Q58b. With reference to Figure 46 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the land edged blue should be made available for any of the following uses?

OBJECTION TO CS194 - 500 + Houses behind Rectory Road,
Although this is a standard objection letter, please also note the effect the proposed building project would have on my mental health. Also as an asthma sufferer, I have had to increase my medication due to the current increase in pollution. I can only imagine what will happen with more cars on the road.
The water in the stream near my home increases year on year. Flooding is a real risk. I hope you understand the real distress this is causing me.

OBJECTIONS TO CS194

LOCATION

Hawkwell West is away from the existing centres. Road congestion and the lack of public transport is an issue.Bus Service is inadequate.
It is a green belt productive farmland and a nearby brownfield would be ignored.

HIGHWAY ISSUES

The development could increase traffic movements by nearly 50% on the current 2019 counts which further could represent an increase of over 90% since 2008.

Improvements were made to the junction at Nursery Corner in relation to Clements Gate. No further junction improvements are possible so material congestion will result.

The other junction on Rectory Road is at a Railway Bridge where no improvements can be made so material congestion will result.

Both unacceptable and unsustainable for further development.

INFRASTRUCTURE ?

Residents have great concerns that a standard charge or levy for infrastructural components (CIL) will be insufficient to meet the real costs of making this location sustainable.

The location is likely to generate more private car journeys and it is unlikely that bus or walking or cycling will prove a via viable alternative.

The location is currently inaccessible and any new road created from the demolition of houses in Rectory Road will be a bottleneck.

Rectory Road is on the Speedwatch list because of continuing speeding problems revealed. Given the volume of traffic, often released in batches from one end by traffic lights and the other by a mini roundabout this leads to driver frustration and speeding occurs giving rise to the potential for multiple vehicle accidents and with those trying to emerge from side roads at high traffic volume periods.

LOSS OF GREEN CORRIDOR FOR WILDLIFE

There has been an increase in some wildlife from the displacement of habitat at Clements Gate. Where will it go now?

PUBLIC FOOTPATHS AND BRIDLEWAYS

A rural footpath and a bridle path are in the area these may be lost – even if retained their attractiveness will be lost. Residents also walk the field boundary which will no longer be possible. Loss of informal recreational areas.

BROWNFIELD LOCATION NEARBY

The Magees general location, a brownfield location very nearby could be used instead.

This area of Hawkwell West is low lying and prone to flooding, fog and freezing fog.

FLOODING

Reference - South Essex Level 1 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment - April 2008

Page 37 - Hawkwell Brook - Flood Zones apply to this Site.

Page 38 - Local knowledge disputes the claim that the Hawkwell Brook defences have protected against the 100 year flood event. Only 30 year protection maximum.

Indeed there were significant Hawkwell Brook flood events in 1953 (the water course was moved as a result), 1968, and 2013. These have been ommitted from the Flood Record on Pages 40 and 41.

Being in the highest risk Flood Zone – there must be no building.

It is likely that the site risk itself would be potentially reduced by the 1 in 100 year calculations but there is no control or checks on these systems and they are unproven. As the site is adjacent to a tidal river the risk would remain and probably increase flooding risk on adjacent areas

AIR QUALITY

Air quality will decrease further. Traffic volumes have increased by 34.5%. This has increased air pollution. Residents have noticed that lichens on roof's have reduced which is a well known ecological marker of increased pollution.

FLOOD ZONE

The area nearby is in a flood zone.

Reference - South Essex Level 1 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment - April 2008

Page 37 - Hawkwell Brook - Flood Zones apply to this Site.

Page 38 - Local knowledge disputes the claim that the Hawkwell Brook defences have protected against the 100 year flood event. Only 30 year protection maximum.

Indeed there were significant Hawkwell Brook flood events in 1953 (the water course was moved as a result), 1968, and 2013. These have been ommitted from the Flood Record on Pages 40 and 41.

It is a greenfield and a nearby brownfield would be ignored.

ACCESSIBILITY TO SERVICES

Walking Distances using a midpoint on Rectory Road

Hockley Railway Station 33mins

Hockley Spa/shops 31+ mins

Hawkwell Parade 21mins

Shorter routes use unmade paths and alleyways that are not suitable for all, even the main road

route uses narrow footpaths that are unsuitable for some prams/buggies/mobility aids. All routes are uphill.

Golden Cross Parade 18mins

Rochford Railway Station 39 mins

Rochford Square 41mins

All routes necessitate crossing Rectory Road and include a narrow footpath under the railway bridge.

Again the narrow footpath is unsuitable for some prams/buggies/mobility aids.

The only cycle path is along Ashingdon Road but there is no linkage to it.

General issues with suitability of walkways for elderly/infirm and young

Hockley Car railway car park already at capacity at 9.30am Railway Company promised 4 trains per hour but only delivering three.

Limited capacity of Rochford Station Car Park

Taxi fares about £8.00 to Rochford

If travelling to Rochford station possible congestion due to early start time at King Edmund School

No safe bike route as the road width does not even incorporate a safe footway in Rectory Road on one side and none on the other. A cycle path could not be included.

No and not feasible – in the other direction the railway bridge would preclude this.

There is a growing issue at Nursery Corner which is concerning residents right now and could be exacerbated in the future by a major development.

Basically there are long tailbacks at rush hour times in Rectory Road and it is impossible for pedestrians to cross the B1013.

And there is a bottleneck at St Mary’s Bridge.

And at Golden X

And at Hockley Spa

EDUCATION

From a review of the “10 Year Plan – Meeting the demand for school places in Essex 2019 – 2028 prepared by The Essex School Organisation Service”, we note the following:

The Report confirms that “the significant increase in demand for school places in Essex is predicted to continue” (page 4).

The Report states that the figures endeavour to account for possible future developments, and therefore, the additional demand on the schools in the area (page 7).

However, the school place forecast figures for Reception for the local area on pages 55-57 show that in some areas in the latter years covered by the Report there is already insufficient capacity.

In addition, the school place forecast figures for Secondary Schools for the local area, specifically Rochford/Hockley, on page 58 confirm that throughout 2019/2020 up to 2028/2029, there are insufficient school places to cope with current demands and development.

Any additional new developments, such as this potential development of up to approximately 450 dwellings, would certainly place increased pressure on the schools in this area and only exacerbate this issue.

Pre- School - There is only one, Clever Clogs at Hawkwell Village Hall, within one mile and there is no info on capacity.

I have to put the point forward that there should be no more houses built in the area until a new road is built to take the extra vehicles. South of Lower Road, Hockley was proposed a very long time ago.

Infrastructure is roads, hospitals, doctors, schools. These services have not expanded but the housebuilding, and therefore population, has. You are just making our lives more uncomfortable.

Objection to CS194
Please find my objectives to the above proposed plans-

Wildlife! This is a beautiful area for wildlife that has had to move on from your hundreds of houses at Clements gate!

This area is extremely busy and over populated already! Where will all these children go to school? Where will all these people go to the doctors and dentist?!

Flooding- if this area is built on this will raise the risk extremely high of flooding to the current properties in rectory road.

Transport- this area does not have great public transport access so will this mean even more cars on the road?

Will you not be happy unless every bit of green land is built on?! Hockley and Hawkwell used to be lovely quiet villages!!

Rochford Council's consultation on the New Local Plan (CFS064)
I Object to the field site being used for the following reasons:
It has green belt locations all around and even on the proposed site.
The field is also farmland in use and has many connections to other footpaths that are used be many people and animals. This Site also connects 3 ancient woods and would be devastating to the wildlife in this area.
The only access to this site would be from Betts farm and/or Folly chase both with both are under significant strain already.
Any building in the Hockley area will have an extreme impact on the B1013 and this is already so congested that it is fast becoming unusable.
The doctors are well over capacity sometimes taking weeks to get appointments and this is the same for dentists.
You should not plain any residential buildings until you have the infrastructure in place to support it and the residents who already live here.

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

- it is farmed regularly
- there would be a severe impact on the level of traffic congestion on the B1013.
- the roads on the Betts Farm estate could be put under strain by a significant increase in traffic, causing pollution and damaging our health.
- the field has a locally important footpath running around its perimeter, well used for recreation by walkers.
- the field is surrounded by three small ancient woods which would be badly affected by a housing development.
- the field is an important wildlife habitat and supports many native species.

Thank you for listening,

I’m writing to you to oppose the plans to build houses on the field behind Hockley Primary School ref: CFS064

The area is already overbuilt, the roads in and out of Hockley are heavily congested at peak times and the schools are oversubscribed.

That land is truly beautiful and needs to be conserved. It’s great for mine and my childrens’ health and well-being as we go for long walks there. We would be utterly devastated if this land was built on.

I would appreciate any updates and further communications on the discussions around this.

I would like to object to CSF023.

This area is prime green belt land and needs to stay that way. It is very close to Beckney woods and poses a danger to the natural habitat of the woods. It poses a flood risk and also a possible impact on our already inadequate water pressure. The access into the site is questionable; an access road in Greensward Lane would be dangerous, especially where the speed limit changes from 30 to 40. It is well known that this section of road becomes a 'racetrack' at night.

The infrastructure of Hockley ie doctors, school places would be impacted. Most importantly, Southend Hospital will not be able to cope if the houses in this development, and all the other proposed houses in Rochford, are built.

More houses produce more cars. Spa roundabout is congested for most of the day. If new residents can't get their children into local schools in Hockley and have to drive them to other areas, this means more cars on the road in the rush hour periods.

To whom it may concern,

I have recently found out there is a proposal to build 214 houses at the end of Folly Chase, off Folly Lane.
I have been a resident in Folly Lane for 50 years and seen more and more houses being built around me, much to the detriment of the surrounding area for wildlife and residents who already live here.

