Q52. Are there areas where improvements to transport connections are needed?

[RE CFS126 & CFS261]

I am writing to set out my objections to the possible development of the land marked above.

This area is heavily used by the community because of its rural nature. Especially in the current situation and during the hardship that many people faced during lockdown, it has given the local community freedom to be outside and enjoy the beautiful countryside. This area is used everyday by many people in the community: those walking their dogs, horse riders, families going for a walk. The paths around this site are used throughout the year and offer great enjoyment of the countryside which is rare in our area. I believe strongly that building on this site will affect many families who currently enjoy this area. It will also affect the wildlife in this area, where there is an abundance of wildlife that would not survive. A variety of birds and other creatures have this area as their habitat. If developed, many of these will not survive.

In particular, I am also greatly concerned about the impact of further housing in this area. Already the journey along Ashingdon Road is impaired by many things. Heavy congestion, having 4 schools on the same road. Even one delivery along the road can hold up traffic for a great deal of time.

I am also concerned as to the to the impact on our services. Schools are already oversubscribed. Doctors’ surgeries area bursting at the seems and it is impossible to get through on phone lines for appointments.

Bearing all of this in mind, the assessment of this site needs to be reviewed. In particular the grading given to this assessment:

Green belt harm - should be 1 based on my above comments regarding the use of the land
Local habitats - this has been given 5 when most certainly should be assessed as 1. The abundance of wildlife in this are would clearly be lost.
Agricultural land - should be given a 1 instead of a 2. This site has been under constant cultivation of agriculture for many years
Access to open space - the loss of open space to this community would be devastating, as I mention in my first paragraph. This area has kept people going during the toughest of times and will continue to be a great resource for the local community. This should also be given 1.
The assessment for the site gives a score of 5 saying no overhead power lines or pylons when in fact there are. Clearly, this has not been assessed correctly.

To clarify, I fully object to this area being developed for the above reasons.

I am responding to the Spatial Options Paper and now submit my views and concerns.

Material Planning Concern regarding Access-re sites CFS064 and CFS264
The only apparent access to both sites appears to be via Folly Chase, a small unadopted road off of the already congested and unsuitable Folly Lane. Folly Lane itself has seen an unreasonable increase in traffic as it is used to access the recent new housing developments in Pond Chase and Church Road as well as the previously existing housing estate. It is now seeing additional increases in traffic flow caused by the significant housing development in Hullbridge as it is the only direct two way road access from Hullbridge to Hockley. The road is frequently difficult to get through with parked cars along both sides and heavier traffic flows in both directions. This is not helped by it’s layout with three 90 degree bends and one c 45 degree bend along its relatively short length. These bends are difficult for larger traffic, especially the type of traffic used in construction, and a drain cover on one bend is broken several times a year by lorries having to ride up on to the kerb in order to get around the bend. Generally the speed of the ‘through’ traffic is too high and I have witnessed many near misses on the bends as vehicles either cut the corners or are forced to breach the centre of the road due to parked cars. A serious head on accident is now inevitable down this road, and the prospect of further development off of it will make matters even worse as the scale of the housing for the two sites identified in the plan would equate to approximately another 500 cars using Folly Lane just to access the developed sites. This would likely equate to an average of approximately 1000 to 2000 extra car movements a day on a road that is already inadequate.

A far as Folly Chase is concerned it is so limited in its capacity that it simply cannot be deemed suitable for access for either construction traffic or the eventual increase in residential access traffic. The Chase is not a through road, terminating at a footpath leading into designated Ancient Woodland, carrying HC1 Wildlife Site designation. Folly Chase has no significant base as it was unmade until the 1980s. The current road has been constructed and maintained by the Folly Chase Road Frontagers Committee on behalf of residents. A layer of bitumen and gravel was utilised over a thin layer of type 1 hardcore that is sufficient for the low traffic flow associated with 25 houses and no through access, but will simply not support construction traffic or the flows commensurate with the potential development. The road itself has no surface drainage features, gullies, gutters or drains so all water runs over the surface to the bottom of the road. There are no footpaths, nor is there space to construct footpaths and is approximately only 9 feet wide at its narrowest point and cannot support two way traffic. The existing housing water, and gas supplies are very shallow beneath the surface and any increase in heavy traffic will almost certainly cause collapse of these and there are numerous points where the existing sewage pipes cross the road, again, at a very shallow depth and would be extremely vulnerable to increased traffic flows.

The recent adjacent Pond Chase development has well known problems with regards to access to sewerage, and whilst this is now complete and running it should be noted that the bored line of drains that traverse the bottom of Folly Chase from Pond Chase, across to the field that is site CFS064 to the Hockley Community centre have 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.


Green Belt- ref site CFS064
The land in question forms part of the Metropolitan Green belt. Such land can only be developed for ‘Exceptional circumstances’ as detailed in the Planning Policy Guidance Note 2 (PPG2), and states in para 143 that Inappropriate development is by definition harmful to Green Belt’’ and in Para 145 that ‘’A local planning authority should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in the Green Belt. Exceptions to this are’’ ;


a. 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 underutilized land’’

From the above it is clear that the site cannot be considered any further for housing development as to do so contravenes existing Metropolitan Green Belt legislation. The site should 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.
The LoWs assessments do not detail many resident species but the following can/have been found in and around these sites and the site in question; Grass snakes, Adders, Slow Worms and Common Lizards , Common Frogs, Toads, Smooth Newts, Great Crested Newts, Badgers, Foxes, Muntjac Deer, Buzzards, Sparrow Hawks, Merlin, Tawny Owls, Little Owls, Nightjar, Blue Tits, Great Tits, Long Tail Tits, Coal Tits, Willow Warblers, Chiff Chaff, Blackcap, Blackbirds, Song Thrush, Goldfinch, Greenfinch, Chaffinch, Yellowhammer, Nuthatch, Swallow, Swift, House Martin, Crow, Jackdaw, Magpie, Jay, Rook, Coot, Moorhen, Cuckoo, Dunnock, Wren, Fieldfare, Lapwing, Redwing, Goldcrest, Great Spotted Woodpecker, Green Woodpecker, Lesser Spotted Woodpecker, Grey Heron, Pied Wagtail, Grey Wagtail, House Sparrow, Kestrel, Linnet, Nightingale, Meadow Pipit, Robin, Skylark, Starling and significant numbers of unidentified bats over the field and in the gardens of Folly Chase at night suggest a colony within Folly and/or Betts Woods. Rich flora, especially Bluebells and significant insect species including Wood Ant colonies.

