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 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

Assuming emails will be accepted and previous near impossible navigation if the whole document is not required then I provide the following comments; observations and objections on the spatial options using CFS064 as an example and objecting to.that and development of Bull Lane; Napier Road and Wellington Road as well.

1) the whole process is flawed. Even at the "tail" of the pandemic some residents are unable or unwilling to contribute because of issues in attending events and/or lack of internet access preventing them viewing the proposals.

2) the central Government building requirements are based upon ideas originally drawn up by John Prescott in a Labour government. They do not take account of fundamental changes in working environment brought about by factors such as technology; COVID; and the demise of the High St. This may well see more town and city space particularly in London becoming available for accommodation. I am aware of a number of London companies "hotdesking" workers and essentially having only 50% attending on any one day. Couple this with the ability to store and use data electronically it is clear lots of office space will become available and the knock on effect may be other city shops close as there are less people using them. This relieves pressure on surrounding areas for building of more homes

3) the local plans take little account of the need to maintain open spaces. As seen in the Pandemic these were crucial for wellbeing. Plans involving building on Hockley Woods and fields around Betts Wood are not credible.

4) plans to build on areas around Bull Lane Nelson; Napier; and Wellington Roads put in jeopardy RDC's pledge to maintain gaps between the various towns and villages in the area. Here in particular the Hockley and Rayleigh buffer is already eroded by Bullwood Hall developments and new properties added to Turret Farm ( were these approved)

5) proposals to release agricultural land. Anyone who walked around the area in the pandemic will be well aware many of these plots are apparently used for growing food. Given current supply problems and the growing need to feed people this element seems to be fundamentally flawed.

6) it is clear from your own Q&A councils are out of their depth. Several correspondents have already raised the issue of the lack of infrastructure and the response has been GP surgeries; schools etc only need to be provided for large developments (approx 1000 houses). Clearly house builders know how to play the game and avoid such commitments (and provision of sufficient affordable housing).

7) in relation to several of the points above why all the councils (predominantly tory) in the Thames Gateway do not group together to lobby Tory central government for more power to determine their plans and to reach a better outcome for developments than seeing inner London borough's rent or buy large swathes of housing stock.

8) as with 3 above will Southend Airport remain open? Believe this is leased by RDC to Southend BC but, given the lack of passenger flights and income; one wonders if it will last. Is lease income being maintained? Is airport being subsidised? Would make ideal building plot

9)There is also a need to maintain historic and scientific areas as well as minimising impact on wildlife using green belt impacts all these

10) the roads are gridlocked at peak times and delivery times. Especially B1013. This is already the busiest B road in the county and adding any development in the vicinity is going to make this worse. Impacting health and particularly that of children in schools along the route RDC will be aware of the Coroner's findings in respect of the death of Ella Kissi-Debrah where air pollution was given as the cause. Perhaps RDC can confirm they have addressed all current air pollution problems and fully and correctly assessed all risks of this nature were further developments to take place

Planning policy ref CFS194 CFS169 CFS150 CFS020
I strongly object to the proposals to build 801 houses on the sites CFS194 , CFS169 , CFS150 and CFS020

This is an area of rural land with badgers in the vicinity and any other species of wildlife Where will this wildlife go if the land is built on ?

The roads that these houses are proposed to have access to are already severely congested , Rectory Road is a small road , not built to take such large quantities of traffic , the traffic lights under the railway bridge permit one way traffic and an increase in volume like this is absolutely ridiculous.
Also this area under the bridge has flooded several times in the past year , resulting in the road being totally closed , again causing severe disruption on adjacent roads .

There are not sufficient school places , doctor or dentist places for an increase of maybe 2000 people that these houses would have and services are not easily walkable to , resulting in people having to drive anywhere they needed to be .

Hawkwell used to be a quiet village , separated from both Rayleigh and Rochford by farmland , woods and green spaces , these are being eroded one by one resulting in a sprawl of all villages joining up with each other This is not acceptable and I object strongly

Please accept this email as a formal objection to all the proposed new home building sites you currently have earmarked for Hockley, Hawkwell and Ashingdon. If you would like more detail then I would be only too glad to provide it ....

