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?

plot CFS023
RE PLOT CFS023 HARROGATE DRIVE HOCKLEY

Residents of Harrogate Road, Hockley SS5 5HT
We object to the above plan.

CFS064 Hockley
This is a ridiculous idea - there is FAR TOO MUCH traffic in this area already.

Stop this development madness now! Roads, schools, doctors, dentists and hospitals cannot cope already. I repeat stop!!!

CFS064
This is an area of open space and air which so many people in the area enjoy for walking and exercise. It also includes the amazing 'Bluebell Woods' an absolute joy in the Spring. To have this area destroyed for yet more houses, which will bring even more cars to join an already over busy, dangerous, Folly Lane (which is also used as a rat run by Hullbridge) to then join the B1013 which for years and years has been known as the busiest 'B' Road in the COUNTRY is simply wrong. In addition, to the best of my knowledge, any of your new housing developments in this area have not resulted in infrastructure improvements to alleviate the increase in traffic.

I also think that the education and healthcare capacity is overlooked, it's hopeless trying to get a doctors appointment for example.

What we really need is these areas are more trees - not houses.

To whom it may concern

Response to the Rochford District Council Local Plan re Site 179 Final Viability Report 2017
We have become aware that the land belonging to Steven’s Farm to the east of Folly Chase ,West of Betts Wood, North of Folly Wood and South of the railway line has been included in the Call for Land site reference 179 and has been deemed ‘viable’ for housing development within the Final Viability Report 2017 of the Strategic Housing and Employment Land Availability Assessment 2017 ref CFS064.
This submission objects to any development of the Site whatsoever and that the site should be removed from consideration of development within the Local Plan and should instead be considered for protection due to it’s Green Belt and ecological status.
We understand that RDC assessed the suitability of all sites under consideration in its Strategic Housing and Employment Land Availability Assessment 22017. In terms of infrastructure, the document states (on age 321- see attached) that no highways access is required, no significant investment in utilities needed and no significant investment in sustainable transport needed. We strongly disagree with this.
Green Belt
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.
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 be developed.
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 179 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.
Material Planning Concerns
There are many Material Planning Concerns but we wish to draw RDC attention to the access to the site, none of which is viable. The only access is via the Community Centre. This has 7 years remaining on it’s lease and would need demolishing, in contravention of Green Belt policy to improve and increase recreational and community spaces, and any access beyond it would necessitate destroying the existing playing pitches and removal of trees that fall within the Betts Wood HC1 designation.
The road access to the Community Centre is via Westminster Drive itself accessed only by Buckingham Road and Osborne Avenue. None of these are appropriate site access in respect of the heavy polluting traffic required for it’s development, and for the increased traffic flow post development. These roads already have severe access limitations due to traffic flows for Hockley Primary School, and the amount of residential parking throughout the day, due to the existing estates not providing anywhere near sufficient off-road parking. Emergency access would be severely curtailed by more through traffic of any kind to the site.
The only other point of access is via Folly Lane and Folly Chase directly. Folly Lane has the same problem with existing traffic flows and parking, its twisty nature is unsuitable to construction traffic, the existing Folly Grove development still requires construction traffic and is repeatedly damaging drain covers down the road evidencing it’s unsuitability for heavy traffic. Folly Chase provides the only direct access to the site. It is unadopted, too narrow has limited turning options, and no footpaths. It is maintained by us the other residents and is not to standard to support anything other than limited residents’ access. It is inconceivable that it could be considered suitable for either development/construction traffic or significant flows of several hundred car movements daily post development.
Indeed, the road itself is owned by the residents who would not provide any consents for wider access or development.
We would also like to point out that CFS064 is misinterpreting the site as our land is included in the plan without our consent. The site should be redrawn with our land taken out. With regard to access as pointed out above Folly Chase is a privately maintained road but a section of the road in front of our property which is the only access into CF064 is actually owned by us (title number EX879939 – see attached). Surely this and the information above rules out any suitable access for a housing development on this site.

I’m writing to object to the development of site reference CFS023 and COL38.
The roads and the infrastructure is not able to cope with the current levels of traffic. The play area in Malvern is a regular used area for children and walkers. We don’t have enough open spaces to allow wildlife like badgers and foxes to thrive. Recently I have seen muntjac dear recently. This development would destroy their habitat. More houses means more cars which means more pollution to the area. I moved to the area because of open spaces and plenty of walks.
I hope the planning does not go ahead.

