Q57d. Are there areas that require protecting from development?

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

I would like to object to the plans of CFS008 as you can see from the images below the road that this has plans for, for 15 properties to go to would mean them going on a single private road, with only 2 turning points and one turning point would be taken away to build this, thus leaving residence nowhere to pull in if need be now. . Thus, causing issues with all residents trying to pass by on the street while they are being built.
The new residence would have to understand they have maintained the road and understand this is how the current situation as we are not supported by the council.
If we have several trucks coming down the road, the road would be destroyed and again the water pipe would burst (as he has before) and thus leaving the residence with no water for days.
The road is in in green belt area and already serval residence who have not been able to build a simple garage or conservatory on their property, if this would to be allowed then this would allow all residence to build on their land adding housing as many have gardens over 2 acres of land on their site.
The noise it would cause while being built will be bigger than normal as it is a small road, and we currently have badgers and bats living in the gardens opposite and this would cause them distress and they are also endangered.
We have a lot of vulnerable people down our street and if carer or ambulance needed to get down the road and they were blocked by truck thus would cause harm to them. We also have several key workers and again if they could not get to work because of the trucks / workers on site down this single road there could potential lose they jobs.

Considering the road is on ceptic tanks and we are note on mains water, this also needs to be considered, we also do not have good access to internet / phone and again for new builds this would be an essential for them.

The carbon footprint for this road is low and by building 15 houses would cause more damage to the environment and wildlife and several trees would have to be taken down, some which have been there for years.
we are also on a main road, the traffic coming off this road is quite dangerous and this would have the potential for accident for trucks pulling out of this little road onto a hill and if completed the new residence.

Objections to housing proposals - Rochford and Hawkwell District.
We strongly object to the proposals for new housing in the Rochford district.

There firstly will be NO consideration too the local road infrastructure. The recommendations are solely relying on increasing an already over stretched Ashingdon Road.

If the proposed increase in housing is too go ahead, each house will potentially have 2-3 vehicles, which will not only over crowd the already congested roads, ie Ashingdon Road, BUT will immensely increase the local carbon footprint, disrupt and kill the air quality, which will affect wildlife, and open spaces.

It would seem that land owners feel that by selling their land too developers is more important too society than helping the District with improving air quality, the local wildlife, and create open spaces

AND I PRESUME THAT THERE WILL BE NO MORE DOCTORS SURGERIES, pharmacists etc too compensate these proposals, just like the huge development down Hall Road, Rochford..

I hope that the Council seriously re consider their idea of these proposals too help Rochford stay as the small country village we have lived in for so many years.

I am very concerned about the proposed amount of housing in the area of Rochford and Ashingdon for the following reasons:- Completely inadequate infrastructure. The bus service, nos 7 and 8 do not provide a suitable alternative to car use taking too long to get to Southend and Rayleigh, running infrequently and sometimes not coming at all. New house owners are likely to resort to car use putting more traffic on the 1 road going through Ashingdon and Rochford to Southend. This road is already congested and often has major hold ups. When this occurs no emergency vehicles can get through. Most of this housing will be 3 or 4 bedroom, meaning most properties will have more than one car!. Cycling is not a feasible alternative as there are no safe cycle paths. Taking a bit of the pavement is not a suitable cycle path and makes everything more dangerous for pedestrians; particularly children walking to school!

Air pollution! This is already extremely high and traffic has increased by 34.5% already! I know personally how it has affected breathing. This is of particular concern as several schools exist along the Ashingdon road so children will be constantly subjected to this pollution! Development always requires the cutting down of trees. Something we need to reduce pollution!

Flooding. This is becoming worse due to global warming. If all these areas are being concreted over, even with drainage, this situation will get far worse. Ashingdon road floods right by the narrow path where children walk to and from school, so it is difficult to avoid getting a soaking from passing traffic.

There are no vital services in close proximity for many people. Already those doctors, dentists and schools are struggling to cope with the increase in local population, as this has been massive with the development that has already taken place. No new services have been provided. Services are often included in submitted building plans but then rarely, if ever, appear!

This used to be quite a rural area, not any more! What about the green corridor for wildlife! Very little or no consideration is given to animals and creatures occupying these green sites. Where are they supposed to go! Badgers, foxes frogs, toads, insects, birds etc. are constantly being displaced and, as far as I can see from the plan, if all this building goes ahead, there will be nowhere! They can’t all live in Cherry Orchard or Hockley woods!

Objections to over development
Last week we received a flyer from the Rochford District Residents. I put it to one side with a view to 'read it later'. But what a horrifying read! The list of sites being considered for more housing is crazy.

The subheading 'Infrastructure First' is an understatement. I am aware of the Bloor Homes plan for 660 houses off the Ashingdon Road. But, the other proposed sites 4447 off Brays Lane, 498 near Mount Bovers Lane, 801 near Rectory Road to name but a few. The Ashingdon Road CANNOT take any more traffic and the B1013 gets very heavily congested at times. The Hall Road part of the B1013 has no public transport and the local doctors surgery in Back Lane is stretched as it is.

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE what can be done to stop all this over development? Redevelop, renew the historic town of Rochford putting funds into maintaining the buildings, green spaces, roadways etc not BUILD BUILD BUILD. It will ruin Rochford and all the surrounding villages as traffic will be unavoidable, air quality will be poor and flooding will be on the increase. It should be a quaint little market town with independent shops and cafes encouraged NOT as an outlet for London housing.

Objections to potential housing developments in Hockley Hawkwell & Ashingdon
Further to receipt of information regarding potential housing sites/planning applications for developments in the above areas we strongly OBJECT to the following:-

CFS045
CFS046
CFS160
CFS161
CFS074
CFS194
CFS169
CFS150
CFS020
CFS261

Reasons as follows:-

The roads are very congested in these areas already making further housing unacceptable. There only has to be an accident or delivery in Hockley village or along the high road for the whole area to be gridlocked.

Infrastructure cannot support more cars there are no viable alternatives to improve infrastructure due to limited road layouts in already very densely populated areas.

There is considerable wildlife in these areas due to established woodlands and green spaces which would be displaced.

Air pollution due to traffic volumes will cause issues for residents with known serious effects.

