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

Proposed development at site CFS074 in Hawkwell
We are writing to raise our objections against the proposed development at CFS074 and adjacent sites CFS194, CFS169, CFS150 and CFS020.

Our principle concerns given this location are Flooding and Highway Issues as well as Accessibility to vital services.

Mount Bovers Lane which is directly opposite our property routinely floods in winter towards Thorpe Road due to water run off from the lane and the field which is sloped towards the B1013. Converting the proposed site significantly increases the risk of flooding towards properties on Main Road and risks traffic accidents and public safety.

The B1013 is already a road which is under significant duress on a daily basis and the existing road congestion is already unsustainable. This would be significantly exacerbated by construction work meaning that this would block an arterial route into Rayleigh or out to Rochford and Southend. This would have a knock on effect on other routes which are already heavily congested. This would cause poor air quality as cars sit idle on the roads where volumes have already increased over 34%. Poor air quality is proven to create health effects on residents who live on a main road. Adding more than a 1000 houses to this over time would mean that a permanent bottleneck would be created. The B1013 has been observed throughout the COVID pandemic to be the direct route for emergency services in the area. There would be significant risks to public health and vital services if this road becomes any more congested.

We have a disabled daughter who we have to drive to school as the local bus services are inadequate. The inadequacies of the infrastructure mean that residents make more car journeys through lack of services.

Our GP services are split across two sites in Hawkwell and Rochford and with it already difficult to obtain a timely appointment the addition of over 1000 houses means that this would reduce access to vital services as well as increased challenges to access them if the roads are more congested. This will also add further burden on the local NHS Trust which cannot cope with urgent referrals already.

The proposed location is green belt and is used extensively by residents for walking cycling and horse riding and played a large part in our decision to live in Hawkwell. Developing this area would displace wildlife, and remove opportunities to access these protected spaces.

Schools in the area are already oversubscribed and further development where there is already insufficient infrastructure would add further pressure to the education system.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I regret having to write an email. I have tried to log onto the website without success.

I am most concerned to read the new Proposed Local Plan for my area. Since moving to Hawkwell 21 years ago there seems to have been a constant desire to build houses and thereby lose the identity and natural beauty of the area.

Before considering the building of thousands of new properties there seems to have been a complete lack of preparation and consideration of the infrastructure required to accommodate same. From the information I have read there is proposed an additional 6,000 plus properties to be built which will feed onto the already busy B1013 or Ashingdon Road. With these roads already highly congested at times and the complete lack of a reliable bus service especially through Hawkwell, I cannot understand Rochford District Council even considering such action.

CFS194, CFS169, CFS150 and CFS020.

Potential 801 properties feeding onto the B1013. To imagine these areas smothered with housing is a travesty and the areas should be preserved for public footpaths, wildlife, bridleways and general wellbeing of residents for leisurely walking and peacefulness in Hawkwell. Although I have highlighted these particular sites I do object to all the proposed new building within Hawkwell and Hockley.

With regard to the potential building of 6,000 plus properties within Hawkwell and Hockley I would say that these are unnecessary and unworkable for the area especially in view of the size and present use of the roads/general infrastructure which serve the area. The area has already lost so much of the open spaces available due to constant building and what was once a pleasant area is gradually becoming an over populated, noisy, poor air quality part of South Essex.

The area is currently in (2021) just about liveable and enjoyable but with additional houses will become just another boring, unhealthy, overpopulated, busy, noisy area and one that gives the feeling of being "unloved".

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am extremely concerned about the proposed developments in Hockley, Hawkwell, Ashingdon and Rochford. There does not seem to be any regard for sufficient infrastructure planning.
All these areas have traffic congestion already, the B 1013 is frequently plagued by traffic jams. It serves all the above villages, not to mention non-local traffic. Although the road is narrow in many places, HGV's are very common. The Ashingdon Road in particular, is narrow, often congested and dangerous. Several schools are alongside this road, drop off and pick up times are horrendously dangerous. The many pedestrian crossings cause frustration and irresponsible driving. When a traffic survey was done on this road, it was conducted during school holidays. What a cynical idea,it could not possibly reflect the true usage.
The newly built estate of houses in the Hall Road area was supposed to include Doctor and Dental practices, schools, shops, etc. These never materialised as, apparently, a change of Building contractor meant that the conditions were no longer enforceable. The proposed new builds will put incredible strain on all services. How on earth can the area of CFS261, at the rear of King Edmund School, amounting to 4,447 families,be accommodated by the existing infrastructure?
This extra traffic will affect Air Quality and impact the health of residents.
CS194, Hawkwell Brook is designated a tidal river by DEFRA. The Council's report seems to omit the floods of 1968 and 2013.
Lastly, but by no means least, wildlife has not been properly considered. An "expert" declared the fields close to Rochford Garden Way, had no particular wildlife. In fact, they are home and/or feeding sites for many birds,mammals,reptiles, amphibians and insects. My daughter, who lives nearby, has frequently seen raptors hunting over the fields, which means there must be prey. I have only heard a Skylark in recent years, singing over that field. Lapwings,gulls and smaller birds feed there and sometimes Herons are spotted. Foxes, Badgers, mice, frogs andd toads hunt there.So many butterflies, moths, ladybirds, beetles, bees and other pollinators live there.The trees and hedgerows are nesting sites to countless birds. I won't carry on the list any further, but it is clear that they were all "not at home" when the expert visited.
I am also curious as to why the Cul-de-Sac at the end of Rochford Garden Way is considered a good road to provide entry and exit to the new estate. It is very narrow, unlike the road further along, "The Drive", which is wider.
I would appreciate your consideration of the points I have raised in this email. It is not the fact of new homes being built that I object to, it is the lack of firm plans for infrastructure and services.

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

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

Comments on the overall local spatial plan for the RDC area

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

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

To whom it may concern,

Please stop building huge housing estates in Rayleigh!

(I prefer the garden village option).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Objection to New Local Plan
I would like to put forward my objection to this confusing and ill thought out proposal, which does not seem to take account of what is needed to have a fully functioning close knit community which after the terrible few years we have had with Covid has been shown to be vital for our Economy and well being, not to mention the environmental impact which with Global warming cannot and should not be taken lightly.

My husband travels extensively and it takes him longer to get the short distance out of our local area than it does to travel most the rest of his journey. The road systems are heaving with the volume of traffic and adding to this by building more housing will exacerbate the grid lock.

