Q59d. Are there areas that require protecting from development?

Q1. Are there any other technical evidence studies that you feel the Council needs to prepare to inform its new Local Plan, other than those listed in this section?
We feel strongly that a local highways study needs to take place. The document only refers to a study of the main roads in the south Essex infrastructure position statement. This states in 4.2.4 that much of the main road network which leads to our district is operating at, or near, capacity in peak periods.
We cannot understand why Rochford District Council (RDC) would base its planning upon the 2025 flood risk area when developments could reasonably be expected to be in place for more than 100+ years. All evidence from the IPCC and other scientific institutions demonstrate that global sea level rise is a real and presently accelerating threat. In addition, the British Geological survey shows that the Eurasian tectonic plate is tilting along an axis between the Wash and the Bristol Channel, this means that Essex is sinking at a rate of 0.4 to 0.7mm per year (ref. research carried out at Durham University and published in the Journal ‘GSA Today’). These projections are not the worst-case scenario, and the sea level rise could be much worse if climate change continues raising temperatures beyond 1.5 degrees centigrade.
The map generated by Coastal Climate Central for 2050 shows that all of the promoted sites to the west of Hullbridge will be in the flood risk area, and that those to the North East of Hullbridge are also in the flood risk area. RDC needs to ensure that no site at risk of flooding by 2050 is developed.
The Coastal Climate Central 2050 map shows large part of Rochford including Hullbridge below flood levels:
https://coastal.climatecentral.org/map/15/0.6252/51.6246/?theme=sea_level_rise&map_ type=year&basemap=roadmap&contiguous=true&elevation_model=best_available&fo recast_year=2050&pathway=rcp45&percentile=p50&refresh=true&return_level=return_ level_1&slr_model=kopp_2014

Q2. Do you agree with our draft vision for Rochford District?


We believe that the vison should take into consideration the differences in towns and villages; for example, Rayleigh or Rochford may have a more business focus, whereas Hullbridge may be more of a rural community with a greater need to cater for its older population who do not need employment but do need more health services. In principle, the results of this consultation need to feed into it to make specific plans for each settlement.
Q3. Do you agree that we should develop a range of separate visions for each of our settlements to help guide decision-making?


We agree that there should be separate visions for each settlement, however, these should be determined by each Parish Council working with its own residents - this is the appropriate level of localisation. Whilst agreeing with the principle of the localisation approach, it is not visible in the document as a whole. As we have already covered, there should be separate visons for each settlement. In this way it will support planning decisions at a local and district level to ensure the unique character of each distinct settlement remains rather than developing into one indistinct mass.


Q4. Do you agree with the strategic priorities and objectives we have identified?


Strategic Option 2 fails to address the problem of the aging population within the district. This is in large part due to the failure to provide adequate low rent social housing to enable young people to remain in the district and to develop stable family units. The failure of Housing Associations to meet this need is well documented nationally, and locally the largest Housing Association (Sanctuary) has a poor record of maintaining properties and honouring contractual promises made when the RDC’s housing stock transferred. The strategy should provide council housing (preferably directly managed) with genuinely affordable rents and secure tenancies in small local exception sites. There also needs to be provision within these sites for social housing accommodation for elderly residents.
With regard to objective 12 we are concerned that Rayleigh tip has been put forward for development. If so there still needs to be a site for waste disposal close to Rayleigh. The restrictions on vans needs to be lifted to prevent fly tipping.
We believe that sufficient primary school places should be provided within local communities, and steps should be taken to minimise the use of cars to transport children to schools; we are concerned that this is currently not the case.
Strategy Options

Q5. Do you agree with the settlement hierarchy presented?


Yes, the hierarchy seems logical. We feel the strategy should take into account that many more people are working from home, reducing the need to commute to employment centres.
Q6. Which of the identified strategy options do you consider should be taken forward in the Plan?


It seems that some elements of option 1 and 3 will be required but given the requirement to build more homes the least disruptive option preferred by us would be to go for option 3a. Option 3a has the advantage of being close to the existing road hubs (A127 and A130) and services. It would also be of a sufficient scale to attract section 106 funding for vital infrastructure. 3a would also be close to employment opportunities in Wickford and Basildon.

Option 3b would create considerable pressure on the existing road network and would erode the green belt separation of Southend and Rochford.

Option 3c would place development within the flood risk area and not be sustainable without the need for major road building that would open up the green belt to considerable development in the Crouch Valley.

The building of a major bypass road (as promoted by landowners in the past) to deal with congestion caused by 3b and 3c would destroy the green environment of Rochford and generate further development within the green belt. Development in the villages should be small scale and focussed on providing homes for young families and the elderly.

Small ‘exception’ housing developments added to the village settlements could provide council housing, sheltered housing and bungalows to meet the needs of low-income young families and the elderly. Such provision for the elderly could free up existing houses for younger residents and families to purchase.

Q7. Are there any reasonable alternatives to these options that should be considered instead?


Using option 3a as a starting point, other areas could be developed in future using option 1 when the infrastructure is planned and/or in place.
Restrict overdevelopment in rural and village communities to protect the character of village life.

Spatial Themes

Q8. Are there any key spatial themes that you feel we have missed or that require greater emphasis?


We are concerned about the fact that access was denied to the topic papers, and wholeheartedly believe that the existing lifestyle of the area should be protected from overdevelopment.


Q9. Do you agree we should take a sequential approach to flood risk and coastal change in our plan, locating development away from areas at risk of flooding and coastal change wherever possible? How can we best protect current and future communities from flood risk and coastal change?
We agree that it is imperative that both flood risk and coastal change should be central to any development plans going forward; for us in Hullbridge, many of the proposed sites to the west of the existing settlement are projected to be deep within flooding territory by 2050, as are numerous ones in the east as well. With 2050 now less than three decades away, and no sign of any imminent alteration in the path of climate change, development in any of the areas identified to be in potential flood plains today and in the near future must not be considered.


Q10. Do you agree that the Coastal Protection Belt and Upper Roach Valley should be protected from development that would be harmful to their landscape character? Are there other areas that you feel should be protected for their special landscape character?


