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

Comments on Land Allocated
RE: CFS192 / CFS260D / CFS260T

I strongly object to the above areas being allocated for housing under the spatial plan.
This area is part of a small village which has existed since the days of the Doomsday book with a Saxon church.
1. There is a tip road and tip servicing Southend across the area.
2. The complete lack of infrastructure is obvious. The roads in this area are 'unclassified', narrow in places and some have no pavements. This would not support the amount of traffic in any new development.
Several full school buses take children to the nearest secondary school in Rochford approximately 10 miles away. The local public transport is abysmal, nothing on Sundays and only 2 hourly during the day. There is no train service or 'A' roads in this area to get anywhere quickly for work etc. Any development would jam up this road. It is a country road not designed for this.
3. These fields lie on a FLOOD PLAIN with drainage problems already. The pumping station in Kimberley Road has already caused flooding problems as it can't cope.
4. The areas has had 400 houses built right on its borders in the past few years (Barrow Hall Road and Star Lane estates) with no infrastructure improvements. There are no doctors or dentists, minimal shops, no social outlet except the pub in this area.
5. There is already a lack of primary school provision. Great Wakering and Barling schools are full and the latter is a small country school.
6. This is a loss of A1 farming land and GREEN BELT. Any building would cause grievous harm to the wildlife and environment.
7. There is no real employment except farming. Most residents need a car to drive to work so these houses would cause mayhem on the small narrow road.

In summary, anymore building would ruin the village way of life and character forever. It would double the population and is unsustainable. It would cause environmental and flooding problems being built on a flood plain too close to rivers and water. This is too much development in a small village and too many for local peoples needs anyway as there is no employment for the young therefore forcing more vehicles onto country roads and harming the environment.

This is totally the wrong area for any development.

CFS064

The roads on Betts Farm, Hockley and ALL local roads are already congested and causing pollution and damaging our health without adding more large developments. The infrastructure has not kept pace with developments, try getting a doctor's appointment or a place in schools. It is about time that we looked at restricting the majority of future development to brownfield sites on sites of less benefit.

I object to this field site CFS064 being used for housing for reasons:

The infrastructure has not kept pace with developments in this area, i.e. a wait for doctors appointments, crowded classrooms, care homes and NHS staff all struggling.

This is green belt land which is farmed on a regular basis.

The local roads are congested and in bad repair with volume of traffic trying to get to schools, colleges and work.

CFS064

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

It is green belt and has always been farmed.

The field is surrounded by 3 small ancient woods which would be badly affected by houses being built.

The field is an important wildlife habitat and supports many native species.

The field has a locally important footpath running around the perimeter which is well used by recreation walkers.

The B1013 would have more traffic using it. At the moment it is already put under strain by the amount of traffic using it.

Roads on the Betts Farm Estate are already used by the existing residents and any increase in traffic would cause more pollution and damage our health.

The local schools are very full and no extra school places would be made available if this housing is built.

It is alongside of the existing school field and would cause extra pollution to the school children.

The Dr's surgeries are already overloaded and getting an appointment is not easy without extra households.

RE: CFS064 being used for housing

The field is Green Belt being farmed regularly.
The road entrance would impact on Buckingham Road residents, the B1013 is already a problem for getting around and is at capacity.
The footpath around the field is well used for recreation by walkers.
The field is an important habitat for wildlife and supports many local species.
The field is surrounded by three smaller woods which would be affected by a housing development.
The local doctor's surgery is already difficult to get an appointment.
The local school children would suffer from more pollution from more traffic and they are already full.
Access to the site is not an easy one to get into the site.

Options 3a & 3b would definitely be more sensible.

The roads in Rayleigh are already congested with queues on side roads and main roads, such as London Road. How will we cope with more houses, cars, commercial transport etc? Has any provision been made for public transport to alleviate traffic jams?

Getting a doctor's appointment is already very difficult. How many doctor's surgeries are planned for and where are the doctors coming from? New roads, clinics, schools and shops will also be necessary.

We prefer options 3a & 3b.

If the housing is going to be around Rayleigh - where are the new roads, schools, doctors, clinics, shops?

The roads through Rayleigh are at present all congested and new housing will only make it worse! And roads local to and including Station Crescent are becoming like main roads. Has provision of public transport been planned for?

Dear Sirs

We have looked at the proposed sites for development and are concerned that it seems as though Rayleigh will be at least a third bigger than it is presently, with, we guess if recent developments are anything to go by, few properties that first time buyers like our grandchildren would be able to afford.

Surely it would be better to build new developments away from existing towns and villages with new facilities purpose built for the amount of dwellings rather than stretching the resources which are already not coping with demand.

As there are constant traffic jams through the centre of Rayleigh particularly bad at peak times earning it the dubious reputation of having extremely bad air quality it makes us fearful of the health of Rayleigh residents if this development was to take place.

We understand that in the previous plans for development - Allocates DPD Reg. 25 it was stated that there would be public parkland providing a buffer between the built development and the A1245, but this proposal shows large areas, probably containing over 1000 dwellings right up to the A1245.

We fail to see how these proposals would enhance or conserve the natural and historic environment. Indeed, we feel that once dwellings are built near to them it would have the opposite effect of encroaching on them and eventually swallowing them up. Hence we do not support the demolition of The Mill, a recreational building, for more apartment blocks.

it would be very unlikely that the residents of these developments would bring new life to the High Street and other existing commercial properties as the queues of traffic to get into the town and parking fees would make the choice of shopping in out of town where parking is free would be much more attractive.

We both agree that Rayleigh is a lovely town but are becoming increasingly frustrated with the amount of traffic that runs through it (particularly if there is trouble on the A127 when it becomes a 'rat run'). Recent development has not enhanced the High Street apart from encouraging new eating places. Please don't let it be destroyed forever!

Hambro Hill & Close Residents

RE CFS105

Reasons why this land CANNOT be included in the Local Plan.

1. It was put forward by an agent or developer, not the landowner
- Legal constraints already identified
- Landowner recently had planning application (20/00826/FUL) approved so extremely unlikely to support any development: Change of use of land from commercial to combined agricultural and equine use.
- Site was originally used as part of a landfill tip by the former Rayleigh Urban District Council which ceased around 1960.

2. Metropolitan Green Belt
- Developments must not negatively impact on the environmental quality of the local area, openness of the Green Belt or the character of the countryside.
- Rochford study: 'moderate' rating for Purpose 1 & 'strong' rating for 2 & 3:
- Checks the unrestricted sprawl of built-up areas
- Prevents Rayleigh & Hockley merging into one another
- Assists in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.

3. Grade 1 Agricultural Land
- Successfully farmed family business for over 50 years (wheat, barley and rape crops).
- Fallow agricultural land, equestrian related grazing and woodland.
- Portion diversified for equestrian centre and agricultural barn for storage.

4. Infrastructure/Transport
- Overloaded road with a dangerous junction * poor visibility
- Low bridge impact public transport - no double decker buses
- No cycle paths or means to incorporate one
No pavements near the access road
Public right of way (PROW 298_48) poorly maintained at entrance to the site.

5. Heritage Assessment by Place Services ECC
- Minor Adverse/development of this site will cause harm to a heritage asset
- The Historic Environment Record notes various finds from the pre-historic period

Hambro Hill & Close Residents

RE CFS105

Reasons why this land CANNOT be included in the Local Plan.

1. It was put forward by an agent or developer, not the landowner
- Legal constraints already identified
- Landowner recently had planning application (20/00826/FUL) approved so extremely unlikely to support any development: Change of use of land from commercial to combined agricultural and equine use.
- Site was originally used as part of a landfill tip by the former Rayleigh Urban District Council which ceased around 1960.

2. Metropolitan Green Belt
- Developments must not negatively impact on the environmental quality of the local area, openness of the Green Belt or the character of the countryside.
- Rochford study: 'moderate' rating for Purpose 1 & 'strong' rating for 2 & 3:
- Checks the unrestricted sprawl of built-up areas
- Prevents Rayleigh & Hockley merging into one another
- Assists in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.

3. Grade 1 Agricultural Land
- Successfully farmed family business for over 50 years (wheat, barley and rape crops).
- Fallow agricultural land, equestrian related grazing and woodland.
- Portion diversified for equestrian centre and agricultural barn for storage.

4. Infrastructure/Transport
- Overloaded road with a dangerous junction * poor visibility
- Low bridge impact public transport - no double decker buses
- No cycle paths or means to incorporate one
No pavements near the access road
Public right of way (PROW 298_48) poorly maintained at entrance to the site.

5. Heritage Assessment by Place Services ECC
- Minor Adverse/development of this site will cause harm to a heritage asset
- The Historic Environment Record notes various finds from the pre-historic period

CFS064

Hockley is already at saturation point.
The B1013 was never intended to be used by such heavy traffic, it is becoming like London. We do not have the infrastructure for increased demand, doctors, schools etc.

We live in Hockley to enjoy access to open spaces for recreation, these are being swallowed up, not to mention the impact on wildlife.

Please, please stop ruining our village!

Dear Sir,
Re: Stakeholder: Reference CP15678E. Community Representative No. 29007.

New Local Plan 2021 Consultation. Issues and Options Documents & Statement of Community Involvement and the Spatial Options documents.