We have in recent years seen numerous houses built on land which was at one time a mushroom industry in Folly Lane.
This alone has caused much congestion in the road, through the village and surrounding area. It is an absolute joke trying to get anyway.
To build a further 214 houses is a ridiculous idea in this proposed site, we will soon not be able to get out of Hockley!!
There is not enough infrastructure to support more housing, not enough Schools, Doctors or Dentists.
We will end up all living on top of each other and no where to go walking, not everyone has a car to get out!

I would like to see a plan and receive an explanation of what is going on and why such a ridiculous suggestion has been made buy whom and to who.
I am strongly against to any such plan, as are many people are in the surrounding area.

CS194
I am writing to object to the possible loss of green belt for 500 plus houses behind Rectory Road, Hawkwell.

The increase of traffic along our road would be unacceptable. The location is currently inaccessible so demolition of houses will create a bottleneck. Also, there would be a loss of habitat to wildlife, rural footpaths and bridle paths in the area.
Hawkwell Brook is a designated tidal river by DEFRA, therefore the flood zone is high.

Air quality will decrease further due to the increased traffic volumes. and parents have concerns about school places for increased demand.

I wish for all these points to be considered at the meeting.

Spatial Options - Sites: CFS053 + CFS027 + CFS086 - Wellington Road SS6 8EU
I am writing to complain about the potential new housing that is potentially going to happen across sites CFS053 + CFS027 + CFS086 i live at the top of Wellington Road, on the Hockley Road.
The Hockley Road is busy enough we have seen vast increased traffic in the last 10 years, i dont believe this is no longer a B Road, its more of a A road.
If the there are even more houses built at the bottom of Welling ton Road, its just going to make things worse. There are many "Rat Runs" in Rayleigh and around Hockley, currently Wellington Road is a DEAD END Road, if this road is opened up its going to create yet another rat run with hundreds of cars going down.
Rockford Council talks about climate change and resilient environments, yet cannot wait to concrete over Rayleigh and Hockley Green Belt, that seems very hypocritical. How will we ever be carbon neutral, its never going to happen.
I am totally against the building of even more houses at the end of Wellington Road, we have just endured 15 months of 40 ton + lorries going down Hockley Road to build Bullwood Hall, this broke / damaged the Hockley Road and caused many issues in people's houses through the banging of the lorries across the damaged surface of the road.
Rayleigh is busier than ever, if a few key roads in Rayleigh get busy its already becoming gridlocked, how can you think that building 329 houses at the end of Wellington Road is going to make this situation better. There will be more noise, more pollution, more traffic, more services being tested like doctors, fire and police services, who already struggle to cope with current volumes.
I moved from the middle of London to Hockley / Wellington Road, and now you are looking to build a mini London, its disappointing to cover our green belt with more housing. Please do not go ahead with this planning as i believe this is a huge error.

I strongly object to the development of Green Belt land in Rayleigh, Hockley and Rochford. We have already destroyed too many natural landscapes and woodlands; we can’t afford to lose any more. These trees and landscapes help fight climate change by storing carbon produced by burning fossil fuels. Cutting them down and replacing them with housing will not only destroy this valuable carbon store but release more into the atmosphere by disturbing the soil. These developments will also destroy the natural habitat of wildlife and insects vital to the survival of humans.
In addition to the above such increased housing will put already strained local infrastructure under impossible pressure. Schools, Doctors, Dentists are already almost impossible to access, this will make it completely impossible. Are there any plans for new schools, doctors’ surgeries and roads to cope with the increase in the population?
The roads around this area are already clogged with traffic which not only leads to frustrated motorists but also increases pollution. More housing will add to already clogged roads and pollution.
We have problems already with sewerage pipes in the area, more houses will put such services under even more danger of failure.
The impact of this development will be catastrophic for Rayleigh and the Rochford, Hockley area and its residents and should not proceed.

Stage 2 Assessment Area 78, site 49, parcel P45
I've frequently travelled through Hockley and Rochford for work, education and socialising for the past 15 years, recently settling on the Eastbury Park development. I've seen various changes in that time and regularly pass Pindi Nursery - I've seen a decline to the state of the keeping and feel it's becoming unsightly and in need of some TLC and development.

I know from personal experience when recently looking for a house that new residential properties are at an almost constant need to be built, and there is high demand for this location as well. It is in what's considered a sustainable area for such a development.

The other option would be to refurbish the nursery itself. I would suggest this would be expensive, more than it would warrant, and perhaps no guarantee that it would be worthwhile either. If a new development were to be built, it would give the area a more pleasant appearance and bring some much needed life to that part of the community.

I would conclude that a continuation of the residential area close by would be the best for the site and the community in general.

I would like to express concerns about the plans for development and housing on our beautiful and essential green spaces.

Living in the centre of Hockley I am acutely aware of the pressure on our local road system which has increased significantly in recent years. The mini roundabout at the Spa is already dangerous to use, far too small for the sheer number of cars, and difficult to use safely when turning out of and into Woodlands Road. I also feel that many of the local roads and infrastructure as a whole is inadequate for the current volume of traffic, let alone any additional development. With one road in and out of Hockely, and many dangerous potholes and burst water mains on Rochford and Hockley roads at all times of year, RDC need to focus ensuring the roads can cope with current housing, let alone additional.

There also needs to be adequate schools, doctors, public transport etc to cover the additional needs of new housing. The 3-4 local primary schools in Hockley are all oversubscribed as it is.

Trees and woodlands are absolutely essential for counteracting climate change, as well as providing homes for a wide range of wildlife, and providing the local children with invaluable education and experiences. The U.K. is already facing a critical shortage of trees. Green spaces are under threat when they should be cherished and protected. We are incredibly lucky to have the fields and woodlands, which are used daily by families, dog walkers, joggers and ramblers.

In particular the plan ref CFS064, which proposes a development on a well loved green space and ancient woodland behind Folly Chase, the Hockley Community Centre, and Hockley Primary school, is disturbing to the many families that use these areas on a regular basis for fresh air and outdoor activities.

If the last year and a half of a global pandemic has had any positive impact on us as a community it is that people have rediscovered a love for the local green space, woodlands and wildlife. Being locked down throughout a lot of 2020 and 2021 was extremely damaging to both the mental and physical health of children and adults. Being able to walk, run and play in the fields and woods as a form of exercise was a lifeline to some families, keeping little ones active and allowing parents to clear their minds. I can’t tell you how many times I heard people express how grateful they are to have this precious space and how crucial is has been, and will always continue to be, for the well-being of the community.

Stand in the field behind the community centre and watch a Jay hop along, spot a squirrel, listen to the crickets and birdsong. Imagine losing this resource to diggers and developers, knowing the damage it’ll cause the local area, traffic, air quality, pollution levels, wildlife, infrastructure, education and overall health of our community. I hope and trust that the council will choose to invest in and care for the community it already has, to help us thrive and protect our beautiful green spaces, fields, woodlands and homes.

Pindi Nursery development
I am writing in regards to the site at Pindi Nursery. I have lived in Hockley all my life and seen the gradual increase for more houses due to more people wanting to live in this area. There have been housing development sites built next to it over the last 2 years as well as houses over the other side of the nursery, so more houses would not look out of place, it would just look like a continuation of houses like any normal street. There has also been a large development which is currently ongoing just down the road.

Having been to the nursery, it could not be saved and therefore would just be left, which I feel would not be nice and could look unsightly on the area. Any fully working nursery would usually have hundreds of cars per day visiting the site which brings in a lot of traffic, by having the houses would reduce the traffic.

I believe that the trees are being kept around the edges, which therefore still maintains any local wildlife habitats and saves the trees.

To conclude, I feel that this would be a positive outcome for this site so that it is just not left for ruins.

It is encouraging to learn of Rochford District Council’s intention to provide housing to meet the needs of both young and old that are carbon neutral and energy efficient.

However, there can only be concern that many of the designated sites are in green belt or in-fill. Land suggested for development in Hockley includes that north of Merryfields Ave, Turret Farm, Church Road, land north-east of Folly Lane, a number of sites on Greensward Lane, Lower Road and the High Road – all on green belt/agricultural land.

Of particular concern is the site at Merryfields Ave. On green belt, it abuts the nature reserve and footpath 13. The owner of this land has had several planning applications refused in the past on account of the threat to local wildlife, impact on ancient woodland, lack of access, the danger of flooding from the nearby stream and run off from the road. Also worthy of note is the land to the north east of Folly Chase also proposed for development - also in the green belt and adjacent to ancient woodland with protected trees (Betts Wood). To the west of the site there is green lane bordered with ancient trees which should be protected if development takes place.. There is no public access to the site and there is concern that the adjacent community centre could be sacrificed for this purpose.

Young people/couples do indeed find it difficult to purchase property in Hockley. It is hoped that the new developments proposed will cater for their needs with more semi-detached properties than is now the case. The growing elderly population requiring specialist/suitable accommodation need assistance. Many elderly single people are living in family-sized homes when they would prefer more suitable accommodation such as bungalows or purpose-built flats.


The main access to Hockley and on to Southend is via the B1013; one of the busiest ‘B’ roads in the country. It is difficult to understand how this already congested road could cope with the vehicles from another 1,000 houses in Hockley, let alone those from adjacent villages and towns. Rochford District is on a peninsular: traffic can go no further than Southend especially with limited access to the north of the county via Battlesbridge. It is suggested the Council undertake a road traffic survey before continuing with the District Plan.

Hockley is served by two GP practices, as has been the case for 50 years or more. Hockley’s health clinic closed in the last few year and young mothers and the elderly have to travel to Rayleigh for medical attention. What are the plans for additional health services in line with the vastly increased population should the plan be enforced?

Unfortunately for the youth of Hockley, there is no sports field they can use in the village. The District Plan does mention the use of the Greensward Playfield and it is to be hoped this will be progressed.

Hockley is fortunate in having a library but its future is uncertain.

Hockley benefits from being on the main Southend Victoria/Liverpool Street train line. Unfortunately its bus service is not so efficient with the nos 7 and 8 services passing through the village from Southend to Rayleigh and vice versa twice an hour. Services to other parts of the district/county have to be accessed from these two termini.