The main concern that we have about the Coastal Protection Belt is that it only extends up until 2025 – other areas would need to be included past this date because, as we have mentioned previously, the flood plains across the Rochford district will be vastly different by 2050. It is our view that any and all housing developments proposed in flood plains, current and near future, must not be approved and those that are approved should be given the assurance of protection from flooding over the coming decades. Closer to home, we believe that the river front in Hullbridge should equally be protected for its special landscape character. We would also like to make it known we are very supportive and enthusiastic about the Central Woodlands Arc and the Island Wetland proposals.


Q11. Do you agree we should require development to source a percentage of their energy from low-carbon and renewable sources? Are there other opportunities in the District to supply low-carbon or renewable energy?


Providing that the development is affordable and deliverable, and the cost is not lumped onto the buyer for many years to come then this is the right decision as the future rests in renewable energy. A solar farm in a place that will not impact its surroundings to solar panels ought to be considered and/or wind turbines on Foulness Island.


Q12. Do you agree we should require new development to achieve energy efficiency standards higher than building regulations? What level should these be set at?


Ideally BREEAM Very Good or Good, as long as the brunt of the cost is not rested on the shoulders of the buyer and that these homes are affordable.

Q13. How do you feel the plan can help to support the local generation of low-carbon and renewable energy? Are there locations where you feel energy generation should be supported?


The installation of wind and solar power generators, in locations such as Foulness, would certainly assist in supporting the local generation of low-carbon and renewable energy which is a necessity in the modern day.

Q14. Do you consider that the plan should include a place-making charter that informs relevant policies? Should the same principles apply everywhere in the District, or should different principles apply to different areas?
Yes, these should be settlement specific, to allow for the maintenance of the integrity and specific characteristics of each area, sufficiently detailed to avoid confusion, and widely distributed.

Q15. Are the principles set out in the draft place-making charter the right ones? Are there other principles that should be included?


Yes, provided individual settlements are consulted and these are adhered to.

Q16a. Do you consider that new design guides, codes or masterplans should be created alongside the new Local Plan?
Yes, providing that each individual settlement is at the heart of it and considered as their own entities with their own individual characteristics. It is imperative that certain areas are protected completely, and that any future developers are aware of the identified characteristics of each area.

Q16b. If yes, do you think it is more appropriate to have a single design guide/code for the whole District, or to have design guides/codes/masterplans for individual settlements or growth areas?


Design guides should be area specific under one singular guide which is inclusive to the whole district – providing it remains flexible to local conditions.

Q16c. What do you think should be included in design guides/codes/masterplans at the scale you are suggesting?

As long as the character and aesthetic are maintained concurrently with necessary growth, nothing else needs to be included.

Housing for All

Q17. With reference to the options listed above, or your own options, how do you feel we can best plan to meet our need for different types, sizes and tenures of housing?


Meet the need for different types, sizes and tenures of housing (including Affordable, Social, Council and Specialist Housing) by requiring a standard non-negotiable mix of housing to be provided on all housing developments.
New homes should meet the standards set out in Parts M4(2) or M4(3) of Building Regulations.

Q18. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there areas or sites in Rochford that you feel require a specific approach to housing types, size and tenure? What is required to meet housing needs in these areas?

There is too much focus currently across the district on the provision of 4/5 bedroom properties. This focus needs to shift towards 2/3 bedroom properties which would benefit more local residents/families in search of their first home. "Affordable" homes should not only be flats/apartments but other property types also.
1/2 bed bungalows (or similar) should be a priority, as with an ageing population, there will be increasing demand for such properties when elderly residents are looking to downsize. RDC should actively discourage bungalows being converted into larger properties. Additional provision for residential care is also a priority.
These can all be accommodated within Strategy Option 3a.

Q19. Are there any other forms of housing that you feel we should be planning for? How can we best plan to meet the need for that form of housing?


Affordable homes and social housing to enable single persons or families buy or rent their own home.
Specialist homes for the disabled.
Smaller dedicated properties for the older generation, to enable them to downsize from larger properties, thereby freeing-up larger properties for younger families.

Q20. With reference to the options listed, or your own options, what do you think is the most appropriate way of meeting our permanent Gypsy and Traveller accommodation needs?


The failure to provide traveller sites has led to many unauthorised sites within the green belt being granted planning permission on appeal. With Michelin Farm no longer being an option, RDC needs to identify an alternative appropriate site(s) either from within its ownership or purchased specifically for the purpose. This site(s) should be located so that it (they) does not cause difficulties with established communities; fly-tipping and the impact on nearby residents being just one example. Perhaps, particular consideration of a contained site(s) within the Green Belt, so as to obviate the likelihood of unplanned, piecemeal and unauthorised sites fragmenting the green belt.
Consideration also needs to be given to the fact that there are different groups within the Traveller communities who do not want to be placed together and perhaps ways can be found to integrate these into everyday life and housing.

Q21. With reference to the options listed, or your own options, what do you think is the most appropriate way of meeting our temporary Gypsy and Traveller accommodation needs?


Some Traveller Groups tend to make their own arrangements to use owned land on a temporary basis. RDC needs to identify a site(s) either from within its ownership or purchased specifically for this purpose. It (they) would need to be sufficiently away from residences that they would not be disturbed or troubled by vehicles/caravans arriving or leaving. Perhaps a pre-payment/booking system could be introduced for this purpose and at the same time, reducing the likelihood of over-crowding.

Q22. What do you consider would need to be included in a criteria-based policy for assessing potential locations for new Gypsy and Traveller sites?
Locate sites close to main roads to enable easy access for large vehicles, so that residential roads are not congested and nearby residents are not disturbed. Allow a little room for expansion and limit the likelihood encroachment onto neighbouring land.
Locate away from spaces of national, regional, local or community interest or recreation, so as not to spoil the visual amenity of the landscape.
The sites should not be closed and available to the whole Traveller community.

Employment and Jobs

Q23. With reference to the options listed above, or your own options, how do you feel we can best ensure that we meet our employment and skills needs through the plan?


