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?

Site reference: CFS017 Address: Greenacres, Victor Gardens, Hawkwell
I strongly object to any proposal for housing development at the above location for the following reasons

# Loss of green/ open space
# Destruction of tree/woodland areas.
# Overdevelopment of the area.
# Lack/distance to amenities
# Distance to public transport

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.

Site reference: CFS150 Address: Land on the north side of Victor Gardens, Hockley
I strongly object to any proposal for housing development at the above location for the following reasons

# Loss of green/ open space
# Destruction of tree/woodland areas.
# Overdevelopment of the area.
# Lack/distance to amenities
# Distance to public transport

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.

Site reference: CFS169 Address: Meadowlands, Victor Gardens, Hockley, SS5 4DY
I strongly object to any proposal for housing development at the above location for the following reasons

# Loss of green/ open space
# Destruction of tree/woodland areas.
# Overdevelopment of the area.
# Lack/distance to amenities
# Distance to public transport

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.

Site reference: CFS020 Address: Land rear of St Marys Church, Rectory Road, Hawkwell
I strongly object to any proposal for housing development at the above location for the following reasons

# Loss of green/ open space
# Destruction of tree/woodland areas.
# Overdevelopment of the area.
# Lack/distance to amenities
# Distance to public transport

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.

Site reference: CFS194 Address: Land North of Rectory Road, Hawkwell
I strongly object to any proposal for housing development at the above location for the following reasons

# Loss of green/ open space
# Destruction of tree/woodland areas.
# Overdevelopment of the area.
# Lack/distance to amenities
# Distance to public transport

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.

Site reference: CFS088 Address: Land between The Brambles and Bo Via, Clements Hall Lane, Hawkwell
I strongly object to any proposal for housing development at the above location for the following reasons

# Loss of green/ open space
# Destruction of tree/woodland areas.
# Overdevelopment of the area.
# Lack/distance to amenities
# Distance to public transport

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.

Site reference: CFS242 Address: 47 Victor Gardens, Hockley, SS5 4DS
I strongly object to any proposal for housing development at the above location for the following reasons

# Loss of green/ open space
# Destruction of tree/woodland areas.
# Overdevelopment of the area.
# Lack/distance to amenities
# Distance to public transport

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.

CS194
I wish to object to the suggestion that 500+houses could be built on land between Clements Hall and Windsor Gardens in Hawkwell.
The roads are already extremely busy. The development would be nowhere near schools, or shopping parades, there is no real room for cycle paths meaning folk would have to use their cars. It is already difficult to get GP appointments without adding 1000s more people to their lists. Footpaths in Rectory Road are already too narrow when pushing a double buggy or wheelchair and while foliage remains unchecked.
In addition it would mean the loss of vey well used footpaths. These footpaths used by runners, walkers, dog walkers, and careful cyclists are vital safe routes away from the main road, for the mental and physical health of the local community.

We strongly object to any new houses in the Hawkwell /hockley area . The roads are already far to congested at all times of the day , the lovely areas of Hawkwell and hockley should be preserved and protected . Not turned into a concrete jungle over populated hellhole !!!! Regards 20 elmwood avenue residents .

OBJECTION TO FIELD SITE CFS064

As the treasurer of the community centre, I would like to strongly object to the farmers field, site CFS064, being considered for housing. This will endanger so much wildlife that are present in our area, including muntjac deer, woodpeckers etc. The drainage is already an issue during the Autumn/Winter months. Our concern is also with the infrastructure of the roads etc in this area.

We are responding to the Local Plan proposals as requested in light of the inclusion of the above two sites.

We object to both sites being included and make the following observations.

Access to both sites is shown via Folly Chase. This single track privately owned road is unsuitable for the following reasons.

1. Folly Chase would have to be adopted by the Council and the residents (which includes ourselves) would unanimously reject any attempt by the Council to acquire/adopt the road which is owned by the respective property owners.

The access to CFS264 is shown only via a small driveway. This is from the unsuitable Folly Chase, to a site apparently designated as suitable for 30 houses. The road access along Folly Chase and the driveway access are entirely inappropriate for such development.

2. Folly Chase is barely 2m wide in places. Our understanding is that an adopted road needs to be 6m wide and would require a pavement of no less than 1.5m on each side of the road. Hence 9m width would be needed. This would have to entail a compulsory purchase of part of the residents gardens which would be contested to the point where the Council would need a Court order. Even if the Council were successful it would face a huge compensation bill as a result of the diminution of value of the properties in Folly Chase.

3. At the front of our property we have two well established oak trees both subject to a TPO. During the construction of our property a few years ago the Council's tree officer went to great lengths to ensure that the conditions of the TPOs were rigidly adhered too. It would be unreasonable for the Council to change it's policy with regard to the trees to assist with improvements to the road for redevelopment purposes.

4. Folly Chase is of shallow depth maintained by the residents to take limited traffic; i.e the just the residents and visitors vehicles. Services sit just below the depth of the road. It would be a major construction project to make the road suitable for the construction traffic and the two proposed estates.

5. A right of way exists over the road for pedestrian traffic which although not marked physically exists in law. It is unclear how even if the Council attempted to adopt the road and compulsory purchase the gardens how a public right of way could be maintained.

6. The junction between Folly Chase and Folly Lane is unsuited to take the increased traffic. At busy times there would be a complete snarl up of vehicles along Folly Chase backing up into both new estates bringing traffic to a lengthy standstill.

7. Folly Lane has become a dangerous road. There is an overspill of parking from the "Pond Chase" development leading to blind spots in the road where traffic heading west has to encroach on the wrong side of the road without knowing what traffic is heading round the corner in an easterly direction. Sadly there is going to be an accident here sooner or later. The Council did not give enough thought to this issue when giving planning consent for the "Pond Chase" development and by releasing the two proposed sites for far more extensive development the current problem will get much worse.