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

Consultation Representations
Our responses and representations to the questions from the above consultation are set our below. We have replied to some specific questions and used cross references where appropriate to avoid duplication.
• Introduction
o
 Q3. Do you agree that we should develop a range of separate visions for each of our settlements to help guide decision-making?
Agree
 Q4. Do you agree with the strategic priorities and objectives we have identified?
Agree
• Strategy Options
 Q6. Which of the identified strategy options do you consider should be taken forward in the Plan?
We prefer taking forward Option 4 Balanced Combination with the following comments, preferences and concerns regarding risks.
In general, the preference is for a ‘selective’ ‘Strategy Option 4’ approach by combining Strategy Option 1 Urban Intensification; Option 2 Urban Extensions and Option 3a Concentrated Growth in the west of Rayleigh. This would need to be in specific sites and it will be easier to quantify for housing targets if we were to identify sites that we would not support.
We would not support Option 3b North of Southend and 3c Focused East of Rochford and the land allocations from Rochford to Hockley in the 2017 Strategic Housing and Employment Land Availability as well as some other sites in Lower Hockley and Rayleigh. These are transport infrastructure and risk related objections whilst there are others that negatively impacting heritage, character and setting.
The specific areas of allocations of concern are listed below:
CFS035 land west of Rochford hall 1.25 hectares
CFS041 Lee valley farm 2.54ha
CfS074 land south of Mount Bovers Lane 14.22ha
Cfs077 land north of Great Wheatley’s Road 7.5ha
CFS084 land south of hall road 7.16
CFS085 land west and north of Hall Road 2.22
CFS087 land between Western Road and Weir Farm Road 3.08
CFS121 land north of A127 38.48
CFS150 land on the north side of Victor Gardens 1.73
EXP12 land adjacent 44 Great Wheatley Road 0.12
These will exacerbate the B1013 ‘rat run’ causing huge congestion and comprised emergency evacuation with the potential risk of:
• global warming repeating ‘1950’s scale flooding’ in South East Essex,
• nuclear contamination (Bradwell) and
• airport / rail disaster.
Any development must be matched by adequate transport solutions. Until this document is available then it is difficult for consultees to make informed representations and the Council to make evidence based decisions. The whole approach is somewhat ‘chicken and egg’. The transport solution should be the first document given the historic challenges and earlier consultation responses. Once this is available, the context of spatial options can be evaluated on sound evidence as community and population safety will be of paramount concern.
Assuming there is no radical bypass, which we would not support anyway given the intrusion into Crouch Valley conservation, solutions must be found to the key rail bridges and Rayleigh Weir underpass. These are high risk pinch points for local population and egress in particular:
Rochford Bridge / Hall Road
Hockley Bridges (Greensward Lane & Church Road)
Rayleigh station (London Road)
A127 Weir underpass
As a minimum, solutions must be found to these bottle-necks - widening the bridge underpasses, flyovers etc. If certain developments were to go ahead, flooding and the increased congestion of Options 3a, 3b and the proposed allocations along B1013 will potentially lock-in and lock-out population from their homes, shops, work and living in safe communities.
• Employment and Jobs
 Q28. With reference to the options listed above, or your own options, how do you feel we can best manage the Airport’s adaptations and growth through the planning system?
Any growth must be contingent on the transport infrastructure comments in this representation, without this future growth is limited. In addition, it is important for quality of living that night flights are stopped and pollution and noise controls are enhanced.
• Green and Blue Infrastructure
 Q32. With reference to the options above, or your own options, how do you feel we can best deliver a quality green and blue infrastructure network through the plan?
We refer you to our comments and sites outlined at Q6.
• Heritage
 Q43. With reference to the options listed in this section, or your own options, how do you feel we can best address heritage issues through the plan?
Remove allocations that threaten the key heritage sites in the District e.g. CFS035, CFS084, CFS085
 Q45. Are there any buildings, spaces or structures that should be protected for their historic, cultural or architectural significance? Should these be considered for inclusion on the Local List of non-designated assets?
Grade 1 Rochford Hall and setting.
Rochford Conservation Zone
Crouch Valley
• Town Centres and Retail
 Q48. With reference to Figures 38, 39 and 40, do you agree with existing town centre boundaries and extent of primary and secondary shopping frontages in Rayleigh, Rochford and Hockley? If not, what changes would you make? [Please state reasoning]
As regard Hockley town centre we have previously stated our preference to develop an imaginative town setting that brings Hockley Woods into the town e.g. shop ‘timber’ facades, woodland street furniture etc thus celebrating the setting of Hockley in its ancient woodlands and Spa.
• Transport and Connectivity
• We refer you to our responses under Q6 and Q28

 Q51. With reference to the options above, or your own options, how do you feel we can best address our transport and connectivity needs through the plan?
We refer you to our responses under Q6 and Q28
 Q52. Are there areas where improvements to transport connections are needed?
We refer you to our responses under Q6 and Q28
 Q53. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to deliver new transport connections, such as link roads or rapid transit? What routes and modes should these take? [walking, cycling, rail, bus, road etc.]
We refer you to our responses under Q6 and Q28

• Planning for Complete Communities

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

I list the following objections;

To build more than 6000 houses mostly all of which will need access onto the B1013, seems to be severely overstretching matters. If you assume an average of 1.5 cars per property, you are left with almost 10000 cars using already overused roads. Also, where will they all be going, there are probably not enough job vacancies in this area, so the likelihood of greater unemployment should be realised.
This assumes most will be using cars but what if not, there is not really a bus service to cope with this much extra load and should some wish to commute to London for work, the train service is hardly adequate, or for that matter, reliable. The amount of road accidents will surely increase, stretching emergency service still more. If CFS261 goes ahead, more children will be involved in accidents as the proposed new road is to be accessed via a new roundabout right outside Holt Farm School.
Children in these developments will be struggling to find school spaces and we already have fully occupied schools, so what next. The subject of young children also brings up the questions of air pollution from a greater traffic flow, and the need for more Dentists and Doctors. It can already take hours to try for a G.P. appointment so this will soon become completely overwhelmed.

Objections to CFS045, CFS064, CFS160, CFS161, CFS074, CFS194, CFS169, CFS150, CFS020, CFS261
As a fellow civil servant and officer of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and having been a local to the area (we currently reside in Hockley, raised in Rayleigh) my entire life, I am concerned to see the amount of local land plans to build large amounts of houses that are both unsupported and unsustainable.

Plots CFS045, CFS064, CFS160, CFS161, CFS074, CFS194, CFS169, CFS150, CFS020 and CFS261 (to only list a few) will decimate the local infrastructure, wildlife and cause environmental hazards such as severe flooding. With report after report being issued by government approved environmental scientists that warn the UK is unprepared for climate changes including extremities in weather conditions, it is more important than ever to plan for the future.

To my understanding, there is no consideration given to:

- The current flood risk, or the new estimated flood risk this development would cause. This will in turn affect existing residents insurance, having massive financial implications and there will be increased risk to life.