This incredibly diverse range of species rely on the tree and plant species found in 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 center 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.


We draw attention to the 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.
Rather than the site be considered for development, we have shown that it should be identified for protection in accordance with the Local Plan objectives and that it should be removed from the development plan and placed in a protection plan.

Infrastructure- both sites
I have detailed my concerns above regarding the inadequate infrastructure in respect of local roads, access and drainage and sewerage. In addition it is quite clear that other local services are already struggling and would simply be unable to cope with an increase in the local population of approximately 1000 people based on the estimated development potential of the two sites. Local schools, GP surgeries and wider health care have been under significant pressure for many years. Limited local car parking inhibits local trade ( it should be noted that there are several sites used for car parking included in the site allocation potentially limiting it further) and the main Southend/Hockley/Rayleigh Road is far too frequently jammed back to Hawkwell and Hambro Hill. There is no room for dedicated bus lanes or cycle lanes along this main corridor so whatever thoughts there may be regarding increasing public transport usage or cycling are simply pie in the sky and not feasible. The main road simply cannot cope with any more traffic arising from 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
It is clear that any development at site CFS064 would have a significantly detrimental effect on the environment, biodiversity and the visible appearance of the site. The visual impact will destroy the character of the site and it’s 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 . The following sites CFS146,147,167,144,168,145,137,055,121 all have far easier 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 congested community of Hockley and Hawkwell, and prevent a commensurate increase in pollution, noise and general inconvenience.

Conclusion
As can be seen form my concerns detailed above , sites CFS064 and CFS264 should be removed form the next stage. They are simply not suitable when there are many more sites which would ‘score’ much better under a wide range of development considerations.

Please Note
I consent to my name and comments being added to the Councils consultation database.

objection to CFS059
Site reference CFS059, Sandhill Road.
Planning consent was previously sought to build a single four bedroom house with a garage on half of this site. RDC refused planning permission as the area is part of the Metropolitan Green Belt and is included in the Green Belt urban fringe boundary. The area is described in the RDC correspondence as “Being particularly sensitive.” The report goes on to say “Furthermore if this proposal were permitted it would make the adjoining land vulnerable to development pressures.”
When the applicant appealed the decision the Planning Inspectorate agreed with RDC and refused the appeal saying that it was inappropriate development. It therefor seems perverse for RDC to now suggest that the land could be considered as being suitable for to up to twenty houses.
The land is situated along the boundary between RDC and Southend and separates the two urban areas which I understand from council policy documents and consultation papers is an important purpose of green belt land. The land is also a natural habitat for numerous wildlife including Badgers and Bats.
The surrounding roads are already heavily congested with severe parking problems. Correspondence with both Essex Highways and Southend Council show that they are both aware of the problems and have both taken measures to try and reduce the dangers, Including a 20MPH speed limit in Eastwood Rise across the junction with Sandhill Road. All of these measures have failed to improve the situation and Southend are currently in the process of introducing yellow lines at most of the junctions along Gravel Road including the junction with Eastwood Rise which is a matter of meters from Sandhill Road. Allowing more development will only exacerbate the existing problems.
I feel it is totally inappropriate to continue building in areas where the existing infrastructure is strained and has little or no scope for improvement. If more housing is required then brown belt land should be used or consideration should only be given to building in areas of land outside existing towns where there is the space to build new infrastructure to service new development.

I wish to draw your attention to the following:

1. Will a report on the Essex County Council South Essex Consortium of Councils review of the Road Network Urban Capacity for this area be available before the deadline you have set for 8th September?
2. I strongly object to any further housing development in the Rochford area which will incur further usage of the outdated and seriously inadequate layout of the B1013 which has already reached saturation point and is now a detrimental inconvenience to most local residents. I particularly refer to the inadequate Spa Road roundabout and the Nursery Corner roundabout at Rectory Road and their need attention.

I would like to put forward my comments for the 20 year plan of Rochford.

As a 20 year old, I will be hopefully looking to buy a house within the next 3-5 years, and I would like to be able to buy a house which is sustainable, eco friendly and has working solar panels and similar technology. Personally, I wouldn’t necessarily enjoy living in one of the recent developments which seem to have many problems with the houses and are not sustainable and are extremely expensive to buy for the amount of space you get in my opinion.

Also, I think that something should be done to reduce traffic around Rochford, either by utilising other roads or finding ways to encourage walking/ making walking to places around Rochford easier for the locals.

I would love to continue living in Rochford as it’s where I have grown up, it has good transport links to London which I will require and all of my family are nearby, but at the moment there is not very much in Rochford Square left, and there is very few places to walk through nature, which is a real shame.

Land identified for potential Housing Development
Having read through proposals for potential development sites I am shocked at the number and location of some of the sites and the impact they will surely have on the local environment, the people, squeeze on existing services including hospitals, schools and shops, bus routes, railways and not forgetting roads.

This corner of South East Essex is already fit to burst as evidenced by the traffic volumes exiting the Southend area on a daily basis by whatever route possible with the consequent impact on pollution and noise in areas like Rochford, Hawkwell, Ashingdon and Hockley in particular. There is little or nothing that can be done on any of the major (and minor) routes serving this part of Essex.

The A127 could not be widened before it leaves Eastwood being developed on both sides; the A13 could not be touched before Sadler’s Farm roundabout due to being developed on both sides from Shoebury through to Benfleet; The Eastwood Road is residential all the way from Kent Elms corner to Rayleigh; the Hockley Road (including Hall Road, Alderman’s Hill, etc) from Rochford Station to Rayleigh is almost entirely residential on both sides other than in Rochford & Hawkwell and if the sites located on this route are developed that will only serve to clog the roads downstream to the west even more; Lower Road from Ashingdon through to Battlesbridge might prove the only logical route other than the impact on green belt and farm land, or finally something running along the estuary from Southend linking to the A13 way out west.

