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?

We do find these development of green belts really troubling. The fact that you seem content to ride roughshod over the purpose of this legislation in halting urban sprawl is a major concern to us, as we chose to move here to get away from such sprawl. While building on green belts is permitted, it is only to be undertaken in exceptional circumstances. We do not feel this is exceptional in any way.

We are concerned that you make no effort to give any breakdown of the infrastructure improvements that you would need to undertake with each of the plots. How can you ask residents to give their opinions without supplying this vital data? Certain developments might be more palatable if you had included the link roads, schools and doctors surgeries which would be included. Current infrastructure is already seeing long delays in getting to see doctors and children not being offered their first place in primary schools (which ironically causes more road traffic). We find this lack of planning surprising as it is clear you have done intensive reviews of each of the plots, without seeming considering this vital factor.

The fact that the roads are already in a very poor state of repair, gives us no confidence that such improvement can be achieved prior to building, or even post the builds.

With reference to the areas near where we live, without understanding the infrastructure improvements needed, it is difficult to draw up a comprehensive list of objections. However, to start the ball rolling, with this development, we would like you to formall record the following objections.

Site reference: CFS023

1. You are looking to build right on the edge of ancient and well used woodland, which would clearly damage it physically, but also the nature of the woodlands itself.

2. To build the road into this development you would need to compulsory purchase a large number of plots to be able to put in a road and footpath of a suitable width.

3. Again ,with regard to the road, you would also need to cut down a number of trees which currently line the track, a number of them appear to be very old.

4. Our house is only a few meters from the proposed road, which would reduce our privacy as well as increase air pollution, and noise levels.

5. Having any development along the already crowded Greensward Lane/Ashingdon Road with its large number of schools located on or adjacent, would simply cause more road congestion, and with the road already often reduced to a crawl, which in turn would also increase the air and noise pollution for residents.


You have placed scores against schools and healthcare, but have you approached these establishments to ask if they can service these new developments? You simply cannot score against existing needs, but need to score against the projected ones. For example I know an existing local primary is full, so how can you score a 5.

Our view is that if more new houses are needed, you should focus on new town developments where you can suitably create the infrastructure needed, as part of the development itself. People moving there would fully understand what they are moving into. We would suggest building close to the A130 to the West, with their improved road links, or to the South East with links to A1159/A13. We would also suggest working alongside the surrounding councils of Wickford and Southend to produce a fully joined up offering as joint developments.

We see a number of these proposals, as death by a thousand cuts to small towns such as Hockley, which will forever change their makeup and character. We were under the impression that it was the council’s duty to protect the hamlets under their charters, but these plans seem to go totally against these aims.

With Covid, we are likely to see homework now becoming more widely used. This in turn will see more offices converting to residential use (such as Victoria Ave, in Southend), which may have a big impact on the need to build more homes in rural areas such as ours.

To restate our initial comments, we believe on top of the callus building on Green Belt, you need to produce a fully realised infrastructure plan for the regions first, to sit alongside any proposals. Only then should residents be asked for their views.

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

CFS045
CFS046
CFS160
CFS161
CFS074
CFS194
CFS169
CFS150
CFS020
CFS261

Reasons as follows:-

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

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

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

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

CFS064

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

I walk the field every day. It has a locally important footpath running around its perimeter.

Every day I see lots of wildlife habitat and supports many native species. It is nice to see in the morning instead of walking streets.

The area is green belt and farmed regularly and nice to see local food growing. It will be a shame for this to go.

Dear Sirs
I understand it is important that there needs to be development to meet Government targets.
But I do not believe the constant in-filling of existing communities is the right way to achieve this objective. By so doing the strain on the infrastructure becomes even greater when it is already at an unsustainable level in terms of traffic, medical facilities and schools. For instance the almost daily traffic queues through Hockley and Rayleigh will get considerably worse with any housing development to the East of the district. The piecemeal development also means that the developers have no obligation to make meaningful improvements to the infrastructure.

It would be preferable to build the housing required in one location to the west of the district.
The sites suggested in the spatial plan are much better sites with better access and less impact on the existing infrastructure and the communities of Hockley, Rochford and Hullbridg. Specifically those sites which are close to the A130, Rawreth Lane and London Road and that have the space for large development, additional social infrastructure and transport links. Specifically the sites CFS055, 121, 137, 144, 145, 146, 147, 167, 168. These are all on the Western edge of the district and would therefore protect the existing communities and infrastructure in Rochford, Hockley, Hullbridge etc. from increased through traffic and pollution and would not put further stress on these villages infrastructure including roads, schools, doctors, etc.