Traffic Issues In Hockley

The road network cannot cope with any further traffic. The recently approved local developments throughout the Rochford DC area have led to a significant increase in road traffic. The roads are old and neglected and are beyond full capacity. Any further development will make an already bad situation significantly worse.

Greenbelt Protection

The local authority must have regard to protection of the Greenbelt. We cannot have the ludicrous situation of the local authority on the one hand opposing infill development of the Greenbelt - see case concerning 80 High Road Hockley, where the council declined an application for a single property to be demolished and replaced by two properties and on the other hand acting entirely in contradiction to this position by agreeing mass development in the MGR. It should be noted that the Secretary of State upheld the Council's position on protecting the MGR by refusing an appeal on 80 High Road. Doubtless the Secretary of State and the local planning authority had regard to Paragraph 136 of the National Planning Policy Framework, which lays out that ‘exceptional circumstances’ must be met for any consideration of changing existing Green Belt boundaries. With regard to sites CFS064 and CFS264 it cannot be said that the ‘exceptional circumstances’ test has been met.

Pressure on Public Services

The local schools and doctors surgeries cannot cope with any further influx of pupils or patients.

More Suitable Sites

Sites CFS146,147,167,144,168,145,137,055,121 are more suitable due to

1. Better access

2. Better transport

3. Divert traffic away from the existing congested areas of Hockley and Hawkwell

Wildlife

An additional contravention of Policy to the Green belt restrictions is that the site is in ‘close proximity’ to 3 Local Wildlife Sites (LoWs) namely, Betts Wood, Folly Wood and Hockley Hall-South Wood. These are all designated a minimum of HC1 (ancient Woodland) and have further designations. Folly Wood occupies most of the southern boundary of the site, Betts Wood most of the eastern boundary and Hockley Hall-South Wood circa half of the northern boundary. It should be noted that there is a strip of woodland joining Folly Wood and Hockley Hall-South Wood along the entire western perimeter and this may mean that these two LoWs are in fact one larger site. It is important to point out that the Site Allocation Assessment Criteria fails to mention the ‘close proximity’ of the LoWs and that it is vital that this is noted by RDC. This omission must render the Site Allocation Assessment as invalid, and that the site should not have passed the first stage consultation as a consequence.

The ’Buffer Zones’ that would be required at the perimeter of the LOWs and around the mature veteran Oak trees within the site would reduce the available land suitable for development significantly and render the site uneconomic.

The LoWs mentioned above, and the immediate surrounding environment, including the field detailed in site CFS 064 support a rich and varied population , indeed such woodland is recognised as providing the most diverse and important habitats in the UK and is already limited to just 550,000 Hectares across the entire UK.
The LoWs assessments do not detail many resident species but the following can/have been found in and around these sites and the site in question; Grass snakes, Adders, Slow Worms and Common Lizards , Common Frogs, Toads, Smooth Newts, Great Crested Newts, Badgers, Foxes, Muntjac Deer, Buzzards, Sparrow Hawks, Merlin, Tawny Owls, Little Owls, Nightjar, Blue Tits, Great Tits, Long Tail Tits, Coal Tits, Willow Warblers, Chiff Chaff, Blackcap, Blackbirds, Song Thrush, Goldfinch, Greenfinch, Chaffinch, Yellowhammer, Nuthatch, Swallow, Swift, House Martin, Crow, Jackdaw, Magpie, Jay, Rook, Coot, Moorhen, Cuckoo, Dunnock, Wren, Fieldfare, Lapwing, Redwing, Goldcrest, Great Spotted Woodpecker, Green Woodpecker, Lesser Spotted Woodpecker, Grey Heron, Pied Wagtail, Grey Wagtail, House Sparrow, Kestrel, Linnet, Nightingale, Meadow Pipit, Robin, Skylark, Starling and significant numbers of unidentified bats over the field and in the gardens of Folly Chase at night suggest a colony within Folly and/or Betts Woods. Rich flora, especially Bluebells and significant insect species including Wood Ant colonies.

This incredibly diverse range of species rely on the tree and plant species found in Ancient Woodland and on arable farmland. They require free movement between sites and the field, and the large mature Oaks within it, provide essential movement corridors between the three identified LoWs sites. Any development in the field in the center of these three LoWs can only have a massive detrimental effect on the population, and the existing richness and diversity proves this is a site that should be preserved, not destroyed. Consideration for development must cease forthwith.

The ’standing advice’ of the Government in this regard is found within Natural England and Forestry Commission guidance ( https://www.gov.uk/guidance/ancient-woodland-and-veteran-trees-protection-surveys-licences). Standing Advice is a ’Material planning consideration’. Ancient Woodlands have equal protection in the National planning Policy Framework.

We draw attention to the RDC’s own statements regarding potential development within the Local Plan document. The plan clearly states that one of it’s key objectives is ‘’for meeting future needs (including housing….). It will also identify areas for protection, such as sites that are important for wildlife and open space.’’ The RDC have failed in their policy objective and in following correct process that there is a failure to even identify the proximity of the LoWs detailed above in the Site Allocation Assessment Criteria.
Rather than the site be considered for development, we have shown that it should be identified for protection in accordance with the Local Plan objectives and that it should be removed from the development plan and placed in a protection plan.

Spatial Options Document 2021

We do not feel that the vision is going to be accomplished by granting planning consent for either of these two sites.

The Council needs to recognise that Housing developments of this type do not lead to more affordable housing.

There should be a Government led initiative to resolve this issue, but granting planning consents like this is not the answer.

Conclusion

We believe sites CFS064 and CFS264 should be removed from the next stage, due to their unsuitability as expressed in this response.

As mentioned there are other sites that are far more suitable and achieve a "better score" giving weight to the wide range of development considerations.

PROPOSED LOCAL PLAN FOR HAWKWELL ESSEX.
Please find my objections below to a No of local plans that are being proposed for Hawkwell Essex.

CFSO45 HAWKWELL

This plan involves 152 houses built on the Belchamps scout site.
This site has been for young people since before the second world war and is a benefit for Children from all over the UK and also some from Europe.