Add to the last paragraph the simple issue of road safety where schools are currently situated along or close to the routes, a growing elderly population who still have a right to safe walking or wheelchair routes, and the likely huge increase in pollution affecting the quality of all our lives who abide in this area.

It can not have escaped your notice that job opportunities for anyone moving into the area are limited since there are no major employers setting up here and so one must assume anyone moving here and already having a career will either commute by train or road towards the west including London. Looking specifically at trains, the services in the morning and evening peaks are already at capacity from Rayleigh onwards and that ignores the train travel along the Fenchurch St line from Leigh on Sea equally at capacity. The railway safety case will not support more train movements at peak along the two lines servicing S. E. Essex and lengthening the trains to increase capacity would prove an issue where existing station platforms could not cater for longer trains.

Has anyone checked the home locations of those holding title to the land where proposals for inclusion on the list of potential sites? If anyone doesn’t live locally surely they are after "make a fast buck” and not having a care for the environment or local residents?

I’m sure many of these issues have been discussed and dismissed due to blind obedience to government dictate. Nevertheless I feel sure allowing any of these developments to proceed without first making significant change to local infrastructure to cope in future, so that local residents will not be adversely impacted by heavy goods vehicles thundering through our towns villages adding to the problems mentioned above.

I would like to voice my objections to the plan to majorly develope the land around Hullbridge. I understand that more housing and facilities need to be provided in the Rochford area but that this should not happen to the cost of large rural areas.

Firstly, I would like to say that it is very short sited to plan for more major development in this area, when the impact of current building cannot be assessed. The two major developments are no where near completion and therefore the real impact of the increased population is only guess work.

Secondly, these areas do not have good infrastructure, especially transport. Hullbridge has been, since the 1960s a dormitory area. There is no work opportunities here and public transport is poor at best. This means that the majority of travel is by car. This is not only a strain on the local roads but also a greater negative impact to the environment. In a time when we should be thinking more of climate change, destroying green belt to build more houses with no green transport facilities is madness.

From your initial assessment, I see that you do not think that these developments will have a negative effect on wildlife. As I regularly see foxes, badgers and hares in this area I cannot disagree more. I would also like to point out that all of the proposed developments around Hullbridge don't have access to public rights of way, they are proposed to be built right over the top of them. There is little in the way of recreation facilities in the Hullbridge area without the use of a car but our countryside footpaths are one of the few.

I would also like it to be known that I object to development taking place in areas that have already been set aside for recreation and wildlife, as in area in or adjacent to Cherry Orchard park. i.e. Fleming's Farm Road, Cherry Orchard Way, Mount Bovers Lane, Northlands Farm and Bullwood Hall. All of this would impact the country park negatively and increase population would also increase its use.

Finally, I would like to say that I do not think that large developments are the answer to the housing needs. I think that smaller developments on the edges of existing housing areas, along existing roads, would have less negative impact and also less negative response. They may cost more per house for the developer and decrease the profits but would spread the population and the strain on local infrastructure. As we all know that nobody is in this for the profit, it would be a more sustainable and sensible solution.

I wish to object to the proposed sites that have been put forward in the spatial options - NO MORE houses or accommodation should be built.

The local infrastructure is totally lacking and simply cannot cope with any more traffic - Essex are incapable of any basic highway maintenance let alone with coming up with a new plan to ease the traffic. The roads between Rayleigh, Hockley and Southend are gridlocked during both morning and afternoon rush hours. Our local hospitals/GPs/schools are all full to capacity so any increase in numbers will be a disaster for the local communities.

Our greenbelt needs to be protected - mental health is on the increase and if we build upon our greenbelt and therefore take away our natural nature where people can walk and connect then there will be even more mental health problems.

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.

There are three questions for which I would appreciate a response. See below.

Whilst we accept that an enormous amount of work has gone into producing this options consultation I'm sure you would acknowledge that the average person would find these documents extremely complicated and somewhat difficult to understand.

However, having lived in Rayleigh since 1980 and witnessed considerable growth within the Rochford area as a whole we find options 1 and 2 to be totally unacceptable. I will not list all our concerns and objections since your own CONS for both options speak for themselves.

However Rayleigh itself is choking under the weight of traffic both entering the town and passing through, principally to gain access to the A127. To even consider intensification or extention would be madness. Rochford Council has already allowed considerable development along the A129 to the west of Rayleigh Town, the major area off Rawreth Lane and now a flats development behind Marks & Spencers. Your proposal for the Mill Hall and The Civic Suite sites has quite rightly met with considerable opposition from local residents. Surely that is a clear indicator that Rochford residents do not want further development within Rayleigh. This latter proposal even being within the Rayleigh Conservation Area!

Only this morning I returned on foot from the Rayleigh Wier back into the town along the A129 into the High Street. The traffic was solid and creaping along for the whole distance which further extended into Websters Way. The smell of petrol fumes was considerable and I had to cover my nose for most of the way. The current level of pollution is unacceptable and I even believe these roads have historically failed to meet the required standards for air pollution. The inevitable increase in traffic such centralised development would produce will only exacerbate the problem. I would also mention that we live in Highfield Crescent, very close to Websters Way and [redacted]'s asthma has worsened over the years, I believe as a direct consequence of this increase in traffic.

I also note that "National Policy also requires that Local Plans provide strategies that accommodate unmet need from neighbouring areas". You imply that your plans could help accomodate some of this need. There appears to be no mention of any reciprocal offers or arrangments. Are there any?

As general comment we are not in favour of random piecemeal development and as such options 3 would be by far our preferred choice.

The only development suitable for any form of housing in Rayleigh is the Castle Road waste disposal site which is totally inadequate, causes considerable traffic congestion and should have been relocated years ago.

Given this is a consultation document and emphasises that decisons are yet to be made can you explain why RDC has already embarked on a partnership with Voyage to develop a number of sites within Rochford including Rayleigh Mill Hall and the Civic Suite?

Have contracts been signed by RDC to develop these sites?