We request Rochford District Council to invite the Government Planning Inspector to find that the New Local Plan 2021 must be withdrawn for reasons mentioned below.
In our consideration the Map A, on the basis of the relevant Legislation Guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework is not:
Positively Prepared
Justified
Effective
Consistent with National Policy

There are sufficient clauses in the NPPF, LDF and Localism Act which stipulate that all issues must be considered including Infrastructure and in areas environmentally threatened as shown in the Environment Agency and the Insurance Company data (Flood maps). It is imperative proper assessments be made in accordance with the NPPF regulations such as Flood, Road Network, Proximity to rivers and all issues set out below. Our experience from the current Malyons Lane large development that our SCI will be ignored again unless we have support from our MP Mark Francois and all the Councillors who are continually proud to state they are Community minded.

The Hullbridge Residents Association have viewed the Local Development Framework Evidence Base and note that the contents are a repeat of the documents issued in 2015 as are the documents mentioned above
Along with the accompanying Integrated Impact Assessment.

Section 1. Introduction
1.1 States this is a review document of the original adoption in 2016, now presented in repetition but revised in 2015 and 2017 (for 2021).

We understand the need for additional homes, but we are concerned that ‘Infrastructure is not given priority as stated by our MP Mark Francois and indeed Government directives, particularly the existing infrastructure but continually being ignored.


Stakeholder Ref: CP15678E Community Representative Ref: 29007

Page 1. Clause 1.2

HRA produced and delivered to RDC a 45-page document on the Core Strategy, Land Development Framework (LDF), National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and Localism Act for a development in progress and submitted some 525 issues in the planning documents presented by RDC without a proper response.
The clauses about Community Consultation being important is just a paper exercise to convince the Planning Inspector that the community support all the data produced.

HRA 9 years of experience has shown RDC and Councillors lack of the understanding or interpretation of Community Involvement, proper consultation and transparency, and fear another regretful experience with all sites being put forward for possible development. Having spoken to some Councillors they state that these site will not necessarily be approved to allow planning applications, but past experience does not provide any confidence that the community issues will be taken into account..
We make a plea to the Government Planning Inspector to investigate reasons why the community are ignored in proper consultation.

36 Sites.
We demonstrate our reasons for our rejection of many sites (stated in our document marked “Exhibit B- Issues and Options”) until the subject of the infrastructure (in all aspects- including existing) are reviewed This is an important subject and we extend our Plea to the Planning Inspector to set this review in motion and allow full participation by the Community Representative.

We consider the following clauses of the NPPF and Core Strategy must be applied:

NPFF 3– Core Planning Principles. Pages 1, 5-6, Clauses 1-2, 6-17.
NPPF 4 – Promoting Sustainable Transport.
NPPF 5 – Supporting high quality communications infrastructure. With roads/transport a priority.
NPPF 6 – Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes.
NPPF 7- Requiring Good Design.
NPPF 8 – Promoting Healthy communities.
NPPF 9 - Protecting the Green Belt land.
NPPF 10- Meeting the Challenge of Climate Change, Flooding & Coastal change.
NPPF 11- Conserving and enhancing the future environment.
NPPF Plan Making – Local Plans (p. 37).
NPPF Using a Proportionate evidence base- (p. 38).
NPPF Ensuring Viability and Deliverability- ( p. 41).
NPPF Decision taking – Pre-application engagement & front loading, (p. 45).
Technical Guidance to the NPPF- Flood risk on page 2. Sequential and Exceptional Tests p. 3 to 7.
NPPF - Sequential and Exceptional Tests –

Drainage
Sustainable drainage systems;
We have submitted documents in respect of the existing drainage system needing substantial improvements prior to any links being provided to the new developments and should be part of the necessary required Infrastructure works we have continually highlighted that the present system is not ‘fit for purpose’, but this was ignored. RDC are duty bound to inform ECC (RDC state that this is not their responsibility.


Stakeholder Ref: CP15678E Community Representative Ref: 29007


Page 2.
Clause 1.7 Statement of Community Involvement.
Having been disappointed with the first Statement of Community Involvement document in 2013 and 2016 we take the clause 1.7 on page 2 seriously and look forward to proper ‘consultation’ by RDC, and not use our submission purely as a ‘tick-box’ exercise to prove to the Planning Inspector that the regulations are observed and, our views have been taken into account but we have not seen these issues progressed to amendments in the Local Plan. HRA represent the Hullbridge community and have the right for engagement as stated in the NPPF and the Localism Act.

Clauses 1.8 & 1.9.
A plan indicating 36 additional sites on Map A in Hullbridge along with a further 6 sites not identified on Map A. Please refer to our Exhibit A on pages 14 and 15.

Clause 1.10 is of special interest as it mentions “on-going consultation” at every stage. We did not have the opportunity to discuss ‘The Draft Scoping Report’ which was published on the RDC websites, and the residents, businesses and other ‘stakeholders’ on the RDC mailing list were not consulted (HRA is a Stakeholder and Representative)- continually ignored by RDC- indeed HRA have correspondence relating to this issue that “if we did not like it we should consider litigation’.

Clause 1.14 on page 4 is of special interest to us as we placed emphasis on the Localism Act (2011) with the Managing Director of RDC and were told that the Localism Act was irrelevant. Why is it now more relevant than before? We request this ‘Act’ to be included as it supports Human Rights.

Clause 1.16. Only one ‘drop-in session’ was set up at Hullbridge Community Centre on 24/8/21. The attendance was low, HRA committee had 9 committee members present who asked questions and had responses which do not reflect the issues put forward in this ‘Plea’. One answer took us by surprise, that the Essex Design Guide which we have referred to throughout has been replaced by Rochford own Design Guide. When we consider the reduced staff levels with some unqualified planning staff it leads us to believe that this design guide will be subject to much criticism. We hope the Government Inspector will take this into account.

Planning law requires that “Call for Sites” which falls part of the development plan in accordance with the Regulations Governing Neighbourhood Planning Laws- NPPF 6 - Plans and Strategies – Part 6, Chapter 1, clauses 109 to 113, allows for Neighbourhood Planning – Part 6, chapter 3, clauses 116 to 121., and gives the community the right to Consultation – Part 6, chapter 4, clause 122. We challenge RDC to approve our application for this Neighbourhood Planning Group and a Statutory Consultee status which will also be an asset to the Hullbridge Parish Council. No explanation is given for reasons why we are not allowed to have consultation to give us good reasons why the regulations are not being properly debated and a conclusion found. This attitude denies community skills and professions adequately proven over 9 years of hard work, not acknowledged.

The four principles that follow imply that the core strategy should be relevant, sustainable and ‘Fit for Purpose’ and become part of the NPPF and LDF:
• Positively prepared.
Our observation on the previous Local Plan that insufficient forward planning had been carried in accordance with the Core Strategy which should have been adhered to and we will not be surprised if the same ‘policy’ will prevail. We look forward to the Planning Inspector requesting a coordinated approach and consultation with the community representatives, as the present system is not fit for purpose.


Stakeholder Ref: CP15678E Community Representative Ref: 29007

• Justified.
In view of the aforesaid we do not believe there was any justification to allow more sites to be put forward without clear thinking on assessments being made in respect of the “existing Infrastructure”, and the use of Green Belt land being used instead of Brownfield land and the other issues stated in this document.
The Core Strategy, NPPF and LDF and Localism Act all express that Green Belt land should only be used as a last resort and only under exceptional circumstances, many issues which we have demonstrated have not been addressed sufficiently. Can RDC demonstrate why they are unable to adhere to the rules and regulations designed to safeguard the community.
According to the Localism Act 2011, we have demonstrated that transparency and consultation were lacking with the community. This has to be rectified and included within the proposed Local Plan.
• Effective
The conditions for the development of the 36 Hullbridge sites will not be satisfied for the reasons given above, therefore we consider a complete review of these possible proposed developments and the Core Strategy allows for the community to raise these issues and get into meaningful dialogue with RDC.
• Consistent with National Policy
National policy insists that all the policies stated should be transparent, proper consultation pursued in relations to all the development criteria. We do not believe that proper feasibility studies, risk analysis have been conducted in order to satisfy the requirements of the NPPF and LDF. Most subjects referred to in this presentation will imply reasons for withdrawal, in view of Government directives and regulations listed above.
The Localism Act 2011 Chapter 20. suggested meaningful dialogue with the HRA. Our residents asked what guarantees will be given to HRA that we will be listened to, not merely placing this document on RDC website to satisfy the Planning Inspector requirements. We require RDC Planning/Legal department to clarify.

Clauses 1.18 and 1.19 speaks of ‘community-led planning’ which is of interest to HRA but all our applications and requests for clarification are ignored. We have consistently placed great emphasis on ‘community cohesion’. Which makes for good public awareness. We can produce correspondence to the Parish Council for cohesion in respect to the whole community and help to remove the divisions which exist at present.
HRA have requested support from the Hullbridge Parish Council and indeed our rights should be upheld in accordance with the Localism Act..

Page 5.
Clauses 1.20 and 1.21
How can the RDC ensure that our proposals can be supported for the benefit of the community.
Clause 1.21 Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) and the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) will be prepared to set out the circumstances that the CIL will be applied and the key infrastructure that the CIL will seek to fund. The Council will seek to fund this through a ‘Community levy’. This implies that the RDC are not protecting the community. ECC financial planning administration needs reviewing on the subject of ‘contingencies’ which should apply to all categories of infrastructure and other important categories to allow for future planning, maintenance and improvement.