Every time housing plots are developed they seemed to be tweaked so the builders do not have to have to provide the essential infrastructure and vital services; dentists, doctors, schools to take in all the new people that will need to be accommodated in the area. If this is allowed to continue with the new proposals then peoples health and education will be blighted and we will know exactly who to blame for the shambolic lack of planning and organisation.

Increasingly our environment needs our help, the impact on the future generation will be impossible to rectify if we do not take the issue seriously. We love our local wildlife, we have seen Owls, Deer, Newts, Bats and many others species they cannot be moved on continually they will just be unable to flourish and will no longer exist. Concreting over the landscape will destroy our wildlife and will mean that the increased risk of flooding we have seen in our area will mean that we are storing up problems for our future, (historically Hawkwell is on a flood plan we ignore this at our peril).

We have the opportunity to cherish our community, be forward thinking and create a better future so far I haven’t seen anything from the council that makes me believe that they have the ability to achieve this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To whom this may concern.

As the homeowner of [redacted - house number] Little Wakering Road, Barling Magna, Essex SS3 0LN I write to express my serious concerns about the council’s proposals of the Spatial Options Consultation, beginning with the communication to local residents and administration of process. The online consultation portal and supporting documents, reports, interactive maps etc. I consider to be deliberately designed to confuse even the most educated of local residents. The sheer volume of supporting documents and their size makes it almost impossible for the average local resident to respond objectively and succinctly outline their thoughts – good or bad.

For this reason I have not responded through the portal as simply put I am struggling to navigate it. Instead, by cc’ing in one of our local councillors I hope my thoughts are duly considered by the council.

I am particularly concerned by the potential site CFS004 (next to Barling Magna School). I live on this extremely narrow stretch of Little Wakering Road just a few doors down from this site and regularly use this area with my wife and young children (under 3yrs) horse riding, walking, cycling and running. The pavements are too narrow in places to get our buggy through and the numerous parked cars make pulling out of our drive very difficult. We are regularly blocked in by other cars during school runs and are frequently woken up at night by cars speeding along this narrow section. I must disagree entirely with elements of the Initial Appraisal and question the methodology behind the ratings.

For example, the Existing Site Access Score is a 5, the highest rating. How can this be so? This is on the very narrow section of Little Wakering Rd and directly opposite our childrens nursery. This whole area frequently becomes gridlocked during school runs presenting a significant hazard to local residents, children at the nursery / preschool / primary school and their parents.

A second example – the rating for access to a Secondary School is 4. Yet slightly further down Little Wakering Road at site CFS192 (Land to West of Little Wakering) the rating for Secondary School is 1, the lowest possible. The sites are barely 1/2mile apart, are served by the same bus route, and only have pavements on the opposite side of the road. This high rating is surprising given that the access to bus services and train services are 1, presumambly this means the council are relying on student’s parents driving them to the secondary school? This isn’t exactly in keeping with current ‘green environmental policies’ that I am sure the council is bound to. I am sure that detailed review of all of the sites would present similar inconsistencies. Though perhaps isolated inconsistencies, it is this same data that is a major factor in determining which sites may be viable and proceed along the planning process. If either site were to be considered I would pursue a detailed response from the council evidencing their reasons for the different ratings.

Putting potentially 26 houses in this small area is so out of keeping with the local area. All of the houses along this section of Barling are detached or semi-detached, most with driveways and front gardens. There are fewer than 26houses in the entire SS3 0LN postcode. Should any houses be permitted at this plot they must be in keeping with Barling village. The architype of houses at the current Barrow Hall and Star Lane developments would be of detriment to our small and picturesque village.

I am unable to provide a detailed response to each of the local sites for the reasons outlined in the opening paragraph. I note the following general and specific points as bulleted below and strongly request that they are taken into consideration by the council.

• It is my understanding (based on page 28 of the Rochford and Southend Stage One and Two Green Belt Study 2020) that almost all of the potential sites from the south of Rochford to Little Wakering and south of Great Wakering are within Green Belt Land. It is my limited understanding that Green Belt Land is protected to prevent urban sprawl from connecting small villages and towns, to keep green space between them. I therefore cannot see how almost all of these sites can be even considered by the council due to their being located within the Green Belt. Many of them are scored the lowest 1 rating, the highest level of harm to the Green Belt. Disappointingly Site CFS004 receives a 2 rating for this. I perceive this as another inconsistency as detailed above and would request further information as to why this constitutes less harm than the site CFS192 below.
• The main roads into Barling and Little Wakering are 60mph national speed limit country roads. They are uneven, twisted, with no or limited street lighting, have uneven cambers and are exceedingly narrow for the most part. The section of Barrow Hall Road where it joins Barling Road is barely 4m, this means that 2 larger cars can’t pass one another without significant care or attention. There are regularly accidents along these roads and therefore I consider them to be wholly unsuitable for access to residential developments. I hope that the council has not set a precedence by allowing the developer of the Barrow Hall site to use this for access, Southend Road to the south would have been much more appropriate.
• Shopland Road is similar to Barrow Hall Road and Barling Road. What is most concerning is that the narrow bridge by Butlers Farm cannot safely accommodate much more vehicular traffic. There are regularly accidents at this bridge as 2 larger cars cannot pass each other in the same manner as described above. Any developments in this area must include a widening (and straightening) of this section of road to prevent further accidents.
• Public transport is very poor within Little Wakering and Barling. There are very limited bus services making it difficult to access local services and shops, plus Southend and Shoebury without having access to a private vehicle. Any developments in these villages will greatly increase the number of vehicles on these narrow roads with the usual negative effect on parking, driveway access, speeding and pollution.
• There is a lack of suitable footpaths within Little Wakering and Barling. Much of Barling only has a path on one side and this simply stops at Church Rd and a short distance where Little Wakering Road joins Barling Road. Where are the residents of this potential development (CFS004) supposed to walk to safely without being forced to walk into a national speed limit county road? The footpaths we have are narrow and steeply cambered in many places, I would hope that the council upgrades these should any of these developments be passed for planning.
• There are two main sections of Little Wakering Road that cause myself and other local residents concern.
o Opposite my house (between Barling Lodge and the Primary School) is very narrow. Cars are always parked on the east side meaning that there are very few areas that cars can safely pull in. With the volume of traffic noticeably increasing of late, particularly at school runs, there is frequently congestion, dangerous driving, and driveways including my own being blocked in. More cars on the road from any residential developments will only add to this. Only last month my neighbour (redacted - house number) had his van damaged by someone travelling at speed from the north end, this road is simply too narrow to support any more traffic without taking into account the dangers to the children using the school and nurseries.
o Between the Castle Pub and Kimberly Road. The north bound section of road is frequently almost entirely blocked by parked cars leaving little or no space for cars to pass each other. Many times I have witnessed dangerous & aggressive driving by irate drivers trying to navigate this stretch and blocking each other in. Any development plans to Little Wakering must mandate improvements to Little Wakering Road.
• Generally, I cannot see how this area (north of Southend to Rochford and the villages of Great Wakering, Little Wakering and Barling Magna) can support more houses without provisions for additional GP and other healthcare services. The GP at Great Wakering is almost impossible to get an appointment at, the same for many local NHS dentists. Little Rascals Nursery and the pre-school in Barling are already full. More houses will only make this worse.