[Re CFS064]

I write to express my reasons for objecting to the development of the above
1 There is insufficient access to the development either through Betts Farm or down Folly Chase
2 It is an area used by the public as an open space for walking and exercise
3 The surrounding roads are already overcrowded and no new roads to alleviate this additional traffic are even planned

To who it may concern,
As a resident of Hockley I am writing to urge you NOT not build 214 houses on Field CFS064 next to Folly chase and Hockley Community Centre.
The roads around this area are already gridlocked most of the time. The schools, Doctors and infrastructure will not cope with extra residents.
I am sure that there are more suitable areas for building elsewhere in the Rochford area where it will have less of an impact.
Please, please PLEASE DO NOT BUILD HERE.
Yours sincerely,
Aimee Reynolds
Resident of Folly Lane.

Good evening, I’ve recently been informed that you will be turning (FIELD CFS064), a place in which I spent a lot of my childhood, into a housing estate. Upon hearing this news, I was instantly disheartened as (FIELD CFS064) has been a staple of my early childhood and teenage years. I have often spent many hours of a day strolling through the field, calming myself and helping my mental health. I feel that the field is one of the increasingly few examples of somewhere where that people can go to relax and get away from the stress caused by urban life. I, along with many others in our community, feel that it should remain the natural and safe place it is.
Feel free to contact me

Housing in Hockley and Hawkwell
I think it is disgusting and stupid to build so many houses in this now over crowded area.
I live in Hawkwell near the White Hart Pub, and continually have a problem getting on to the B1013.
Building 6236 houses means 12000 + cars. Our roads are chocker block now, so god forbid what our roads will be like when that lot are built.
Have some common sense and say NO to so many houses , to protect what was once a delightful area to live in.
No infrastructure, schools or doctors or decent roads.
NO NO NO NO NO to more houses.

I am writing to register my objection to the building of new housing across sites in the Hockley area.
At the highest level the addition of that many new houses in and around Hockley will change the fabric of the town. We can already see in Rayleigh how the overdevelopment of an urban area can affect a town, in fact we moved to Hockley from Rayleigh for this precise reason; the overstretched local services, constant congestion and noise being the most obvious.
Here in Hockley the proposed building will result in thousands more people in Hockley. We have one trunk road in my part of Hockley, Greensward Lane, which is already heavily congested at peak times, traffic often tailing back from the Plumberow Avenue lights to Greensward School and beyond. How is all this additional traffic going to be managed, not only in the future, but also during the building stage? Greensward Lane is not fit for heavy traffic, it is relatively narrow for a main road, it is already in very poor repair, worn surface, badly potholed. This is only going to make the situation worse now and in the future.
Then there are the vital local services that are already stretched and difficult to access. My children have now left school, however even then the class sizes already exceeded 30 pupils and classes were in cabins. Where is the extra capacity going to come from? Doctors and Dentists it is already very hard to obtain appointments. My surgery does not seem to have space to expand, so where are all these extra patients going to go? Are the developers going to build extra services to support their new homes? Is this requirement included in contracts and are these going to be built first, as developers have a very poor record on delivering on such promises.
Looking at the site, local to us, the one behind Malvern Road, this is on elevated ground. When this area is concreted over where is all the runoff water that is currently absorbed by the open ground going to go? It will run down into the gardens and Malvern Road. Living at the lower end of this road, I see firsthand just how much water there can be.

The noise and disruption caused by what will be a prolonged building phase will make normal living, in what is a quiet area, and in Hockley in general very difficult. This will need to be managed to protect the conditions of the current residents who are paying their local taxes but seeing their environment deteriorate. I am also concerned about the impact upon the environment in terms of nature, wildlife, pollution and the destruction of habitat. Once greenbelt land is used for building it is lost to all future generations. I think the over population and over building of Hockley will turn a desirable area to live into a polluted and crowded place. The proposed development will have a detrimental effect on the health and well being of my family.

My wife and I object in the strongest terms.

[re CFS064]

The roads on the Betts Farm Estate could be put under strain by a significant amount of traffic causing pollution.
The field is an important wildlife habitat and supports many native species.
Therefore I object to this field site being used for housing.

[re CFS064]

This development will severely impact on an already very heavy traffic area. This is also a lovely recreational walking ground for families and individuals alike. The loss of this area will reduce the green space available in the town. The field is also an important wildlife habitat and supports many native species.

[re CFS064]

The roads on the Betts Farm Estate could be put under strain by a significant amount of traffic causing pollution.
The field is an important wildlife habitat and supports many native species.
Therefore I object to this field site being used for housing.