Objections to Hockley development
My wife and I are residents of Hockley , and have been for over 30 years, we would like to register our objections , in the strongest possible terms , to any and all future housing development in the Hockley and Hawkwell area.
In recent years the infrastructure providers have failed to keep pace with new housing development , it is therefore appalling and negligent that RDC have made no mention or provision whatsoever in their Spatial Options Document 2021 for any increase in the infrastructure which would be required to serve the proposed increase in housing.
The proposed development around the Greensward Lane area of Hockley of 586 new houses, would bring in excess of 1000 more cars to that area alone, it is already extremely difficult to drive in or out of Hockley , particularly in the rush hour and this would render the whole area grid locked.
The schools are already full , with no further capacity available, the Doctors surgeries are already full, with lengthy waiting times for an appointment.
We would like to make particular objections to any development on sites CFS023 and COL38, both these sites are particularly unsuitable for further development for a number of reasons.
They are both designated as areas of Green belt, and located next to and would impact on the Ancient Woodland of Beckney Woods , the area is of clay soil and any further development would increase the risk of flooding and drainage issues to the existing houses and residents in Malvern Road.
There is very limited access to these sites , the extra traffic would cause severe congestion and danger to the residents particularly around the area of the schools.
In my view these sites are completely unsuitable , especially when there are other sites elsewhere that are far more suitable and easier to develop.
HOCKLEY IS FULL, we really can't take anymore homes especially whilst RDC refuses to provide any supporting infrastructure.

CS 194
Having lived in Rectory Road Hawkwell for 57 years I am horrified to think of the possibility of up to 800 dwellings being built on the fields behind us, there were many times the land at the back of us has either been waterlogged and flooding into our gardens and in some cases our houses.

The traffic in Rectory road has increased so much that there is congestion at both ends of Rectory road, where will the extra 2000 cars go as most people have 2 cars to each household, and the bus service is negligible, we will need another school and another doctors surgery like the ones we were supposed to have had in the Hall road development.

With the extreme weather forecast for the foreseeable future due to climate change this is a disaster in the making.

Please think again

Planning Objections
CFS045
CFS064
CFS160
CFS161
CFS074
CFS194
CFS169
CFS150
CFS020
CFS261

The volume of the proposed builds are ridiculous.
No way can the roads handle the extra traffic that these estates will generate, the roads around these areas are already under strain with congestion, let alone the condition of the roads where maintenance has been disregarded…
Public transport is also running at near full capacity and I regularly see busses stuck in the congestion.
The areas proposed may also impact on local wildlife, I assume a lot of the field and wooded areas will be cleared for the construction.
I also feel the additional properties, vehicles etc will have a negative impact on air quality, especially if during the construction trees are removed. There is already proof of serious effects on some local residents caused by this.

I strongly feel we have enough homes in the area at present with all the current building works that are going on.

I have tried to understand the way in which I can make comment on the recently published plan but am finding the website and the manner in which the questions have been formulated difficult to manage.
When the previous planning consultation was carried out I made specific representations in respect of a piece of land which has again appeared on the plans. This are is referenced COL38 Malvern Road Play Area. When Malvern Road was developed this area was required to be left in order to maintain sufficient public open space in the area. It is regularly used by children. It is also used at least 20 times a day as a public right of way to walk between Malvern Road and Branksome Avenue and for access to Beckney Woods.
In the past it was gifted by Rochford District Council to Ashingdon Parish Council on a 100 year lease to be maintained as a public open space.
Removing this area from public use would be to the detriment of the local area when we have increased challenges to our open spaces and infrastructure.
In addition the field is a wildlife resource with the hedging providing a resource for many birds and it also contains two protected oak trees.
I hope this email is sufficient to have my comments noted in the current consultation.

Re: Site Ref: CFS024, Land north of Merryfields Avenue, Hockley, Essex, MAP G
We are writing to register our strong OBJECTION to the above site being incorporated in the New Local Development Plan 2017-2040 for the following reasons:
Environment
1. First and foremost this land is Metropolitan Green Belt and is there to protect the countryside from being developed inappropriately. This land is also outside the existing settlement boundary.
2. Our concern is over the close proximity to the Nature Reserve and the detrimental effect that this will have on wildlife in the area. Bats, which are a protected species, can often be seen circling our house on a summer evening. Construction work noise and destruction of trees will have a disturbing impact on wildlife and also ruin the public’s right to enjoy the Nature Reserve’s peace and quiet.
3. Flooding. We have lived here since 1993 and, due to the imposed parking restrictions outside our properties, many people have had to convert their front gardens to driveways to accommodate extra cars. During heavy rain we now get an excessive amount of water hurtling down the hill and congregating at the end of Marylands Avenue. The gulleys cannot cope with this amount of water all at one time. The woodland provides a natural soakaway when this happens.
4. The importance of the free running stream which runs through the site. The new drainage system coming off the adjoining fields and around the Greensward School Playing Field now feeds through a culvert into this stream. The danger of flooding is now more apparent if the stream is interfered with.
5. There is currently TPOs on the trees imposed by Rochford District Council.

