Q59a. Do you agree with our vision for the Wakerings and Barling? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]

Having viewed the online Spatial Options Consultation I am writing to make my feelings and opinions known to you.

We are all aware that there is a housing shortage in this country and that there is an urgent need for affordable housing around the entire country. However, seeing the quotas which the Westminster government are insisting be shouldered by this area and the rest of Essex, there is no question we are being expected to shoulder an unfair and unreasonable share of the burden, due to our convenient proximity to London. Since the government have committed to ‘Levelling Up’ the country I consider this most hypocritical. The South East is already far too congested, our infrastructure in terms of roads, schools and hospitals is at bursting point and there is no doubt that expanding infrastructure in the area will not keep pace with the proposed expansion.

Your Vision Statement for Wakering:
In 2050, the Wakerings and Barling should have retained their rural village character and sense of relative tranquillity. More services should have developed locally to reduce its reliance on neighbouring towns, whilst any new services introduced should be located so that those located on the edges of the settlement are able to access them sustainably. The villages should have become more self-sufficient when it comes to homes, jobs and community facilities, including education. Development that takes place should be locally-responsive and aimed at meeting the ongoing housing and employment needs of local residents.

It is obvious that it is impossible to live up to this statement and at the same time press forward with the level of development proposed in the Rochford area.

At the moment Wakering and Barling are beautiful rural villages. However if an area so close to Southend and London has not been developed more in the past, we can assume there are solid reasons and that the land here does not offer a friendly environment for too much housing. We are on the Creek, close to marshland and with rainfall predicted to rise due to climate change it is imperative the water table is maintained to prevent serious flooding. This means leaving open land for adequate drainage not only for proposed developments but for the residents already in situ. The current roads are single lane and many of the residents have to park street side because older houses do not have off road parking. This reduces traffic flow still further for most of the time (Little Wakering Rd is particularly susceptible to this.)

Much of the proposed building would be on currently agricultural land. It may well be that the encumbant farmers are tempted to sell up and retire on the proceeds but whereas this may suit them individually it would be criminally negligent of the authorities to allow this land to switch use because once it has done so, it will never return to the original purpose. We are living in times of global upheaval. Brexit means the UK will have to consider producing far more of our own food if we are to maintain present standards of living at minimal cost. Furthermore, combatting climate change (already officially recognised as affecting Britain) means we need to be sourcing food locally as possible and paying far more attention to ecology and our wildlife. Destroying the agricultural benefits of Wakering would be cutting off our noses to spite our faces.

I will finish by pointing out that one of the main ways to access Wakering is via Shopland, which feeds into Sutton Rd and thus into Ashingdon Rd. It is no secret that the traffic flow in these areas is close to gridlock for a lot of the time and further traffic feeding in from the Wakering area would be unworkable.

I am aware that Basildon and Southend councils are lodging objections and resisting the pressures from government to overdevelop their respective areas. It is obvious if they are successful the onus will simply be slope shouldered and further pressure put on surrounding councils like Rochford. Please, stand up for our area and join them in resisting these directives. The greenbelt was conceived for a reason and I can think of no time when we have needed to commit to this principle more!

Be loyal to Rochford, not to party politics.

I have lived in Great Wakering and Barling for many years. A great many houses have already been built in the last 15 years already but with no more infrastructure. The roads in Barling and Little Wakering are very narrow and dangerous. At least once a month, there are cars, lorries etc in ditches and fields. There are no plans to build more schools, doctors surgeries, shops or widen roads. It is simply not possible to accommodate more people in an already overcrowded community. We cannot get through to our doctors surgery most of the time and the building of more houses will just add to the problem.

As a resident of Barling Magna for many years, I am very concerned about the possibility of more houses being built in the village. We do not have the infrastructure as the roads are very poor around this area. It's so important for Barling Magna to remain a village, we would not need any more services if this was the case.
1. We do not have any local shops.
2. Wakering Doctors Surgery is already overcrowded and you could die before getting an appointment.
3. We are in a flood plain.
4. The drains and gas pipes could not cope and already full with water, so I am sure sewers would not be able to cope with more houses.
5. The roads are always full of cycles and people horse riding, more traffic would create untold accidents on winding country roads.
6. We currently have nice surroundings and it would be a travesty to destroy this with new houses.
7. Who were the people who proposed Barling. I bet they do not live here!!

On behalf of Thorpe Estate Limited (my client), please find our comments on the Rochford Local Plan Spatial
Options Consultation (SOC). My client is the owner of some 90 hectares of land to the north of Bournes
Green Chase and to the east of Wakering Road. It lies to the south west of Great Wakering. It is identified
on the plan attached.
The majority of the site falls within the administrative boundary of Southend on Sea Council (SoS) apart from
a small part of the site in the north east corner which falls within the administrative boundary of Rochford
District Council.
My client is in the process of producing an illustrative masterplan for their site, which will be supported
technical analysis on key topic areas, including transport, flood risk and ecology. This will be provided to the
Council in due course.
This masterplan for the site will be produced in conjunction with a wider masterplan and promotion of
neighbouring parcels of land by Cogent Land LLP. A collaborative approach is being taken with Cogent, which
includes co-ordination in respect of transport and other critical infrastructure.
These representations are made in the context of not having had the opportunity to engage with officers at
the Council and we would welcome a meeting at the earliest opportunity.
My client is the owner of the land, which should assure the Council that it is a site which is deliverable and
that there are no legal or ownership hurdles to overcome.
The legislative requirements for the production of Local Plans are set out in Part 2, Local Development, of
the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and in national guidance within the National Planning Policy
Framework 2021 (NPPF).
Paragraph 11 of the NPPF requires that ‘plans should promote a sustainable pattern of development that
seeks to meet the development needs of their area; align growth and infrastructure…..’.
It also requires that ‘strategic policies should, as a minimum, provide for objectively assessed needs for
housing and other uses, as well as any needs that cannot be met within neighbouring areas’.
Chapter 3 of the NPPF then goes onto set out the detailed requirements for plan making, including the
requirement set out in paragraph 24, that each authority is under a ‘duty to cooperate’ with each other on
strategic matters that cross administrative boundaries.
The objective of the plan making process is to be able to put forward a plan that is ‘sound’ and meeting the
requirements set out in paragraph 35 which are:
1. Positively prepared – to meet the area’s objectively assessed needs; and is informed by agreements
with other authorities, so that unmet need from neighbouring areas is accommodated;
2. Justified – an appropriate strategy, taking into account the reasonable alternatives, and based on
proportionate evidence;
3. Effective – deliverable over the plan period, and based on effective joint working on cross-boundary
strategic matters that have been dealt with rather than deferred, as evidenced by the statement of
common ground; and
4. Consistent with national policy – enabling the delivery of sustainable development in accordance
with the policies in this Framework and other statements of national planning policy, where relevant.
Whilst we note that the plan is at a very early stage, we do not consider that the plan is heading in a direction
where it is likely to be considered to accord with the four requirements of soundness and therefore is not
likely to be found ‘sound’.
Our overarching concern is that the Council does not appear to be discharging its responsibilities under the
duty to co-operate in respect of strategic/ cross boundary matters and specifically in relation to my clients’
interests, with SoS Council in respect of housing and infrastructure.
At this stage we would note the number of plans that have been rejected by Inspectors at submission/
examination stage on this very issue, including Sevenoaks District Council, St Albans City and District Council
and Wealden District Council.
We would urge the Council to review its approach to ensure that the Local Plan that gets put forward for
examination accords with the requirements of paragraph 35 of the NPPF.
Our comments below focus on the high-level strategic issues, although, my client will wish to comment on
policies not addressed below at later stages in the plan making process.
The National Picture
The Council are bringing forward their Local Plan at a time of significant challenges facing the country,
particularly because of the Covid-19 pandemic which has exacerbated historic issues of under-delivery of
housing over the past few decades.
This lack of supply is causing substantial issues in the housing market, particularly in relation to affordability
and suitability. The government has estimated that housing need in England is 345,000 homes per year.
The government has therefore set its ambition to achieve 300,000 homes per year.
Whilst the supply of housing has been increasing year on year, only 244,000 homes were delivered in 2019-
20, according to a Government research briefing, ‘Tackling the under-supply of housing in England’.
Housing Need in the Region
At a regional level, there are six South Essex authorities, which are listed below, along with their performance
against the Governments Housing Delivery Test, which measures delivery against housing requirement over
the previous three monitoring years:
1. Basildon – 45%;
2. Brentwood – 69%;
3. Castle Point – 48%;
4. Rochford – 95%;
5. Southend – 36%; and
6. Thurrock – 59%.
Not one of the six authorities have met their target and these delivery rates are amongst the lowest in the
Country and, on average, are delivering only slightly more than half (59%) of the regions housing need.
Clearly this is an issue that needs addressing urgently to avoid disastrous social and economic consequences
for the region.
We note from the SOC that Rochford is likely to have sufficient available land to accommodate its OAN which,
for now, we take at face value, albeit that we are aware of a recent refusal of planning permission on an
allocated site. It may be the case that my client decides to challenge the Council’s supply against the tests
set out in Annex 2 of the NPPF.
It is very clear from the draft SoS Local Plan, that they do not have a supply of homes that gets anywhere
close to meeting their OAN without the release of Green Belt land within their own administrative boundary,
see further commentary below. For SoS’s OAN to be met in full, neighbouring authorities, would need to
accommodate the shortfall estimated to be in the region of 3,550 to 4,300. However, given the historic
undersupply within the neighbouring authorities, who have their own challenges, it is difficult to see how
this could realistically be accommodated.
Clearly radical steps are required to address this issue.
Strategic Plan Making
It is not clear what the latest position is with the South Essex Plan. It is disappointing that this doesn’t appear
to be moving forward to allow strategic policies and growth requirements across the six neighbouring
authorities to inform and lead Local Plan production.
We are also disappointed that the Joint Part 1 Local Plan between Rochford and SoS appears to have now
been abandoned. We do not believe that an update to the November 2019 Statement of Common Ground
(SoCG) with SoS has been prepared setting out what the approach is in relation to cross boundary strategic
matters and this clearly should have been agreed before publication of the SOC.
We would particularly note the statements made at 4.3 and 4.5 of the November 2019 SoCG, which stated:
Providing Sufficient Homes – housing need is high across the area and a large amount of land is being
promoted for development either side of the Rochford/Southend administrative boundary. There is a need to
ensure that preparation of a spatial strategy, site assessment and selection is consistent across both authority
areas;
Transport Infrastructure and connectivity - Developing appropriate integrated and sustainable transport
networks to support the efficient movement of people and goods, including strategic transport corridors
(including A127, A13 and A130) recognising the requirements of both Essex and Southend local transport
plans, including modal shift, sustainable travel, new technology, rail franchisee investment plans, footpath
and cycle networks, and any access mitigation to enable strategic scale development across administrative
boundaries, and future proofed internet access to all new development;
We consider these to be two fundamental parts of the plan making process which require cross boundary
co-operation and yet seem to have been abandoned.
In the absence of this plan moving forward to take an overarching view of growth requirements for the
region, we would strongly contend that the Council should re-engage with SoS to update the SoCG as
required in paragraph 27 of the NPPF. These statements will need to demonstrate how strategic policy
making is being addressed and what steps are being taken to accommodate the significant un-met housing
need, because it is not at all clear how this requirement is satisfied in the draft version of the plan.
These statements should be updated and made publicly available for review at each stage of the plan making
process.
Release of Green Belt Land
Paragraph 140 of the NPPF sets out the tests for the release of Green Belt land and confirms that it should
only be altered where ‘exceptional circumstances are fully evidences and justified, through the preparation
or updating of plans’.
Paragraph 141 goes onto set out the steps that need to be undertaken as part of the justification for
‘exceptional circumstances’. These are:
1. makes as much use as possible of suitable brownfield sites and underutilised land;
2. optimises the density of development in line with the policies in chapter 11 of this Framework,
including whether policies promote a significant uplift in minimum density standards in town and city
centres and other locations well served by public transport; and
c) has been informed by discussions with neighbouring authorities about whether they could accommodate
some of the identified need for development, as demonstrated through the statement of common ground.
Given the scale of housing need in the region, it must be the case that there are exceptional circumstances
that would justify the release of Green Belt land.
Within the context of the above, we have set out our comments on the SOC below.
Spatial Options Map
The Spatial Options Map put forward with the SOC shows my clients land, and neighbouring sites, designated
as Regional Park, which is an interpretation of a concept set out in the South Essex Green and Blue
Infrastructure Study.
Whilst, my client would be content for some of their land to be provided as parkland as part of a
comprehensive masterplanned approach to release their site from the Green Belt for housing led
development, they would not release it solely for the purpose of it being used as parkland.
Critically, the failure to allocate their site would seriously compromise the ability for SoS to deliver homes to
be able to meet their Objectively Assessed Need.
The Spatial Options Map therefore fails all the tests set out in paragraph 35 of the NPPF in relation to the
allocation for my client’s site at parkland as it would not be deliverable.
Rochford in 2050
We agree with the thrust of the Draft Strategic Priorities and Objectives, particularly:
1. Strategic Objective 1 – provision of sufficient homes to meet local community needs in partnership
with South Essex neighbours;
2. Strategic Objective 2- provision of a mix of homes to support current and future residents;
3. Strategic Objective 9 – provision of infrastructure; and
4. Strategic Objective 10 – working with neighbouring authorities and the County Council to deliver
infrastructure.
The objectives identified above are consistent with the requirements of the NPPF, particularly in its
requirements to work strategically with neighbouring authorities to meet housing need and provide
appropriate supporting infrastructure.
However, for the reason set out below, we do not consider the SOC provides the necessary framework to
deliver on these objectives. We consider the reverse is likely to be the case and, as drafted, it would prevent
the current and future need of the area being met.
Strategy Options
It is difficult to properly understand what is proposed within this chapter. The spatial plans (Figures 18-21)
lack clarity and in the absence of a key we cannot be certain what the Council are proposing.
We would ask that at the next stage, much improved plans with a meaningful key are provided to make it
clear what is proposed and where to avoid ambiguity.