I’m not sure if this is the correct way to go about it, but I wanted to let you know of my concern, as a very nearby resident, for the possible 215 new houses being built at the end of folly chase in the field.

1. There is too much traffic coming in and out of Hockley as it is, this would make the traffic situation much worse.
2. The residents of folly chase (and nearby)having to put up with noise and air pollution from the works and works traffic using the road.
3. Dog walkers (including myself and many others) use this space for a country dog walk and would no longer be able to do so.
4. People also use this space not just for dog walking but exercising in general and is so lovely to have a beautiful area like this to walk in nearby. It helps with our mental health!

I urge you to please consider these points before you agree to build in this beautiful area.

I am writing this email to object to the new plans put forward to build on the site at Harrogate drive.
I also feel knowing that (and stating) we have a older community you have made the website to object very hard to use. It's a confusing process and is hard to fine and even more confusing to navigate. I feel this was done on purpose to discourage people from objecting!

I am responding to the Spatial Options Paper and now submit my views and concerns.

Material Planning Concern regarding Access-re sites CFS064 and CFS264
The only apparent access to both sites appears to be via Folly Chase, a small unadopted road off of the already congested and unsuitable Folly Lane. Folly Lane itself has seen an unreasonable increase in traffic as it is used to access the 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. The road is frequently difficult to get through with parked cars along both sides and heavier traffic flows in both directions. This is not helped by it’s layout with three 90 degree bends and one c 45 degree bend along its relatively short length. These bends are difficult for larger traffic, especially the type of traffic used in construction, and a drain cover on one bend is broken several times a year by lorries having to ride up on to the kerb in order to get around the bend. Generally the speed of the ‘through’ traffic is too high and I have witnessed many near misses on the bends as vehicles either cut the corners or are forced to breach the centre of the road due to parked cars. A serious head on accident is now inevitable down this road, and the prospect of further development off of it will make matters even worse as the scale of the housing for the two sites identified in the plan would equate to approximately another 500 cars using Folly Lane just to access the developed sites. This would likely equate to an average of approximately 1000 to 2000 extra car movements a day on a road that is already inadequate.

A far as Folly Chase is concerned it is so limited in its capacity that it simply cannot be deemed suitable for access for either construction traffic or the eventual increase in residential access traffic. The Chase is not a through road, terminating at a footpath leading into designated Ancient Woodland, carrying HC1 Wildlife Site designation. Folly Chase has no significant base as it was unmade until the 1980s. The current road has been constructed and maintained by the Folly Chase Road Frontagers Committee on behalf of residents. A layer of bitumen and gravel was utilised over a thin layer of type 1 hardcore that is sufficient for the low traffic flow associated with 25 houses and no through access, but will simply not support construction traffic or the flows commensurate with the potential development. The road itself has no surface drainage features, gullies, gutters or drains so all water runs over the surface to the bottom of the road. There are no footpaths, nor is there space to construct footpaths and is approximately only 9 feet wide at its narrowest point and cannot support two way traffic. The existing housing water, and gas supplies are very shallow beneath the surface and any increase in heavy traffic will almost certainly cause collapse of these and there are numerous points where the existing sewage pipes cross the road, again, at a very shallow depth and would be extremely vulnerable to increased traffic flows.

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.

Folly Chase is Private Road 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 that my discussions with many 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
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’’ ;


a. Agriculture and Forestry.
The outline proposal is for residential development thus condition is not satisfied. Indeed any development would actually be in direct opposition to this as the land is already prime agricultural arable land and is actively farmed.

b. Essential facilities for outdoor sport and recreation.
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. The outline proposals would diminish the provision of outdoor sport and recreation and this condition cannot therefore be satisfied by any housing development.

c. and d. Limited extension and/or alteration of existing buildings.
Other than the Community Centre there are no existing buildings within the site. The Community Centre itself still has a long unexpired lease and development of it fails the test above in any case. This condition cannot be fulfilled

e . Limited Infilling.
The Local Plan allocation site reference 179 states that the land could be used for up to 265 dwellings. This is anything but ‘limited’ and this condition cannot be fulfilled

f. Limited affordable Housing
Again the size of the potential development is anything but limited. Condition cannot be met.

g. Limited infilling or redevelopment of previously developed land.
This land has not been previously developed and condition cannot be met.