The District Plan places great emphasis on health and well-being. Fortuntely Hockley is well served with a network of footpaths. It is important that they are maintained and not encroached upon by development.


Surrounded by Green Belt, Hockley is lucky in having access to a number of open spaces. It is noted that the Marylands Nature Reserve is included in The District Plan but not Plumberow Mount Open Space or St Peter’s Road Open Space – all maintained by the Parish Council. Marylands Woods, Plumberow Woods, Crabtree Woods, Hockley Hall Woods and nearby Beckney Woods are all ancient woodland but in private hands. It would be of great benefit to the community if they were included in the Local Plan and protected for the future. Betts Wood and, of course, Hockley Woods are in the care of the RDC.

With so much development, it is obvious that flora and fauna will suffer. Consideration should be given to identifying further green spaces (not just play areas) for public use. Efforts should be made to ensure wild-life corridors are incorporated into developments near to woods and open countryside.


The District Plan contains a list of conservation areas. It is disappointing to note that Ss Peter and Pauls’ church, Church Road and adjacent buildings (the old school house, Hockley Hall, Mill House and the former rectory) does not appear. In the surrounding green belt, it is constantly under threat and it would be a tremendous loss to the community should this historic part of the village be developed.

Plumberow Mount (a Romano/British tumulus) does not appear in the document as an ancient monument.

CS194
I wish to register my very strong objections to the plan to build 500+ houses behind Rectory Road, Hawkwell.

This area is green belt productive farmland and we cannot afford to lose it. Air quality will decrease even further than it already has with the inevitable increase in traffic volumes (which is at the moment high volume). It also will be a further loss to our wildlife, which has already been displaced from Clements Gate to here and we enjoy the variety and presence of it. It would probably mean the loss of our footpaths and bridle path.

I do not wish to look out my back window at modern-day houses which look like the houses that were put up in Hall Road, which look totally out of place with existing bungalows and houses in our rural location.

I cannot object strongly enough!!!

Opposing proposed building plot CFS023
The impact alone of laying utilities in particular water (No 8) will cause the most amount of disruption and headaches for all residents concerned.
The impact and pressure it would put on the already stretched resources for schooling, doctors and such like.

By RDC list of impacts you can see the predicted building plot CFS023 is no way viable, with no strategic road access and no infrastructure to accommodate the amount of traffic it would generate. The plants and wildlife it would disturb and the damage would be phenomenal.
The proposed building plot CFS023 is boarding on the exact green belt territory.

1- Green Belt Harm -1 - Red
2- Potential Plan Strategy Option 2 - Orange
3- Landscape Impact – 2 - Orange
4- Impact on Ancient Woodland -1- Red
5- Impact on Local Habitats -2 – Orange
6- Impact on Protected Trees -2 - Orange
7- Impact on Agricultural Land -1 Red
8- Proximity to Water Apparatus -2 - Orange
9- Access to bus services -2- Orange
10- Distance to strategic road network 1 – Red
11- Access to employment site – 2 – Orange
12- Critical Drainage Risk - 2 – Orange
13- Impact on Archaeology – 3 Yellow
14 - Impact on Built Heritage – 3- Yellow

https://ts2.opus4.co.uk/wms?SERVICE=WMS&REQUEST=GetMap&VERSION=1.1.1&LAYERS=boundary%3A150&STYLES=&FORMAT=image%2Fpng&TRANSPARENT=true&HEIGHT=256&WIDTH=256&CONTINUOUSWORLD=true&SRS=EPSG%3A27700&BBOX=584764.1297478802,193717.22825533897,584877.0185765213,193830.11708332412

I therefore totally and utterly oppose this proposed building plot CFS023.

Dear Sir op Madam,

Further to the meeting on Monday the 16th of August at the Old fire station regarding proposed building plot CFS023 and COL38.
I have already sent an email regarding plot CFS023.
I am now adding to that email with opposing proposed plot COL38 on the same grounds please see copy below.

Neither of these plots CFS023 or COL38 can go ahead, maximum damaged to all concerned with no benefit.
There is absolutely NO INFRASTRUCTURE from the A127 or A13 to in and out of Rayleigh and Hockley and RDC have not even taken this into consideration when submitting building plot plans.
At this present second in time it is hard enough getting in and out of Hockley and Rayleigh due to the staggering amount building already going on.

I Sophia Michael am opposing the predicted building plot number CFS023 and COL38 due to the following reasons:

The disruption and impact it would have on the local environment would be immense, to achieve minimal housing with the maximum harm and effect to the surroundings areas.

The impact alone of laying utilities in particular water will cause the most amount of disruption and headaches for all residents concerned.

By RDC list of impacts you can see the predicted building plot CFS023 is no way viable, with no strategic road access and no infrastructure to accommodate the amount of traffic it would generate. The wildlife it would disturb and damage and is on the exact boarder of green belt territory.

1- Green Belt Harm -1 - Red
2- Potential Plan Strategy Option- 2 - Orange
3- Landscape Impact – 2 - Orange
4- Impact on Ancient Woodland -1- Red
5- Impact on Local Habitats -2 – Orange
6- Impact on Protected Trees -2 - Orange
7- Impact on Agricultural Land -1 Red
8- Proximity to Water Apparatus -2 - Orange
9- Access to bus services -2- Orange
10- Distance to strategic road network 1 – Red
11- Access to employment site – 2 – Orange
12- Critical Drainage Risk- 2 – Orange
13- Impact on Archaeology – 3 Orange
14 - Impact on Built Heritage – 3- Orange

https://ts2.opus4.co.uk/wms?SERVICE=WMS&REQUEST=GetMap&VERSION=1.1.1&LAYERS=boundary%3A150&STYLES=&FORMAT=image%2Fpng&TRANSPARENT=true&HEIGHT=256&WIDTH=256&CONTINUOUSWORLD=true&SRS=EPSG%3A27700&BBOX=584764.1297478802,193717.22825533897,584877.0185765213,193830.11708332412

I therefore totally and utterly oppose this proposed building plot
CFS023 and COL38.
As mentioned at the meeting the outskirts of Rayleigh and Wickford would be a far better option for building where there is no ancient woodland, protected animals etc and the land is preferably for building unlike proposed plots CFS023 and COL38.

These representations have been prepared by Barton Willmore LLP on behalf of Bloor Homes (the ‘Promoters’). The Promoters have an active interest in a Site at Land North of Rectory Road, Hawkwell, which is identified in the Site Location Plan at Appendix 1.
This Site could provide much needed, deliverable residential development in a sustainable and appropriate location, and is considered suitable for allocation within the Rochford New Local Plan (RNLP).
1.2 This Report is submitted in response to the formal public consultation. Section 2 of this report provides comments on the Spatial Options Consultation Paper (SOCP)(2021); and Section 3 responds to the Integrated Impact Assessment (IIA)(July 2021). These sections
are followed by Section 4, which provides an overview and assessment of the Site which is promoted for development at Land North of Rectory Road, Hawkwell.
1.3 A number of supplementary documents are appended to these representations which are referred to throughout. These include a landscape and visual appraisal (LVA) of the site (Appendix 2) of the site, and an indicative framework layout (Appendix 3). Additional
visuals are also included in appendices 4-9, which provide context and support to the LVA and indicative framework layout. A Transport Appraisal (with associated plans and figures) of the site is included within Appendix 10 confirming its sustainability in transport terms.
A Flood Risk and Drainage report is included within Appendix 11 which demonstrates how any flood risk and drainage matters associated with development of the site could also be addressed

[Due to size of full submission, please refer to attached document, along with individual representations to questions].

Summary and Conclusions:
Overall Bloor Homes is supportive of the proposed approach put forward within the SOCP and IIA documents and it is commended that a positive view is taken with regard to strategy option 4 and higher growth options.
Based on the information put forward within the consultation documents and the supporting evidence base we consider that strategy option 4 and the growth option should be pursued across the district in the interests of planning positively for the most sustainable patterns of growth across the district in its context with surrounding areas.
It is also considered that the Green Belt Study and Landscape Character, Sensitivity and Capacity study papers be immediately reviewed in the context of this to realise positive opportunities for growth particularly in the case of greenfield and green belt sites that may be suitable for release.
Land North of Rectory Road, Hawkwell has the opportunity to deliver on the council’s objectives in a sustainable location in Hawkwell consistent with the approach outlined within strategy option 4. The delivery of the site could contribute to addressing the housing needs of the district and local area whilst securing a new defensible green belt boundary and compensatory improvements, alongside additional public open space,
sustainable transport connections, biodiversity net gains, and sustainable infrastructure. Bloor Homes would also be happy to engage with the council further to discuss this opportunity.