- Nor are there clear plans for wildlife displacements, safe passages such as green corridors or general preservation of wildlife habitats.

- Air quality will reduce with increased traffic, and access to emergency care such as hospitals will be affected by this massive increase of residents and therefore traffic. My husband is an NHS radiographer and already sees the damage that pollutants are having on members of the public. Additionally, when on call for cardiac arrests, getting to the hospital is essential for him and his colleagues to save a life. Five minutes matter in that scenario. Heart attacks don't wait for congestion.

- Schools and pre school nurseries are already massively over subscribed will become even more untenable without appropriate funding and a local and general governmental understanding of what an increased population would bring a small town.

Not to mention a general loss of green land for activities, family time, activities to keep your people happy and healthy, something we've all come to cherish and appreciate more fully during lockdown.

As the elected party, I'm sure you're aware your duty remains to us, the voters that put you in positions of responsibility. In the same way I may officially report to the Foreign Secretary, my duty at the FCDO remains to all my fellow British citizens who reside outside our shores who require our assistance.

How we treat our environment and infrastructure now is key to living sustainably in 2, 5, 10, 20 years time. We have a duty to our children to leave more than we took and I don't need to remind anyone we are 9 years away from irreversible damage to our world.

I look forward to responses to these clear oversights and would welcome any further information.

I can only say that I am astonished at seeing the plan to build over 6,000 new homes in Hawkwell, Hockley and Ashingdon.

I have lived at various locations in all three areas for over 30 years and the build up of traffic congestion has been obvious during this time, the main pinch points being the Spa Roundabout and the roundabout by the bridge at Rochford station. The huge new development in Rawreth Lane clearly will exacerbate the issue. Most households have at least two cars now so we are likely talking about a minimum of 12,000 additional vehicles squeezing onto already much-too-busy roads. It makes no sense at all to compound the situation and is completely unacceptable.

These plans must be cancelled for the sake of quality of life for the existing residents.

MY objections for the Local Plan
CFS045 - 152 Houses
CFS064 - 214 Houses
CFS160 & CFS161 - 124 Houses
CFS074 - 498 Houses
CFS194, CFS169, CFS150 & CRS020 - 801 Houses
CFS261 - 4,447 Houses

My objections are: NO INFRASTRUCTURE. Do you know how hard it is for the Residence to get in to see a DOCTOR etc?

LOCATION. Proximity to existing centres. Road Congestion. Inadequate Bus Service.



HIGHWAY ISSUES. Road congestion on B1013 & Ashington Road. Do you know how hard it is to use these Roads in peak times?

FLOODING. For example CS194 Hawkwell Brook is designated a tidal river by DEFRA. The Council’s report omits the floods of 1968 and 2013 from this river.

I wish to object to the following site proposals:
CFS160,161,194,169,150,020,261.
ALL elements of local infrastructure are under tremendous pressure and an increase in the local population will dramatically worsen the environment from all aspects. Health services, traffic and air pollution, education, green areas and wildlife, will all be affected.
Please!! no more residential development in the areas under your jurisdiction.

Plans for the proposed new housing in the Hullbridge Rayleigh and Rochford areas.
We are horrified to hear of all the new housing designated for this area. As receivers of in excess of 500 new houses currently being built in Hullbridge and having to suffer the consequences of this building scheme we are horrified to hear of the further number being designated not only for us but also the outrageous quantity for our neighbouring towns.

Our infrastructure cannot take this!

Roads ,which are under stress at the normal time but in the frequent event of road works ,any repair works and improvements? The area comes to a standstill.

Hospital and health care which is under pressure and Covid has added to is going to take at least 5 years plus to get under control.

Our green spaces are disappearing fast farms and spaces for our horses to be stabled going.

Leisure facilities for our children and older residents and families are going fast.

The environment and habitats for wildlife is under serious threat. It seems our priorities are for ourselves only and we do not know how the disappearance of species will affect lives in the future

This is the turning point for our planet do not pay lip service to our problems we are the ones who will be judged in the future. You are supposed to be OUR representatives and OUR VOICES

To try and halt the destruction of our planet.

It seems we are trying to make things better with the pollution on things we have. or things we do but you are not considering the impact that all these house s which are

Adding at least 2 new cars and at least doubling the number of people to all of the above . It fills me with dread for mine and other families as to how their lives will be in years to come.

Education in this are is stretched and I wonder how it will cope with the extra children joining the system. New schools will have to be built with the extra cars as the parents take them to school.

| AM SURE I COULD LIST MANY MORE THOUGHTS AND OBJECTIONS BUT AT THE MOMENT IAM TOO UPSET AT THE THOUGHT OF SUCH FEW VOICES ARE SPEAKING FOR SO MANY OF US .(AS WINSTON CHURCHILL WOULD HAVE SAID)

I strongly object to any more building in this area (Hockley, Hawkwell, Ashingdon, Rochford, Hullbridge, Rayleigh).
In the UK there are over 600,000 (six hundred thousand) empty unused buildings. Why do councils not concentrate on bringing some of these buildings back into use.
My objections are probably the same as everyone else. Schools, doctors, hospital, wildlife, open spaces (small areas of green don’t count), large supermarket, roads, infrastructure, congestion etc.
Over 99% of meadows have been lost since the end of WW2. How can the council even consider building on land off of Greensward Lane (and other sites) some of the last remaining meadows around. A breathing space for people and animals.
Rochford mustn’t become like Westcliff, Leigh etc where there is no countryside.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Our Green Belt areas should NOT be built on.

We strongly object to the following :-
CFS 160 & 161, CFS 194,169,150 & 020. Also CFS261 These developments are outrageous as there is no infrastructure to support them. They will be feeding onto minor B roads already crippled with cars at peak times.
There are not enough school places, doctors or dentists plus a local hospital most of the time at capacity or overflowing.
The new houses are never affordable just look at the two developments in Hall Road where affordable housing is the smallest proportion and these already cripple the infrastructure.