Our overarching concern with this chapter is that none of the development options set out in this chapter
take account of the development options that are being put forward within SoS’s ‘Refining the Plan Options’
version, which includes the release of my client’s land, and neighbouring parcels, from the Green Belt for a
residential led development.
Indeed, it would appear that it will only be possible for SoS to meet its OAN through the development of my
client’s land along with neighbouring parcels promoted by Cogent Land LLP and a neighbouring authority
(potentially Rochford) accommodating any shortfall. However, there may be pressure from the other three
South Essex Council’s for housing shortfalls to be accommodated beyond their administrative boundaries.
In order for SoS OAN to be fully addressed, section 2.3i – Requirement for New Homes of the SoS draft Local
Plan identifies that between 3,550 to 4,300 new homes would need to be accommodated either in Rochford
or another neighbouring authority.
At the very least the SOC should include this within its options, including taking account of provision of
strategic infrastructure, particularly roads.
Strategy Option C of the SoS draft Local Plan shows the development of my client’s land, with neighbouring
sites and associated infrastructure.
Strategy Option D shows this growth extending into Rochford, which would allow SoS’s housing OAN to be
met in full.
At the very least, the Council ought to be fully engaging with SoS about its housing need and under its duty
to co-operate required by paragraph 35 a) of the NPPF and testing these options at consultation stage as
part of its SOC. Not to do so is a serious failure of proper planning in this region.
The options currently being promoted within the SOC would likely prevent SoS being able to deliver Options
C or D within its draft Local Plan and therefore prevent it from getting anywhere close to meeting its OAN.
Spatial Themes
My client is generally supportive of the thrust of this chapter and the principles to guide development coming
forward. In particular, the requirements for new development set out in ‘A Place-Making Charter for
Rochford’. We believe the 13 (or 14) points identified will enable the provision of good quality development
consistent with the NPPF.
We don’t have specific comments to make in respect of the questions raised, other than in respect of 16a to
16c. Whilst we feel that design codes will be helpful, these should be kept high level and not specific, unless
in relation to areas of very strong character or of heritage or landscape value. More specific design codes
could be readily formulated at outline permission stage.
Overly prescriptive codes at this stage in areas that are not constrained potentially stifle innovative design.
Housing for All
In relation to questions 17 to 19 It is important that the Council’s policies relating to housing units within
schemes are not overly prescriptive and take a flexible approach. We would expect a definitive policy is
likely to result in most developments being unable to meet that policy for a variety of reasons, such as site
constraints, viability, location, access to services/ public transport etc.
It is our experience that the unit mix that comes forward on each site, should be tailored to the individual
circumstances of that site, having regard to identified need.
We would therefore agree that a combination of Options 2 and 4 would be the most appropriate.
We agree that all homes should meet, or exceed, Nationally Described Space Standards, unless exceptional
circumstances prevent that from being possible, such as conversions or co-living schemes.
We agree that all homes should meet M4(2) of the Building Regulations, again, unless exceptional
circumstances prevent that from being possible.
Finally, we also agree that a ‘suitable’ proportion of new homes should be built to M4(3) of the Building
Regulations. However, we would strongly suggest that evidence ought to be produced to identify and justify
any prescriptive requirement set out in policy to ensure is is not overly onerous and proportionate to the
likely level of need.
Green and Blue Infrastructure
Our comments in relation to this chapter concern my clients’ landholdings which are shown in Figure 32 as
providing Regional Parkland. As the majority of this land is within the administrative area of SoS, we would
recommend that the Council’s immediately look to co-ordinate their approach. Not to do so, risks any
positive conclusions in respect of the duty to co-operate. The approach suggested within the SOC is at odds
with that shown within SoS’s draft plan, particularly in relation to the options that show my clients land being
released from the Green Belt for housing led development.
At no stage has my client put forward its land for regional parkland and, even if it is not released from the
Green Belt for development, it would remain in private ownership. This proposal is therefore not deliverable
and not consistent with paragraph 35 of the NPPF.
We would therefore strongly suggest that the Council review this chapter with the relevant landowners to
understand what is capable of being delivered.
My client would however be prepared to dedicate some of their site to parkland as part of a wider master
planned approach, but only as part of a residential led scheme.
Community Infrastructure, Questions 35 to 37
We agree with the Council’s approach, that it is critical that appropriate infrastructure if planned for to take
account of future growth. However, where we do not agree with the approach taken by the Council is in
relation to the concerning apparent lack of cross boundary discussions with neighbouring authorities about
their future growth and how infrastructure provision may need to be planned for to take account of those
requirements.
Consistent with comments made above, we would strongly urge the Council immediately engage with its
neighbouring authorities so that a cross boundary approach is taken to infrastructure provision that will
address future needs.
Infrastructure should be provided for as part of a cross boundary approach and as part of ‘walkable
neighbourhoods’ to ensure communities have facilities on their doorstep.
Transport and Connectivity
We enclose comments from Arup who are my clients transport and highways advisors in respect of this
chapter of the SOC.
The Wakerings and Barling, Questions 59a to 59e
We do not agree with the vision for The Wakerings and Barling shown in the SOC for reasons previously
explained. It would prejudice the ability for SoS to meet its housing need and the Council should be
discussing the potential release of surrounding Green Belt sites and other strategic cross boundary matters
to facilitate this.
Summary and Recommendations
Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to comment on your SOC. Whilst there are a great many aspects
of the plan that my client fully supports, for the reasons set out above, it does not meet the requirements
for plan making set out in national guidance. If it were to move forward on this basis, we do not believe it
would be capable of being found ‘sound’ in accordance with the tests set out in paragraph 35 of the NPPF.
Chiefly amongst our concerns is that the Council appear to have abandoned its engagement with SoS, and
taking a co-ordinated approach to strategic policy making to meet the need for the region, particularly in
relation to housing growth.

As identified above, the South Essex region is catastrophically failing to deliver homes to meet need and has
produced only slightly more than half of its requirement. It is difficult to see what further ‘exceptional
circumstances’ would be required to justify the release of Green Belt land and to use the plan making process
to take a co-ordinated approach to housing and infrastructure delivery.
We would strongly encourage the Council engage with its neighbours and key stakeholders, including my
client, to agree a strategic approach to accommodating housing need in the area and associated
infrastructure. This is a requirement confirmed in paragraph 25 (and elsewhere) of the NPPF. Ideally, the
Council should re-engage with SoS and produce a joint Part 1 plan to deal with cross boundary strategic
issues. Failing that, we would request that the Council provide an up-to-date Statement of Common Ground
prior to the publication of each plan making stage (in accordance with paragraph 27 of the NPPF) to clearly
set out how it is looking to work with its neighbour on cross boundary strategic issues moving forward.
We note that the Council plans to undertake a transport study that will look at, amongst other things, any
requirements for new road infrastructure. It is essential that this happens only once there is a better
understanding of cross boundary issues, particularly housing, so that this infrastructure can be planned in a
way that facilitates the growth required for the region.
We would very much welcome an opportunity to discuss my client’s land and the strategic growth in the
region with officers at a meeting in the near future. As currently formulated – this plan is seriously flawed
and requires amendment.

On behalf of Thorpe Estate Limited (my client), please find our comments on the Rochford Local Plan Spatial
Options Consultation (SOC). My client is the owner of some 90 hectares of land to the north of Bournes
Green Chase and to the east of Wakering Road. It lies to the south west of Great Wakering. It is identified
on the plan attached.
The majority of the site falls within the administrative boundary of Southend on Sea Council (SoS) apart from
a small part of the site in the north east corner which falls within the administrative boundary of Rochford
District Council.
My client is in the process of producing an illustrative masterplan for their site, which will be supported
technical analysis on key topic areas, including transport, flood risk and ecology. This will be provided to the
Council in due course.
This masterplan for the site will be produced in conjunction with a wider masterplan and promotion of
neighbouring parcels of land by Cogent Land LLP. A collaborative approach is being taken with Cogent, which
includes co-ordination in respect of transport and other critical infrastructure.
These representations are made in the context of not having had the opportunity to engage with officers at
the Council and we would welcome a meeting at the earliest opportunity.
My client is the owner of the land, which should assure the Council that it is a site which is deliverable and
that there are no legal or ownership hurdles to overcome.
The legislative requirements for the production of Local Plans are set out in Part 2, Local Development, of
the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and in national guidance within the National Planning Policy
Framework 2021 (NPPF).
Paragraph 11 of the NPPF requires that ‘plans should promote a sustainable pattern of development that
seeks to meet the development needs of their area; align growth and infrastructure…..’.
It also requires that ‘strategic policies should, as a minimum, provide for objectively assessed needs for
housing and other uses, as well as any needs that cannot be met within neighbouring areas’.
Chapter 3 of the NPPF then goes onto set out the detailed requirements for plan making, including the
requirement set out in paragraph 24, that each authority is under a ‘duty to cooperate’ with each other on
strategic matters that cross administrative boundaries.
The objective of the plan making process is to be able to put forward a plan that is ‘sound’ and meeting the
requirements set out in paragraph 35 which are:
1. Positively prepared – to meet the area’s objectively assessed needs; and is informed by agreements
with other authorities, so that unmet need from neighbouring areas is accommodated;
2. Justified – an appropriate strategy, taking into account the reasonable alternatives, and based on
proportionate evidence;
3. Effective – deliverable over the plan period, and based on effective joint working on cross-boundary
strategic matters that have been dealt with rather than deferred, as evidenced by the statement of
common ground; and
4. Consistent with national policy – enabling the delivery of sustainable development in accordance
with the policies in this Framework and other statements of national planning policy, where relevant.
Whilst we note that the plan is at a very early stage, we do not consider that the plan is heading in a direction
where it is likely to be considered to accord with the four requirements of soundness and therefore is not
likely to be found ‘sound’.
Our overarching concern is that the Council does not appear to be discharging its responsibilities under the
duty to co-operate in respect of strategic/ cross boundary matters and specifically in relation to my clients’
interests, with SoS Council in respect of housing and infrastructure.
At this stage we would note the number of plans that have been rejected by Inspectors at submission/
examination stage on this very issue, including Sevenoaks District Council, St Albans City and District Council
and Wealden District Council.
We would urge the Council to review its approach to ensure that the Local Plan that gets put forward for
examination accords with the requirements of paragraph 35 of the NPPF.
Our comments below focus on the high-level strategic issues, although, my client will wish to comment on
policies not addressed below at later stages in the plan making process.
The National Picture
The Council are bringing forward their Local Plan at a time of significant challenges facing the country,
particularly because of the Covid-19 pandemic which has exacerbated historic issues of under-delivery of
housing over the past few decades.
This lack of supply is causing substantial issues in the housing market, particularly in relation to affordability
and suitability. The government has estimated that housing need in England is 345,000 homes per year.
The government has therefore set its ambition to achieve 300,000 homes per year.
Whilst the supply of housing has been increasing year on year, only 244,000 homes were delivered in 2019-
20, according to a Government research briefing, ‘Tackling the under-supply of housing in England’.
Housing Need in the Region
At a regional level, there are six South Essex authorities, which are listed below, along with their performance
against the Governments Housing Delivery Test, which measures delivery against housing requirement over
the previous three monitoring years:
1. Basildon – 45%;
2. Brentwood – 69%;
3. Castle Point – 48%;
4. Rochford – 95%;
5. Southend – 36%; and
6. Thurrock – 59%.
Not one of the six authorities have met their target and these delivery rates are amongst the lowest in the
Country and, on average, are delivering only slightly more than half (59%) of the regions housing need.
Clearly this is an issue that needs addressing urgently to avoid disastrous social and economic consequences
for the region.
We note from the SOC that Rochford is likely to have sufficient available land to accommodate its OAN which,
for now, we take at face value, albeit that we are aware of a recent refusal of planning permission on an
allocated site. It may be the case that my client decides to challenge the Council’s supply against the tests
set out in Annex 2 of the NPPF.
It is very clear from the draft SoS Local Plan, that they do not have a supply of homes that gets anywhere
close to meeting their OAN without the release of Green Belt land within their own administrative boundary,
see further commentary below. For SoS’s OAN to be met in full, neighbouring authorities, would need to
accommodate the shortfall estimated to be in the region of 3,550 to 4,300. However, given the historic
undersupply within the neighbouring authorities, who have their own challenges, it is difficult to see how
this could realistically be accommodated.
Clearly radical steps are required to address this issue.
Strategic Plan Making
It is not clear what the latest position is with the South Essex Plan. It is disappointing that this doesn’t appear
to be moving forward to allow strategic policies and growth requirements across the six neighbouring
authorities to inform and lead Local Plan production.
We are also disappointed that the Joint Part 1 Local Plan between Rochford and SoS appears to have now
been abandoned. We do not believe that an update to the November 2019 Statement of Common Ground
(SoCG) with SoS has been prepared setting out what the approach is in relation to cross boundary strategic
matters and this clearly should have been agreed before publication of the SOC.
We would particularly note the statements made at 4.3 and 4.5 of the November 2019 SoCG, which stated:
Providing Sufficient Homes – housing need is high across the area and a large amount of land is being
promoted for development either side of the Rochford/Southend administrative boundary. There is a need to
ensure that preparation of a spatial strategy, site assessment and selection is consistent across both authority
areas;
Transport Infrastructure and connectivity - Developing appropriate integrated and sustainable transport
networks to support the efficient movement of people and goods, including strategic transport corridors
(including A127, A13 and A130) recognising the requirements of both Essex and Southend local transport
plans, including modal shift, sustainable travel, new technology, rail franchisee investment plans, footpath
and cycle networks, and any access mitigation to enable strategic scale development across administrative
boundaries, and future proofed internet access to all new development;
We consider these to be two fundamental parts of the plan making process which require cross boundary
co-operation and yet seem to have been abandoned.
In the absence of this plan moving forward to take an overarching view of growth requirements for the
region, we would strongly contend that the Council should re-engage with SoS to update the SoCG as
required in paragraph 27 of the NPPF. These statements will need to demonstrate how strategic policy
making is being addressed and what steps are being taken to accommodate the significant un-met housing
need, because it is not at all clear how this requirement is satisfied in the draft version of the plan.
These statements should be updated and made publicly available for review at each stage of the plan making
process.
Release of Green Belt Land
Paragraph 140 of the NPPF sets out the tests for the release of Green Belt land and confirms that it should
only be altered where ‘exceptional circumstances are fully evidences and justified, through the preparation
or updating of plans’.
Paragraph 141 goes onto set out the steps that need to be undertaken as part of the justification for
‘exceptional circumstances’. These are:
1. makes as much use as possible of suitable brownfield sites and underutilised land;
2. optimises the density of development in line with the policies in chapter 11 of this Framework,
including whether policies promote a significant uplift in minimum density standards in town and city
centres and other locations well served by public transport; and
c) has been informed by discussions with neighbouring authorities about whether they could accommodate
some of the identified need for development, as demonstrated through the statement of common ground.
Given the scale of housing need in the region, it must be the case that there are exceptional circumstances
that would justify the release of Green Belt land.
Within the context of the above, we have set out our comments on the SOC below.
Spatial Options Map
The Spatial Options Map put forward with the SOC shows my clients land, and neighbouring sites, designated
as Regional Park, which is an interpretation of a concept set out in the South Essex Green and Blue
Infrastructure Study.
Whilst, my client would be content for some of their land to be provided as parkland as part of a
comprehensive masterplanned approach to release their site from the Green Belt for housing led
development, they would not release it solely for the purpose of it being used as parkland.
Critically, the failure to allocate their site would seriously compromise the ability for SoS to deliver homes to
be able to meet their Objectively Assessed Need.
The Spatial Options Map therefore fails all the tests set out in paragraph 35 of the NPPF in relation to the
allocation for my client’s site at parkland as it would not be deliverable.
Rochford in 2050
We agree with the thrust of the Draft Strategic Priorities and Objectives, particularly:
1. Strategic Objective 1 – provision of sufficient homes to meet local community needs in partnership
with South Essex neighbours;
2. Strategic Objective 2- provision of a mix of homes to support current and future residents;
3. Strategic Objective 9 – provision of infrastructure; and
4. Strategic Objective 10 – working with neighbouring authorities and the County Council to deliver
infrastructure.
The objectives identified above are consistent with the requirements of the NPPF, particularly in its
requirements to work strategically with neighbouring authorities to meet housing need and provide
appropriate supporting infrastructure.
However, for the reason set out below, we do not consider the SOC provides the necessary framework to
deliver on these objectives. We consider the reverse is likely to be the case and, as drafted, it would prevent
the current and future need of the area being met.
Strategy Options
It is difficult to properly understand what is proposed within this chapter. The spatial plans (Figures 18-21)
lack clarity and in the absence of a key we cannot be certain what the Council are proposing.
We would ask that at the next stage, much improved plans with a meaningful key are provided to make it
clear what is proposed and where to avoid ambiguity.