Access for new residents and cars would be difficult with the current road structure as the local roads could not cope with an increase of regular traffic, there is no direct route to this site except for a “private” road called Mount Bovers Lane.
Public access at the moment is via Poplars Avenue and Woodside Chase which is used by residents to access their homes and park their cars.
There is also access to this site via Hawkwell Chase which is also very residential.
Any feed from this site onto the B1013 would cause huge delays as current “rush hour” traffic on the B1013 is already at a standstill (pre covid).

CFS261 HAWKWELL

The agricultural land opposite Rawal Pindi Nursery is an asset to Hawkwell as farm land is disappearing in Essex it would be a terrible shame to lose this land to concrete.
Before the second world war this field was part of protected Hockley woods, this field had trees that were harvested to supply timber for the war effort.
This make this site protected.

I object to all of the above in CFS045 & CFS261

Lack of public transport
It is green belt with productive farmland.
An increase of traffic movements on already congested roads.
The displacement of wildlife.
Education facilities cannot cope with extra potential Children.
Local Medical Facilities are over subscribed (Local new builds promise new facilities but they are cancelled after appeals!).

I am horrified to learn that field CFS064 has been earmarked for development of 214 houses this is something our family totally Object too. I think this would be an absolute travesty, our family use this wonderful field and woodland everyday. I fail to understand how on earth you will fit a development of this size onto this plot of land it’s just sheer greed. Thou I feel this email is probably going to fall on deaf ears as this development is probably a done deal already, I cannot see how this will work our infrastructure here (we live on folly lane) is pushed already and rainfall produces water logged roads as the drainage system is constantly blocked, deeming our road a serious hazard and health risk. Our road struggles since the other development has been built and people use it a a cut through and race track into hullbridge, I have witnessed coaches having to go up the kerb in folly lane near young children to get down the road, I used to use the field to get to my daughter school because of this issue, which has fallen on the councils deaf ears, I cannot comprehend how another development will help with road safety, congestion and then there’s the pollution???? How will the schools cope? They seriously oversubscribed and standards of teaching have dropped considerably as classroom sizes are just to big? How will the development help this?. Doctor’s surgery’s, dentists are not giving a good standard of care either, how will this development help? , and then there’s the wildlife on our daily walks we have seen some beautiful animals and birds, butterflies, insects the list goes on it’s one of the reasons we walk round there my daughter loves to see them all in their natural habitat we must try to protect our wildlife not endanger it. Not to mention it’s one of the only safe areas in hockley for our children to walk, ride their bikes and walk their dogs. We have already lost a lot of open spaces in Hockley/Rayleigh when will you stop? I know most residents have voiced their concerns and hope that they have emailed to you as well.

I would like to hear how your plans for the development would help with any of these matters. I cannot see how this development would work at all it’s utterly ridiculous and heartbreaking for everyone who lives in this area.

With reference to the building of 214 houses on this lane

Protection of wildlife that is already threatened and losing their natural habitat
No infrastructure in place with the amount of new builds in this area
Traffic and congestion is awful at all times of the day 7/24
Folly Lane is like a dirt track as the speeding along here day and night is extremely dangerous
SOMEONE IS GOING TO BE SERIOULSY INJURED OR KILLED.....adding these extra houses will just add to the already sever traffic, speeding, congestion
It is affecting peoples health with the fumes and pollution, more houses will add to this with number of cars
Having no regard whatsoever for local wildlife and peoples health

Large sites near hockley, hawk well and ashingdon
Dear sir or madam

I am writing to add my voice to my fellows residents concern with the amount of proposed housing around the hockley/hawkwell area.
Developments in recent years has put the B1013 along with the surrounding infrastructure under massive pressure and now again we see potentially large developments adding to this.

Hockley and hawkwell are expanding villages not expanding towns. Much of the roads are build for a different era and cannot cater with today’s volume of traffic.

I have been a resident of Hockley for 25 years so rather than shoehorn in more houses develop the roads and infrastructure to support the housings what are already here. NO MORE DEVELOPMENT PLEASE UNTIL MY DRIVE THROUGH HOCKLEY TAKES MINUTES RATHER THAN HOURS.

Proposed building in Rochford Hawkwell and Rayleigh
Dear Planning

We are so unhappy with the proposed large scale housing developments.
Having lived in Hockley for over 35 years we have certain seen it grow. But enough is enough, the area can not take anymore traffic.

Let’s keep our wonderful town and villages as they are.

I OBJECT TO THIS FIELD SITE (CFS064) BEING USED FOR HOUSING FOR THE FOLLOWING CORE REASONS:




The land is precious green belt with many ancient woodlands surrounding it. The natural environment is farmed regularly and is home to many wildlife habitats. Building upon this would ruin that environment.
Traffic on the B1013 would become severely congested, putting these roads under even more pressure. This would also add pressure to our public services in maintaining our roads and limiting the detrimental effects of the extra air pollution created by the new traffic.
There is a locally important footpath around the perimeter of the land, which I use for recreation and exercise. I have a small garden so I use this path daily, so personally this building work would negatively impact my mental and physical health.

I consent to my name and comments being added to the councils database to support the objection.

We are writing to you having recently visited your web site following great concern over some Local Plans, and have looked throughout your website including the Spatial Options pages and felt compelled to respond.
Our initial concerns were for the site CFSO64, but it now seems I have further concerns too in respect of site CFS264.
As local residents we feel we should raise awareness of some concerning issues regarding the sites in question.
We do also have wider concerns besides these two sites, and appreciate that whilst we understand the government are duty bound to have development sites in place, there are enough reasons to not only remove the forementioned sites from the development Plan but also from any further consultation stages, and noted for protection.
Our imediate concerns are as follows:

Material Planning Concern regarding Access-re sites CFS064 and CFS264
The apparent access to both sites appears to be via Folly Chase,.