Stage 2 assessment Area AA78 (49 & P45)
Stage 2 assessment Area AA78 (49 & P45) – comments submitted under Spatial Options consultation
I’ve been a Hockley/Hawkwell resident for over 60 years, living since 1992 in Main Road, Hawkwell - my
bungalow & garden being designated ‘49’ within site AA78, as reviewed in the ‘Stage 2 Assessment’.
I’m writing to endorse strongly the Assessment’s conclusions that:
 AA78 has effectively been subsumed within the inset Hawkwell ‘urban’ settlement as a result of
the large recent adjoining developments built to the N & E of my property;
 the residual green belt boundary has always been confused given adjoining mixed industrial and
horticultural businesses historically falling on the edge of Hawkwell ‘village’. Given recent major
residential developments immediately adjoining AA78, the boundary isn’t now properly
demarcated for green belt purposes by any readily identifiable features;
 adjusting the boundary to follow Main Road itself can create a much clearer and more
defensible border between a consistently developed area to one side and on the other side the
open fields to the S & W of Main Road continuing to provide an effective green belt “buffer”.
Hawkwell can’t be exempt from the continuing need to make future contribution to ongoing targets for
necessary additional housing. I believe that a release for development of the ‘low risk’ area AA78,
presents an opportunity both to address the anomalous boundary position and enable an appropriate
small-scale development that will significantly contribute to meeting Hawkwell’s allocation.
In terms of local infrastructure and traffic, the current vehicle access from the nursery in AA78 onto
Main Road has been in use for many years, and has good sightlines in either direction – certainly much
better than those available to residents on the new Highwell Gardens access. The redevelopment of
AA78 for additional housing may actually result in a reduction in traffic movements compared with the
situation when the nursery was operating at full capacity in the past.
Current site owners (49 & P45)are all keen for any development to be undertaken sympathetically by a
local builder, rather than a national developer, and my understanding is that the nursery owners wish to
retain as their home their more modern bungalow adjacent to ‘Nursery Corner’, together with the
extensive open grassed area which separates the bungalow from the bend. This will means that the
‘rural’ visual aspect of this corner could be sustained, with newly built properties (screened by the
existing trees behind this area to the N&E) adjoining, and blending in with, the much bigger recent
developments already in place.
Looking specifically at my property, there is a particularly anomalous situation arising from recent
planning changes.
My 1920’s built bungalow originally had only 4 rooms, an outside WC and no bathroom as such. Its plot
is large but very long and narrow, with the residence built over 75 metres back from the normal building
line on which almost all bungalows along this side of Main Road sit. It probably formed part of an earlier
family smallholding, where a family member simply chose a preferred location. It still has no mains
sewerage connection, and no current prospect of obtaining up-to-date digital connectivity.
Not until around 1980 was an extension added to provide an inside toilet together with a bathroom and
enlarged kitchen, suitable for modern needs. This effectively used the 25% leeway generally permitted
for extension of green belt properties - I was of course aware of the designated green belt status of my
property when I moved in, but there have been 3 subsequent significant planning changes all of which
combine to significant detriment, in terms of the original ‘amenity’ when I moved in:
 my understanding is that the planning authority would until recently have looked at any
proposed extension/rebuilding of a green belt residence on a case by case basis, with greater
flexibility allowed (e.g. re creating ‘rooms in the roof’) provided that the roof profile and
external dimensions were not made significantly bigger. This of course often facilitated
installation of dormer windows allowing additional bedrooms to meet modern family needs.
RDC Policy was then changed less than 10 years ago to adopt a single parameter for extensions
by just measuring increase to floor space alone – for a bungalow like mine this now rules out the
insertion of dormer windows and I received a formal refusal confirming this point.
 I believe that until the 1990’s the bungalows N of Main Road in the nearby row approaching
Rectory Road (i.e. opposite Potash Nursery) had enjoyed a separate planning regime as part of a
“Rural Settlement” on the periphery of Hawkwell village, with greater planning flexibility
afforded to them. Many of those bungalows are of similar age and original profile to mine, and
almost all have now been significantly extended. This national designation now no longer exists.
 Shortly after I was refused permission re dormers, I learnt that almost over 200 new two storey
houses were to be built immediately adjoining my E boundary. As that new estate was
completed, permission was then also granted for the Brownfield site overlooking my N
boundary for a further 40 2-storey houses. All this building is now completed.
Collectively these three changes have reduced any original ‘green belt amenity’ and effectively blighted
my options going forward. I retired almost 9 years ago and always planned to move on to somewhere
with a much smaller garden within a year or two. While I expected it to be relatively easy to achieve a
market sale - particularly if I’d already secured permission for new owners to extend/rebuild the
bungalow to sustainable standards - in practice the planning obstacles and uncertainties have
continually frustrated such a move. Now approaching 70, I struggle just to keep grass and hedges tidy,
and fear that sooner or later health/age problems may mean that I just watch the bungalow and
outbuildings become more delapidated and the garden quickly totally overgrown.
I know that my neighbours in the adjoining nursery have similar but even more pressing concerns, as I
understand their business, having necessarily been running on a much reduced scale due to health
issues, is imminently to close permanently, with no prospect of anyone taking it on as a going concern.
Again, without a wider planning resolution, their very much larger former working area (and its many
outbuildings) may similarly just become derelict.
Leaving the status quo for AA78 therefore seems to me not only to result in detrimental impact for us as
individual current occupants of properties, but also for Hawkwell residents more generally as the
character of the area deteriorates in the absence of appropriate sustainable development.

Objection to CS194 (green belt near Rectory Road)
I would like to object to this for many reasons -

1. air quality would decrease.

2. possible risk of run off flooding.

3. traffic movement has been estimated to increase by 50% in the area and the local infrastructure would struggle.

4. loss of green belt for a wildlife corridor and most importantly the loss of more wild areas for people to walk and enjoy.

5. the need for children in the area to be educated locally may have concerns for capacity.


Surely we have to say no to building houses sometimes when it harms the general well being of local residents.

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

It is green belt and actively farmed.

There would be a severe impact with increased level of traffic congestion on surrounding rounds, which are already under immense pressure and congested during peak times.

The roads in the Betts farm estate would be put under strain by a significanf increase in traffic, including construction vehicles, causing pollution and damaging our health.

The field has a locally important footpath running around its perimeter, well used for recreation by walkers.

The field is surrounded by three small ancient woods which would be badly affected by a housing development.

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

The local infrastructure - in particular; schools, doctors, dentists can not cope with the increased population in the area.

In particular the Hockley Primary School is a small school which could not cope with an increased population to support. This would also be of detriment to the scenic and natural environment that the school benefits from.

Furthermore the significant construction project would be taking place directly next to the school playing field and would certainly cause a great deal of distraction and deprive the children of the current outlook where they can observe nature, see the crops grow and be harvested each year.

SITE ASSESSMENT PROFORMA: CFS074
In relation to the ‘spatial options consultation’, I would like to request you go back to government to politely tell them where they can place their housing targets!
Not sure if you have heard about the IPCC report but WE ARE IN A CLIMATE EMERGENCY, humanity would be grateful if you would start taking action towards that instead, as it is a much bigger priority than a new local plan!
We may need our greenbelt and agricultural land to grow crops if food supplies become affected, it is madness to consider covering them in concrete! Our roads are constantly gridlocked through infrastructure neglect and surely must be at dangerous pollution levels already. Not to mention the fact that a lot of the district is expected to be under water by 2050!
In light of the above, here are my reasons for objecting to this site:

Critical Drainage Risk
2
Green Belt Harm
1
Landscape Impact
2
Impact on Agricultural Land
1