I write with reference to the Local Plan being proposed by Rochford District Council.
Having lived in this area now for over 75 years, I have seen the continual destruction of the green belt land being sold off for ill advised development, and sadly this proposed future Local Plan just continues to place the whole area under further extreme development, without FIRST putting in place the very necessary infrastructure that is already overdue and causes more difficulties with inadequate road access, public transport, schools and medical treatment facilities, all of which are either now non existent, or under extreme pressure already.
For many years now there has been a complete decline in the many and varied wildlife and birdlife habitat due to over-development of Green Belt and agricultural land, we have lost many species of birds, grass snakes, newts and other invertebrates and a complete extinction of hedgehogs and slow worms from this area.
Medical facilities have been decimated by the closure and removal of Rochford Hospital together with many of the Health Clinics in this immediate area, placing great pressure on Southend Trust Hospital to the point of near collapse. General Doctor Practice surgeries are so over burdened that appointments are almost impossible to obtain within a two week period already and will only worsen with these extreme development proposals.
The already colossal increase in road traffic within the areas of Ashingdon Road, Rectory Road and the B1013 from Rayleigh through to the A127 at Westcliff, finds gridlock at peak times of morning and evening travel and during school access times. The Rochford Council Planners do not seem to realise that each new home will bring another 3 cars onto the already over stretched road network of the area, with the resultant chaos, jams and loss of working hours, plus the extreme levels of pollution these vehicles engender by stopping and starting within a "tail back", pollution which is very damaging to the local residents health, the adjacent wildlife and vegetation.
The areas adjacent to Clements Hall Centre through to Windsor Gardens and St Marys Church are the lowest in the entire district between Ashingdon Heights, Hall Road (B1013) and Hockley and thus the water fall out from any proposed building will further exacerbate the flooding of the Hawkwell Brook and surrounding fields and all the existing and future housing built near or thereon. Development on this particular area alone will result in chaos with great financial costs as the climate warms and increased flooding occurs. I am old enough to well remember the various flood problems here over many previous winters, which this Local Plan totally ignores when considering opening up land for development under CFS194 / CFS169 / CFS150 / CFS020 respectively.
Overall one readily realises that new housing has to be provided within Rochford District, BUT it has to be sensitively placed in areas of "Brown Field", with good vehicular access, good Public transport, Medical facilities and future flood plain and flooding issues etc very carefully considered and the remedies ALREADY PUT IN PLACE prior to any development being considered or eventually agreed.

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.

I have reviewed Rochford District Councils New Local Plan and can only conclude it purely indicates the sites to be considered for new housing. I fully appreciate there remains a severe shortage of housing, this in turn driving property inflation further adding to affordability issues many people have been experiencing for a number of years to buy, or even rent property. However, I sincerely believe building in excess of a further 6,000 properties in the Rochford area is the wrong decision based on the total lack of infrastructure proposals to deal with this greater demand!

If we consider other significant developments both within Rochford and neighbouring authorities and without a viable infrastructure plan to support the growing demands of an ever increasing population, I simply cannot see how this current plan is sustainable! Regardless of development location within Rochford, the roads are already over used and seriously congested, worn out roads are simply not being repaired and continue to be a hazard to all road users, examples are Greensward Lane, Main Road (o/s Bull Pub & near to White Hart Garage), where the roads have simply been worn away! It would be safe to assume 6,000 properties with increase traffic in the Hockley area by a further 9,000 vehicles, this will almost certainly make it impossible to move around the area regardless as to whether its is by private car of using buses!

The plan further erodes green spaces, in combination with increase vehicle movements, our ‘green lungs’ will be reduced, wildlife jeopardised, and with climate change causing an increased risk of flooding due to heavy rainfall, what provision is being made to manage water flow? The Local Plan is ill considered and unbalanced as it does not deal with infrastructure, services, education etc.

I will continue to follow Rochford Councils local plan with interest!

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.

Having studied the Local Plan at length and the recently published Spatial Options pages on your website I feel I have to respond. Whilst I have wider concerns than those regarding just the two sites above I think it is to be accepted that due to Government policy significant development has to happen somewhere within the boundaries of RDC. My purpose in writing this response , however, is to advise the council of specific issues affecting the two specific sites identified in the header and to request their removal from the Plan and any subsequent consultation stages. Indeed not only should site CFS064 be removed from the development pan, it should be earmarked for protection in accordance with RDCs own objectives detailed within the plan.

My concerns are as detailed below

Material Planning Concern regarding Access-re sites CFS064 and CFS264
The only apparent access to both sites appears to be via Folly Chase, a small unadopted road off of the already congested and unsuitable Folly Lane. Folly Lane itself has seen an unreasonable increase in traffic as it is used to access the recent new housing developments in Pond Chase and Church Road as well as the previously existing housing estate. It is now seeing additional increases in traffic flow caused by the significant housing development in Hullbridge as it is the only direct two way road access from Hullbridge to Hockley. The road is frequently difficult to get through with parked cars along both sides and heavier traffic flows in both directions. This is not helped by it’s layout with three 90 degree bends and one c 45 degree bend along its relatively short length. These bends are difficult for larger traffic, especially the type of traffic used in construction, and a drain cover on one bend is broken several times a year by lorries having to ride up on to the kerb in order to get around the bend. Generally the speed of the ‘through’ traffic is too high and I have witnessed many near misses on the bends as vehicles either cut the corners or are forced to breach the centre of the road due to parked cars. A serious head on accident is now inevitable down this road, and the prospect of further development off of it will make matters even worse as the scale of the housing for the two sites identified in the plan would equate to approximately another 500 cars using Folly Lane just to access the developed sites. This would likely equate to an average of approximately 1000 to 2000 extra car movements a day on a road that is already inadequate.

A far as Folly Chase is concerned it is so limited in its capacity that it simply cannot be deemed suitable for access for either construction traffic or the eventual increase in residential access traffic. The Chase is not a through road, terminating at a footpath leading into designated Ancient Woodland, carrying HC1 Wildlife Site designation. Folly Chase has no significant base as it was unmade until the 1980s. The current road has been constructed and maintained by the Folly Chase Road Frontagers Committee on behalf of residents. A layer of bitumen and gravel was utilised over a thin layer of type 1 hardcore that is sufficient for the low traffic flow associated with 25 houses and no through access, but will simply not support construction traffic or the flows commensurate with the potential development. The road itself has no surface drainage features, gullies, gutters or drains so all water runs over the surface to the bottom of the road. There are no footpaths, nor is there space to construct footpaths and is approximately only 9 feet wide at its narrowest point and cannot support two way traffic. The existing housing water, and gas supplies are very shallow beneath the surface and any increase in heavy traffic will almost certainly cause collapse of these and there are numerous points where the existing sewage pipes cross the road, again, at a very shallow depth and would be extremely vulnerable to increased traffic flows.