Folly Chase is a small private road off of what can only be described as a traffic jam of a road ie: Folly Lane.
Folly Lane has become increasingly congested since the most recent new housing developments in Pond Chase and Church Road as well as the previously existing housing estate. It is now seeing additional increases in traffic flow caused by the significant housing development in Hullbridge as it is the only direct two way road access from Hullbridge to Hockley.
Also the speed in which people travel down Folly Lane is horrendous and often if a single car/lorry is parked on the last bend coming down from the main road its horrendous!, an accident waiting to happen and we've seen many near misses on that said bend, therefore making the potential of the traffic amount increasing significantly on a road already a hazard, several involving parents like ourselves with schoolchildren.

A far as Folly Chase itself is concerned we cannot see how it can be considered for access for either all the construction traffic or the eventual increase in residential access traffic. The Chase is not a through road and finishes at a footpath leading into designated Ancient Woodland, of which we must mention carries HC1 Wildlife Site designation.
This footpath which is used by a variety of people from dog walkers, cyclists and runners and more importantly alot of families with primary school children wishing to make a safe alternative route to the local school of which the footpath and following woodland connects to site CFS264.
The site already includes a football pitches at the Community Centre, the Community Centre itself and is widely used for walking, dog walking, running and cycling and by a local nursery group, who we know use the open space for recreational activities and education with the children.
The outline proposals would diminish the provision of outdoor sport and recreation and this condition cannot therefore be satisfied by any housing development.


We have significant evidence as a resident of Folly Lane that the recent adjacent Pond Chase development has well known problems with regards to access to sewerage, and whilst this is now complete and running it should be noted that the bored line of drains that traverse the bottom of Folly Chase from Pond Chase, across to the field that is site CFS064 to the Hockley Community centre have already caused significant sinking of our road surface. The nearby development in Church Road has also had significant sewage and surface water issues and any further development adding onto the existing surface water and sewage infrastructure will only increase the pressure on existing infrastructure, potentially to the point of failure, with significant public health concerns.

Our Road is private with an undefined Public Footpath running down it.
Ownership of the road isn’t registered and absent any contrary evidence each land owner owns up to the mid- point of the road. There are some private rights of way that have been established by usage and by deed, but it is apparent that the ownership issue is complex and fragmented and discussions with many of our fellow residents shows the large majority would be unwilling to enter into any negotiation to depart from current use and access.


Green Belt- ref site CFS064
It should also be noted the land in question forms part of the Metropolitan Green belt. Such land can only be developed for ‘Exceptional circumstances’ as detailed in the Planning Policy Guidance Note 2 (PPG2), and states in para 143 that Inappropriate development is by definition harmful to Green Belt’’ and in Para 145 that ‘’A local planning authority should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in the Green Belt. Exceptions to this are’’ ;

Local Wildlife Sites and Incorrect identification of their proximity to the site CFS064.
An additional contravention of Policy to the Green belt restrictions is that the site is in ‘close proximity’ to 3 Local Wildlife Sites (LoWs) namely, Betts Wood, Folly Wood and Hockley Hall-South Wood. These are all designated a minimum of HC1 (ancient Woodland) and have further designations. Folly Wood occupies most of the southern boundary of the site, Betts Wood most of the eastern boundary and Hockley Hall-South Wood circa half of the northern boundary. It should be noted that there is a strip of woodland joining Folly Wood and Hockley Hall-South Wood along the entire western perimeter and this may mean that these two LoWs are in fact one larger site.


It is important to point out that the Site Allocation Assessment Criteria fails to mention the ‘close proximity’ of the LoWs and that it is vital that this is noted by RDC. This omission must render the Site Allocation Assessment as invalid, and that the site should not have passed the first stage consultation as a consequence.

The ’Buffer Zones’ that would be required at the perimeter of the LOWs and around the mature veteran Oak trees within the site would reduce the available land suitable for development significantly and render the site uneconomic.

The LoWs mentioned above, and the immediate surrounding environment, including the field detailed in site CFS 064 support a rich and varied population , indeed such woodland is recognized as providing the most diverse and important habitats in the UK and is already limited to just 550,000 Hectares across the entire UK.
The LoWs assessments do not detail many resident species but the following can/have been found in and around these sites and the site in question; Grass snakes, Adders, Slow Worms and Common Lizards , Common Frogs, Toads, Smooth Newts, Great Crested Newts, Badgers, Foxes, Muntjac Deer, Buzzards, Sparrow Hawks, Merlin, Tawny Owls, Little Owls, Nightjar, Blue Tits, Great Tits, Long Tail Tits, Coal Tits, Willow Warblers, Chiff Chaff, Blackcap, Blackbirds, Song Thrush, Goldfinch, Greenfinch, Chaffinch, Yellowhammer, Nuthatch, Swallow, Swift, House Martin, Crow, Jackdaw, Magpie, Jay, Rook, Coot, Moorhen, Cuckoo, Dunnock, Wren, Fieldfare, Lapwing, Redwing, Goldcrest, Great Spotted Woodpecker, Green Woodpecker, Lesser Spotted Woodpecker, Grey Heron, Pied Wagtail, Grey Wagtail, House Sparrow, Kestrel, Linnet, Nightingale, Meadow Pipit, Robin, Skylark, Starling and significant numbers of unidentified bats over the field and in the gardens of Folly Chase at night suggest a colony within Folly and/or Betts Woods. Rich flora, especially Bluebells and significant insect species including Wood Ant colonies.

This incredibly diverse range of species rely on the tree and plant species found in Ancient Woodland and on arable farmland. They require free movement between sites and the field, and the large mature Oaks within it, provide essential movement corridors between the three identified LoWs sites. Any development in the field in the center of these three LoWs can only have a massive detrimental effect on the population, and the existing richness and diversity proves this is a site that should be preserved, not destroyed. Consideration for development must cease forthwith.

The ’standing advice’ of the Government in this regard is found within Natural England and Forestry Commission guidance ( https://www.gov.uk/guidance/ancient-woodland-and-veteran-trees-protection-surveys-licences). Standing Advice is a ’Material planning consideration’. Ancient Woodllands have equal protection in the National planning Policy Framework.

