Q58d. Are there areas that require protecting from development?

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

Seetec – Introductory Comments
With our head office in the Rochford district, we are one of the UK’s largest employee owned businesses, employing over 2,000 people and committed to building our history of service.
We help people in the UK and Ireland to increase their social and economic stake in society. We do this by providing skills, training and support services that people need to reach and exceed their ambitions, creating positive change for the communities we serve
Our aim has always been to change lives for the better. Founded more than 35 years ago as a small charity, we first taught IT skills to 30 unemployed young people at a former primary school in Hockley. From these humble beginnings, we now help hundreds of thousands of people find work, learn new skills and take ownership over their lives.
We understand the needs of the people we support. As employee owners, we now want to drive further improvements and continue to generate enduring positive outcomes for the people and communities we service.
As a B-Corp organisation we are business committed to social value by reducing inequality, working toward lower levels of poverty, a healthier environment, stronger communities and the creation of high quality jobs with dignity and purpose.
We care passionately about the District, its environment, open spaces, heritage and sustainable living. Our business has made a long term contribution to the District and this response is intended to reflect our on-going ambition to make Rochford district a first class place for health & wellbeing, work, learning and leisure. The choices the Council makes over the next 35 years will be key to this ambition.

Consultation Representations
Our responses and representations to the questions from the above consultation are set our below. We have replied to some specific questions and used cross references where appropriate to avoid duplication.
• Introduction
o
 Q3. Do you agree that we should develop a range of separate visions for each of our settlements to help guide decision-making?
Agree
 Q4. Do you agree with the strategic priorities and objectives we have identified?
Agree
• Strategy Options
 Q6. Which of the identified strategy options do you consider should be taken forward in the Plan?
We prefer taking forward Option 4 Balanced Combination with the following comments, preferences and concerns regarding risks.
In general, the preference is for a ‘selective’ ‘Strategy Option 4’ approach by combining Strategy Option 1 Urban Intensification; Option 2 Urban Extensions and Option 3a Concentrated Growth in the west of Rayleigh. This would need to be in specific sites and it will be easier to quantify for housing targets if we were to identify sites that we would not support.
We would not support Option 3b North of Southend and 3c Focused East of Rochford and the land allocations from Rochford to Hockley in the 2017 Strategic Housing and Employment Land Availability as well as some other sites in Lower Hockley and Rayleigh. These are transport infrastructure and risk related objections whilst there are others that negatively impacting heritage, character and setting.
The specific areas of allocations of concern are listed below:
CFS035 land west of Rochford hall 1.25 hectares
CFS041 Lee valley farm 2.54ha
CfS074 land south of Mount Bovers Lane 14.22ha
Cfs077 land north of Great Wheatley’s Road 7.5ha
CFS084 land south of hall road 7.16
CFS085 land west and north of Hall Road 2.22
CFS087 land between Western Road and Weir Farm Road 3.08
CFS121 land north of A127 38.48
CFS150 land on the north side of Victor Gardens 1.73
EXP12 land adjacent 44 Great Wheatley Road 0.12
These will exacerbate the B1013 ‘rat run’ causing huge congestion and comprised emergency evacuation with the potential risk of:
• global warming repeating ‘1950’s scale flooding’ in South East Essex,
• nuclear contamination (Bradwell) and
• airport / rail disaster.
Any development must be matched by adequate transport solutions. Until this document is available then it is difficult for consultees to make informed representations and the Council to make evidence based decisions. The whole approach is somewhat ‘chicken and egg’. The transport solution should be the first document given the historic challenges and earlier consultation responses. Once this is available, the context of spatial options can be evaluated on sound evidence as community and population safety will be of paramount concern.
Assuming there is no radical bypass, which we would not support anyway given the intrusion into Crouch Valley conservation, solutions must be found to the key rail bridges and Rayleigh Weir underpass. These are high risk pinch points for local population and egress in particular:
Rochford Bridge / Hall Road
Hockley Bridges (Greensward Lane & Church Road)
Rayleigh station (London Road)
A127 Weir underpass
As a minimum, solutions must be found to these bottle-necks - widening the bridge underpasses, flyovers etc. If certain developments were to go ahead, flooding and the increased congestion of Options 3a, 3b and the proposed allocations along B1013 will potentially lock-in and lock-out population from their homes, shops, work and living in safe communities.
• Employment and Jobs
 Q28. With reference to the options listed above, or your own options, how do you feel we can best manage the Airport’s adaptations and growth through the planning system?
Any growth must be contingent on the transport infrastructure comments in this representation, without this future growth is limited. In addition, it is important for quality of living that night flights are stopped and pollution and noise controls are enhanced.
• Green and Blue Infrastructure
 Q32. With reference to the options above, or your own options, how do you feel we can best deliver a quality green and blue infrastructure network through the plan?
We refer you to our comments and sites outlined at Q6.
• Heritage
 Q43. With reference to the options listed in this section, or your own options, how do you feel we can best address heritage issues through the plan?
Remove allocations that threaten the key heritage sites in the District e.g. CFS035, CFS084, CFS085
 Q45. Are there any buildings, spaces or structures that should be protected for their historic, cultural or architectural significance? Should these be considered for inclusion on the Local List of non-designated assets?
Grade 1 Rochford Hall and setting.
Rochford Conservation Zone
Crouch Valley
• Town Centres and Retail
 Q48. With reference to Figures 38, 39 and 40, do you agree with existing town centre boundaries and extent of primary and secondary shopping frontages in Rayleigh, Rochford and Hockley? If not, what changes would you make? [Please state reasoning]
As regard Hockley town centre we have previously stated our preference to develop an imaginative town setting that brings Hockley Woods into the town e.g. shop ‘timber’ facades, woodland street furniture etc thus celebrating the setting of Hockley in its ancient woodlands and Spa.
• Transport and Connectivity
• We refer you to our responses under Q6 and Q28