In terms of the local plan I have particular reservations with regard to CFS064 and CFS264 with which I am familiar. My concerns are:-

· That access to the sites is very limited, specifically that using Folly Chase, a privately owned and un adopted road that is too narrow, has no footpaths and the residents have ownership rights. The ability to make any adaptions would involve the destruction of numerous trees with preservation orders including ancient oaks.
· It would impact adversely upon the footpaths which are located within these sites and which have proved invaluable during the pandemic for not only exercise but also the mental well being of the local population.
· there is no public transport access to these sites
· Drainage – this has already been an issue with the lack of sewerage connection at Pond Chase and already inadequate fall/capacity to take waste away without any further development
· Elements are within the Green belt and should not be harmed.
· The effect on the Environment and its biodiversity. Specifically, the threat to Ancient Woodland at Folly Wood, Betts Farm Wood and the wood in the North of the Field.
· The effect on the existing Wildlife ‘corridors’ (specifically the badger setts), and the further fragmentation of wildlife habitats by future development.
· My understanding is that should the plan be adopted at site (previously designated Site 179) now CFS064 this would conflict with RDC policy on promoting and preserving Biodiversity
· Removal of valuable quality agricultural land
· Having reviewed the site appraisal paper for Hockley and Hawkwell and the various levels assigned to each criteria I seriously doubt whether any detailed site visits have been made and proper due diligence carried out.

Given the announcements that have been made that there are pending changes of Government legislation relating to planning, I recommend that any further action on the Local Plan is suspended until such legislation is passed, otherwise there is a real risk of wasting a lot of tax payers money on further consultation/planning etc. that may subsequently be prevented or altered by policy changes.
To Conclude
To meet the housing needs all housing should be built in 1 of the 3 locations which have been identified. (Option 3 on the consultation document).
In addition CFS064 and CFS264 should be removed from the next stage of the plan.

New Local Plan: Site Ref CFS024 - Land north of
Merryfields Avenue, Hockley

I wish to raise objections and concerns in the strongest possible terms to the proposed development of the above site.

I have no doubt that many objections will already have been raised by local residents like myself who are already extremely concerned at the fast-disappearing areas of greenbelt and this particular site is especially valuable since it is adjacent to the nature reserve and therefore a valuable additional haven for wildlife.

In addition, the obvious necessity for a large and frequent amount of site traffic in the adjoining roads of Marylands Avenue, Mount Crescent and Mount Avenue would cause tremendous anxiety and concern, not to mention inconvenience, to many residents, many of whom are elderly. This is a very quiet neighbourhood and is absolutely unsuitable for the disruption and danger that the proposed development would undoubtedly cause.

I sincerely hope these objections, together with those raised by other concerned residents, will carry some weight in the decision regarding the future development of Site CFS024.

I live in Hambro Close and over the years it has become increasingly difficult to get out of the Close onto Hambro Hill by car due to heavy traffic on what is little more than a country lane. To build an estate of houses on the proposed site would make the problem a great deal worse and the entrance to the estate would be on a bend at the top of a very steep hill - getting out of the new estate would be extremely dangerous with visibility being almost impossible as far as seeing traffic on the hill approaching from the right.

There are no pavements on either side of a large portion of the Hill and no means to provide these on such a narrow LANE - this would be an extremely dangerous junction and accidents just waiting to happen.

Hambro Hill is narrow LANE with no prospect of being made wider and to consider creating an entrance/exit to a housing development is an extremely dangerous prospect i.e on sharp bend at top of very narrow steep COUNTRY LANE

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 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.

Thank you for your time in reading our response

I am writing in regards to the field site CFS064. I think it is absurd that there is a plan to possibly build 214 houses on the site and I would like to object to the plan. This is because I regularly walk and run along the footpath surrounding the fields and I feel that if houses are built on the land it would ruin the natural environment especially the ancient woodlands nearby.
I also feel that the the planned estate would cause even more congestion along the main roads and put our public services under even more pressure.
Being a younger resident of Hockley and lived in it all my life, I fully believe this would be a mistake and would increase pollution in the area and add to the increasing amount of litter in this district. I’m horrified the council would even consider building housing on green belt land, when councils should be focusing on becoming greener.
Not even to mention the impacts on wildlife we should be encouraging more wildlife to roam around Betts farm not out a housing development on the site.
I hereby object to the plans on the possible site (CFS064)

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

I am writing in regards to the field site CFS064. I think it is absurd that there is a plan to possibly build 214 houses on the site and I would like to object to the plan. This is because I regularly walk and run along the footpath surrounding the fields and I feel that if houses are built on the land it would ruin the natural environment especially the ancient woodlands nearby.
I also feel that the the planned estate would cause even more congestion along the main roads and put our public services under even more pressure.