We Strongly believe that Hockley itself cannot cope with more development and taking into consideration our points above please considerthat sites CFS064 and CFS264 should be removed form the next stage. They are simply not suitable when there are many more sites which would ‘score’ much better under a wide range of development considerations.

Please find below our objections to the local plan proposed sites CFS023 and COL38. I have submitted parts of these answers on your online gateway, though the forms are not clear over whether it should be a support, objection or comment, based on how the questions are worded, particularly when one question asks multiple things.
We would also like to make it known that Strategy option 3 would be our prefered solution to the local plan. It provides large scale development that would have the space to fit in the new infrastructure, such as schools, doctors and shops. The areas would be planned into an effectively blank canvas allowing the best chance to build sustainably, rather than trying to force additional housing onto infrastructure that's only just coping with current demand. The proposed sites have good links to the major roads e.g. A127 to provide transport to employment areas.

Site reference: CFS023
Firstly, Site CFS023 (Land north and east of Malvern Road) should be protected from development as developing on this piece of land will have detrimental and irreversible effects to the adjacent ancient woodland; your own site survey scores it at a 1 (worst performing site) in regards to ancient woodland. Your vision statement for Hockley / Hawkwell is about “making the most of its access to ancient woodland”, clearly recognising the importance of protecting our ancient woodland, including Beckney woods.
The government’s own gov.uk website (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/ancient-woodland-and-veteran-trees-protection-surveys-licences#assess-the-impacts) states that developments nearby ancient woodland can have the following affects:
• reducing the amount of semi-¬natural habitats next to ancient woodland
• increasing the amount of pollution, including dust
• increasing disturbance to wildlife from additional traffic and visitors
• increasing light or air pollution
• increasing damaging activities like fly-¬tipping and the impact of domestic pets
• changing the landscape character of the area
All of the above would affect the ancient woodlands of Beckney woods, and the vast range of ancient trees and other flora and fauna that inhabit it. Any increased pollution to the area would damage the wonderful bluebells and wood anemones in Beckney woods.

In the Hockley/Hawlkwell area Beckney woods is one of only 2 ancient woodlands; therefore it is not unreasonable to protect Beckney woods by choosing other sites for housing developments which are not adjacent to ancient woodlands, therefore ancient woodland ecosystems would not destroyed.

The Woodlands Trust is actively working to save ancient woodlands and ensure appropriate buffering land is in place, therefore we have informed them of your proposal, as the site is one of the last remaining greenbelt strips connecting Beckney Woods to the surrounding areas.

The proposed site is an important animal and insect habitat in its own right. Many different birds of prey use the green belt as a hunting ground, meaning there is numerous small prey animals that call the site home. Snakes are known to live on the site, while bats can be seen most evenings, so they must roost nearby. Foxes and badgers have also been sighted on the proposed site, as have both Spotted and Green Woodpeckers. We would be able to provide photographical evidence of these, if required.
Furthermore, there are other reasons in addition to the site being adjacent to ancient woodland that make Site CFS023 inappropriate for development.
This is green belt land, and should not be built on. Why make policy changes on protected sites, when others are suitable instead. Your own survey ranks development on the site as the most damaging to green belt land. There is a lot of trees on the site itself, which would have to be felled; again this is indicated on your survey as having a big impact on protected trees.
The proposed access to this site (Harrogate Drive) is currently single lane track and is not suitable for the additional traffic 139 houses will bring. It is unclear what land would be used to widen this road to make it suitable as there are already houses either side of this unmade track/road. Additionally, your site survey highlights that the development is no where near any parts of the strategic road network, and while reasonable access to Greensward Lane for a bus stop, it has very poor access to bus services.
While the proposed site may have a low flood risk itself (as it is on the crest of a hill, with pretty steep terrain), if it was to be developed there is a real risk that the extra water that will no longer soak into the ground (due to a large amount of new pavements, roads, driveways and the houses themselves) will cause surface flooding issues to those houses beneath in Malvern Road. Many of the houses in Malvern Road already have issues with such flooding. The site itself also scores poorly for critical drainage risk.
Malvern Road already suffers with weak water pressure, which will only be exacerbated by further housing development.
I would also like to question how the proposed site has received a 5 for topography, as it is literally on the crest of a hill, with a steep West to East gradient. I would like any planning officer / councillor to walk the length of the site and not comment on the height change.
Access to local primary and secondary schools may be good, as they are physically within walking distance, but from their Ofsted reports, they do not have the capacity to support the additional housing you are suggesting in the area. Surely picking a larger site, where developers would have to provide facilities, such as schools and doctors, would be a smarter choice by the council. Leading on from this, the road infrastructure in the local area is already struggling to meet demand, in particular on Greensward Lane under the railway line where a large bottleneck forms as there are no alternative routes through.

Site reference: COL38
Site COL38 (Former Park) should also be protected from development as this Park is a well-used amenity to the current residents of Hockley and the surrounding areas. It is used as an access point to Beckney woods, as well as a popular spot for dog walkers and ramblers. This has previously been recognised by Mr Martin Elliott following an inspection in 2014 that concluded there is a public right of way through this land. Regardless of how well used this piece of land is, it is our understanding that this land is on peppercorn rent to Ashingdon parish council; from when the lease started in 2000 it had to be used as a play area for at least the next 100 years. Because of these reasons site COL38 should be excluded from consideration from the local plan.

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 surely cause a great deal of distraction and deprive the children of the current outlook where they can see the crops grow and be harvested each year.

Objection to new houses
As a new resident in Elmwood Avenue, Hockley, I am writing to object to the proposed land up for new houses in the letter received from Rochford District Council. These areas of land are CFS045 in Hawkwell, CFS064 in Hockley, CFS160 and CFS161 in Hockley and CFS074 in Hawkwell.

As a new resident, we chose to live in this area due to its remoteness and beautiful countryside at our fingertips. We enjoy family country walks around the farmers land close to Belchamps, it would break my heart if it would all be destroyed in order to build more houses which will only overpopulate the area.