The reasons I do not agree with even more housing in Great & Little Wakering are detailed overleaf.

INFRASTRUCTURE - The village will not be able to cope, it is already impossible to get a GP appointment due to new houses still being built. The roads will not be able to cope with the volume of traffic.

ROAD ACCESS - Only 2 main roads in & out of the village, access is very limited at busy times. If there is an accident which often happens then only one way in and out.

FLOOD PLAINS - If all the local brooks are built on, the whole area will be even more prone to flooding.

CRITICAL INCIDENT - If roads are blocked by the extra traffic, emergency services will not be able to get in and residents will not be able to get out in the event of any evacuation. This will cost lives.

WORKING FROM HOME - More people work from home now. Extra homes, more people, busier village, will impact on quality of life & mental health.

EDUCATION - Not enough school places, also school buses will not be able to accommodate numbers.

INCREASE IN CRIME - No longer will be a village with a local village community.

I am writing to object to the use of Site CFS064 (Land north and east of Folly Chase, Hockley) as part of the Spatial Options Consultation.

As stated on the Site Appraisal Paper, this site will impact on the ancient woodland of Betts Wood that adjoins this site. This is only a small ancient woodland and should be protected for future generations. Having lived next to the woods for many years, I have seen first-hand the wildlife and fauna that inhabits this small beautiful woodland. I have seen many animals including badgers, foxes, owls, deer, squirrels, bats and insects that live in the woodland and traverse across the field CFS064 to hunt. By building on the allocated site you will be turning the woodland into an isolated island which will have a detrimental impact on the wildlife and biodiversity that live there. Ancient woodlands account for only 2.5% of land cover in the UK. I understand that Paragraph 175C of The National Planning Policy Framework for England states that "when determining planning applications, local planning authorities should apply the following principles" - "development resulting in the loss of irreplaceable habitats (such as ancient woodland) should be refused unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy exists". Please can you confirm what your "exceptional reasons" are for choosing this site.

The site also adjoins an open space (behind the Community Centre) where children can play safely away from traffic. There are not many open spaces like this within Hockley and this should be left for the children of the village to enjoy where they can ride bikes away from vehicles and play ball games safely.

The Site Appraisal Paper states Primary Schools as a "4". I know there are three primary schools in Hockley but I also know that all the schools are at "bursting" point now. My daughter attends Hockley Primary and her classroom just barely accommodates the children within in her class. How do you propose fitting more children into the school if you build 214 homes on this site. The school will also be impacted by the noise and pollution that will occur from building on this site. The roads are already congested around the school during drop off/pick up and it is extremely dangerous for the children attending trying to negotiate the roads now. How do you propose alleviating the congestion to the roads around this area?

The Paper also states Health Care as a "4". With only two doctors' surgeries in the area, where it is almost impossible to get an appointment now, how do you propose accommodating the building of more houses not only on this site but in Hockley generally.

The same can be said in relation to the roads entering and leaving Hockley which are already congested - how will you alleviate the impact of more traffic due to building more houses in the vicinity. Hockley does not have the infrastructure in relation to roads, schools and health care at present to accommodate more home building.

This site has previously been flooded, can you confirm that this will not happen again in the future or have any impact on existing properties in the vicinity.

For the sake of building 214 homes there must be only marginal gains for the home owners with increased noise and pollution for everyone in the vicinity.

I hope you will take this email and my objections into consideration when deciding on the sites you wish to build upon.

[additional email via same address from daughter]

To Sir/Madam,

Please don't build on the field! Your actions will destroy a perfectly good habitat and effect everything around it. All wildlife will be destroyed or will move out which would be a very tricky situation as you have the school on one side the Community centre in the middle and the train tracks on the other side. However, they could move to the other little woods but it is almost full and it would be impossible to make it a home for other animals. It would also affect Betts woods which I have seen every single secret den and hiding place spending hours after school exploring with my best friends. I would hate to see what they would look like after you started to build near them. If you hadn't noticed there is a stream that gives me and my family water but it would be piloted and disgusting! There is a badger's den which I have seen myself and I am concerned that you could disturb it. There may also be a whole underground burrow underneath the field and if you began to build houses on it will collapse and you will not be able to build on it anyway ruining a habitat at the same time.

To Rochford council
We would like to raise our objections to the proposed sites identified in the Hockley Local Action Plan and in particular the sites listed above currently in the consultation process for future development. We live at the above property and moved to Hockley to live in a semi-rural village and to enjoy open spaces, wild life and all that county living offers, away from heavy traffic and poor air pollution. We understand the need for more housing in the southeast and would support housing projects which included their own infrastructure and facilities ie roads, schools, Doctors etc in an area that does not impact on existing towns and village which are already over- developed for the services and infrastructure in place.
The proposed development of the above sites would have a direct impact on our property and lifestyle and we oppose the development of those sites for the following reasons:
Housing built on CFS242 and CFS150 is likely to overlook our garden and the trees surrounding our property would need to be removed to enable building, spoiling our outlook and tranquillity and could result in property prices being affected as the desirability of the area would be compromised. Our property is located at the bottom of victor gardens which is on an incline and already suffers with water drainage problems and during the winter months the garden becomes water logged. Further development on CFS242 & CFS150 would impact further on water drainage in the area.
The Nature reserve is very close to the proposed sites and building on these areas would impact on the wildlife significantly.
We oppose the building on any green belt land to protect the countryside, Footpaths and bridleways which would be lost.
Parking in Victor gardens is likely to be impacted with further development. Many of the houses in the road have already been extended and some single plots purchased by builders and then replaced by two large properties which has increased the traffic and parking in the road.
We also oppose the over development of Hockley/Hawkwell to protect it as a village.
The roads are already very congested and presenting problems in the area and further development would cause major problems getting in and out of the village without new road structures being put in place.
Many of the local schools are already full or close to full capacity and more housing would result in a lack of school places and choice for local children. If more educational facilities are not provided with further development then our children’s education will be compromised at the expense of development and housing.
The health facilities in the area are already overstretched and more housing in the area will definitely impact on our heath services.
Having lived and worked in this area for over 25years we feel that Hockley/Hawkwell is already overdeveloped for the infrastructure and facilities in place and therefore oppose further major development/ housing of this area.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for taking the time to read our comments. I look forward to your answers to our questions.

