Q57d. Are there areas that require protecting from development?

Comment

Representation ID: 37551

Received: 31/07/2021

Respondent: Mrs Rebecca Ramsay

Yes there are areas that require protecting from development as they are farmland that produces the food we eat and reduces the need to import food and therefore reduces our carbon footprint as a nation, and are also important to the local native wildlife, many species of which are already under threat from loss of habitat and burgeoning badger numbers.

Support

Representation ID: 37694

Received: 05/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Lewis Tull

CFS013 and CFS119 need protecting from any development. The views are stunning, the green border to residential areas offers peace and tranquillity to the surrounding homes, protects air quality and maintains low levels of noise pollution. They have views of the historically important Ashingdon Hill and St Andrew's church which would be spoiled by any development on either of these sites. The side roads approaching these promoted sites are cul-de-sacs enriching community. There are much larger sites away from existing population centres that would serve the need for more housing in a way that would not detriment existing residents.

Object

Representation ID: 37793

Received: 09/08/2021

Respondent: Ms Helen Wright

I object to the development known as SER8 and feel it should be abandoned on the following grounds:
Severe traffic problems on Ashingdon Road
Destruction of ancient oak tree
Increased pollution from extra traffic
Overcapacity already at Puzey Family Practice
Increased risk of flooding to Oxford Road

Object

Representation ID: 37838

Received: 11/08/2021

Respondent: The Chase Residents

Application CFS 159:
This proposed site is an area of woodland within the Met Green Belt. Trees have provided wildlife habitat and noise reduction for many years. The site is bordered by Ashingdon Hill and regularly sees vehicles exceed the 30mph limit endangering users of junction with the Chase. It is not a safe option to access the site from the Hill. The Chase is a narrow single track unadopted lane with passing places unsuited to any increase in traffic. It is maintained entirely by residents with labour, materials and fund-raising. The Crouch Valley Way footpath enters the Chase here.

Support

Representation ID: 37940

Received: 15/08/2021

Respondent: Mrs Suzanne Hill

These local green spaces are very important tote residence mental health and well-being. They are full of a varies of species that is significant to the bio diversity of the area.

Object

Representation ID: 38020

Received: 19/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Ken Griffiths

All of the planned areas should be protected from the money grabbing develpers and council officials who mainly dont live in the area but in their 6 bedroom house overlooking the river in anoyher county where they wont allow huge estates to be built like this.

Object

Representation ID: 38506

Received: 05/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Arthur Cooke

On 4 separate but interlocked sites. 1. South of Napier Rd. 2 Brookside, Napier Road. Land north of Bull Lane. 4The Tower Hockley.. Each of these form the eastern end of the lung , now limited to farming and informal leisure which should remain undeveloped by housine or industry. . Sadly because of previous Council policy at both ends RDC and Soutrhend BC conjoin and therefore none of these should be included for fear that ayt an even later date development takes place. There is a publiv footpath through 1 used extensively . and pavement in housing no substitute

Object

Representation ID: 38619

Received: 07/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Matthew Foster

Area CFS105 should not be developed due to loss of habitat for protected Badger sets in its vicinity, the increased flood risk to Hambro Hill during wet weather, the unsuitability of Hambro Hill itself to accommodate further traffic - especially public transport vehicles.

Object

Representation ID: 38630

Received: 07/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Joe Hardcastle

The areas which are noted are not brownfield or disused sites further promoting the idea that the housing developments are out of personal greed. The protection of the rural areas in the area should be prioritised and not disregarded in the way this plan presents.

Comment

Representation ID: 38665

Received: 08/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Susan Robinson

Cfs053,098 and 027 provide a defined boundary between Rayleigh Hockley and Eastwood that provides a wildlife corridor that surrounds this aspect of Rayleigh

Comment

Representation ID: 38705

Received: 11/09/2021

Respondent: Mr David Cairns

The Cherry Orchard area has had enough industrial development over the last ten years. I believe that the areas either side of Hall road should be protected from further development until we know the full impact of the new Hall Road development. The site north of Cherry Orchard Country Park and south of Hall Road should be seen as an extension to the park.

The two larger spaces north/south of Brays Lane would not have enough infrastructure support to get out of the town. The smaller developments should be considered first.