In addition to employment option 11 which states: Working with neighbouring authorities to identify land for higher or further education facilities where this would address current and future skills shortages, information should be collected and made available on where there are shortages or opportunities coming up. Offer advice to adults wishing to or needing to reskill. Provide local affordable adult education courses on the skills needed. Work with employers, education centres and Essex County Council.

With reference to employment option 4 that states: Meeting future needs by prioritising the delivery of new employment space alongside any new strategic housing developments. This should apply to the larger scale developments described in spatial strategy option 3. Employment option 4 goes on to specify live work units as an option. This would help with increasing numbers of people working from home. Also start up business centres and co-working spaces would be useful and there are many self-employed people and small businesses in this area. A sympathetic attitude is required towards people running a business from home provided that the impact on the surrounding area is minimal.

In all of this we need to be mindful of paragraph 83 of the NPPF which requires policies and decisions to accommodate local business needs in a way which is sensitive to the surroundings and prioritises the reuse of existing sites and buildings.

Q24. With reference to Figure 30, do you consider the current employment site allocations to provide enough space to meet the District’s employment needs through to 2040? Should we seek to formally protect any informal employment sites for commercial uses, including those in the green belt?


Consider any brownfield site for employment use these are currently mainly getting used for housing. There needs to be employment opportunities even in the smaller settlements if we are going to be greener and cut down on transport use. Employment option 6 states: Meeting future needs by prioritising the regularisation of informal employment sites such as those shown on figure 30. This would make employment accessible to people living in the rural communities especially if other farms able to do this could also be identified. Most of the sites are in the western half of the district it would be useful to identify a few more sites in the east to make this a policy that serves the whole district.

Any use that is not heavily disruptive to the surrounding area should be permitted. Planning officers should be able to permit reasonable adjustments requested by residents to make extensions and adaptations to their homes to accommodate working from home or running a business from home.

Q25. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to deliver new employment facilities or improvements to existing employment facilities?


Our preferred spatial strategy option is 3a. Concentrated growth is required to bring the necessary infrastructure to make business and employment growth viable. There needs to be links to main roads to accommodate the commercial traffic required to service industry. Improvements to public transport to employment sites are needed.

Employment option 4 which states: Meeting future needs by prioritising the delivery of new employment space alongside any new strategic housing developments, could be delivered by strategy 3a.

Employment Strategy 6, which meets future needs by prioritising the regularisation of informal employment sites, would help deliver more businesses and employment. Employment option 3 refers to Saxon Business Park, Michelin Farm and Star Lane; we should continue to expand and improve these sites. However this needs to be done in conjunction with other options not as a stand-alone policy. These two strategies are needed and can be included in any of the spatial options.

Q26. Are there any particular types of employment site or business accommodation that you consider Rochford District is lacking, or would benefit from?


Sites set aside for education and health uses in addition to the services they provide, they also provide good employment opportunities. Sites also for High and Low Technology. Foulness would be ideal for green industries.

Q27. Are there other measures we can take through the plan to lay the foundations for long-term economic growth, e.g. skills or connectivity?


Provide appropriate schools and colleges to serve the increase in population due to high development, but locate with public transport links and accessibility by walking or cycling in mind. Also work with neighbouring authorities to identify land for higher or further education facilities where this would address current and future skills shortages as stated in employment option 11.

Work with bus companies and Essex County Council to make our existing employment sites as accessible as possible. Improve footpaths and cycle tracks using government funding applied for by Rochford District Council. Move away from planning employment sites in places that are designed to be accessed by car use. Some employment is going to have to be close to settlements. This of course would have to be take into account paragraph 83 of the NPPF which requires policies and decisions to accommodate local business needs in a way which is sensitive to the surroundings and prioritises the reuse of existing sites and buildings.

Q28. With reference to the options listed above, or your own options, how do you feel we can best manage the Airport’s adaptations and growth through the planning system?


Protect the airport and encourage airport linked transport adjacent or close to the airport eg, existing airport industrial park and Saxon Business Park. Both airport growth and industry will promote jobs.

The transport system both road network and public transport needs to be improved to make these growing opportunities accessible for all.

Biodiversity

Q29. Do you agree that the plan should designate and protect areas of land of locally important wildlife value as a local wildlife site, having regard to the Local Wildlife Sites review? Are there any other sites that you feel are worthy of protection?


YES

While Hockley Woods does not seem to be mentioned here, we would have thought this ancient woodland (and similar woodland), and its important wildlife habitat should be included as it provides for a number of rare species including lesser spotted woodpeckers and hawfinches.

The lower Crouch Valley, the River Crouch and its banks are important habitats for fauna including birds that are on the endangered species red list. This includes curlews, whimbrels, and other wading birds. The pasture land flanking the Crouch towards Battlesbridge is an important habitat for skylarks and other species; these areas should be protected.
Restrict development in all other green belt areas, in order to protect nature. Alongside this, provide protection for nature reserves, parkland and areas fronting rivers.

Q30. Do you agree that the plan should designate and protect areas of land of locally important geological value as a local geological site, having regard to the Local Wildlife Sites review? Are there any other sites that you feel are worthy of protection


Yes, as we have already stated, many areas provide habitats for endangered or rare wildlife and therefore are more than worthy of protection.

Q31. Do you consider net gains for biodiversity are best delivered on-site or off-site? Are there specific locations or projects where net gain projects could be delivered?

Onsite reduced developments in general will assist moving new developments to high unemployment areas.
We agree with the central woodlands arc and island wetlands proposals.

Green and Blue Infrastructure

Q32. With reference to the options above, or your own options, how do you feel we can best deliver a quality green and blue infrastructure network through the plan?


More investment is required in many areas of infrastructure, from roads to general services. It would be beneficial to green ideals to restrict or ban development in or near green belt sites and to keep development in the rural areas to a minimum.

Q33. With reference to the options above, or your own options, how do you feel we can best deliver a quality green and blue infrastructure network through the plan?