The recent adjacent Pond Chase development has well known problems with regards to access to sewerage, and whilst this is now complete and running it should be noted that the bored line of drains that traverse the bottom of Folly Chase from Pond Chase, across to the field that is site CFS064 to the Hockley Community centre have 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.


Green Belt- ref site CFS064
The land in question forms part of the Metropolitan Green belt. Such land can only be developed for ‘Exceptional circumstances’ as detailed in the Planning Policy Guidance Note 2 (PPG2), and states in para 143 that Inappropriate development is by definition harmful to Green Belt’’ and in Para 145 that ‘’A local planning authority should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in the Green Belt. Exceptions to this are’’ ;


a. 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 underutilized land’’

From the above it is clear that the site cannot be considered any further for housing development as to do so contravenes existing Metropolitan Green Belt legislation. The site should 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.
The LoWs assessments do not detail many resident species but the following can/have been found in and around these sites and the site in question; Grass snakes, Adders, Slow Worms and Common Lizards , Common Frogs, Toads, Smooth Newts, Great Crested Newts, Badgers, Foxes, Muntjac Deer, Buzzards, Sparrow Hawks, Merlin, Tawny Owls, Little Owls, Nightjar, Blue Tits, Great Tits, Long Tail Tits, Coal Tits, Willow Warblers, Chiff Chaff, Blackcap, Blackbirds, Song Thrush, Goldfinch, Greenfinch, Chaffinch, Yellowhammer, Nuthatch, Swallow, Swift, House Martin, Crow, Jackdaw, Magpie, Jay, Rook, Coot, Moorhen, Cuckoo, Dunnock, Wren, Fieldfare, Lapwing, Redwing, Goldcrest, Great Spotted Woodpecker, Green Woodpecker, Lesser Spotted Woodpecker, Grey Heron, Pied Wagtail, Grey Wagtail, House Sparrow, Kestrel, Linnet, Nightingale, Meadow Pipit, Robin, Skylark, Starling and significant numbers of unidentified bats over the field and in the gardens of Folly Chase at night suggest a colony within Folly and/or Betts Woods. Rich flora, especially Bluebells and significant insect species including Wood Ant colonies.

This incredibly diverse range of species rely on the tree and plant species found in 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 center 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.


We draw attention to the 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 areimportant 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.
Rather than the site be considered for development, we have shown that it should be identified for protection in accordance with the Local Plan objectives and that it should be removed from the development plan and placed in a protection plan.

Infrastructure- both sites
I have detailed my concerns above regarding the inadequate infrastructure in respect of local roads, access and drainage and sewerage. In addition it is quite clear that other local services are already struggling and would simply be unable to cope with an increase in the local population of approximately 1000 people based on the estimated development potential of the two sites. Local schools, GP surgeries and wider health care have been under significant pressure for many years. Limited local car parking inhibits local trade ( it should be noted that there are several sites used for car parking included in the site allocation potentially limiting it further) and the main Southend/Hockley/Rayleigh Road is far too frequently jammed back to Hawkwell and Hambro Hill. There is no room for dedicated bus lanes or cycle lanes along this main corridor so whatever thoughts there may be regarding increasing public transport usage or cycling are simply pie in the sky and not feasible. The main road simply cannot cope with any more traffic arising from 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
It is clear that any development at site CFS064 would have a significantly detrimental effect on the environment, biodiversity and the visible appearance of the site. The visual impact will destroy the character of the site and it’s 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. The following sites CFS146,147,167,144,168,145,137,055,121 all have far easier access, being close to A127 to London/Southend, A13 to London/Kent and A130, and 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 congested community of Hockley and Hawkwell, and prevent a commensurate increase in pollution, noise and general inconvenience. Because these are bigger they could also attract government funding for local improvement.



Conclusion
As can be seen form my concerns detailed above , sites CFS064 and CFS264 should be removed form the next stage. They are simply not suitable when there are many more sites which would ‘score’ much better under a wide range of development considerations.

Thank you for your time in reading our response

Firstly the Consultation Process. The volume and format of information contained in the consultation was difficult to access and view online. It was difficult to understand the context of the consultation and RDC are not reaching residents who have no internet. It is also very difficult to cross reference when trying to write a response.

In my opinion the most important factor is that Infrastructure needs to be addressed before more housing is added to the area - This is a key concern for residents exacerbated by the volume of recent and proposed development causing additional pressure on roads, education, social services, health facilities and local employment opportunities. In particular our roads and cycle paths are in a very pitiful state of repair and are only likely to worsen with significant further development. The main route, the B1013 is already at full capacity and we the residents have concerns with traffic volumes causing severe Jams, increase in road noise and pollution combined with the very poor state of the roads with potholes etc

The Infrastructure Funding Statement states all financial and non-financial developer contributions relating to Section 106 conditions should be completed but this has not always been the case and is not the case when larger sites are split up. This was evident at the Hall Road development that promised a school and and doctors both of which were promised but not delivered

Open Spaces - The value of our open spaces and the issues with climate change have become a priority. The use of empty buildings and Brownfield sites should be evaluated first and consideration should be given to identifying an area where a discrete garden village with appropriate infrastructure, separate from current settlements, could be created. Prime examples of such working developments include Chelmsford Beaulieu Park and the South Woodham Ferrers development. I believe that approach is much better that the “Pepper Pot” approach in that it does not give residents a clear picture of the local area erosion of space and general slow increases of population that lead to an adverse effect on local infrastructure.