 Q51. With reference to the options above, or your own options, how do you feel we can best address our transport and connectivity needs through the plan?
We refer you to our responses under Q6 and Q28
 Q52. Are there areas where improvements to transport connections are needed?
We refer you to our responses under Q6 and Q28
 Q53. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to deliver new transport connections, such as link roads or rapid transit? What routes and modes should these take? [walking, cycling, rail, bus, road etc.]
We refer you to our responses under Q6 and Q28

• Planning for Complete Communities

Rayleigh
 Q56d. Are there areas that require protecting from development?
CFS77, CFS087 and EXP12
Rochford and Ashingdon
 Q57d. Are there areas that require protecting from development?
CFS035, CFS084, CFS085 (see Q43 response above)
Hockley & Hawkwell
See representations at Q48
 Q58d. Are there areas that require protecting from development?
CFS041, CFS074, CFS150

The unsuitability of the land for development at the rear of Malvern Road and
Harrogate Drive - CFS023 refers.
What follows are the reasons why the land to the north of Malvern Road is considered totally unsuitable for housing development. And hence why the Council should remove it from all future planning documents.
1. Pristine Green Belt Land
This green belt land has pristine ecological value. It has only ever been used for summer grazing. It has never been sprayed with insecticides or similar chemicals so adding to its value as a diverse natural habitat.

2. Damage to Beckney Wood a listed ancient woodland
This land boarders onto Beckney Wood a listed ancient woodland. Any development on this land threatens the ecology, fauna and flora that currently thrive in Beckney
Wood. In particular, a sharp rise in the number of people walking through the wood will increase the threat to the very existence of some of the trees and also to the Blue Bells, Wood Anemones and Wood Celendine that carpet the ground.

3. Destruction of a Diverse Natural Habitat
Wildlife numbers will be decimated by the catastrophic loss of habitat. A diverse type of wildlife depends on this land and Beckney Wood and also the surrounding area for their very existence. Some species are already rare, for example the Song Thrush.

Examples of the animals, birds, reptiles and mammals living or depending on this area of local habitat include, but are not limited to, foxes, muntjac deer, badgers. Barn Owls, Sparrow Hawks, Buzzards, Herons, Pheasants, Woodpeckers, Song Thrush, Blackbirds. Adders and Grass Snakes. Bats.