Local Plan Spatial Options Consultation
Please find below the comments from Hockley parish Council regarding the Spatial Options consultation.
The need for housing is understood but many of the proposals in the Local Plan Consultation and the impact of over-development in Hockley are a major cause for concern, especially without evidence of supporting infrastructure. This initial consultation informs residents of landowners who have put forward sites for future development so there is a personal gain aspect here. Rochford District Council has a duty to actively support residents needs in all communities and influence
Government policies.
Consultation Process -The volume of information contained in the consultation was difficult to access and view online. Some links did not work properly. RDC are not reaching residents who have no internet.
Spatial Themes not included - Cultural and Accessibility.
Vibrant Town Centres: Work actively with premises owners to assist in the re-letting of any empty shops. Maybe offer a reduced rent to new businesses as a start-up scheme for “local” business only – allowing the entrepreneurs in the Rochford District a chance to showcase their businesses. Discuss with owners of empty shops how they can best strive to fill these premises and if not, then have some visual displays in the windows, perhaps photos of the old towns or useful information, to make them more attractive.
Employment – District is lacking in Environmental services - woodland conservation and management. Work with local schools and colleges, as well as businesses and the job centre, to see what sustainable employment is needed in the district. Incorporate ways to assist in schemes/apprenticeships to train all ages get back into work or upskill (with jobs at the end of training.) Developers should be encouraged to use local labour. The current employment site allocations on Figure 30 do not provide enough space to meet the district’s employment needs through to 2040. There are eighty-seven thousand people in the district. There is no data on the form to suggest how many of these are in employment and how many are looking for work, but the
council need to reassess its future needs to future-proof our residents’ opportunities Improve Long-term Economic growth - Better road networks, gigabit broadband and Wi-Fi. The council should stop developing existing commercial land into housing.
Planned Forms of Housing: Young people/couples do indeed find it difficult to purchase property in Hockley. It is hoped that the new developments proposed will cater for their needs with more semi-detached properties than is now the case. The growing elderly population requiring
specialist/suitable accommodation need assistance. Many elderly single people are living in familysized homes when they would prefer more suitable accommodation such as bungalows or purpose-built flats. Mix of housing for “affordable“ properties with higher standards for gardens and recreational space. Consideration should be given to the provision of house for life, Adapted homes for the disabled, bungalows and other potential buildings for downsizing families. Housing
for the hidden homeless – those “sofa surfing” & Emergency housing. The plan makes no reference
to social housing quotas which should be included in all new developments. By working closely with planners and developers, as well as different charities and communities, residents, and businesses. You will then get a better understanding as to what you need and what will be achievable.
From 1st August it was announced that empty buildings and brownfield sites should be converted rather than build new. This alternative should be evaluated first.
Many development proposals would also mean a further reduction in air quality, light pollution and the loss of trees, farming, and arable land at a time when food production and supply is becoming a cause for concern.
Care needs to be taken to maintain the integrity of the existing settlements with respect to green boundary between Hockley and its neighbours. Essential green belt is being allowed to erode further (suggested land at north of Merryfields Avenue, Turret Farm, Church Road, land north east of Folly Lane, a number of sites on Greensward Lane, Lower Road and High Road) which will be impossible to replace.
Enforcement on unauthorised development is not adequately managed.
Local generation of low-carbon and renewable energy – It is encouraging to learn of Rochford
District Council’s intention to provide housing to meet the needs of both young and old that are
carbon neutral and energy efficient. New developments should be able to source some or all their energy from renewable sources. Solar in all new development as standard. Incentives to encourage existing developments to install solar onto their properties as well as any commercial buildings to be fitted with solar to their roofs; there are many flat roofed buildings all over the district
that could accommodate solar panels without damaging the landscape. Explore tidal energy and seek out suitable locations to ascertain whether it is viable. Retrofitting existing housing and commercial buildings.
Infrastructure - The Council cannot comment on the suitability of sites in the plan without completion of Infrastructure Delivery & Funding Plan, Level 2 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment and Local Cycling & Walking Infrastructure Plan. This is a continuing concern to residents due to the volume of recent and proposed development causing additional pressure on roads, education, social services, health facilities and local
employment opportunities all of which gives a sustainable balance for our communities. The Infrastructure Funding Statement states all financial and non-financial developer contributions relating to Section 106 conditions should be completed but this is not the case when larger sites
are split up. If developers do not honour the conditions the money reverts to ECC and RDC who should use this to improve our existing facilities, especially on our roads and cycle paths which are in a pitiful state of repair and will only worsen with further development if funding is not used where was intended. The volume of traffic has increased to an unacceptable level on the B1013
causing noise, air pollution and disturbance; Is the traffic survey up to date?. The main access to Hockley and on to Southend is via the B1013; one of the busiest ‘B’ roads in the country. It is difficult to understand how this already congested road could cope with the vehicles from another 1,000 houses in Hockley, let alone those from adjacent villages and towns. Rochford District is on
a peninsular: traffic can go no further than Southend especially with limited access to the north of the county via Battlesbridge. It is suggested the Council undertake a road traffic survey before continuing with the District Plan.
Good public transport links are crucial for our villages, neighbourhoods, and town centres. Hockley
benefits from being on the main Southend Victoria/Liverpool Street train line. Unfortunately its bus
service is not so efficient with the nos 7 and 8 services passing through the village from Southend to Rayleigh and vice versa twice an hour. Services to other parts of the district/county have to be accessed from these two termini. The council needs to follow the rule “No development before infrastructure”. Houses are being built without adequate road, pedestrian, and cycle networks in place. New developments should be planned with cycle paths and walkways that link up with existing paths. Designated cycling paths that are separated from existing roads and pavements, but adjacent to our road networks would help improve traffic flow. Ensure the cycle network links with public transport as part of a complete review of sustainable transport. Cycling infrastructure and other sustainable transport methods should be prioritised over a car-centric highway use.
Balancing access against increased congestion will be the issue for a lot of the promoted sites in Hockley. If RDC keep adding small developments to the boundaries of the town, it will overcrowd existing houses and add to urban sprawl.
Ensuring that public rights of way are not blocked by landowners and are kept free from debris. Assess paths to make them accessible to the disabled so that all is inclusive. There are some green areas that do not have public facilities and it would be advantageous to look at offering this in the larger spaces. For example, a small toilet block and hand washing facilities in a car park.
Community infrastructure - Community infrastructure should be preserved and extended.
Access to town centres and secondary shopping by bicycle and foot should be made easier and safer. Hockley has a road network no longer fit for purpose, some schools are near to capacity, it is difficult to obtain a GP or dental appointment. Hockley is served by two GP practices, as has been the case for 50 years or more. Hockley’s health clinic closed in the last few years and
young mothers and the elderly have to travel to Rayleigh for medical attention. What are the plans for additional health services in line with the vastly increased population should the plan be enforced?. There is little to no disabled play areas or play equipment. There are always issues with waste collections, drain and road cleaning and verge trimming. The District Council does not have the staff to deal with all these issues. The current recycling site at Castle Road, Rayleigh is
no longer capable of expanding to meet the needs of an ever-growing population. The plan should also identify a site to accommodate commercial waste facilities to stop fly tipping.
Open Spaces - The value of our open spaces and the issues with climate change has become a priority. People will continue to reduce travel and split time working from home. Our open spaces are essential for wellbeing, exercise and relaxation. We are on an overpopulated peninsular surrounded by water with one way in and one way out and there is a proven risk of flooding. Open
space is at a premium. Unfortunately for the youth of Hockley, there is no sports field they can use in the village. The District Plan does mention the use of the Greensward Playfield and it is to be hoped this will be progressed. The District Plan places great emphasis on health and wellbeing. Fortunately Hockley is well served with a network of footpaths. It is important that they
are maintained and not encroached upon by development All green spaces, no matter how small, hold some significance, especially to those who use them
for recreation. They are of community value and should not be developed. It is reasonable for RDC to encourage the development of a garden village away from existing communities to accommodate the Governments home building targets. RDC must protect all recreational spaces
and improve them, where necessary.
Conservation areas, Green Belt & sites subject to the exclusion criteria (i.e. Sites of Special Scientific Interest) on the call for sites must be protected from Development.
Local Wildlife Sites review: RDC policies for protecting wildlife areas need to be updated. Designating initial sites is a step in the right direction but more must be done. It is proven that mental health issues can be relieved by nature and keeping the sites sacred is more important now than it ever was. Keeping a biodiverse environment, with wildlife and the environment in which it relies is paramount. The plan should create new wildlife meadows to encourage the pollinators to future proof our own existence.
RDC to focus on concerns and consideration to wildlife, birds, animals, and insects. Alongside plants and endangered species. Surrounded by Green Belt, Hockley is lucky in having access to a number of open spaces. It is noted that the Marylands Nature Reserve is included in The District Plan but not Plumberow Mount Open Space or St Peter’s Road Open Space – all maintained by the Parish Council. Marylands Woods, Plumberow Woods, Crabtree Woods, Hockley Hall Woods and nearby
Beckney Woods are all ancient woodland but in private hands. It would be of great benefit to the community if they were included in the Local Plan and protected for the future. Betts Wood and, of course, Hockley Woods are in the care of the RDC. With so much development, it is obvious that flora and fauna will suffer. Consideration should be given to identifying further green spaces (not just play areas) for public use. Efforts should be
made to ensure wild-life corridors are incorporated into developments near to woods and open countryside.
Heritage
The District Plan contains a list of conservation areas. It is disappointing to note that St Peter and Pauls’ Church, Church Road and adjacent buildings (the old school house, Hockley Hall, Mill House and the former rectory) does not appear. In the surrounding green belt, it is constantly under threat and it would be a tremendous loss to the community should this historic part of the
village be developed.
Plumberow Mount (a Romano/British tumulus) does not appear in the document as an ancient monument.
Promoted Sites (Hockley)
The plan proposes around 1000 additional houses in Hockley with other developments on land bordering the parish. This density will have a major detrimental impact on the quality of life for the settlements.
• CFS105 (Land North of Hambro Hill) would negatively impact the openness of the Green Belt between Rayleigh & Hockley. Rochford Green belt study states this parcel of greenbelt has a ‘Moderate’ rating for Purpose 1, and a ‘Strong’ rating for 2 & 3. It checks the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas, prevents Rayleigh & Hockley merging into one another, and assists in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.
• The Merryfields Avenue (green belt) proposal has been previously rejected by residents due to access issues as the land borders on the Nature Reserve and footpath 13. Consideration should be given to incorporating it into the Reserve rather than releasing it for development. The owner of the tract of land has made a few unsuccessful planning applications in the past on account of the threat to local wildlife, impact on ancient woodland, lack of access, the danger of flooding from the nearby stream and run off from the road. The cost effectiveness of providing access and services could prove to be exorbitant along with any damage incurred on the nearby
Nature Reserve, better that the land become part of the Reserve.
• Proposals for Folly Chase and Church Road will increase density and give further traffic problems on a busy county access road which has light industry and equestrian centres but does not have footways for pedestrian safety; vehicles are also subject to dangerous line of sight restrictions. The Folly Chase proposal was previously rejected by residents and supposedly dismissed by RDC but still appears in the Local Plan for development. The land to the north east of Folly Chase is adjacent to ancient woodland with protected trees (Betts Wood).
To the west of the site there is a green lane bordered with ancient trees which should be protected if development takes place. There is no public access to the site and there is concern that the adjacent community centre could be sacrificed for this purpose. What are the plans for the Community Centre and public footpaths which must be retained?
• Sheltered accommodation is in danger of being lost at Lime Court and Poplar Court.
• The proposal for development on land at Belchamps is particularly contentious due to the lack of open space for activities available to youngsters and community groups in the Rochford District. Any considered development would be a detrimental impact to the Historical
woodlands. This site has been a very valuable well used resource and it is important this is retained for our future generations.
• As Hockley Woods is the largest remaining wild woodland in the country RDC should be doing EVERYTHING it can to save it from development, either adjacent to or close by. RDC should also actively be adding to it by planting more trees to future proof its existence and status. RDC must protect any thoroughfares that access Hockley Wood.
These comments will be publicised on the Parish Council website, I would be grateful if you could do the same on the Rochford District Council website.