Access to the Site
4. The access to this site is too narrow by far. It is already difficult to gain access/turn around at this point in the road. Marylands Avenue itself is a quiet, residential family orientated street with many elderly/children/pets around and to have heavy lorries and site traffic weaving its way up and down this road is extremely dangerous and quite unthinkable.
5. The access to this site was originally intended to be from the site of the old original bungalow in Plumberow Avenue. The bungalow was demolished a number of years ago and three houses built on this plot effectively sealing that access off. The gates that were put in place in 2000 were, we were told, meant for maintenance of the land and security to the landlowners parents who were elderly and at that time still in residence in the original bungalow at 87 Plumberow Avenue.
There is now only one access to this piece of land through an existing 60's built family housing estate.
Conclusion
Building on green belt land should not normally be allowed “except in very special circumstances” and we can see no special circumstances that support this.
It is also to be noted that this land has already been refused planning by Rochford District Council in 2011. This went to appeal and was also refused by the Government Planning Inspectorate on 3 July 2012 because the site “would represent inappropriate development within the Green Belt”.
We would be grateful if you could you take our concerns into consideration.
Yours faithfully,

PAUL THORPE AND LINDA CHESTER

I am writing in response to your consultation with regards to development in the area going forward.

I am particularly concerned with regard to 179 Final Viability Report with regards to the field at the bottom of Folly Chase where I live and the addition of Greenacres nursery to the proposals.

I thought the vision statement for Hockley was to maintain ancient woodland rather than destroy it within this development as it is completely abliterated? My understanding was that HC1 Folly Wood has some protection but has the field by the railway line been included in error with regards to biodiversity?

My understanding of previous consideration was that Folly Chase would be used as an exit road??? How is that possible when it is a private road, unadopted and not wide enough?? The only way you could do this would be to compulsory purchase some of our front gardens to widen the road??? There are no paths and I have an oak tree on my border which has a TPO on it.

The completely irony is that when I first moved here and wanted to trim it I was refused (only a trim not a removal!!) by an Arboricultural Inspector as it would spoil the character and amenity of the area and the effect on the tree health and the importance of oak trees in our biodiversity and threatened invertibrates within it. It was decided it would have a negative impact!

This was later overturned as mentioned before I only wanted to trim it!! and at the time the council was considering building 50 houses in the field (later chose Pond Chase).

How are we expected to support a council that dictates on the one hand what I can and cannot do and then turns a blind eye completely contradicting its findings when it suits???

I do not consider 265 houses a small development which is in breach of infill development recommendations.

The drains, I believe, are still not connected to the Pond Chase development so who is responsible for not completing this - the builders?? Surely the council has a responsibility to ensure procedures are followed?

I understand from the Greenacres homeowners they have not put their land forward for development of 40 houses but it has been lumped in with the proposals?? How is that allowed without consultation to the landowners?? It has caused much anxiety and stress to them in addition to the other homeowners in the road.

Again, there is limited access (one car width) to their current premises so does that mean the house at the front would be demolished to provide access??

What about environmental factors and the assessment of the field for protection of wildlife - has this been done for a buffer zone around the mature oaks, and, as previously mentioned, how will you do this around my oak tree as there will not be the room??(see previous biodiversity comments).

I believe there are more suitable sites on the western edge of the plan and other brown field sites not full developed. The bigger developments would have access to better transport links as the current traffic situation in Hockley cannot take any more cars. Strategy Option 3 would be best suited to provide the housing needs if required by government.

I would like to add my comments to the Spatial Options Consultation. The survey raises enormous questions and few individuals are likely to have knowledge of the whole district, so I am limiting my comments to those sites I am most familiar with.

CFS 074, scheduled for a possible 498 houses, would involve the destruction of valuable green belt and agricultural land. It is unsustainable in that it has a poor bus service, is not within easy walking distance of (or on a safe cycling route to) the railway station, to and would result in hundreds of extra cars feeding onto the already frequently congested B1013.

CFS 045, Belchamps, though rather smaller has the same issues of unsustainability. Furthermore, being so close to Hockley Woods, its development would inevitably be detrimental to the Woods. I believe it has also ancient woodland within the site so should be protected from any housing development.

CFS191 and CFS 251 are also so close to Hockley Woods that development would inevitably have a negative impact on the woods and local wildlife. Though relatively small, my comments above on unsustainability applies also to both these sites. An additional point is that these areas get very wet and boggy in winter, often causing water to flow down Mount Bovers, so that drainage and potential flooding would be problems .

CFS 262 and CFS 049 seem to me to have less potential impact on Green Belt and landscape, but there remain the same issues of sustainability (poor bus service, distance from station, lack of safe cycling routes). Moreover, as a resident of Highwell Gardens, I am well aware of the difficulty drivers face when joining the B1030 in this part of Hawkwell. A right turn is particularly dangerous, because traffic coming round the bend, often at speed, is invisible until the last moment. Exit from the proposed developments would be equally dangerous

CFS 118: Exiting to the main road from any houses constructed on the strip of land by the junction of Rectory Road and Clements Hall Road cannot be done safely, whether access is to be off Rectory Road, Clements Hall Way or through Clements Gate.

CFS 083 and CFS 078 – Damage to green belt, destruction of agricultural land, lack of good public transport, resulting in more traffic on inadequate roads, so unsustainable.

CFS 135 – Damage to green belt and landscape, far from town centre and local services, therefore unsustainable. Also adjacent to Cherry Orchard Country Park, a valuable and much-loved public open area, which will be harmed as a result.

CFS 160 – In addition to the damage to the green belt and destruction of agricultural land, this site is immediately adjacent to Hockley Woods so that building there will cause damage to the woodland, and to wildlife.