Our overarching concern with this chapter is that none of the development options set out in this chapter
take account of the development options that are being put forward within SoS’s ‘Refining the Plan Options’
version, which includes the release of my client’s land, and neighbouring parcels, from the Green Belt for a
residential led development.
Indeed, it would appear that it will only be possible for SoS to meet its OAN through the development of my
client’s land along with neighbouring parcels promoted by Cogent Land LLP and a neighbouring authority
(potentially Rochford) accommodating any shortfall. However, there may be pressure from the other three
South Essex Council’s for housing shortfalls to be accommodated beyond their administrative boundaries.
In order for SoS OAN to be fully addressed, section 2.3i – Requirement for New Homes of the SoS draft Local
Plan identifies that between 3,550 to 4,300 new homes would need to be accommodated either in Rochford
or another neighbouring authority.
At the very least the SOC should include this within its options, including taking account of provision of
strategic infrastructure, particularly roads.
Strategy Option C of the SoS draft Local Plan shows the development of my client’s land, with neighbouring
sites and associated infrastructure.
Strategy Option D shows this growth extending into Rochford, which would allow SoS’s housing OAN to be
met in full.
At the very least, the Council ought to be fully engaging with SoS about its housing need and under its duty
to co-operate required by paragraph 35 a) of the NPPF and testing these options at consultation stage as
part of its SOC. Not to do so is a serious failure of proper planning in this region.
The options currently being promoted within the SOC would likely prevent SoS being able to deliver Options
C or D within its draft Local Plan and therefore prevent it from getting anywhere close to meeting its OAN.
Spatial Themes
My client is generally supportive of the thrust of this chapter and the principles to guide development coming
forward. In particular, the requirements for new development set out in ‘A Place-Making Charter for
Rochford’. We believe the 13 (or 14) points identified will enable the provision of good quality development
consistent with the NPPF.
We don’t have specific comments to make in respect of the questions raised, other than in respect of 16a to
16c. Whilst we feel that design codes will be helpful, these should be kept high level and not specific, unless
in relation to areas of very strong character or of heritage or landscape value. More specific design codes
could be readily formulated at outline permission stage.
Overly prescriptive codes at this stage in areas that are not constrained potentially stifle innovative design.
Housing for All
In relation to questions 17 to 19 It is important that the Council’s policies relating to housing units within
schemes are not overly prescriptive and take a flexible approach. We would expect a definitive policy is
likely to result in most developments being unable to meet that policy for a variety of reasons, such as site
constraints, viability, location, access to services/ public transport etc.
It is our experience that the unit mix that comes forward on each site, should be tailored to the individual
circumstances of that site, having regard to identified need.
We would therefore agree that a combination of Options 2 and 4 would be the most appropriate.
We agree that all homes should meet, or exceed, Nationally Described Space Standards, unless exceptional
circumstances prevent that from being possible, such as conversions or co-living schemes.
We agree that all homes should meet M4(2) of the Building Regulations, again, unless exceptional
circumstances prevent that from being possible.
Finally, we also agree that a ‘suitable’ proportion of new homes should be built to M4(3) of the Building
Regulations. However, we would strongly suggest that evidence ought to be produced to identify and justify
any prescriptive requirement set out in policy to ensure is is not overly onerous and proportionate to the
likely level of need.
Green and Blue Infrastructure
Our comments in relation to this chapter concern my clients’ landholdings which are shown in Figure 32 as
providing Regional Parkland. As the majority of this land is within the administrative area of SoS, we would
recommend that the Council’s immediately look to co-ordinate their approach. Not to do so, risks any
positive conclusions in respect of the duty to co-operate. The approach suggested within the SOC is at odds
with that shown within SoS’s draft plan, particularly in relation to the options that show my clients land being
released from the Green Belt for housing led development.
At no stage has my client put forward its land for regional parkland and, even if it is not released from the
Green Belt for development, it would remain in private ownership. This proposal is therefore not deliverable
and not consistent with paragraph 35 of the NPPF.
We would therefore strongly suggest that the Council review this chapter with the relevant landowners to
understand what is capable of being delivered.
My client would however be prepared to dedicate some of their site to parkland as part of a wider master
planned approach, but only as part of a residential led scheme.
Community Infrastructure, Questions 35 to 37
We agree with the Council’s approach, that it is critical that appropriate infrastructure if planned for to take
account of future growth. However, where we do not agree with the approach taken by the Council is in
relation to the concerning apparent lack of cross boundary discussions with neighbouring authorities about
their future growth and how infrastructure provision may need to be planned for to take account of those
requirements.
Consistent with comments made above, we would strongly urge the Council immediately engage with its
neighbouring authorities so that a cross boundary approach is taken to infrastructure provision that will
address future needs.
Infrastructure should be provided for as part of a cross boundary approach and as part of ‘walkable
neighbourhoods’ to ensure communities have facilities on their doorstep.
Transport and Connectivity
We enclose comments from Arup who are my clients transport and highways advisors in respect of this
chapter of the SOC.
The Wakerings and Barling, Questions 59a to 59e
We do not agree with the vision for The Wakerings and Barling shown in the SOC for reasons previously
explained. It would prejudice the ability for SoS to meet its housing need and the Council should be
discussing the potential release of surrounding Green Belt sites and other strategic cross boundary matters
to facilitate this.
Summary and Recommendations
Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to comment on your SOC. Whilst there are a great many aspects
of the plan that my client fully supports, for the reasons set out above, it does not meet the requirements
for plan making set out in national guidance. If it were to move forward on this basis, we do not believe it
would be capable of being found ‘sound’ in accordance with the tests set out in paragraph 35 of the NPPF.
Chiefly amongst our concerns is that the Council appear to have abandoned its engagement with SoS, and
taking a co-ordinated approach to strategic policy making to meet the need for the region, particularly in
relation to housing growth.

As identified above, the South Essex region is catastrophically failing to deliver homes to meet need and has
produced only slightly more than half of its requirement. It is difficult to see what further ‘exceptional
circumstances’ would be required to justify the release of Green Belt land and to use the plan making process
to take a co-ordinated approach to housing and infrastructure delivery.
We would strongly encourage the Council engage with its neighbours and key stakeholders, including my
client, to agree a strategic approach to accommodating housing need in the area and associated
infrastructure. This is a requirement confirmed in paragraph 25 (and elsewhere) of the NPPF. Ideally, the
Council should re-engage with SoS and produce a joint Part 1 plan to deal with cross boundary strategic
issues. Failing that, we would request that the Council provide an up-to-date Statement of Common Ground
prior to the publication of each plan making stage (in accordance with paragraph 27 of the NPPF) to clearly
set out how it is looking to work with its neighbour on cross boundary strategic issues moving forward.
We note that the Council plans to undertake a transport study that will look at, amongst other things, any
requirements for new road infrastructure. It is essential that this happens only once there is a better
understanding of cross boundary issues, particularly housing, so that this infrastructure can be planned in a
way that facilitates the growth required for the region.
We would very much welcome an opportunity to discuss my client’s land and the strategic growth in the
region with officers at a meeting in the near future. As currently formulated – this plan is seriously flawed
and requires amendment.

Firstly – the consultation document was inaccurate, misleading and used historical data – this makes the consultation invalid.
To evidence this I will give just one example of each of these;
Inaccuracy: map marked the Wakerings and Barling contained area CFs060 – which was then omitted on the map titled ‘stonebridge and Sutton’
Misleading: Even though it was clearly minited at a policy planning committee meeting (prior to the spatial options consultation being released) to use ‘ward names only’ (minuted as voted unanimously by the committee) it contained a map called ‘Stonebridge and Sutton’ this mislead residents.
Historical data: figures 9 and 10 (relating to Rochford residents work/destinations) this data is from 2011!
I will now comment on the areas to the east of the district; Named: ‘Wakerings and Barling’ and ‘Stonebridge & Sutton’ and list the reasons why the sites put forward are not suitable:
Road infrastructure:
Wakering/Barling is a peninsula with only 2 main roads into and out – if there is an emergency (as there has been historically) then these roads will barely cope. One road will NOT even be able to be widened as there are houses either side at key points. There are no viable options for a 3rd road.
Sites put forward for consideration provide no indication of where they would exit/entrance be – we have already seen the impact of a site in the current local plan where an inappropriate exit/entrance has been allowed – at the behest of Essex County Highways. The country lanes are not suitable for large developments – to reinforce this remember that the Majority of accidents (killed and seriously injured) happen on rural roads – more building will increase the use of the country lands and increase accidents.
Then think where the traffic would travel to and from: Only recently the leader of Rochford Council spoke against a development in the heart of the district clearly siting ‘severe’ impact on already struggling roads – this development was refused by the planning committee. This was a small development compared to some of the sites put forward for consideration - Access from the east of the district to and through the rest of the district is beyond capacity and cannot be expected to take any more traffic so if that one small site was deemed unsuitable because of its impact on the road – then building anywhere below this area in the district should be too.

Flooding:
Much of the east of the east of the district is in a high risk flood zone – this is expected to increase with the impact of global warming. Where it is not tidal flood risk there are areas of ‘high risk of surface flooding’ this will only increase with development.

Drainage and sewer systems are already at capacity with regular issues and reports to the flood forum – it is unable to take more homes. (fact: refer to reports to flood forum)

Impact on the environment
The sites put forward are currently farmland. This would result in a detrimental impact on: wildlife, bio-diversity, sites of archaeological interest. It will also increase the carbon footprint as removing land that currently acts to reduce carbon.
Increased traffic will increase the carbon output of this community. Pollutants and particles increase and reduce air quality.

You will be aware that the carbon footprint of a newbuild 2 bed house is 80 tonnes of C02e – of course the new local plan may include a pledge that all houses are carbon neutral (but how this be enforced?) But even if homes are carbon neutral there will ultimately be an increased carbon footprint from population increase – but leaving the agricultural land will at least allow for a ‘green lung’ in the east of the district.

This consultation does not explain how the new plan will meet the requirements of the government’s own Environment Bill and the government’s goal of carbon neutrality?

Health and well-being
People live in a village community because of the way of life. By building more houses the community element will be lost. Health and well-being of residents will be detrimentally affected. Crime will increase – and fear of crime. Poorer air quality – there is an abundance of reasons why health and well-being will be affected in Public Health England’s report on Health and wellbeing in rural areas.

My final comment is not to urbanise the east of the district. (forget the terminology of ‘garden village’ as it will be no such thing – it will be a bolt on to Southend) There may be a duty to cooperate with Southend Council – but there is a more pressing, more important duty to address carbon neutrality. By leaving our rural fields and providing a green lung this will at least go some way towards this.

We live in Barling Magna and have done so for 35 years and never have we been so concerned about an issue.

I have serious concerns around the consultation document itself, it uses place names like ‘Stonebridge’ rather than a ward name, it has omissions of current ongoing developments , which when completed will add to the general congestion on some roads. Because, I was informed, they have consent they do not need to be shown as this reflects a call for new land. But surely we need to now about them to assess the overall amount of development in an area before we can assess if we can accept more.

It says, and Rochford has confirmed, ‘infrastructure first’, but there is no indication as to how or where this infrastructure would be - whether it be first or last, so how can one assess a site without knowing where the new road would go to get there?

The Council should not reach any conclusions until Government Housing Policy and numbers to be found has been confirmed.

The consultation has divided large swathes of offered land up into small parcels and invites comments on the parcels rather than the overall principal of a development in that area. This contributes to a very difficult to follow consultation made far worse by poor software running the consultation.

On the above points alone I question the validity of this consultation.

The consultation invites comments on the future categorisation of land, residential, employment, green etc. However, most of the land that has been put forward is currently green belt land, and it’s development would be against current RDC policies.

“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.” There are exceptions but these do not include house building on anything other than a minor scale.

I suspect that most of the residents would wish it to remain green belt. What is the point of having green belt land if, just because it is easier to build on than brownfield it becomes an option in the next consultation etc. Government policy has indicated that the use of green belt land should not be assumed and indeed this classification could be sufficient to rule out its use other than for minor applications.

Now, more than ever, development should look to be sustainable, indeed it is beholden on our Cllrs and our Council Planning Dept to ensure that it is.

Sustainability comes in many shapes, from the loss of a land use, through the materials used for building plus a plethora of issues like heat pumps, solar, glazing etc and this must include the sourcing of such items, through to accessibility, congestion, new roads needed and reliance on various forms of transport, easy access to work, education, health etc. Economic sustainability must also be assured and this goes beyond economic delivery but also includes the longer term economic viability for both new and current residents.

Based upon the above I would make the following comments-

• No housing development, from Rayleigh eastwards, in the current green belt or on agricultural land should be permissible on sustainability grounds other than small infill of ribbon development areas, extension to existing dwellings in green belt and ‘granny flats’ where space and neighbour privacy permits etc. Allow residents to make the most of their properties rather than needing to move.
• All current green belt land adjoining woodland, parkland, ancient copses etc should be retained and reinforced as protected green space and backfill towards these important wildlife havens and CO2 catchments should be prohibited.
• The destruction of arable land should not be permitted. We need to be as self sufficient in food matters as we can be, importing from Canada or France for example is far less sustainable and could become more difficult in the future.
• Access to and through Hockley, Ashingdon and Rochford is beyond capacity and cannot be expected to take any more traffic. A journey that 15 years ago took 15 mins now takes 30 minutes minimum and often more. Traffic around Rochford is often at a standstill due to parking, deliveries etc and at the morning and afternoon busy times it is totally snarled up.
• Brown field sites and intensification of existing dwelling areas should only be developed with a very light touch unless easy access to jobs, schools etc without adding to road congestion can be imposed and maintained.
• Rochford should not accept development that is accessed by highways that are not within the district or where necessary facilities including jobs are not able to be provided within close proximity preventing the need for more vehicle movements on already over congested roads.
• Reliance on Southend facilities, the A127 within Southend and Bournes Green Chase etc. should not be countenanced. Southend has high unemployment in many wards and high deprivation in the central wards, good jobs that provide good incomes are scarce in Southend, Shoebury, Rochford, Wakering, Barling, Paglesham etc. Thus any new residents moving into the area will be driving in and out each day or trying to access trains with limited parking.
• The lack of suitable employment the further east you go is also a major factor in the sustainability of the economic issues. Barling on good run is 30 mins from Rayleigh Weir, more development can only slow this even more.
• All construction materials will have to get to the east of Rayleigh via already tired and congested roads causing yet more delays, polluted air and disruption for residents and importantly businesses in the east of Southend. The greater the congestion into Southend the fewer returning tourists and the fewer jobs in Southend!

On a more positive note and in recognition that RDC, BDC and SBC all have to provide some new dwellings that will probably not be able to be fully accommodated within the town centres or brown field sites there are a few areas where I consider development would be sustainable,
• Along the north side of the A127, accessed by a new slip road off the A127.
• Land adjoining or close to the A130 in the south Rawreth area, (CFS146,147,167,144,168,145,137,055,121 ) here sufficient development could take place in conjunction with Basildon and Southend to absorb much of the dwelling numbers currently required by Government whilst at the same being large enough to sustain education facilities, healthcare, small retail and supermarkets etc alongside leisure and sports. Good access is here for work with A130 to Chelmsford, A127 to Basildon and Rayleigh, A13 to Thames corridor etc and those commuting by train can access Rayleigh Station relatively easily (or even a new station). As when and if the A127 is ever upgraded into Southend adequately and as when and if their unemployment rates improve then more work opportunities will open up.

• I support strategy option 3a a massed development west of Rayleigh, indeed I see a small new garden town as the only sensible, sustainable and long term economic option. This would not destroy the country side around existing villages nor lead to more traffic and congestion issues east of Rayleigh. It also allows for co-operation from different authorities to work together for benefit of their residents.
• I do not support the other strategy options as a means to provide any significant numbers of dwellings.

More specifically


CFS064, CFS264, CFS040, CFS161, and any further development along or requiring access to the roads Church Road, Folly Lane, Folly Chase, High Road, Main Road, Aldermans Hill etc and all the way through to Rochford Town Centre via Hall Road and Stroud Green should be considered as over-development and an undesirable change of use.
These roads cannot be improved to accommodate the already excessive traffic. Some sites along or close to these roads are encroaching on potential wildlife areas and others are on the periphery of woodland etc. None of these sites would generate enough to provide the necessary highway improvements, even assuming this were possible, Rayleigh has singularly failed to sort out its traffic congestion problems despite many attempts to do so. Nor would they generate sufficient for the other infrastructure contributions that would be needed to make these areas better, more attractive areas to live in for both new and existing residents. The result would be a significant loss of amenity and worsening living conditions for the existing residents.

CFS004, Barling, this site could take a few houses as extension of ribbon development but the land would be better suited to be used as woodland or wild flower meadow to the rear, and form parking for the school to the front of the site if agriculture is no longer viable. The numbers suggested to be built on this site are way more than sensible, not least due to the location near a school, the specifics of the road there, the very difficult parking in the area and the risk of flood. 29 new homes means at least 29 if not far more vehicles going into and out of the village each day, more school places etc,.

All development in Barling, Little and Great Wakering on greenfield or agricultural sites should not be considered further. I have already discussed the sustainability of areas to the east of the district and here more than ever that is important. Also, however, this land offers a real buffer against the muddling of Southend and Rochford, which is intrinsic to the identity of the 3 areas and also offers open space and leisure for Southend residents in the east of the borough . Green space is hardly prolific in this sector of Southend. I also disagree with the ‘convenient’ adding of these three areas together to form a tier, Barling is not part of nor similar to the Wakerings and should be considered along with tier 4 villages.

The roads in the Barling area are small narrow roads often without pavements, there are sharp bends and ditches etc, these are rural roads and should remain so.

Most of us live in these areas and especially in Barling because we like the rural feel of the area. We want to preserve that way of life and major developments
taking years to build and then thousands of residents with cars causing congestion and poorer air quality will destroy it forever. Given the way the estuaries divide up our district we need to preserve the countryside within each estuary sector. Thames - Roach and Roach - Crouch.

I trust you will carefully consider the above points when deciding the outcome of the consultation and that you realise the strength of feeling of residents.

Thank you for taking the time to read our concerns and suggestions

With reference to the above Consultation , I have the following comments for your perusal.

I have lived in Great Wakering since 1972 , it was then a quiet village with lots of amenities serving a lovely community.
Over recent years there have been several housing developments which meant many changes to the village .
The village secondary school in the High Street was made the primary school and all school children over the age of 11 are now bussed to King Edmund School in Ashingdon Road, Rochford and this causes traffic chaos at peak school times with large double decker buses clogging up the roads.
Similarly the doctor's surgery once did a good job serving the community, now it is almost impossible to get an appointment due to the increased number of new patients being registered.
The High Street itself has never been improved to allow for the extra traffic with no parking/pick up facilities at the school for the children's safety.
Several of the local shops have closed as people seem to prefer to drive to the bigger stores, more traffic congestion.
A village is a community where people can depend on each other , with groups for pensioners, mothers and babies and sports clubs for children to get together and have fun after school ,in safety. I feel the larger the community the less likely these social places are being used , especially at times when people should be pulling together and caring for one another.