Potential Developments in Hockley - The plan proposes around 1000 additional houses in Hockley with additional developments on land bordering the Parish. This density will have a major detrimental impact on the quality of life for residents. A particular concern is traffic. The volume of traffic on the B1013, into which most of the proposed new sites, including CFS045, CFS064, CFS160 & 161, CFS074, CFS194, CFS169, CFS150 and CFS020 will feed, is already at an unacceptable level. Many proposed sites are not within walking distance of services and bus and train services are limited. Current high levels of traffic mean that there is already a detrimental effect on the quality of life for residents as well as local commerce and potentially on individuals’ health, given levels of pollution. Additional traffic, potentially thousands of cars, will only worsen matters.

The proposal for development on land at Belchamps, CFS074, is particularly worrying due to the lack of open space for activities available to youngsters and community groups in the Rochford District. The site has been a very valuable well used resource and it is important this is retained for our future generations.

Whilst I understand the need to provide additional housing in Hockley, infrastructure requirements need to be considered and addressed alongside any consideration of potential development sites. Also proper consideration needs to be given to identifying development away from existing settlements. Whilst this may be unattractive due to upfront costs, such an approach could save money in the long term.

I consent. To my name and comments being added to the Councils consultation database and understand anonymous comments cannot be accepted.
I would like to be added to the council planning list and consent to my data being stored and processed for the purposes of receiving planning updates by email

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.

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.

pages on your website I feel I have to respond. Whilst I have wider concerns than those regarding just the two sites above I think it is to be accepted that due to Government policy significant development has to happen somewhere within the boundaries of RDC. My purpose in writing this response , however, is to advise the council of specific issues affecting the two specific sites identified in the header and to request their removal from the Plan and any subsequent consultation stages. Indeed not only should site CFS064 be removed from the development pan, it should be earmarked for protection in accordance with RDCs own objectives detailed within the plan.

My concerns are as detailed below

Material Planning Concern regarding Access-re sites CFS064 and CFS264
The only apparent access to both sites appears to be via Folly Chase, a small unadopted road off of the already congested and unsuitable Folly Lane. Folly Lane itself has seen an unreasonable increase in traffic as it is used to access the recent new housing developments in Pond Chase and Church Road as well as the previously existing housing estate. It is now seeing additional increases in traffic flow caused by the significant housing development in Hullbridge as it is the only direct two way road access from Hullbridge to Hockley. The road is frequently difficult to get through with parked cars along both sides and heavier traffic flows in both directions. This is not helped by it’s layout with three 90 degree bends and one c 45 degree bend along its relatively short length. These bends are difficult for larger traffic, especially the type of traffic used in construction, and a drain cover on one bend is broken several times a year by lorries having to ride up on to the kerb in order to get around the bend. Generally the speed of the ‘through’ traffic is too high and I have witnessed many near misses on the bends as vehicles either cut the corners or are forced to breach the centre of the road due to parked cars. A serious head on accident is now inevitable down this road, and the prospect of further development off of it will make matters even worse as the scale of the housing for the two sites identified in the plan would equate to approximately another 500 cars using Folly Lane just to access the developed sites. This would likely equate to an average of approximately 1000 to 2000 extra car movements a day on a road that is already inadequate.

A far as Folly Chase is concerned it is so limited in its capacity that it simply cannot be deemed suitable for access for either construction traffic or the eventual increase in residential access traffic. The Chase is not a through road, terminating at a footpath leading into designated Ancient Woodland, carrying HC1 Wildlife Site designation. Folly Chase has no significant base as it was unmade until the 1980s. The current road has been constructed and maintained by the Folly Chase Road Frontagers Committee on behalf of residents. A layer of bitumen and gravel was utilised over a thin layer of type 1 hardcore that is sufficient for the low traffic flow associated with 25 houses and no through access, but will simply not support construction traffic or the flows commensurate with the potential development. The road itself has no surface drainage features, gullies, gutters or drains so all water runs over the surface to the bottom of the road. There are no footpaths, nor is there space to construct footpaths and is approximately only 9 feet wide at its narrowest point and cannot support two way traffic. The existing housing water, and gas supplies are very shallow beneath the surface and any increase in heavy traffic will almost certainly cause collapse of these and there are numerous points where the existing sewage pipes cross the road, again, at a very shallow depth and would be extremely vulnerable to increased traffic flows.

The recent adjacent Pond Chase development has well known problems with regards to access to sewerage, and whilst this is now complete and running it should be noted that the bored line of drains that traverse the bottom of Folly Chase from Pond Chase, across to the field that is site CFS064 to the Hockley Community centre have 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.


Green Belt- ref site CFS064
The land in question forms part of the Metropolitan Green belt. Such land can only be developed for ‘Exceptional circumstances’ as detailed in the Planning Policy Guidance Note 2 (PPG2), and states in para 143 that Inappropriate development is by definition harmful to Green Belt’’ and in Para 145 that ‘’A local planning authority should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in the Green Belt. Exceptions to this are’’ ;


a. 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 underutilized land’’

From the above it is clear that the site cannot be considered any further for housing development as to do so contravenes existing Metropolitan Green Belt legislation. The site should 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.
The LoWs assessments do not detail many resident species but the following can/have been found in and around these sites and the site in question; Grass snakes, Adders, Slow Worms and Common Lizards , Common Frogs, Toads, Smooth Newts, Great Crested Newts, Badgers, Foxes, Muntjac Deer, Buzzards, Sparrow Hawks, Merlin, Tawny Owls, Little Owls, Nightjar, Blue Tits, Great Tits, Long Tail Tits, Coal Tits, Willow Warblers, Chiff Chaff, Blackcap, Blackbirds, Song Thrush, Goldfinch, Greenfinch, Chaffinch, Yellowhammer, Nuthatch, Swallow, Swift, House Martin, Crow, Jackdaw, Magpie, Jay, Rook, Coot, Moorhen, Cuckoo, Dunnock, Wren, Fieldfare, Lapwing, Redwing, Goldcrest, Great Spotted Woodpecker, Green Woodpecker, Lesser Spotted Woodpecker, Grey Heron, Pied Wagtail, Grey Wagtail, House Sparrow, Kestrel, Linnet, Nightingale, Meadow Pipit, Robin, Skylark, Starling and significant numbers of unidentified bats over the field and in the gardens of Folly Chase at night suggest a colony within Folly and/or Betts Woods. Rich flora, especially Bluebells and significant insect species including Wood Ant colonies.

This incredibly diverse range of species rely on the tree and plant species found in 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 center 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.


