Q58d. Are there areas that require protecting from development?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CFSO45 HAWKWELL

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

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

CFS261 HAWKWELL

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

I object to all of the above in CFS045 & CFS261

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed building in Rochford Hawkwell and Rayleigh
Dear Planning

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I strongly object to the proposed land.

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

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

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

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

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

I strongly object to the above development for the following reasons

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

[For attachments, see files of respondent 14742]

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

SITE ASSESSMENT PROFORMA: CFS002
In relation to the ‘spatial options consultation’, I would like to request you go back to government to politely tell them where they can place their housing targets!
Not sure if you have heard about the IPCC report but WE ARE IN A CLIMATE EMERGENCY, humanity would be grateful if you would start taking action towards that instead, as it is a much bigger priority than a new local plan!
We may need our greenbelt and agricultural land to grow crops if food supplies become affected, it is madness to consider covering them in concrete! Our roads are constantly gridlocked through infrastructure neglect and surely must be at dangerous pollution levels already. Not to mention the fact that a lot of the district is expected to be under water by 2050!
In light of the above, here are my reasons for objecting to this site:

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

SITE ASSESSMENT PROFORMA: CFS169
In relation to the ‘spatial options consultation’, I would like to request you go back to government to politely tell them where they can place their housing targets!
Not sure if you have heard about the IPCC report but WE ARE IN A CLIMATE EMERGENCY, humanity would be grateful if you would start taking action towards that instead, as it is a much bigger priority than a new local plan!
We may need our greenbelt and agricultural land to grow crops if food supplies become affected, it is madness to consider covering them in concrete! Our roads are constantly gridlocked through infrastructure neglect and surely must be at dangerous pollution levels already. Not to mention the fact that a lot of the district is expected to be under water by 2050!
In light of the above, here are my reasons for objecting to this site:
Critical Drainage Risk
2
Green Belt Harm
1
Landscape Impact
2
Impact on Agricultural Land
1

SITE ASSESSMENT PROFORMA: CFS194
In relation to the ‘spatial options consultation’, I would like to request you go back to government to politely tell them where they can place their housing targets!
Not sure if you have heard about the IPCC report but WE ARE IN A CLIMATE EMERGENCY, humanity would be grateful if you would start taking action towards that instead, as it is a much bigger priority than a new local plan!
We may need our greenbelt and agricultural land to grow crops if food supplies become affected, it is madness to consider covering them in concrete! Our roads are constantly gridlocked through infrastructure neglect and surely must be at dangerous pollution levels already. Not to mention the fact that a lot of the district is expected to be under water by 2050!
In light of the above, here are my reasons for objecting to this site:
Critical Drainage Risk
2
Green Belt Harm
1
Landscape Impact
2
Impact on Protected Trees
2
Impact on Agricultural Land
1

SITE ASSESSMENT PROFORMA: CFS263
In relation to the ‘spatial options consultation’, I would like to request you go back to government to politely tell them where they can place their housing targets!
Not sure if you have heard about the IPCC report but WE ARE IN A CLIMATE EMERGENCY, humanity would be grateful if you would start taking action towards that instead, as it is a much bigger priority than a new local plan!
We may need our greenbelt and agricultural land to grow crops if food supplies become affected, it is madness to consider covering them in concrete! Our roads are constantly gridlocked through infrastructure neglect and surely must be at dangerous pollution levels already. Not to mention the fact that a lot of the district is expected to be under water by 2050!
In light of the above, here are my reasons for objecting to this site:

Critical Drainage Risk
2
Green Belt Harm
1
Landscape Impact
2
Impact on Local Habitats
2

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

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

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

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

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

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

[re CFS064]

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

[re CFS064]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

b. Essential facilities for outdoor sport and recreation.
The site already includes a football pitches at the Community Centre, the Community Centre itself and is widely used for walking, dog walking, running and cycling. The outline proposals would diminish the provision of outdoor sport and recreation and this condition cannot therefore be satisfied by any housing development.

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

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

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

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


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

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


Local Wildlife Sites and Incorrect identification of their proximity to the site CFS064.
An additional contravention of Policy to the Green belt restrictions is that the site is in ‘close proximity’ to 3 Local Wildlife Sites (LoWs) namely, Betts Wood, Folly Wood and Hockley Hall-South Wood. These are all designated a minimum of HC1 (ancient Woodland) and have further designations. Folly Wood occupies most of the southern boundary of the site, Betts Wood most of the eastern boundary and Hockley Hall-South Wood circa half of the northern boundary. It should be noted that there is a strip of woodland joining Folly Wood and Hockley Hall-South Wood along the entire western perimeter and this may mean that these two LoWs are in fact one larger site. It is important to point out that the Site Allocation Assessment Criteria fails to mention the ‘close proximity’ of the LoWs and that it is vital that this is noted by RDC. This omission must render the Site Allocation Assessment as invalid, and that the site should not have passed the first stage consultation as a consequence.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion
As can be seen form my concerns detailed above , sites CFS064 and CFS264 should be removed form the next stage. They are simply not suitable when there are many more sites which would ‘score’ much better under a wide range of development considerations.

Please Note
I consent to my name and comments being added to the Councils consultation database.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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