The B1013 is already a busy main road and building more houses increasing the population to the area will inevitably make this road a huge problem.

I strongly object to the proposed land.

Local Plan Site COL38
I wish to express my concern with the inclusion of site COL38 for consideration for dwellings to be built upon. My reasons are as follows.

1. I live at No XX Malvern Road. In 2014 I was asked by Rochford District Council to be a witness for them to appeal the decision for a bridleway to be designated across the open space between Branksome Avenue and Malvern Road. I attended a two day hearing led by a Planning Inspector and was one of two witnesses called to support Rochford District Council. The outcome of the hearing was that the bridleway was inappropriate as the open space was used by local people gaining access to Beckney Woods. Although it was not designated as a footpath it was recognised as a right of way as it had been used since the estate was built in 1977. The person who had applied for the bridleway to be granted was a former councillor for Ashingdon Parish Council XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

2. The site is very steep with poor access from Malvern Road and Branksome Avenue. There are several large oak trees next to the Branksome Road entrance. The site consist of clay and will be very wet during winter and solid during a dry summer. My property has been subject to subsidence and I had to have my garage rebuilt in 2014. This was a direct result of Rochford District Council planting vegetation around the edge of the open space, including tress next to my garage. My insurance company conducted a series of monitoring visits including taking soil samples and trial pits. I have evidence from the insurance company that states the subsidence was a direct result of planting of trees next to the garage. As a result of the claim my house insurance quadrupled. My fear is by attempting to build any property on such a steep site would have a negative impact upon my property.

3. By building on the site would have a negative impact upon my privacy. Although I don`t own a view, I would be overlooked by others who would be able to see directly into my house and garden. This would have a significant effect upon the value of my property.

I would be grateful if you take the above into consideration.

I strongly object to the above development for the following reasons

IMPACT ON COMMUNITY – This beautiful green belt land with Jubilee footpath on its perimeter has been used as a LINK for the community for decades by walkers and school children. It is a tremendous open space offering many health benefits to those who use it. The community LINK connects via the Jubilee Walk the Community Centre and Hockley Primary School round to the residents of the others side of Hockley including Church Road, Folly Chase and Folly Lane enabling residents and their children to avoid the heavily congested road that is the B1013 with its narrow pavement.

LANDSCAPE IMPACT – PLEASE NOTE ALL PHOTOS ATTACHED TAKEN OF THE SITE AND APPRECIATE THE DEVASTATING IMPACT THAT ANY DEVELOPMENT WOULD HAVE ON SUCH PRECIOUS LANDSCAPE

IMPACT ON ANCIENT WOODLAND AND LOCAL HABITAT AND GREEN BELT LAND– The site includes a beautiful area of ancient woodland and many oak trees including those 3 directly in the centre of the field. The Council has completely failed to take this into consideration. Why has it rated this site 5 in terms of protected trees?
In addition, the site has ‘close proximity’ to 3 Local Wildlife Sites (LoWs) namely, Betts Wood, Folly Wood and Hockley Hall-South Wood. These are all designated a minimum of HC1 (ancient Woodland) and have further designations. Folly Wood occupies most of the southern boundary of the site, Betts Wood most of the eastern boundary and Hockley Hall-South Wood circa half of the northern boundary. The Site Allocation Assessment Criteria fails to mention the ‘close proximity’ of the LoWs and that it is vital that this is noted by RDC. This omission must render the Site Allocation Assessment as invalid, and that the site should not be developed.

The ’Buffer Zones’ that would be required at the perimeter of the LOWs and around the mature veteran Oak trees in the centre of the site would reduce the available land suitable for development significantly and render the site uneconomic.

The LoWs mentioned above, and the immediate surrounding environment, including this site support a rich and varied population , indeed such woodland is recognized as providing the most diverse and important habitats in the UK and is already limited to just 550,000 Hectares across the entire UK.
The LoWs assessments do not detail many resident species but the following can/have been found in and around these sites and the site in question; Grass snakes, Adders, Slow Worms and Common Lizards , Common Frogs, Toads, Smooth Newts, Great Crested Newts, Badgers, Foxes, Muntjac Deer, Buzzards, Sparrow Hawks, Merlin, Tawny Owls, Little Owls, Nightjar, Blue Tits, Great Tits, Long Tail Tits, Coal Tits, Willow Warblers, Chiff Chaff, Blackcap, Blackbirds, Song Thrush, Goldfinch, Greenfinch, Chaffinch, Yellowhammer, Nuthatch, Swallow, Swift, House Martin, Crow, Jackdaw, Magpie, Jay, Rook, Coot, Moorhen, Cuckoo, Dunnock, Wren, Fieldfare, Lapwing, Redwing, Goldcrest, Great Spotted Woodpecker, Green Woodpecker, Lesser Spotted Woodpecker, Grey Heron, Pied Wagtail, Grey Wagtail, House Sparrow, Kestrel, Linnet, Nightingale, Meadow Pipit, Robin, Skylark, Starling and significant numbers of unidentified bats over the field and in the gardens of Folly Chase at night suggest a colony within Folly and/or Betts Woods. Rich flora, especially Bluebells and significant insect species including Wood Ant colonies.

This incredibly diverse range of species rely on the tree and plant species found in Ancient Woodland and on arable farmland. They require free movement between sites and the field, and the large mature Oaks within it, provide essential movement corridors between the three identified LoWs sites. Any development in the field in the center of these three LoWs can only have a massive detrimental effect on the population, and the existing richness and diversity proves this is a site that should be preserved, not destroyed. Consideration for development must cease forthwith.