The Essex County Council document “Greater Essex Growth” states that Greater Essex Growth and Infrastructure Framework 2016 is not listed or discussed. The Executive Summary says that Section 106 and ‘Community Infrastructure Levy’ (CIL) will fall way short of expectations and other Government Funding will be in ‘shortfall’ to the tune of £ Billions (report produced by AECOM) who also produced the RDC “Sustainability Analysis”, please explain why they did not cite this issue.
Stakeholder Ref: CP15678E Community Representative Ref: 29007

HRA study of funding under section 106, particularly to fund the local Clinics (£164k recently) which was put to the NHS and RDC fell short of the required sum in view of the increased population. HRA requested consultation to allow co-ordinated conclusions. No surprise this was ignored by all concerned.
The normal LA practices are that a 10 year plan allowing the income to be divided into categories of funding allowing for contingencies for each element of Infrastructure to satisfy needs as they arise, so the question is what have you done with those budgets, as we keep being informed of shortage of funds, perhaps the auditors are allowed to explain how that money was spent. We ask, under ‘The Freedom of Information Act’ why the Hullbridge infrastructure was allowed to deteriorate over at least 50 years.
HRA object to the IDP and CIL because these should be RDC, ECC and Agency obligations to use the contingency funds and not produce more rules which allow the LA to cover up their own accountability inadequacies and should not be an ‘extra’ burden to the community.
If approved, this will set a precedent for other forms of funding from the communities. The community are concerned by this new statement lacking in the Core Strategy and the Land Development Framework. Can you blame the community for showing concern that LA mismanagement of funds fall to the communities having to make good the shortfall wherever they occur.

Page 9. Item 3.2. 36 Sites additional development Land.
The Land Mass measured and stated in this clause we find is out of date because several hectares have already been built on since 2012 which should have been taken into consideration, thus reducing the Land Mass area. Your review and consultation is necessary and we look forward to open discussions in
accordance with the Localism Act.

Section 3. Please refer to our Exhibit A- Development density comparison on pages 14/15.
The total measure of 36 sites = 124 hectares (approximately) which will provide a capacity of 3720 dwellings at minimum 30 dwellings per hectare. The minimum density of 30/60 dwellings per hectare can provide 3720 to 7440 dwellings.

Boundary Line.
Further examination of the same map A indicates that 30.5% of the land lies in the adjoining Rawreth Parish. Please refer to our Exhibits A and B on pages 14-15 and 16 – 20 consecutively.
The result provides the following information:
In our examination of the New Local Plan Document, we are unable to find any explanation for dealing with this ‘division’. Using our previous submission in relation to the Boundary Line indicated on the Ordnance Survey shown and confirmed by the Local Boundary Commission, our correspondence with Rochford District Council requesting clarification on the Parish Council division and the financial implications, they refused to accept the existence of this Boundary line. At a meeting with the developer, we were informed that RDC will allow Council Tax collected by Hullbridge on behalf of Rawreth Parish. Have RDC made the necessary application to LBC for the necessary changes to the Boundary Line and whether or not Rawreth will be amalgamated with Hullbridge at some future date.
The same principle applies with the Boundary Commission England and the National Planning Policy Framework regulations, again we ask for specific dialogue to satisfy the regulations. One of the Green Belt policy purpose is to prevent neighbouring towns/villages from merging into one, Can RDC explain why they seem to have abandoned this policy.

Page 10. Clauses 3.6 to 3.8, Figures 2 and 3. “Travel to work outflows and inflows”.
The travel patterns have changed since 2011 by about 18% with the increase of population. We request a review of the information being given, affecting transport congestion and lack of proper infrastructure.

Page 11. Clauses 3.9 to 3.12. Employment statistics.
We suggest a review is necessary. What guarantees will the prospective developers give to employ local skills.
Stakeholder Ref: CP15678E Community Representative Ref: 29007

Pages 12 and 13. Our Environment. Clause 3.13
Previous Statements made by the Environment Department, Highways & Water Agencies and the HSE suggesting assessments made in 2011 and 2014 were ‘insufficient’ and all future assessments will also fall short of efficiency with funding being used as an excuse to minimise costs giving rise to lack of obligations to this community and to blame Government pressure to satisfy the development quota being used as an excuse to limit the scale of assessments, thus breaching the clauses in the LDF, NPPF and Localism Act.
The same agencies gave evidence to the Planning Inspector that Hullbridge is a ‘sparsely populated’ area. This can be classified as a false statement knowing that Flood water has been a major concern for many years including surface and foul water discharges onto roads and gardens, due to lack of improved drainage facilities and gardens constantly under water. Further land being put forward for development will exacerbate the infrastructure issue. We are informed that RDC do not keep records of ‘Public health’ issues, any complaints are ignored. Foul sewers are grossly overloaded. A full upgrade of the drainage system has always been overdue. This issue should be investigated rigorously by the RDC and it is their responsibility to inform the ECC.

Page 14. Our Communities.
The Hullbridge population count for 2011 census states a population of 6858. HRA support from the community in 2017 suggests 7000 and in 2019 = 7400.
The current development of 500 homes proves an annual population increase from 2019 to 2023 = 9400 population. The growth in the previous 3 decades (census) indicated an average of 2.2% increase. This indicates an average annual increase of 2% per census. This is contrary to the Core Strategy, LDF and the NPPF and the Localism Act that any increase in population should follow the historical line. Hopes rise for a new climate of close Community Consultation.

Page 15 Table 1. Breakdown of 2011 Population Census.
These possible developments will increase the Hullbridge population (see Exhibit B- Population) to 35,900 which will be close to the present Rayleigh population within 15 to 20 years.

Hullbridge, presently with a ‘village status’ will become a Town with a population probably second only to Rayleigh. The Portfolio Holder (Councillor Ian Ward) stated that the Local Plans have changed and it was now paramount to ‘listen’ and closely ‘consult and engage’ with the community, but most people are sceptical that our voices will be heard, and the necessary amendments put forward by the HRA ‘professionals’ will not be heeded. Hullbridge presently consider all verbal utterances are not considered in favour of the community, and no changes are evident except for many of our issues on planning which HRA had to investigate without any RDC help to satisfy the community q & a meetings.

Clause 3.20 Using HRA figures given above we are unable to reconcile with your statement that “the proportion of residents in all demographic ranges will remain ‘stable’. We advise the RDC to review their information and observe the contents of our Exhibit A and B on pages 14/15 and 16-21 provides the necessary calculation, showing exceptional over-population.

Page 16
Clauses 3.21 to 3.25 needs to be reviewed in respect of the statements made being out of date, as the document is prepared using data prescribed in 2011 without fact-finding surveys being conducted to carry out ‘forward planning’ especially with the owner-occupation criteria becoming financially unreliable. With experience of the Public Finance Initiative (PFI) being suspect it will be necessary to return to Council House Building with participation between Local Government and Housing Associations being a prime ‘home provider’ but all motives are suspect.


Stakeholder Ref: CP15678E Community Representative Ref: 29007

Section 4
Page 17 – Spatial Challenges.
Great emphasis is placed on the laws governing the National Planning Policy Framework. We highlight the following to allow you to respond to the Hullbridge Residents Association.
We request you uphold the clauses requiring Consultation with the community Representative such as the HRA with and allowing replies to issues of importance to the community, before finalising the New Local Plan.

Consultative Objections.
We submit our “Consultative Objections” and conform to the NPPF policy namely – that the Local Authority and the ‘Applicants’ must work closely with those directly affected by their proposals to evolve designs that take account of the views of the community.

Brownfield and Greenfield land.

The allocation DPD Document (Feb 2010)- Discussion & Consultative Document on page 1 states that the Council Statement of Community Involvement is committed to Regulations 25 Public Participation in the preparation of Planning for the District (revised 2017). We ask for the right to be properly consulted on this issue that the allocation document has no brownfield sites identified as given in our Exhibit B.

Section 5.
Page 24. Clause 5.1. Our Vision and Strategic Objectives.
HRA experience gained over 9 years of deliberations over the Hullbridge ‘developments’ and Local Plans, that this has not been a success as the majority of the 185 issues submitted in 2014, not being satisfied, and with alliances formed with other localities the same view is expressed. The fact that you did not respond indicates that we are right on all the issues submitted to you and hope the Planning Inspector will take this into account in respect of all future “Consultation”.
We hope that the Planning Inspector takes into account the atmosphere of distrust by the community.

Clause 5.4 Our current Vision
HRA disagree that what is being prescribed on the Hullbridge Plan will allow the community to have the best quality of life, when there is at least 20 years of disruption to look forward to, which will blight our lives. Whole sale development is taking place with major clauses in the NPPF being disregarded.
A “Considerate Contractor Scheme Notice must be a requirement for all contractors to observe the rules towards the community.

Page 26. Clause 5.10. Rochford District 2037. Our Society
We disagree with the statement made that’ the green infrastructure network across the district has been enhanced to support our population. Many hectares of Green Belt Land are being allowed to be developed disregarding all the clauses which are supposed to protect the Green Belt and Government directives. Articles written by the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) bear witness to the contrary and the community remain sceptical about the final outcome.
The community believe that the homes will be for the over- burgeoning populace of London, not of Essex. We fail to see how you can demonstrate the indigenous population expansion taking priority.