I am responding to the new Local Plan for the area and am making the following objections for the proposed developments in Hullbridge:

* The previous Local Plan/Core Strategy has resulted in significant strain on public services, roads etc despite repeated requests to both County and District for proper infra structure. As a result, the latter councils did not complete transport or sustainable
infrastructure assessments prior to this consultation. This needs
be addressed urgently in light of the new Local Plan.

* Vision statement: this was written by Rochford Council without any consultation of our local community in Hullbridge. There is a lack of understanding of our local community and its future. For instance, some of the 'promoted sites' have been put forward without the landowner's consent and are therefore inappropriate. An example of this is land that was agricultural and which has now been developed into a very successful vineyard.
Hullbridge has a 'village' community feel but with any additional building it is in severe danger of losing this and just becoming urban sprawl.

* Negative impact would be made to the precious Green Belt and Coastal Protection Belt if further building were allowed to go ahead.

* There would be critical flood and drainage risks. For instance, Watery Lane still floods although this was disregarded in the previous Local Plan. By 2040, Hullbridge will have a significant proportion of the village below sea level, hence making it unsuitable for building.

* Negative impact on local habitats: animals, birds and insects are being squeezed into smaller and smaller green spaces and this is detrimental to both them and us. As a direct result of the recent house building in Hullbridge, the number of dead animals killed by increased traffic has risen significantly.

*Proximity to local transport: the number 20 bus runs along Ferry Road which is a significant distance from any proposed new builds.
This puts pressure on people to use cars which adds to further pollution. RDC say that there are 4 -7 buses an hour on Ferry Road but this is a huge inflation of the truth!

* Lack of accessible open spaces and amenities: there is a distinct lack of these in Hullbridge and an assessment needs to take place in advance of any further development.

* Loss of footpaths and/or bridleways: there has already been a loss of these owing to the building of the roundabout at Rawreth Lane and further loss would be extremely detrimental to people and those on horseback.

* Impact on agricultural land: we need agricultural land to provide food for us and for animals and brownfield sites should be considered before any greenbelt land is considered for building.

* Existing community infrastructure: there are poor road links, few sustainable transport options and huge pressure already on local education/schools, medical services, youth services, leisure facilities etc. Roads cannot cope with cope with increased traffic; it is very difficult to get a GP appointment; there are long waiting lists at our local hospital in Southend.

* Here in Hullbridge, we are keen to protect our rural coastal village outlook and vehemently object to unnecessary building which will spoil the nature of our village.

* I am not in favour of any further building but if I had to choose one spatial option it would be 3 as these are considered priority options and would keep any new housing on one area.

Good morning ,
I give below my comments on the spatial plan.
We live on Ashingdon Road and have done since 1984 We are concerned about the plan fir the following reasons :- A Traffic on the roads are at bursting point . At 7.30 am the traffic going towards Rochford is at a standstill both ways due to king Edmunds school commencement and is back to past brays lane . A lot of traffic now bypasses this by taking brays land and through stambridge coming out by the fire station as I do myself.
B the clear way operates from 8am which needs to be made earlier . One a previous Monday there was a builders merchants lorry unloading by holt farm so traffic was at a standstill back to Anne Boleyn pub and the school children were late for king Edmunds on the school buses. Obviously it is a problem also till after 9 with holt farm school, st Teresa’s and Rochford primary schools.
C the larger heavy lorries coming from the wharf along brays lane and along Ashingdon road is of great concern as they are so close to the children and during the day to adults and to pass each other sometimes mount the pavements . No wonder Rochford roads are one of the worst in the county . Also to us is the high number of accidents on Ashingdon road and a lot of youngsters driving well in excess of the 30 mph speed limit . It is a high injury road which again is a burden on the emergency services . So we need more speed reduction measures especially from lascelles gardens up to the victory pub and down to Ashingdon school .
D infrastructure needs to be improved prior to any of these proposed developments such as doctors , hospitals , roads , councils services as already these are overwhelmed such as hospitals as I believe a lot of patients are diverted to Chelmsford as there’s no room in Southend or Basildon.
E planning needs to be stricter as developers are taking advantage and cramming in multiple properties where on or two were previously increasing the traffic and demands on services . The council seems to be an easy touch that if they break the planning laws the council cannot pursue them due to lack of money unfortunately .
F when we should be thinking if the environment multilingual trees are being destroyed by developers illegally and woodlands being taken over for development.
These are some of our comments that need to be considered with the plans for the future .
I must say if we were younger we would have considered moving outside the area regrettably .
I look forward to your comment

With regard to the Proposed Local Plan

The local area is already suffering from overcrowding without adding more houses.
The new builds at Rawreth Lane and Hullbridge have already shown that developments cause major disruptions to the traffic in the area.
The installation of the two new roundabouts caused delays in all directions for many days over several months. This was at the same time as ongoing work on other roads within the area.

The total grid lock in the area when an incident occurs only goes to show that the traffic levels are already at breaking point.
Understandably, when a water main bursts and the road collapses it becomes necessary to close the road. However, the ensuing queues and problems to move around the area again only demonstrate the already heavy density of traffic.

When new homes are built little consideration seems to be given to the needs of the proposed residents. Which schools are the children supposed to go to?
Where will they find doctors and dentists? How will they travel to and from work? Wolsey Park has just one bus which goes along Rawreth Lane only every two hours.

The existing open spaces are relatively small for the existing number of residents. If the proposed sites are to be built on this ratio will be even lower.

The future plans do not show any intention to increase open spaces, build schools or extra leisure facilities.

The road surfaces in the area are dreadful. Some repair work has been done but adjoining areas remain untouched. Increased traffic flow will not improve this situation.