So with even more development these things will only get worse.
There are just two main roads into the village and if there are any major issues concerning evacuation this could cause major problems for emergency vehicles requiring access to the village as well as people leaving. There are also many more traffic accidents on rural roads where new residents are unfamiliar with the ways of the countryside and the necessity to take more care.

The area of Great Wakering is in reality a dead end so to get anywhere you must drive through Southend where the traffic conditions and congestion are a massive problem and more development to the east will only make this worse.

I love the village and hope it can be left as it is for many years to come. I realise housing development is necessary but feel brown fill sites should be the planners first consideration before taking over more of our rural countryside.

Thank you for reading my email

To whom it may concern,

In response to the spatial options consultation concerning Barling, Great Wakering, Little Wakering, Rochford and the SS0 to SS9 Area.

There may well be a need to provide additional housing for local children and their children's children however, as already being demonstrated, by the rocketing House prices recently in this area, that it is more affluent Londoners that are moving into this (cheaper to them) area. Supposedly they are moving here because its ironically greener.

These are the reasons I oppose this proposal

I moved from Southend into Little Wakering as I was struggling to cope with the busy built up area. Now I have a field at my open back fence and around me where I can calm my mind and balance my busy work schedule at the local hospital. It is my saviour. Evidence suggests for mental peace and mindfulness spending time surrounded by nature releases the hormone oxytocin to help our brains soothing system and lower our stress hormone cortisol, which keeps us in the threat fight or flight centre in the brain. With the rising levels of anxiety and mental health conditions particularly amongst the young we need to preserve green space in this area.

Mental health is already putting great strain on the NHS and doesn't, even now, have sufficient funding to manage the situation, let alone in the future when we are so crammed in no one can get space or do the things they enjoy to balance life's stressor.

Alot of the population are introverts and they get their energy from time away from people. Not being able to live with space around them will be detrimental to local health.

The pandemic has illustrated how living in built up, close proximity, highly populated areas is detrimental to health and has allowed ease of transmission of the virus. This will only get worse and more prevalent if we continue to fill in the green gaps with more people.

It will impact on the NHS, even now, there is great difficulties in this area accessing and getting a doctors or hospital appointment. I have already lost two people I love dearly because they couldn't get in to see a doctor or timely investigations and became terminal. This issue will grow even more.

Only two main roads in and out. Building in this dead end is trapping us and reducing our quality of life. Already I and my family have made life changes. Things that we used to enjoy we no longer do because of how busy the area has become and how difficult it is to get out of the area. I don't visit family in other areas very frequently because of the time it takes to get out and back in and stress the traffic creates. Family members have stopped clubs they enjoyed in Basildon because of the time it now takes with the built up traffic. All ready I don't do days out because it takes so long getting out and back into the area. I don't visit my elderly parents in Rochford as frequently as I would like because of the traffic to get there and back in a reasonable time around my work hours and children. This concerns me when I will need to travel there daily to be able to care for them but getting along the Ashingdon road is already a nightmare. I avoid going to town or retail because of the traffic to get there, because of how busy the places are.

Also where we are trying to lower carbon emissions and pollution we are sitting in traffic with engines running. Already this is the case to get anywhere. The junction at shopland Road and Sutton Road. Passed purdeys industrial estate to try and get to Rochford. Trying to get along the Ashingdon road. Priory Park, progress Road, Rayleigh weir etc. The more houses you build in this area, the more cars, the more pollution with traffic sitting at a standstill and not being able to get anywhere.

The condition of the roads is not suitable for more traffic like Barrow Hall Road and shopland Road. The road is narrow and there are many near misse head on crashes. The edges of the road are in poor condition which does not allow for manoeuvre when the road is so narrow especially with the speed people drive along the roads.

Business not being able to travel with ease in and out of the area will impact on economy.

It will impact on my NHS community physio team. We are having to restrict patient appointment already because it takes much longer to travel between patients in this area. Building up this dead end area will massively impact on the health care available to our aging population. It is already an issue, I live it every day at work. It is escalating stress in the team, in families and patients. It is a growing problem.

No infrastructure improvements with the builds that are already happening. Doctors, schools, fire service, community teams. There is only one secondary school for RDC pupils and space is already full at the primary schools.

Building up the area is restricting access to activities people do in their down time, how people in this area look after their mental and physical health. How they unwind. Less walks across field footpaths. Busier roads less access and more danger to cyclist. This area is popular for cyclists. It will restrict an activity that a vast number of people do for their health. Keeping active in this way will reduce their ailments in later life and will therefore need to access health services less. The reason it is popular for cyclists is that there is space, there is peace and the roads are quiet and safer.

There is alot of wildlife that New builds are pushing out of this area. Our children have a right to live amongst nature, that is how they learn to appreciate and take care of it.

With rising sea levels building on our limited open areas will increase flooding risk to those already living here.

This dead end area is not the area to build up. It is not fair to the existing population. Please stop trapping us here and negatively affecting our quality of life.

ECC Response to Rochford New Local Plan: Spatial Options Consultation July 2021

Thank you for consulting Essex County Council (ECC) on the Rochford New Local Plan: Spatial Options Consultation (SOC) published in July 2021. ECC has engaged with Rochford District Council (RDC) in the preparation of the new Local Plan, and our involvement to date has been proportionate at this early stage of plan preparation, building on the Issues and Options consultation in 2017/18. Once prepared, the new Local Plan will include the required strategies, policies and site proposals to guide future planning across the District, and will replace the current suite of adopted Development Plans up to 2040.

ECC welcomes the opportunity to review and comment on the emerging new Local Plan vision, strategic priorities and objectives, initial growth scenarios, spatial options, thematic themes and ‘Planning for Complete Communities’. As Plan preparation continues, ECC is committed to working with RDC through regular and on-going focussed collaborative discussions to prepare evidence that ensures the preferred spatial strategy, policies and site allocations are sound, viable and deliverable, where future development is aligned to the provision of required local and strategic infrastructure.

A Local Plan can provide a platform from which to secure a sustainable economic, social and environmental future to the benefit of residents, businesses and visitors. A robust long-term strategy will provide a reliable basis on which RDC, ECC and its partners may plan and provide the services and required infrastructure for which they are responsible. To this end, ECC will use its best endeavours to assist on strategic and cross-boundary matters under the duty to cooperate (Duty), including engagement and co-operation with other organisations for which those issues may have relevance.

It is acknowledged that RDC has engaged ECC under the Duty, during the past year, in addition to the joint and regular meetings established with the South Essex authorities, through specific South Essex strategic planning duty to co-operate groups for Members and Officers respectively to explore strategic and cross boundary matters.

ECC interest in the Rochford New Local Plan – spatial options consultation
ECC aims to ensure that local policies and related strategies provide the greatest benefit to deliver a buoyant economy for the existing and future population that lives, works, visits not only in Rochford District, but Essex as a whole. This includes a balance of land-uses to create great places for all communities, and businesses across all sectors; and that the developer funding for the required infrastructure is clear and explicit. As a result, ECC is keen to understand, inform, support and help refine the formulation of the development strategy and policies delivered by LPAs within and adjoining Essex. Involvement is necessary and beneficial because of ECC’s roles as:
a. the highway and transport authority, including responsibility for the delivery of the Essex Local Transport Plan; the lead authority for education including early years and childcare (EYCC), Special Education Needs and Disabilities, and Post 16 education; Minerals and Waste Planning Authority; Lead Local Flood Authority; lead advisors on public health;
and adult social care in relation to the securing the right housing mix which takes account of the housing needs of older people and adults with disabilities;
b. an infrastructure funding partner, that seeks to ensure that development proposed is realistic and does not place an unnecessary (or unacceptable) cost burden on the public purse, and specifically ECC’s Capital Programme;
c. major provider and commissioner of a wide range of local government services throughout the county (and where potential cross boundary impacts need to be considered);
d. Advocate of the Essex Climate Action Commissioner’s (ECAC) Report 2021 Net Zero – Making Essex Carbon Neutral providing advice and recommendations for action on climate change mitigation and adaption including setting planning policies which minimise carbon. This work has been tailored for use in the county of Essex; and
e. involvement through the Association of South Essex Local Authorities (ASELA) and Opportunity South Essex Partnership (OSE), promoting economic development, regeneration, infrastructure delivery and new development throughout the County.

In accordance with the Duty, ECC will contribute cooperatively to the preparation of a new Rochford Local Plan, particularly within the following broad subject areas,
• Evidence base. Guidance with assembly and interpretation of the evidence base both for strategic/cross-boundary projects, for example, education provision and transport studies and modelling, and wider work across South Essex as part of the joint strategic plan.
• ECC assets and services. Where relevant, advice on the current status of assets and services and the likely impact and implications of proposals in the emerging Local Plan for the future operation and delivery of ECC services.
• Sub-regional and broader context. Assistance with identification of relevant information and its fit with broader strategic initiatives, and assessments of how emerging proposals for the District may impact on areas beyond and vice-versa.
• Policy development. Contributions on the relationship of the evidence base with the structure and content of emerging policies and proposals.
• Inter-relationship between Local Plans. Including the Essex Minerals Local Plan (2014) and the Essex and Southend-on-Sea Waste Local Plan (2017).

To achieve this, ECC seeks a formal structure for regular and ongoing engagement with RDC through the next stage of Plan preparation. Of critical importance is the additional evidence required for the site assessment process at both the individual and cumulative level to refine and develop the spatial strategy, which will be informed by the provision of sustainable and deliverable infrastructure and services at the right scale, location and time, for the existing and future residents of Rochford. There are also challenges arising from COVID-19 and how these can be addressed through the Local Plan and the future growth ambitions for London Southend Airport.

Key issues and messages of the ECC response
The ECC requirements are set within the context of national policy and ECC’s organisation plan proposals within “Everyone’s Essex” and commitments for “Renewal, Ambition and Equality” based on ECC’s strategies, policies, objectives and evidence base. The ECC response therefore identifies where we support emerging options and proposals, and where we recommend further work and engagement with ECC in order to refine and inform the “Preferred Options”, the next iteration of the local plan preparation, scheduled for consultation in Spring 2022. The key messages in ECC’s response are summarised below.
1. ECC support RDC preparing a new Local Plan and will assist with the preparation of sound evidence and policies, that plan for long term sustainable infrastructure delivery.
2. It is still too early for ECC to provide detailed comments on the impacts, opportunities and requirements for the full range of ECC infrastructure and services, and additional evidence is required on a range of matters to inform the selection of a preferred strategy and sites, together with supporting policies. It is acknowledged that ECC has engaged with RDC on the preparation of the transport evidence base to date, which has been proportionate to this stage of plan preparation.
3. The preferred strategy and site allocations will need to ensure that the requirements of ECC infrastructure and services are met to secure their sound, viable and sustainable delivery at the right scale, location and time, that is commensurate with housing needs and growth aspirations.
4. This will include engagement with preparing additional evidence, that will include, but is not limited to,
o Transportation modelling (including sustainable transport) to develop a strategy to realise modal shift including analysis of existing active and sustainable travel infrastructure (including bus network and services). In collaboration with ECC, it is recommended that RDC prepare a Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan (LCWIP).
o Scenario testing for education provision including early years and childcare and the approach to Special Education Needs with Disabilities provision.
o Minerals and waste policy compliant assessments.
o Flood and water management assessments through revised Critical Drainage Areas (CDAs) and revisions to the South Essex Water Management Action Plan.
o Economic need and employment evidence including an up to date Economic Development Needs Assessment to refine the level of economic growth to be planned for.
o ECC will also contribute to the evidence in respect of skills, Adult Social Care, Public Health, climate change, and green and blue infrastructure to that can deliver safer, greener, healthier communities.
o There is also benefit in undertaking a Health Impact Assessment to ensure health and wellbeing is comprehensively considered and integrated into the Local Plan, including a strategic health and wellbeing policy, an area where ECC can advise and assist, and one successfully implemented and included in other plans across Essex.
5. RDC will need to engage and work closely with ECC to inform site selection and the range of preferred sites both individually and cumulatively, having regard to the evidence.
6. Spatial Growth Scenarios – the preferred scenario should meet national policy to deliver housing and other growth requirements; climate change resilience and adaptation; and environmental aspirations of RDC. As a minimum, the standard methodology should be met and any buffer to drive local economic growth or address unmet need from elsewhere is supported but will need to be based on sound evidence.
7. Spatial Strategy Options – the spatial strategy option to proportionately spread growth across the district would not deliver the necessary scale of growth to secure the viable and sustainable delivery of local or strategic infrastructure and services (most notably a secondary school) and would not be supported. Based on the information presented in the SOC, a preferable option is likely to see a combination of the options presented resulting in urban intensification, a focus on main towns, and concentrated growth in one or more locations (resulting in a new neighbourhood the size of a larger village or small town). The option will need to be informed by the evidence base and further site assessments.
8. ECC will need to be involved in any cross boundary development proposals. To this end, Option 3a would need to be delivered in the longer term given current constraints of the strategic road network (Fairglen Interchange) and have regard to emerging proposals and aspirations arising in Basildon and Castle Point Boroughs; and Option 3b will require close and formal working arrangements with Southend-on-Sea Borough Council.
9. It is noted that several of ECC’s comments and observations made in response to the Issues and Options consultation from 2017/18 continue to apply, given the early stages of Plan preparation. We therefore reiterate where important our previous comments and additional points where this is necessary to do so.

The ECC response is set out in table from page 5 onwards and reflects the order of the SOC paper including responses to specific questions; the Integrated Impact Assessment; supporting Topic Papers; and Site Appraisal Paper.

[Due to tabular format of submission, please refer to attached documents for full submission]

There is a problem with infrastructure, as there are only 2 roads in and out.

Any further housing development in this area will increase the pressure on roads, doctor's surgery and schools.

We will lose the village atmosphere if any further housing development is allowed.

Further housing development in Great Wakering, Little Wakering & Barling should not be allowed.


There is a lack of infrastructure, only 2 roads in and out if this area so in event if an emergency evacuation of the village, flooding, both surface and tidal issues, the environment bill, with climate change will only get worse the drains can’t cope as it is .

It will have a huge Impact on the environment, biodiversity and wildlife.

The increase in traffic will increase accidents.

No nearby station or public transport to facilitate this.

Building in condensed areas goes against both the environment bill and the goal of carbon neutrality.

Let us keep our village please

Spatial Options Consultation The Wakerings & Barling
Having viewed the online Spatial Options Consultation I am writing to make my feelings and opinions known to you.

We are all aware that there is a housing shortage in this country and that there is an urgent need for affordable housing around the entire country. However, seeing the quotas which the Westminster government are insisting be shouldered by this area and the rest of Essex, there is no question we are being expected to shoulder an unfair and unreasonable share of the burden, due to our convenient proximity to London. Since the government have committed to ‘Levelling Up’ the country I consider this most hypocritical. The South East is already far too congested, our infrastructure in terms of roads, schools and hospitals is at bursting point and there is no doubt that expanding infrastructure in the area will not keep pace with the proposed expansion.

Your Vision Statement for Wakering:
In 2050, the Wakerings and Barling should have retained their rural village character and sense of relative tranquillity. More services should have developed locally to reduce its reliance on neighbouring towns, whilst any new services introduced should be located so that those located on the edges of the settlement are able to access them sustainably. The villages should have become more self-sufficient when it comes to homes, jobs and community facilities, including education. Development that takes place should be locally-responsive and aimed at meeting the ongoing housing and employment needs of local residents.

It is obvious that it is impossible to live up to this statement and at the same time press forward with the level of development proposed in the Rochford area.

At the moment Wakering and Barling are beautiful rural villages. However if an area so close to Southend and London has not been developed more in the past, we can assume there are solid reasons and that the land here does not offer a friendly environment for too much housing. We are on the Creek, close to marshland and with rainfall predicted to rise due to climate change it is imperative the water table is maintained to prevent serious flooding. This means leaving open land for adequate drainage not only for proposed developments but for the residents already in situ. The current roads are single lane and many of the residents have to park street side because older houses do not have off road parking. This reduces traffic flow still further for most of the time (Little Wakering Rd is particularly susceptible to this.)

Much of the proposed building would be on currently agricultural land. It may well be that the encumbant farmers are tempted to sell up and retire on the proceeds but whereas this may suit them individually it would be criminally negligent of the authorities to allow this land to switch use because once it has done so, it will never return to the original purpose. We are living in times of global upheaval. Brexit means the UK will have to consider producing far more of our own food if we are to maintain present standards of living at minimal cost. Furthermore, combatting climate change (already officially recognised as affecting Britain) means we need to be sourcing food locally as possible and paying far more attention to ecology and our wildlife. Destroying the agricultural benefits of Wakering would be cutting off our noses to spite our faces.