Paragraph 136 of the National Planning Policy Framework lays out that ‘exceptional circumstances’ must be met for any consideration of changing existing Green Belt boundaries. Paragraph 137 specifically states that ‘’the…authority should be able to demonstrate that it has examined all other reasonable options for meeting its identified need for development. …..and whether the strategy…. Makes as much use as possible of suitable brownfield sites and underutilized land’’

From the above it is clear that the site cannot be considered any further for housing development as to do so contravenes existing Metropolitan Green Belt legislation. The site should be removed from the development plan.


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 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.

Infrastructure- both sites
I have detailed my concerns above regarding the inadequate infrastructure in respect of local roads, access and drainage and sewerage. In addition it is quite clear that other local services are already struggling and would simply be unable to cope with an increase in the local population of approximately 1000 people based on the estimated development potential of the two sites. Local schools, GP surgeries and wider health care have been under significant pressure for many years. Limited local car parking inhibits local trade ( it should be noted that there are several sites used for car parking included in the site allocation potentially limiting it further) and the main Southend/Hockley/Rayleigh Road is far too frequently jammed back to Hawkwell and Hambro Hill. There is no room for dedicated bus lanes or cycle lanes along this main corridor so whatever thoughts there may be regarding increasing public transport usage or cycling are simply pie in the sky and not feasible. The main road simply cannot cope with any more traffic arising from increased housing.

Reduction of Quality Arable farming land-CFS064
I am concerned the Plan may well reduce the acreage available for arable farming. What measures have the council made to ensure we have sufficient acreage available for farming use to enable us to keep feeding ourselves?

Impact on the landscape and community
It is clear that any development at site CFS064 would have a significantly detrimental effect on the environment, biodiversity and the visible appearance of the site. The visual impact will destroy the character of the site and it’s surroundings and the increase in population and traffic would destroy the culture of the existing community within Folly Chase.

Spatial Options Document 2021
Whilst I agree with the Vision Statement for Hockley as detailed in the SOD I cannot see how the proposed development sites would achieve the stated vision. Surely any further development would conflict with the entire Vision Statement, other than the one regarding affordable housing, but as we have seen on numerous occasions building more houses does not link directly to improved affordable housing allocations as builders charge increasingly higher prices. Surely a Central Government led policy on house pricing/profits is the answer?

Q58e asks re the significance of the ‘local green spaces’ but makes no mention of the Local Wildlife Sites. These should be equally regarded and are very significant. I have heard that CFS064 could be considered for re wilding. If so, with it’s close proximity to LoWs it could become an education centre or Country park, accessible to many by foot and cycle. It therefore does need protecting form development as it would help increase the land locally t comply with the Vision Statement and improve the environment and bio diversity for the benefit of the local community.

More Suitable Sites
My introduction acknowledged the need for some developments to comply with Government policy. There is a consensus that Hockley itself cannot cope with more development in the immediate vicinity but the Plan includes sites on the western fringes of the district that are clearly more suitable . The following sites CFS146,147,167,144,168,145,137,055,121 all have far easier access, room to provide additional social infrastructure as well as housing, better transport and potential for more transport hubs, and would keep the majority of traffic away from the existing congested community of Hockley and Hawkwell, and prevent a commensurate increase in pollution, noise and general inconvenience.

Conclusion
As can be seen form my concerns detailed above , 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 Note
I consent to my name and comments being added to the Councils consultation database.

Firstly your website is not very clear as to how you are meant to participate in the online consultation.

I want to express concerns over the proposed development of land north of Merryfields Avenue. I live in Clayspring Close so will be directly impacted by this development.

The RDC strategic priority 5; ‘making suitable and sufficient provision for climate change mitigation and adaptation, conservation and enhancement of the historic and natural environment including landscape.’ Especially Strategic objective 20; ‘to protect, maintain and enhance our districts natural environment’ are in contradiction to this proposed development.

This land is a woodland, although privately owned and inaccessible to the public, it is still essential that it is preserved. This is of environmental and ecological importance. It is also an area which backs onto the Maryland’s nature reserve which will be ruined by the building of these houses.

The most worrying thing is that work on this area has already commenced, there are work trucks arriving most days clearly carrying building material and building noise can be heard from this area.

Further to the plans which have been submitted to build on the farmers field at the back of Folly Chase I would like to submit my reasons for why this would be an absolutely ridiculous idea.