Objection To Housing Development on Site CFS12 4
(Land east of Little Stambridge Hall Lane, Rochford)
Implicit in the function of local authorities is a responsibility to safeguard the quality of life, physical health, mental health and safety of all residents. Rochford District Council is no exception to this.
If the Council were to allow any houses to be built, to the North-East of the airport runway threshold it would, in my opinion, affect this responsibility.
If the Council were to allow any houses to be built this would also materially change the basis of the Section 106 agreement which it reached with Southend Council and London Southend Airport. Part of this agreement depends upon the existence of fewer residents to
the North East of the runway.
Site CFS124 is about 1 mile from the threshold of the main runway of London Southend Airport.
All heavy jet-engined aircraft pass over the site when they take off or land. Executive jets, medium-sized turbo prop planes, small piston-engined planes and helicopters frequently pass over.
As they pass over the site after taking off, jet passenger and cargo aircraft are still climbing after take-off at very high thrust levels in order to gain height as rapidly as
possible. They create a very high volume of noise. Anyone who is walking along Little Stambridge Hall Lane by the side of this site has their voice drowned out and their ears bombarded with noise.
Engines are at high thrust and project sound downwards and to either side. Heavier aircraft have not yet reached the 1500 feet which they are required to attain before they can reduce power and change course.
The heavy jets which are coming in over the site are on their very final approach to the airport. They are at about 400 feet as they pass over. Their engines generate a high volume of noise. The sound builds up from quite a distance before they pass over the site.
If permission were to be granted for housing development all those who lived in the new residential area would be subjected to engine noise from heavy jets, executive jets, piston engined small aircraft, turbo-prop aircraft and helicopters flying right overhead or almost
right overhead. Piston engined smaller aircraft have a particularly loud, harsh, resonating and unpleasant impact on the ears.
The initial appraisal of this site on the Council website states that the area of land is 2.30 hectares. The assessment also states that the site is available for housing with a potential capacity of 63 houses. This gives a figure of 27.4 dwellings per hectare. Each housing site would therefore have an area of about 365 square metres.
A site around 365 square metres would be enough for a 4-bedroom house with a fairly large garden. Such a house would be suitable for a family of two adults and three children.
If 63 houses were to be built and each contained five people then the total number of adults and their children would be 315.
However the document "planningAppendixCSiteAssessmentForms” states an area of 3.14 hectares for the site. This would mean that about 86 houses could be built and about 430 adults and children would then be affected by aircraft both during the day and in the middle of the night.
If a higher housing density were to be allowed then a much higher number of residents would be affected by the adverse effect of planes flying over.
If permission was granted for the construction of houses then hundreds of people would live under or very close to the flight path of jet aircraft which are climbing at maximum thrust with all the high volume of noise which is entailed. As residents relaxed in their gardens all conversation would have to cease as planes passed over. This noise would reverberate and echo off the walls and roofs of nearby properties thus further increasing
the impact. Even with sound insulation the noise inside the houses would be noticeable.
Any open windows would let a considerable volume of noise in.
Aircraft engines emit nitrogen oxides, oxides of sulphur, carbon monoxide, partially combusted and unburned hydrocarbons, particulate matter and other trace compounds.
What is likely to happen to these chemicals when aircraft fly over the houses? What is the possibility that they will be breathed in by the residents? How much will be washed down on to the houses, gardens and vegetable patches when it is raining?
Is the Council really prepared to risk the long-term health of the children who live in these houses and play in their gardens as jet aircraft blast out exhaust fumes above?
Is the Council really prepared to risk the mental health and educational progress of children if they are woken up in the middle of the night by cargo planes?
Complaints about night flights have come from the residents of Leigh because of lack of sleep.
As part of the Section 106 agreement between Southend Airport and local councils a preferred runway scheme was introduced. This states:-
“Preferred Runway Scheme During the night period – when weather and safety conditions allow – London Southend Airport is committed to operate all aircraft movements from and to the north east (over Rochford) as this is a much less densely populated area than that to the south west of the airport.
During the daytime – when weather and safety conditions allow and movement volumes allow the runway direction to be changed – London Southend Airport agreed to ensure that more than 50% of aircraft operations occur to and from the north east of the airfield over Rochford.”
This agreement can only operate meaningfully if there is open land at the north-east end of the runway. If the population size and density to the north east is increased, then the basis of the agreement is affected and the residents of Leigh might no longer be protected.
One only has to read items from “Essex Live” and “Southend Echo” about the experiences of those who live in the Leigh Area to gain an indication of the possible situation if houses were built on Site CF124.
Is the Council really prepared to allow others to be subjected to similar experiences and stresses?
Section 10 of the government document “CONTROL OF DEVELOPMENT IN AIRPORT PUBLIC SAFETY ZONES” document states:-
“10. There should be a general presumption against new or replacement development, or changes of use of existing buildings, within Public Safety Zones. In particular, no new or replacement dwellinghouses, mobile homes, caravan sites or other residential buildings should be permitted. Nor should new or replacement non-residential development be permitted. Exceptions to this general presumption are set out in paragraphs 11 and 12.”.
The map of the Southend Airport Public Safety Zone shows that the zone extends into Site CFS124. The Civil Aviation Authority document “Proposal to Revise the Public Safety Zones at Southend Airport” contains relevant Annexes.
Aircraft which are taking off sometimes veer off the direct line from the runway and fly closer to the houses in Little Stambridge Hall Lane and Coombes Grove. On rare
occasions jet aircraft have actually flown over the houses in Little Stambridge.
In every airport zone there is the ever present danger of an aircraft crash soon after takeoff or just before landing. Site CFS124 is only a few minutes from the runway threshold.
Is the Council really prepared to allow housing development on a plot of land which contains part of a Public Safety Zone and is the main departure and final approach zone to an airport?
In my opinion no housing development should be allowed where there is even the slightest danger of an aircraft crashing as it departs from or approaches the airport runway.