By lobbying central government to allow revision of RDC plans to support a quality green and blue infrastructure.
Q34. With referene to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to help deliver new strategic green and blue infrastructure?


Concentrate on brownfield and town sites in order to protect rural communities and the green belt – as previously alluded, options 3 or 4 mean less development in rural areas and are therefore more accommodating to the needs of smaller rural areas like Hullbridge, hence our choice of option 3a.

Community Infrastructure

Q35. With reference to the options above, or your own options, how can we address the need for sufficient and accessible community infrastructure through the plan?


Build property where there is existing infrastructure or where infrastructure can be expanded without encroaching on green belt etc.
A survey needs to be carried out on local roads to determine what is needed to be upgraded to achieve any sustainable way for traffic, both domestic and that which uses these as through roads.
With reference to Hullbridge much of it is unadopted roads and cannot support any development, let alone be able to accommodate the use of these roads as through roads for both building access and ultimate through road access to any development.

Provide schools for development areas and provide transport links to these schools. Local schools, both primary and secondary, are already struggling with the increase in pupil numbers coupled with limited capacity.

Q36. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to deliver new or improved community infrastructure?


Funds were given via section 106 to expand Hullbridge Healthcare Centre and provide more school places - neither of these has happened. The section 106 money from the existing Malyons Farm development urgently needs to be made available to both the Hullbridge Healthcare Centre and the Hullbridge Primary School.
More development would make the situation untenable, particularly if further section 106 monies were withheld by RDC and not allocated to benefitting the local community where new developments are built.

Q37. Are there areas in the District that you feel have particularly severe capacity or access issues relating to community infrastructure, including schools, healthcare facilities or community facilities? How can we best address these?

Even with section 106 grants, if made available, healthcare facilities in Hullbridge are severely restricted, especially since the pandemic due to doctor shortage. Further development in Hullbridge would worsen healthcare provision and, even with section 106 grants if released by RDC, will not improve the situation.
Whilst this is outside the control of RDC, developments would cause serious issues particularly as Hullbridge traditionally has an ageing population - one which is obviously more reliant on healthcare, alongside the inevitability of new patients from current and any new developments.
There are currently inadequate or no existent bus and footpath links to areas east of Hullbridge, such as the Dome Area. Any development to the east of Hullbridge would have transport difficulty and also the impact on Lower Road would be unacceptable; this would be the case even bus links were improved.
The same approach needs to be taken with schools and highways and new residents could be short- changed without easy access to schools, healthcare and employment.
Open Spaces and Recreation

Q38. With reference to the options above, or your own options, how do you feel we can best meet our open space and sport facility needs through the plan?


With reference to open spaces and recreation option 5, we should improve and maintain what we already have, using section 106 money for improvements. We should ensure that any section 106 money does get spent how and where it was intended. No section 106 money should end up being unused.

We should improve bus links to existing facilities in the district, for example Clements Hall where buses used to run in the past (at least in the school holiday periods). There should be an aim to provide permanent all year-round bus services to our main leisure sites.

The Hockley ‘Park Run’ is very popular. Should the proposed Central Woodlands Arc come into being it would be ideal for a park run. Orienteering could be an interesting additional activity; local scouting groups, and schooling groups too, would certainly benefit from this.

Q39. Are the potential locations for 3G pitch investment the right ones? Are there other locations that we should be considering?


We should ensure that any proposal for a 3G pitch has the backing of local residents. For reference, in 2016 a 3G pitch was applied for planning permission by The Fitzwimarc School but turned down by Rochford District Council due the objections of local residents.
The Hullbridge Recreation Ground would be ideal for a new 3G pitch.

Q40. Are the listed potential hub sites and key centres the right ones? Are there other locations that we should be considering?


Primary Schools should also be considered along with any site that could host a hockey or a 5 a side pitch.

Q41. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to help deliver improvements to open space or sport facility accessibility or provision?


Our preferred spatial strategy option is 3a. The section 106 money that comes with the larger developments has more chance of providing good sustainable new facilities.
A bus service needs to be run to facilities like Clements Hall, at least during half term and school holidays, to enable young people to access it from areas where it is currently difficult to access by public transport; this has been done in the past to access sports and in particularly swimming facilities which are not available in Hullbridge or Rawreth.
Swimming facilities were excluded from the Rawreth Lane sport facility.

Q42. Are there particular open spaces that we should be protecting or improving?


Hullbridge Recreation Ground. Our nature reserves, parks and woodlands to promote walking and other appropriate exercising activities.

Heritage

Q43. With reference to the options listed in this section, or your own options, how do you feel we can best address heritage issues through the plan?


Protect village and rural areas from over or inappropriate development through careful planning considerations.

Compose a list of sites with local consultation. Then look maintain them with local residents and organisations.


Q44. Are there areas of the District we should be considering for conservation area status beyond those listed in this section?


Villages fronting riversides: Hullbridge, Paglesham, Canewdon, South Fambridge.

Q45. Are there any buildings, spaces or structures that should be protected for their historic, cultural or architectural significance? Should these be considered for inclusion on the Local List of non-designated assets?


As with protected sites a consultation needs to be done for each locality. With reference to Hullbridge, in addition to the old school, Shell Cottage and River Cottage are already listed. We would add the school house next to the school, Brick Cottages, Tap's Cottage and the Anchor Cottages if they are not already listed/locally listed buildings.

Town Centres and Retail

Q46. With reference to the options listed above, or your own options, how do you think we can best plan for vibrant town centres in Rochford, Rayleigh and Hockley? How can we also ensure our village and neighbourhood centres remain vibrant? [Please state]


Market forces are moving purchases online so town centres need to be more accessible and convenient to encourage day shopping, and also increase night time business where appropriate to take up capacity lost from retail.

Improve transport links to town shopping and amenities. There is no transport link from the Dome that would take their residents into nearby Hockley for example. There are no easy transport links from Hullbridge to Hockley or Rochford.

Q47. Do you agree with the local centre hierarchy set out in Figure 36? If not, what changes would you make? [Please state reasoning]


Protecting businesses generally will not work as commercially if they are not profitable, they will close and we will have empty shops. Rochford District Council needs to encourage business with free parking and reduced business rates.