Firstly we moved to Folly Lane 7 years ago and I am absolutely astounded by the amount of new builds which have gone up in the area within the last 7 years. The roads are absolutely ridiculous. Not only is the amount of traffic becoming unbearable but the noise and amount of cars passing through Folly Lane and surrounding areas is just becoming silly. The roads are just not equipped to deal with this amount of traffic and congestion. The amount of people living in Hockley is just too much. The current infrastructure cannot cope and I see there are no plans to adapt this!!.

Secondly myself and my family are so sad to hear that you are now thinking of granting permission to build on the section of land at the back of Folly Chase. This piece of land is used by so many local people to get out for some fresh air, dog walks, ride bikes and spend family time. It is so lovely to be able to have this on our doorstep. During COVID [redacted - personal details] who suffers terribly with Depression and Anxiety decided to take an overdose. Due to the absolutely shocking response and lack of support from the NHS and Mental Health team in Rochford the only option and help was to walk for miles around the surrounding areas including this route which we did on many occasions to help her on her worst days. How many other people are using this for their mental well being in the area? Have you thought about this? The elderly, the lonely, young and old.

Thirdly. Have you thought about the pressure it is putting on the local doctors surgeries, schools and hospitals with the amount of houses/flats etc that are being built in the area. The schools are already oversubscribed and the current waiting time for a dentist appointment in this area to see an NHS dentist is 6 months!! This will only get worse.

Please think of the people currently living in the area and also the families of Folly Chase. It is absolutely disgusting. The building needs to be stopped in this area!!

Building over 1,700 new houses in Hockley would be retarded. It's a small village, not a goddamn city. All the roads are traffic jammed at the best of times and there's hardly any facilities or infastructure in Hockley to support this development plan.

Not only would these new houses completely remove any visual appeal of living in Hockley, but they would also make checking out these new houses impossible for potential buyers because of all the traffic it would create.

If you wanna build this many houses, go do it in an area that actually NEEDS and WANTS them.

new housing estates
Dear Sirs,

I understand Belchamps scout camp (CFS045) is earmarked for development, and also the large field opposite the Rawal Pindi Nursery (CFS074). Both these sites are valuable green spaces, which we badly need around here for our health, and for the wildlife in the area.

Living, as I do, on Main Road, Hawkwell, i.e. the B1013, I must protest about further houses being proposed for this area, leading to more cars on this road, which is often already at a standstill, with the added noise and pollution this causes.
There are other sites earmarked also, but the two above are of particular concern as they are so close. This used to be a pleasant, open, space to live, but it’s rapidly becoming not so.

There are no other roads they can use, except past our houses. There is an inadequate bus service so cars are the only option. But…there are no plans for further doctors, dentists or vets, which are all already full and not accepting new clients. So where are all the occupants
of the proposed new houses supposed to go for suchlike ?

We can’t just keep on building on our green spaces – it’s unsustainable and unhealthy. Brownfield sites must be chosen instead if we need all these new homes.

Proposed housing in Hockley, Hawkwell and Ashingdon
Build your houses elsewhere, we do not want to become an extension of Southend or overflow for the London boroughs.

People live in Rochford for its style, peace and quality of living.

Try getting to work on a school or bin day, a delivery van causes untold misery.

Get out and watch at the evening rush hour when traffic diverts off through Rochford for Southend. Gridlock.

Any new developments will be met with the full force of residents. Use your brain and not government targets.

Strong Objection to Proposed Building in Hockley (CFS023 & COL38)
We strongly oppose the proposed building works in the vicinity of Malvern Road, Hockley (namely CFS023 & COL38).
Having lived in Malvern Road for nearly 25 years (no. xx), we feel that the local roads could not support the increased level of traffic, should these houses be built. The local GP surgeries are at full capacity, the local schools are too. Where will these people go if they need a dentist, for instance?
The local area is greenbelt and the wildlife will be devastated.
On a personal note, we don't want trees getting ripped down at the bottom of the garden, to make way for an access road. This will destroy many habitats for the local wildlife and will cause a serious intrusion to many householders' privacy and will undoubtedly be a security risk to us Malvern Road house owners.
Additionally, with the proposed building works in Ashingdon, our Ashingdon Road (heading into Southend or Hockley), will become even more congested and exhaust omissions will poison the local air, badly effecting people with breathing issues.
Please, do not build in these areas as it will effectively be the "death knell of the local countryside."