Page 28. Cl. 5.11. Strategic Objective 13. Flood.
Experience gained by the lack of proper assessments on flood, disregarding all the issues provided to you in 2013. Decisions are being made according to financial constraints.


Stakeholder Ref: CP15678E Community Representative Ref: 29007

RDC now have a recipe for disaster in an area naturally susceptible to surface water discharge from the ‘Rayleigh Heights’ about 65m above ground level and surrounding areas of vulnerable Watery Lane.


Page 29. Strategic Priority 5. Climate change.
The Hullbridge community are concerned that the information provided by various Agencies and Insurance Companies that the 1:100 flood incident is flawed and is more likely to be a maximum 1:25 due to Climate change. There is scepticism that the LA will help change the law and this will be detrimental to the community at large. Sea levels have officially been recorded as rising some 150mm above sea level from the beginning of this century and are forecast to rise by 500mm before the end of this century.

Section 6.
Pages 32 to 38. Clauses 6.8 to 6.29. Tables 2 to 4.
Advance notice. Property Insurance.
The potential Property Insurance costs against ‘flood risk’ and ‘subsidence in these areas, can range from £2500 to £5000. per household depending on the risk analysis.
An exercise on Post Codes SS5 reveals that using the ‘Hawkeye’ system determining the level of associated risks such as flood, subsidence etc., the combined results show that in both instances, subsidence is Red, meaning these are perils which will either be excluded or a large excess applied in respect of subsidence – usually £2,500.00 (£1000.00 being ‘Standard’) and for any areas susceptible to flood, without protection barriers or flood defences will increase the Cost Risk to £5,000.00 per property making ‘flood excess’ a priority and no claims accepted by the Insurance Companies if this is applied to development in flood areas.

Page 38 to 40. Clauses 6.29 to 6.33. Homes for purchase and Affordable Homes.
This document was obviously written before the changes which have taken place in the financial industry and Government policies. The change in ‘affordability’ has not been fully considered. We advise you to review and amend this statement accordingly.
How can you demonstrate the ‘affordability’ during this financial climate, which are likely to continue for the next 10 years, irrespective of the incentives given on stamp duty and directives to the lending institutions? Most younger adults will have great difficulty to purchase homes and maintain mortgage payments.

Table 5 Rochford District- Settlement Hierarchy.
We have always had an issue with the infringement of the Green Belt. Most of the present developments recently completed or under construction are being built on Green Belt land disregarding brownfield sites. We suspect that the new Land Development Framework document questions the need to build on the green belt land. Our Exhibit B presents you with our statements on your LDF

Page 45. Clause 6.48. Housing Density Options .
Earlier we provided calculations for the lowest density of development per hectare, It is evident that the option may be for up to 60 homes per hectare which will increase the incentive provided by the Government and risk the long term harmony in the community and will cause even greater strain and stress on the Hullbridge infrastructure and the community.
RDC must take advantage of requesting funds from the Government announcement of £866m funds from the Housing Infrastructure Fund (HIF) to enable the existing Hullbridge infrastructure be brought up to standard, on the grounds that the previous planning regime’s over the last 30 years have been negligent in dealing with the existing infrastructure as suggested on page 6. Clause 1.21.



Stakeholder Ref: CP15678E Community Representative Ref: 29007


Section 8.
Local Highways Capacity and Infrastructure. Clause 8.3 LDF Development Management Submission Document- Section 5- Transport page 73. Improvements to local road network
The only access points to get to Hullbridge is Lower Road and Hullbridge Road. Watery lane should not be considered as a main thoroughfare and we despair that the Essex County Council, Rochford District Council and the Agencies seem to ignore this fact. We want the Planning Inspector to review his statement in the ‘Planning approval’ given in 2014 that RDC consult with HRA on the feasibility for improvement of this Lane, as it is not ‘fit for purpose’.

Highways Risk Analysis.
HRA are concerned that a proper Highways Risk Analysis has not been carried out by the Core Strategy, NPPF and LDF documents. Further consideration must be given for ‘transparency’ as stated in The Localism Act (2011). Recent replacement of 50 years old Gas services emphasises the disruption which
will be caused by both existing and future construction work. County and Local Authorities please take note.

Watery Lane, is in urgent need of improvement and HRA have corresponded with RDC, ECC and all the Agencies showing Watery Lane and Hullbridge Road are identified as traffic congestion points, in clauses 8.13 to 8.15.
We request that RDC/ECC/Agencies contact the SAT NAV services to remove Watery Lane as a general thoroughfare and emphasise this is “weight restricted” and ‘width restrictive’ and speed limits reviewed with adequate signage..
This lane is too narrow for any vehicles over 30 cwt. The lane is without a public footpath making this lane a health and safety issue which needs urgent rectification. HRA suggest that this section of the document should be reviewed, particularly as the Planning Inspector acknowledged HRA argument that Watery Lane is not ‘fit for purpose’, we reject the statement that Watery Lane is NOT part of the “Strategic Highways Network” please review, amend and highlight for the Planning Inspector to view..

Accessibility to Services. Hullbridge has many un-adopted, single lane and unmade roads making access difficult for the Fire, Police, Refuse, Ambulance and general delivery services and will not be suitable for constant construction site traffic for next 20 years a covenant should be inserted to allow the ECC and their Agencies to make urgent contingencies before the matter gets worse as expansion proceeds..

Fire Hydrants. Hullbridge only has 8 Fire Hydrants to serve the whole village, which is considered inadequate for the fire services.


Page 85 - 90. Clause 8.22 to 8.37. Sustainable Travel.
The transport system is being overhauled to reduce the number of buses serving the communities and the frequency, if this carries on, there will be future major problems. Please refer to LDF Allocations Submission Document Page 60 Cl 3.177/178.

Page 87. Clause 8.31 Rayleigh Air Quality.
Reading this clause we are not confident that something will be done to provide good quality air. It was reported in the media, that dangerous levels of nitrous oxide caused by diesel fumes are being recorded in and around the Rayleigh area. Air quality is lacking in both depth and detail which means the RDC ‘evidence base’ on the subject of traffic, is lacking. Please explain your remedy? This pollution has been apparent for many years but ignored. The community now demand action to remedy this issue.

Stakeholder Ref: CP15678E Community Representative Ref: 29007


Page 92 to 96. Clause 8.45 to 8.58. Water and Flood Risk management.
Flood
At times of flood (frequent - 25 times in 5 years), in Watery Lane, has resulted in many accidents, causing ‘gridlock’ to the whole local traffic system in Hullbridge and surrounding areas. Drainage is unable to cope with excess flood water resulting in overflow of excrement and water into roads and gardens and cross-surging foul water and surface water services

Page 96- 98. Clause 8.59 – 8.66. Renewable Energy Generation.
We agree about the ‘renewable energy’ ‘dream’ from all sources and accept there is natural course of events to be taken for the sake of the concerns on Global Environment. It is the political challenges which become the difficult part to address. Perhaps Political will may help.

Page 98-100. Clause 8.67- 8.75. Planning Obligations and Standard Charges.
Local Authorities ignore the observations and pleas made to review and observe the standards laid down by the NPPF, Core Strategy and LDDF to allow ‘proper’ consultation with the community representatives.
The NPPF guidelines on all planning obligations suggest that the 3 tests as set out, must pass:
1 Necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms.
2 Directly related to the development.
3 Fairly and reasonable related in scale and kind to the development.
The community want an action plan to allow meaningful consultation with the community.

Section 9 Supporting Health, Community and Culture.
Page 101- 120. Clauses 9.1 – 9.61. Health Impact assessment- Cl 3.186
We (HRA) brought to the authorities’ attention various anomalies in the financial accountability in assessing the “Contributions” without giving considerations to contingency for increases in inflation and time related uplift. HRA are happy to be consulted in the future.
HRA investigated the Health Provision indicated in Section 106 ‘contributions and concentrated on the sum stated to be for the Riverside Medical Centre on Ferry Road and found the sum stated to be inadequate. We fear the same decisions may be made for the foreseeable future. As HRA have been active on this issue it would be in the interests of all parties to consult and agree a course of action.

Section 10 Protecting and Enhancing our Environment.
Page 121 - Clause 10.1 to 10.4
General planning policy of the NPPF suggests minimising vulnerability and provide resilience to climate change impacts. RDC and ECC must provide a course of actions.

Page 121 – 141. Clause 10.5 – 10.72 Green Belt
We agree the purposes of the NPPF clause 10.7-10.8 in that the 5 purposes of the Green Belt set out to:
1. Check the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas
2. Prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another.
3. Assist in safeguarding the countryside from ‘encroachment.
4. Preserve the setting and special character of historic towns.
5. Assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land ie Brownfield Sites. Inappropriate development. (Page 122. Clause 10.8) Specifically states that the construction of new buildings in the Green Belt is generally considered to be inappropriate development.
The Hullbridge Residents Association respectively request that Rochford District Council adhere to these policies and review the New Local Plan Document. It may be appropriate to classify this as “Special Measures” and allow the intervention of a Planning Inspector to adjudicate.