1.0 Introduction
1.1 These representations are submitted to the Rochford New Local Plan Spatial Options (RLPSO) on behalf of Countryside Properties and in respect of Land at Pulpits Farm, Hockley.
1.2 The Site has previously been submitted in response to the Council’s Call for Sites, and is reference CFS263 in the Council’s plan-making process (although also referred to as Site 272, in the Council’s Green Belt Study (2020))
1.3 This representation should be read alongside the Vision Document that has been prepared in respect of the development of the Site, and which accompanies the
representations as Appendix A.
2.0 Response to Local Plan Spatial Options Question 4
Q4. Do you agree with the strategic priorities and objectives we have identifies? Is there anything missing from the strategic priorities or objectives that you feel
needs to be included?
2.1 We suggest that improving the affordability of housing for local people in Rochford District should form an objective of the Local Plan.
2.2 As the RLPSO rightly recognises at page 12, housing affordability is a particularly issue within the District.
2.3 ONS data on the affordability of housing reports that in 2020 the median house price was 11.57 times the median gross annual workplace-based earnings. The affordability of housing has worsened significantly in recent years, and is substantially worse than the
national average.
2.4 Without an increase in housing supply, we consider there is a very real risk that it will only worsen.
2.5 Not only do current projections suggest increased housing need in the District, but the longer term impact of the Covid-19 pandemic may well place additional pressure on Rochford’s housing market and affordability of homes for local people.
2.6 Early indications are that there has already been an increased desire to move from more to less urban areas, due to a combination of a desire for homes with larger garden areas and home offices, better access to open space, and within less densely populated areas; and people considering it less critical to live very near their place of work, given the increase in home working within a number of employment sectors.
2.7 This is of particular relevance to Rochford District, given that London is accessible via railway services from parts of the District; and house prices are relatively affordable when compared to other areas in and around London.
3.0 Response to Local Plan Spatial Options Question 6
Which of the identified strategy options do you consider should be taken forward in the Plan?
3.1 We consider that a balanced approach that includes direction of a relatively significant proportion of the District’s housing needs to the higher tier settlements (including Hockley) would be the most appropriate strategy, for the reason set out below.
Strategy Option 1 – Urban Intensification
3.2 The RLPSO states that this option would entail making best possible use of our existing planned developments, previously developed land and other under-utilised land, such as vacant buildings and contaminated land; and notes that a strategy based on urban intensification could also include taking a more permissive approach to higher densities in suitable locations (such as town centres and near stations). It is suggested this would involve no loss of Green Belt land, would minimise loss of greenfield, and would deliver
4,200 homes over the next 10 years.
3.3 The RLPSO describes Strategy Option 1 as “the minimum expectation of national policy” and states it is “likely to be required within every strategy option”.
3.4 We agree that it would be consistent with national policy to seek to promote the redevelopment of appropriate previously developed land to help meet development needs. However, we consider that a strategy which were to rely purely on this to meet development needs would be ineffective, unsustainable, incapable of meeting development needs in full as required by national policy, and result in a Local Plan that would be inherently unsound.
3.5 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) confirms (paragraph 35) that one of the requirements of a sound Local Plan is that it seeks to meet the area’s objectively assessed development needs in full. The NPPF also emphasises the Government’s objective to significantly boost housing land supply (paragraph 60).
3.6 However, the RLPSO acknowledges that Strategy Option 1 would fall significantly short of meeting local development needs in full. Not only would this render the plan unsound and contrary to the NPPF, but it would likely result in significant negative social and economic impacts locally.
3.7 In any case, we consider that a yield of 4,200 dwellings over 10 years through urban intensification to be unfeasibly optimistic.
3.8 To achieve this quantum, it would be necessary to sustain an average of 420 dwellings per annum (dpa) over a 10-year period. The Council’s Annual Monitoring Report 2019/20 states that between April 2010 and March 2020, the District achieved a total of 1,768 dwelling completions over this particular 10-year period – an average of just 177 dpa. Furthermore, the delivery of these 1,768 dwellings was not solely through urban
intensification, but also included allocations made through the Rochford Allocations Plan (2014). There is of course only a finite supply of previously developed land that is
suitable and viable for residential redevelopment, and it is considered that much of this has likely already been exhausted, particularly given the emphasis placed by national and local policy on utilising such sites.
3.9 In addition to Strategy Option 1 being unlikely to deliver anywhere near the number of new homes needed in the District, we would also question the appropriateness of such a strategy in any case. To make a meaningful contribution to housing needs over the
plan period, this strategy would likely require development at a significantly greater density than existing development in the District. Not only could this be harmful to the character of the District’s residential areas, but it may also result in loss of amenity for existing residents.
3.10 Furthermore, it is unclear if this approach would deliver the types of homes required where they are required in the District. Such a strategy is, for example, unlikely to deliver a high proportion of family homes.
3.11 For the above reasons, we do not consider that Strategy Option 1 is capable of resulting in a sound Local Plan and should be discounted.
Strategy Options 2, 3 and 4
3.12 Given Strategy Option 1’s inability to result in a sound Local Plan, this leaves Options 2, 3 and 4 as potential strategies.
3.13 Strategy Option 2 is to focus on urban extensions, with Option 2a entailing focussing such growth on the District’s main towns; and Option 2b dispersing to all settlements based on the settlement hierarchy.
3.14 Through Strategy Option 2 sustainable sites could be utilised at the edge of settlements, which should include Hockley, to deliver a range of housing developments, including the provision of much needed housing in the short term. This option provides flexibility to utilise smaller sites to deliver homes earlier alongside larger sites to meet the overall housing need.
3.15 We consider that Strategy Option 2b should include growth to Hockley, given that it is a top tier settlement in the adopted Development Plan’s settlement hierarchy.
3.16 In relation to Option 3, this suggests focussing growth on one of three locations (west of Rayleigh (3a); north of Southend (3b); and east of Rochford (3c)). We consider there is merit to strategic scale growth that can help deliver significant infrastructure improvements. However, this needs to be complemented by the delivery of a range of different sites (including those that can deliver in the short term and do not require
significant infrastructure improvements) and in a range of different locations that reflect the fact that the District comprises a number of distinct settlements with their own
identities and communities, all of which the Local Plan should seek to support.
3.17 The outcome of the Uttlesford Local Plan Examination provdes a warning regarding the dangers of over reliance on large strategic growth sites to meet housing needs. Recommending the submitted plan be withdrawn due to soundness issues, the Inspectors concluded:
“In order to arrive at a sound strategy, we consider that as a primary consideration, the Council would need to allocate more small and medium sized sites that could
deliver homes in the short to medium term and help to bolster the 5 year [housing land supply], until the Garden Communities begin to deliver housing. This would have
the benefit of providing flexibility and choice in the market and the earlier provision of more affordable housing”. (Paragraph 114 of Uttlesford Local Plan Examination
Inspectors’ letter of 10 January 2020)
3.18 This does not of course mean that the strategy cannot include strategic growth allocations, only that if it were to, they would need to be accompanied by a range of other small and medium sized sites.
3.19 Strategy Option 4 entails a mix of the other options, and rightly recognises that the alloction of strategic growth sites and the allocation of urban extensions are not mutually exclusive. We consider this option does have particular merit, and it is notable that it was scored positively by the Integrated Impact Assessment (IIA) in relation to its social, economic and environmental impacts. This option will still allow for current housing
needs to be addressed in the short term, as the Local Plan is required to; as well as enabling provision of strategic allocations if so wished. It will also allow for proportionate growth to be directed to the District’s various communities through settlement extensions, including Hockley – something which we consider is essential for the Local Plan to do if it is to deliver sustainable development.
Hockley
3.20 We consider that, in order for the Local Plan’s spatial strategy to promote sustainable development, to be justified, and to be capable of being found sound, it will be essential for it to direct a proportion of the District’s growth to Hockley.
3.21 Hockley / Hawkwell is identified as a Tier 1 settlement in the current Development Plan, i.e. one of the settlements considered most sustainable to accommodate greatest levels of growth.
3.22 Notwithstanding this, the District has experienced considerably less housing development since adoption of the Core Strategy than the other two Tier 1 settlements.
It is recognised that this is in part due to aspirations for the redevelopment of the town centre not being realised, as conditions have changed; and also partly due to constraints to the settlement’s growth as a result of Hockley Woods and the Upper Roach Valley Special Landscape Area to the south. Nevertheless, there are opportunities to deliver sustainable extensions to the existing settlement, particularly located away from the
more sensitive areas to the south.
3.23 Hockley is an established, vibrant community with a long history. It is important that planning helps support and enhance the vitality of the community, including by directing future growth to the settlement.
3.24 The RLPSO recognises that housing affordability and availability are key issues in Hockley. The Local Plan represents an opportunity to help address this issue, by
directing additional housing to this location. Conversely, failure to direct sufficient housing to Hockley is likely to result in housing becoming increasingly unaffordable for
local people. It is manifestly clear that if the Local Plan is to be a sound plan that meets development needs in a sustainable manner, then it cannot rely on RLPSO Option 1.
Alterations to the Green Belt boundary
3.25 It is evident that the District’s Green Belt boundaries will need to be amended in order to meet development needs and provide a sound plan for the future of the District.
3.26 The NPPF confirms (paragraph 140) that Local Plans are the appropriate vehicle through which to make alterations to the Green Belt boundary.
3.27 The NPPF (paragraph 140 again) also states that such alterations should only be made where exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and justified.
3.28 Exceptional circumstances are not defined in national policy or guidance.
3.29 However, there is case law which provides a basis for the consideration of the issue. In particular, the judgment in Calverton Parish Council v Nottingham City Council & Ors [2015] EWHC 1078 (Admin) suggests (paragraph 51) that the following matters are relevant in the consideration of whether exceptional circumstances exist to justify alterations to the Green Belt:
 The scale of the objectively assessed need;
 Constraints on supply/availability of land with the potential to accommodate sustainable development;
 Difficulties in achieving sustainable development without impinging on the Green Belt;
 The nature and extent of the harm to the Green Belt; and  The extent to which impacts on the purposes of the Green Belt may be mitigated as far as practicable.
3.30 The District is subject to an acute local housing need. The existing Green Belt boundary