4. Increased Flood Risk
Any development of this land will seriously increase the frequency of flood threat to the existing residents
of Malvern Rd. A combination of a reasons are:
- the steep gradient of the land along its north - south axis and also along its east - west axis;
- climate change;
- the “concreting over” of the land’s natural ability to absorb rainfall over prolonged periods of time. Note that flooding has occurred on two separate occasions since the year 2000. The development of this land will only increase the frequency and severity of such events!

5. Clay and Blue Clay - subsidence
At the time Malvern Road was developed some 40 years ago work was interrupted and it is believed an area of blue clay was investigated.

6. Lack of Infrastructure – insufficient water pressure
Water pressure in Malvern Road is already low.
The existing system of pumps and pipework maintained by the water utility company is insufficient to support a further 139 homes on this land 7. Junction of Harrogate Drive and Greensward Lane – potential accident blackspot
There is no land available to widened Harrogate Drive at the junction with Greensward Lane. An extra volume of vehicles turning left out of Harrogate Drive increases the chance of an accident caused by vehicles having to “swinging out” and into the path of traffic heading into Hockley along Greensward Lane.

8. Hockley's existing infrastructure cannot absorb 139 more homes proposed for this site.
The infrastructure in Hockley does not exist for a further 139 homes proposed by the Council in their site
assessment of this land.
It equates to the possibility of an extra 250 vehicles or more on our roads in Hockley. Which is at a time when the round-a-bout at the Spa Pub, (a notorious pinch point for traffic driving through Hockley,) can be the cause of tail backs into Rayleigh – not an uncommon occurrence these days!
In addition, Essex Highways fails to maintain the roads in and out of Hockley as it is. For example, Greensward Lane. An extra volume of traffic caused by this development will only make matters worse.
It equates to an additional 139 households. The Greensward Surgery cannot currently serve the needs of
existing residents. For example, it already takes up to 3 weeks to see a GP.
It equates to the possibility of an additional 70 school children in Hockley at a time when latest Ofsted
reports state the following:
- the Westerings Primary Academy 2017 Ofsted report states that the school has exceeded its pupil
capacity!
- the Plumbrow Primary Academy 2018 Ofsted report states it is very close to pupil capacity i.e only 33
places remaining.
- the Greensward Academy 2018 Ofsted report states it is approaching pupil capacity i.e. only 122 places remaining.
Ends

Objections to the development of the small plot of land at the head of Malvern Road - “Play Area” – site identification COL38 refers.

What follows are objections to the development of land at the head of Malvern Road (Council reference COL38,) and why the Council should remove it from any future plans.

1. Rochford District Council (RDC) refer to this site as a FORMER children's play space. This is an incorrect statement.
Council records will show that in the year 2000 this land was gifted to Ashingdon Parish Council by the
RDC on a "Peppercorn Rent"' for 100 years and that its use would continue as a play area.

2. A Recognised Public Right of Way
In 2014 an inquiry recognised the existence of a public right of way across the Children’s Play Area. The
report also records the concern expressed by objectors, (to the bridleway,) for the need to protect the
public open space from any development.
The Inquiry was opened on 21st May 2014 (then adjourned until to 21st October due to ill health of one of
the representatives.)
The Inspector, Mr Martin Elliott published his report on 1st December 2014. In it he recognises the route
used by pedestrians across the Children’s Play Area over a period of time and ruled it to be a public right of way.
In his concluding remarks (point 39) he also records the significant concern expressed by the objectors,
(including local residents,) for the need to protect the public open space from development.

3. Topography of the Land and Flash Flooding
This site is not suitable for development because of a combination of the following reasons:
- the exceedingly steep gradient of the land along its north - south axis;
- climate change;
- the “concreting over” of the land’s natural ability to absorb rainfall over prolonged periods of time.
The resulting run-off will give rise to the nuisance of flash flooding in Malvern Rd due to the drains inability to cope.
Ends

The unsuitability of the land for development at the rear of Malvern Road and
Harrogate Drive - CFS023 refers.
What follows are the reasons why the land to the north of Malvern Road is considered totally unsuitable for housing development. And hence why the Council should remove it from all future planning documents.
1. Pristine Green Belt Land
This green belt land has pristine ecological value. It has only ever been used for summer grazing. It has never been sprayed with insecticides or similar chemicals so adding to its value as a diverse natural habitat.