Stakeholder Ref: CP15678E Community Representative Ref: 29007

Section 11. Detailed Policy Considerations. Pages 142- 165
Page 142. Clause 11.2 Mix of Affordable Homes

In HRA discussions with a developer we were advised that the RDC stated that the Core Strategy and the Land Development Framework were ‘out of date’ therefore some clauses were not applicable.
The same situation applied to discussions when applied to the Localism Act. The Core Strategy and the NPPF are evident in many statements in this new Local Plan document, so, we consider there has been no change in the above main documents, action is necessary.

Page 155. Clause 11.45 Brownfield Sites. HRA have taken into account clauses 11.45/ 46 and taken into consideration that all Brownfield sites must have priority. NPPF paragraph 89 and Policy DM10 on brownfield development should be an over-riding factor when producing these documents. We refer you to the ‘ambitious’ clauses stipulated in the LDF Management Submission Document- Clause 3 page 33- The Green Belt and Countryside – Vision. Short term. The first paragraph stipulates the “openness and character” of the Rochford Green Belt continues to be protected. Constant reference by our MP Mark Francois has been ignored which places him in an awkward position.

Page 164. Contaminated land. Cl 11.77 to 11.81. Specific example of for
Nevendon Yard Breakers Yard, Lower Road, Hullbridge. Proposed 90 units.
This site is contaminated over a 70 year period and the costs of eradication will be high. The outline application plans are presently delayed for that reason while a historical document is being prepared.

LOCALISM ACT 2011 chapter 20. Item 2.1 (5th bullet point)
The ‘Localism Act’ was brought into force in 2011, the community did not have the opportunity to apply the clauses of this act. This act stipulates that the Local Community has: the ‘right to challenge’ (Part 5, Chapter 2, Clauses 81 to 86).


End of Appeal For Withdrawal.

Before any further property buildings occur in Wakering, it is imperative you address basic infrastructure. The roads into and through Wakering are totally inadequate. There is one small supermarket which is situated at the narrowest part of the High Street, lack of parking, if you live in Little Wakering, Barling or to the far west of the village you have to drive. The bus service is ridiculous, 45 minutes to get into nearest town (Southend) as they do a scenic tour, therefore majority drive. The schools have a waiting list, the Doctors are struggling to cope.

Due to having to drive to access Doctors/Schools/shops/work it is totally against any Global Warming aims.

The field behind me this year for the first time in 22 years was waterlogged, this will not improve with the climate forecast of wetter weather.

I chose to live in a semi-rural area and obviously do not want to live within a housing estate in a town, along with many residents.

You must respect that Wakering is 'the end of the world' and there is only one direction people can travel. It's a traffic jam at certain times of the day to actually 'escape'.
It's a verified fact that more accidents occur on rural roads (60mph limit) which if you are going to Rochford are the roads used. Accidents will get worse.

Countryside is imperative for peoples wellbeing, many people visit the area from Southend/Leigh/Shoebury to walk and enjoy the fresh air. It is one of the closest areas, to the high density housing of Southend.

If another 1953 tidal incident occurs, the numbers of deaths will be higher. There has been a 'close call' about 10 years ago, that it very nearly breached flood gates & did go over the seawall leaving seaweed on the top.

In summary you need to go to Parliament & strongly explain, this part of Essex is unable to build the quota required.

The maps were misleading – they overlap each other and the name of ‘stonebridge and sutton’ includes parts of Great Wakering and Barling yet there was a separate map? So my comments refer to both these areas as a whole:

Roads cannot cope as it is – even if you built a larger or new road the country lanes will still have an increase in traffic which they cannot already cope with. Cars are often in ditches and that is now so would only get worse. Heavy lorries cause blocked roads so emergency vehicles often have trouble getting in and out of the village.

Sutton road is gridlocked every day most of the day so totally unsuitable for any more development. The chaos and disruption the barrow hall estate has on residents already.
In 1953 wakering was flooded – this will happen again, and will increase with global warming so unsuitable for development. Many homes here suffer already from surface water flooding and if more development were to come forward this will only get worse.

Loss of open space, increase in poor air quality, loss of wildlife, impact on eco-system, loss of farmland (at a time when we may need more local produce) loss of farming employment.

More people will mean more crime, more anti-social behaviour, more noise, more car emissions which will all have a negative impact on residents and their health.
If you have to build it needs to be somewhere north of the district near the A127 or rail links – not in a village or where roads cannot already cope (can cannot be improved)

As a resident of Great Wheatley Road, I object to zoning for development of CFS077 particularly and CFS121 and CSF087 because:-

1/ AIR QUALITY and carbon monoxide levels in our part of Rayleigh is already much worse than other areas.

2/ WILDLIFE THREAT to hunting grounds in the zones green belt of existing badgers, bats, owls and deer living in protected trees/ hedgerows. This should be considered for Wildlife Protection Status not destroyed.

3/ PHYSICAL & MENTAL HEALTH of existing residents (some with asthma) who have invested in this historic and traditional/ tranquil neighbourhood should not be disregarded.

4/ INFRASTRUCTURE is at maximum capacity this side of Rayleigh regarding traffic congestion. Cycling and walking is already dangerous on narrow and uneven pavements and roads invariably obstructed by parked vehicles.

Thank you for considering my objection.

Re: Consultation on New Local Plan Spatial Options

I am writing to you to give my feedback on the local plans for Hullbridge and the surrounding areas.

I have been a resident of Hullbridge for over twenty years, and in this time have seen lots of change and development not only to Hullbridge, but to the surrounding areas but during this time there have not been many changes of upgrades to the local infrastructure.

I believe building more houses within Hullbridge would cause a negative impact to our village and our way of life, as follow:

• There will be more harm to green belt land in our local areas which should stay as green belt and be protected for future generations.
• More properties will be at risk of flooding and drainage risks and by 2040 Hullbridge will have a significant proportion of the village below sea level.
• The impact of accessible open spaces and amenities for local people of all ages.
• Loss of footpaths and bridleways which many people currently use and enjoy
• Only the First Bus group operates a bus service out of Hullbridge which is the number 20 and only runs every 15 minutes
•

I look forward to hearing from you.

Re: Consultation on New Local Plan Spatial Options

I am writing to you to give my feedback on the new local plans for Hullbridge and the surrounding areas.

I have been a resident of Hullbridge for over twenty years and in this time have seen lots of change and development not only to Hullbridge but to the surrounding areas, but during this time have not seen many changes or upgrades to the local infrastructure.

I believe building more houses within Hullbridge would cause a negative impact to our village and our way of life, as follow:

• There will be more harm to the green belt land in our area, which should stay as green belt and be protected for future generations.
• More properties will be at risk of flooding and draining risks, and by 2040 Hullbridge will have a significant proportion of the village below sea level
• The impact on natural habitats of wild animals and birds being reduced or even lost
• The lack of accessible open spaces and amenities for people of all ages
• Loss of footpaths or bridleways which many people in Hullbridge and surrounding areas currently enjoy and use
• Only the First Bus group operates a bus service out of Hullbridge, which is the number 20 and only runs every 15 minutes. This was recently confirmed by a First Bus Group representative in an interview with the Echo Newspaper. If the bus is delayed or cancelled, which can happen and result in delays to people’s journeys. First Group have recently withdrawn the school bus service to Sweyne Park School. This has caused lots of problems and has had a detrimental impact to children/families that rely on this service and resulted in more traffic on the roads due to parents having to take their children to school. Surely this is not good for air pollutions within the area.
• The existing community infrastructure needs to be considered, with poor road links within the area and only one main road in and out of Hullbridge (Hullbridge Road/Lower Road). When these roads are restricted due to road works or quite recently where Hullbridge Road was partly closed completely due to a sink hole in the road and also Watery Lane being closed due to maintenance, the only way out of Hullbridge was via Hockley which caused chaos in both areas and resulted in long delays. People struggle to easily get doctor’s appointments at the local surgery. The school in Hullbridge has had to increase the yearly intake to accommodate new children moving into the area and local children are not always able to get a place within the school. Hullbridge only has one small play park for the children to use, whereas other areas have larger play areas and more leisure facilities.
• Due to the number of new houses already being built it now takes over 20 minutes to get out of Hullbridge either along The Hullbridge Road/Rawreth Lane or Watery Lane. The same applies in the evening when the traffic queues are just as long.
• The preservation of our rural coastal village outlook will be lost.

I believe by not building these houses in the Hullbridge, you will preserve our natural wildlife sites, local geological sites, and sites of specific scientific interest i.e., Hullbridge Meadows and Hullbridge Foreshores.

Over development of this area, has not only impacted residences of Hullbridge, but surroundings area as well. It is well known that roads such as London Road in Rayleigh and Crown Hill in Rayleigh are heavily congested at certain points during the day and at the weekend and trying to get through Rayleigh to Rayleigh Weir or back from the Rayleigh Weir to Rayleigh High Street at the weekend is awful and as my point above mentions is not good for air pollution within this area.

My suggestions would be that the council builds all new housing for this area within one location, possibly North of Southend where they could also consider including a school. Southend also has better transport links with two main railway lines going into the area and more bus routes available. This has been done at Beaulieu Park near Chelmsford which also now has a new school from preschool age up to secondary school and I believe will have a train station added in the future. This area is much larger than Hullbridge and can accommodate such development.

I look forward to hearing from you.

To Planning Policy Officer ---

It has come our attention that RDC is considering allowing the building more houses with access
along the road B1013, can you inform us where this large amount of new traffic going.
This road is overused by all sorts of traffic, new traffic volumes will just make the current position
even worse. Your prompt response to this mail is awaited with much interest.