I will finish by pointing out that one of the main ways to access Wakering is via Shopland, which feeds into Sutton Rd and thus into Ashingdon Rd. It is no secret that the traffic flow in these areas is close to gridlock for a lot of the time and further traffic feeding in from the Wakering area would be unworkable.

I am aware that Basildon and Southend councils are lodging objections and resisting the pressures from government to overdevelop their respective areas. It is obvious if they are successful the onus will simply be slope shouldered and further pressure put on surrounding councils like Rochford. Please, stand up for our area and join them in resisting these directives. The greenbelt was conceived for a reason and I can think of no time when we have needed to commit to this principle more!

Be loyal to Rochford, not to party politics.

In response to the Spatial Options Consultation,

Insufficient infrastructure to support further houses, such as;

Doctors - there are already significant issues in obtaining appointments and while you may argue this can be overcome with more doctors, there is a shortage in general which is unlikely to be overcome in the mid-term which puts additional stress on this remaining resources.

Roads - two main roads in and out of the village which already have issues with speeding which you have not addressed. In addition, being a peninsula with limited local employment, this will put additional strain on already strained roads at peak times. This is a particularly for the A127 which experiences lengthy queuing up to and including Progress road and M25 junction.

Parking - parking in the village, especially around the limited shops and at school start and finish times is already a significant issue, causing antisocial parking habits which impact local residents and increase the potential for more serious accidents.

Flooding - insufficient drainage to deal with surface water already with localised flooding. Potential for future tidal flooding if the current sea defences are not maintained and potentially increased to counter the affects of global warming.

School - insufficient spaces already with both Great Wakering and Barling primary schools overly full and residents needing to keep children in schools outside of the area.

Policing - increase in housing will result in an increase in crime and anti-social behaviour for which the local authorities give little interest in. We already have a lack of police presence in the village and further house building will make the situation worse still.

The current round of house building, which is getting out of hand given the above, has, for the last year, been a source of noise and dust pollution which they have done little to control. I’m under no illusion that this would be regularly inspected or controlled given the issues experienced so far.

Given the issues experienced as a result of the pandemic which has highlighted this country exposure to supply chain issues, farmland should remain as farmland to support the ever increasing demand in basic foodstuffs.

I wish to express concern at the suggested development in the above area with particular reference to Sites Refs: CFS004 and CFS071.

Any large scale development is bound to impact negatively on the much-prized rural character of this area.

Even beyond the development sites, road usage would markedly increase resulting in further disruption and potential further loss of green space. Traffic safety is another consideration.

There is already a potentially dangerous traffic situation affecting Barling School. The building of x26 houses on the adjoining site would exacerbate this. A more appropriate use of this land would be to provide school parking/school facilities.

Heavy traffic due to construction vehicles and, later, increased population, would create further dangers throughout the villages and noise pollution.

Further, I would challenge the desire for more self-sufficiency. I would suggest that having to travel out of the area for some services, especially commercial, is a price worth paying for the preservation of this rural setting.

We are residents of great wakering and moved to this area for the amazing community. The house proposals gives us the following huge concerns:

lack of infrastructure, only 2 roads in and out if this area so in event if an emergency evacuation of the village, flooding, both surface and tidal issues, the environment bill, with climate change will only get worse the drains can’t cope as it is . People live in a village community because of the way of life. So health and well-being will be detrimentally affected. More housing will increase crime. Impact on the environment, biodiversity and wildlife. Fact majority of road accidents happen on rural roads. The increase in traffic will increase accidents. This area is a peninsula-people have to travel to work. No nearby station or public transport to facilitate this. Building in condensed areas goes against both the environment bill and the goal of carbon neutrality

Introduction

The purpose of this letter is to provide my feedback to your current public consultation .

I appreciate the hard work that you have put in at the time of the pandemic in putting this together.

I also appreciate the difficulties that the District Planners face, given the current hiatus in the governments new approach to planning, plus given the difficulties in predicting what our economic future will be post-pandemic.


Comments on the Consultation itself

For a public consultation it seemed very technical and full of planning jargon, rather than being written in plain English.

In my view there were far too many questions. At times these read more like a set of examination questions about Spatial Planning rather than a public consultation.

Questions written by experts for experts to answer, with lots of references to “showing your reasoning”. This gave them an off-putting rather than engaging appearance.

Please note therefore that in providing this response I have followed specific Section / Chapter headings rather than reply to each individual question asked.


District Profile

Population Statistics = a strange change of approach.

Population growth statistics are probably the most important single metric in the whole planning document, yet you have chosen to abandon the parish based method shown in the current plan (2011) and the previous options paper (2018), replacing instead with the vaguely defined Settlements table.

Presenting a confusing and contradictory picture

I found your approach here very confusing.

You have rolled parishes up and/or split them into different units making comparison difficult, compromising the consistency of the information provided, thereby making understanding the figures significantly more difficult.

For example your 2018 paper showed the population of Great Wakering as 5587 and Barling Magna as 1740, giving an total of 7327.

Yet your current stats show a rolled up total of 6225. These imply that the population has shrunk by over 1000 people, which is definitely not the case. Such shifting sands provide no firm basis for robust and rigorous analysis or decision making.

Use proper hard credible metrics

The current table is confusing and not based on a solid administrative foundation = the Civil Parishes.

I suggest you return to using a standard consistent basis for showing population change by using the current administrative parishes for these figures, splitting them below Parish as you think necessary to show specific locations (Stonebridge/Sutton, Little Wakering)

By all means use this in addition to Parish statistics but not instead of the Parish ones, because they are the unit of financial disbursement of Council tax precepts.

And here as a starting point instead of using estimated growth, you should have solid figures for every year up to the current one, based on the disbursement of precept year-on-year from the District to each Civil Parish which I understand is based on the population for each Parich.

A suggested alternative

I would produce a table as suggested below showing figures for each Civil Parish within the District

2011 census figures 2018 Precept figures estimated precept figures, , for 2023*
* to reflect position as at 2023 = the start of the new plan.

Figures should include known and agreed developments already taking place and likely to be completed by that date, for example in Great Wakering = Star Lane Brickworks (100+ dwellings), land South of High Street / West of Little Wakering Road = 250 dwellings =

= an overall village population increase of some 500+ residents.


Presenting your figures in this way should give you, your council members, and the residents a much clearer, more rigorous, more robust, less abstract, more understandable and more justifiable and defensible basis for this particular round of the new District Plan, than using only the table as currently shown.


Spatial Strategy Options

Option 3a = the best strategic solution

Option 3a based to west of Rayleigh is the only sensible place to put the bulk of the new dwellings, based on its proximity to the A127 / A130 corridor, the ONLY major road links into / out of the District.

This option assumes that ECC can actually start doing something about improving the Fairglen interchange rather than just talking about it.

Here it can be noted that since the date of the last local plan in 2011, Southend Unitary Authority has done 3 significant changes to the A127 junctions (Cuckoo Corner, Kent Elms and currently The Bell ), while the County seems to have done little for the road users in the District at all. Certainly nothing of note to the roads between Rochford and GW.

Unless a major new road is built into the District to relive the increasing pressure on East / West travel in / out of the District, and this is a highly unlikely development in the next 20 years at least, then approving new developments away from the two major arterial routes referred to above, to elsewhere in the District, just places further burdens on the already over-stretched and over-stressed largely minor road network in the rest of the District, and the further east you go the worse it gets.

Such poor travel links as well as being a burden on residents also compromises the ability to attract into and keep business in the area.

Option 2 is tactical not strategic

Option 2 of just “bolting-on” more and more developments at the tactical level on the side of existing locations is not the answer because this approach delivers none of the benefits that a strategic solution, with planned-in transport, digital, education, health and other essential infrastructure, would bring.


Spatial Themes - suggested additions

Waste and Recycling

I didn’t see many specific references to this subject.

It is strange because the District has much to be proud of in promoting recycling through the weekly bin collection.

In comparison the County provision is poor. For GW residents with items to recycle, a 20mile+ round trip to the Rayleigh tip is the only option. The monthly "in village" collection only covers non-recyclables.

If districts are to deliver on their agendas it is time the County did it’s bit to improve and extend such facilities. Make it easy to recycle and people will recycle, as the District has successfully proved, time and again


Digital Infrastructure

Given its importance to every aspect of modern life, I would add a specific subject here i.e. the need to upgrade digital facilities and telecommunications capability across the district, especially for existing remoter areas.

For example, you will only be able to deliver the digital health facilities you mention, if there is sufficient connectivity and bandwidth to do so. Yet much of GW’s telecoms infrastructure is still through copper wire carried by telegraph poles.

Integrating this infrastructure is much easier for new developments, but plans need also to be put in place to modernize the existing infrastructure throughout the District as well.



Green Belt Policy

Worryingly your paper talks about “less valuable Green Belt”. I’m not sure what this is or who decides which bits are more or less valuable.

Given that in West Great Wakering, the two major developments approved under the current plan, plus the proposed new business park, have already eroded this green belt buffer.

If you are serious about maintaining the character of the village, to ensure that GW remains “vibrant and distinctive’, to deliver on your excellently worded “Draft Vision", will require you to vigorously and robustly defend the village from further developmental incursions into the village’s surrounding Green Belt land. In particular, to ensure it is not subsumed into other neighbouring areas, especially North Shoebury, by avoiding the threat of such coalescence.


Bio-Diversity

Wildlife / natural environment pretty much goes hand in hand with a strong adherence to Green Belt policy. Your recognition of the valuable role played by Star Lane LWS / local Geological site is welcomed but it will be placed under considerable stress if what remains of the Green Belt in WGW is further eroded.


Spatial Themes - Flood Risk

Most of the flood prevention measures refers to maritime flooding, but recent climate events have shown increasing vulnerability to extreme pluvial flooding events as well.

Paving over more Green Belt especially in those areas where significant new building has already taken / is currently taking place, further increases this risk. This is especially so in low-lying areas, as precious soak-aways have been lost and it becomes a vicious circle = more building = less natural ground = more risk of flooding as previously robust and resilient locations lose that capability and become unable to cope with heavy rainfall.

Building more new homes on flood risk areas will just leave new residents unable to get flood insurance and puts existing residents at increased risk as well, as existing mains drainage of varying age and vintage is found to be inadequate.


Transport and Connectivity

Public Transport

A lot of fine words with virtually no chance of being delivered.

The inverted pyramid is fine in theory but fails in practice because the public transport links from/to GW are so poor.

Since the previous plan the foreign-owned Arriva Bus Company has got rid of the main service 4/4A, pretty much a dedicated service to and from the village to Southend, and replaced it by the much poorer extended 7 /8 service. This change seriously compromised its convenience, punctuality, reliability so much so that people have left the village because of it. I used to use the old service a lot, the replacement has sent me back to my car.

Put the 4 / 4A (or an equivalent) back on and see if it persuades private car drivers to get back on the bus, because although Stephenson’s 14 service is much better than Arriva's, = more reliable / punctual, it runs less frequently, So using a car is so much more convenient, comfortable and reliable than current public transport options.

And as for Sundays, the service has been cut it back to only a 2 hourly service = 4 buses for the whole day in each direction. This is no way to incentivise anyone to move from car to bus, unless you have absolutely no other means of transport at all.

Walking

Walking within the village is OK but to go beyond it, forget it, until significant upgrade to pavements and road crossings in the area are made.

For example, the Star Lane / Poynters Lane junction is a horror-show. To encourage more people to walk, they need to feel safe doing so. A significant upgrade to current pavements out of the village would be required to deliver on this agenda, but in the last 10 years under the current plan nothing has happened to improve this aspect at all.

This paper is full of fine words and aspirations. But as was the current plan, sadly it is just all words and no action, in spite of the fact that developments in the area which might have been expected to bring such improvements, but have so far not delivered them.


Conclusion

I trust this is satisfactory and you find these comments of use.

Thank you for providing residents with the opportunity to comment on the future of the District.

I look forward to receiving details of the future development of the plans for the District'


The following occurred to me at lunchtime today, for possible inclusion under the Spatial Themes heading.

Electronic Car Charging

The government has stated its intention to promote the adoption of electronic car use, by phasing out the building of new petrol and diesel based vehicles.

This initiative is due to come into effect during the lifetime of the new District plan.

To be succesful it will require the installation of potentially significant amounts of charging facilities and supporting infrastructure.

This will present the District with significant Planning challenges:

1. to ensure that ALL new developments have sufficient car charging facilities and capability, built-in from the very start of the Planning process for such developments

2 this will include ensuring that the requisite electrical supply and delivery capability exists for individual dwellings, shared dwellings, other types of premises e.g. garages, retail, business premises.

additional electrical supply infrastructure might also be needed to be planned in here.

3 consideration of the impact of these rerquirerments on the existing installed base of all types of residential, business, retail, community premises.

this will be easier in some places which have their own private driveways, parking facilities, etc.

but it will present a considerable challenge for older properties, especially residential premises with on-street parking in narrow car-crowded streets, where parking outside ones own property might be difficult.

4. this would argue for the development, location and installation of community charging facilities, all of which will need to be planned for.

As a local resident I am writing to raise my objections to more housing being considered in and around Wakering.
Traffic is already a problem trying to get out of the area and on the A127 in both directions. More housing will only make this much worse. Wakering is accessed by country roads and there are limited options for access. Should there be an emergency evacuation due to flooding etc. this could be problematic.
The current infrastructure: drainage, doctors, hospitals, schools, police, fire brigade etc. barely cope, so more stress on this would just make it worse. More houses mean more traffic, more pollution, higher crime. People live here because they like village life, being part of the spreading suburban sprawl will affect people negatively.
The increased population will negatively impact the environment and wildlife including biodiversity.
Road traffic accidents will increase as more people use the local country roads. Public transport is already insufficient, and this will struggle. There is no local railway station to help cope with all extra load.
Building in condensed areas must run contrary to the environment bill and programmes to reduce carbon footprints.
I am shocked at the numbers of new houses being discussed in the local and wider area. No additional infrastructure has been added for the recent and current developments, so we are forced to accept an increasingly worse service, more pollution and less green space.
Rather than adding to the burden on current areas and infrastructure, I think the new town developments such as Milton Keynes should be considered, and the required infrastructure could be designed in rather than ignored or swept under the carpet.
Thanks for your attention, and I hope you will seriously consider peoples objections to these proposals.

Subject: Fwd: New Allocations Development Plan - CFS192, CFS004, CFS060, CFS071, CFS103, CFS115, CFS142, CFS258
Dear Rochfotd council,
I am beyond belief at the proposed building plans for property development in little Wakering as above. It feels like this has been sneaked under the radar with no correspondence from the council. I only found out from a neighbour.

The infrastructure is at breaking point and cannot take any further development.
I recently had to wait 61 minutes to get through to the Great Wakering Medical Centre as I was 5th in the queue, the situation will
Only worsen if further property development takes place without a proper infrastructure.

Total chaos has arisen whilst just two new homes have been built next to Little Wakering church, the contractors vehicles park on the pavement on the bend daily restricting access to our disabled community, and can be as many as 15 at times.
There is insufficient school places on a constant basis with parents being forced to drive outside of Wakering to educate their children, a terrible burden on our carbon footprint.
Which leads me to the lack of tip facility, it’s a 12 mile drive to my Rayleigh facility, it’s an absolute joke, another carbon footprint disaster by The council. The monthly refuse vehicles will only take black sacks which is of little use.
I purchased this property in the village 30 years ago backing onto farmland, I have even tried to purchase part of this field with neighbours to preserve the environment for our precious wildlife which includes woodpeckers, badgers, pheasants.
Its currently used for horses and stables where will they go?
Please reconsider the decision to build further homes in Wakering we have already suffered enough damage to our village with the building on properties in barrow hall road.
I had to seek approval to have a roof extension, how come such major development has been kept so quiet.
We were apparently going to have a golf course in Wakering, the construction company tore down the listed war time building on it then disappeared, how was this allowed to happen?
Thank you in advance reading and logging this appeal

I have read with concern the possible future sites for building in and around great Wakering and out towards Shopland and Sutton Road.

Wakering is one of the only remaining villages in this part of Essex and those that live here enjoy the village community because of the way of life. i feel that this is slowly being eroded and will affect the health and well being of the residents detrimentally. More housing will also increase crime.

There are also surface and tidal issues to consider here and further building will increase the risk of flooding. There are several sights near to creeks which would put any development itself at risk of flood. With climate change this is likely to be an increased risk anyway and our drainage system cannot cope as it is.

New homes rarely bring more or improved infrastructure. This area is a peninsula with only 2 roads in and out. Residents have to travel to work as there is no transport links by way of station or public transport to support this. Traffic is already at a standstill at times. It only takes one lorry parked in the road for a delivery to bring gridlock. In addition many of the roads are rural and the fact is that the majority or road accidents happen on rural roads. Any further increase in traffic will increase accidents. We already have one new housing development with access via a country lane. Not a road... as not even wide enough for central white lines. Lorries etc on this road accessing the new site will make this lethal.