To whom it may concern,
I am writing to air my objection to the following planning permission references
CFS045, CFS064,CFS160, CFS161, CFS194, CFS169, CFS150, CFS020, Belchamps and Mount Bovis Lane (Fields)
Firstly, the impact upon the local community from a wellbeing point of view as well as environmental factors such as pollution from the increased traffic and noise would be extremely stressful for all residence.
People live here because of the surroundings which Hockley and Hawkwell, as a small village are renowned for. We appear to be trying to change the identity of our rural villages into small towns, for which they are not designed. I.e. the local infrastructure such as school's, doctors, dentists and nurseries as well as the road network in this area are not adequate for a major development.
Since the latest developments around the Rochford District Council area have been completed, the increased traffic already present is threatening to overwhelm the roads.
If you surveyed the main road through Hawkwell and Hockley between 08:30am & 3-6pm you would see it is struggling. All roads to the schools and train station queue every week day.
Finally, these areas around Mont Bovis and Belchamps are used for recreation for the locals and many of us love to walk the fields and woods. This must also have a major impact on the wildlife. Within the fields and wood here you have, deer, badgers, bats and vast range of birds from robins to Sparrow Hawks and Woodpeckers.
I really don’t believe Hawkwell and Hockley need a 1000 house’s in such a tight community space.
The only people to benefit from this are the investors and property developers.

Firstly I should like to say that I think the presentation of this to the local people is far too complicated and I feel many people will just “give up” trying to respond However, I will attempt to put my views to the best of my ability.
I feel strongly that there should be no further major development in Hullbridge as this would damage the environment, compromise and have a detrimental impact on existing wildlife and result in more pollution and flooding. With the current UK emphasis on planting trees and hedgerows to help reduce pollution and benefit our natural wildlife, any further major development would go completely against this philosophy.
With the information given to me, I feel that the best option would be to build all housing in one location west of Rayleigh where there are already good transport links via A127, A130 and A13 These roads would serve as good links for work and business in Basildon, Southend, Wickford, Chelmsford, Thames Gateway and Tilbury2.
This option would enable a “tailor-made” approach to good housing and infrastructure, schools, GP surgeries, open spaces and community facilities. This option would not put extra strain on the current villages whose roads, facilities and amenities are already stretched to breaking point. An example of this is the current through traffic on Lower Road in Hullbridge where there has been a vast increase in the volume of traffic and consequential increase in air pollution (due to recent developments in Rochford and Ashingdon). Lower Road has become a rat run for traffic from Southend and en route areas through to to Chelmsford. The increased volume and speed of traffic along Lower Road makes getting in and out of residential driveways on to Lower Road extremely hazardous; it can take anything up to ten minutes to pull off our driveway safely. The increase in Lower Road traffic has resulted in numerous accidents in recent times, one of which was sadly a fatality. The keep left sign on Lower Road near the junction with Long Lane has been completely demolished by a car on one occasion. On another occasion a car hit the lamp-post bringing it completely down. Numerous animals have been run over. A car ran into a van that was trying to exit his own driveway on to Lower Road. A man was knocked off his motorbike in Lower Road. The air ambulance has had to attend incidents in Lower Road twice within five days recently. It is virtually impossible to cross Lower Road safely on foot and one lady recently told me she has become virtually housebound in Central Avenue as, because of continuous stream of traffic, she cannot get across Lower Road on her mobility scooter and there is no pavement for her to travel along to get to Hullbridge village shops and GP.
In addition, heavy goods vehicles are continually using Lower Road and these are putting excessive strain on the underground utilities. This means we are constantly experiencing the road being dug up for water main repairs, gas leaks, etc. Even a major sinkhole appeared in Hullbridge Road in the summer 2021.
Hullbridge has limited school facilities and I understand that only last year an infant school child was allocated a place in a Harlow school as there were no other local options available at that time.
The only GP surgery in the village is at capacity and getting through on the telephone is extremely problematic because so many people are trying to get appointments. In addition there is a shortage of doctors.
In Lower Road Hullbridge, there is no regular bus service, which means children at the south end of Hullbridge have a thirty minutes’ walk to the local infants and junior schools. This is tiring for five year olds and difficult in the winter months when it is dark and often wet. As there is no regular bus service along Lower Road, senior school children have a long walk along a busy main road to catch the bus at Coventry Corner (the nearest bus stop for number 20 bus). When the bus arrives, it is often full up with children and commuters who have previously boarded in the village along Ferry Road.
At the south end of Hullbridge there are no public recreational facilities. There is a local sports club but this is not open to the general public to allow children to just play and run around. In addition there are no general community facilities for the older people at the south end of Hullbridge.
We do have a number of valued and well used footpaths and bridle ways but these would be lost if there were to be further development in Hullbridge.
I understand that according to a recent report, much of the proposed development area in Hullbridge will be below sea level by 2050 - it makes no sense to consider further development on such vulnerable sites.
It is for these reasons that I feel further major development in Hullbridge should not be permitted.

I am concerned about the sites which have been suggested for potential development around Hullbridge. With 500 houses already being built the village, which has an existing population of less than 7000, Hullbridge will be overwhelmed if these developments are allowed to go ahead. In addition to concerns about the loss of character which will be suffered there are also practical objections:

Many of the sites which have been proposed are currently agricultural land. We are being encouraged to use local produce yet the land it comes from is being lost to development.

Poor infrastructure. Hullbridge Road/Lower Road is the main access road to Hullbridge (Watery Lane is too narrow and prone to flooding). The road network cannot cope with current levels of road usage and the addition of a large number of extra vehicles will make the situation intolerable. When Hullbridge Road or Lower Road are blocked (which unfortunately seems to happen frequently) the whole area comes to a standstill in a very short time.

No plans are included for the provision of new schools, medical facilities, leisure facilities or public transport. The existing infrastructure does not have the capacity to absorb large numbers of new residents.

Risk of flooding. We are told that water levels will rise significantly over the next few years. This will put the low lying areas of Hullbridge at a high risk of flooding. Many of the existing roads have no surface water drainage and at times of heavy rainfall the high levels of surface water cause a problem.

Whilst a small amount of development around the village seems inevitable I believe that in order to accommodate the volume of development required in the district it would be better to choose strategy 3 and build all the housing in one location. This would mean that suitable infrastructure could be incorporated into the development and a sustainable community could be developed rather than just large numbers of new homes tacked on to existing communities.

