Q51. With reference to the options above, or your own options, how do you feel we can best address our transport and connectivity needs through the plan?

Dear Sirs,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you in advance for your attention.

I object to this field site (CFS064) being used for housing for the following reasons:

1. It is green belt and farmed regularly.
2. The roads on Betts Farm could be put under strain.
3. The field has a footpath running through it that is used a lot.
4. The field is an important wildlife habitat and supports many species and animals.

Finally, building any more houses in Hockley and its surrounding areas would be a strain on our roads, traffic builds up now let alone if we have more houses as more houses mean more cars. Not to mention our doctors, dentists etc.

CFS027, CFS029, CFS053, CFS098, CFS086

My comments refer to all five of the above proposed/promoted sites. My first comment should cover it all -

1. FLOOD!
In August 2013, that whole area (our home included) was flooded. This was not the first time this area had suffered flooding. I note from your grading criteria that 'critical drainage risk' is assessed as a 2. The flooding in this area is always from surface water, and is an ongoing and constant threat.

After the flood of 2013 we attended council meetings to discuss the issue. A very interesting comment was made, that houses should never have been built in Blower Close in the first place. We are at the bottom of a 'bowl', where all surface water, and water flooding from streams where the culvert has been allowed to become overgrown and blocked has contributed to the flooding issue.

My husband is in constant communication with Cllr Dave Sperring, who in turn has to badger the EA to once again clean the ditches/culvert. Cllr Sperring also visited our close after our flood and witnessed first hand the devastating effect it had.

2. LACK OF INFRASTRUCTURE
The access to these proposed sites is currently unmade tracks and single track minor roads. If these roads were to be upgraded to roads able to service new houses, it would quickly become a rat run to cut out having to travel through Rayleigh Town Centre, which is a nightmare at the best of times. The surrounding roads all suffer from double parking, making it impossible with the added traffic, and a danger for the emergency services. There only has to be a problem on the A127, the Weir, A130, and the whole of Rayleigh becomes gridlocked.

Our local schools are full and our doctors are completely overrun. Having to wait two weeks for a telephone appointment currently will only become longer and unacceptable. There is also no good links to bus services.

3. GREEN BELT AND OPEN SPACES
All of these proposed sites are either backing onto or in very close proximity to green belt (green belt harm - assessed as 1). Since lockdown, open spaces have become so important to people for exercise, health and mental health.

We are fortunate to have the Upper Roach Valley bordering where we live, providing a buffer between Rayleigh and Hockley. It is the lung of this area. Protected trees and ancient woodland form part of the Roach Valley (assessed as a 2).

In summary, the distance to strategic road network is poor (2), access to bus services is very poor (1). The damage to green belt (1), agricultural land (1), protected trees (2) is unacceptable. The increased rise of flooding due to poor drainage in this area and a record of flooding due to surface water, in my opinion, makes the sites I have commented on unviable (critical drainage risk 2).

I have attached some newspaper reports to remind those involved in making these decisions, the effect flooding has.

[see attached document for cuttings. Annotation on first cutting as follows:]

Blower Close - Rayleigh, August 2013 - flooded from fields (where housing is proposed) in two directions. Floodig to the other side of our close has occurred at least 3 times from the field behind (where houses are planned). A flood protection ditch was built behind 9-14 Blower Close. We have to keep a constant watch and review of the culvert in the nearby field which is often completely blocked - a major focus in our flooding too.