We struggle already for children to get places in the local schools and the doctors surgery is under immense pressure. 30 years ago, with far fewer residents, we had 4 doctors. We now have three.

I am therefore opposed to any of the sites in the consultation to be considered for future building as I do believe that building in condensed areas goes against both the environment bill and the goal of carbon neutrality.

If new houses are really needed, this is not the area to build in and add to the congestion, destruction of the environment, biodiversity and our wildlife.

Although I do not like the option of new garden villages to the west of the area, this may be the only way forward as it will ensure that the infrastructure is put in place.

Spatial Options Consultation:
I oppose any further residential development in the Rochford Council area - in particular in Great Wakering and the bordering area of Southend Borough Council.
The grounds for my objection include:

A lack of infrastructure:
There are only 2 roads in and out of Great Wakering. In the event of an emergency evacuation of the village - which is very probable because many homes are already built on an ever-expanding (because of global warming and the resulting higher tides) flood plane.
The junction of Alexandra Road and the High Street regularly floods resulting in water lapping into our house. When I lived in the adjacent Brougham Close we had a major claim against Anglian Water when the sewage system failed to cope with heavy rainfall.
There is one primary school in the village and each year there are not enough school places to fulfil demand.
The Wakering Medical Centre has already tipped over through demand, with complaints lodged as residents are unable to get through on the phone line and emails are unanswered, let alone are residents able to secure an appointment.
Parking is a major issue in Great Wakering. With families regularly owning more than two vehicles per dwelling, will the proposed developments be able to factor in sufficient parking spaces? Where will any overspill be accommodated. There’s certainly no more room on our residential streets.
Like the majority of those who have chosen to live in the village, I have done so because of the quality of life this gives me and my family.
The erosion of the nearby countryside would have a huge detrimental effect on the quality of life for me, my family and thousands of local residents.
Can the authorities guarantee that the developers will follow building guidelines to ensure there is no disruption to local residents’ lives? There are multiple complaints made about the development of the Wimpy estate on Star Lane. The local authorities appear powerless to enforce the nuisance of noise and pollution from this development. My family has not been able to enjoy the expected peace of our garden for several years because of the noise and pollution coming from this development. What guarantees can be given that further developments will not blight the peace and tranquility of village life?
More housing will increase crime. Insurance premiums will rise. What compensation will be available for locsl residents to redress this negative impact on their finances?
Water supply has been cut off to Great Wakering in recent months due to a failing infrastructure that can be traced all the way back to the Bournes Green roundabout. Will the supply be able to cope with the additional demand of local houses.
The village is blessed with biodiversity and wildlife. Birds of prey, Canadian geese, a duck pond overflowing with wildlife, Great Wakering Common - it’s upkeep in the charge of local residents - is brimming with wildfowl, animals and flora. . . there is a true sense of village community in our corner of Essex and this will be terribly eroded by any proposed development.
It is a fact that the majority of serious road accidents occur on rural roads. Fatalities along Southend Road are commonplace. There are two blind corners on this mile-long stretch of road - my heart is in my mouth every time I go along this road. Add further vehicles to the mix and you will be responsible for adding more deaths and serious injuries to these hard-to-bear statistics.
This area is a peninsula-people have to travel to work. There is no nearby train station and the bus services have limited capacity, a handful of destinations and run a limited service on Sundays that means those without vehicles are cut off from the rest of the world from early on in the evening.
Building homes in condensed areas goes against both the environmental legislation and the UK Government’s goal of carbon neutrality.
How can this and all the other developments be allowed to go ahead while Boris Johnson grandstands in meetings with the president of the USA demanding North America gets its house in order when it comes to the environment?
It is my understanding that the only reason the areas under consideration have been chosen is to satisfy central government edicts that do not take into account the intricacies of our local area.
If the Government is so keen to “level up” the UK - don’t level Great Wakering’s countryside. Develop the homes required away from the over-populated south east of England and protect what countryside remains.

Having looked over the plans carefully and as a resident in Great Wakering, here are my comments/thoughts on why these plans are not appropriate:


There is a lack of infrastructure for the village only 2 roads in and out. Given that a lot of the village is at risk of flooding (my expensive home insurance confirms this risk) evacuation would be severely hampered with more homes. Given that extreme weather conditions are on the rise, this risk is every increasing.

The reason the vast majority of people choose to live in Wakering is to get a slice of "Village Life", slower paced, not dense with residential buildings or the population. An increase in houses will remove that positive.

More housing generally means an increase of crime. We are fortunate that it is a relatively safe area, but in terms of police presence it is extremely low, so there isn't much of a deterrent.

There would obviously be a huge impact on the wildlife biodiversity and the environment.

There are no good transport links, the vast majority of people will have to travel to work. More cars, more pollution, terrible for the environment.

The schools and doctors are seemingly maxed out. Trying to get a placement at Great Wakering Primary is extremely difficult, with many kids having to go elsewhere. Again more car journeys needing to be made to get children an education. The doctors is pot luck on whether you can get an appointment. Practing GPS have fallen over the years at the surgery.

Without serious investment in infrastructure, flood defenses and an huge increase in public services such as schools, doctors and transport links then picking any of the plots in and around Wakering will be a huge detriment to its current residents and any new residents.

Regarding the proposed building plots being considered in Barling and Little Wakering I urge you to look at the infrastructure in place as regards sewers, pumping Stations and the potential for flooding in these areas. I am in regular discussions with Anglian Water and they seem to have no solution for the current issues, more building will only add to the problems.
Please ensure that Anglian Water are consulted especially on CFS192

Please consider
The surrounding area’s to our village Wakering, and Rochford are a haven to wildlife whilst this seems to be an afterthought by many in the planning community these are as important to protect as the rainforests on the other side of the world. we have an abundant mix of wildlife that is hanging on by a thread. We keep continually concreting over farmland and green spaces which then pushes the wildlife out to the point that there is limited habitat for them to survive in. Whilst some adapt some won’t and will be lost forever once gone they are gone for good.

There is also the health benefits we all enjoy living in this partly rural area. Its a joy to drive through some of the back roads through the fields home and this is all beneficial to the communities mental health and well being. Loose this and there will be an increase in mental health issues that in turn equate to an already stretched nhs being overwhelmed

What will happen is that once we loose these open spaces there will be allocated green spaces albeit much reduced that then mobed by people which in turn defeats the object and benefits of these places.

The infrastructure in place already doesn’t support the amount of traffic in the area with these proposals you are just adding to an already stretched and failing system.

It looks as if the proposals will eventually join shoebury wakering southend and Rochford with a sprawl of concrete. Now this reduces quality of life. You only have to look at places like southend and basildon and look at the crime rates in these area’s to understand what this concrete sprawl equates to. Poor quality of life.

This is by know means an exhaustive list but should be considered. If we loose our green spaces farmland etc it will be gone for good.

To whom it may concern,

Please take this email as a formal objection to

Site reference: CFS258
Address: Little Wakering Road
Initial site assessment indicates a potential for x11 houses

My reasons for this, first and foremost is the infrastructure of our village. It cannot cope with more housing developments. With the increase in housing in Shoplands and Barrow Hall (once they are fully occupied) our schools and nurseries will be full (Nurseries and Great Wakering school already full). Our Doctors are already buckling, and the roads and parking (especially around the schools and nurseries) will be absolutely manic.

Further consideration is also split into the following:

Connectivity i.e. public transport
Current public transport options are limited, schedules and availability worse. With this being the case, it means that more people will HAVE to use their cars in order to drop children at their school or pre-school care options. Consideration must be made into safe access for all residents across the village, and the road infrastructure in this village is poor. It seems to be becoming a through road but is not big enough to handle the congestion that we are already experiencing. Walking will also be difficult where possible due to the number of roads without pavements.
Traffic and pinch points/congestion
Already exist areas of concern due to traffic and congestion as well as safety due to blind bends, existing parking, pedestrians, horses, speed etc. There are limited roads in and out of the village, as many of us have experienced when road works are in place, problems very quickly arise.
Parking
Roadside parking often leaves limited space with reports of access concerns for emergency services and safety risks. The impact around schools result in tension and concerns for children’s safety. Consideration must also be taken for those with disabilities or wheelchair users who often find footpaths blocked by poor parking and few suitable access points/pathways.
Doctors and medical
As previously mentioned, the Doctors surgery appears to already be under pressure. Limited local medical services i.e. dentist.
Wildlife and nature
There is great beauty in the local area, and Barling and Great Wakering has always prided itself on the wildlife that thrives in this area. Some rare species have been observed and we would like this to continue..
Drainage
Problems are already widely reported within this area, especially Kimberly Road and next to the Rascals nursery (very close to this proposed site).
Flood risk
Risk from the existing creek should water levels continue to rise as expected, considerations must be taken into future viability.

I hope you look at all of the replies that you receive and decide to leave our village as exactly that or to at least pump in a lot of money in order for our infrastructure to survive your plans. This has always been a place of beauty, please keep it that way.

Kind regards

Jenny White

My reasons for this, first and foremost is the infrastructure of our village. It cannot cope with more housing developments. With the increase in housing in Shoplands and Barrow Hall (once they are fully occupied) our schools and nurseries will be full (Nurseries and Great Wakering school already full). Our Doctors are already buckling, and the roads and parking (especially around the schools and nurseries) will be absolutely manic.

Further consideration is also split into the following:

Connectivity i.e. public transport
Current public transport options are limited, schedules and availability worse. With this being the case, it means that more people will HAVE to use their cars in order to drop children at their school or pre-school care options. Consideration must be made into safe access for all residents across the village, and the road infrastructure in this village is poor. It seems to be becoming a through road but is not big enough to handle the congestion that we are already experiencing. Walking will also be difficult where possible due to the number of roads without pavements.
Traffic and pinch points/congestion
Already exist areas of concern due to traffic and congestion as well as safety due to blind bends, existing parking, pedestrians, horses, speed etc. There are limited roads in and out of the village, as many of us have experienced when road works are in place, problems very quickly arise.
Parking
Roadside parking often leaves limited space with reports of access concerns for emergency services and safety risks. The impact around schools result in tension and concerns for children’s safety. Consideration must also be taken for those with disabilities or wheelchair users who often find footpaths blocked by poor parking and few suitable access points/pathways.
Doctors and medical
As previously mentioned, the Doctors surgery appears to already be under pressure. Limited local medical services i.e. dentist.
Wildlife and nature
There is great beauty in the local area, and Barling and Great Wakering has always prided itself on the wildlife that thrives in this area. Some rare species have been observed and we would like this to continue..
Drainage
Problems are already widely reported within this area, especially Kimberly Road and next to the Rascals nursery (very close to this proposed site).
Flood risk
Risk from the existing creek should water levels continue to rise as expected, considerations must be taken into future viability.

I hope you look at all of the replies that you receive and decide to leave our village as exactly that or to at least pump in a lot of money in order for our infrastructure to survive your plans. This has always been a place of beauty, please keep it that way.

Please take this email as a formal objection to

Site reference: CFS192
Address: Little Wakering Road
Initial site assessment indicates a potential for x423 houses

My reasons for this, first and foremost is the infrastructure of our village. It cannot cope with more housing developments. With the increase in housing in Shoplands and Barrow Hall (once they are fully occupied) our schools and nurseries will be full (Nurseries and Great Wakering school already full). Our Doctors are already buckling, and the roads and parking (especially around the schools and nurseries) will be absolutely manic.

Further consideration is also split into the following:

Connectivity i.e. public transport
Current public transport options are limited, schedules and availability worse. With this being the case, it means that more people will HAVE to use their cars in order to drop children at their school or pre-school care options. Consideration must be made into safe access for all residents across the village, and the road infrastructure in this village is poor. It seems to be becoming a through road but is not big enough to handle the congestion that we are already experiencing. Walking will also be difficult where possible due to the number of roads without pavements.
Traffic and pinch points/congestion
Already exist areas of concern due to traffic and congestion as well as safety due to blind bends, existing parking, pedestrians, horses, speed etc. There are limited roads in and out of the village, as many of us have experienced when road works are in place, problems very quickly arise.
Parking
Roadside parking often leaves limited space with reports of access concerns for emergency services and safety risks. The impact around schools result in tension and concerns for children’s safety. Consideration must also be taken for those with disabilities or wheelchair users who often find footpaths blocked by poor parking and few suitable access points/pathways.
Doctors and medical
As previously mentioned, the Doctors surgery appears to already be under pressure. Limited local medical services i.e. dentist.
Wildlife and nature
There is great beauty in the local area, and Barling and Great Wakering has always prided itself on the wildlife that thrives in this area. Some rare species have been observed and we would like this to continue..
Drainage
Problems are already widely reported within this area, especially Kimberly Road and next to the Rascals nursery (very close to this proposed site).
Flood risk
Risk from the existing creek should water levels continue to rise as expected, considerations must be taken into future viability.

I hope you look at all of the replies that you receive and decide to leave our village as exactly that or to at least pump in a lot of money in order for our infrastructure to survive your plans. This has always been a place of beauty, please keep it that way.

Kind regards

Jenny White

My reasons for this, first and foremost is the infrastructure of our village. It cannot cope with more housing developments. With the increase in housing in Shoplands and Barrow Hall (once they are fully occupied) our schools and nurseries will be full (Nurseries and Great Wakering school already full). Our Doctors are already buckling, and the roads and parking (especially around the schools and nurseries) will be absolutely manic.

Further consideration is also split into the following:

Connectivity i.e. public transport
Current public transport options are limited, schedules and availability worse. With this being the case, it means that more people will HAVE to use their cars in order to drop children at their school or pre-school care options. Consideration must be made into safe access for all residents across the village, and the road infrastructure in this village is poor. It seems to be becoming a through road but is not big enough to handle the congestion that we are already experiencing. Walking will also be difficult where possible due to the number of roads without pavements.
Traffic and pinch points/congestion
Already exist areas of concern due to traffic and congestion as well as safety due to blind bends, existing parking, pedestrians, horses, speed etc. There are limited roads in and out of the village, as many of us have experienced when road works are in place, problems very quickly arise.
Parking
Roadside parking often leaves limited space with reports of access concerns for emergency services and safety risks. The impact around schools result in tension and concerns for children’s safety. Consideration must also be taken for those with disabilities or wheelchair users who often find footpaths blocked by poor parking and few suitable access points/pathways.
Doctors and medical
As previously mentioned, the Doctors surgery appears to already be under pressure. Limited local medical services i.e. dentist.
Wildlife and nature
There is great beauty in the local area, and Barling and Great Wakering has always prided itself on the wildlife that thrives in this area. Some rare species have been observed and we would like this to continue..
Drainage
Problems are already widely reported within this area, especially Kimberly Road and next to the Rascals nursery (very close to this proposed site).
Flood risk
Risk from the existing creek should water levels continue to rise as expected, considerations must be taken into future viability.

I hope you look at all of the replies that you receive and decide to leave our village as exactly that or to at least pump in a lot of money in order for our infrastructure to survive your plans. This has always been a place of beauty, please keep it that way.

Please take this email as a formal objection to

Site reference: CFS153
Address: Common Road
Initial site assessment indicates a potential for x67 houses

My reasons for this, first and foremost is the infrastructure of our village. It cannot cope with more housing developments. With the increase in housing in Shoplands and Barrow Hall (once they are fully occupied) our schools and nurseries will be full (Nurseries and Great Wakering school already full). Our Doctors are already buckling, and the roads and parking (especially around the schools and nurseries) will be absolutely manic.

Further consideration is also split into the following:

Connectivity i.e. public transport
Current public transport options are limited, schedules and availability worse. With this being the case, it means that more people will HAVE to use their cars in order to drop children at their school or pre-school care options. Consideration must be made into safe access for all residents across the village, and the road infrastructure in this village is poor. It seems to be becoming a through road but is not big enough to handle the congestion that we are already experiencing. Walking will also be difficult where possible due to the number of roads without pavements.
Traffic and pinch points/congestion
Already exist areas of concern due to traffic and congestion as well as safety due to blind bends, existing parking, pedestrians, horses, speed etc. There are limited roads in and out of the village, as many of us have experienced when road works are in place, problems very quickly arise.
Parking
Roadside parking often leaves limited space with reports of access concerns for emergency services and safety risks. The impact around schools result in tension and concerns for children’s safety. Consideration must also be taken for those with disabilities or wheelchair users who often find footpaths blocked by poor parking and few suitable access points/pathways.
Doctors and medical
As previously mentioned, the Doctors surgery appears to already be under pressure. Limited local medical services i.e. dentist.
Wildlife and nature
There is great beauty in the local area, and Barling and Great Wakering has always prided itself on the wildlife that thrives in this area. Some rare species have been observed and we would like this to continue..
Drainage
Problems are already widely reported within this area, especially Kimberly Road and next to the Rascals nursery (very close to this proposed site).
Flood risk
Risk from the existing creek should water levels continue to rise as expected, considerations must be taken into future viability.