I want to send my objections to the following local planning options that are being put up for consideration:
CFS045 (Hawkwell, 152 houses)
CFS064 (Hockley, 214 houses)
CFS160 & CFS161 (Hockley, 124 houses)
CFS194, CFS169, CFS150 & CFS020 (Hawkwell, 801 houses)

My objections to these local planning options are as follows:

Infrastructure/Highway issues – they all would be leading out to the same main road (B1013) which already gets severe traffic, especially during rush hour. The roads are already unable to handle the existing traffic so adding a major amount of additional housing would cause even further issues. In addition, the state of the roads are also bad in some more heavily used areas and are damaged on a regular basis needing regular repair whether temporary or permanent. Due to where the sites are, it’s likely many households would drive to get to any workplace locally, or to stations/schools as none some to be on local public transport routes as of yet bar the main road.

Wildlife/nature issues – something noticeably seen since the pandemic stated was the amount of nature we have in the local area, and the animals and other creatures that live in it. Even more noticeable is the amount of animals that now are having to venture further out of the woodland/fields and are subsequently injured/killed by the increased traffic since lockdown ended. I feel that further building in these areas would displace the animals further, reducing the amount of natural wildlife in the area and the beauty of living in the ‘countryside’. It would also cause further local pollution in the area, both whilst building and with the additional traffic so for nature it’s a lose-lose situation.

Location/loss of public footpaths – as a large number of houses are being put forward in some of these areas, it’s going to cause areas of localised congestion before it gets onto the main road (B1013) causing further congestion there. The large fields being considered are currently used as public areas for dog walking, running, horse riding etc so takes away these areas causing more people traffic in other areas on top of adding further people traffic to the shops and high street. It puts more pressure on the local shops as well, which can be very busy in peak times. Areas around Clements Hall are regularly used by pedestrians, cyclists, horses etc as well as outdoor exercise activities at the leisure centre which is quite enjoyable, but would be less so with more housing in this rea.

Affordability/schooling – always a concern is the ‘affordability’ of the houses being built, what the split is on type of housing being built (flats, maisonettes, terraced, semis and detached, bungalows etc) and whether this is actually affordable for not only the people already living locally but also others looking to move away from London for a better standard of living. Are the houses truly going to be affordable, or will they sit vacant for a long time like other developments in the area as they realistically arent affordable for the majority? This is a sought after area many families want to live in for the good schools and the local amenities and ease of access to London as well as countryside/beach areas. Putting in more housing is likely to cause an influx of families who are looking to upgrade, potentially young professionals as first time buyers who eventually will have families of their own.. is this housing really going to be affordable for them? The amount of houses being built may cause a huge supply/demand issue that effects the price of other housing in the area for those that already live here and may want to move elsewhere, likely for the worse as supply becomes greater than demand for specific ‘affordable’ housing. Schools are only going to be more and more populated and in high demand, are there also new schools being built alongside all this housing?

All in all, the amount of housing being suggested is not going to maintain the village life that Hockley, Hawkwell and other villages around truly enjoy and appreciate, as well as cause even further traffic issues than the area already has. It’s going to ruin the area for local wildlife, take away public areas for leisure activities, cause greater air and noise pollution and put greater strain on the schools and nurseries, potentially increasing prices to make them unaffordable for families due to high demand.

Please accept this email as objectives to the planning options listed, as well as others in the Hockley/Hawkwell area that I may not have mentioned.

This is the first time I have sent a concern to my local authority and although I am not totally against developments (we need to provide our children and their children an opportunity to be able to afford housing my generation and older have benefited) I am still very concerned when I read this leaflet Rochford District Residents published.

My chief concern being the affect on the local roads in Hockley and Hawkwell namely the B1013. The "V" junction at the Spa Pub/Potters at times is under pressure and the proposed plans is going to make this horrendous. For example this morning at 8am it took my wife 20 minutes to drive between Broad Parade and the Hockley railway bridge. These proposed developments are only going to add traffic to this over used B1013.Secondary concerns are of course the pressure on our schools and medical facilities.

Response of London Southend Airport Company Ltd to Rochford Local Plan: Spatial Options Consultation 2021

LSA is delighted to respond on the new local plan.
Our focus is primarily in relation to establishing a positive policy framework for continued growth and development of London Southend Airport (LSA), in accordance with up to date national policy that supports airport’s making best use of their existing runways, and in recognition of the important role and highly positive contribution the development of LSA can make to the District.

In addition, our response also makes suggestions to be considered for improved connectivity to the airport to the east of the railway line.

We would be keen engage with the Council on the drafting of policies and supporting text and urge the
continued close cooperation with Southend Borough Council on their new local plan.

Your sincerely
Glyn Jones
Chief Executive Officer

Rochford Local Plan: Spatial Options Consultation Paper 2021
Response of London Southend Airport Company Ltd
Policy Approach in Relation to Future of London Southend Airport
We are pleased to note the Consultation includes a section on the future of London Southend Airport (LSA).

National Aviation Policy
The section on the Future of LSA refers to current national policy which supports airports making best use
of their existing runways.
The text on page 91 refers to The Aviation Policy Framework (2013) and the Beyond the Horizon – The
future of UK aviation (2018) policy. It is also worth noting that in response to the challenges of tackling climate change, the government has also recently published its Transport Decarbonisation Plan and commenced consultation on its ‘Jet Zero’ strategy.

In the Transport Decarbonisation Plan (TDP), published by the Department for Transport in July 2021, the
Government explains that:
“International connectivity is a vital part of Global Britain and everyone should continue to have access to affordable flights, allowing them to go on holiday, visit family and do business.”
The Jet Zero consultation sets out how Government intends to preserve the benefits of air travel and deliver clean growth consistent with its 2050 net zero target. It also confirms that the international connectivity provided by UK’s aviation sector is vital to the country’s long term economic prosperity, and subject to the aviation sector playing its role in decarbonising the UK economy and delivering net zero aviation by 2050, that:
“everyone should continue to have access to affordable flights, allowing them to enjoy holidays, visit friends and family overseas and to travel for business”.
The TDP and Jet Zero represent the most recent expressions of policy, set out the Government’s position
that growth in aviation is compatible with meeting the UK's greenhouse gas reduction targets and reaffirm specific support for making best use of existing runways.
Growth and Development of London Southend Airport
Prior to the outbreak of the COVID pandemic, passenger numbers at LSA had increased to 2.2m in 2019
and some 1,500 people were employed at the airport. More broadly, the airport supported 2,200 direct,
indirect and induced jobs, over 1,400 of which were in South Essex, and contributed £77m per annum to
South Essex economy.

