means that more people will HAVE to use their cars in order to drop children at their school or pre-school care options. Consideration must be made into safe access for all residents across the village, and the road infrastructure in this village is poor. It seems to be becoming a through road but is not big enough to handle the congestion that we are already experiencing. Walking will also be difficult where possible due to the number of roads without pavements.
Traffic and pinch points/congestion
Already exist areas of concern due to traffic and congestion as well as safety due to blind bends, existing parking, pedestrians, horses, speed etc. There are limited roads in and out of the village, as many of us have experienced when road works are in place, problems very quickly arise.
Parking
Roadside parking often leaves limited space with reports of access concerns for emergency services and safety risks. The impact around schools result in tension and concerns for children’s safety. Consideration must also be taken for those with disabilities or wheelchair users who often find footpaths blocked by poor parking and few suitable access points/pathways.
Doctors and medical
As previously mentioned, the Doctors surgery appears to already be under pressure. Limited local medical services i.e. dentist.
Wildlife and nature
There is great beauty in the local area, and Barling and Great Wakering has always prided itself on the wildlife that thrives in this area. Some rare species have been observed and we would like this to continue..
Drainage
Problems are already widely reported within this area, especially Kimberly Road and next to the Rascals nursery (very close to this proposed site).
Flood risk
Risk from the existing creek should water levels continue to rise as expected, considerations must be taken into future viability.

I hope you look at all of the replies that you receive and decide to leave our village as exactly that or to at least pump in a lot of money in order for our infrastructure to survive your plans. This has always been a place of beauty, please keep it that way.

Please take this email as a formal objection to

Site reference: CFS076
Address: Sutton Road
Initial site assessment indicates a potential for x191 houses

My reasons for this, first and foremost is the infrastructure of our village. It cannot cope with more housing developments. With the increase in housing in Shoplands and Barrow Hall (once they are fully occupied) our schools and nurseries will be full (Nurseries and Great Wakering school already full). Our Doctors are already buckling, and the roads and parking (especially around the schools and nurseries) will be absolutely manic.

Further consideration is also split into the following:

Connectivity i.e. public transport
Current public transport options are limited, schedules and availability worse. With this being the case, it means that more people will HAVE to use their cars in order to drop children at their school or pre-school care options. Consideration must be made into safe access for all residents across the village, and the road infrastructure in this village is poor. It seems to be becoming a through road but is not big enough to handle the congestion that we are already experiencing. Walking will also be difficult where possible due to the number of roads without pavements.
Traffic and pinch points/congestion
Already exist areas of concern due to traffic and congestion as well as safety due to blind bends, existing parking, pedestrians, horses, speed etc. There are limited roads in and out of the village, as many of us have experienced when road works are in place, problems very quickly arise.
Parking
Roadside parking often leaves limited space with reports of access concerns for emergency services and safety risks. The impact around schools result in tension and concerns for children’s safety. Consideration must also be taken for those with disabilities or wheelchair users who often find footpaths blocked by poor parking and few suitable access points/pathways.
Doctors and medical
As previously mentioned, the Doctors surgery appears to already be under pressure. Limited local medical services i.e. dentist.
Wildlife and nature
There is great beauty in the local area, and Barling and Great Wakering has always prided itself on the wildlife that thrives in this area. Some rare species have been observed and we would like this to continue..
Drainage
Problems are already widely reported within this area, especially Kimberly Road and next to the Rascals nursery (very close to this proposed site).
Flood risk
Risk from the existing creek should water levels continue to rise as expected, considerations must be taken into future viability.

I hope you look at all of the replies that you receive and decide to leave our village as exactly that or to at least pump in a lot of money in order for our infrastructure to survive your plans. This has always been a place of beauty, please keep it that way.

Please take this email as a formal objection to

Site reference: CFS103
Address: Barrow Hall Road
Initial site assessment indicates a potential for x94 houses

My reasons for this, first and foremost is the infrastructure of our village. It cannot cope with more housing developments. With the increase in housing in Shoplands and Barrow Hall (once they are fully occupied) our schools and nurseries will be full (Nurseries and Great Wakering school already full). Our Doctors are already buckling, and the roads and parking (especially around the schools and nurseries) will be absolutely manic.

Further consideration is also split into the following:

Connectivity i.e. public transport
Current public transport options are limited, schedules and availability worse. With this being the case, it means that more people will HAVE to use their cars in order to drop children at their school or pre-school care options. Consideration must be made into safe access for all residents across the village, and the road infrastructure in this village is poor. It seems to be becoming a through road but is not big enough to handle the congestion that we are already experiencing. Walking will also be difficult where possible due to the number of roads without pavements.
Traffic and pinch points/congestion
Already exist areas of concern due to traffic and congestion as well as safety due to blind bends, existing parking, pedestrians, horses, speed etc. There are limited roads in and out of the village, as many of us have experienced when road works are in place, problems very quickly arise.
Parking
Roadside parking often leaves limited space with reports of access concerns for emergency services and safety risks. The impact around schools result in tension and concerns for children’s safety. Consideration must also be taken for those with disabilities or wheelchair users who often find footpaths blocked by poor parking and few suitable access points/pathways.
Doctors and medical
As previously mentioned, the Doctors surgery appears to already be under pressure. Limited local medical services i.e. dentist.
Wildlife and nature
There is great beauty in the local area, and Barling and Great Wakering has always prided itself on the wildlife that thrives in this area. Some rare species have been observed and we would like this to continue..
Drainage
Problems are already widely reported within this area, especially Kimberly Road and next to the Rascals nursery (very close to this proposed site).
Flood risk
Risk from the existing creek should water levels continue to rise as expected, considerations must be taken into future viability.

I hope you look at all of the replies that you receive and decide to leave our village as exactly that or to at least pump in a lot of money in order for our infrastructure to survive your plans. This has always been a place of beauty, please keep it that way.

Please take this email as a formal objection to

Site reference: CFS071
Address: Barling Road
Initial site assessment indicates a potential for x111 houses

My reasons for this, first and foremost is the infrastructure of our village. It cannot cope with more housing developments. With the increase in housing in Shoplands and Barrow Hall (once they are fully occupied) our schools and nurseries will be full (Nurseries and Great Wakering school already full). Our Doctors are already buckling, and the roads and parking (especially around the schools and nurseries) will be absolutely manic.

Further consideration is also split into the following:

Connectivity i.e. public transport
Current public transport options are limited, schedules and availability worse. With this being the case, it means that more people will HAVE to use their cars in order to drop children at their school or pre-school care options. Consideration must be made into safe access for all residents across the village, and the road infrastructure in this village is poor. It seems to be becoming a through road but is not big enough to handle the congestion that we are already experiencing. Walking will also be difficult where possible due to the number of roads without pavements.
Traffic and pinch points/congestion
Already exist areas of concern due to traffic and congestion as well as safety due to blind bends, existing parking, pedestrians, horses, speed etc. There are limited roads in and out of the village, as many of us have experienced when road works are in place, problems very quickly arise.
Parking
Roadside parking often leaves limited space with reports of access concerns for emergency services and safety risks. The impact around schools result in tension and concerns for children’s safety. Consideration must also be taken for those with disabilities or wheelchair users who often find footpaths blocked by poor parking and few suitable access points/pathways.
Doctors and medical
As previously mentioned, the Doctors surgery appears to already be under pressure. Limited local medical services i.e. dentist.
Wildlife and nature
There is great beauty in the local area, and Barling and Great Wakering has always prided itself on the wildlife that thrives in this area. Some rare species have been observed and we would like this to continue..
Drainage
Problems are already widely reported within this area, especially Kimberly Road and next to the Rascals nursery (very close to this proposed site).
Flood risk
Risk from the existing creek should water levels continue to rise as expected, considerations must be taken into future viability.

I hope you look at all of the replies that you receive and decide to leave our village as exactly that or to at least pump in a lot of money in order for our infrastructure to survive your plans. This has always been a place of beauty, please keep it that way.