Objection To Housing Development On Site CFS111
(Land north of Coombes Grove, Rochford)
According to the SITE ASSESSMENT PROFORMA: CFS111 this site has an area of 3.99 hectares and a potential Capacity of 104 houses. This gives a housing density of 26 houses per hectare. 104 four-bedroomed houses would accomodate at 520 peope assuming families of five
per household.
The Council's Document "Authority Monitoring Report 2016-18: Housing Statistics" states:-
The document also states that 35% of dwellings were completed at densities of between 30 and 50 dwellings per hectare. With a higher density a figure nearer 1000 residents might be possible on Site 111 .
Site CFS111 is immediately to the north of the Little Stambridge residential area which is bounded by the houses in Little Stambridge Hall Lane, Coombes Grove and the lower part of Stambridge Road.
This residential area has become part of the approach and departure zone for London Southend Airport. Instead of continuing in a straight line north-eastwards over open countryside after taking off, some aircraft turn left and fly right over the houses in Stambridge Road. They then continue over the gardens and houses in Little Stambridge. Some aircraft fly right along the line of the roofs of the houses in Little Stambridge Hall Lane before heading north-westwards.
In the case of some of these aircraft it is doubtful if they are much above 100 feet when they pass over the houses and gardens. Their engines are at full thrust – with the ensuing deafening, resonating noise. All conversation of those who are in their gardens is drowned out.
Larger aircraft which are landing at the north east end of the runway line up a long way out and follow a glide path. This used to be the case with virtually all aircraft. However, some pilots who are landing smaller aircraft now take a short-cut by flying over the houses in order to get to the runway threshold. On occasions some of these aircraft are very low.
Some aircraft appear to be making repeated circuits. The question arises as to whether they are being flown over the houses in Little Stambridge by trainee pilots.
If a pilot were to lose control or the aircraft suffer a mechanical failure while approaching the houses in Little Stambridge a crash could ensue with great loss of life.
There appears to be no control over the route which lighter, piston engined aircraft and helicopters have to take as they depart from or approach the north east runway threshold.
Aircraft under 5700kg are not subject to the Noise Preferential Route and may turn immediately after take off.
If the Little Stambridge residential area continues to be an arrival and departure zone for aircraft and helicopters then the number of houses over which these aircraft fly needs to be kept to a minimum. In the interests of public safety no further housing development should be
considered.
No housing development should be allowed where there is even the slightest danger of an aircraft crashing as it departs from or approaches the airport runway.

I refer to all options listed but more specifically to those listed below.

The Rochford district is a unique geography, occupying an isthmus that is surrounded by water on three sides. It has suffered from over development without, the accompanying infrastructure considerations. Rochford district council has presided over the the poor previous development, and has ignored all previous concerns of residents. There exists a complete lack of trust in the motivations of RDC in this process. How can you suggest further development when the impact of current proposals are not yet understood pr deliberately ignored.

CFS045
CFS064
CFS160
CFS161
CFS074
CFS194
CFS169
CFS150
CFS020
CFS261

I object to all of the above for the following reasons.

Location
Most of these are Green Belt, and will impact the immediate area due to lack of road infrastructure.

Highway issues. Congestion a complete lack of road development. Currently the roads are not maintained to cope with the current increasing volumes of traffic. Additionally the main arteries out of Essex are already close to maximum capacity.

Infrastructure: The council has not invested in travel alternatives like cycle ways or buses, additional development will cause further congestion and pollution.

Green Belt this is continually eroded, changing the very nature of the area, with no serious attempts at conserving nature.

Impact from other districts. These developments should not be considered in isolation of development in other districts, Southend and Castle point will also impact the Rochford district. this is a disingenuous way of consulting the residents.

I refer to all options listed but more specifically to those listed below.

The Rochford district is a unique geography, occupying an isthmus that is surrounded by water on three sides. It has suffered from over development without, the accompanying infrastructure considerations. Rochford district council has presided over the the poor previous development, and has ignored all previous concerns of residents. There exists a complete lack of trust in the motivations of RDC in this process. How can you suggest further development when the impact of current proposals are not yet understood or deliberately ignored.

CFS045
CFS064
CFS160
CFS161
CFS074
CFS194
CFS169
CFS150
CFS020
CFS261

I object to all of the above for the following reasons.

Location
Most of these are Green Belt, and will impact the immediate area due to lack of road infrastructure.

Highway issues. Congestion a complete lack of road development. Currently the roads are not maintained to cope with the current increasing volumes of traffic. Additionally the main arteries out of Essex are already close to maximum capacity.

Infrastructure: The council has not invested in travel alternatives like cycle ways or buses, additional development will cause further congestion and pollution.

Green Belt this is continually eroded, changing the very nature of the area, with no serious attempts at conserving nature.

Impact from other districts. These developments should not be considered in isolation of development in other districts, Southend and Castle point will also impact the Rochford district. this is a disingenuous way of consulting the residents.

Spatial options consultation- Rochford
The current infrastructure of the town is already somewhat at its capacity. Ashingdon Road during term time is an absolute nightmare for traffic (due to the proximity of three schools in a small area) and traffic is often at a standstill in both directions.

Rectory Road is also not a viable alternative route for these additional homes - as this road often suffers the same gridlock first thing in the morning.

This is before an additional 2,000 homes are added to that. Pollution is already increasing and it is simply not viable to add this many homes, people and vehicles to the area.

As a dormitory town, Rochford does everything we hope it could. Sadly, however - no matter how much money is spent, the A127 won't cope with the additional traffic and the station and rail network doesn't seem as if it would be able to cope sufficiently once rail passenger numbers return to normal. The lull in rail passenger numbers during the covid pandemic will create a false sense that the transport network can cope. The numbers over the past two years are neither realistic, nor sustainable and further investigation clearly will be required.

I also have concerns on the way that education provisions will be made. Where are these additional numbers to be educated?! Undoubtedly this will mean expanding class sizes and this can only have a negative impact on the way our children will learn.

The town has a wonderful and rich history - which was one of the things that attracted us. I fear that such a development will erode this hugely and will cause that identity to be lost - Rochford will become just another housing development.

Furthermore, I have concerns about the impact caused to our wildlife. Rochford has such a diverse range of wildlife for us to enjoy. The noise, pollution and disruption could have a real negative impact. As a former resident of a new-build estate, I saw just how badly the local wildlife was affected. There was widespread displacement and it took a number of years for just a fraction of wildlife to return.

I also think it is important to mention our plans for flood defences. Excess rainwater needs somewhere to travel and to go. Our weather is becoming more and more unpredictable and the sewage system around the Holt Farm Estate looks as though it is currently coping. However, during the summer deluges we experienced, the drainage did seem to struggle, even though it held up.

New build developments are largely paved and concreted spaces with small drainage bowls designed to prevent the estate from flooding. But where else is the excess water supposed to go?

We cannot expect that the areas around Wallasea Island and Paglesham can consistently be a site for drainage and should the River Roach burst it's banks, the whole entire area is in serious trouble.

The cynic in me suggests that the housing developers are putting through such a large application in order to sneak a smaller one in. It is often a ruse by developers to offer to pay for an install new roundabouts as part of the deal. This simply won't be enough and the cost of the infrastructure that would be required would immediately be enough to make any suggestions an untenable position.

Please reject the application to build any homes on the Brays Lane/rear of King Edmund site. Whilst I acknowledge the need for additional housing, these developments should be far smaller - a maximum of 5-10 homes per development and to allow the area to grow organically, as opposed to dumping a widescale development and changing the entire footprint and landscape of one of the most important towns in British history.