The pandemic has had a devastating impact on the global aviation industry in 2020. Southend, along with
all other UK airports, has experienced a significant reduction in passenger traffic, as a result of both Government imposed restrictions on air travel and reduced passenger demand at this time.
Whilst it is expected that Government travel restrictions will continue to impact on passenger demand and traffic levels throughout 2021 and into 2022, we expect traffic levels will start to recover as Government restrictions ease and that material recovery from the pandemic is anticipated by 2023-4.
By 2026, we expect LSA’s passenger throughput to have surpassed Pre-COVID levels and that the airport will be welcoming some 3 to 3.5 million passengers per year through the existing infrastructure. With investment to construct the developments permitted by existing planning consents, and operating within the existing Section 106 movement cap of 53,300 movements, we consider that the airport could serve some 7 to 8m passengers by the end of the 2020s.
During the local plan period, and with further investment in new facilities it is possible that passenger traffic could grow beyond 7-8m passengers and serve up to 12mppa. Growth to this level will require new planning consents, including a relaxation of the current movement cap on the number of aircraft operations.

These levels of growth reflect the fact that LSA is very much part of the London aviation “system”, with over 60% of LSA’s departing passengers self-identifying as originating in London in 2019, and the widely recognised position that airports in London and the South East are increasingly facing longer term capacity constraints where demand for travel will outstrip capacity.
An economic assessment carried out by PA Consulting on behalf of LSACL, forecasts that LSA would then be the location for 6,600 jobs with a further 3,300 indirect and induced FTEs jobs. Over 6,100 of these would be in South Essex and valued at over £0.5bn in South Essex economy.
We have also now commenced studies to understand what the implications of further growth of LSA would be, including on noise, transport and air quality. These studies will form part of our plan to consult on un updated Masterplan. The outputs form the studies and the development of the masterplan can be used to inform the preparation of the new Rochford Local Plan (as well as the new Southend Local Plan).

Policy for London Southend Airport
Planned in the right way, the development of LSA can make a highly positive contribution to the vision for the District, and a number of the strategic objectives set out in the Consultation Paper.
As noted in the “Economy” section of the draft Vision, the connectivity offered by a successful LSA will support the attractiveness of the area for business and investment. The success of LSA is vital to the economic prosperity of Southend, Rochford and the surrounding area and we are pleased that the text on page 91 recognises the important role LSA plays in supporting employment and the local economy.
Whilst the COVID pandemic has seen job numbers at the airport reduce to less than 900 from a peak of over 1,500 in 2019, we are expecting employment levels to return as passenger growth recovers. Job growth at the airport would support the objective of reducing levels of out commuting from the district as well as supporting skills development. Transport infrastructure at the airport could also support objectives related to improved local transport and connectivity.
The growth of the airport will have implications for the local area, and we agree that that the characterisation of these (on page 91) is fair representation of the range of positive impacts to be encouraged and environmental matters that would need to be addressed in future development plans.

Response to Question 28 Future of London Southend Airport
Question 28 of the Consultation seeks views on policy options available for the future planning of LSA.
LSACL consider that whichever options is followed, cooperation on the policy with Southend BC will be
important, and it would be helpful if both authorities adopted similar approaches.
We consider that the current Joint Area Action Plan (JAAP) has served the area well. Equally, with consent
now having been granted for the new business park (which formed a major component of the JAAP), we
do not consider there is now a need for an updated formal statutory Joint Area Action Plan to guide the
future planning of the airport and its surroundings.
We consider that the Local Plan should contain a section and policy or policies for the development and growth of LSA. We support a combination of Options 2 and 3:
i) Policy Supporting Development of London Southend Airport
In accordance with national policy, there should be a clear policy expressing support in principle of LSA’s
growth and development, subject to the normal local environmental safeguards, including noise, air quality and transport being acceptably addressed and mitigated in any new proposals. We would envisage the Local Plan defining the boundary of the airport and supporting development and redevelopment within the boundary of facilities that support the airport’s operation, growth and development. The policy would refer to the updated masterplan being prepared by LSACL which would be used to guide development of the airport.
This is the most common approach adopted by other planning authorities which contain a commercial
airport in their area.
Any proposals for development at the airport that would require the alterations to the current terms of the Section 106 agreement, would require the agreement of both Rochford and Southend Councils.
Therefore cooperation on the revised policy is essential.
We would be keen to engage with both Councils on the drafting of this policy and supporting text.
ii) Policy on Airport Related Parking
We consider it would be appropriate for a policy to be included in the Plan that airport related parking should only permitted within or immediately adjacent to the airport boundary. This is an approach that a
number of local authorities have adopted, and has been found to be sound and justified at local plan
examinations. In particular, it is the approach that recognises that whilst many passengers will drive to the
airport, it reduces the length and number of journeys by avoiding passengers parking more remotely and having to take extra journey’s via shuttle buses or valet parking operatives.

Response to Question 28 Future of London Southend Airport and Q52 (Transport Connections)
Question 52 of the Consultation asks where improvements could be made to transport connections and what could be done to improve connectivity.
Access to the London Southend Airport Rail Station
We consider that the Local Plan should consider how access to LSA’s rail station could be made more
convenient for local residents. At the present time a number local residents walk to the station, but the
route to the station, particularly from the residential areas to the east of Southend Road could be made shorter and more direct if an access was provided to the east side of the station through the “green buffer” (currently protected by policy ENV6 of the Joint Area Action Plan). It is recognised that such an improvement would also probably require the extension of a parking control schemes to prevent ‘fly parking’.
We consider the new local plan presents a timely opportunity to review whether the “green buffer” land
east of the railway could be more effectively used in connection with the railway and the airport, whilst
retaining and potentially enhancing the quality and effectiveness of the buffer for local residents. This site
could for example provide an excellent opportunity for improved local bus connectivity / interchange to the railway station and airport. Planned and designed in a sensitive way, and with higher quality landscaping, the buffer could be enhanced, whilst at the same time facilitating improved connectivity.