2. Damage to Beckney Wood a listed ancient woodland
This land boarders onto Beckney Wood a listed ancient woodland. Any development on this land threatens the ecology, fauna and flora that currently thrive in Beckney
Wood. In particular, a sharp rise in the number of people walking through the wood will increase the threat to the very existence of some of the trees and also to the Blue Bells, Wood Anemones and Wood Celendine that carpet the ground.

3. Destruction of a Diverse Natural Habitat
Wildlife numbers will be decimated by the catastrophic loss of habitat. A diverse type of wildlife depends on this land and Beckney Wood and also the surrounding area for their very existence. Some species are already rare, for example the Song Thrush.

Examples of the animals, birds, reptiles and mammals living or depending on this area of local habitat include, but are not limited to, foxes, muntjac deer, badgers. Barn Owls, Sparrow Hawks, Buzzards, Herons, Pheasants, Woodpeckers, Song Thrush, Blackbirds. Adders and Grass Snakes. Bats.

4. Increased Flood Risk
Any development of this land will seriously increase the frequency of flood threat to the existing residents
of Malvern Rd. A combination of a reasons are:
- the steep gradient of the land along its north - south axis and also along its east - west axis;
- climate change;
- the “concreting over” of the land’s natural ability to absorb rainfall over prolonged periods of time. Note that flooding has occurred on two separate occasions since the year 2000. The development of this land will only increase the frequency and severity of such events!

5. Clay and Blue Clay - subsidence
At the time Malvern Road was developed some 40 years ago work was interrupted and it is believed an area of blue clay was investigated.

6. Lack of Infrastructure – insufficient water pressure
Water pressure in Malvern Road is already low.
The existing system of pumps and pipework maintained by the water utility company is insufficient to support a further 139 homes on this land 7. Junction of Harrogate Drive and Greensward Lane – potential accident blackspot
There is no land available to widened Harrogate Drive at the junction with Greensward Lane. An extra volume of vehicles turning left out of Harrogate Drive increases the chance of an accident caused by vehicles having to “swinging out” and into the path of traffic heading into Hockley along Greensward Lane.

8. Hockley's existing infrastructure cannot absorb 139 more homes proposed for this site.
The infrastructure in Hockley does not exist for a further 139 homes proposed by the Council in their site
assessment of this land.
It equates to the possibility of an extra 250 vehicles or more on our roads in Hockley. Which is at a time when the round-a-bout at the Spa Pub, (a notorious pinch point for traffic driving through Hockley,) can be the cause of tail backs into Rayleigh – not an uncommon occurrence these days!
In addition, Essex Highways fails to maintain the roads in and out of Hockley as it is. For example, Greensward Lane. An extra volume of traffic caused by this development will only make matters worse.
It equates to an additional 139 households. The Greensward Surgery cannot currently serve the needs of
existing residents. For example, it already takes up to 3 weeks to see a GP.
It equates to the possibility of an additional 70 school children in Hockley at a time when latest Ofsted
reports state the following:
- the Westerings Primary Academy 2017 Ofsted report states that the school has exceeded its pupil
capacity!
- the Plumbrow Primary Academy 2018 Ofsted report states it is very close to pupil capacity i.e only 33
places remaining.
- the Greensward Academy 2018 Ofsted report states it is approaching pupil capacity i.e. only 122 places remaining.
Ends

Objections to the development of the small plot of land at the head of Malvern Road - “Play Area” – site identification COL38 refers.

What follows are objections to the development of land at the head of Malvern Road (Council reference COL38,) and why the Council should remove it from any future plans.

1. Rochford District Council (RDC) refer to this site as a FORMER children's play space. This is an incorrect statement.
Council records will show that in the year 2000 this land was gifted to Ashingdon Parish Council by the
RDC on a "Peppercorn Rent"' for 100 years and that its use would continue as a play area.

2. A Recognised Public Right of Way
In 2014 an inquiry recognised the existence of a public right of way across the Children’s Play Area. The
report also records the concern expressed by objectors, (to the bridleway,) for the need to protect the
public open space from any development.
The Inquiry was opened on 21st May 2014 (then adjourned until to 21st October due to ill health of one of
the representatives.)
The Inspector, Mr Martin Elliott published his report on 1st December 2014. In it he recognises the route
used by pedestrians across the Children’s Play Area over a period of time and ruled it to be a public right of way.
In his concluding remarks (point 39) he also records the significant concern expressed by the objectors,
(including local residents,) for the need to protect the public open space from development.