Please accept this email as objection to the following:

CFS045, CFS064, CFS160, CFS161, CFS074, CFS194, CFS169, CFS150, CFS020, CFS261, CFS023 and COL38

The local area does not have the facilities, capacity or environmentally to allow such big builds. Everything is overstretched already.

This can not happen.

Objections to New Local Plan Rochford/Hawkwell
Living behind Rectory Road and Ashingdon Road I do not believe the road system can deal with anymore cars. We have many dips and holes in the roads and when we have roadworks there are even more traffic jams and delays than normal. Thursdays are a nightmare when we have dustbin day. Any deliveries, removals, broken down cars, I can go on, make for long queues, tailbacks, as the roads are not wide enough for others to pass. How are more cars going to get through the traffic lights under the railway bridge at Rectory Road? With so many houses being considered and being fed into B1013 which already has congestion this should not even be considered.
The land at the back of King Edmund School for a potential 4,447 houses all with at least 2 cars directed onto Ashingdon Rd is ludicrous.
Air quality will be decreased making it not ideal for walking or cycling. It is dangerous now to cycle anywhere but cycle paths which there are not enough of with people riding on the pavements where others are trying to walk.
Infrastructure is not sufficient for people already living here. Try getting an appointment into a doctors surgery! Schools are packed, people get essentials from the small grocery
shops which are not cheap, we need a larger supermarket within walking distance, not one to drive too. Rayleigh is the nearest shopping centre, Rochford has too many charity shop shops and cafes. Where will all the wildlife go? We already have foxes and badgers in our gardens leaving holes and faeces. This part of Essex is already a bottleneck to come in and get out off. Unless we have a better way of getting here things can only go down hill!!

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

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

I believe any large site to the east of Ashingdon Road would put an unbearable strain on the surrounding roads. Access to these areas of Rochford are already restricted by poor road infrastructure. Crossing Ashingdon Road to head towards the A127 often requires that in you have to pass via pinch points created by narrow railway bridges in Hall Road & Rectory Road. The Ashingdon Road is already heavily congested with through traffic to and from Southend, at commuter times traffic often tails back from the Anne Boleyn pub to Rectory Road. Any roadworks, accidents or bin collections along the Ashingdon Road, Southend Road or Bradley Way results in Rochford town being grid locked with traffic queuing back to Stambridge Road/ Malting Villas Road junction.

We object to the proposed development of the following sites
CFS261 4447 Homes Land East of Oxford Road
CFS141 231 Homes Stewards Elm Farm Great
Stambridge
CFS116 411 Homes Land South Coombes Farm

CFS111 104 Homes Land North Coombes Grove

CFS124 63 Homes Land East Little Stambridge
Hall

I object to all the above sites as all would increase existing traffic problems on access routes via Ashingdon Road, Bradley Way the Rochford One Way system Stambridge Road and would have a negative impact to those living in these areas due to increase noise pollution and added inconvenience of negotiating more congested roads.

In addition the site CFS116 is not suitable for housing due to close proximity with the Purdeys Industrial estate any homes on Coombes with suffer from the industrial noises and odours of materials that are handled on the site. Should homes be built on Combes site said properties would be under the flight path to Southend Airport and as a result residents would be plagued by aircraft noise too.

I also raise objection to the any further development to areas
COL83 Millview Meadows
CFS050 Land Of Former Adult Community College
These areas are much used safe amenity for the local community and any loss of this green space would have a negative impact to all that enjoy use of this land.

I would support the following developments
CFS084 251 Homes Land South of Hall Road
CFS078 360 Homes Land West of Cherry Orchard

These sites will have little impact on the congested roads of Rochford Town, said sites would also have good access onto the A127 and the train station is easily walkable from these sites.

Of all the sites proposed we believe the sites closest to the A127 would be the best location for development
CFS121 1347 Homes Land North of A127
CFS222 3491 Homes Land Dollymans Farm

I feel these large developments in close proximity of A127 could provide new neighbourhoods built with all essential services like Schools Retail and Healthcare each neighbourhood could have its own unique identity.


I note the report states Rochford has an ageing population, we would hope that due consideration would be given to providing more homes suitable for the retired including bungalows and possibly retirement villages. At present it seems the only retirement properties being built in the area are in the form of blocks of flats, retirees may want a smaller property to suit their changing needs but not all want to give up a garden and be left with just a balcony, building homes suitable for the senior market would give opportunity for those occupying large family homes to move to more suitable accommodation and free up larger homes for young families.

It has been bought to our attention that there are ’New Local Plan/s’ for new homes in the area we live in Hawkwell and the neighbouring areas Hockley, Rochford and Ashingdon, all of which would have a devastating effect on the local area and collapse the already struggling infrastructure and the natural environment and habitat for the wildlife. The B1013 is already struggling to cope with the amount of traffic due to the huge amount of new houses already built over the past years, why build more!!
Whilst we agree that there is a need for new houses we feel there is an in balance on the % for the above areas. If there is that much need for new houses then the Government and Councils should be looking into areas that they can build the necessary roads and infrastructure not piggy backing off existing ones!

We live on Spencers in Hawkwell which is a development of 40 houses, it was built 35 years ago and is accessed off the B1013 main road into Thorpe road into Spencers. This was not too much of a problem until recent years when the Govenment Core Strategy / Councils struck a deal to build the 167 houses on the Christmas tree land. We now have trouble getting out of Thorpe Road onto the B1013 at particular times of the day.

CFS074 in Hawkwell, earmarked for 498 houses, is of great concern for the following main reasons
- The B1013 is not a road that can be made wider and has so many bottle necks along its route especially in the areas that would be affected by the ‘New Local Plans’. The condition of this road is awful and continually breaks up due to the heavy amount of traffic already!
- the impact that it would displace the wildlife let alone the endangered species. We have so much wildlife around this area including badgers, Bats.

- the increase of air pollution. Our clean air is being violated no one is thinking about protecting the environment we live in.

- the flood risks. We back onto Hawkwell Brook which already reaches high levels at points during the year if heavy rain fall, especially near Clements Hall since all those extra house were built.

- Our doctors , Jones Family Practice’ cannot cope with the number of people on their books as it is. When we call last week for an appointment we were number 22 in the queue. We hear other surgery’s are the same.

- not enough school places

- what about the water and sewage ! The drains cannot cope as it is.

Perhaps people should think about spending money on repairing or improving the vital services in place not adding strain to them.


Just combining the known below
CFS074 earmarked for 498 houses
CFS160 & CFS161 earmarked for 124 houses
CFS194, CFS169, CFS150 & CFS020 earmarked for 801 houses
CFS261 earmarked for 4,447 houses

Totals 5,870 houses planned in our immediate area all potentially having at least one car if not two feeding into/onto the B1013 how can anyone say the infrastructure can support or sustain this!