Most of the sites I have listed are entirely or partially within the Upper Roach Valley Special Landscape Area which the District Council’s vision statement for Hawkwell and Hockley rightly recognises is a ‘green lung’ with its accessible ancient woodland and nature reserves. If, however, building takes place in this area it will lose its valuable character and distinctive quality, thus making the vision statement meaningless. That in itself should be a good enough reason not to build within the SLA.

I understand that the field behind the Hockley Community Centre has been potentially earmarked for the development of 214 new homes.

I would like to object to this field site (CFS064) being used for housing for these reasons:

1. This field is green belt and is regularly farmed.

2. There are also three ancient woods around the field that would be affected by a housing development.

3. There is also the wildlife that currently live in the field and woods to consider.

4. Because one side of the development is bordered by the railway line, all motor traffic from any new development would have to come out onto the B1013, which is already severely congested at core times of the morning and evening. 214 new homes would create at least an additional 430 cars on local roads that are already struggling to cope with the current level of traffic.

5. Additional motorcars will also bring additional pollution into the village, to the detriment of those of us living here.

6. Local services, including GPs and schools are already oversubscribed. Bringing in an additional 214 families, without increasing the capacity of local infrastructure, would have a detrimental effect on the present residents of Hockley.

I hope that these considerations will be taken into account before any final decision is made on the use of this land for housing.

I understand that the field behind the Hockley Community Centre has been potentially earmarked for the development of 214 new homes.

I would like to object to this field site (CFS064) being used for housing for these reasons:

1. This field is green belt and is regularly farmed.

2. There are also three ancient woods around the field that would be affected by a housing development.

3. There is also the wildlife that currently live in the field and woods to consider.

4. Because one side of the development is bordered by the railway line, all motor traffic from any new development would have us come out onto the B1013, which is already severely congested at core times of the morning and evening. 214 new homes would create at least an additional 430 cars on local roads that are already struggling to cope with the current level of traffic.

5. Additional motorcars will also bring additional pollution into the village, to the detriment of those of us living here.

6. Local services, including GPs and schools are already oversubscribed. Bringing in an additional 214 families, without increasing the capacity of local infrastructure, would have a detrimental affect on the present residents of Hockley.

I hope that these considerations will be taken into account before any final decision is made on the use of this land for housing.

I feel very strongly that this area should not be developed for additional housing.
I have lived in Folly Lane for 21 years now and my property backs onto Greenacres Nursery in Folly Chase.
The obvious reason for my objection is the strain on an already struggling infrastructure. The volume of traffic in Folly Lane has increased tremendously in the last few years and we are constantly disturbed by cars and large trucks going past our house at all hours. Many people use Folly Lane as a cut through if the road from Rayleigh is congested. On occasion, it has taken me twenty minutes just to drive to the top of Folly Lane because of tailbacks on the Main Road, a distance of possibly 400m. The road is always busy which poses a risk for school children walking to and from school, and the general public, not to mention the pets that live around the area. It is often used as a race track at night too, despite constant pleas from neighbours to install traffic slowing systems ie speed bumps.
The local schools and doctors surgeries are fit to bursting. The road floods at every heavy downpour as the drainage systems are unable to cope.
Perhaps the most important reason for objecting the development however, is the impact that this would have on the ancient woodland of this area, the plants and wildlife that are abundant there, the tranquility of the agricultural land and the fact that so many families, mine included, use this pathway (Jubilee Walk) linking Folly Chase to the Community Centre on a regular basis, to escape from the noise and chaos of everyday life. I used to walk my children to HOCKLEY Primary School every day over the period of nine years, along this path,to avoid the traffic noise, fumes and danger of the rush hour congestion on the Main Road. I know many other local families that do the same.
To conclude, I strongly object to the development of this area around Folly Chase and believe it would be detrimental to the lives of the people and animals that live nearby.
Please see attached a photo of the proposed area, showing the beauty and tranquility that it offers.

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

Good afternoon, probably one of the first emails to object about the new proposals in and around Hockley. After reading the latest proposals for new housing I was completely gobsmacked at the amount that has been put forward.

This area is going to be swamped with so many people, all with more than one car, our doctors, our schools and NHS services are not going to cope. We already have difficulty with getting an appointment at our local doctors and this isn't just my doctor. Getting in and out of Hockley is a nightmare and has been for the last 17 years. This will be gridlocked.

Why are we taking away such beautiful greenbelt areas, what will happen to the wildlife there. There must be a better solution than this - it really needs better consideration.