Thank you for this consultation and your call for comments.

I am a resident of Great Wakering (see address below).

I am AGAINST further housing developments in this area for the following reasons:

1. SEWERS
This village has been under constant expansion since the early 1980s. The Taylor Wimpey development bounded on two sides by Southend Road and Star Lane has only recently been completed and two further developments, one to the south of the Hight Street and the other bounded by Barrow Hall Road, Little Wakering Road and Southend Road are currently under development. The sewerage from these developments is putting great pressure on the original main sewer which is notoriously prone to blockages. From what I’ve been told by engineers working on these systems, these sewers are at their maximum capacity.

2. ROADS
We have only two roads serving the village and our existing roads are narrow and difficult to navigate. The developments listed in point 1 are already causing significant pressure on these roads. No further development should be considered without a thorough overhaul of roads infrastructure.

3. SCHOOLS
The existing schools are already fully subscribed.

4. CRIME
The area is already poorly served by the police service; the local police station was closed many years ago. More people will mean more crime.

5. TRANSPORT
The village is poorly served by public transport and has no railway station. The area is bounded by water on two sides which forces people onto the existing roads to travel to work or to nearby Southend-on-Sea. These roads are already considered hazardous by locals and further traffic can only make them more hazardous.

6. VILLAGE LIFE
Traditional village life is very much valued by residents but this way of life is already being compromised by continuous housing developments. The proposed developments would swamp the village and turn it into a town with the loss of the village community.

7. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
We are fortunate to have a viable environment full of wildlife and other biodiversity. Giving over land to housing development can only be detrimental to our biodiversity and wildlife.

SUMMARY
I have seen this once quiet village groan under the pressure of constant housing developments over the past 40 years with little or no commensurate improvements to infrastructure. I believe that the current infrastructure is at full capacity and cannot take the pressure of further housing development.

I have given up - having spent about 2 hours trying to work out/make sense of how to reply to your huge consultation.

I think this is one of the worst documents I have even seen put out for consultation. Perhaps that is the idea so people do not reply....

Here are my objections :

1. Our ROADS ARE SEVERE and cannot take ANY MORE TRAFFIC - people do not give up their cars and walk/cycle.

1a If you are going to build more houses, build them where they link immediately into the A127/A13 so people are not travelling through our towns and villages to get to the main link roads. The new housing in Hall Road and Hullbridge and Rawreth Lane makes sense - people go directly onto the main roads and away from the towns - I appreciate new houses must be built but keep them close to the main junctions so that the cars get away quickly.
Not stuck in traffic jams in Sutton Road, Ashingdon Road or speeding through villages and roads too heavy with traffic already, Stambridge Road, Brays Lane as an example.

2. Stambridge Infants and Juniors might be a good place to send your children - then they will need to go to SENIOR SCHOOL
SO KING EDMUND SCHOOL - YET MORE TRAFFIC ON THE ASHINGDON ROAD. WHICH CANNOT HANDLE ANY MORE BECAUSE IT IS SEVERE.

3. You mention that Great Stambridge is the most scenic of all the areas in SS4. Yet you are now thinking of adding extra housing, taking away our green belt. I'm sure Hullbridge was a nice quiet village once. We have more picturesque areas of beauty and many cyclists use our roads at the weekends for a bike ride. Where will they go when all the green fields are gone? Just built up areas everywhere? Concrete jungle?

4. THE PEOPLE OF ESSEX DO NOT WANT ROMFORD - THEY WANT ROCHFORD.

5. Stambridge Road CANNOT TAKE ANY MORE TRAFFIC, it was not built for the volume of traffic it currently takes, yet alone more. Our house shakes with the volume of traffic travelling at 60 mph through our village - not a minute goes by without a car now. Speeding 25 years ago nearly killed our son, crossing the road by The Royal Oak, hence the path was extended, 25 years later this road is even more hazardous for all villagers.

6. Planes going over our heads at 2am and 4am and speeding dangerous traffic not to be recommended to new home owners.

WE DO NOT HAVE THE INFRASTRUCTURE TO COPE

300+ CALLS TO GET THROUGH TO A DRS SURGERY IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. SCHOOLS AT CAPACITY.
ROADS SEVERELY CLOGGED UP AND CLASSED AS SEVERE - ONE LORRY UNLOADS IN SUTTON ROAD THE WHOLE OF ROCHFORD
COMES TO A STANDSTILL. - NOT GOOD ENOUGH ROCHFORD DISTRICT COUNCIL.

7. I would have thought it was fairly obvious the sentiment of the people of the area to the proposed Bloors Houses in Oxford Road, how people feel about more houses in this area. We simply cannot cope with any further housing.

8. RUSH HOUR TRAFFIC IS HORRENDOUS - TRAVEL ON WEDNESDAY 21 SEPTEMBER FROM WICKFORD TOWN CENTRE TO STAMBRIDGE TOOK AN HOUR - SITTING IN A HOT CAR JUST TRYING TO GET FROM WICKFORD TOWN TO RAWRETH LANE, YOU ONLY NEED TO LOOK AT HULLBRIDGE INTO ROCHFORD TO SEE WHAT HAPPENS WHEN NO NOTICE IS TAKEN OF CAPACITY OF OUR ROADS, TOTAL NIGHTMARE.

9. WE DO NOT WANT TO BECOME A SUBURB OF LONDON.

10 PLEASE RESUBMIT YOUR DOCUMENT QUESTIONS IN SMALLER CHUNKS SO PEOPLE CAN ACTUALLY MAKE SENSE OF IT.

NEW LOCAL PLAN: SPATIAL OPTIONS CONSULTATION PAPER: 2021

Rochford in 2021- District Profile p.12
Our Social Characteristics

Rochford expected to shift to higher age groups. Housing affordability is an important issue. "..economically active individuals likely to decrease..fewer residents between ages 18-70..".

This is due to :-

Sale of Council houses, by Government dictat in 1980s. Said homes were for 2 classes: 1. Families who could never afford own homes; 2. Families unable to afford initially, but with cheap rent, could ultimately save deposit to buy own home.

Developers don't want to build "affordable", but have built eg luxury flats and "executive" mansions bought by "nouveau riches", usually middle aged, whose children long grown up and moved on. Thus unwealthy economic age groups with their children had to move to more affordable districts, hence current and possibly future age imbalance.

Many homes have been demolished to accommodate above expensive dwelling dwellings. Wealthy Londoners have sold up and moved to eg Rochford District to buy similar for less.

Cultural Characteristics

Most of them noted in Rayleigh and Rochford. But there are listed and heritage building in Hockley and Hawkwell and Ashingdon. There are the 3 mediaeval churches also. Many heritage items in said area have been demolished to accommodate flats and expensive homes. an example was at 1 Southens Road, formerly Blacks Farm, earliest from 17th century, on Local List. Developer planned replacement with flats: a former official at Planning Policy said Government now "frowned on" Local List. (Other councils claimed no knowledge of said Government dictat and didn't plan to abolish their Local List.) Plan for 13 flats was refused but no mention made of the house, demolition of which was included in application. Once house was demolished, said officer said Government now approved of Local Lists. New List omits several Hockley items on the earlier one. Many Hockley area heritage items have gone same way.

Environmental Characteristics

As you say 40% of Rochford area is at flood threat and the coastline also. This would preclude the area so designated as unsuitable for further development. It is known that insurance companies refuse to include cover against flood risk for homes in flood risk areas.

Economic Characteristics

The 2 main rail lines from Southend to London, one passing through Rochford District, are helpful for commuter traffic to London and for cargo purposes. It is risky that some airlines have withdrawn from Southend Airport. The nuclear station at Bradwell could be more of a risk than asset. Present road connections have served well in the past, but are getting inadequate now and won't support extensive future development.

Draft Strategic Priorities/Objectives for 2050 p.21

Strategic Priority 1: Meeting need for homes/jobs in the area

This states need to meet community need, working with South Essex neighbours, using already developed land first.

But increasingly, Londoners eg are selling for high prices and getting similar or bigger, for less, down here - eg new development in Hall Road (former agricultural land).

South Essex neighbours - be careful how much of their housing number needs aren't pushed into Rochford District.

Prioritising use of previously developed land first. Example - so-called "garden grab" - homes not in Green Belt have been called "land". Where two or three are adjacent - they are grabbed for "executive" houses (mansions), or luxury flats, others finally forced to move for price needing mortgage to move, when they don't want anyway. Others not moving are punished with 'executive' (big) development may be south of them - impacting them, so they become unviable.

Strategic Objective 2

"affordability" - as elsewhere, council houses were sold off in 1980s under "Right to Buy". Developers don't want to do affordable - one told me that at a meeting. Those builders with large estates to develop (requiring a percentage 'affordable') try to evade the rules, perhaps saying more than one firm involved.

"ageing population" - care homes are costly, the old don't want them. If pressured, their homes are sold off to pay for them.

Strategic objective 4

"accelerated growth" - avoid over-substantial Area Action Plans threatening retail centres - with jobs and businesses then lost. Southend Airport may struggle to survive from impact of Covid.

Strategy Options

Hierarchy of Settlements

Re Fig.14, Hockley is equivalent to Hawkwell and Ashingdon - village. Rochford is a market town.