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE don’t let this happen

I wish to lodge my objections to the New Local Plan concerning the following sites:

CFS045 HAWKWELL
CFS064 HOCKLEY
CFS160 HOCKLEY
CFS161 HOCKLEY
CFS074 HAWKWELL
CFS194, 169,150, 020 ADJACENT SITES
CFS261 LAND AROUND KING EDMUND SCHOOL

Reasons are given as follows:

We have already seen a large growth in housing over recent years with the consequential rise in traffic leading to gridlock type conditions. This has resulted in extremely poor air quality and pollution affecting ours and children's health. The further loss of already diminished green areas and open spaces will have a dreadful impact on wildlife where we already experience a high number of foxes and badgers roaming our streets and gardens plus an increase in vermin as they are driven from their habitats.

The loss of public footpaths and bridleways and green open spaces that is proposed cannot be tolerated.

Immense pressure will be placed on Doctors, Hospitals and Schools where there has been no increase in provision of these services so far especially for recent expansion.

The increased building will mean even more concreting and paving over land that should be left to cope with the increased rainfall that we are experiencing and will also place extreme pressure on water and sewage services.

We are seeing less and less of maintenance of our roads and pavements so how can you expect to address this problem when you contemplate building even more.

To not properly look at the infrastructure and not offer a true solution to the immense problems that will occur and to take away our open spaces is appalling.

I hereby totally and thoroughly object to these proposals.

I am writing to complain about the proposed building of houses at the back of King Edmund School in the Ashingdon/Rochford area. It is already incredibly built up and their are already far too many vehicles on the road resulting in major traffic every day.

Not only are there not enough doctors, dentists and schools to accommodate the amount of people in the area but there is only one road in and out of Rochford - Ashingdon Road. It already worries me considerably that should my child be ill or have an accident at school it would take me far too long to reach the school (which is a local school just up the road from where I live), we cannot allow more residents and vehicles in the area.

The air pollution will be even worse from all the additional vehicles on the road where children are walking every day to school. The wildlife will suffer as there will be less green spaces.

With regard to the proposals in Hawkwell the traffic will be coming from Rectory Road onto Ashingdon Road this is in my view incredibly irresponsible.

I sincerely hope the planned works do not go ahead.

We would like to preface everything we are about to say with the following. Our district cannot take anymore housing. We do not have the infrastructure. Government targets, or no government targets, what you are allowing to happen to our communities is permanently destroying what has made this area such a beautiful place to live for many, many generations. Council officers and councillors need to have much more integrity when carrying out these consultations and making planning decisions. There needs to be more determination to stop this endless destruction. There are many stories from around the country of councils and councillors that are being creative and taking a few more risks in order to save and preserve their communities and their heritage. We expect to see more of this from Rochford District council in the years ahead - be more tenacious - we are counting on you. The residents in Ashingdon have shown us this can be done with their successful campaign against SER8 - now it's time for the Council to step up to the plate. It's time to start representing your residents and the people that pay your wages!

We strongly object to any development on green belt land. We are in the middle of an environmental crisis - the evidence of which is all around us. The council must immediately cease to approve any further development on green belt sites and only brown belt sites must be considered moving forwards. With this in mind, all proposed green belt sites must be removed from the local plan in order to make green belt development as difficult as possible.

Furthermore, we would add that the local infrastructure simply cannot cope. Medical facilities are all vastly over-subscribed. There is a lack of doctors and NHS dental places, not enough school places and already over-sized classes. The County Council have proved how utterly inept they are at even attending to the most basic repairs on some of our most seriously damaged roads. We simply cannot allow more traffic to go through the district's roads until all outstanding repairs have been addressed and a proper strategy has been drafted, presented and agreed with the residents of our district for how the roads will be managed and maintained proactively going forwards. The county council have clearly demonstrated they cannot be trusted to get on with this and now need to be put under pressure by the district councils and their residents.

Road capacity is another serious issue. This can be evidenced if you try and travel anywhere by car on a Monday to Friday during rush hour or on a Saturday (if, heaven forbid, you try and go anywhere to possibly try and enjoy your spare time away from your home). This view is clearly widespread among many residents and councillors based on the reasoning for the recent rejection of SER8.

Any further development that is approved (for example, on brown belt sites) must have ample infrastructure included within the proposals. This must also factor-in the infrastructure deficit we are already running due to existing developments having been allowed to go ahead without adequate controls and safeguards being in place to ensure that supporting infrastructure is also delivered. Therefore, any new developments must deliver not only their own infrastructure needs but also help 'pay down' some of the deficit that has been built up. The council must (we repeat - MUST) make sure the infrastructure is secured and committed to. Furthermore, the infrastructure must (we repeat - MUST) be delivered before any housing is allowed to be developed. This must be a prerequisite. The council must not allow another Hall Road situation to materialise. It is actually beyond a joke that Hall Road still does not have a school, with no sign of one appearing anytime soon. The word incompetence just doesn't do the situation justice.

In addition to the above, we would like to add the following specific objections to the following sites:

CFS074 - Land south of Mount Bovers Lane, Hockley
This land must be removed from the Local Plan. The house building would ruin the landscape and views that are available from Hawkwell Chase, Hawkwell Common and from Main Road Hawkwell (looking towards Gusted Hall). This land should be kept out of the local plan and (when the opportunity allows) used to extend the natural areas around Cherry Orchard and Gusted Hall.

CFS045 - Belchamps Scout Site, Holyoak Lane, Hawkwell
CFS251 - Land at Peartree Cottage, Holyoak Lane, Hockley
CFS191 - Land at Mount Bovers Lane, Hawkwell
CFS074 - Land south of Mount Bovers Lane, Hockley
CFS160 - Northlands Farm, 65 High Road, Hockley
CFS161 - 57 High Road, Hockley, Essex, SS5 4SZ
CFS083 - Land south of Hall Road and west of Ark Lane, Rochford
CFS078 - Land west of Cherry Orchard Way and south of Cherry Orchard Lane, Rochford
CFS079 - Land west of Cherry Orchard Way and east of Cherry Orchard Lane, Rochford
CFS135 - Land at Flemings Farm Road, Eastwood
CFS059 - Land at Sandhill Road, Eastwood
CFS037 - The Ramblers & Dahlia Lodge, Eastwood Rise, Leigh
CFS134 - Land between Eastwood Rise and Rayleigh Avenue, Eastwood
CFS027 - Land north of Bull Lane, Rayleigh
CFS029 - Land at Turrett Farm, Napier Road, Rayleigh
CFS098 - Land north of Napier Road, Rayleigh
CFS053 - Land south of 38 and 39 Wellington Road, Rayleigh
We would like to request that this land is removed from the Local Plan. The location falls within, or very close to, the Upper Roach Valley Special Landscape Area. This area has been afforded a special status for good reason and therefore these sites must be removed from the Local Plan. We would also request for the Special Landscape Area to be extended to encompass the land in the above sites. Losing any land within, or close to, the Special Landscape Area would result in a permanent loss or deterioration of very special green spaces - these must be protected for environmental and wildlife reasons as well as to be enjoyed by future generations.