Please take this email as a formal objection to

Site reference: CFS070
Address: Conway Ave/Shoebury Road
Initial site assessment indicates a potential for x125 houses

My reasons for this, first and foremost is the infrastructure of our village. It cannot cope with more housing developments. With the increase in housing in Shoplands and Barrow Hall (once they are fully occupied) our schools and nurseries will be full (Nurseries and Great Wakering school already full). Our Doctors are already buckling, and the roads and parking (especially around the schools and nurseries) will be absolutely manic.

Further consideration is also split into the following:

Connectivity i.e. public transport
Current public transport options are limited, schedules and availability worse. With this being the case, it means that more people will HAVE to use their cars in order to drop children at their school or pre-school care options. Consideration must be made into safe access for all residents across the village, and the road infrastructure in this village is poor. It seems to be becoming a through road but is not big enough to handle the congestion that we are already experiencing. Walking will also be difficult where possible due to the number of roads without pavements.
Traffic and pinch points/congestion
Already exist areas of concern due to traffic and congestion as well as safety due to blind bends, existing parking, pedestrians, horses, speed etc. There are limited roads in and out of the village, as many of us have experienced when road works are in place, problems very quickly arise.
Parking
Roadside parking often leaves limited space with reports of access concerns for emergency services and safety risks. The impact around schools result in tension and concerns for children’s safety. Consideration must also be taken for those with disabilities or wheelchair users who often find footpaths blocked by poor parking and few suitable access points/pathways.
Doctors and medical
As previously mentioned, the Doctors surgery appears to already be under pressure. Limited local medical services i.e. dentist.
Wildlife and nature
There is great beauty in the local area, and Barling and Great Wakering has always prided itself on the wildlife that thrives in this area. Some rare species have been observed and we would like this to continue..
Drainage
Problems are already widely reported within this area, especially Kimberly Road and next to the Rascals nursery (very close to this proposed site).
Flood risk
Risk from the existing creek should water levels continue to rise as expected, considerations must be taken into future viability.

I hope you look at all of the replies that you receive and decide to leave our village as exactly that or to at least pump in a lot of money in order for our infrastructure to survive your plans. This has always been a place of beauty, please keep it that way.

Please take this email as a formal objection to

Site reference: CFS065
Address: Shoebury Road/New Road
Initial site assessment indicates a potential for x335 houses

My reasons for this, first and foremost is the infrastructure of our village. It cannot cope with more housing developments. With the increase in housing in Shoplands and Barrow Hall (once they are fully occupied) our schools and nurseries will be full (Nurseries and Great Wakering school already full). Our Doctors are already buckling, and the roads and parking (especially around the schools and nurseries) will be absolutely manic.

Further consideration is also split into the following:

Connectivity i.e. public transport
Current public transport options are limited, schedules and availability worse. With this being the case, it means that more people will HAVE to use their cars in order to drop children at their school or pre-school care options. Consideration must be made into safe access for all residents across the village, and the road infrastructure in this village is poor. It seems to be becoming a through road but is not big enough to handle the congestion that we are already experiencing. Walking will also be difficult where possible due to the number of roads without pavements.
Traffic and pinch points/congestion
Already exist areas of concern due to traffic and congestion as well as safety due to blind bends, existing parking, pedestrians, horses, speed etc. There are limited roads in and out of the village, as many of us have experienced when road works are in place, problems very quickly arise.
Parking
Roadside parking often leaves limited space with reports of access concerns for emergency services and safety risks. The impact around schools result in tension and concerns for children’s safety. Consideration must also be taken for those with disabilities or wheelchair users who often find footpaths blocked by poor parking and few suitable access points/pathways.
Doctors and medical
As previously mentioned, the Doctors surgery appears to already be under pressure. Limited local medical services i.e. dentist.
Wildlife and nature
There is great beauty in the local area, and Barling and Great Wakering has always prided itself on the wildlife that thrives in this area. Some rare species have been observed and we would like this to continue..
Drainage
Problems are already widely reported within this area, especially Kimberly Road and next to the Rascals nursery (very close to this proposed site).
Flood risk
Risk from the existing creek should water levels continue to rise as expected, considerations must be taken into future viability.

I hope you look at all of the replies that you receive and decide to leave our village as exactly that or to at least pump in a lot of money in order for our infrastructure to survive your plans. This has always been a place of beauty, please keep it that way.

Please take this email as a formal objection to

Site reference: CFS004
Address: Land on Little Wakering Road next to Barling Magna School
Initial site assessment indicates a potential for x26 houses

My reasons for this, first and foremost is the infrastructure of our village. It cannot cope with more housing developments. With the increase in housing in Shoplands and Barrow Hall (once they are fully occupied) our schools and nurseries will be full (Nurseries and Great Wakering school already full). Our Doctors are already buckling, and the roads and parking (especially around the schools and nurseries) will be absolutely manic.

Further consideration is also split into the following:

Connectivity i.e. public transport
Current public transport options are limited, schedules and availability worse. With this being the case, it means that more people will HAVE to use their cars in order to drop children at their school or pre-school care options. Consideration must be made into safe access for all residents across the village, and the road infrastructure in this village is poor. It seems to be becoming a through road but is not big enough to handle the congestion that we are already experiencing. Walking will also be difficult where possible due to the number of roads without pavements.
Traffic and pinch points/congestion
Already exist areas of concern due to traffic and congestion as well as safety due to blind bends, existing parking, pedestrians, horses, speed etc. There are limited roads in and out of the village, as many of us have experienced when road works are in place, problems very quickly arise.
Parking
Roadside parking often leaves limited space with reports of access concerns for emergency services and safety risks. The impact around schools result in tension and concerns for children’s safety. Consideration must also be taken for those with disabilities or wheelchair users who often find footpaths blocked by poor parking and few suitable access points/pathways.
Doctors and medical
As previously mentioned, the Doctors surgery appears to already be under pressure. Limited local medical services i.e. dentist.
Wildlife and nature
There is great beauty in the local area, and Barling and Great Wakering has always prided itself on the wildlife that thrives in this area. Some rare species have been observed and we would like this to continue..
Drainage
Problems are already widely reported within this area, especially Kimberly Road and next to the Rascals nursery (very close to this proposed site).
Flood risk
Risk from the existing creek should water levels continue to rise as expected, considerations must be taken into future viability.

I hope you look at all of the replies that you receive and decide to leave our village as exactly that or to at least pump in a lot of money in order for our infrastructure to survive your plans. This has always been a place of beauty, please keep it that way.

I understand that the field behind the Hockley Community Centre has been potentially earmarked for the development of 214 new homes.

I would like to object to this field site (CFS064) being used for housing for these reasons:

1. This field is green belt and is regularly farmed.

2. There are also three ancient woods around the field that would be affected by a housing development.

3. There is also the wildlife that currently live in the field and woods to consider.

4. Because one side of the development is bordered by the railway line, all motor traffic from any new development would have to come out onto the B1013, which is already severely congested at core times of the morning and evening. 214 new homes would create at least an additional 430 cars on local roads that are already struggling to cope with the current level of traffic.

5. Additional motorcars will also bring additional pollution into the village, to the detriment of those of us living here.

6. Local services, including GPs and schools are already oversubscribed. Bringing in an additional 214 families, without increasing the capacity of local infrastructure, would have a detrimental effect on the present residents of Hockley.

I hope that these considerations will be taken into account before any final decision is made on the use of this land for housing.

I understand that the field behind the Hockley Community Centre has been potentially earmarked for the development of 214 new homes.

I would like to object to this field site (CFS064) being used for housing for these reasons:

1. This field is green belt and is regularly farmed.

2. There are also three ancient woods around the field that would be affected by a housing development.

3. There is also the wildlife that currently live in the field and woods to consider.

4. Because one side of the development is bordered by the railway line, all motor traffic from any new development would have us come out onto the B1013, which is already severely congested at core times of the morning and evening. 214 new homes would create at least an additional 430 cars on local roads that are already struggling to cope with the current level of traffic.