I am writing to you in response to the publishing of the New Local Plan. I am compelled to conclude that Rochford Council’s approach to this proposal is deeply cynical. The scale of the proposals is enormous, but yet this plan is invisible on the council home page and takes some persistence in navigating through various pages to find it. Some of the proposals, such as concreting over Belchamps appear so far-fetched that they are being proposed knowing that they will be sacrificed to placate the public and get some of the proposals through. Also lacking is why this enormous development is needed? (A very obvious omission). I suspect that the very large number of sites have been chosen to make it difficult and time consuming to object.
I will therefore select a few sites which present the same negative outcomes. These sites are:
CFS074, 020, 150, 169, 194, 045 and 064
All of the sites give us more of the following outcomes:
1/ More traffic onto the B1013, an already congested road
2/ No infrastructure to support walking and cycling
3/ More pollution and a decrease in air quality
And less of the following:
a/ green corridors and wildlife habits
b/ footpaths, so vital for mental health in recent times
c/ More flood risk in many of them
I have lived in Hockley for 30 years and have noticed a diminution in the quality of life in the local area which has felt increasingly suburban in nature. The large increase in population has not been accompanied by any increase in amenities.

Thank you for making the Local Plan and Spatial Options available on the internet and for the extensive detail included. It's taken me a while to get to examine the contents and would like to respond to proposals to develop land surrounding my family home. I am concerned by the scale of possible development all across the Rochford area, but there are two sites that will directly and adversely affect my family and I.

Of course I understand that Government policy will force significant development within the area, but I am writing to highlight issues with developing the sites of CFS064 and CFS264 and to ask that they be removed from the Plan and any subsequent consultation stages. Site CFS064 is special and should be protected in accordance with RDC's own objectives.

I list my concerns as follows:

Access to the sites CFS064 and CFS264

I live on Folly Chase, I was born here more than 50 years ago and it's been my parents only marital home in their 56 years as husband and wife. As I look at the plans it seems the only access to both sites would be through the Chase, which for many years was an unmade road off a country lane. Folly Lane is no longer a quiet road - it's a busy rat-run, with large trucks, coaches and even buses forcing their way through a narrow thoroughfare. The new housing developments in Pond Chase and Church Road has seen the speed of traffic rise dangerously. Increased building in Hullbridge, poor access on the B1013 from Rayleigh to Rochford - with drivers avoiding the often log jammed A127 - means this is now a busy road and the only direct way Hullbridge to Hockley. Car are often parked in dangerous positions on both sides of the road and it's worse when parents are dropping children at Hockley Tennis Club. Traffic goes too fast and often cut the corners of the 90 left - 90 right and 90 left bends those of us looking to pull into Folly Chase are in jeopardy at times. The roads are broken and in disrepair fallowing the construction of Pond Chase Nursery.
Any more development will just make all of this worse - if even the small site is green lit that will mean another 60 cars using the road - not to mention extra the delivery traffic.

Our road is maintained by residents and is incapable of handling construction traffic or the eventual increase in residential access traffic. It leads to a footpath, popular with dog walkers taking them into Bluebell Woods (aka Folly Wood) designated Ancient Woodland, carrying HC1 Wildlife Site designation. It's all part of the "6,320km Public Rights of Way (PRoW) in Essex - one of the most extensive networks in the country" according to the ECC website. And the Rochford District Council website highlights that "Hockley" is a member of the Parish Paths Partnership Scheme, which is an initiative introduced by Essex County Council in conjunction with The Countryside Agency to assist parish councils to maintain, develop and promote their local footpath network."

Folly Chase has no surface drainage features, no run off into gullies or gutters. There are no footpaths, and no room to build them as the roads about 9 feet wide at its narrowest point, so cannot support two way traffic. The infrastructure for housing water, and gas supplies is not far beneath the surface and any increase in heavy traffic will almost certainly damage these as they are vulnerable.

Anglian Water had serious concerns about the strain on the current sewerage systems in the area and the Pond Chase development created serious issues contributing to the ill health of several residents on the road. The complete system now cross to Folly Chase from Pond Chase, across to the field that is site CFS064 to the Hockley Community centre and has 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.

With specific reference to site CFS064

This land abuts the full length of our back fence, we have all manner of wild life that comes into our garden from here including newts, common lizards and adders (a protected species) as well as bats, and dragonflies.
I note that the land is Metropolitan Green belt land and have read that such land can only be developed for ‘Exceptional circumstances’ as detailed in the Planning Policy Guidance Note 2 (PPG2). It also says in paragraph 143 that "Inappropriate development is by definition harmful to Green Belt’’ and in Paragraph 145 is says ‘’A local planning authority should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in the Green Belt. Exceptions to this are;


• 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 under-utilised land’’

All the above suggests the site cannot be considered any further for housing development as to do so contravenes existing Metropolitan Green Belt legislation so it must 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.