CFS064 - Land north and east of Folly Chase, Hockley
This land must be removed from the Local Plan. This field offers a unique home for wildlife and is one of the few remaining rural landscapes and walks for residents living on Betts Farm. Hockley Primary school would also not stand any chance of catering for the number of places a development of this size would require. Even with a possible extension, the school, surrounding roads and facilities were simply not built/designed to cater for the number of additional residents a development would bring. There are also significant issues with road access from Folly Lane which is already an extremely hazardous road.

CFS264 - Land at Greenacres Nursery, Hockley
CFS040 - Eastview House and Haslemere, Church Road, Hockley
These sites must be removed from the local plan due to the damage to wildlife, the environment and the effect on the landscape within the area. There are also already significant road safety issues with Church Road, Folly Lane and Fountain Lane. All these roads are very dangerous to navigate based on current traffic levels and this would be made significantly worse with any/all of these developments taking place. There are also regular flooding issues on Church Road which would only get worse with further building on surrounding land.

CFS082 - Land between Ironwell Lane and Hall Road, Hawkwell
CFS081 - Land at Stroud Green, north of Hall Road, Rochford
CFS002 - Land at Nursery Corner, between Rectory Road and Hall Road, Hawkwell
These sites must be removed from the local plan due to the total number of new dwellings that they could represent (in particular CFS082 and CFS081). The area is already unable to cope with traffic and infrastructure demand. The views from Ironwell Lane out onto these sites have been enjoyed for hundreds of years. They have already been permanently compromised by the Hall Road development and no further destruction of the area can be allowed to take place.

CFS132 - Ivanhoe Nursery, Ironwell Lane, Hawkwell
CFS219 - Ivanhoe, Ironwell Lane, Hockley, Essex, SS5 4JY
CFS240 - Old Parsonage, Ironwell Lane, Hawkwell, Essex, SS5
CFS118 - The Paddock by Clements Hall Way, Rectory Road, Hawkwell
CFS140 - Old Nursery, Ironwell Lane, Hawkwell
CFS018 - Land between The Grange and Red Roof in Ironwell Lane SS5 4JY
CFS036 - Land adjacent to Rectory Terrace off Rectory Road, Hawkwell
These sites must all be removed from the local plan due to the surrounding roads already being significantly oversubscribed thanks to the Clements Gate development. They are nowhere near any schools (resulting in yet more traffic) and will also detract from the otherwise beautiful countryside that can be enjoyed when walking up Ironwell Lane.

CFS194 - Land North of Rectory Road, Hawkwell
CFS169 - Meadowlands, Victor Gardens, Hockley, SS5 4DY
CFS020 - Land rear of St Marys Church, Rectory Road, Hawkwell
These sites must be removed from the local plan due to their proximity to St Mary's church. The surrounding landscape has always been farmers fields and countryside and it must stay this way. The area is already unable to cope with traffic and infrastructure demand. The views from St Mary's and the public footpaths out onto these sites have been enjoyed for hundreds of years. They must continue to be left as green belt countryside.

CFS093 - Greenacres and adjacent land, Victor Gardens, Hawkwell
CFS017 - Greenacres, Victor Gardens, Hawkwell
CFS093 - Greenacres and adjacent land, Victor Gardens, Hawkwell
These sites must be removed from the local plan in order to protect the amount of green space around a densely populated area. The surrounding landscape has always been farmers fields and countryside and it must stay this way. The area is already unable to cope with today's traffic and infrastructure demands. The views from Clements Hall and the public footpaths out onto these sites have been enjoyed for hundreds of years. They must continue to be left as green belt countryside.

CFS216 - Land at Fambridge Road, Ashingdon
This site must be removed from the local plan due to the potential number of houses (which the surrounding roads and local infrastructure cannot support) and the fact the land is within the Coastal Protection Belt Special Landscape Area. The Coastal Protection Belt Special Landscape Area must be protected and enlarged.

CFS121 - Land north of A127, Rayleigh
CFS261 - Land east of Oxford Road, Rochford
CFS222 - Land at Dollymans Farm, Doublegate Lane, Rawreth
CFS163 - Land at Lubards Lodge Farm, Hullbridge Road, Rayleigh, SS6 9QG
CFS164 - Land at Lubards Lodge Farm, Hullbridge Road, Rayleigh, SS6 9QG
CFS148 - Land north of Rawreth Lane, Rawreth
CFS171 - Land to the North of Rawreth Lane, Rawreth
CFS146 - Land at Rawreth Hall Farm, Rawreth Lane, Rawreth
CFS147 - Land north of London Road, Rayleigh
CFS099 - Land to the west of Hullbridge
CFS149 - Lane Field and Hullbridge Hill, Watery Lane, Hullbridge
CFS172 - Land At Cracknells Farm, Hullbridge
CFS265
CFS067 - Three Ashes, land to the south of Tinkers Lane, Rochford
These sites must be removed from the local plan due to the potential number of houses - which the surrounding roads and local infrastructure cannot support.

COL27 - Freight House Car Park, Rochford
COL13 - The Freight House, Bradley Way, Rochford
These sites must be removed from the local plan and retained in their current form. They should continue to be made available to the residents of the district as community facilities.

COL07 - The Mill, Bellingham Lane, Rayleigh
This site must be removed from the local plan and retained in its current form. It should continue to be made available to the residents of the district as a community facility.

CFS063 - Land south of Watts Lane, Rochford
CFS067 - Three Ashes, land to the south of Tinkers Lane, Rochford
Sector D (All references)
These sites must be removed from the local plan due to the inadequate roads in the area. Even with new or enlarged roads the existing roads already struggle with the volumes of traffic that they need to cater for today.

We respectfully ask you to make sure our views and those of our family (including our two sons - Arthur and Henry Watson) are fully and robustly represented in this process and during the subsequent stages of the local plan being written and implemented.