Growth scenarios

Before any substantial growth can occur, a new motorway would be needed for Rochford District to overcome inevitable inadequacies of eg. Southend, Main, Greennward, Ashingdon and other B and C roads, which is doubtful unless a new large settlement occurs in Green Belt for most new housing-? behind Rpchford, to cross River Crouch somewhere near Hullbridge - unlikely and probably not tolerated by staff or residents.

Masterplan for towns etc centres - eg Hockley Area Action Plan more than a decade ago, involving replacement of some existing and erecting large supermarket and may be major store (? Unneeded with on-line shopping). Plan would have involved loss of businesses, jobs. It was unacceptable to traders and residents - a more limited HAAP was agreed.

Significant new community facilities - schools, primary care. These have been promised by developers of large estates, who then found excuses for not doing.

Re 'Important Note' - I'm relieved proposals aren't decided. Much gone already.

Planning for housing growth

HELLA 2020 identifies supply of 4,300 homes planned for, including sites with planning permission. Unfortunately some such have been overcome by huge mansion developments adjacently.

Planning for economic and retail growth

Completed Area Action Plans have provided enough retail space.

Levels of growth needed to deliver infrastructure

Section 106 doesn't always work. As earlier, huge new estate in hall Road (for which farming land sacrificed) developer promised new primary school, GP surgery, then found reasons not to do, causing pressure on existing.

Spatial Strategy Options

1. Urban intensification

There is no available space in any centres near stations. First issue of HAAP proposed building on parking area near Hockley Station, which would have been a mistake and didn't happen. Any intensification done already has often sacrificed existing dwellings, sometimes of heritage character. Others would be threatened. Blocks of flats have done likewise. Another proposal for latter is underway in Southend Road, Hockley, with potential disastrous results for many adjacent homes and would exacerbate a serious traffic problem.

2. Urban extension Would sacrifice Green Belt

Option 4

Your comments at CONS say it all.

Owners of house/garden, to protect themselves from building predators, obtained consent for 2 small homes additionally to their own - just resulted in massive adjacent demolition, replaced by huge dwellings, removing daylight and making light pollution.

Q6 and 7 I cannot agree to any of the 4. Only solution is small dwellings added to properties with large curtilages. This could still give problems re traffic access, neighbour resistance. problem is developers don't want "affordable", only mass demolition replaced by huge "executive" houses, block of luxury flats, making neighbours unviable. Mass sale of council houses -Right to Buy- 1980s was unfortunate.

Climate change and resilient environments

Development agreed in our district must be very limited due to flood risk and existing, expected coastal change.

Green Belt and heritage sites and homes/gardens need largely to be protected from Development. In fact, seeing your Diagram page 36, Rochford District can't accommodate substantial development/redevelopment even with need to provide co-operation needs of nearby districts. (one does realise big new buildings bring more council rates).

As earlier, companies won't five flood insurance in flood risk areas.

One agrees new development should provide energy from carbon neutral/renewable sources, but it's costly and in early stages. Those with gas heating feel threatened. Car reliance is unlikely to be reduced, but also electric cars instead of petrol driven will need plenty of energy-providing points in centres and elsewhere.

Place-making and design Q14-16

It would be very difficult, knowing developer wishes (and need for council rates to come from somewhere), but a design guide if possible, should now exclude further development of executive mansions, luxury flats, especially as Government now requires more affordable homes.

We need to exclude development involving further demolition of existing dwellings, replace by mansions, multi-storeyed units out of height/area with locale, causing daylight loss and night-time light pollution and outside incomes of most locale.

Housing for all

Lack of homes for locals. As before, developers erect executive houses, sometimes in big estates. Local families can't afford, but they are bought by eg Londoners who sell theirs for high prices and buy big ones here for less.

It could be said, in the past young adults lived with their parents, paying their "keep" towards household costs, because they couldn't afford to buy. They only left home on:- marriage, or getting a better paid job elsewhere.

Surely these problems need sorting as housing still "locally driven". Locals cannot afford and there is limited council housing, why they leave the district to find homes they can afford.

It's stated SHMA paper outline need for smaller dwellings, but recognises size is market driven. Developers build mansions for nouveau riches - normally middle-aged, their children grown up and have left. Difficult to change that.

Rented housing - "families with children who cannot afford to buy..ineligible for social housing" (?why). Reverts to social housing lost to Right to Buy of 1980s.

Need for affordable housing

Council housing (largely sold off as above). There are also homes acquired by housing associations charging social rent. it isn't true gardens are sold for inflated sums. Persons with home and garden are often pressured by developers to eave and get demolished for sums that they'd need mortgage in order to move. Developers charge inflated sums to erect outsized houses.

Employment and Jobs

Doubtful. Southend Council demolished much of Victoria avenue, replaced with office buildings c.1970s, may be in expectation of business chances arising from Britain joining European Union. Some firms, such as C E Heath, Norwich Union, opened up there. But it didn't last - both moved away, others likewise. Avenue is now largely re-residential.

Southend Airport was expected to thrive. But recent pandemic caused several airlines to move away.

Traditionally, office staff in S E Essex have commuted to the City and elsewhere in London to work. Arrival of new technology was expected to do away with most office and factory workers. Executive staff would work from home on computer, occasionally attending head office. But commuter trains to London continued to be packed since. Briefly pandemic led people to work from home, but this isn't lasting. Some are again commuting.

Employment land, Eldon way, Hockley was allocated by HAAP but results are limited apparently.

Future of Southend Airport

Probably restricted by loss of airlines, due to effects of pandemic. Further expansion in activity difficult to foresee, due to effect on local community of noise, night flights etc - the photo on p.50 in Spatial Options Local Plan issue shows how vast an area of housing is already affected, without further extension.

Biodiversity As side comment, Hockley isn't an "urban area" - on Wikkipedia it's a large village.

Qu.29-30 I agree in Local Plan wildlife Review. There are some protected species residing in some private gardens. These should be protected under the system. If some neighbours find them a nuisance, it could be explained to them how their boundaries can be safeguarded. However, while some resent eg their lawns dug into by creatures, some so-described objections arise from developer designs on other's properties, as transfer of protected species involves getting licence from DEFRA - complicated and expensive. They are determined to get the ground, regardless of owners' wishes, but don't want complications - they've been known to attack setts.

Green/Blue Infrastructure

Proposals are acceptable, but shouldn't be used as excuse for developers to grab existing/homes/gardens.

Q.35-37

Education As earlier, proof exists where developers of gigantic expensive estates have promised new school, surgery. When estate practically built, they said eg 2 builders involved, so failed to meet promises. result - school c.3 miles away has to take pupils from new estate. Developers of big 'executive' estates must be made in advance to provide, or be denied plan consent.

Healthcare Side comment - I'm concerned by your view of future GP clinics - no appointments, just on-line digital consultations. GP appointments are curtailed to eg phone ones during pandemic, just to avoid infection. This is ok sometimes, but other times impractical. Not all have computers by the way.

Early years/childcare There are plenty of nurseries, but private. I don't know how sate funding can be provided.

Secondary education Where shown this is already full locally, builders for big estates could combine to contribute additionally, if space can be found, or else contribute to extend existing, if area available.

Further education Locally provided by Southend branch of Essex University and other universities over UK. But may be builders of large estates could contribute to a national fund for this use.

Community, Open Spaces One can only suggest big developers contribute likewise and/or designate some of their land, if available.

Heritage

Q43-45 I fear heritage in Rochford has been somewhat selective. Several items in Hockley have been demolished, some in fact of widespread opposition. Your article in Spatial Options sets out straightaway with items presumably to be kept in Rayleigh/Rochford. Recent uproar over plan to remove Mill House has led to the matter going under review.

As earlier, plan to demolish 1 Southend Road for flats caused widespread rage (details earlier). Hockley councillor had flats refused, but nil said re the house, down for demolition on proposal.

It was on the Local List, so Plan Policy official said Government didn't approve that, so Rochford's was abolished. Once house demolished, officer said Government changed its mind. New Local List omitted some Hockley items on it earlier. spa pump house now on national list. May be St Peter & Paul church and Bull pub are listed. Others could be added to Local one, eg Hockley Cottage Southend Road, China Cottage Spa Road. Other items are demolished: Kent View Cottage, 2 Victorian Houses Southend Road, Manor at Plumberow, 17C house and forge opposite entry to Hockley woods.

Town centres and retail

Plan Objectives

"..retail - dominant town centre..struggling in light of on-going structural changes..in high streets/centres". On-line shopping has caused closure of eg clothing stores in towns, accelerated by pandemic. But, eg Hockley centre continues to provide basis needs successfully. Attempt to change it by original HAAP was unsuccessful.

If developers want to introduce residential in addition, it must not be at expense of businesses and be preferably 2 storey, not to threaten nearby low level dwellings.

[Figures 8, 25 and others eg 31-5 make clear Rochford District not suitable for drastic residential increase on grounds of flood risk particularly.]

Using Class E, allowing transfer from retail to residential without planning permission must not be allowed to threaten retail and not everyone has a car to do retail shopping elsewhere.

Q.46-50 Hockley Centre and its environs does not have space to provide additional facilities, residential (except as above) etc. You couldn't put a new supermarket in Eldon way, off the main road, and we have enough provision now. There are 1 or 2 stores in Southend Road, but remainder is residential, mostly 1 or 2 storey and basic needs shopping is adequate in the centre, food, hairdressing, ETC. Larger items, such as clothes, shoes, apart from on-line, people just bus to Southend. Hockley isn't big enough for more.