When I was a little girl I used to play in "the big field" and in the gloaming of summer would watch the glow-worms in the grass by Folly Woods. The LoWs assessments do not detail many resident species but it's not only the glow worms that the children growing up here see on their walks. We have grass snakes and slow worms as well as adders and very cute common lizards. There are frogs, toads, smooth Newts, great Crested Newts. I have seen badgers, foxes, muntjac deer and even a very fast weasel! There are nesting buzzards, sparrow hawks, merlin, tawny owls, little owls, nightjar, blue tits, great tits, long tail tits, robins and wrens, coal tits, willow warblers, chiff chaff, blackcap, blackbirds, thrushes, goldfinch, greenfinch, chaffinch, yellowhammer, tree creeper, nuthatch, swallow, swift, house martin. In the trees of the ancient woodland we have many corvid including crow, jackdaw, Magpie, Jay, Rook, then there's the Coot, Moorhen, Cuckoo, dunnock and sparrows and when it's cold fieldfare, lapwing, and redwing shelter and rest. Goldcrest, Great Spotted Woodpecker, Green Woodpecker, Lesser Spotted Woodpecker, Grey Heron, Pied Wagtail, Grey Wagtail, House Sparrow, Kestrel, Linnet, Nightingale, Meadow Pipit, Skylark, Starling have all been seen here as the seasons change. And we all love the bats so their must be a colony making their home within Folly and/or Betts Woods. There's rich flora, including wild honeysuckle, wood anemones and the bluebells, all with the many variety of beetles, spiders and Wood Ant colonies.

They live happily undisturbed amongst brambles, oak, hornbeam, holly and Ash trees around the 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 centre 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.


I have been shown 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. So this site really should not be considered for development - instead it should be listed for protection in accordance with the Local Plan objectives - taken off the development plan and placed in a protection plan.

Infrastructure- both sites

I've mentioned my concerns about local road issues - I haven't added my worries about the times ambulances take to get to our road and then back to Southend hospital (While it continues to have an A+E unit).
I have also explained how inadequate drainage and sewerage is in the area but we have to also address the pressure local services are already straining under. If both sites are green-lit hundreds more people (and children) will be looking for places in our local schools, GP surgeries, dental surgeries and nurseries. The bus service is infrequent and expensive, and speaking as a cyclist the roads are too narrow for safe transit for younger riders. I want proper cycle ways but where are they? And where would they realistically go? The B1013 cannot cope with the current traffic let along increased pressed form 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
Any development at site CFS064 will be detrimental on the environment, biodiversity and the visible appearance of the site. The visual impact will destroy the character of the site and its 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 with better 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 overly congested community of Hockley and Hawkwell.

Conclusion
I ask that sites CFS064 and CFS264 be removed from the next stage. They are simply not suitable.

Having studied the Local Plan at length and the recently published Spatial Options pages on your website I feel I have to respond. Whilst I have wider concerns than those regarding just the two sites above I think it is to be accepted that due to Government policy significant development has to happen somewhere within the boundaries of RDC. My purpose in writing this response , however, is to advise the council of specific issues affecting the two specific sites identified in the header and to request their removal from the Plan and any subsequent consultation stages. Indeed not only should site CFS064 be removed from the development pan, it should be earmarked for protection in accordance with RDCs own objectives detailed within the plan.

My concerns are as detailed below

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 areimportant 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, being close to A127 to London/Southend, A13 to London/Kent and A130, and 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. Because these are bigger they could also attract government funding for local improvement.



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.

Thank you for your time in reading our response

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have made some submissions to your local plan consultation on behalf of the Woodland Trust, using your online consultation portal.

I flagged up in our online submission that we have concerns about the impact which some of your site allocations may have on ancient woods or on ancient/veteran trees and I said I would send information on these separately by email, so see attached table. You can see from the table that in some cases we are concerned about proximity to ancient woods or trees and in such cases we would ask for a buffer strip to be included of at least 50 metres before development is allowed to proceed. In other cases, we believe there may be actual loss of habitat and so we would urge that these allocations be withdrawn or significantly amended.

We have guidance on ancient woodland and ancient/veteran trees in our Planners Manual which can be found on our website at https://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/publications/2019/06/planners-manual-for-ancient-woodland and we would ask that you refer to this document when considering our submissions regarding these site allocations.

[see attached document - list of sites of concern with proximity to ancient woodland (within or adjacent) as follows:]

CFS068 Land at Lower Wyburns farm, to the south of Daws Heath Road, Rayleigh Rayleigh Adjacent WT Lower Wyburns (grid reference: TQ812895)
CFS023 Land north and east of Malvern Road, Hockley Hockley Adjacent Beckney Wood ASNW (grid reference: TQ8468693935)
CFS062 Land north of Lambourne Hall Road, Canewdon Canewdon Adjacent WT Paddock Copse (grid reference: TQ906946)
CFS134 Land between Eastwood Rise and Rayleigh Avenue, Eastwood Rayleigh Adjacent New England Wood ASNW (grid reference: TQ8336190291)
CFS160 Northlands Farm, 65 High Road, Hockley Hockley Within Hockley Woods ASNW (grid reference: TQ8256791923)
CFS045 Belchamps Scout Site, Holyoak Lane, Hawkwell Hawkwell Within Hockley Woods ASNW (grid reference: TQ8412091789)
GF01 Land north west of Hockley Station Hockley Adjacent Maryland’s Wood ASNW (grid
reference: TQ8375192993)
CFS064 Land north and east of Folly Chase, Hockley Hockley Adjacent Betts Wood ASNW (grid reference: TQ8331992870)
COL20 Civic Suite, Hockley Road, Rayleigh Rayleigh Within Veteran Common Sycamore (ATI no: 11502) at grid reference: TQ80849087

Firstly the Consultation Process. The volume and format of information contained in the consultation was difficult to access and view online. It was difficult to understand the context of the consultation and RDC are not reaching residents who have no internet. It is also very difficult to cross reference when trying to write a response.