Taking the easiest section first Green and Blue Infrastructure , via the RCCT I have along with the CHA ( I am a trustee of the CHA) and Angela Hutchinson raised the current issues of water safety on our rivers. Not only are we really concerned about issues afloat but the now have regard to an asset of the “Coastal Foot Path”. No real thought has been made for those who walk the path for leisure but don’t really realise the dangerous state of some section which are no longer maintained by the Environmental Agency. We have a coastline made up of mainly mud flats and deep inlets, the rivers have a fast flowing currents and are narrow and have areas of deep dangerous mud flats. Many sections are in areas of difficult access by road if there is an incident, being a long way from population areas, some areas don’t have good mobile phone coverage.
I believe there is a 106s Charge for new estates and new builds which concerns developments near to protected areas. I don’t know much about this but I think its been brought into play at South Woodham Ferries on a new estate extension. This looks like a conflict of ideas, in one case give the right to roam, in the other charge for it via the 106 system.
Just looking at one area of the “Green and Blue Infrastructure” it appears the foot path around the RSPB site at Wallasea Island is incorrect, they have made islands by breaching the sea wall in 3 places thus its not as shown continuous? RSPB also are changing policy to start charging for carparking. Thus limiting access to non-member general public, who will pay once but a good percentage won’t pay twice? Access to that area will be heavily restricted and to reach the much advertised and subsidised “Beagle Platform” you will have to pay? Thus “verge parking” like many other access points will be the order of the day. Small villages such as Canewdon, Paglesham, South Fambridge have access to the rivers but no parking. Bus services are no existent. Theory is sound but in practice something has yet to be thought through.

Turning to employment, this would possible be best connected to transport as well. As I said in my reply this area has a net figure of around 75% of the working population moving out for work each day. A census / population study many years ago showed this and the trend has grown. The only hold back is the Covid pandemic factor, but latest TfL figures for use of their systems show we are beginning to migrate back to London with workers.
Thus we have to make available if you are to progress with more housing a good supply of cheap day commuter parking or reliable surface transport to bring you near to the main transport hubs, so people can use the new invigorated transport systems to carry on their journeys. Park and ride would be a boon but not just to town shopping centres but industrial and out of town shopping areas, in many cases over the borders into Basildon, Castle Point and Southend.
We no longer are a growth area of industrial/ commercial concerns. We have in Rochford possibly 2 or 3 main employers of over 150 people , we have very few official business parks for small to medium companies. As said the industrial areas around Cherry Orchard Way were on one side to become a excellence of Avionics or Medical research but that’s gone and its heading for low tech warehousing employing far few. The original proposed “Enterprise Centre” is no more. The Toomey’s site originally was at its western edge designated for small to medium sized units for small companies, no more? Cllr Webster a once leader of RDC said we are coming a dormitory area and that has manifest its self. But for some of the population to get from Wakering to the Fairglen Intersection can take over an hour in the commuter rush. To get from the never ending of proposed expansion of Canewdon, it takes some 25 mins to get into the stations of Hockley and Rochford, with very limited cheap parking on arrival.
Many years ago, we as the FSB, were asked to comment on many proposals and to suggest our own. Sadly the strength of the various Business Representative Organisations has gone. But I am glad to see at least one of my suggestions placed at that time for a new commercial park has been taken up of late and placed at the junctions of the A127 and A130, this leads to further developing an area each side of the old A130 and A127 which is on the fringe of the residential area stopping heavy transport entering our area. But we still have areas such as Foulness, Baltic Wharf, Shoeburyness and the airport needing a sensible routing to their destinations for heavy lorries. The route to the hopefully expanding Baltic Wharf needs desperate up grading throughout. The number of movements per day on just this section makes this a real safety issue as well as it’s the same route an anticipated 100,000pa visitors to the RSPB site. The route at this moment suggested uses one of the most congested roads in the area Ashingdon Road, passes 4 schools and its proposed additional housing developments feeding into it. It crosses 5 roundabouts to get down to the A127. You can’t widen it, playing with roundabouts and junction is a short term cheap fix.

Additional mass housing or just infills just brings more issues as many have discussed and this become an endless discussion on infrastructure. Using out of town experts is not always the answer, they may have grand plans and have used them else where but they don’t understand the demographics of the locality.

RE: Site ref CFS023 and COL38

I am a resident of Malvern Road, Hockley and I'm writing to object to the RDC's updated plan named above, in particular to the sites referenced above.

1. There is absolutely no infrastructure to take any more new homes - its a joke! Today, the roads were totally gridlocked in Hockley from before the railway bridge (Greensward Lane) through to the Spa roundabout and the B1013 was gridlocked all the way to the junction of Thorpe Road, Hawkwell. I don't know what the congestion was but there is only one way in/one way out of Hockley. It was ridiculous. Our children need to get to school on time.

2. The Highways/pavements have potholes everywhere and the road that goes under the bridge always needs filling/repairing due to the current amount of traffic. That road under the bridge is extremely small and doesn't cater for the size of modern day cars. It is the only way in and out through Hockley. Infrastructure first! Highways are not being dealt with now ie repairs/maintenance - whats going to happen when theres more houses, heavy lorries and more traffic? A farce.

3. There's traffic congestion during rush hours/school run times currently - the B1013 is always congested at these times.

4. The small roundabout at Spa Road is dangerous as there are 5 roads that join it and its a really small roundabout.

5. With regards to the proposed development behind Malvern Road and Harrogate Drive, Hockley - the following are my objections:

(a) Under Government legislation, Green Belt land should be protected. Green Belt boundaries should only be altered where exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and justified. Under the Spatial documents, there is no such justification.

(b) The Ancient woods would be disturbed. The roots of trees would be damaged as they extend three times the height of the tree. This is not acceptable. It would also affect ground stability/drainage.

(c) The turning at Harrogate Drive, Hockley is a very sharp turn and not only will it cause accidents, it will cause congestion to already congested roads. The traffic generated would be huge due to the number of houses proposed. Highway safety is a big issue.

(d) The amount of housing proposed would cause huge amount of noise and disturbance and the density of buildings would cause the current infrastructure to collapse. There are no GP appointments, hospitals at max capacity, schools are full, traffic is awful at school times, parking is an issue and affects traffic flow.

(e) Current highways are not maintained - lots of potholes and the highways are generally not in line with the size of modern day cars, especially under the railway bridge in Hockley.

(f) The road in Harrogate Drive needs building as its currently a dirt road. Utilities would need to be laid and the disruption caused to traffic on Greensward Lane would be huge. We have a secondary school on Greensward Lane and school buses. How are we to get our children to school?

I remember a month or so ago the road outside Riverside Nursery & Garden Centre had closed for works to take place and Greensward Lane was gridlocked all the way to Ashington. This was early in the morning.

Please, the infrastructure really needs improving in terms of highways, GPs, dental surgeries, schools etc etc.

Whilst I appreciate the need to meet targets, Hockley is definitely NOT the place to start building without infrastructure being improved first now. Our highways need attention.

Thank you for your time. I really hope you understand the upset and anger the current residents feel.