3. Topography of the Land and Flash Flooding
This site is not suitable for development because of a combination of the following reasons:
- the exceedingly steep gradient of the land along its north - south axis;
- climate change;
- the “concreting over” of the land’s natural ability to absorb rainfall over prolonged periods of time.
The resulting run-off will give rise to the nuisance of flash flooding in Malvern Rd due to the drains inability to cope.
Ends

Hockley and Hawkwell - Question 58d

-Close proximity to nature reserve and will have detrimental effect to wildlife,
- Flooding - during heavy rains our roads are unable to cope with excess water. The woodlands provide natural soakaway. Gulleys cannot cope and this is a drainage risk to the area,
- The landscape and local habitats will be greatly impacted. Recently had badgers in the garden because the owners of plot CFS024 were chopping down trees,
- The trees behind Merryfields Avenue are protected.,
- The roads are always congested. What infrastructure have you got in place for road use???

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.

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

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.

I objection to the planning for housing in Hockley the reasons are as follows

!. The road are so busy, you only have to see the queues when one car stops, or the rubbish lorries collecting the bins.

2. With all the housing being built the hospital is not made bigger in the winter it can’t cope. This area in Essex has increased so much in the last few years. The hospital has not increased in size, it is so sad.

3 Does anyone care about the wildlife and green spaces for people to enjoy. Hockley used to be known as
a village not anymore. Please consider the beautiful countryside we have left. Once it is built on we loose the countryside and wildlife forever. Hockley will be known as a concrete jungle.

I object to anymore housing on our beautiful countryside in Hockley.

Please consider what local residents say.

proposed new housing developments CFS045 and CFS064 CSF160 and CFS161 and CFS074 etc etc
The proposed housing developments above should never be allowed to be passed by Council ... the very narrow roads ie B1013 are not able to cope with the present volume of traffic especially at peak hours, this has been worsened greatly by the huge housing developments in Hall Road most of which traffic has to use the B1013.Emergency services are finding it increasingly difficult to get to where they need to be at times. Just where are the infastructures to be provided ie schools, medical centres, etc,etc.? Each home nowdays seem to have several cars per property as well as commercial vehicles, all adding to the congested narrow single lane roads in the areas concerned. It seems most likely that wildlife in the affected areas will be displaced and also a loss of local footpaths. The area is in danger of fast becoming a concrete jungle .... I urge the Planning Department to think very hard before consideration is given to any of the proposed housing developments.

CFS064 - OPPOSITION
I object to this site being used for housing (CFS064).
It is Green Belt and provides a haven for nature.
Hockley is overcrowded.
The doctors are over burdened.
The schools are full.
The traffic is a joke, totally over capacity and roads full of pot holes.
I strongly oppose this and any further development of Hockley.

New Houses in Hockley - CFS064
Apparently there are plans to build 214 houses behind the community centre on the Betts Farm Estate - I've no idea how this will ever work - the roads are constantly congested around that area. I can only presume that the person that thinks this is a good idea has never actually been here before! I strongly oppose any new housing in our small village - the infrastructure and amenities currently in place are nowhere near substantial enough to cope with the houses/population that are already here.

No more houses
You simply cannot keep building more houses with no new road, new hospital, new doctors, new schools, etc.

We all know the Hall Road estate was built by two contractors to get round the planning having to include a school, and doctors surgery,

I live on the Main Road in Hockley and any one vehicle parked on the road causes immense tailbacks.

It is very easy to just keep building houses but where is the infrastructure?

I am writing to let you know how we feel about the potential of building 152 houses on Belchamps my objectives are what will happen to the wildlife where would the wildlife go by building on this ground you are damaging natural beauty this will increase the levels of traffic at the moment the roads cannot handle any more traffic and it will not help with The air quality the children will have nowhere to go and play and to let off steam because every bit of land will be taken up by houses my list of concerns One strain on the local services Tow damage to the woods three very disappointed for the council to even to entertain taking away belchamps for the youth of tomorrow when it serves so many good experiences for children growing up