5. Additional motorcars will also bring additional pollution into the village, to the detriment of those of us living here.

6. Local services, including GPs and schools are already oversubscribed. Bringing in an additional 214 families, without increasing the capacity of local infrastructure, would have a detrimental affect on the present residents of Hockley.

I hope that these considerations will be taken into account before any final decision is made on the use of this land for housing.

Thank you for making the Local Plan and Spatial Options available on the internet and for the extensive detail included. It's taken me a while to get to examine the contents and would like to respond to proposals to develop land surrounding my family home. I am concerned by the scale of possible development all across the Rochford area, but there are two sites that will directly and adversely affect my family and I.

Of course I understand that Government policy will force significant development within the area, but I am writing to highlight issues with developing the sites of CFS064 and CFS264 and to ask that they be removed from the Plan and any subsequent consultation stages. Site CFS064 is special and should be protected in accordance with RDC's own objectives.

I list my concerns as follows:

Access to the sites CFS064 and CFS264

I live on Folly Chase, I was born here more than 50 years ago and it's been my parents only marital home in their 56 years as husband and wife. As I look at the plans it seems the only access to both sites would be through the Chase, which for many years was an unmade road off a country lane. Folly Lane is no longer a quiet road - it's a busy rat-run, with large trucks, coaches and even buses forcing their way through a narrow thoroughfare. The new housing developments in Pond Chase and Church Road has seen the speed of traffic rise dangerously. Increased building in Hullbridge, poor access on the B1013 from Rayleigh to Rochford - with drivers avoiding the often log jammed A127 - means this is now a busy road and the only direct way Hullbridge to Hockley. Car are often parked in dangerous positions on both sides of the road and it's worse when parents are dropping children at Hockley Tennis Club. Traffic goes too fast and often cut the corners of the 90 left - 90 right and 90 left bends those of us looking to pull into Folly Chase are in jeopardy at times. The roads are broken and in disrepair fallowing the construction of Pond Chase Nursery.
Any more development will just make all of this worse - if even the small site is green lit that will mean another 60 cars using the road - not to mention extra the delivery traffic.

Our road is maintained by residents and is incapable of handling construction traffic or the eventual increase in residential access traffic. It leads to a footpath, popular with dog walkers taking them into Bluebell Woods (aka Folly Wood) designated Ancient Woodland, carrying HC1 Wildlife Site designation. It's all part of the "6,320km Public Rights of Way (PRoW) in Essex - one of the most extensive networks in the country" according to the ECC website. And the Rochford District Council website highlights that "Hockley" is a member of the Parish Paths Partnership Scheme, which is an initiative introduced by Essex County Council in conjunction with The Countryside Agency to assist parish councils to maintain, develop and promote their local footpath network."

Folly Chase has no surface drainage features, no run off into gullies or gutters. There are no footpaths, and no room to build them as the roads about 9 feet wide at its narrowest point, so cannot support two way traffic. The infrastructure for housing water, and gas supplies is not far beneath the surface and any increase in heavy traffic will almost certainly damage these as they are vulnerable.

Anglian Water had serious concerns about the strain on the current sewerage systems in the area and the Pond Chase development created serious issues contributing to the ill health of several residents on the road. The complete system now cross to Folly Chase from Pond Chase, across to the field that is site CFS064 to the Hockley Community centre and has already caused significant sinking of our road surface. The nearby development in Church Road has also had significant sewage and surface water issues and any further development adding onto the existing surface water and sewage infrastructure will only increase the pressure on existing infrastructure, potentially to the point of failure, with significant public health concerns.

Folly Chase is Private Road with an undefined Public Footpath running down it. Ownership of the road isn’t registered and absent any contrary evidence each land owner owns up to the mid- point of the road. There are some private rights of way that have been established by usage and by deed, but it is apparent that the ownership issue is complex and fragmented and that my discussions with many residents shows the large majority would be unwilling to enter into any negotiation to depart from current use and access.

With specific reference to site CFS064

This land abuts the full length of our back fence, we have all manner of wild life that comes into our garden from here including newts, common lizards and adders (a protected species) as well as bats, and dragonflies.
I note that the land is Metropolitan Green belt land and have read that such land can only be developed for ‘Exceptional circumstances’ as detailed in the Planning Policy Guidance Note 2 (PPG2). It also says in paragraph 143 that "Inappropriate development is by definition harmful to Green Belt’’ and in Paragraph 145 is says ‘’A local planning authority should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in the Green Belt. Exceptions to this are;


• Agriculture and Forestry.
The outline proposal is for residential development thus condition is not satisfied. Indeed any development would actually be in direct opposition to this as the land is already prime agricultural arable land and is actively farmed.

b. Essential facilities for outdoor sport and recreation.
The site already includes a football pitches at the Community Centre, the Community Centre itself and is widely used for walking, dog walking, running and cycling. The outline proposals would diminish the provision of outdoor sport and recreation and this condition cannot therefore be satisfied by any housing development.

c. and d. Limited extension and/or alteration of existing buildings.
Other than the Community Centre there are no existing buildings within the site. The Community Centre itself still has a long unexpired lease and development of it fails the test above in any case. This condition cannot be fulfilled

e . Limited Infilling.
The Local Plan allocation site reference 179 states that the land could be used for up to 265 dwellings. This is anything but ‘limited’ and this condition cannot be fulfilled

f. Limited affordable Housing
Again the size of the potential development is anything but limited. Condition cannot be met.

g. Limited infilling or redevelopment of previously developed land.
This land has not been previously developed and condition cannot be met.

Paragraph 136 of the National Planning Policy Framework lays out that ‘exceptional circumstances’ must be met for any consideration of changing existing Green Belt boundaries.

Paragraph 137 specifically states that ‘’the…authority should be able to demonstrate that it has examined all other reasonable options for meeting its identified need for development. …..and whether the strategy…. Makes as much use as possible of suitable brownfield sites and under-utilised land’’

All the above suggests the site cannot be considered any further for housing development as to do so contravenes existing Metropolitan Green Belt legislation so it must be removed from the development plan.


Local Wildlife Sites and Incorrect identification of their proximity to the site CFS064.
An additional contravention of Policy to the Green belt restrictions is that the site is in ‘close proximity’ to 3 Local Wildlife Sites (LoWs) namely, Betts Wood, Folly Wood and Hockley Hall-South Wood. These are all designated a minimum of HC1 (ancient Woodland) and have further designations. Folly Wood occupies most of the southern boundary of the site, Betts Wood most of the eastern boundary and Hockley Hall-South Wood circa half of the northern boundary. It should be noted that there is a strip of woodland joining Folly Wood and Hockley Hall-South Wood along the entire western perimeter and this may mean that these two LoWs are in fact one larger site. It is important to point out that the Site Allocation Assessment Criteria fails to mention the ‘close proximity’ of the LoWs and that it is vital that this is noted by RDC. This omission must render the Site Allocation Assessment as invalid, and that the site should not have passed the first stage consultation as a consequence.

The ’Buffer Zones’ that would be required at the perimeter of the LOWs and around the mature veteran Oak trees within the site would reduce the available land suitable for development significantly and render the site uneconomic.

The LoWs mentioned above, and the immediate surrounding environment, including the field detailed in site CFS 064 support a rich and varied population , indeed such woodland is recognized as providing the most diverse and important habitats in the UK and is already limited to just 550,000 Hectares across the entire UK.