I hope you look at all of the replies that you receive and decide to leave our village as exactly that or to at least pump in a lot of money in order for our infrastructure to survive your plans. This has always been a place of beauty, please keep it that way.

Kind regards

Jenny White

My reasons for this, first and foremost is the infrastructure of our village. It cannot cope with more housing developments. With the increase in housing in Shoplands and Barrow Hall (once they are fully occupied) our schools and nurseries will be full (Nurseries and Great Wakering school already full). Our Doctors are already buckling, and the roads and parking (especially around the schools and nurseries) will be absolutely manic.

Further consideration is also split into the following:

Connectivity i.e. public transport
Current public transport options are limited, schedules and availability worse. With this being the case, it means that more people will HAVE to use their cars in order to drop children at their school or pre-school care options. Consideration must be made into safe access for all residents across the village, and the road infrastructure in this village is poor. It seems to be becoming a through road but is not big enough to handle the congestion that we are already experiencing. Walking will also be difficult where possible due to the number of roads without pavements.
Traffic and pinch points/congestion
Already exist areas of concern due to traffic and congestion as well as safety due to blind bends, existing parking, pedestrians, horses, speed etc. There are limited roads in and out of the village, as many of us have experienced when road works are in place, problems very quickly arise.
Parking
Roadside parking often leaves limited space with reports of access concerns for emergency services and safety risks. The impact around schools result in tension and concerns for children’s safety. Consideration must also be taken for those with disabilities or wheelchair users who often find footpaths blocked by poor parking and few suitable access points/pathways.
Doctors and medical
As previously mentioned, the Doctors surgery appears to already be under pressure. Limited local medical services i.e. dentist.
Wildlife and nature
There is great beauty in the local area, and Barling and Great Wakering has always prided itself on the wildlife that thrives in this area. Some rare species have been observed and we would like this to continue..
Drainage
Problems are already widely reported within this area, especially Kimberly Road and next to the Rascals nursery (very close to this proposed site).
Flood risk
Risk from the existing creek should water levels continue to rise as expected, considerations must be taken into future viability.

I hope you look at all of the replies that you receive and decide to leave our village as exactly that or to at least pump in a lot of money in order for our infrastructure to survive your plans. This has always been a place of beauty, please keep it that way.

Please take this email as a formal objection to

Site reference: CFS115
Address: Little Wakering Road
Initial site assessment indicates a potential for x120 houses

My reasons for this, first and foremost is the infrastructure of our village. It cannot cope with more housing developments. With the increase in housing in Shoplands and Barrow Hall (once they are fully occupied) our schools and nurseries will be full (Nurseries and Great Wakering school already full). Our Doctors are already buckling, and the roads and parking (especially around the schools and nurseries) will be absolutely manic.

Further consideration is also split into the following:

Connectivity i.e. public transport
Current public transport options are limited, schedules and availability worse. With this being the case, it means that more people will HAVE to use their cars in order to drop children at their school or pre-school care options. Consideration must be made into safe access for all residents across the village, and the road infrastructure in this village is poor. It seems to be becoming a through road but is not big enough to handle the congestion that we are already experiencing. Walking will also be difficult where possible due to the number of roads without pavements.
Traffic and pinch points/congestion
Already exist areas of concern due to traffic and congestion as well as safety due to blind bends, existing parking, pedestrians, horses, speed etc. There are limited roads in and out of the village, as many of us have experienced when road works are in place, problems very quickly arise.
Parking
Roadside parking often leaves limited space with reports of access concerns for emergency services and safety risks. The impact around schools result in tension and concerns for children’s safety. Consideration must also be taken for those with disabilities or wheelchair users who often find footpaths blocked by poor parking and few suitable access points/pathways.
Doctors and medical
As previously mentioned, the Doctors surgery appears to already be under pressure. Limited local medical services i.e. dentist.
Wildlife and nature
There is great beauty in the local area, and Barling and Great Wakering has always prided itself on the wildlife that thrives in this area. Some rare species have been observed and we would like this to continue..
Drainage
Problems are already widely reported within this area, especially Kimberly Road and next to the Rascals nursery (very close to this proposed site).
Flood risk
Risk from the existing creek should water levels continue to rise as expected, considerations must be taken into future viability.

I hope you look at all of the replies that you receive and decide to leave our village as exactly that or to at least pump in a lot of money in order for our infrastructure to survive your plans. This has always been a place of beauty, please keep it that way.

Please take this email as a formal objection to

Site reference: CFS097
Address: Thithe Park, Poynters Lane
Initial site assessment indicates a potential for x749 houses

My reasons for this, first and foremost is the infrastructure of our village. It cannot cope with more housing developments. With the increase in housing in Shoplands and Barrow Hall (once they are fully occupied) our schools and nurseries will be full (Nurseries and Great Wakering school already full). Our Doctors are already buckling, and the roads and parking (especially around the schools and nurseries) will be absolutely manic.

Further consideration is also split into the following:

Connectivity i.e. public transport
Current public transport options are limited, schedules and availability worse. With this being the case, it means that more people will HAVE to use their cars in order to drop children at their school or pre-school care options. Consideration must be made into safe access for all residents across the village, and the road infrastructure in this village is poor. It seems to be becoming a through road but is not big enough to handle the congestion that we are already experiencing. Walking will also be difficult where possible due to the number of roads without pavements.
Traffic and pinch points/congestion
Already exist areas of concern due to traffic and congestion as well as safety due to blind bends, existing parking, pedestrians, horses, speed etc. There are limited roads in and out of the village, as many of us have experienced when road works are in place, problems very quickly arise.
Parking
Roadside parking often leaves limited space with reports of access concerns for emergency services and safety risks. The impact around schools result in tension and concerns for children’s safety. Consideration must also be taken for those with disabilities or wheelchair users who often find footpaths blocked by poor parking and few suitable access points/pathways.
Doctors and medical
As previously mentioned, the Doctors surgery appears to already be under pressure. Limited local medical services i.e. dentist.
Wildlife and nature
There is great beauty in the local area, and Barling and Great Wakering has always prided itself on the wildlife that thrives in this area. Some rare species have been observed and we would like this to continue..
Drainage
Problems are already widely reported within this area, especially Kimberly Road and next to the Rascals nursery (very close to this proposed site).
Flood risk
Risk from the existing creek should water levels continue to rise as expected, considerations must be taken into future viability.

I hope you look at all of the replies that you receive and decide to leave our village as exactly that or to at least pump in a lot of money in order for our infrastructure to survive your plans. This has always been a place of beauty, please keep it that way.

Please take this email as a formal objection to

Site reference: CFS060
Address: Little Wakering Road
Initial site assessment indicates a potential for x27 houses
My reasons for this, first and foremost is the infrastructure of our village. It cannot cope with more housing developments. With the increase in housing in Shoplands and Barrow Hall (once they are fully occupied) our schools and nurseries will be full (Nurseries and Great Wakering school already full). Our Doctors are already buckling, and the roads and parking (especially around the schools and nurseries) will be absolutely manic.

Further consideration is also split into the following:

Connectivity i.e. public transport
Current public transport options are limited, schedules and availability worse. With this being the case, it means that more people will HAVE to use their cars in order to drop children at their school or pre-school care options. Consideration must be made into safe access for all residents across the village, and the road infrastructure in this village is poor. It seems to be becoming a through road but is not big enough to handle the congestion that we are already experiencing. Walking will also be difficult where possible due to the number of roads without pavements.
Traffic and pinch points/congestion
Already exist areas of concern due to traffic and congestion as well as safety due to blind bends, existing parking, pedestrians, horses, speed etc. There are limited roads in and out of the village, as many of us have experienced when road works are in place, problems very quickly arise.
Parking
Roadside parking often leaves limited space with reports of access concerns for emergency services and safety risks. The impact around schools result in tension and concerns for children’s safety. Consideration must also be taken for those with disabilities or wheelchair users who often find footpaths blocked by poor parking and few suitable access points/pathways.
Doctors and medical
As previously mentioned, the Doctors surgery appears to already be under pressure. Limited local medical services i.e. dentist.
Wildlife and nature
There is great beauty in the local area, and Barling and Great Wakering has always prided itself on the wildlife that thrives in this area. Some rare species have been observed and we would like this to continue..
Drainage
Problems are already widely reported within this area, especially Kimberly Road and next to the Rascals nursery (very close to this proposed site).
Flood risk
Risk from the existing creek should water levels continue to rise as expected, considerations must be taken into future viability.

I hope you look at all of the replies that you receive and decide to leave our village as exactly that or to at least pump in a lot of money in order for our infrastructure to survive your plans. This has always been a place of beauty, please keep it that way.

Please take this email as a formal objection to

Site reference: CFS056
Address: Stewards Yard, Great Wakering
Initial site assessment indicates a potential for x33 houses

My reasons for this, first and foremost is the infrastructure of our village. It cannot cope with more housing developments. With the increase in housing in Shoplands and Barrow Hall (once they are fully occupied) our schools and nurseries will be full (Nurseries and Great Wakering school already full). Our Doctors are already buckling, and the roads and parking (especially around the schools and nurseries) will be absolutely manic.

Further consideration is also split into the following:

Connectivity i.e. public transport
Current public transport options are limited, schedules and availability worse. With this being the case, it means that more people will HAVE to use their cars in order to drop children at their school or pre-school care options. Consideration must be made into safe access for all residents across the village, and the road infrastructure in this village is poor. It seems to be becoming a through road but is not big enough to handle the congestion that we are already experiencing. Walking will also be difficult where possible due to the number of roads without pavements.
Traffic and pinch points/congestion
Already exist areas of concern due to traffic and congestion as well as safety due to blind bends, existing parking, pedestrians, horses, speed etc. There are limited roads in and out of the village, as many of us have experienced when road works are in place, problems very quickly arise.
Parking
Roadside parking often leaves limited space with reports of access concerns for emergency services and safety risks. The impact around schools result in tension and concerns for children’s safety. Consideration must also be taken for those with disabilities or wheelchair users who often find footpaths blocked by poor parking and few suitable access points/pathways.
Doctors and medical
As previously mentioned, the Doctors surgery appears to already be under pressure. Limited local medical services i.e. dentist.
Wildlife and nature
There is great beauty in the local area, and Barling and Great Wakering has always prided itself on the wildlife that thrives in this area. Some rare species have been observed and we would like this to continue..
Drainage
Problems are already widely reported within this area, especially Kimberly Road and next to the Rascals nursery (very close to this proposed site).
Flood risk
Risk from the existing creek should water levels continue to rise as expected, considerations must be taken into future viability.

I hope you look at all of the replies that you receive and decide to leave our village as exactly that or to at least pump in a lot of money in order for our infrastructure to survive your plans. This has always been a place of beauty, please keep it that way.

Please take this email as a formal objection to

Site reference: CFS057
Address: Star Lane/Poynters Lane
Initial site assessment indicates a potential for x1001 houses

My reasons for this, first and foremost is the infrastructure of our village. It cannot cope with more housing developments. With the increase in housing in Shoplands and Barrow Hall (once they are fully occupied) our schools and nurseries will be full (Nurseries and Great Wakering school already full). Our Doctors are already buckling, and the roads and parking (especially around the schools and nurseries) will be absolutely manic.

Further consideration is also split into the following:

Connectivity i.e. public transport
Current public transport options are limited, schedules and availability worse. With this being the case, it means that more people will HAVE to use their cars in order to drop children at their school or pre-school care options. Consideration must be made into safe access for all residents across the village, and the road infrastructure in this village is poor. It seems to be becoming a through road but is not big enough to handle the congestion that we are already experiencing. Walking will also be difficult where possible due to the number of roads without pavements.
Traffic and pinch points/congestion
Already exist areas of concern due to traffic and congestion as well as safety due to blind bends, existing parking, pedestrians, horses, speed etc. There are limited roads in and out of the village, as many of us have experienced when road works are in place, problems very quickly arise.
Parking
Roadside parking often leaves limited space with reports of access concerns for emergency services and safety risks. The impact around schools result in tension and concerns for children’s safety. Consideration must also be taken for those with disabilities or wheelchair users who often find footpaths blocked by poor parking and few suitable access points/pathways.
Doctors and medical
As previously mentioned, the Doctors surgery appears to already be under pressure. Limited local medical services i.e. dentist.
Wildlife and nature
There is great beauty in the local area, and Barling and Great Wakering has always prided itself on the wildlife that thrives in this area. Some rare species have been observed and we would like this to continue..
Drainage
Problems are already widely reported within this area, especially Kimberly Road and next to the Rascals nursery (very close to this proposed site).
Flood risk
Risk from the existing creek should water levels continue to rise as expected, considerations must be taken into future viability.

I hope you look at all of the replies that you receive and decide to leave our village as exactly that or to at least pump in a lot of money in order for our infrastructure to survive your plans. This has always been a place of beauty, please keep it that way.

Please take this email as a formal objection to

Site reference: CFS076
Address: Sutton Road
Initial site assessment indicates a potential for x191 houses

My reasons for this, first and foremost is the infrastructure of our village. It cannot cope with more housing developments. With the increase in housing in Shoplands and Barrow Hall (once they are fully occupied) our schools and nurseries will be full (Nurseries and Great Wakering school already full). Our Doctors are already buckling, and the roads and parking (especially around the schools and nurseries) will be absolutely manic.

Further consideration is also split into the following:

Connectivity i.e. public transport
Current public transport options are limited, schedules and availability worse. With this being the case, it means that more people will HAVE to use their cars in order to drop children at their school or pre-school care options. Consideration must be made into safe access for all residents across the village, and the road infrastructure in this village is poor. It seems to be becoming a through road but is not big enough to handle the congestion that we are already experiencing. Walking will also be difficult where possible due to the number of roads without pavements.
Traffic and pinch points/congestion
Already exist areas of concern due to traffic and congestion as well as safety due to blind bends, existing parking, pedestrians, horses, speed etc. There are limited roads in and out of the village, as many of us have experienced when road works are in place, problems very quickly arise.
Parking
Roadside parking often leaves limited space with reports of access concerns for emergency services and safety risks. The impact around schools result in tension and concerns for children’s safety. Consideration must also be taken for those with disabilities or wheelchair users who often find footpaths blocked by poor parking and few suitable access points/pathways.
Doctors and medical
As previously mentioned, the Doctors surgery appears to already be under pressure. Limited local medical services i.e. dentist.
Wildlife and nature
There is great beauty in the local area, and Barling and Great Wakering has always prided itself on the wildlife that thrives in this area. Some rare species have been observed and we would like this to continue..
Drainage
Problems are already widely reported within this area, especially Kimberly Road and next to the Rascals nursery (very close to this proposed site).
Flood risk
Risk from the existing creek should water levels continue to rise as expected, considerations must be taken into future viability.

I hope you look at all of the replies that you receive and decide to leave our village as exactly that or to at least pump in a lot of money in order for our infrastructure to survive your plans. This has always been a place of beauty, please keep it that way.

Please take this email as a formal objection to

Site reference: CFS103
Address: Barrow Hall Road
Initial site assessment indicates a potential for x94 houses

My reasons for this, first and foremost is the infrastructure of our village. It cannot cope with more housing developments. With the increase in housing in Shoplands and Barrow Hall (once they are fully occupied) our schools and nurseries will be full (Nurseries and Great Wakering school already full). Our Doctors are already buckling, and the roads and parking (especially around the schools and nurseries) will be absolutely manic.

Further consideration is also split into the following:

Connectivity i.e. public transport
Current public transport options are limited, schedules and availability worse. With this being the case, it means that more people will HAVE to use their cars in order to drop children at their school or pre-school care options. Consideration must be made into safe access for all residents across the village, and the road infrastructure in this village is poor. It seems to be becoming a through road but is not big enough to handle the congestion that we are already experiencing. Walking will also be difficult where possible due to the number of roads without pavements.
Traffic and pinch points/congestion
Already exist areas of concern due to traffic and congestion as well as safety due to blind bends, existing parking, pedestrians, horses, speed etc. There are limited roads in and out of the village, as many of us have experienced when road works are in place, problems very quickly arise.
Parking
Roadside parking often leaves limited space with reports of access concerns for emergency services and safety risks. The impact around schools result in tension and concerns for children’s safety. Consideration must also be taken for those with disabilities or wheelchair users who often find footpaths blocked by poor parking and few suitable access points/pathways.
Doctors and medical
As previously mentioned, the Doctors surgery appears to already be under pressure. Limited local medical services i.e. dentist.
Wildlife and nature
There is great beauty in the local area, and Barling and Great Wakering has always prided itself on the wildlife that thrives in this area. Some rare species have been observed and we would like this to continue..
Drainage
Problems are already widely reported within this area, especially Kimberly Road and next to the Rascals nursery (very close to this proposed site).
Flood risk
Risk from the existing creek should water levels continue to rise as expected, considerations must be taken into future viability.