I note the RDC’s own statements regarding potential development within the Local Plan document. The plan clearly states that one of it’s key objectives is ‘’for meeting future needs (including housing….). It will also identify areas for protection, such as sites that are important for wildlife and open space.’’ The RDC have failed in their policy objective and in following correct process in that there is a failure to even identify the proximity of the LoWs detailed above in the Site Allocation Assessment Criteria.
Rather than the site be considered for development, it should be identified for protection in accordance with the Local Plan objectives and that it should be removed from the development plan and placed in a protection plan

IMPACT ON AGRICULTURE– Whilst the farmer is looking to financially benefit from a housing development this has always been used as Agricultural land and this should continue.

REQUIREMENT FOR LIMITED INFILL NOT MET – A proposal here for up to 265 dwellings on such fragile green belt with ancient woodland is not limited infill and therefore the Council would fail to observe this requirement

CRITICAL DRAINAGE RISK– there are serious AND IDENTIFIABLE concerns here. The further impact of the Pond Chase nursery development should be properly considered , managed and monitored by RDC. There have been long standing failures in this regard. This continues to have an impact on Folly Chase and this site.

INADEQUATE /INAPPROPRIATE ACCESS TO THE SITE -Why has RDC rated this 3? Folly Chase would not be appropriate for all the reasons set out by the Folly Chase Road Frontagers Committee. It is fragile, narrow and due to its lack of development has in itself an abundance of wildlife. The access out of Folly Chase into Folly Lane and then onto the B1013 Is heavily congested on many occasions throughout the day. Other suggestions for access are also inappropriate and would have a serious and adverse impact on the community.

WHY HAS THE SITE BEEN RATED 3 IN TERMS OF BROWNFIELD (THE SAME RATING AS GREENACERS) – THE COUNCIL HAVE FAILED TO PROPERLY RATE THIS SITE OF ANCIENT WOODLAND AND PRIME GREENBELT


I RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT THESE OBJECTIONS ARE PROEPRLY CONSIDERED AND THAT THE SITE IS REMOVED FOR CONSIDERATION AND DEVELOPMENT. A HARD COPY OF THIS OBJECTION WITH PHOTOS WILL BE DELIVERED TO RDC.

[For attachments, see files of respondent 14742]

I very strongly object to the above development for the following reasons


IMPACT ON COMMUNITY – This beautiful green belt land with Jubilee footpath on its perimeter has been used as a LINK for the community for decades by walkers and school children. It is a tremendous open space offering many health benefits to those who use it. The community LINK connects via the Jubilee Walk the Community Centre and Hockley Primary School round to the residents of the others side of Hockley including Church Road, Folly Chase and Folly Lane enabling residents and their children to avoid the heavily congested road that is the B1013 with its narrow pavement.

LANDSCAPE IMPACT – PLEASE NOTE ALL PHOTOS ATTACHED TAKEN OF THE SITE AND APPRECIATE THE DEVASTATING IMPACT THAT ANY DEVELOPMENT WOULD HAVE ON SUCH PRECIOUS LANDSCAPE

IMPACT ON ANCIENT WOODLAND AND LOCAL HABITAT AND GREEN BELT LAND– The site includes a beautiful area of ancient woodland and many oak trees including those 3 directly in the centre of the field. The Council has completely failed to take this into consideration. Why has it rated this site 5 in terms of protected trees?
In addition, the site has ‘close proximity’ to 3 Local Wildlife Sites (LoWs) namely, Betts Wood, Folly Wood and Hockley Hall-South Wood. These are all designated a minimum of HC1 (ancient Woodland) and have further designations. Folly Wood occupies most of the southern boundary of the site, Betts Wood most of the eastern boundary and Hockley Hall-South Wood circa half of the northern boundary. The Site Allocation Assessment Criteria fails to mention the ‘close proximity’ of the LoWs and that it is vital that this is noted by RDC. This omission must render the Site Allocation Assessment as invalid, and that the site should not be developed.

The ’Buffer Zones’ that would be required at the perimeter of the LOWs and around the mature veteran Oak trees in the centre of the site would reduce the available land suitable for development significantly and render the site uneconomic.

The LoWs mentioned above, and the immediate surrounding environment, including this site support a rich and varied population , indeed such woodland is recognized as providing the most diverse and important habitats in the UK and is already limited to just 550,000 Hectares across the entire UK.
The LoWs assessments do not detail many resident species but the following can/have been found in and around these sites and the site in question; Grass snakes, Adders, Slow Worms and Common Lizards , Common Frogs, Toads, Smooth Newts, Great Crested Newts, Badgers, Foxes, Muntjac Deer, Buzzards, Sparrow Hawks, Merlin, Tawny Owls, Little Owls, Nightjar, Blue Tits, Great Tits, Long Tail Tits, Coal Tits, Willow Warblers, Chiff Chaff, Blackcap, Blackbirds, Song Thrush, Goldfinch, Greenfinch, Chaffinch, Yellowhammer, Nuthatch, Swallow, Swift, House Martin, Crow, Jackdaw, Magpie, Jay, Rook, Coot, Moorhen, Cuckoo, Dunnock, Wren, Fieldfare, Lapwing, Redwing, Goldcrest, Great Spotted Woodpecker, Green Woodpecker, Lesser Spotted Woodpecker, Grey Heron, Pied Wagtail, Grey Wagtail, House Sparrow, Kestrel, Linnet, Nightingale, Meadow Pipit, Robin, Skylark, Starling and significant numbers of unidentified bats over the field and in the gardens of Folly Chase at night suggest a colony within Folly and/or Betts Woods. Rich flora, especially Bluebells and significant insect species including Wood Ant colonies.

This incredibly diverse range of species rely on the tree and plant species found in Ancient Woodland and on arable farmland. They require free movement between sites and the field, and the large mature Oaks within it, provide essential movement corridors between the three identified LoWs sites. Any development in the field in the center of these three LoWs can only have a massive detrimental effect on the population, and the existing richness and diversity proves this is a site that should be preserved, not destroyed. Consideration for development must cease forthwith.