Businesses should be encouraged to work together with a co-operative nature, or a number of shops all open a little later one night of the week to make it worth shoppers coming out in the early evening. Local eateries could offer special deals on those nights.

Community events that encourage shops and businesses to join in – fairs, celebrations, etc.

Q48. With reference to Figures 38, 39 and 40, do you agree with existing town centre boundaries and extent of primary and secondary shopping frontages in Rayleigh, Rochford and Hockley? If not, what changes would you make? [Please state reasoning]


Keep streets clean and tidy, and repair and repaint street furniture regularly. Conserve the character of the town centres by avoiding high rise development and buildings that are at odds with the street scene.

Q49. Should we continue to restrict appropriate uses within town centres, including primary and secondary shopping frontages within those centres? If yes, what uses should be restricted? [Please state reasoning]


Some existing ok but links to, e.g., Clements Hall from Hullbridge non-existent.

Businesses cannot be forced into staying unless benefits outlined in Q47 are adhered to which may encourage some business opportunities and current business to remain.

Q50. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to deliver improved retail and leisure services in the District? [Please state reasoning]


Spatial strategy 3a will give the most opportunity to expand retail both in terms of including retail space and bringing customers into the town centres nearest to the new developments. The document mentions a cinema. The best site for this would be Saxon Business Park. A bowling alley would work well with this alongside some eateries.

Transport and Connectivity

Q51. With reference to the options above, or your own options, how do you feel we can best address our transport and connectivity needs through the plan?


Certainly, prepare an Infrastructure Delivery Plan that would deliver meaningful improvement to transport networks, including but not exclusively, cycle routes, walking pathways, public transport and roads. However, all these modes are currently completely stretched; modernisation and improvements to all need to happen before future housing developments are built. It should be noted that following the last developments in the Core Strategy, as far as Hullbridge is concerned (and almost certainly elsewhere also), the promised improvements have either not materialised, been completed or proven to be inadequate.
The plan needs to deliver improvements to public transport by working with bus companies to re-establish bus routes to isolated communities that have been either been terminated or severely curtailed. For example, ‘The Dome’ has a bus service twice a week. Residents regularly complain that they are isolated from everywhere else. It is also claimed that Hullbridge has its own bus service that runs 4 - 7 times a day. This is not the experience of Hullbridge residents and it only needs the slightest issue along Hullbridge Road for the service to either be even further curtailed or suspended entirely.
RDC need to continue to work with Government, Highways England, Essex CC etc to deliver meaningful road improvements to both the main road arteries and to the local road network. However, any large-scale bypass scheme such as the "Southend Outer Bypass" scheme needs to be opposed. Not only would it cut directly through the Green Belt but it would increase development along its course, which in turn would have enormous negative impact on the Green Belt itself, natural habitats and the environment generally.

Q52. Are there areas where improvements to transport connections are needed?


Whilst some improvements are shortly to commence at the Fairglen Interchange and A130, further improvements are needed to the Junction of Rawreth Lane and the A1245. Perhaps also the A127 could be widened along its length from four lanes to six lanes.
Additionally, the bus service between Hullbridge and Rayleigh can be cut with the slightest issue along Hullbridge Road and this needs to be addressed urgently. When this happens it consequently results in more vehicles using Hullbridge road, which in turn exacerbates traffic congestion and leads to other problems such as pollution.
A bus service between Rochford and Rayleigh via Hullbridge and Hockley and Rayleigh via Hullbridge would serve to reduce traffic congestion along Lower Road, especially at "rush" hours. This would benefit residents of the Dome as well as properties along the length of Lower Road. It would also serve to provide access for Hullbridge students to access the Greensward Academy that does not exist currently.

Q53. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to deliver new transport connections, such as link roads or rapid transit? What routes and modes should these take? [walking, cycling, rail, bus, road etc.]
Improvements to existing road networks. Large scale bypass schemes, such as the “Southend Outer” bypass would be unacceptable because of the hugely detrimental impact on the Green Belt and its physical and natural environment.
Small low top busses to link smaller communities with larger ones. Trams not a viable option for the more rural areas as roads are too narrow and winding; additionally, would increase congestion on existing roads.
Improvements to the cycle path network, extending and linking the network as and where appropriate and safe.

Green Belt and Rural Issues

Q54. Do you feel that the plan should identify rural exception sites? If so, where should these be located and what forms of housing or employment do you feel need to be provided?


Yes, but not within the Green Belt and Rural and Village life must be safeguarded.
Any such sites must be small scale and have developments that prioritise genuinely "Affordable" homes and/or Social Housing that would benefit local residents/families most.

Q55. Are there any other ways that you feel the plan should be planning for the needs of rural communities?
Support changes that would require developers of 10 units or less to pay something akin to s.106/CIL monies, that would go towards infrastructure improvements, particularly those affecting rural communities.

Planning for Complete Communities

Q56a. Do you agree with our vision for Rayleigh? Is there anything you feel is missing?


N/A


Q56c. Are there areas in Rayleigh that development should generally be presumed appropriate?


N/A


Q56d. Are there areas that require protecting from development?


N/A


Q56e. Do you agree that the local green spaces shown on Figure 44 hold local significance? Are there any other open spaces that hold particular local significance?


N/A

Q57a. Do you agree with our vision for Rochford and Ashingdon?



N/A

Q57b. With reference to Figure 45 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the land edged blue should be made available for any of the following uses?


N/A


Q57c. Are there areas in Rochford and Ashingdon that development should generally be presumed appropriate?


N/A


Q57d. Are there areas that require protecting from development?


N/A



Q57e. Do you agree that the local green spaces shown on Figure 45 hold local significance?

N/A

Q58a. Do you agree with our vision for Hockley and Hawkwell?

N/A

Q58b. With reference to Figure 46 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the land edged blue should be made available for any of the following uses?

N/A

Q58c. Are there areas in Hockley and Hawkwell that development should generally be presumed appropriate?