We draw attention to the 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.
Rather than the site be considered for development, we have shown that it should be identified for protection in accordance with the Local Plan objectives and that it should be removed from the development plan and placed in a protection plan.

Infrastructure- both sites
I have detailed my concerns above regarding the inadequate infrastructure in respect of local roads, access and drainage and sewerage. In addition it is quite clear that other local services are already struggling and would simply be unable to cope with an increase in the local population of approximately 1000 people based on the estimated development potential of the two sites. Local schools, GP surgeries and wider health care have been under significant pressure for many years. Limited local car parking inhibits local trade ( it should be noted that there are several sites used for car parking included in the site allocation potentially limiting it further) and the main Southend/Hockley/Rayleigh Road is far too frequently jammed back to Hawkwell and Hambro Hill. There is no room for dedicated bus lanes or cycle lanes along this main corridor so whatever thoughts there may be regarding increasing public transport usage or cycling are simply pie in the sky and not feasible. The main road simply cannot cope with any more traffic arising from 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
It is clear that any development at site CFS064 would have a significantly detrimental effect on the environment, biodiversity and the visible appearance of the site. The visual impact will destroy the character of the site and it’s 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 . The following sites CFS146,147,167,144,168,145,137,055,121 all have far easier 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 congested community of Hockley and Hawkwell, and prevent a commensurate increase in pollution, noise and general inconvenience.

Conclusion
As can be seen form my concerns detailed above , sites CFS064 and CFS264 should be removed form the next stage. They are simply not suitable when there are many more sites which would ‘score’ much better under a wide range of development considerations.

Thank you for your time in reading our response

Seetec – Introductory Comments
With our head office in the Rochford district, we are one of the UK’s largest employee owned businesses, employing over 2,000 people and committed to building our history of service.
We help people in the UK and Ireland to increase their social and economic stake in society. We do this by providing skills, training and support services that people need to reach and exceed their ambitions, creating positive change for the communities we serve
Our aim has always been to change lives for the better. Founded more than 35 years ago as a small charity, we first taught IT skills to 30 unemployed young people at a former primary school in Hockley. From these humble beginnings, we now help hundreds of thousands of people find work, learn new skills and take ownership over their lives.
We understand the needs of the people we support. As employee owners, we now want to drive further improvements and continue to generate enduring positive outcomes for the people and communities we service.
As a B-Corp organisation we are business committed to social value by reducing inequality, working toward lower levels of poverty, a healthier environment, stronger communities and the creation of high quality jobs with dignity and purpose.
We care passionately about the District, its environment, open spaces, heritage and sustainable living. Our business has made a long term contribution to the District and this response is intended to reflect our on-going ambition to make Rochford district a first class place for health & wellbeing, work, learning and leisure. The choices the Council makes over the next 35 years will be key to this ambition.

Consultation Representations
Our responses and representations to the questions from the above consultation are set our below. We have replied to some specific questions and used cross references where appropriate to avoid duplication.
• Introduction
o
 Q3. Do you agree that we should develop a range of separate visions for each of our settlements to help guide decision-making?
Agree
 Q4. Do you agree with the strategic priorities and objectives we have identified?
Agree
• Strategy Options
 Q6. Which of the identified strategy options do you consider should be taken forward in the Plan?
We prefer taking forward Option 4 Balanced Combination with the following comments, preferences and concerns regarding risks.
In general, the preference is for a ‘selective’ ‘Strategy Option 4’ approach by combining Strategy Option 1 Urban Intensification; Option 2 Urban Extensions and Option 3a Concentrated Growth in the west of Rayleigh. This would need to be in specific sites and it will be easier to quantify for housing targets if we were to identify sites that we would not support.
We would not support Option 3b North of Southend and 3c Focused East of Rochford and the land allocations from Rochford to Hockley in the 2017 Strategic Housing and Employment Land Availability as well as some other sites in Lower Hockley and Rayleigh. These are transport infrastructure and risk related objections whilst there are others that negatively impacting heritage, character and setting.
The specific areas of allocations of concern are listed below:
CFS035 land west of Rochford hall 1.25 hectares
CFS041 Lee valley farm 2.54ha
CfS074 land south of Mount Bovers Lane 14.22ha
Cfs077 land north of Great Wheatley’s Road 7.5ha
CFS084 land south of hall road 7.16
CFS085 land west and north of Hall Road 2.22
CFS087 land between Western Road and Weir Farm Road 3.08
CFS121 land north of A127 38.48
CFS150 land on the north side of Victor Gardens 1.73
EXP12 land adjacent 44 Great Wheatley Road 0.12
These will exacerbate the B1013 ‘rat run’ causing huge congestion and comprised emergency evacuation with the potential risk of:
• global warming repeating ‘1950’s scale flooding’ in South East Essex,
• nuclear contamination (Bradwell) and
• airport / rail disaster.
Any development must be matched by adequate transport solutions. Until this document is available then it is difficult for consultees to make informed representations and the Council to make evidence based decisions. The whole approach is somewhat ‘chicken and egg’. The transport solution should be the first document given the historic challenges and earlier consultation responses. Once this is available, the context of spatial options can be evaluated on sound evidence as community and population safety will be of paramount concern.
Assuming there is no radical bypass, which we would not support anyway given the intrusion into Crouch Valley conservation, solutions must be found to the key rail bridges and Rayleigh Weir underpass. These are high risk pinch points for local population and egress in particular:
Rochford Bridge / Hall Road
Hockley Bridges (Greensward Lane & Church Road)
Rayleigh station (London Road)
A127 Weir underpass
As a minimum, solutions must be found to these bottle-necks - widening the bridge underpasses, flyovers etc. If certain developments were to go ahead, flooding and the increased congestion of Options 3a, 3b and the proposed allocations along B1013 will potentially lock-in and lock-out population from their homes, shops, work and living in safe communities.
• Employment and Jobs
 Q28. With reference to the options listed above, or your own options, how do you feel we can best manage the Airport’s adaptations and growth through the planning system?
Any growth must be contingent on the transport infrastructure comments in this representation, without this future growth is limited. In addition, it is important for quality of living that night flights are stopped and pollution and noise controls are enhanced.
• Green and Blue Infrastructure
 Q32. With reference to the options above, or your own options, how do you feel we can best deliver a quality green and blue infrastructure network through the plan?
We refer you to our comments and sites outlined at Q6.
• Heritage
 Q43. With reference to the options listed in this section, or your own options, how do you feel we can best address heritage issues through the plan?
Remove allocations that threaten the key heritage sites in the District e.g. CFS035, CFS084, CFS085
 Q45. Are there any buildings, spaces or structures that should be protected for their historic, cultural or architectural significance? Should these be considered for inclusion on the Local List of non-designated assets?
Grade 1 Rochford Hall and setting.
Rochford Conservation Zone
Crouch Valley
• Town Centres and Retail
 Q48. With reference to Figures 38, 39 and 40, do you agree with existing town centre boundaries and extent of primary and secondary shopping frontages in Rayleigh, Rochford and Hockley? If not, what changes would you make? [Please state reasoning]
As regard Hockley town centre we have previously stated our preference to develop an imaginative town setting that brings Hockley Woods into the town e.g. shop ‘timber’ facades, woodland street furniture etc thus celebrating the setting of Hockley in its ancient woodlands and Spa.
• Transport and Connectivity
• We refer you to our responses under Q6 and Q28