In my opinion the most important factor is that Infrastructure needs to be addressed before more housing is added to the area - This is a key concern for residents exacerbated by the volume of recent and proposed development causing additional pressure on roads, education, social services, health facilities and local employment opportunities. In particular our roads and cycle paths are in a very pitiful state of repair and are only likely to worsen with significant further development. The main route, the B1013 is already at full capacity and we the residents have concerns with traffic volumes causing severe Jams, increase in road noise and pollution combined with the very poor state of the roads with potholes etc

The Infrastructure Funding Statement states all financial and non-financial developer contributions relating to Section 106 conditions should be completed but this has not always been the case and is not the case when larger sites are split up. This was evident at the Hall Road development that promised a school and and doctors both of which were promised but not delivered

Open Spaces - The value of our open spaces and the issues with climate change have become a priority. The use of empty buildings and Brownfield sites should be evaluated first and consideration should be given to identifying an area where a discrete garden village with appropriate infrastructure, separate from current settlements, could be created. Prime examples of such working developments include Chelmsford Beaulieu Park and the South Woodham Ferrers development. I believe that approach is much better that the “Pepper Pot” approach in that it does not give residents a clear picture of the local area erosion of space and general slow increases of population that lead to an adverse effect on local infrastructure.

Potential Developments in Hockley - The plan proposes around 1000 additional houses in Hockley with additional developments on land bordering the Parish. This density will have a major detrimental impact on the quality of life for residents. A particular concern is traffic. The volume of traffic on the B1013, into which most of the proposed new sites, including CFS045, CFS064, CFS160 & 161, CFS074, CFS194, CFS169, CFS150 and CFS020 will feed, is already at an unacceptable level. Many proposed sites are not within walking distance of services and bus and train services are limited. Current high levels of traffic mean that there is already a detrimental effect on the quality of life for residents as well as local commerce and potentially on individuals’ health, given levels of pollution. Additional traffic, potentially thousands of cars, will only worsen matters.

The proposal for development on land at Belchamps, CFS074, is particularly worrying due to the lack of open space for activities available to youngsters and community groups in the Rochford District. The site has been a very valuable well used resource and it is important this is retained for our future generations.

Whilst I understand the need to provide additional housing in Hockley, infrastructure requirements need to be considered and addressed alongside any consideration of potential development sites. Also proper consideration needs to be given to identifying development away from existing settlements. Whilst this may be unattractive due to upfront costs, such an approach could save money in the long term.

I consent. To my name and comments being added to the Councils consultation database and understand anonymous comments cannot be accepted.
I would like to be added to the council planning list and consent to my data being stored and processed for the purposes of receiving planning updates by email

Please accept this as my objection to proposed houses at sites CFS064 and CFS264.

I live on Folly Chase and simply can not believe that these two sites are being considered for houses when this particular area will not be able cope with any more traffic as it is currently a serious issue/ problem, it's already a dangerous situation.

Folly Chase itself is a single track private road for access to current dwelling in Folly Chase which would be unable to withstand any increase in traffic, it also has no foot path and doesn't have room for footpaths. Any widening of the road would require the current households to given up some of their current frontages, which I know will not happen.

Also the field at the end of Folly Chase is engulfed by ancient woodland and building so close to such ancient woodland would be contradictory to Rochford District Council's vision.

The field also runs a long the railway line and two ancient woodlands, playing fields and playground, what will the building to current wildlife and birds ??? The answer would be that it would endanger the current wildlife and birds.

Hockley is already considerably over-developed in terms of housing which is causing a major issue with the shortages of school places, doctors, dentists etc. and basic provisions i.e. sewage, water etc as already experienced at the Pond Chase development.

The proposed are also Greenbelt sites and they should be protected and built upon in an already congested area.

Surely there must be more appropriate sites for development than those proposed under CFS 064 and CFS 264, other sites that have better infrastructure, areas that are not currently fully developed.

I request that the proposals for developments on CFS 064 and CFS 264 be rejected as totally inappropriate sites for developments.

I was pleased to attend the presentation in Hockley on Monday 16th August in respect of the revised Local Plan from 2025-2040 and thank you for the opportunity to meet and discuss the plan with council officers.

My main concern is centred on Hockey, which is where I live and in particular the areas around references CFS064, CFS264, CFS040, CFS160 and CFS191.

Hockley is a small village and whilst the Spacial Statement looks to keep Hockley as the gateway to the Green Lung with Hockley woods etc. this does seem to be in direct conflict with proposed development sites along the ancient woodlands edges and there seems to be a desire to continue to encroach on this delicate and valuable asset plus our other green field/green belt sites.

One of the big issues in Hockley is the traffic congestion caused by junction of Main Road/ Spa Road/Southend Road which is a constant bottleneck. Walking to/from the village along MainRoad/Aldermans Hill is not a great experience at any time and I feel that the air quality has diminished in recent times as the traffic continues to mount up. Further development can surely only add to the issues.