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

Objection to CFS194, CFS169, CFS150 & CFS020


The potential to build 801 houses in this area is not something I support. The area is already overrun with parking and general highway issues. Most nearby areas are single yellow lines, meaning residents themselves are struggling to park, let alone building more houses.

The air quality will decrease due to there being less public land for people to enjoy on their walks but in turn there will just be more pollution. This isn't something which Hawkwell needs. The Infrastructure does not work, the area is overrun with cars using Victor Gardens as a cut through already and a heavily congested area like this will not cope.

Thank you for the chance to provide comments and initial observations to this vast and extremely complex subject. Emotions will run high on this sensitive initiative which will cloud some of the critical issues that need to be resolved.

Whilst I feel the over consumption of our open spaces and converting these into housing and/or commercial buildings is not in the best interest of the community as a whole, the reality is we need to provide affordable and appropriate housing for our ever increasing population. As such I’m not necessarily contesting the sites themselves but rather, sounding concerns and the clear basic needs that this major scale of building demands. I believe the key points have been trapped/identified in your various documents but what's absolutely vital is that we simply do not flag these points simply as a tick box exercise but rather, effect real actions that will address the major impacts.

1. Infrastructure – this is pretty obvious and it not only centres around the supporting roads for the new sites but equally, wider consideration to the roads that feed Hockley, Hawkwell, etc. As numerous people have already pointed out, the traffic congestion into and out of these places is pretty dire and adding more homes, businesses will only exacerbate this situation further. Just acknowledging this and failing to take mitigating action is no longer acceptable. As our leaders and management of local the communities your roles are to ensure you take sound and well considered decisions that properly measure the whole picture. Implementing further building programmes (through more housing, etc) whilst at the same time, tinkering around the edges of the supporting infrastructure is no longer acceptable nor truly viable. Infrastructure also extends to the drains and the ability to soak away the rainfall and occasional flooding that we sometimes experience. Equaly, it extends to proper maintenance and investment of services to support these additional solutions so that they continue to be fit for purpose.
2. Services – the ever increasing of new residential homes brings an increase in demands on Doctors, Dentists, Schools, nursery’s , sewage, broadband, and so forth. Some of these services are failing to provide the appropriate level of support to the community today, adding more residents into the mix will drive the levels of frustration even further when people are unable to access these services in a reasonable timeframe. Yes funding cuts make this a challenging issue but increasing demand on these basic services at the same time obviously makes the situation worse.
3. Floodplains –We all recognise climate change and the worsening impacts we are witnessing in our day to day lives, is it really sensible that we path over further parts of our green and open spaces within the areas we live. We need flood management solutions that can combat this increasing risk to our environment.


I fully appreciate the above are major factors that are not quick fixes, require significant investment and asks for strong leadership form those empowered. But reality is, we have been expanding our community by large scale housing developments (house building) for many many years now but failed to properly develop fundamental infrastructure plans along the way. We need investment in these areas to cope with the growing residents numbers. At some point, the demands on the infrastructure become overwhelming and it can no longer properly function. In many cases, we are beyond that tipping point already.

Objection to potential building sites
Both of these sites are near the Glencroft open space and contribute to a significant amount of wild life in the area. Providing a safe haven for foxes, badgers, bats. deer and a variety of birds. The are many old trees on both plots that give an excellent habitat for the local bird population and I would be sorry to see them go.

Access to both sites would be via the main road and Victor Gardens. It is almost impossible to get out of the village during rush hour, adding the amount of houses around this area would make it even worse. Even out of the busy times the main road is always busy and accessing it from the side roads gets harder as the number of cars increase. Even if more people took to their cycles this would not help as there are not very many cycle lanes not he roads and currently cyclist just cause even more traffic hold ups.

We have a reasonable air quality in this area, more cars will certainly make that worse.

CFS194, CFS169, CFS150 & CFS020

These four sites would give an additional 801 homes.

Given that our roads are so congested - main road, - A127 - A12 - A13 how can we support this many new houses?

The proposed areas are huge refuges for wildlife and support thousands of birds.

Hockley/Hawkwell is a village, it does not have the shops, schools, doctors to support his type of growth. The bus service is already basic with services mainly on the main roads in and out of the village. The local woods and parks are busy and well used. I would much rather see these expanded to the benefit of all the current residents.

I recall seeing quite a bit of flooding in these areas too, I presume this has been looked at - so many new build sites are built on areas that flood regularly.

We have a reasonable air quality in this area, more cars will certainly make that worse.