Transport and connectivity

"National Planning Policy states transport issues should be considered from the earliest stages of plan-making, so the impacts of development on transport networks can be addressed".

That is exactly the local problem. over-enthusiastic profiteering developers have been allowed forward, with often huge estates, without a major district motorway having been formulated and inserted first. Local main roads, particularly in Rochford District - an agricultural area - are former narrow, winding country lanes, later tarmacked over for motor traffic. I think Southend Council planned at one time for access from rear of Shoebury to reach the Crouch, traversing green belt area behind Rochford. Understandably I believe Rochford didn't agree.

Suggestion has been made for one huge development centre, served by one new motorway through green belt, but probably impractical in this rural, flood risk area and rising sea levels

Walking and cycling in preference to private car are excellent for leisure and short distance basic needs, but not eg commuting to work nor eg weekly shopping for families.

Bus services have suffered from increased private car use by middle classes, especially Nos. 7 and 8. Arrival of costly new estates are unlikely to change that.

Maps with your plan show how much of the district is flood threatened, including rising sea level. So I can't see answer to travel needs and extensive new development foreseen in plan.

Green Belt - Rural Issues

Q.54 Rural exception sites. Developers have said they don't want to do affordable. (One told me that at a meeting).

Planning for Complete Communities

Description of centres is accurate. But one must accept that provision for new motorways is largely out of the question. The main roads that have been suitable in the past cannot cope with endless new development and its attendant motor traffic - as earlier, main B C roads in district are former narrow winding country lanes, later tarmacked for motors. But motorway to any large new centre would contend with c.50% flood risk, rising sea levels and the district still has land in agricultural use.

Stonebridge and Sutton might possibly provide a substantial amount of new housing, judging only from the map, but provision of a new motorway (through where) seems doubtful.

Hockley and Hawkwell - housing availability and affordability "a key issue" - due to several problems.

Its services were adequate for its needs. But, as elsewhere in Rochford and UK, and as I wrote earlier, council houses designed for those of limited means were sold under Right to Buy (I believe this arrangement is now abolished). Also, as earlier, a new motorway would be needed, not possible.

Also, possibly attracted by convenience of rail line to London, this area has recently attracted wealthy residents from London and elsewhere. Modest homes/gardens have been demolished, replaces by mansions and blocks of flats. So, middle and low income families have been driven out to wherever they can afford, to be replaced by rich middle-aged. Elsewhere in the district large estates of expensive homes have been erected, presumably with the same results. Some driven out have been paid sums needing a mortgage in order to move. Developers don't expect to pay notable sums for "land" (including others' homes).

Mainly, only available land for building is Green Belt or "flood risk", not suitable.

Draft Local Plan

I would like to make some observations about the above for consideration.

1. Judging by the map showing proposed sites for development, Rayleigh appears to be ringed on all sides, more building making it into a very large town which cannot cope with what is already happening, let along any more. The people of Rayleigh have strong ties with other towns and cities, including London, but we have no wish to become part of an area as large as a city, or to be joined to these other towns. As I'm sure they'll feel the same.

2. Before any further development is even considered the infrastructure must be looked at carefully. Any traffic or road survey must also be carried out at 'busy times' to reflect the enormity of the traffic problem already existing in the Rayleigh area.

3. This map shows far more development than was agreed in the previous plans. In Local Development Framework - Allocations DPD Reg.25, it was stated that there would be 'public park land providing a buffer between the built environment and A1245'. Proposed sites (CFS146 and CFS147) show proposals right up to the A1245, which if joined to the existing development would most likely add at least another 1000 dwelling to an already over populated and under infra-structured area.

4. With the number and size of the sites shown as Rayleigh and Rawreth proposed sites map, it is difficult to see how the natural and historic environment can be 'conserved or enhanced'.

5. Rayleigh is already a town that at times is gridlocked, it is often used as an extra road to Southend when the A127 is blocked by frequent hold ups, (Sunday 19th September is a one) adding more development will just increase the frequency of this happening.

6. Building dwellings in the middle of the town and reducing the facilities is not the answer to the need for housing. In fact how many of the recent proposal would be of a price to attract first or young buyers? Some of this land is very close to listed buildings and a scheduled ancient monument which would undoubtedly suffer if surrounded by dwellings. How long would it be before the residents became upset by noise from these facilities and then they are closed down? These are part of the heritage of Rayleigh and should be preserved along with the Mill Hall.

7. Having large conurbations of housing on the edge of any town does not mean that the business (money) will be brought into the town centre, in fact money will most likely go to large shopping malls and the town centre will die, as has been witnessed in a number of towns in the midlands. Does the local authority really wish the towns of this country to resemble the towns of the USA? We need to preserve our heritage.

8. I believe there is a place for a separate development, such as a garden village which could be built with its own infrastructure.

I do not think it is sensible to live in the past but it is important to look after this country and preserve its character, which after all also attracts visitors and brings in revenue.

I hope you will take these observations into consideration when making any decisions.

COL7 & COL20 are two sites being made residential, surely Rayleigh has had enough development in the few square miles around it, couldn't the housing I know the Gov wants be on outskirts, possibly as a new village development, with its own infrastructure i.e. doctors, schools etc.

Mill Hall is a great venue for learning and leisure, and so nice to have a cafe for social use on site. Rayleigh seems to be traffic locked most of the time. We are encouraged to walk, but where without fumes, unless you drive to venue which defeats purpose. Please don't turn my lovely Rayleigh into a concrete nightmare with a real parking problem and no green spaces.

Mill Hall COL07 and Civic Suite COL20

Since I moved to Rayleigh in 1978 a considerable amount of new houses have been built; both as estates and in-fills. The bungalow is an endangered species in Rayleigh! Hockley, Hullbridge and Hawkwell have also been markedly developed as extra housing.

No new westward routed roads have been built and the current main roads (A13 and A127) are worn out and much congested. Rayleigh is used as a through route, and these proposals are designed to remove the last civic amenities that the town possesses and turn an ancient market town into a non-community.

If the Mill Hall is under-used (ignoring Covid) it is due to a lack of proactive management and council support, Proper advertising would help! This also applies to the Windmill - surely a landmark worth showcasing for the many not obscuring for the enjoyment of a few flat dwellers.

As for the Civic Suite - it is a lovely building - perhaps the Town Museum could use it. Or is that the next thing to go!?

REF CFS027, 098, 086, 029 and 053

This is a letter of objection to the proposed development/building of 329 houses in Wellington Road, Napier Road, Bull Lane, Farm Road, Rayleigh.

The primary objection is lack of infrastructure and public services which would be needed for such a significant development. The areas are already poorly served with roads which are constantly congested and overloaded.

In addition there are not enough school places, doctors surgeries, hospital capacity in Rayleigh now, so adding 329 houses and probably over 500 cars to this situation will make things much worse.

Also the loss of green space and land for country walks is very detrimental to the mental health of all residents.

My concerns are about infrastructure. If large numbers are to be earmarked then green belt should be protected. Poor quality green belt can be sacrificed if it is in areas where there are roads which have scattered bungalows and small holdings; such as from Daws Heath Road to Rayleigh Downs Road or Rawreth Lane - roads to the north side. Hullbridge Road, Lanes opposite golf course. The big proviso should be air quality which is not good in Rayleigh. Strict measures to protect as many trees as possible otherwise there will be no future for our grandchildren and those generations to follow. Its no good saying you will replace them. Years ago the Council chopped down all the lime trees in our road despite my protests saying they would plant new, and they did, but they never survived the vandals, vehicles, droughts. Apart from what neighbours have planted or preserved in their front gardens, we have no roadside trees now.
No major development until sewer and drainage is improved especially at Hullbridge and Connaught Road area. Those sewer stations will not cope. There will be major problems id this is ignored.
Traffic routes - To London bound and north bound must be improved first. At present A127, A13 and A130 do not cope in the event of a problem or just volume of traffic. Jams make the air quality far worse.
I consider my statements to be totally necessary to avoid massive health problems. We also need more doctors, hospitals, police (vital) its becoming lawless.
Conservation areas, woodland and lovely green belt must be protected at all costs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CFS064

- Traffic congestion, roads in Hockley are already under strain (Spa Roundabout)
- Pollution and effects on health/wildlife
- Not enough schools/doctors to accommodate extra people
- Nice country walk - added value to houses would be gone.

CFS045 / CFS064
Before you build more houses, you must build better roads and deliver more reliable public transport.

CFS064

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

1. It is green belt
2. It would have an impact on the local traffic - this is already an issue for those of us living in Hockley, particularly in the event of a hold up on the B1013, access to Betts Farm is seriously limited - on some occasions there is no access to Betts Farm.
- The roads are already under constant strain, this would add more.
- There is no evidence of any support for the existing infrastructure - i.e. condition of roads (v. poor in places), access to GP/hospitals etc. More houses would make these worse.
- Why to we have to constantly overdevelop areas? We don't want to live in an overpopulated area. There is plenty of land available in the UK, why can't a new town be built where the infrastructure can be put in place.

There is no consideration given for people who are law abiding and pay their dues - it just isn't fair.