When I was a little girl I used to play in "the big field" and in the gloaming of summer would watch the glow-worms in the grass by Folly Woods. The LoWs assessments do not detail many resident species but it's not only the glow worms that the children growing up here see on their walks. We have grass snakes and slow worms as well as adders and very cute common lizards. There are frogs, toads, smooth Newts, great Crested Newts. I have seen badgers, foxes, muntjac deer and even a very fast weasel! There are nesting buzzards, sparrow hawks, merlin, tawny owls, little owls, nightjar, blue tits, great tits, long tail tits, robins and wrens, coal tits, willow warblers, chiff chaff, blackcap, blackbirds, thrushes, goldfinch, greenfinch, chaffinch, yellowhammer, tree creeper, nuthatch, swallow, swift, house martin. In the trees of the ancient woodland we have many corvid including crow, jackdaw, Magpie, Jay, Rook, then there's the Coot, Moorhen, Cuckoo, dunnock and sparrows and when it's cold fieldfare, lapwing, and redwing shelter and rest. Goldcrest, Great Spotted Woodpecker, Green Woodpecker, Lesser Spotted Woodpecker, Grey Heron, Pied Wagtail, Grey Wagtail, House Sparrow, Kestrel, Linnet, Nightingale, Meadow Pipit, Skylark, Starling have all been seen here as the seasons change. And we all love the bats so their must be a colony making their home within Folly and/or Betts Woods. There's rich flora, including wild honeysuckle, wood anemones and the bluebells, all with the many variety of beetles, spiders and Wood Ant colonies.

They live happily undisturbed amongst brambles, oak, hornbeam, holly and Ash trees around the Ancient Woodland and on arable farmland. They require free movement between sites and the field, and the large mature Oaks within it, provide essential movement corridors between the three identified LoWs sites. Any development in the field in the centre of these three LoWs can only have a massive detrimental effect on the population, and the existing richness and diversity proves this is a site that should be preserved, not destroyed. Consideration for development must cease forthwith.

The ’standing advice’ of the Government in this regard is found within Natural England and Forestry Commission guidance ( https://www.gov.uk/guidance/ancient-woodland-and-veteran-trees-protection-surveys-licences). Standing Advice is a ’Material planning consideration’. Ancient Woodllands have equal protection in the National planning Policy Framework.


I have been shown RDC’s own statements regarding potential development within the Local Plan document. The plan clearly states that one of it’s key objectives is ‘’for meeting future needs (including housing….). It will also identify areas for protection, such as sites that are important for wildlife and open space.’’ The RDC have failed in their policy objective and in following correct process that there is a failure to even identify the proximity of the LoWs detailed above in the Site Allocation Assessment Criteria. So this site really should not be considered for development - instead it should be listed for protection in accordance with the Local Plan objectives - taken off the development plan and placed in a protection plan.

Infrastructure- both sites

I've mentioned my concerns about local road issues - I haven't added my worries about the times ambulances take to get to our road and then back to Southend hospital (While it continues to have an A+E unit).
I have also explained how inadequate drainage and sewerage is in the area but we have to also address the pressure local services are already straining under. If both sites are green-lit hundreds more people (and children) will be looking for places in our local schools, GP surgeries, dental surgeries and nurseries. The bus service is infrequent and expensive, and speaking as a cyclist the roads are too narrow for safe transit for younger riders. I want proper cycle ways but where are they? And where would they realistically go? The B1013 cannot cope with the current traffic let along increased pressed form increased housing.

Reduction of Quality Arable farming land-CFS064
I am concerned the Plan may well reduce the acreage available for arable farming. What measures have the council made to ensure we have sufficient acreage available for farming use to enable us to keep feeding ourselves?

Impact on the landscape and community
Any development at site CFS064 will be detrimental on the environment, biodiversity and the visible appearance of the site. The visual impact will destroy the character of the site and its surroundings and the increase in population and traffic would destroy the culture of the existing community within Folly Chase.

Spatial Options Document 2021
Whilst I agree with the Vision Statement for Hockley as detailed in the SOD I cannot see how the proposed development sites would achieve the stated vision. Surely any further development would conflict with the entire Vision Statement, other than the one regarding affordable housing, but as we have seen on numerous occasions building more houses does not link directly to improved affordable housing allocations as builders charge increasingly higher prices. Surely a Central Government led policy on house pricing/profits is the answer?

Q58e asks re the significance of the ‘local green spaces’ but makes no mention of the Local Wildlife Sites. These should be equally regarded and are very significant. I have heard that CFS064 could be considered for re wilding. If so, with it’s close proximity to LoWs it could become an education centre or Country park, accessible to many by foot and cycle. It therefore does need protecting form development as it would help increase the land locally t comply with the Vision Statement and improve the environment and bio diversity for the benefit of the local community.

More Suitable Sites
My introduction acknowledged the need for some developments to comply with Government policy. There is a consensus that Hockley itself cannot cope with more development in the immediate vicinity but the Plan includes sites on the western fringes of the district that are clearly more suitable with better access, room to provide additional social infrastructure as well as housing, better transport and potential for more transport hubs, and would keep the majority of traffic away from the existing overly congested community of Hockley and Hawkwell.

Conclusion
I ask that sites CFS064 and CFS264 be removed from the next stage. They are simply not suitable.

Having seen the plans for possible development over the Rochford district I am very disappointed and saddened and would like to raise the following concerns:

- the current infrastructure serving the routes from Battlesbridge through to Southend is insufficient for the current population. Routes such as ashingdon road, lower road are often at standstills or an average of 10mph during rush hour, school hours, a car or lorry blocking the road or even just the bin men

- our doctor’s surgery’s are full, not enough doctors or staff to serve the number of patients and therefore people are waiting too long to be seen

- where we currently live in Barling, we don’t even have sufficient gas pipes due to utility companies poor installation. Numerous times have we lost gas due to water in the pipes. The solution is constantly temporary and never properly fixed. How could this possibly serve another 1000 houses?

- to see shopland road, Barling road and barrow hall road on these possible future plans is shocking. Our roads are narrow, not suitable to cater for another 5000+ people, our doctors surgeries, our small primary school that is it physically big enough for anymore students than it currently has, we have no secondary school other than our children getting the bus to rochford, and most of all our British countryside which is one of the only places left between Southend and Battlesbridge. This cannot happen for the sake of our future generations.

If these plans go ahead then we will lose villages, become congested and lose our green fields that is so important countryside and what England is known for.

Please consider all the above and more before building in our district.

Dear Councillor Simon Wooton,

I hope you are well and a belated congratulations for being voted in leader of Rochford District Council last July.

I purposely write to you as a person of leadership for my area and with genuine interest of your views, given someone in your position will naturally do your very best to put resident interests (amongst other things) at the heart of everything.

I’m namely reaching out to you in relation to the identified or proposed plans for new housing development.

Before I go on, I feel for integrity I should briefly introduce myself and explain what has compelled me to write to you. I’m Jason McGinley, a 47 year old who moved to the Hawkwell area back in 2002/3, I am married, have 3 children (mostly grown up now) and have my Dad living close by. The reason I moved here was to find more space, tranquility, good schooling and the green space. The pace of life here back in 2002/3 was much slower and quieter than I was used to but was just what we looking for, and we integrated quickly and very much appreciated the qualities of local community life and living.

I’m not a man of erratic views or knee-jerk decisions and want for nothing in the main. However, I’ve found myself thinking over the last few years that perhaps it’s time to move on to somewhere which offers what we found here back in 2002/3. The area in ‘some’ ways has developed out of all recognition and has become an area with different dynamics, with seemingly many more people and car traffic and now feels quite claustrophobic and restrictive – feelings which my last area were reminiscent of.

So with introductions out the way, I understand plans seem to include over 6,200 houses across 6 sites with others involved in addition. I’m also mindful of the considerable amount of new housing already developed over last number of years and observe just from them along, a distinct lack of new supporting services / shops / road access - notwithstanding the impact to existing services in the surrounding areas. Specifically on the ‘past’ element effect, I’ve tried not to use the roads at all during weekends due to the traffic congestion stress it brings to me on a personal level.

Before I try to summarise business type reasons of concern, I’m conscious that this type of issue is 1 of many part of the bigger plan you’re responsible for. I also understand that for every past there’s also a present and a future, which requires a lot of balancing, thought and change, Having said all that, I do think there’s a lot of overlap across multiple touch-points, including decision making, and for that reason I’d like to really ‘pick-your-brains’ on the wider view and challenges or pressures you have to factor in to decisions.

For me it’s crucial to understand and differentiate between the directives you’re working to against viable options specific to our district – I’m sure this is something that most residents would have empathy on too?