I, Charlotte Emily Murray, 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 wish to comment on your new local plan for 214 dwellings on the field behind the community centre (cfs064) . I feel the land is firstly green belt land , there would be a severe impact on congestion on the B1013 . There is no infrastructure in place for these dwellings and the wildlife would suffer

The plan was difficult to access and view online. I have been unable to comment online.

Where is the infrastructure for all these proposed houses? ?
The current roads in particular the B1013 cannot cope with the current volume of traffic. Is there going to be provision for new GP surgeries, dentists, schools and supermarkets. Is there enough local employment?
Each new house, means at least one car but it’s more likely to be 2 nowadays. Leading to an increase in volume,noise and pollution in the area.

Eradication of the green belt and open spaces. Surely brownfield sites and empty buildings should be developed first before the countryside is lost for ever.

I object to the following developments

CFS040 and CFS264. Church road.
CFS064 folly chase
Building on green belt. Proposals will increase density and give further traffic problems on a busy country road which is used as a rat run . Church road is narrow. It is also used by cyclists and local equestrian riders to get to hockley woods. It will have knock on effects…ie Fountain Lane which is narrow and without pedestrian paths and the B1013.


CFS161 and CFS160
There is supposed to be a buffer zone of no development in order to protect ancient Hockley Woods. Loss of green belt and green corridors for wildlife.
More traffic on the B1013.

CFS261 I object. Loss of agricultural land. This will have huge knock on effects to Ashingdon Road and the surrounding areas eg Lower road or B1013 and the road leading to Southend airport.

CFS074. There is a bridleway on 2 sides of this proposed site which needs to be retained. Loss of agricultural land. We loose our land to grow crops locally. More traffic onto B1013.
CFS191 again bridleways need to be retained. More traffic onto B1013.
CFS045. The site has been a valuable well used resource and should be retained for future generations . It’s important that youngsters are encouraged to stay fit and healthy, saving our much valued NHS. More traffic onto B1013.

Dear Planners

COL38
I notice you can no longer comment by clicking on the Spatial option map, is this because you have realised it should not be used for building, as in July 2000 it was agreed by RDC it should go to Ashingdon Parish Council to continue as a play space on a Peppercorn rent for 100 yrs (I was at the council meeting when it was agreed )

CFS023

1) This will strip the Green Belt land Bordering Beckney woods which is ancient woodland which in turn could damage the woods
2) The tranquillity required for the cattery would be lost.
3) The site does not have a gentle slope as mentioned in an earlier SHELAA report it is 60-80 ft North south and west east
4) We suffer from fluvial flooding due to the slopes and as there is blue clay needing deeper foundations this would exacerbate the problem by changing the water table
5) There would be a large impact on the wild life, a large variety of birds bats and adders also Foxes Badgers Muntjac deer .Crested newts have appeared in ponds.
6) Harrogate Drive is very narrow single track no footpath and there is no main Sewer. Wild life would suffer from loss of hedge rows
7) The entrance to Harrogate drive and the site would require a major change to the entrance from Greensward lane including losing property .The owner of [redacted] Greensward lane is adamant it is not for sale so it should be in white on option map.(How many more are like that?)
8) Any houses built would loose any privacy we have due to the large slopes
9) We already suffer from low water pressure and any more houses would worsen the situation

Overall

A) Once again infrastructure should come 1st the report should have been with the consultation.We have been complaining for years and nothing has improved I went to Rayleigh last week and there were queues from Spa Road to Hambro Hill no roadworks or bin lorries holding things up and it was not the rush hour!!
B) It would be far better to have a large site nearer main roads e.g. Lubbards Farm area it could also benefit from the power available from the Solar Farm addition to the Rayleigh substation. Instead of a collection of bits as proposed along Greensward lane
C) No space at local surgeries so more doctors
D) Schools are already close to max capacity
E) More facilities and care required for the ageing community
F) More Hospital beds
G) RDC should agree an overall plan for a new village in conjunction with Southend and Castle point
H) The action plan would have more comments if it was simpler to use for the older population.
I) Any development should have affordable housing not all high end, Hall Road suffers from that.

Plot CFS023
We would like to register our refusal of the plan to build further houses around the above plot.

The infrastructure, doctors, roads, schools, trains, electricity, water cannot take anymore pressure.