is drawn tightly around the District’s existing settlements, and opportunities to meet development needs are severely restricted without alterations to the Green Belt
boundary.
3.31 Given the scale of objectively assessed need faced by the District, and the lack of potential alternatives to releasing Green Belt in order to sustainably meet such needs, it is evident that there are exceptional circumstances that justify alteration to the Green
Belt through the Rochford Local Plan.
4.0 Response to Local Plan Spatial Options Question 29
Do you agree that the plan should designate and protect areas of land of locally important wildlife value as a local wildlife site, having regard to the Local Wildlife Sites review? Are there any other sites that you feel are worthy of protection?
4.1 We agree that the Local Plan should seek to protect areas of locally important wildlife. Furthermore, we consider it should seek to deliver ecological gains.
4.2 However, the designation of such sites must be justified by robust evidence.
4.3 The 2018 Local Wildlife Review suggested a new Local Wildlife Site (R41) which
incorporates some of what is currently Local Wildlife Site R24, along with additional land to the west of this, including part of the Land at Pulpits Farm (CFS263 (‘the Site’).
4.4 The evidence for designating such additional land as a Local Wildlife Site is unclear.
4.5 It is not clear from the 2018 Local Wildlife Site Review what particular characteristics of the land forming part of CFS263 proposed to be designated as a Local Wildlife Site justify this land’s designation as such.
4.6 There is no evidence that a detailed survey of the Site was undertaken as part of the 2018 Local Wildlife Site Review that could justify its inclusion within a Local Wildlife Site.
4.7 The Site has been subject to an ecological constraints and opportunities survey, undertaken in 2020 by qualified specialist ecological consultancy, Southern Ecological Solutions.
4.8 This survey identified that the Site comprises habitats of varying value to biodiversity, with the most suitable habitat at the Site’s boundaries in the form of hedgerows, mature trees, rough grassland margins and watercourses. However, there was nothing to suggest that the Site merits any form of designation for its ecological value.
4.9 A copy of this initial survey is provided as Appendix B to these representations.
4.10 It is not the case that evidence must be provided to set out why the Site should not form part of the Local Wildlife Site. On the contrary, if this land is to be designated as a Local Wildlife Site, it is incumbent upon the Council to provide robust evidence justifying this.
4.11 We do not consider the Site merits designation for its ecological value, and would object to any proposals to do so. However, we do recognise that parts of the Site are of
ecological value. As part of the development of the Site, existing ecological features would be retained and, where practicable, enhanced.
4.12 It is important to recognise that development of land often has the potential to engender ecological benefits, and that would be the case in the development of site CFS263.
5.0 Response to Local Plan Spatial Options Question 58
Q58a. Do you agree with our vision for Hockley and Hawkwell? Is there anything you feel is missing?
5.1 We agree with the vision for Hockley as proposed by the RLPSO.
5.2 In particular, we very much support the objective of improving housing affordability in order to ensure that local first-time buyers can afford to live locally.
5.3 If this vision is to be realised, it will be imperative to provide a sufficient number of new homes for Hockley, and of a variety of types and tenures, to meet all of the community’s needs.
Q58b. With reference to Figure 46 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the promoted sites should be made available for any of the following uses? How could that improve the completeness of Hockley and Hawkwell?
i. Housing
5.4 Land at Pulpits Farm (CFS263, ‘the Site’) is suitable, available, and achievable for residential development as a sustainable extension to Hockley. The Vision Document
which accompanies this representation (Appendix A) sets out details regarding the Site’s ability to sustainably deliver a high-quality development.
5.5 The Site was considered through the Council’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHELAA) (2020). The SHELAA (2020) considered the Site’s suitability in relation to a multitude of constraints, including policy, environmental, ecological, heritage
and physical constraints. In respect of the Site and potential constraints, this assessment concluded:
“Green Belt site that is currently in mixed use with residential and ancillary outbuildings, with some vacant grassland. There is an existing access with no
fundamental constraints to redevelopment of the site” [Emphasis added].
5.6 In summary, the only constraint to the Site’s development identified was its location within the Green Belt in the current Development Plan – a policy constraint.
5.7 In addition, the SHELAA (2020) assessed the Site’s suitability in terms of its accessibility to local services.
5.8 In relation to accessibility alone, it stated:
“There are two bus stops within c 0.3km of the site, however these are served by only two bus routes (No7/18). A private road connects the site to Greensward Lane, a C road which traverses the centre of Hockley before connecting to the wider strategic road network”
5.9 In addition to the points made within the SHELAA (2020) we would add that the Site is c.12 minutes walking distance from Hockley railway station. When considering
accessibility of this Site, and its appropriateness for allocation, this is clearly a key consideration.
5.10 In particular, it is important to note that the NPPF instructs Local Planning Authorities to prioritise sites that have good access to public transport when considering release of Green Belt to meet development needs. At paragraph 142 of the NPPF it states:
“Where it has been concluded that it is necessary to release Green Belt land for development, plans should give first consideration to land which has been previouslydeveloped and/or is well-served by public transport”.
5.11 The Green Belt is drawn tightly around the existing extent of residential development in Hockley. As noted in our response to Question 6, Hockley is clearly a sustainable location to accommodate a proportion of the District’s housing needs, and furthermore it is important that the vitality of Hockley be supported through the direction of sustainable growth to the settlement. It will be necessary to direct some growth to Hockley in order to ensure a sound Local Plan that delivers sustainable development, and to deliver this it will be necessary to alter the existing Green Belt boundary. In making such a revision, sites such as CFS263 which have good access to public transport should be prioritised for residential allocation.
5.12 The SHELAA (2020) considered the Site’s proximity to local services and stated: “A primary school sits c 1km to the east of the site, with a secondary school c 0.6km
to the west. A garden centres [sic] sits within C 0.3km of the site with a small number of shops along Greensward Lane”.
5.13 We consider the above significantly understates the range of local services and facilities that are in proximity to the Site.
5.14 In particular, the SHELAA (2020) appears to have overlooked that the Site is adjacent to
a GP surgery.
5.15 The Site is also well located in relation to a range of other services, facilities, employment opportunities and centres. As set out in the Vision Document that accompanies this representation, the following can be reached without use of a car within the following
journey times:
Walking:
Bus stop 1 minute
Greensward Surgery 1 minute
Greensward Academy Secondary School 5 minutes
Hockley Railway Station 12 minutes
Plumberow Academy Primary School 15 minutes
Convenience retail (Co-Op, Spa Road) 15 minutes
Hockley Post Office 15 minutes
Eldon Way 15 minutes
Approximate centre of Hockley Town Centre 17 minutes
Bus:
Approximate centre of Hockley Town Centre 5 minutes
Rochford Town Centre 14 minutes
Rayleigh Town Centre 16 minutes
Train:
Southend Victoria 27 minutes
London Liverpool Street 60 minutes
5.16 In 2014, sustainable transport charity Sustrans estimated that school traffic contributed,
nationally, to 24% of all traffic at peak times. The accessibility of both primary and
secondary schools from the Site without reliance on a car, and the potential to avoid
additional traffic that might be otherwise generated, is considered to be a factor which
weighs significantly in favour of utilising this Site to help meet housing needs.
5.17 The principal constraint to the Site’s development is that it is currently within the Green Belt.
5.18 In terms of the Site’s contribution to the purposes of the Green Belt, it is relevant to note that is an edge-of-settlement Site, the character of which has been influenced by adjacent residential uses to the north, west and south. The Site is subject to a degree of containment provided by existing features, and its development would not give rise to unrestricted urban sprawl. On the contrary, it would allow for a new, robust Green Belt
boundary to be implemented.
5.19 The Council’s Rochford District and Southend-on-Sea Borough Joint Green Belt Study February 2020 (‘the Green Belt Study (2020)’ concluded that the western portion of the Site could be developed with only moderate harm to the Green Belt. This is before mitigation measures are factored in (which case law suggests must be considered in determining whether exceptional circumstances apply), and once potential measures are
accounted for (such as provision of landscape buffers) it is considered that the Site’s development would not undermine the strategic purposes of the Green Belt.
5.20 Use of the Site to provide market and affordable homes would result in a number of social, economic and environmental benefits, as set out within the Vision Document
(Appendix A). These include, in summary:
 Market and affordable homes to help meet acute local need;
 Highly accessible Site, with opportunities for future residents to access services and facilities without use of a car;
 Efficient use of land which lacks environmental constraints, reducing pressure to develop more sensitive sites to meet needs;
 Provision of variety of public open space across the Site, including informal open space, ponds, structural landscaping for wildlife;
Increased expenditure within the local area, supporting jobs and helping sustain local facilities and services;
 Creation of direct employment during construction, as well as indirect employment related to the supply chain;
 Landscape and ecological enhancements as part of development;
 Development within a location that will help sustain the vitality of Hockley Town Centre.
5.21 It is important that where Green Belt is released for housing, the Council can have confidence that such land will be delivered and contribute to meeting needs.
5.22 In addition to being suitable and sustainable, the Site is also available and achievable for residential development.
5.23 The Site is not subject to any legal or ownership constraints to development.
5.24 The Site is being actively promoted for development by an established housebuilder with a track record of delivery. The Council can be confident that the Site will be deliver, and through a high-quality development, if allocated through the Local Plan.
6.0 Comments on Integrated Impact Assessment
Assessment Framework
6.1 At Table 1.1 of the Integrated Impact Assessment (IIA), the assessment framework is set out. This explains that the objectives of the population and communities theme are
1) to cater for existing and future residents’ needs as well as the needs of different groups in the community; and 2) maintain and enhance community and settlement identity.
6.2 In respective of objective 1, Table 1.1 explains that assessment questions relate to the following:
 Meet the identified objectively assessed housing needs, including affordable, for the plan area?
 Ensure an appropriate mix of dwelling sizes, types and tenures to meet the needs of all sectors of the community?
 Improve cross-boundary links between communities?
 Provide housing in sustainable locations that allow easy access to a range of local services and facilities?
 Promote the development of a range of high quality, accessible community facilities, including specialist services for disabled and older people?
6.3 We support the above decision-aiding question, but suggest that, in addition to meeting the District’s housing needs (including affordable housing), the Local Plan should seek to improve the affordability of housing for local residents.
6.4 The median house price in the District is 11.57 times the median gross annual workplacebased earnings (‘the affordability ratio’). The affordability of housing has worsened significantly in recent years – and to a much greater extent than the national average. In 2000, the affordability ratio for the District was 5.08 – only slightly worse than the national average of 4.13. By 2020, the national affordability ratio had increased to 7.69 –
significantly below the District’s 11.57.