I hope you look at all of the replies that you receive and decide to leave our village as exactly that or to at least pump in a lot of money in order for our infrastructure to survive your plans. This has always been a place of beauty, please keep it that way.

Please take this email as a formal objection to

Site reference: CFS071
Address: Barling Road
Initial site assessment indicates a potential for x111 houses

My reasons for this, first and foremost is the infrastructure of our village. It cannot cope with more housing developments. With the increase in housing in Shoplands and Barrow Hall (once they are fully occupied) our schools and nurseries will be full (Nurseries and Great Wakering school already full). Our Doctors are already buckling, and the roads and parking (especially around the schools and nurseries) will be absolutely manic.

Further consideration is also split into the following:

Connectivity i.e. public transport
Current public transport options are limited, schedules and availability worse. With this being the case, it means that more people will HAVE to use their cars in order to drop children at their school or pre-school care options. Consideration must be made into safe access for all residents across the village, and the road infrastructure in this village is poor. It seems to be becoming a through road but is not big enough to handle the congestion that we are already experiencing. Walking will also be difficult where possible due to the number of roads without pavements.
Traffic and pinch points/congestion
Already exist areas of concern due to traffic and congestion as well as safety due to blind bends, existing parking, pedestrians, horses, speed etc. There are limited roads in and out of the village, as many of us have experienced when road works are in place, problems very quickly arise.
Parking
Roadside parking often leaves limited space with reports of access concerns for emergency services and safety risks. The impact around schools result in tension and concerns for children’s safety. Consideration must also be taken for those with disabilities or wheelchair users who often find footpaths blocked by poor parking and few suitable access points/pathways.
Doctors and medical
As previously mentioned, the Doctors surgery appears to already be under pressure. Limited local medical services i.e. dentist.
Wildlife and nature
There is great beauty in the local area, and Barling and Great Wakering has always prided itself on the wildlife that thrives in this area. Some rare species have been observed and we would like this to continue..
Drainage
Problems are already widely reported within this area, especially Kimberly Road and next to the Rascals nursery (very close to this proposed site).
Flood risk
Risk from the existing creek should water levels continue to rise as expected, considerations must be taken into future viability.

I hope you look at all of the replies that you receive and decide to leave our village as exactly that or to at least pump in a lot of money in order for our infrastructure to survive your plans. This has always been a place of beauty, please keep it that way.

Please take this email as a formal objection to

Site reference: CFS070
Address: Conway Ave/Shoebury Road
Initial site assessment indicates a potential for x125 houses

My reasons for this, first and foremost is the infrastructure of our village. It cannot cope with more housing developments. With the increase in housing in Shoplands and Barrow Hall (once they are fully occupied) our schools and nurseries will be full (Nurseries and Great Wakering school already full). Our Doctors are already buckling, and the roads and parking (especially around the schools and nurseries) will be absolutely manic.

Further consideration is also split into the following:

Connectivity i.e. public transport
Current public transport options are limited, schedules and availability worse. With this being the case, it means that more people will HAVE to use their cars in order to drop children at their school or pre-school care options. Consideration must be made into safe access for all residents across the village, and the road infrastructure in this village is poor. It seems to be becoming a through road but is not big enough to handle the congestion that we are already experiencing. Walking will also be difficult where possible due to the number of roads without pavements.
Traffic and pinch points/congestion
Already exist areas of concern due to traffic and congestion as well as safety due to blind bends, existing parking, pedestrians, horses, speed etc. There are limited roads in and out of the village, as many of us have experienced when road works are in place, problems very quickly arise.
Parking
Roadside parking often leaves limited space with reports of access concerns for emergency services and safety risks. The impact around schools result in tension and concerns for children’s safety. Consideration must also be taken for those with disabilities or wheelchair users who often find footpaths blocked by poor parking and few suitable access points/pathways.
Doctors and medical
As previously mentioned, the Doctors surgery appears to already be under pressure. Limited local medical services i.e. dentist.
Wildlife and nature
There is great beauty in the local area, and Barling and Great Wakering has always prided itself on the wildlife that thrives in this area. Some rare species have been observed and we would like this to continue..
Drainage
Problems are already widely reported within this area, especially Kimberly Road and next to the Rascals nursery (very close to this proposed site).
Flood risk
Risk from the existing creek should water levels continue to rise as expected, considerations must be taken into future viability.

I hope you look at all of the replies that you receive and decide to leave our village as exactly that or to at least pump in a lot of money in order for our infrastructure to survive your plans. This has always been a place of beauty, please keep it that way.

Please take this email as a formal objection to

Site reference: CFS065
Address: Shoebury Road/New Road
Initial site assessment indicates a potential for x335 houses

My reasons for this, first and foremost is the infrastructure of our village. It cannot cope with more housing developments. With the increase in housing in Shoplands and Barrow Hall (once they are fully occupied) our schools and nurseries will be full (Nurseries and Great Wakering school already full). Our Doctors are already buckling, and the roads and parking (especially around the schools and nurseries) will be absolutely manic.

Further consideration is also split into the following:

Connectivity i.e. public transport
Current public transport options are limited, schedules and availability worse. With this being the case, it means that more people will HAVE to use their cars in order to drop children at their school or pre-school care options. Consideration must be made into safe access for all residents across the village, and the road infrastructure in this village is poor. It seems to be becoming a through road but is not big enough to handle the congestion that we are already experiencing. Walking will also be difficult where possible due to the number of roads without pavements.
Traffic and pinch points/congestion
Already exist areas of concern due to traffic and congestion as well as safety due to blind bends, existing parking, pedestrians, horses, speed etc. There are limited roads in and out of the village, as many of us have experienced when road works are in place, problems very quickly arise.
Parking
Roadside parking often leaves limited space with reports of access concerns for emergency services and safety risks. The impact around schools result in tension and concerns for children’s safety. Consideration must also be taken for those with disabilities or wheelchair users who often find footpaths blocked by poor parking and few suitable access points/pathways.
Doctors and medical
As previously mentioned, the Doctors surgery appears to already be under pressure. Limited local medical services i.e. dentist.
Wildlife and nature
There is great beauty in the local area, and Barling and Great Wakering has always prided itself on the wildlife that thrives in this area. Some rare species have been observed and we would like this to continue..
Drainage
Problems are already widely reported within this area, especially Kimberly Road and next to the Rascals nursery (very close to this proposed site).
Flood risk
Risk from the existing creek should water levels continue to rise as expected, considerations must be taken into future viability.

I hope you look at all of the replies that you receive and decide to leave our village as exactly that or to at least pump in a lot of money in order for our infrastructure to survive your plans. This has always been a place of beauty, please keep it that way.

Please take this email as a formal objection to

Site reference: CFS004
Address: Land on Little Wakering Road next to Barling Magna School
Initial site assessment indicates a potential for x26 houses

My reasons for this, first and foremost is the infrastructure of our village. It cannot cope with more housing developments. With the increase in housing in Shoplands and Barrow Hall (once they are fully occupied) our schools and nurseries will be full (Nurseries and Great Wakering school already full). Our Doctors are already buckling, and the roads and parking (especially around the schools and nurseries) will be absolutely manic.

Further consideration is also split into the following:

Connectivity i.e. public transport
Current public transport options are limited, schedules and availability worse. With this being the case, it means that more people will HAVE to use their cars in order to drop children at their school or pre-school care options. Consideration must be made into safe access for all residents across the village, and the road infrastructure in this village is poor. It seems to be becoming a through road but is not big enough to handle the congestion that we are already experiencing. Walking will also be difficult where possible due to the number of roads without pavements.
Traffic and pinch points/congestion
Already exist areas of concern due to traffic and congestion as well as safety due to blind bends, existing parking, pedestrians, horses, speed etc. There are limited roads in and out of the village, as many of us have experienced when road works are in place, problems very quickly arise.
Parking
Roadside parking often leaves limited space with reports of access concerns for emergency services and safety risks. The impact around schools result in tension and concerns for children’s safety. Consideration must also be taken for those with disabilities or wheelchair users who often find footpaths blocked by poor parking and few suitable access points/pathways.
Doctors and medical
As previously mentioned, the Doctors surgery appears to already be under pressure. Limited local medical services i.e. dentist.
Wildlife and nature
There is great beauty in the local area, and Barling and Great Wakering has always prided itself on the wildlife that thrives in this area. Some rare species have been observed and we would like this to continue..
Drainage
Problems are already widely reported within this area, especially Kimberly Road and next to the Rascals nursery (very close to this proposed site).
Flood risk
Risk from the existing creek should water levels continue to rise as expected, considerations must be taken into future viability.

I hope you look at all of the replies that you receive and decide to leave our village as exactly that or to at least pump in a lot of money in order for our infrastructure to survive your plans. This has always been a place of beauty, please keep it that way.

Good morning, i have seen plans for the area intended to be built on. I am fully aware of the need for housing, i am also aware of the need for farming land especially with the shortage of lorry drivers. Being aware of the Thames gateway building so many houses by a certain date and if the councils don't build, government will come in and take the land anyway. There should be a balance, maybe not so many houses near to villages that have a low crime rate and nearer industrial areas eg. B & Q and crematorium. This could provide more revenue aswell for the new stadium when built.
A lot of people in the Wakering /Barling area chose to be here as it is a vast difference from hugely popuated areas, children do feel safer here. To put too many houses near will take away the character and uniqueness away from the village.

Having seen the plans for possible development over the Rochford district I am very disappointed and saddened and would like to raise the following concerns:

- the current infrastructure serving the routes from Battlesbridge through to Southend is insufficient for the current population. Routes such as ashingdon road, lower road are often at standstills or an average of 10mph during rush hour, school hours, a car or lorry blocking the road or even just the bin men

- our doctor’s surgery’s are full, not enough doctors or staff to serve the number of patients and therefore people are waiting too long to be seen

- where we currently live in Barling, we don’t even have sufficient gas pipes due to utility companies poor installation. Numerous times have we lost gas due to water in the pipes. The solution is constantly temporary and never properly fixed. How could this possibly serve another 1000 houses?

- to see shopland road, Barling road and barrow hall road on these possible future plans is shocking. Our roads are narrow, not suitable to cater for another 5000+ people, our doctors surgeries, our small primary school that is it physically big enough for anymore students than it currently has, we have no secondary school other than our children getting the bus to rochford, and most of all our British countryside which is one of the only places left between Southend and Battlesbridge. This cannot happen for the sake of our future generations.

If these plans go ahead then we will lose villages, become congested and lose our green fields that is so important countryside and what England is known for.

Please consider all the above and more before building in our district.

I wish to submit comments with regard to the Spatial Options Consultation, specifically around the 20 sites resulting in a potential 3.5K houses across the villages of Barling, Little Wakering & Great Wakering.

I will endeavour to complete the online feedback for each site but to ensure clarity of my concerns I have also addressed them within this email for your reference. Whilst I understand numbers need to be met, and the person receiving correspondence associated with this project is not responsible, I have great concern for our future and that of younger generations.

Schools and education
• Limited nurseries in the village with many already unable to accept children without the added pressure of further housing and families.
• Primary education - Great Wakering is already at capacity, Barling Magna is close and currently has a class without a dedicated classroom – this is against the Department for Educations guidelines, we are already failing current pupils without increased pressure.
• Some secondary schools offer dedicated buses, however general connections and access is limited.
Connectivity i.e. public transport
Current public transport options are limited, schedules and availability worse. Consideration must be made into safe access for all residents across the village, road infrastructure and the impact that increased vehicles will have. Rail access is currently not viable on foot or cycling.

Traffic and pinch points/congestion
Already exist areas of concern due to traffic and congestion as well as safety due to blind bends, existing parking, pedestrians, horses, speed etc. There are limited roads in and out of the village, as many of us have experienced when road works are in place, problems very quickly arise. A great example was recent roadworks resulting in gridlock along Little Wakering Road at school pick up time when Barling Road was closed.

Parking
Roadside parking often leaves limited space i.e. single track traffic, often there are reports of access concerns for emergency services and safety risks as a result of limited spaces and increased vehicles within the village. The impact around schools result in tension and concerns for children’s safety. Consideration must also be taken for those with disabilities or wheelchair users who often find footpaths blocked by poor parking and few suitable access points/pathways.

Doctors and medical
The Doctors surgery is often a topic of discussion due to difficulties getting appointments, increased residents will simply impact this further. To my knowledge there is one medical centre for both villages and I would be interested to understand recommended capacity for care under the Department for health.
With regard to other medical services, I believe these are also limited, for example I don’t believe there is a dentist locally.

Wildlife and nature
There is great beauty in the local area, wildlife thrives, and some rare species have been observed. It is vital to protect green areas, to protect wildlife and insects as these all support human existence.

A127/A13 access
Access to the South East is widely limited to the A127 and A13, these roads are already congested and result in delays and pollution levels locally.

Parks and open spaces
Parks and public areas are also limited, living in Barling there isn’t a park in the village for local children. In fact the village only offers a church and a school, there are no shops, few pavements and a limited offering for new developments.

Drainage
Problems are already widely reported to exist in Little Wakering Road and Kimberly Road where recently human waste was washed into residents gardens due to increased rainwater and unsuitable drainage.

Flood risk
I believe the creek originally travelled to Barling pond, should water levels continue to rise as expected, considerations must be taken into future viability.

Complimentary Designs
It is vital that any developments are complimentary in their designs to any existing properties and the village feel. Sadly developments already completed are not in keeping with historic buildings.
The tip road which was argued against and supposedly temporary, remains in place. The mounds as a result are now visible from several areas across the village and pollution caused by large vehicles still travelling back and forth extremely unfortunate.

Fair local knowledge and consideration
I understand that of the group leading the consultation – none live within the villages potentially affected. It is therefore vital to share local views and impact that developments may cause. It is also key to understand if the owners of the identified land are in agreement.

Should further detail/research/evidence be required for any of the above claims or concerns please let me know, whilst this isn’t an immediate problem, it would be remiss to not consider long term impacts. Now is time to act responsibly, both for the environment and future generations.

OBJECTION TO ANY MORE DEVELOPMENT IN GREAT WAKERING

I would like to express significant objection to any additional planned development in or around Great Wakering.

Summary


How can Great Wakering Village cope with any more development?


Context


Wakering Primary Academy is already full and has had incidents of siblings being separated to different schools due to lack of available spaces in Wakering Primary Academy.


The Wakering Doctors Surgery is overwhelmed (check current waiting times for GP appointments as evidence of this)

Traffic volumes are already causing severe congestion around busy periods with the school run to Wakering Primary causing health and safety issues for both parents and young children alike, examples being parents forced to park directly on pavements during drop offs and pick ups due to limited space.
This planned development could see a possible 600 extra cars in a village simply unable to cope now so the question must be asked: how is this even being considered?


Local Plan - Rochford Council


From the plans shared publicly to date the development proposal appears to be targeted on green belt land, the legality of which (unless there has been a change in HMG legislation) is open to challenge in court and therefore should be reviewed independently before proceeding any further.


There are no plans to increase the infrastructure in Great Wakering therefore the support to these new builds in Great Wakering is simply nonexistent. Notwithstanding this the following new builds have still been proposed;


Star Lane. 270 builds
Little Wakering Road. 120 builds
Alexander Street. 25 builds
This amounts to 315 in total

I look forward to hearing more on this issue either directly from yourselves or through further public consultation before this is escalated to our elected MP.

Good Afternoon,

I am sure you have been inundated with responses following the Spatial Options Papers circulated to residents of Rochford and Wakering. Firstly one has to enquire as to who actually decided to put the plans forward in such a confusing way? It is beyond me but one could assume to avoid any negative responses.

I have lived in Little Wakering for around 28years, when the ‘village’ was indeed a village and over the years we have seen it grow and grow and grow ie more housing, Alexanda Road being one of the first, then Star Lane development, then any little spaces along LWR, then the Red Lion Public house, demolished for housing oh and don’t forget our local petrol station and off licence, demolished for housing and it goes on and on.

The only thing which never alters are our schools and roads. We are at saturation point and that’s before the new builds along Barrow Hall Road are sold, yes there has to be a continuation of new housing but surely there has to be schools, doctors surgeries and recreational things too?

There are many people who are fed up with how Little Wakering is being developed on and like me, would like it stop.