Object

Representation ID: 38717

Received: 12/09/2021

Respondent: Mr paul bassett

the area is already constantly flooding

Support

Representation ID: 38725

Received: 12/09/2021

Respondent: Mr paul bassett

all the areas need protecting from building

Support

Representation ID: 38730

Received: 12/09/2021

Respondent: Mr paul bassett

all green areas need protecting

Object

Representation ID: 38735

Received: 12/09/2021

Respondent: Mr paul bassett

all areas need protecting

Object

Representation ID: 38741

Received: 12/09/2021

Respondent: Mr paul bassett

all areas

Comment

Representation ID: 38747

Received: 13/09/2021

Respondent: Ms Emma Garlick

Yes our bloody council need to protect what is left of our rural community. Many people move to parts of rochford to enjoy the quiet, landscapes and rural nature of this place. Yet our rural landscape is being completely demolished by government demands for house building. Rochford/Ashingdon Road cannot cope with more residential properties, it is heavily conjested. We must protect what little green belt/brown belt we have remaining, protect our animal population, enable green spaces to stay for mental health reasons. The fields north of Brays Lane are full of badger sets. We cannot destroy all this anymore.

Support

Representation ID: 38752

Received: 13/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Raymond Snelling

Site references need protecting from development (below). Surrounding roads are insufficient to support them for any housing development and wildlife relies on these areas to survive. If these sites are built on, we will see the loss of wildlife and important agricultural but we will also see a precedent set for the eventual increase of housing beyond these sites in later years which would ruin the landscape beyond repair. This rural town should be protected from any further development and existing houses be supported by improved infrastructure (road & cycle networks).

CFS126
CFS129
CFS130
CFS131
CFS007
CFS261
CFS119
CFS013
CFS261

Object

Representation ID: 38771

Received: 13/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Natalie Thompson

CFS216 needs to be kept clear for the school and childrens benefit

Comment

Representation ID: 38945

Received: 15/09/2021

Respondent: Ms Kate O’Brien

Please could developments be set back from the main roads (like Hall Rd) to help keep away from feeling ‘built up’. Big pavements, green walkways, front gardens and spaces between several houses help to keep the feeling of open.

Comment

Representation ID: 38946

Received: 16/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs kathryn Gilbert

believe those living in Rochford should comment on this

Object

Representation ID: 38947

Received: 16/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs kathryn Gilbert

All development needs to be considered in the context of the traffic issues it may bring to the rest of the District.

Comment

Representation ID: 38996

Received: 16/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Steve Lloyd

Yes all the open areas - Over population in the area impacting on road capacity and local amenities e.g. schools, healthcare and social services

Object

Representation ID: 39010

Received: 18/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Anthony Seels

I am massively opposed to a Southend bypass. Mostly because it will come about because of the over development of the countryside, and will lead eventually to just more cars, more people, more greenhouse gases!

Object

Representation ID: 39015

Received: 18/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Marc Johnson

CFS013 and CFS119
Objecting to CFS013 as per my comments in question 57b. CFS119 objection is based around the weakening of adjacent green belt sites and contributing to urban sprawl. Road access is not appropriate for a site of that size, adding yet more traffic in Ashingdon Road.

CFS261
This is a large plot of agricultural land which is actively farmed. In releasing this plot it would cause extremely high harm to greenbelt and the local street scene landscape. It would further weaken the green belt boundary and contribute to yet more urban sprawl.

Object

Representation ID: 39150

Received: 20/09/2021

Respondent: Kingstons Wealth Management Limited

PlotCFS063 is occupied by 2 businesses and a residence covering the whole of the Southend Road frontage. These are here for the long term and we don't wish to sell for housing. I own [REDACTED - personal details] and I have never put this plot up for development and do not intend to - I consider its inclusion an unfortunate error - this site is not developable or deliverable or achievable in the long term. In addition a substantial part is green belt and liable for flooding and would increase flood risk in the local area.

Support

Representation ID: 39207

Received: 20/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Mike Webb

Magnolia Park

Support

Representation ID: 39298

Received: 21/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Carol Everitt

In your earlier page you state - Addressing these challenges is made complicated by the fact that the majority of our rural land is designated as part of the Metropolitan Green Belt meaning that new development is generally restricted, save for some exceptions for agricultural and forestry development. I would like as much of Rochford / Ashingdon as possible to maintain its character by having the least amount of building on it's greenbelt.

Object

Representation ID: 39428

Received: 21/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Martin Ovenden

The Doggetts Chase site is used for arable farming and has commendable natural features such as the Doggetts Wildlife Area and the farm pond. The farm house is of historic value. The trees and hedgerows support a wide range of wildlife. Stilwells is a narrow road and part of a residential area. Any proposed expansion and extension of this road would be physically impossible and would fail to maintain the privacy and peace that the residents demand. Increased footfall would also negatively impact on the privacy of the residents, increase litter and generate parking issues.

Object

Representation ID: 39573

Received: 22/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Kyle Gordon

Both the sites CFS261 and CFS217 I disagree as this is a common walking path of country lane where people commonly walk/run and enjoy for the farm land and countryside it would be a shame if this would be taken away.