N/A

Q58d. Are there areas that require protecting from development?


N/A



Q57e. Do you agree that the local green spaces shown on Figure 46 hold local significance? Are there any other open spaces that hold particular local significance?


N/A


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

N/A

Q59b. With reference to Figure 47 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the land edged blue should be made available for any of the following uses?


N/A




Q59c. Are there areas in the Wakerings and Barling that development should generally be presumed appropriate? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]


N/A





Q59d. Are there areas that require protecting from development? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]


N/A


Q59e. Do you agree that the local green spaces shown on Figure 47 hold local significance? Are there any other open spaces that hold particular local significance? [Please state reasoning]


N/A


Q60a. Do you agree with our vision for Hullbridge?


We do not agree with the wording or the aims of the provided vision statement for Hullbridge and have instead drafted our own (see below). We were sceptical about the suggestion that the river could be used for transport without consideration on the viability or environmental impact of this proposal.

Hullbridge will have expanded on its already self-reliant nature, boasting impressive local businesses and amenities – providing a perfect space for those who wish to enjoy their retirement as well as those with young families. Through small, localised and respectable developments, the thriving community and riverside aesthetic of the village remains as strong as ever; all of this has been achieved through the transparency and openness of different local authorities, residents, businesses and developers on any and all developments going forward.

Q60b. With reference to Figure 48 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the land edged blue should be made available for any of the following uses?


The biggest issue with further development in Hullbridge is the distinct lack of infrastructure – whether that be roads, schools, transport and other general services – and so, without even mentioning the fact that many sites lay within the projected 2050 flood plains, the suggestion that further development can take place on any considerable scale is untenable. Any consideration of commercial or community infrastructure, such as youth services, care facilities, or local businesses would equally need to be subject to the same discussion and scrutiny.

Q60c. With reference to Figure 48 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the land edged blue should be made available for any of the following uses?


All of the areas lie within the green belt, and many will be within the projected 2050 flood plains, and so general appropriateness is not met with any; numerous promoted sites are outside walking distance of the majority of services and as such would increase residents using vehicles and increase reliance on our already stretched local infrastructure.

Q60d. Are there areas in Hullbridge that development should generally be presumed appropriate?


Significant portions of Hullbridge remain vital for local wildlife, its habitats, and the natural environment. As such, any and all developments along the River Crouch, the surrounding areas of Kendal Park and those that lie north of Lower Road should be protected from development.

Q60e. Do you agree that the local green spaces shown on Figure 48 hold local significance? Are there areas that require protecting from development?


Yes, all of those identified as such in Figure 48 are definitely areas of local significance and are correct to be identified as such. Other areas that should be outlined include the Rose Garden, the banks of the River Crouch and the upcoming green space and Memorial Gardens provided as part of the recent Malyons Farm development.

Q61a. Do you agree with our vision for Canewdon? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]


N/A


Q61b. With reference to Figure 49 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the land edged blue should be made available for any of the following uses? How could that improve the completeness of Canewdon?


N/A


Q61c. Are there areas in Canewdon that development should generally be presumed appropriate? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]


N/A


Q61d. Are there areas that require protecting from development? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]

N/A

Q61e. Do you agree that the local green spaces shown on Figure 49 hold local significance? Are there any other open spaces that hold particular local significance? [Please state reasoning]

N/A



Q62a. Do you agree with our vision for Great Stambridge? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]


N/A


Q62b. With reference to Figure 50 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the land edged blue should be made available for any of the following uses? How could that improve the completeness of Great Stambridge?


N/A


Q62c. Are there areas in Great Stambridge that development should generally be presumed appropriate? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]

N/A



Q62d. Do you agree that the local green spaces shown on Figure 50 hold local significance? Are there any other open spaces that hold particular local significance? [Please state reasoning]

N/A



Q63a. Do you agree with our vision for Rawreth? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]


N/A





Q63b. With reference to Figure 51 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the land edged blue should be made available for any of the following uses?


N/A


Q63c. Are there areas in Rawreth that development should generally be presumed appropriate? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]


N/A


Q63d. Are there areas that require protecting from development? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]


N/A


Q63e. Do you agree that the local green spaces shown on Figure 51 hold local significance? Are there any other open spaces that hold particular local significance? [Please state reasoning]


N/A


Q64a. Do you agree with our vision for Paglesham? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]


N/A


Q64b. With reference to Figure 52 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the land edged blue should be made available for any of the following uses?


N/A


Q64c. Are there areas in Paglesham that development should generally be presumed appropriate? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]


N/A

Q64d. Are there areas that require protecting from development? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]


N/A


Q65a. Do you agree with our vision for Sutton and Stonebridge? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]


N/A


Q65b. With reference to Figure 53 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the land edged blue should be made available for any of the following uses?


N/A


Q65c. Are there areas in Sutton and Stonebridge that development should generally be presumed appropriate? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]


N/A


Q65d. Are there areas that require protecting from development? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]


N/A


Q65e. Do you agree that the local green spaces shown on Figure 53 hold local significance? Are there any other open spaces that hold particular local significance? [Please state reasoning]


N/A






Q66. Do you agree that our rural communities do not require individual vision statements? Are there communities that you feel should have their own vision? [Please state reasoning]


No - All communities should have their own individual, locally determined vision statements, especially the more rural ones. Each settlement has its own distinct character and the vision statement would serve to aid the planning process in safeguarding their individual character.

Q67. Do you agree with our vision for our rural communities? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]


Yes in the broadest terms. We would want it to re-iterate that the individual character and seeming uniqueness of our rural communities needs to be, and will be, safeguarded. By extension, we would like to see more activity in this regard from all tiers of Government.

Q68. Are there other courses of action the Council could take to improve the completeness of our rural communities?


Respect the green belt that surrounds our rural communities and our higher tier settlements; thereby ensuring a buffer ("defensible boundary") that would actively prevent communities merging into one conglomeration.

Create a Country Park to the west of Hullbridge.