I note the RDC’s own statements regarding potential development within the Local Plan document. The plan clearly states that one of it’s key objectives is ‘’for meeting future needs (including housing….). It will also identify areas for protection, such as sites that are important for wildlife and open space.’’ The RDC have failed in their policy objective and in following correct process in that there is a failure to even identify the proximity of the LoWs detailed above in the Site Allocation Assessment Criteria.
Rather than the site be considered for development, it should be identified for protection in accordance with the Local Plan objectives and that it should be removed from the development plan and placed in a protection plan

IMPACT ON AGRICULTURE– Whilst the farmer is looking to financially benefit from a housing development this has always been used as Agricultural land and this should continue.

REQUIREMENT FOR LIMITED INFILL NOT MET – A proposal here for up to 265 dwellings on such fragile green belt with ancient woodland is not limited infill and therefore the Council would fail to observe this requirement

CRITICAL DRAINAGE RISK– there are serious AND IDENTIFIABLE concerns here. The further impact of the Pond Chase nursery development should be properly considered , managed and monitored by RDC. There have been long standing failures in this regard. This continues to have an impact on Folly Chase and this site.

INADEQUATE /INAPPROPRIATE ACCESS TO THE SITE -Why has RDC rated this 3? Folly Chase would not be appropriate for all the reasons set out by the Folly Chase Road Frontagers Committee. It is fragile, narrow and due to its lack of development has in itself an abundance of wildlife. The access out of Folly Chase into Folly Lane and then onto the B1013 Is heavily congested on many occasions throughout the day. Other suggestions for access are also inappropriate and would have a serious and adverse impact on the community.

WHY HAS THE SITE BEEN RATED 3 IN TERMS OF BROWNFIELD (THE SAME RATING AS GREENACERS) – THE COUNCIL HAVE FAILED TO PROPERLY RATE THIS SITE OF ANCIENT WOODLAND AND PRIME GREENBELT


I RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT THESE OBJECTIONS ARE PROEPRLY CONSIDERED AND THAT THE SITE IS REMOVED FOR CONSIDERATION AND DEVELOPMENT. A HARD COPY OF THIS OBJECTION WITH PHOTOS WILL BE DELIVERED TO RDC.

I would like to register my concern over the proposals to build on yet more sites in an already crowded and over populated area. I have lived in Victor Gardens for 37 years and one of the reasons we moved to this area was because of the green spaces and rural way of life. There have already been massive developments in the area and many old character houses have been demolished, new large houses built and the character and feel of the place has been spoilt already. The two square hideous houses built next to the Dentist and Barbers in White Hart Lane are just one example. We have lost a lot of our green fields already and to suggest we can accommodate all these houses on the New Local Plan is ludicrous. If lockdown has taught us one thing, it is that green spaces are needed for not only physical well being but also for our mental well being. The traffic around this area is already too busy. If you walk up the Main Road in Hawkwell to Hockley there is a continuous stream of traffic no matter what time of day you walk. Children walking to and from Westerings school are being subjected to constant pollution from the cars, as are the children waiting at bus stops to take them to school.Trying to get anywhere locally by car means being stuck in traffic and the B1013 is already a bottle neck, it took me 50 minutes to do a 15 minute journey last week and it regularly takes me over 35 minutes to do this journey,yet the Council want to build thousands of houses which will feed onto these roads. More cars will add to the already congested roads causing even more traffic problems and pollution. The footpaths which at the moment are used by people to get around, as well as for recreation, will have houses built adjacent to them preventing people from having the option of walking in a rural setting. It will be like walking through a housing estate.The argument that is used is that we need affordable housing, but all the evidence shows that the houses being built are huge houses which are not affordable to the first time buyers. Neither of my two adult children can afford to live in this area,so who are we building the houses for? Why not build 50 -100 smaller affordable houses in every town and village rather than target one area and swamp it.
If the plans go ahead, we will lose the character of Hawkwell , which will just become a part of Rochford and Hockley, swallowed up with no definition of where it starts and finishes, with one continuous traffic problem. Considering how much money was spent last year by the Government on health, I'm surprised that health hasn't been taken into consideration for this proposal. You can't keep building on already built up areas and expect the infrastructure, the Drs, the well being of people, the schools and the other amenities to cope, let alone severe flooding which will happen as more land is built on. We have had problems with flooding in the past and I remember houses in Hawkwell Chase flooding in the 90s, Hill Lane has been flooded on several occasions as has the road under the railway bridge by St Mary's church.
I strongly object in particular to the proposal to build on site CFS074 and sites CFS194, CFS169, CFS150 and CFS020,

I am emailing in connection with the proposed building of 214 houses on the field CFS064.
I have lived in Hockley for 30 years and have been saddened for most of those with the over development of the area no space is to small to squeeze as many properties on and no green belt / green space is safe from developer's.
In general there seems to be no thought or planning as to the effect that all these new house will cause to the area .
With already thousands more people living in the area try to get a doctors appointment/drive anywhere at rush hour/find a dentist or a school for your children its already impossible and that's before the enormous development off Rawreth lane and London Rd.
As for this proposed development the most obvious problem is access 214 new houses means over 400 new cars trying to either enter the development down folly chase or through Betts Farm.
But the biggest reason that not only this but any further development In the area should not go ahead is peoples quality of life green space is so important not just for people to walk and stay fit in but for the local wildlife to live in its easy to think just one more house or one more development of 214 house won't make that much difference but sooner or later if we continue with this madness we will end up not only with no open space but in total gridlock .
There are other parts of the country to build new houses in away from the south east and while I understand the London attraction maybe you and Central government should be encouraging new business to open away from the capital thuse solving the need for everyone to live in the same corner of the country .
Think big and don't take the easy option because sooner or later this over development will have gone too far and there will be no turning back.

SITE ASSESSMENT PROFORMA: CFS002
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
2
Landscape Impact
2
Impact on Agricultural Land
1

SITE ASSESSMENT PROFORMA: CFS169
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

SITE ASSESSMENT PROFORMA: CFS194
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 Protected Trees
2
Impact on Agricultural Land
1

SITE ASSESSMENT PROFORMA: CFS263
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 Local Habitats
2