It is almost impossible to get out of the village during rush hour, adding the amount of houses around this area would make it even worse. Even out of the busy times the main road is always busy and accessing it from the side roads gets harder as the number of cars increase.

Even if more people took to their cycles this would not help as there are not very many cycle lanes not he roads and currently cyclist just cause even more traffic hold ups.

CFS024 - New Local Plan
I would like to raise objection to the new site planned behind Marylands avenue.

I strongly believe this area is for the wildlife and the new houses will detriment the wildlife and adjacent nature reserve.

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

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

To my understanding, there is no consideration given to:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear sir it would be completely wrong to build 39 new homes at the back of merry fields avenue I live inMarylands avenue at Num XX the access road is not large enough to take heavy traffic nor the surrounding roads which are a disgrace anyway and the damage to them would be drastic the woods are used by many dog walkers and people just relaxing walking through the woods not to mention the varied birds and animals which you see I moved to this area because of the location of the woods and the lovely quiet area which this is you would ruin people's lives building this estate there is plenty of traffic in this area already and to add more is ludicrous there are plenty of fields in this area with no housing near surely you could use another area with no houses nearby I have lived here for three years and if I had known of these plans I would have not moved here this is a lovely quiet area with a lot of the older generation in the houses don't ruin our lives by building on this site this plan is a disgrace ?????????

CFS 064
I object to the field site (CFS064) being used for housing for the following reasons:
- it is green belt and farmed regularly
- there would be a sever impact on the level of traffic congestion on the B1013
- the road south of 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 recreation by walkers
- the field is an important wildlife habitat and supports many species

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 the Committee has not investigated these as to do so would be time consuming and expensive, but it is apparent that the ownership issue is complex and fragmented and the Committees discussions with some residents shows the large majority would be unwilling to enter into any negotiation to depart from current use and access.

The Committee does not believe the two sites detailed above warrant further inclusion in the Plan and should be removed for the next stage as it is clear that there are many other more suitable sites without the access and infrastructure issues detailed in this response.

Ref CFS024
Good morning,
Please take this email as my strong objection to Site Ref CFS024 (land north of Merryfields Avenue).

The roads in our area are becoming more and more congested by the day with very little done by the Council/Govt to improve the Infrastructure and related facilities (recent Hall Road development being a prime example).

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

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

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

I understand from documentation I have seen that Land North Of Hockley, Ref CFS024 has been designated as a potential development site for 39 houses.

Could you please provide me with details of the assessments you have carried out regarding the impact of construction traffic on the roads in the Marylands and Merryfields Avenue area, what consideration has been given to children and older people pedestrians in the area. Also what routes will construction traffic use to get to the site, taking into account the congestion that already exists at the railway bridge and traffic lights in Greensward Lane. Also, if this proposal is given the go ahead, how much money will be allocated to the repairing of the road between the pedestrian crossing and the railway bridge, as currently the potholes are patched on a very regular basis, and this is not taking into account an increase in traffic that would inevitably occur if this development went ahead.

Whilst I view this plot of land and its access totally unsuitable for development, I would like a reply before the closing date for objections so I my formulate my response to the plan.

CFS064
I object to the field site (CFS064) being used for housing for the following core reasons:
Destruction of greenery
Traffic already congested
No infrastructure to accommodate - roads, hospitals, surgeries, trains, schools, fix these first!

CFS064
I object to the field site (CFS064) being used for housing for the following core reasons:-
Destruction to greenery
Roads - already congested
No infrastructure to accommodate roads, hospitals, surgeries, trains, schools etc!!

RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPEMENTS ROCHFORD DISTRICT COUNCIL

We have read with great interest further residential developments within the Rochford borough, with extreme disbelief and a total disgrace for a once wonderful area.

Even though we all appreciate that the volume of people within the UK is growing year on year and of course require housing, surely this must be in areas where space and infacturue is available and not in areas such as Rochford with limited resources which are now exhausted.

• WHERE ARE THE ADDITIONAL ROAD
• SCHOOLS
• GP SURGERYS
• EDUCATION FACILITIES
• TRAFFIC ISSUE – WHICH ARE AT THE LIMIT NOW
• ACCESSIBILITY OF EMERGERNCY SERVICES.

If you can confirm all the above, I rest my case , BUT YOU CANNOT !!!

We are all aware of the governments instructions to provide homes and we are also aware of the government’s green policy, do you honesty consider all the above to be green policy – if you consider over populating Rochford in every way, sorry to say the current officers at RDC should be receiving there P45 because they are not working for the good of residents.

I think you will find a very large number of Rochford residents, like myself, moved for East London many years ago to escape the over population and the deprivation which started to exist and exists today at an even great rate, and now appears to be moving to Rochford borough.