On the ‘overlap’ I referred to, budget is a big one, as is climate and environment, younger generation, core services and local business. Being in business myself, naturally I can see benefit from creating efficiencies and making strategic decisions which embed and have sustainable impact. Personally I have lots of ideas around both, and am more than happy to impart these as part of resident feedback – should there be good reason to.

I genuinely am really interested to hear the challenges for our district and how you have to balance and manage these as part of a local and central Govt plan, including any personal thoughts presuming you’re a local resident too.

Back to the new housing point, the main aspects of concern or interest are:

1) Road traffic and lack of road infrastructure to deal with this – personally speaking, I can’t even see or understand how implementing new road space will even impact or help with this issue, for example the road in and out of Rayleigh through to Rochford and beyond just can’t cope anymore and neither would the main roads like A127 – we’re simply at ‘tipping point’.
Beyond the local access, those outside our district would find it near impossible to access what our area has to offer without extreme delay or difficulty.

2) Lack of new support services and shops / or impact to existing – such as supermarkets, doctors, hospitals, dentists, car parking, park space, exercise space, public transport and public houses. I often find which situations like this, you hear about conceptual ideas and promises without analysis of numbers before/future and real thought to how this will truly affect these things without having those who work or live on the ground in or near these things.

3) Population – whilst this relates to points 1) and 2) coming back to the qualities and dynamics the area offered back in 2002/3 versus what it’s like now, it just seems that there’s now too many people for what the area can deal with. I’m inclusive but this is something different to simply preferring it less busy.

4) Air pollution / Climate / Environment – for me this all overlaps and whilst more housing will bring more diversity, I just cannot see how for any of these points we will be in a better position ‘locally’, rather the opposite. Any statistical development analysis over last 5 or 10 years would be useful, against what locally and centrally we’re trying to achieve in this space and how more housing will align to the ambition.

5) Green Space / Flooding – again I think this overlaps. Much of the local beauty and attraction is the green space and all that it offers for wildlife and people alike, yet we keep taking it up more and more with concrete. Additionally, the flooding aspect as result and impact to utility service disruption i.e. blockage/flooding. To me this is alarming from both a future risk point of view and personal experiences namely from blocked drains causing both flooding and polluted flooding (from faeces) – which has become much more frequent. Ultimately I presume this is a shared risk for local Council services, budget and disruption too.

6) Youth – there seems to have been a lack of Council driven effort to generate new ideas or services which positively engage youth and the younger generation. This is an aspect I’ve spoken about for years too. There seems to be a whole range of opportunities but possibly a lack of budget, insight or plan to develop it. Additionally, it seems we now live in a world of such heavy compliance / regulation / and process, that bringing these types of things to life take extraordinary time and cost with incredible inefficiency – making them then quite un-attractive to take up. Also getting the right people involved is crucial to success.

7) Crime – I really don’t know the statistics here but do know on experience that it has become a much more frequent occurrence in recent years versus when we first move here. As result, I’m keen to hear what is planned in this regard if thousands of new residents arrive?


I recently saw a Rochford District Council report from 2018 on additional dwelling plans between 2010 – 2025, and attach a screen shot below. In reflection my immediate thoughts were:

• Planned 3,750 dwellings in a 15 year period (2010-2025) versus:

now in 2021 adjusted plans suggest ‘additional’ 6,236 dwellings across 6 sites alone, which seems a huge uplift in comparison?

• How policy can change from 1 year to another completely affecting previous plans
• What additional new dwellings have been developed in the interim period 2018 – 2021
• There were 33,600 dwellings in 2011, how many are there in 2021
• The 2021 Census doesn’t seem to be accessible yet?

I also found a Population chart (per below) which whilst has steadily grown from 2002 – 2018 by 7,656, it seems comparatively fair in relation to new dwellings, which using the above chart (from 2018) of 3,750 new dwellings there were 3,887 additional in population. One could suggest then, that this was driven mainly be ‘new housing’ more than anything else?

I remain interested in your response but for completeness and timing have also copied in the ‘SpatialOptions’ team. Please let me know if you prefer to arrange a face-to-face meeting as part of any response, or, feel free to call me too.

I wish to submit comments with regard to the Spatial Options Consultation, specifically around the 20 sites resulting in a potential 3.5K houses across the villages of Barling, Little Wakering & Great Wakering.

I will endeavour to complete the online feedback for each site but to ensure clarity of my concerns I have also addressed them within this email for your reference. Whilst I understand numbers need to be met, and the person receiving correspondence associated with this project is not responsible, I have great concern for our future and that of younger generations.

Schools and education
• Limited nurseries in the village with many already unable to accept children without the added pressure of further housing and families.
• Primary education - Great Wakering is already at capacity, Barling Magna is close and currently has a class without a dedicated classroom – this is against the Department for Educations guidelines, we are already failing current pupils without increased pressure.
• Some secondary schools offer dedicated buses, however general connections and access is limited.
Connectivity i.e. public transport
Current public transport options are limited, schedules and availability worse. Consideration must be made into safe access for all residents across the village, road infrastructure and the impact that increased vehicles will have. Rail access is currently not viable on foot or cycling.

Traffic and pinch points/congestion
Already exist areas of concern due to traffic and congestion as well as safety due to blind bends, existing parking, pedestrians, horses, speed etc. There are limited roads in and out of the village, as many of us have experienced when road works are in place, problems very quickly arise. A great example was recent roadworks resulting in gridlock along Little Wakering Road at school pick up time when Barling Road was closed.

Parking
Roadside parking often leaves limited space i.e. single track traffic, often there are reports of access concerns for emergency services and safety risks as a result of limited spaces and increased vehicles within the village. The impact around schools result in tension and concerns for children’s safety. Consideration must also be taken for those with disabilities or wheelchair users who often find footpaths blocked by poor parking and few suitable access points/pathways.

Doctors and medical
The Doctors surgery is often a topic of discussion due to difficulties getting appointments, increased residents will simply impact this further. To my knowledge there is one medical centre for both villages and I would be interested to understand recommended capacity for care under the Department for health.
With regard to other medical services, I believe these are also limited, for example I don’t believe there is a dentist locally.

Wildlife and nature
There is great beauty in the local area, wildlife thrives, and some rare species have been observed. It is vital to protect green areas, to protect wildlife and insects as these all support human existence.

A127/A13 access
Access to the South East is widely limited to the A127 and A13, these roads are already congested and result in delays and pollution levels locally.

Parks and open spaces
Parks and public areas are also limited, living in Barling there isn’t a park in the village for local children. In fact the village only offers a church and a school, there are no shops, few pavements and a limited offering for new developments.

Drainage
Problems are already widely reported to exist in Little Wakering Road and Kimberly Road where recently human waste was washed into residents gardens due to increased rainwater and unsuitable drainage.

Flood risk
I believe the creek originally travelled to Barling pond, should water levels continue to rise as expected, considerations must be taken into future viability.

Complimentary Designs
It is vital that any developments are complimentary in their designs to any existing properties and the village feel. Sadly developments already completed are not in keeping with historic buildings.
The tip road which was argued against and supposedly temporary, remains in place. The mounds as a result are now visible from several areas across the village and pollution caused by large vehicles still travelling back and forth extremely unfortunate.

Fair local knowledge and consideration
I understand that of the group leading the consultation – none live within the villages potentially affected. It is therefore vital to share local views and impact that developments may cause. It is also key to understand if the owners of the identified land are in agreement.

Should further detail/research/evidence be required for any of the above claims or concerns please let me know, whilst this isn’t an immediate problem, it would be remiss to not consider long term impacts. Now is time to act responsibly, both for the environment and future generations.

OBJECTION TO ANY MORE DEVELOPMENT IN GREAT WAKERING

I would like to express significant objection to any additional planned development in or around Great Wakering.

Summary


How can Great Wakering Village cope with any more development?


Context


Wakering Primary Academy is already full and has had incidents of siblings being separated to different schools due to lack of available spaces in Wakering Primary Academy.