 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?
We refer you to our responses under Q6 and Q28
 Q52. Are there areas where improvements to transport connections are needed?
We refer you to our responses under Q6 and Q28
 Q53. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to deliver new transport connections, such as link roads or rapid transit? What routes and modes should these take? [walking, cycling, rail, bus, road etc.]
We refer you to our responses under Q6 and Q28

• Planning for Complete Communities

Rayleigh
 Q56d. Are there areas that require protecting from development?
CFS77, CFS087 and EXP12
Rochford and Ashingdon
 Q57d. Are there areas that require protecting from development?
CFS035, CFS084, CFS085 (see Q43 response above)
Hockley & Hawkwell
See representations at Q48
 Q58d. Are there areas that require protecting from development?
CFS041, CFS074, CFS150

I am writing to protest most strongly my objections to the above. Back in the early eighties a very similar plan was submitted for this site. The protestors at the time stated that “we fear it would add more traffic on already choked roads, overcrowd our full schools and strain our health and rail services” Not a lot changed in thirty years then!!
That application by Trinity College and developers Rush and Tompkins was eventually refused when it went to an enquiry and one of the reason given was Ashingdon Road. It was considered a danger then and the volume of traffic has certainly increased over the subsequent years. The road in terribly dangerous for pedestrians particularly the children who use it ever day to walk to school. The pavement is certainly not wide enough and there should definitely be a safety barrier on the bend.
The field opposite regularly floods and has done so for many years but has certainly increased since the extensive housing built at the top of Ashingdon Hill.
Green belt, farm land and ancient wood land In the area are all issues of great concern.
Mrs Veronica Mott

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.

I grew up in Rayleigh and have lived at my current address for more than 30 years, and therefore have a good knowledge of the local area.

My experience is that many decades of growth and housing development is already putting the town's utility infrastructure, roads and amenities under significant pressure, and the level of new development proposed in the consultation is not desirable.

Traffic in, out and through Rayleigh is frequently congested and likely to come under increased pressure from the new housing already under construction between Rawreth and the London Road.

Proposed sites for new housing, such as those closest to where I live at the end of Bull Lane, Rayleigh would encroach unacceptably on local greenbelt land and threaten to mar access to nearby ancient woodlands of Hockley Woods and important green space.

By way of illustration, in the last 12 - 18 months the strain on local roads and utilities has contributed to the need for extensive works on water mains in and around Avondale Road, Bull Lane and The Chase. Increased traffic would be both unwelcome to local residents and unwise.

Objection to Suggested building sites in Hockley and Hawkwell

I would like to lodge an objection to the following housing proposals for Hockley/Hawkwell

CFS160 &CFS161

For the following reasons;

Road congestion
Green belt land
Safety concerns with increased traffic/pedestrians
No infrastructure
Negative impact on wildlife
Loss of public footpaths/bridleways
No provisions for extra services e.g. schools, dentist, doctors, parking

It is already difficult to enter and leave Hockley/Hawkwell with only one main road in and out so adding additional houses and pressures to a village infrastructure is ridiculous.

New housing in Ashingdon, Hawkwell and Hockley
My husband and I strongly oppose all new housing in the above mentioned areas.

There is a new housing estates being built in Rayleigh, Rettendon Road, which is already causing congestion on the roads.

We moved to Hockley over 10 years ago and traffic in these areas have gotten considerably worse over the years. The main roads feeding these areas are all single lane roads.

For example, coming back from visiting my mother ( Romford area) yesterday, the B1013 was conjested from the Spa, Hockley, because a lorry was trying to unload at Costcutter. Traffic was all the way back to Hambro Hill. It took me 20 minutes to pass the lorry. This happens on almost a daily bases with either bin-lorries, road works or delivery vans.

Bus services in these areas are inadequate at present and would no doubt get worse if these housing developments were approved.

MORE CARS will cause more traffic, especially as today there are usually more than 1 car per household.

There are not enough schools in these areas, not enough doctor surgeries. Southend Hospital cannot cope with the growing population at present, it cannot cope with a larger population in this area.

Our Green Belt areas should NOT be built on.

I would like to object to many of the potential housing applications particularly CFS074,CFS194,169,150 and CFS020.
The B1013 is already at saturation level particularly at the SPA/Hockley High Street mini roundabout. This is already causing major holdups with the associated pollution concerns. The effect of 1200+ houses with the associated 2000+ cars on this route can only be imagined!! The poor throughput in the Rayleigh to Hawkwell direction is primarily caused by the angle of the Southend road approach to the mini roundabout limiting visibility of cars from Hawkwell causing all cars approaching from Rayleigh to effectively stop. A revision to a proper roundabout (as per Rawreth Lane) would probably help but not eliminate this issue. Traffic lights would not help at all.
The CFS261 potential plan would require a major road change (Northern relief road?) and/or a major change to Watery Lane to Battlesbridge.
To consider any of these schemes without having a traffic mitigation plan (as in the past) will be complete folly.

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

My concerns and objections are as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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