Obviously, if you have been a land owner or farmer in this area and sold your land for the purpose of building, good luck to them but why is the council allowing more and more of these projects and to ruin our local areas within the borough.

We as council tax paying’s have every right to be considered seriously when infringing on our daily life, so perhaps let’s have officers within the council with “balls” to stand up and protect this area and the residents who reside, instead of bowing down to developers who really couldn’t care less in building cardboard boxes and to make a quick buck.

Take proposed site CFS261 land to the back of King Edmund school, why 4447 homes ? consider – how many families – cars – school places – medical facilities. Why not consider, approximately 1500 and have a section 106 to provide services to the community or is the developers with the tail wagging the dog.

PLEASE WAKE UP ROCHFORD AND HAVE THE BALLS TO STAND UP IN PARLIMENT TO SAVE ROCHFORD AS I AM SURE WE ALL WHO RESIDE HERE WANT YOU TO DO.

It is a great pity today that in every walk of life, it’s money, and wherever it comes from we want it regardless.

No doubt you are not that interested in the Rochford residents, but remember we pay your salaries, so make us consider you are worth it.

For a very disgruntled Hockley resident.

Objection to Suggested building sites in Hockley and Hawkwell

I would like to lodge an objection to the following housing proposals for Hockley/Hawkwell

CFS160 &CFS161

For the following reasons;

Road congestion
Green belt land
Safety concerns with increased traffic/pedestrians
No infrastructure
Negative impact on wildlife
Loss of public footpaths/bridleways
No provisions for extra services e.g. schools, dentist, doctors, parking

It is already difficult to enter and leave Hockley/Hawkwell with only one main road in and out so adding additional houses and pressures to a village infrastructure is ridiculous.

I would like to lodge an objection to the following housing proposals for Hockley/Hawkwell

CF074

For the following reasons;

Road congestion
Green belt land
Safety concerns with increased traffic/pedestrians
No infrastructure
Negative impact on wildlife
Loss of public footpaths/bridleways
No provisions for extra services e.g. schools, dentist, doctors, parking

It is already difficult to enter and leave Hockley/Hawkwell with only one main road in and out so adding additional houses and pressures to a village infrastructure is ridiculous.

I would like to lodge an objection to the following housing proposals for Hockley/Hawkwell

CFS194

For the following reasons;

Road congestion
Green belt land
Safety concerns with increased traffic/pedestrians
No infrastructure
Negative impact on wildlife
Loss of public footpaths/bridleways
No provisions for extra services e.g. schools, dentist, doctors, parking

It is already difficult to enter and leave Hockley/Hawkwell with only one main road in and out so adding additional houses and pressures to a village infrastructure is ridiculous.

I would like to lodge an objection to the following housing proposals for Hockley/Hawkwell

CFS169

For the following reasons;

Road congestion
Green belt land
Safety concerns with increased traffic/pedestrians
No infrastructure
Negative impact on wildlife
Loss of public footpaths/bridleways
No provisions for extra services e.g. schools, dentist, doctors, parking

It is already difficult to enter and leave Hockley/Hawkwell with only one main road in and out so adding additional houses and pressures to a village infrastructure is ridiculous.

I would like to lodge an objection to the following housing proposals for Hockley/Hawkwell

CFS150

For the following reasons;

Road congestion
Green belt land
Safety concerns with increased traffic/pedestrians
No infrastructure
Negative impact on wildlife
Loss of public footpaths/bridleways
No provisions for extra services e.g. schools, dentist, doctors, parking

It is already difficult to enter and leave Hockley/Hawkwell with only one main road in and out so adding additional houses and pressures to a village infrastructure is ridiculous.

I would like to lodge an objection to the following housing proposals for Hockley/Hawkwell

CFS020

For the following reasons;

Road congestion
Green belt land
Safety concerns with increased traffic/pedestrians
No infrastructure
Negative impact on wildlife
Loss of public footpaths/bridleways
No provisions for extra services e.g. schools, dentist, doctors, parking

It is already difficult to enter and leave Hockley/Hawkwell with only one main road in and out so adding additional houses and pressures to a village infrastructure is ridiculous.

I would like to lodge an objection to the following housing proposals for Hockley/Hawkwell

CFS261

For the following reasons;

Road congestion
Green belt land
Safety concerns with increased traffic/pedestrians
No infrastructure
Negative impact on wildlife
Loss of public footpaths/bridleways
No provisions for extra services e.g. schools, dentist, doctors, parking

It is already difficult to enter and leave Hockley/Hawkwell with only one main road in and out so adding additional houses and pressures to a village infrastructure is ridiculous.