The Wakering Doctors Surgery is overwhelmed (check current waiting times for GP appointments as evidence of this)

Traffic volumes are already causing severe congestion around busy periods with the school run to Wakering Primary causing health and safety issues for both parents and young children alike, examples being parents forced to park directly on pavements during drop offs and pick ups due to limited space.
This planned development could see a possible 600 extra cars in a village simply unable to cope now so the question must be asked: how is this even being considered?


Local Plan - Rochford Council


From the plans shared publicly to date the development proposal appears to be targeted on green belt land, the legality of which (unless there has been a change in HMG legislation) is open to challenge in court and therefore should be reviewed independently before proceeding any further.


There are no plans to increase the infrastructure in Great Wakering therefore the support to these new builds in Great Wakering is simply nonexistent. Notwithstanding this the following new builds have still been proposed;


Star Lane. 270 builds
Little Wakering Road. 120 builds
Alexander Street. 25 builds
This amounts to 315 in total

I look forward to hearing more on this issue either directly from yourselves or through further public consultation before this is escalated to our elected MP.

I was pleased to attend the presentation in Hockley on Monday 16th August in respect of the revised Local Plan from 2025-2040 and thank you for the opportunity to meet and discuss the plan with council officers.

My main concern is centred on Hockey, which is where I live and in particular the areas around references CFS064, CFS264, CFS040, CFS160 and CFS191.

Hockley is a small village and whilst the Spacial Statement looks to keep Hockley as the gateway to the Green Lung with Hockley woods etc. this does seem to be in direct conflict with proposed development sites along the ancient woodlands edges and there seems to be a desire to continue to encroach on this delicate and valuable asset plus our other green field/green belt sites.

One of the big issues in Hockley is the traffic congestion caused by junction of Main Road/ Spa Road/Southend Road which is a constant bottleneck. Walking to/from the village along MainRoad/Aldermans Hill is not a great experience at any time and I feel that the air quality has diminished in recent times as the traffic continues to mount up. Further development can surely only add to the issues.

The impact on services must also be taken into account. Local Doctor surgeries appear to be full as do Dentist. On a wider scale I am not sure how University Hospital Southend will cope with up to 10,000 more souls from the Rochford area alone plus whatever Southend Borough are planning. The hospital seems under immense pressure - even before COVID.

CFS064 and CFS264
The location is at the end of a private road leading to an active agricultural site and is close to valued woodland and walking/recreational sites/footpaths over a mile from the centre of Hockley.

Access to the private road (Folly Chase) is via Folly Lane which itself is a narrow and increasingly overused thoroughfare, and the entrance is on a tight bend. Folly Lane is not a road best positioned for any increase in traffic at anytime least of all heavy lorries on and off site. The road infrastructure is poor and any increase in road usage would surely cause mayhem and possible failure.

The site is an active agricultural site. With todays emphasis to be more self sufficient in food production to lose this site would surely be short sighted. The impact of any large development would also have a severe impact on the local wildlife and leisure (dog walking/walking/cycling/horse riding) would be substantial not to mention the pressure on local and ancient woodland and the wildlife. Local deer, badger, bat and fox communities are already under pressure from recent developments down Church Road and Pond Chase - which has already increased road traffic in the area with detrimental affect although was to a larger part good use of a brown field site and worthy of support.

CFS040
I am a little surprised that this area is still on the plan. It has recently had planning approved for 2 large private residential properties and surely access would be restricted. However, much as mentioned above Church Road at the proposed site is very narrow and close to the junction with Folly Lane and Fountain lane. Church Road has seen a large increase in traffic not just with the building of over 60 houses in the immediate vicinity in the last 5 years but also affected by use as a cut through from Hullbridge along Lower Road and the residential development that is going on there.

The road is showing signs of deterioration. It also has a number of stables and is used constantly as access to Bridleways for those exercising horses as well as walkers given the access to the open countryside. It should be pointed out that for the most part there are no footways either and walking is a hazardous undertaking. The road infrastructure doesn't support increased traffic and public transport is poor.

CFS160
I refer to my earlier comments with respect to encroachment on the edge of Hockley Wood and the green belt. This seems to be another such erosion of those green areas that we seem to be keen to keep? The proposed area is quite a way from any of the essential services in Hockley or Rayleigh with limited public transport options and again the High Road which is very busy will incur further traffic adding to alreday high levels of congestion and a deterioration in the air quality.

HULLBRIDGE
There are 20 sites listed,equating to approximately 4,300 housing numbers.
NEGATIVE IMPACT
Harm to the Green Belt and Coastal Protection Belt
Critical Flood and drainage risks.(There's a high possibility that a significant proportion of this Village will be below sea level by 2040)
Impact on natural habitats
Proximity to public transport. (YOUR ASSESSMENT THAT THE NUMBER 20 BUS RUNS AT LEAST 4-7 TIMES AN HOUR ON FERRY ROAD IS INCORRECT).
Lack of accessible open spaces and amenities.
Loss of footpaths or Bridle ways.
Impact on Agricultural Land
Existing Community Infrastructure constraints-poor road links; few sustainable transport options; education;medical services;public transport;youth services;leisure facilities and so on.
Preservation of
our rural coastal village outlook.

A Couple of Potential Positive Impact Points
The potential for a regional park to the west of Hullbridge.
Protection for our local Wildlife Site(LoWS). Local Geological Site (LoGS). Site of Specific Scientific Interest (SSI)
Hullbridge Meadows ( north of Montefiore Avenue and Hullbridge Foreshores.

I am a resident in Hambro Hill and should like to express my opposition to the addition of the site above to the Local plan and to any future proposed housing development.

I understand that there may be legal and cultural reasons for opposing this, however my main reasons for opposition relate to infrastructure, transport and environmental issues.

Hambro Hill as a road on its own, and the main Hockley Road are already busy roads prone to frequent slow down of traffic and traffic jams. As I understand it the proposed access to the site referred to is located on Hambro Hill very close to the brow of the hill.

A junction there would be even more dangerous than at present as there is poor visibility ascending the hill which would cause issues both entering the site from either direction and leaving the site. Possible traffic control measures such as a mini roundabout or traffic lights would have the result of causing significant disruption to the already heavy flow of traffic. There is a low railway bridge toward the bottom of Hambro Hill which has a history of being struck by vehicles and which limits the use of larger vehicles such a double decker buses and wider vehicles.

Given the poor provision of public pathways on that area of Hambro Hill a junction there would also cause increased hazard to pedestrians.

Both other possible areas of site access, through Hambro Close and shortly after the roundabout at the junction of Hambro Hill and Hockley Road, would also cause considerable disruption to the flow of traffic through these areas. I would emphasise that such disruption would be both during site work and once the site was occupied.

A development in that area would also negatively impact on the environmental quality of the local area at a time when environmental issues should be at the forefront of any development plans. Note that the increase in travel times for journeys through the area (due to the slow down in traffic flow) will also adversely affect CO2 emissions – again a high priority consideration at the moment.

I further understand that at least part of the site was previously used as a landfill tip. I have concerns both about the safety of any development on such an area and the possible release of noxious emissions as any development takes place.

Based on all the above, I oppose the addition of the site above to the planning options.