Improve village roads, transport, educational and utility infrastructure. All of which are already in desperate need of improvement and renovation. For example, it is questionable whether the sewerage system in Hullbridge could cope with any further development without expansion and upgrading.

Q1. Are there any other technical evidence studies that
you feel the Council needs to prepare to inform its
new Local Plan, other than those listed in this section?

The Council would expect to see specific reference to:
• The Infrastructure Delivery and Funding Plan
• Level 2 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment
• Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan
These plans are vital to the long-term sustainability assessment of any proposed sites. Without these
we are unable to comment
Evaluation of the impact of current development on the town of Rayleigh
Rochford District Council should produce its own estimate of Housing need with which to Challenge the figures imposed by Westminster, it is known that the nearest neighbours have all done this.
The Town Council cannot comment on the suitability of the sites in the plan without completion of an
Infrastructure Delivery and Funding Plan which is being undertaken at present, why has this consultation been undertaken before this is available. RDC, ECC, and SBC,
I would expect it to see specific reference to
i) the main Roads and the principal junctions and exit points to Rayleigh, there is potential in this
plan is to build on London Road, Eastwood Road, Hockley Road and Hullbridge Road simultaneously.
ii) Consultation with the actual schools in Rayleigh as to capacity, too often there are no places in
specific school.
iii) Consultation with Doctors and Pharmacies as well the local Healthcare Trust, again there is
evidence of no capacity in certain parts of Rayleigh.
iv) Next level HealthCare such as Hospitals, need consulting, as they are overstretched.
v) Air Quality Management - too many parts of Rayleigh have poor CO2/CO readings
Any such Plan would need agreement with Rochford District Council, Essex County Council, and
Southend Borough Council as they are all affected

Q2. Do you agree with our draft vision for Rochford
District? Is there anything missing from the vision that
you feel needs to be included? [Please state
reasoning]
Mostly. Although you have not included enough information on how you might achieve housing for
the hidden homeless or those on low incomes, schemes to allow the elderly in large houses to be able
to downsize or how you plan to provide suitable commercial units of varying sizes, to allow businesses
to up or downsize into a suitably sized premises without them needing to relocate into another area.
No provision for emergency housing.

Q3. Do you agree that we should develop a range of
separate visions for each of our settlements to help
guide decision-making? [Please state reasoning]
Yes, as each settlement has its own characteristics and needs.

Q4. Do you agree with the strategic priorities and
objectives we have identified? Is there anything
missing from the strategic priorities or objectives that
you feel needs to be included? [Please state
reasoning]
No comments.

Q5. Do you agree with the settlement hierarchy
presented? If not, what changes do you think are
required? [Please state reasoning]
Yes. Rayleigh is the largest town in the district but care needs to be taken to maintain the integrity of
the existing settlements with respect to green boundary between Rayleigh and its neighbours.

Q6. Which of the identified strategy options do you
consider should be taken forward in the Plan? [Please
state reasoning]
Creating a new town would enable all the infrastructure to be put in place, allowing more scope for
cycling routes and pedestrianised areas. This will stop the urban sprawl which is currently happening
in the larger town (and proposed in option 1), creating traffic havoc and pollution. A single large
"garden" village, possibly shared with Southend could allow a more environmentally friendly
development. A development that allows the infrastructure to be developed in advance of the
housing.

Q7. Are there any reasonable alternatives to these options that should be considered instead? [Please state
reasoning]
Small development and windfall developments should be included in housing count.

Q8. Are there any key spatial themes that you feel we
have missed or that require greater emphasis? [Please
state reasoning]
Yes: Cultural and Accessibility.

Q9. Do you agree we should take a sequential approach to flood risk and coastal change in our plan, locating
development away from areas at risk of flooding and
coastal change wherever possible? How can we best
protect current and future communities from flood
risk and coastal change? [Please state reasoning]
Yes. You must ensure the district has a suitable plan to protect not only the towns and village communities, their houses and businesses but also the natural areas as well. The district needs adequate defences to limit flooding in all areas, protecting people and wildlife. Maybe these could be incorporated in the “natural” landscape theming so as to deflect any water away from these areas.
New developments not only need to address their carbon footprint but also the design of the housing they build so that they limit flood damage; raised floors, bunded gardens etc.
The plan must include or identify a flood plane that is protected from development.

Q10. Do you agree that the Coastal Protection Belt and
Upper Roach Valley should be protected from
development that would be harmful to their
landscape character? Are there other areas that you
feel should be protected for their special landscape
character? [Please state reasoning]
All the coastal areas and areas of special interest, especially where there is a significant risk of
flooding and harm to the environment need careful consideration.
The Ancient woodlands such as Kingley Woods, Hockley Woods and Rayleigh Grove Woods and all
natural parks, not just the actual woodlands but also the surrounding areas

Q11. Do you agree we should require development to
source a percentage of their energy from low-carbon
and renewable sources? Are there other opportunities
in the district to supply low-carbon or renewable
energy?
Yes.
New developments should be able to source some or all of their energy from renewable sources.

Q12. Do you agree we should require new development to achieve energy efficiency standards higher than
building regulations? What level should these be set
at? [Please state reasoning].
Yes. The Town Council believes that you should aim to achieve a higher standard if possible and
encourage developers to put forward new ways of achieving this. You must plan for future generations and should not be stuck in the past. Why go for minimum standards? Always aim higher! Keep the technology under review to capitalise on new development.

Q13. How do you feel the plan can help to support the local generation of low-carbon and renewable energy? Are there locations where you feel energy generation
should be supported? [Please state reasoning]
Solar in all new development as standard. Incentives to encourage existing developments to install
solar onto their properties as well as any commercial buildings to be fitted with solar to their roofs;
there are many flat roofed buildings all over the district that could accommodate solar panels without
damaging the landscape. Explore tidal energy and seek out suitable locations in order to ascertain
whether it is viable. Retrofitting existing housing and commercial buildings

Q14. Do you consider that the plan should include a placemaking charter that informs relevant policies? Should the same principles apply everywhere in the district, or should different principles apply to different areas? [Please state reasoning]
The district has some very distinct areas and a “one shoe fits all” would be detrimental to some smaller communities. The place-making charter should be bespoke, with each area being considered
in its own right. The rules on building should be strict so as to enhance the areas of development and needs to consider the wider picture in respect of amenities, open spaces, retail, schools, services, pollution, character and accessibility (to name but a few). There should not be deviation of plans unless there are exceptional circumstances. Time and again, SPD2 documents are ignored and ugly extensions and dormers are built to the detriment of the area.