The impact on services must also be taken into account. Local Doctor surgeries appear to be full as do Dentist. On a wider scale I am not sure how University Hospital Southend will cope with up to 10,000 more souls from the Rochford area alone plus whatever Southend Borough are planning. The hospital seems under immense pressure - even before COVID.

CFS064 and CFS264
The location is at the end of a private road leading to an active agricultural site and is close to valued woodland and walking/recreational sites/footpaths over a mile from the centre of Hockley.

Access to the private road (Folly Chase) is via Folly Lane which itself is a narrow and increasingly overused thoroughfare, and the entrance is on a tight bend. Folly Lane is not a road best positioned for any increase in traffic at anytime least of all heavy lorries on and off site. The road infrastructure is poor and any increase in road usage would surely cause mayhem and possible failure.

The site is an active agricultural site. With todays emphasis to be more self sufficient in food production to lose this site would surely be short sighted. The impact of any large development would also have a severe impact on the local wildlife and leisure (dog walking/walking/cycling/horse riding) would be substantial not to mention the pressure on local and ancient woodland and the wildlife. Local deer, badger, bat and fox communities are already under pressure from recent developments down Church Road and Pond Chase - which has already increased road traffic in the area with detrimental affect although was to a larger part good use of a brown field site and worthy of support.

CFS040
I am a little surprised that this area is still on the plan. It has recently had planning approved for 2 large private residential properties and surely access would be restricted. However, much as mentioned above Church Road at the proposed site is very narrow and close to the junction with Folly Lane and Fountain lane. Church Road has seen a large increase in traffic not just with the building of over 60 houses in the immediate vicinity in the last 5 years but also affected by use as a cut through from Hullbridge along Lower Road and the residential development that is going on there.

The road is showing signs of deterioration. It also has a number of stables and is used constantly as access to Bridleways for those exercising horses as well as walkers given the access to the open countryside. It should be pointed out that for the most part there are no footways either and walking is a hazardous undertaking. The road infrastructure doesn't support increased traffic and public transport is poor.

CFS160
I refer to my earlier comments with respect to encroachment on the edge of Hockley Wood and the green belt. This seems to be another such erosion of those green areas that we seem to be keen to keep? The proposed area is quite a way from any of the essential services in Hockley or Rayleigh with limited public transport options and again the High Road which is very busy will incur further traffic adding to alreday high levels of congestion and a deterioration in the air quality.

I have been living in Merryfields Avenue Hockley for 42 years adjacent to this area of land Ref CFS024, and confirm, as said many times before over the years, that it is in no way suitable to be included in the New Local Plan for any future building development.
It has been offered for consideration as a site showing space for 39 new homes, but has access problems, many protected trees, and has much existing wildlife, all as described in more detail below.
The area of land is Metropolitan Greenbelt with Agricultural Status, and is there to protect the countryside from being developed inappropriately. It has Global Tree Protection Orders on all the larger trees, of which there are many.
The access to the site is very limited, and Marylands and Merryfields Avenues are a quiet residential area and to have heavy lorries and site traffic weaving its way in these roads would be dangerous and unacceptable.
Any development to this site would also have a detrimental effect on wildlife and the adjacent nature reserve.
The land is a long thin strip behind a residential area and adjacent to the Marylands Nature Reserve with open land and footpaths and recreational areas beyond that.
It is a small development with extremely poor access and would not benefit the government quotas for social/affordable housing.
This woodland area supports and protects the existing Nature Reserve from the negative impact of the existing domestic dwellings. Nature does not stop at the current boundary of the Nature Reserve and has naturally spread to this woodland site.Any development would severely impact the existing wildlife from birds, bats, badgers, foxes, butterflies and their food sources including vegetation, insects and their habitat in this area and those from the Nature Reserve which benefit from the woodland, some of which will have spread to this area with nests/burrows or territories/tracks.
The site has an awkward, sloped, narrow, single access through narrow congested roads to reach Plumberow Avenue,
The woodland site is also currently providing a natural soakaway, but there is still a build up during heavy rainfall at the end of Marylands Avenue where the only access to the site would be, because of the existing poor drainage system.
As said before, this is a small development and would not make a contribution to improving the infrastructure, nor allocate any social/affordable housing, so for all these reasons, and the obvious damage to nature and many preserved trees, this site should not be allowed to have any development, and NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE NEW LOCAL PLAN.

I wish to register my objection to site CFS064 of the Spatial Options document being approved for housing development.

Development of this greenfield site will add to the ever increasing traffic pressure on the local road infrastructure. This land provides a natural access link for wildlife between adjacent woodland areas, which will be lost if developed for housing.

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

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

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

CFS064 - Field behind Community Centre (Folly Lane)

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

This field is surrounded by ancient woodland that houses wildlife and many native species, and would be seriously affected by a housing development.
It is green belt land and is farmed regularly.
Severe impact to the B1013, already congested.
This is a popular path to many walkers, to and from the village.