The quality of life will decrease with the downturn in air quality and with the already extremely high council tax that we currently pay, will not be acceptable under humanitarian law.

I strongly object to the field site CFS064 being used for housing.

This field is green belt and farmed regularly. It is surrounded by 3 ancient woodlands and is an important wildlife habitat - these would be severely impacted by a housing development.

The field is surrounded by a local public footpath that is well used and loved by locals. My family and I take regular walks/bike rides here as it’s such a beautiful spot, and we feel lucky to have this right on our doorstep.

Our schools (especially the closest school to this site) doctors surgery’s and dentists are already over subscribed.

The roads feeding to this site are already severely congested, particularly the B1013.

Any developments in the area will put the B1013 under considerable additional strain, especially as most sites are not walkable to local amenities.

The infrastructure of Hockley can not cope with its existing resident numbers, it will not be able to cope with any more housing developments.

CFS002/06/013/015/017/018/019/020/022/023/024/025/027/029/030/031/032/033/034/035/036/037/039/040/041/042/043/044/045/049/050/051/052/053/055/056/057/058/059/060/061/062/063/064/065/066/067/068/069/070/071/072/073/074/075/076/077/078/079/080/081/082/083/084/085/086/087/088/089/090/092/093/094/095/096/097/098/


OBJECT

Over-development: meaning loss of habitats, bio-diversity, green space, green fields, nature; agricultural land; detrimental to one's mental and physical health.

We need farmers to 'bring back' their depleted farmland in order to farm sustainably for the future, not to sell it for development.

I refer to the piece of land off of Folly Chase ( CFS064 ) earmarked for development. My reasons against this piece of land being developed are as follows:-
1. The land is surrounded by three ancient woodlands which would need to be demolished if permission were to be given to housing. In the spring there is an abundance of wild flowers in these woods including many areas of anemonies which grow at the rate of six feet in a hundred years which demonstrates how old these woods are. This is a habitat for many birds bees and butterflies. Can we really justify demolishing years and years of woodland just to line builder’s pockets? There is a suggestion that we should plant trees to save our planet and how can demolishing an old woodland demonstrate this. This is also an area where badgers roam freely at night, there are many sets on the waste land at the back of the new estate off of Folly Lane.
2. Since lockdown we have seen a considerable number of people with or without dogs wandering down our Folly chase for a stroll and into the woodlands surrounding it. The numbers have not decreased as this is now a well known spot for people to walk for exercise and enjoy the flora and fauna,birds and butterflies we still have in this area before it all disappears under the developer’s machinery.
3. During heavy rain this year the field became very waterlogged and the adjoining lane was just a big lake. As the new estate in Folly Lane has had enormous problems with sewerage just how can it be contemplated to add sewerage from another 214 houses when sewerage from the extra 75 houses cannot cope now.
4. The access to the site is very poor. Folly Chase is not wide enough for two cars to pass by. Entry via the Community Centre would lose the grassland surrounding the Community Centre which again is used by walkers, dog training club and the childrens nursery. Access via the school is not safe with small children around.
5. Traffic congestion along High Road is a constant problem, there is frequently long delays if a delivery is made anywhere in the vicinity causing exhaust pollution and that is before all the extra traffic any more houses will generate. Our children are encouraged to walk to school but how many will develop asthma from the constant exhaust fumes that will be generated by more cars stuck in traffic jams.
6. On a general note with future housing development in this area No plans as far as we know have been made to provide new schools, more doctors surgeries and new roads to cope with this influx of people and cars more building will create. As we know from the Hall Road site the builders manipulated the situation flaunting the rules meaning they did not have to provide the schools and doctors surgery as promised. Will the Council ensure that adequate provision is made and that this loophole is not used again?

I am a resident of Rochford, specifically Rectory Rd, SS4 1UE. I have concerns about the following proposals, primarily due to the lack of infrastructure required to accommodate the increase in traffic. There will also need to be considerable building in terms of schools and other necessities, although these things are often neglected when it comes to building new estates.

I believe the emergency services have already expressed grave concerns regarding the traffic on the Ashingdon Rd during rush hour and the school run. This will become impassable if the following proposals are agreed:

CFS261 (4447 houses! How can you even consider such a thing?)
CFS074
CFS194
CFS169
CFS150
CFS020

None of the above should be considered without a serious, independent assessment of the impact on the roads, particularly Ashingdon Rd. Infrastructure first, please!