Spatial Options Consultation
We are concerned about the amount of land identified throughout the district that is agricultural rather than brown field sites. While we realise that it was a central government requirement to produce these options we would question the need for development on the scale proposed onwhat is mostly prime agricultural land.
The areas on the map of specific concern to us as they will have a direct impact on the area we live are :-
CF192, CF260D & CFS004
while adjacent sites including CFS060, CFS060, CFS260T & CFS260K will aso have an adverse effect.
Our concerns are that the infrastructure can barely cope with existing properties and would certainly be unable to support this level of development. Developers never sufficiently upgrade the necessary infrastructure to support new developments and do everything in their power to avoid honouring undertakings to provide money towards new schools, doctors, community buildings etc. given at the planning stage
For the 3 areas (CF192, CF260D & CFS004 ) we are most concerned about

1) The sewers and pumping station are inadequate. There has been surface flooding several times over recent years caused by the overloaded system with foul water running down the road and getting into gardens. Further development would swamp it. While the pumps have apparently been upgraded by Anglian Water there is a limit to how much can be passed through the pipes and we are at the limit.
2) Gas & Water pressure is low, particularily at peak times. Further development would make it worse.
3) The roads are narrow and already at capacity. For the most part it would be impossible to widen them. Many houses do not have off street parking so the free flow of traffic is impossible, and due to inconsiderate parking on pavements is dangerous to both pedestrian and road users.
4) Schools are already at full capacity. The traffic and inconsiderate parking at 'school run' times causes major problems and is dangerous. Any increase in the size of the schools would make matters worse
5) The health centre already has insufficient permanent GP's, the majority being locums. It will be impossible to get an appointment with a further influx of patients.
6) There are very few facilities for residents – a minimal number of shops, very little of anything for teens or elderly and poorly equipped sports and play areas.
7) In my opinion, the 'site assessment proforma' downplays some of the adverse effects on the area.
I hope you will take our justified concerns into account when reaching your decision on the plan.

Objection to Spatial Option on Greenbelt Land - Wellington/Napier/Bull Lane
Reference Numbers:

CFS027
CFS098
CFS086
CFS029
CFS053

We'd like to register our extremely strong objection to the spatial option plan to build on the protected greenbelt land and countryside around Wellington, Napier and Bull Lane Farm Road.

I'd like to think that you and any council would totally agree that Greenbelt land should be protected at all costs for the good of our community, our planet, our future and our children's futures.

As I'm sure you are aware, Greenbelt land should never be built on and can only be considered for development for the below exceptions:
• Buildings for agriculture or forestry
• Provision of appropriate facilities for outdoor sport, outdoor recreation and for cemeteries, as long as it preserves the openness of the Green Belt and does not conflict with the purposes of including land within it
• The extension or alteration of an existing building provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the original building
• The replacement of an existing building provided the new building is in the same use and not materially larger than the one it replaces
• Limited infilling in villages, and limited affordable housing needs
I'm sure you will agree that the spatial plans to build 329 new homes do not meet any of the above exceptions - meaning that this should be a total non-starter.

Just the fact that it is greenbelt land should be enough to stop any building plans but we'd also like to raise the below very strong objections:

Pollution: We've just moved our young family to Albert Road from Greenwich in London. The main reason for this move was we have a 2 year old little girl and a 6 month old baby boy. Little girl has developed asthma due to the pollution in London so we moved to Rayleigh to escape this and found a beautiful countryside spot in Albert Road, Rayleigh. By destroying this countryside and building 329 new homes, it would significantly decrease air quality generated by the countryside and increase pollution.

Before buying this house for £550,000 we paid £150 to our solicitor for a local planning report to be carried out to ensure that there were no plans to build on this land and the report came back saying there were not any plans. In fact, the report came back highlighting that it was protected greenbelt land and therefore there was no chance the land would be built on, except in exceptional circumstances to fulfil one of the aforementioned criteria. This was the basis for our decision to go ahead and buy in Rayleigh.

Wildlife: In the 2 months since we have moved here, we have been for runs and walks in this beautiful countryside and seen horses, rabbits, hedgehogs, foxes, squirrels, a badger, many mole holes showing the presence of moles, a stunning array of birds, butterflies, dragon flies and insects and even a lizard! As well as amazing and diverse wildlife there is a beautiful array of plants, trees and flowers. It is also home to many crops which are vital. This area is absolutely vital for our eco-system and it would be incredibly callous and dangerous to destroy all of that. Rochford council must protect this land.

Horse Rescue: There is a horse's field which usually houses around 10 rescued horses. This is an incredible place that attracts many fantastic young adults (mucking out the stables, grooming them etc) and many families bringing their little children to see the horses - what a wonderful resource for the community! Where would these horses go? What about the fantastic young adults? Do we want to force them to hang around on the streets instead? What about the little children and families who love coming here?

Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty: As well as being home to a spectacular array of wildlife and flora, this is also an area of outstanding natural beauty that Rochford council and our community should be very proud of and protect at all costs. We simply cannot destroy this. We should treasure this.

Physical & Mental Health: This area is used by a huge amount of dog walkers, walkers and runners and is vitally important for all of those people. As you know this country is in the midst of a mental health crisis that is costing many lives every year and has a devastating impact, we should be promoting what a huge part walking and running in these surroundings can play in this crisis - not destroying this land, worsening the crisis further.


Bridelpaths & Public Walkways: There are many of these across the area you have mapped for development. These are protected and cannot be destroyed.

Stretched Facilities: Since moving into the area we have been informed we would have to get a private dentist as there is no availability remaining for an NHS dentist and the earliest appointment would be around December - a 5 month wait!


The majority of nursery's were full, after trying about 7 nursery's we finally got the last remaining place at one.


We are informed by the neighbours that wait times for doctor's appointments are weeks and it's very hard to get an appointment.


Flood Risk: This area has experienced flooding before and hence doesn't feel like a wise area to build 329 new homes.



We would like to reiterate the strength of our objection and would urge you to consider the many other sites before completely destroying Rochford's beautiful and extremely precious greenbelt land.

You as the council are the guardians of this and have the power to ensure it stays protected. Once it's gone, it's gone and it can never be replaced.

I wish to object to the following site proposals:
CFS160,161,194,169,150,020,261.
ALL elements of local infrastructure are under tremendous pressure and an increase in the local population will dramatically worsen the environment from all aspects. Health services, traffic and air pollution, education, green areas and wildlife, will all be affected.
Please!! no more residential development in the areas under your jurisdiction.

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.

CFS045 Planning Application for 152 new houses
To Whom it may concern

With reference to the above planning application number, I am voting against this application for the reasons below:

Belchamps has been earmarked for a potential 152 houses, this area is behind already existing housing. The roads feeding into this area are very narrow and already congested.

We have no infrastructure in place to accommodate this number of new houses. We already have over subscribed schools and over subscribed Doctors & Dentists.

New housing developments have been recently built without any thoughts of this important infrastructure so to build more seems absolutely ludicrous.

We also have no support for our young adolescents in the Hockley/Hawkwell/Rayleigh & Rochford area and I see no provision.

The volume of traffic would increase considerably - it is already horrendous - and now most houses have at least 2 cars per house, so that's and increase of 304 extra cars. This is not very 'green' friendly. The devastation on the wildlife within this area is absolutely catastrophic along with the removal of trees - this will lead to flooding and bad air quality.

I would like to be kept updated on the progression of this planning application.

Planning Application CFS074 Hawkwell
To Whom It May Concern

This large field opposite Rawal Pindi Nursery and south of Mount Bovers Lane has the application for 498 houses - most houses have at least 2 cars - thats an increase of 996 extra vehicles on our already congested roads. We have a new estate less than 2 miles away in Rochford with no extra help to ease this congestion.

The infrastructure within the Hockley/Hawkwell is seriously lacking. We have over subscribed schools - primary's and secondary. Over subscribed doctors and over subscribed dentists you just cant get appointments. There seems no evidence to improve this situation ? We also have no provision for our local adolescents.

The vast site is home to wildlife which will be displaced - where will it go? We are being told that we need to improve our site for wildlife/insects/plants and trees !

Building on this site will cause highway issues, infrastructure issues and flooding. The increase in traffic and loss of trees will have a huge impact on the air quality in this area.

I would like to be kept informed on the progress of this application

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.

These are my views on Rochford District Council’s new local plan up to 2040, the plan having been written by yourselves without any consultation of our community.

I have strong objections to any more new housing in Hullbridge as we are now suffering already from the present construction of the 550 houses previously given permission for. People’s lives have been made a misery from the increase in traffic, noise, pollution and constantly being stranded from roads being closed for numerous reasons. Even when the 550th house is finished I cannot see life becoming any easier.