RDC have launched their Spatial Options Consultation to the residents of Rochford District for comment on proposed sites to be brought forward for housing development to meet proposed numbers of new housing to be built .


The question must be asked WHY this is happening prior to ECC Highways Study being commenced and a report compiled. Is this not against Government guidelines? Highways are a major consideration and huge concern to most residents in the district. RDC should not or cannot make any kind of plan or recommendation to its officers until capacity of the local road network has been reviewed. Any possible proposed extension or changes to the network must have guaranteed Central Government Funding in place before any further consideration for further building is planned.

Local infrastructure is not fit for use.

The current road network is already under severe strain with current car movements. Recently RDC made a decision to refuse the proposed Bloor development in Ashingdon. “In the absence of a definition of severe it is for the local authority to determine whether a severe impact would result and in this case it considered that the development would result in severe impact on the local highway network”

By definition RDC has acknowledged that the road network throughout the area does not have capacity to take on increased capacity through mass development.

Of particular concern to us is site Field CFS064. This site is constrained by existing housing. The only possible access being through woodland in Manor Road or Folly Chase, a private road which is a public footpath. The site is also boarded by a public footpath. Loss of amenity to the local community would be catastrophic. The site would feed out on the B1013 already running at well over capacity.

Rochford district is constrained by its location. Located on a peninsula it is bordered by the River Crouch, areas of SSI, ancient woodland, Green belt and the proximity of the coast. Railway bridges built up to 120 years ago constrain movement on roads in at least five locations on the network. All, but one, have height restrictions. None allow easy movement of two opposing cars passing, one is one way only.

The road system running through the district is ancient in many places. Indeed the Ashingdon Road having been laid out and originally built by The Romans. Maps dating from the 18th century show most major roads, e.g. the B1013, having a layout which still exists in 2021. Housing, shops and businesses have been built along their borders allowing
no capacity for expansion. We no longer see the stagecoach bound for Southend, two donkeys, a haycart and the odd child on a bicycle moving along these roads each day compared to the number of vehicle movements now seen.

Lower Road and Watery Lane are used as major or main routes in and out of the district into and out of Southend, Chelmsford and beyond.

The following areas are also of significant concern to me as a resident all being at or close to saturation point with demand from the current population.

An aging and vulnerable services system. Water, drains, sewage, (one recent development was actually completed without sewage systems being in place) gas, electricity and communication networks. E.g., Recent catastrophic water main collapse in The Hullbridge Road due to aged pipes.

Roads which are no longer fit for purpose. Many and multiply needs for repair, maintenance upgrade and extension causing broken surfaces and most significantly constant road closure or restrictions. County Highways seems to deem the district way down on its list for repairs and maintenance.

The severe risk to life and property should any major, or minor, emergence occur necessitating
the need for multiple emergency services, fire, ambulance, police to attend at peak times where roads are blocked or at capacity. On street parking is also a huge issue in many areas. Grid lock throughout the district ensues almost immediately any accident occurs or road work(s) are in place.

Existing Schools are at capacity with most being in locations where it would be difficult or impossible to increase their footprint. E.g. Rochford Primary. None of the proposed developments come with any plan for new schools, or any room to build them. Current approved development has necessitated the movement of children to school in adjoining villages due to lack of planning or capacity locally, resulting in increased car movements at peak times and pollution issues.

Doctors’ surgeries are at capacity and placed under further strain by the difficulty of recruiting GP’s

Local Hospital capacity is at breaking point

Environmental issues are not mentioned or considered. Building on flood plain, lost green belt areas, loss of habitat. Existing roads or areas already exceeding approved pollution levels. This I believe must also be the case for most main roads in the area, if not all, especially during rush hours due to standing traffic.

For ALL the above reasons no additional housing should be considered until a full and comprehensive environmental study is carried out and analysed.

RDC have launched their Spatial Options Consultation to the residents of Rochford District for comment on proposed sites to be brought forward for housing development to meet proposed numbers of new housing to be built .


The question must be asked WHY this is happening prior to ECC Highways Study being commenced and a report compiled. Is this not against Government guidelines? Highways are a major consideration and huge concern to most residents in the district. RDC should not or cannot make any kind of plan or recommendation to its officers until capacity of the local road network has been reviewed. Any possible proposed extension or changes to the network must have guaranteed Central Government Funding in place before any further consideration for further building is planned.

Local infrastructure is not fit for use.

The current road network is already under severe strain with current car movements. Recently RDC made a decision to refuse the proposed Bloor development in Ashingdon. “In the absence of a definition of severe it is for the local authority to determine whether a severe impact would result and in this case it considered that the development would result in severe impact on the local highway network”

By definition RDC has acknowledged that the road network throughout the area does not have capacity to take on increased capacity through mass development.

Of particular concern to us is site Field CFS064. This site is constrained by existing housing. The only possible access being through woodland in Manor Road or Folly Chase, a private road which is a public footpath. The site is also boarded by a public footpath. Loss of amenity to the local community would be catastrophic. The site would feed out on the B1013 already running at well over capacity.

Rochford district is constrained by its location. Located on a peninsula it is bordered by the River Crouch, areas of SSI, ancient woodland, Green belt and the proximity of the coast. Railway bridges built up to 120 years ago constrain movement on roads in at least five locations on the network. All, but one, have height restrictions. None allow easy movement of two opposing cars passing, one is one way only.

The road system running through the district is ancient in many places. Indeed the Ashingdon Road having been laid out and originally built by The Romans. Maps dating from the 18th century show most major roads, e.g. the B1013, having a layout which still exists in 2021. Housing, shops and businesses have been built along their borders allowing
no capacity for expansion. We no longer see the stagecoach bound for Southend, two donkeys, a haycart and the odd child on a bicycle moving along these roads each day compared to the number of vehicle movements now seen.

Lower Road and Watery Lane are used as major or main routes in and out of the district into and out of Southend, Chelmsford and beyond.

The following areas are also of significant concern to me as a resident all being at or close to saturation point with demand from the current population.

An aging and vulnerable services system. Water, drains, sewage, (one recent development was actually completed without sewage systems being in place) gas, electricity and communication networks. E.g. Recent catastrophic water main collapse in The Hullbridge Road due to aged pipes.

Roads which are no longer fit for purpose. Many and multiply needs for repair, maintenance upgrade and extension causing broken surfaces and most significantly constant road closure or restrictions. County Highways seems to deem the district way down on its list for repairs and maintenance.

The severe risk to life and property should any major, or minor, emergence occur necessitating
the need for multiple emergency services, fire, ambulance, police to attend at peak times where roads are blocked or at capacity. On street parking is also a huge issue in many areas. Grid lock throughout the district ensues almost immediately any accident occurs or road work(s) are in place.

Existing Schools are at capacity with most being in locations where it would be difficult or impossible to increase their footprint. E.g. Rochford Primary. None of the proposed developments come with any plan for new schools, or any room to build them. Current approved development has necessitated the movement of children to school in adjoining villages due to lack of planning or capacity locally, resulting in increased car movements at peak times and pollution issues.

Doctors surgeries are at capacity and placed under further strain by the difficulty of recruiting GP’s

Local Hospital capacity is at breaking point

Environmental issues are not mentioned or considered. Building on flood plain, lost green belt areas, loss of habitat. Existing roads or areas already exceeding approved pollution levels. This I believe must also be the case for most main roads in the area, if not all, especially during rush hours due to standing traffic.

For ALL the above reasons no additional housing should be considered until a full and comprehensive environmental study is carried out and analysed.

Please protect this space from being built on. It’s one of the few green spaces that the community can enjoy and we can’t cope with more traffic on our roads. Living on folly lane the traffic has increased so much as a result of the new housing estates on folly lane and hullbridge. Many live here because it’s rural. Please don’t destroy it

I would like to object to the plan to build houses on the farmland close to Hockley Community Centre.

This particular field has footpaths around it and is extremely popular with walkers, dog walkers, families walking to and from school, or just enjoying a walk in the countryside.

Hockley has already been subject to huge new builds that the country roads cannot cope with. Hockley is a village, it is not a suburb of London, we need to protect the meager countryside we have left.

I know that Boris wants to "build, build, build" partly due to huge donations from building companies of money, money money, but even in the Tory stronghold of Rochford, councillors and MPs should not take their votes for granted.

This particular plan is ill-conceived and the damage to our environment and quality of life cannot be overestimated. I have seen many Swifts, Song Thrush, Dragon Flies, Foxes, and even deer on this field, plus multiple varieties of butterflies, birds, and other wildlife. Please do not allow this awful development to go ahead.

Objection to CS194
Dear Sirs.

We write to formally object to CS194, and our objections are as follows:

1. Hawkwell West is away from the existing centres. Road congestion, lack of public transport with an inadequate bus service. In addition CS194 is green belt productive farmland and we cannot afford to lose it.

2. This development could increase traffic movements by 50% on the current 2019 counts which further could represent an increase of over 90% since 2008. Both unacceptable and unsustainable for further development.

3. The location will generate more private car journeys and it is unlikely that bus, walking or cycling will prove a viable alternative. The location is currently inaccessible and any new road created from the demolition of houses in Rectory Road will create a bottleneck.

4. Hawkwell Brook is designated a tidal river by DEFRA. Flood Zone is high. Local knowledge disputes the claim that the Hawkwell Brook defences have protected against the 100 year flood event. There were significant Hawkwell Brook flood events in 1953, 1968 and 2013. These have been omitted from the Flood Record.

5. Air quality will decrease further. Traffic volumes have increased by 34.5%. This has increased air pollution.

6. Reading a review of the "10 Year Plan - Meeting the demand for school places in 2019 - 2028" prepared by The Essex School Organisation Service, residents have concerns about capacity even before this possible development.

The above are a few reasons why we object against CS194.

Site reference: CFS093 Address: Greenacres and adjacent land, Victor Gardens, Hawkwell
I strongly object to any proposal for housing development at the above location for the following reasons

# Loss of green space
#Distruction of tree/woodland areas
# Overdevelopment of the area
# Lack/distance to amenities

This is just a small selection of the reasons for my objecting. The wholesale urbanisation of the area is discussing. At the current rate of house building we will be applying for an extension to the central line on the London underground to service another borough