If this latest plan is supposed to be extended to 2040, I understand Hullbridge will have a considerable amount of land that will be below sea level by then anyway! This village is renowned for flooding particularly in the Watery Lane area and I seriously wonder how the latest development being built now will manage over time.

Public transport is becoming increasingly more difficult with buses cut out and the whole of the No. 20 bus route sometimes just ceasing for several days for all sorts of reasons – road flooded, road impassable from holes appearing etc. The No. 20 bus route has 4 buses an hour – not 4-7 buses an hour! Where did the council come up with that figure? We have two roads in and out of the village and Watery Lane which can be hit and miss. If anything goes wrong with either of these roads chaos occurs. People are so delayed when these problems happen they are frequently late for work or appointments. With an increase in the population right now and not even thinking about the future the buses will be unable to cope.

The infrastructure in and around Hullbridge is very poor right now so in the future it can only get worse. Poor road links, poor public transport, not enough school places or medical services. There are very few leisure facilities in the village, and this is particularly bad for the young.

Green spaces - will there be much left by 2040 if the plan goes ahead? I thought we were in a Green Revolution but it would appear not in this area. Most of the greenbelt in and around Hullbridge will be non-existent and the character of our lovely village will be lost. The people of Hullbridge enjoy the few public footpaths and bridleways we have and the lovely walks along the river but in the future, these could be non-existent with huge numbers of new houses and an increase in population. The wildlife in and around the village will be seriously affected as I believe has happened already.

The saddest part for me is the nature of our ‘village’ is being trampled over and we could become just another urban sprawl.

These are my views and I hope you will consider them seriously.

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.

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.

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.

Good Afternoon,

I am sure you have been inundated with responses following the Spatial Options Papers circulated to residents of Rochford and Wakering. Firstly one has to enquire as to who actually decided to put the plans forward in such a confusing way? It is beyond me but one could assume to avoid any negative responses.

I have lived in Little Wakering for around 28years, when the ‘village’ was indeed a village and over the years we have seen it grow and grow and grow ie more housing, Alexanda Road being one of the first, then Star Lane development, then any little spaces along LWR, then the Red Lion Public house, demolished for housing oh and don’t forget our local petrol station and off licence, demolished for housing and it goes on and on.

The only thing which never alters are our schools and roads. We are at saturation point and that’s before the new builds along Barrow Hall Road are sold, yes there has to be a continuation of new housing but surely there has to be schools, doctors surgeries and recreational things too?

There are many people who are fed up with how Little Wakering is being developed on and like me, would like it stop.

I feel the need to contact you to put my comments forward regarding the new local plan that is currently being consulted on. I understand that the council is under pressure to build homes to meet housing needs but I really do question who these new homes are for. We live in the area (Hullbridge). We have a 22 year old daughter and a 25 year old son. We are sadly in the process of having 500 homes built just down the road to us and a further huge development near Makro in Rayleigh and our own children and other local families cannot afford them! This cannot be right surely! If any housing is to be considered then it really does need to be affordable for local families and not sold on to inner and outer London housing associations!!

After looking at the area map in great detail and the proposed development sites being put forward, I would suggest that all housing is in one location either as mentioned in the consultation document: 3a - West of Rayleigh or 3b North of Southend.

Hullbridge once again, appears to have been targeted as a major area for development. My own garden and the land that we back onto, is designated as Green Belt/Agricultural land, yet this is still being considered. We wish to ask some questions and bring to your attention some issues with this that may have been completely overlooked when setting out this consultation document and map of proposed sites, in particular those EAST of Ferry Road CFS128, CFS265, CFS151, CFS172, CFS042, CFS041, CFS243, CFS237, CFS100:

• Most if not all of this land is designated green belt land and we have already had a large amount of housing in our 'village'. We want to maintain our village status!

• CFS151, CFS128, CFS172, CFS265 - have a large number of very old oak and ash trees bordering the land that should not be destroyed but have the potential of being so if the sites are developed. A neighbour had plans turned down for a wooden annexe because it would mean that trees needed to be cut down so this should also be the case when considering future development sites.

• CFS 151/CFS172 - I am not sure if you are aware but there is a history of JAPENESE KNOT WEED on/ near to both of these sites. I am sure that any future developer/prospective purchasers of homes on these sites would be very interested to know this, as any future homes could be rendered completely worthless.

• CFS151/CFS172 - The lane that borders this land (Long Lane) is a bridleway and pubic footpath that allows riders and the public to enjoy our countryside safely. We do not want, nor can we afford for these to be lost. Horse riders are already in danger when trying to access these bridleways from the main road (Lower Road). The road is so busy without the additional traffic that new homes would bring!

• CFS100 - This land was part of the old NSEC site and must be contaminated land. We would like to know how this is going to be dealt with, if development plans go through?

• CFS128 - This land is a haven for wildlife, including munt jac deer and barn owls that roost in the barn on site. Other areas should be considered before destroying the habitat of these animals. Where will they go if you build homes on all the fields in this area?

• There is a distinct lack of infrastructure in our village to cope with the amount of housing proposed! This was completely overlooked in order to push through plans for the 500 homes currently being built West of Ferry Road in Hullbridge and we are paying for it! Our roads are busier than ever. We now struggle to get a doctors appointment, there is one private dentist that only opens a few days a week and the public transport is totally unacceptable and unreliable, especially when it comes to getting children to and from school. We have the following questions that we would like to be carefully considered and then answered before any further homes are built in this area:
1. When were traffic surveys carried out? If they were during or since the pandemic, or conducted during the school holidays, then they will not give an accurate reflection of the amount of traffic that passes through our village nor the congestion that we face coming in and out of our village. A six minute journey has taken over an hour when Watery Lane is closed!
2. Has the Environment Agency's new potential flood maps been considered? This shows that most of Hullbridge will flood by 2040. It is going to be very difficult for home owners to get house insurance now that this new map has been released and will make it more difficult to sell homes.
3. What public transport will be available for any prospective new home owners East of Ferry Road? We DO NOT HAVE ANY public transport links, yet it was scored a '5' as 'very good public transport links'. This is not correct at all and does not even reflect the number of buses that leave Ferry Road per hour, let alone public transport for homes at the top of Coventry Hill. A score of '5' means 10+ buses an hour. This is totally inaccurate! The 820 bus school bus service for children travelling to and from Sweyne Park school has just been suspended, leaving many school children without a bus service to school. The bus company's answer is to use public transport but as I have previously mentioned, this is completely inadequate and we are already seeing children left stranded at the bus stops both in Hullbridge and then near Rayleigh station. Stopping this service will only put more pressure on our roads and add to pollution levels. This is without the number of new homes that you are once again considering for Hullbridge.
4. What traffic calming measures will be put into place to slow traffic down for any vehicles on the proposed sites to enter/exit Lower Road? Nobody has listened to current residents regarding the danger that we face pulling out onto Lower Road where it bends and narrows. We have been asking for a speed camera or flashing speed signs for years and have been passed back and forth between the council and highways, with no resolution at all.
5. What increase in local services will we see? Our doctors are already over stretched and the building of 500 homes West of Ferry Road has not yet reached completion, so we are yet to see the full impact of these new homes, let alone the homes proposed in this new local plan. Will there be additional doctors surgeries built? Will there be an NHS dentist? How will you ensure that local school children can get a place in the village school? What measures will be put into place to prevent the flooding, as detailed in the Environment Agency's map? How will you ensure that children have access to school transport to and from the local secondary school? What will you do to ensure that vital services such as policing, waste collections, postal services and emergency services are maintained with the influx of residents? Most of the services are overstretched as it is!
I fully appreciate that you are under pressure from the Government to build new homes but 4298 homes in our village is far too many and will more than double the size of our village, meaning that we will are unable to preserve our rural coastal village outlook.
Any homes that are built should have a large proportion set aside for residents of Rochford District Council to purchase affordable housing. There is not any point in building homes that are going to be bought up by wealthier London Boroughs, leaving our own local families without homes! This should not just be a money making/box ticking exercise but something that has a positive impact on local families in within Rochford District Council boundaries.