Q15. Are the principles set out in the draft place-making
charter the right ones? Are there other principles that
should be included? [Please state reasoning]
They are, as long as they are adhered to.

Q16.
a. Do you consider that new design guides, codes or
masterplans should be created alongside the new
Local Plan?
Yes.
b. If yes, do you think it is more appropriate to have a
single design guide/code for the whole District, or to
have design guides/codes/masterplans for individual
settlements or growth areas? [Please state reasoning]
You need different design guides as this district is both unique and diverse and the “one shoe fits all"
would be detrimental to its character and charm.
c. What do you think should be included in design
guides/codes/masterplans at the scale you are
suggesting? [Please state reasoning].
You need to ensure that the character and heritage of the settlements are adhered to whilst allowing for some growth, in order to rejuvenate the smaller settlements if needed.

Q17. With reference to the options listed above, or your
own options, how do you feel we can best plan to
meet our need for different types, sizes and tenures of
housing? [Please state reasoning]
By working closely with planners and developers, as well as different charities and communities,
residents and businesses. You will then get a better understanding as to what you need and what will
be achievable.

Q18. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there areas or sites in Rochford that you feel require a specific approach to housing types, size and tenure?
What is required to meet housing needs in these
areas? [Please state reasoning]
The district has a large number of houses, existing and approved that have four or five bedrooms. The number of homes available with two or three bedrooms is minimal, which increases their price and availability. The smaller properties are the ones that need to be affordable for families. You must ensure that the “affordable“ properties are not all flats and that minimum or higher standards are
met for gardens and recreational space. There are sure to be single, elderly residents that would like to downsize from their large family homes, into a smaller, more manageable one but do not wish to go into an assisted living, residential or retirement homes. They may want a one or two bedroomed property, maybe one storey, or low-rise apartment that they own freehold. The Council would like to safeguard the number of smaller bungalows available and make sure that the existing stock is preserved and a suitable number are provided in the housing mix. You need to consider that some residents may need residential care and you should be looking at ways to cope with the rising number of elderly and provide accommodation for them also.
Consideration should be given to the provision of house for life, bungalows and other potential buildings for downsizing families.
The plan makes no reference to social housing quotas.
The district desperately needs to meet the needs of the hidden homeless. People like the adult children on low wages who have no hope of starting a life of their own away from their parents. By living in these conditions, even if the family unit is tight and loving, it will cause mental health issues, stress and anxiety. You also need accessible properties for the disabled members of our community, where they are assisted in order to fulfil a normal as possible life. All these issues, and perhaps many more, need be addressed.

Q19. Are there any other forms of housing that you feel we should be planning for? How can we best plan to meet the need for that form of housing? [Please state
reasoning]
Housing for the hidden homeless – those “sofa surfing”, or adult children living at home with parents as they are on low wages or wages that would not allow them to move out to rent or buy somewhere on their own. Adapted homes for the disabled. Smaller, freehold properties for the older generation to enable them to downsize from large family homes. Emergency housing.

Q20. With reference to the options listed, or your own
options, what do you think is the most appropriate
way of meeting our permanent Gypsy and Traveller
accommodation needs? [Please state reasoning]
You need to find a permanent site that has a little room to expand but not exponentially. The “Traveller” life has changed over the years and you should revisit the criteria for the traveller community to meet the legal requirements. Strong controls are needed to prevent illegal building work and to ensure the site populations do not exceed capacity.

Q21. With reference to the options listed, or your own
options, what do you think is the most appropriate
way of meeting our temporary Gypsy and Traveller
accommodation needs? [Please state reasoning]
See answer to Q20

Q22. What do you consider would need to be included in a criteria-based policy for assessing potential locations
for new Gypsy and Traveller sites? [Please state
reasoning]
See answer to Q20.

Q23. With reference to the options listed above, or your
own options, how do you feel we can best ensure that
we meet our employment and skills needs through
the plan? [Please state reasoning]
The council should stop developing existing commercial land into housing. Too many sites have already been lost and many more are planned to go. Consider how the plan can help those businesses wanting to expand. Work with local schools and colleges, as well as businesses and the job centre, to see what sustainable employment is needed in the district. Incorporate ways to assist in schemes to train all ages get back into work or upskill. Developers should be encouraged to use local labour

Q24. With reference to Figure 30, do you consider the
current employment site allocations to provide
enough space to meet the District’s employment
needs through to 2040? Should we seek to formally
protect any informal employment sites for commercial
uses, including those in the Green Belt? [Please state
reasoning]
No. The current employment site allocations on Figure 30 do not provide enough space to meet the district’s employment needs through to 2040. There are eighty-seven thousand people in the district. There is no data on the form to suggest how many of these are in employment and how many are looking for work but the council need to reassess its future needs in order to future-proof our residents’ opportunities. The plan should only formally protect sites the that have a future and a
potential to expand or continue effectively.

Q25. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to deliver new
employment facilities or improvements to existing
employment facilities?
Option 3 could deliver new opportunities for employment as it would be a new site completely. Industrial units of various sizes, with room for expansion plus retail, hospitality and other employment could be included in the criteria for the development.
Q26. Are there any particular types of employment site or
business accommodation that you consider Rochford
District is lacking, or would benefit from?
Environmental services - woodland conservation and management. (We need to find funding for this
as it is important!) HGV training school and modern transport training. Improve manufacturing base.
Q27. Are there other measures we can take through the
plan to lay the foundations for long-term economic
growth, e.g., skills or connectivity?
Better road networks, gigabit broadband and Wi-Fi. Apprenticeships or training for all ages with jobs
at the end of training. CCTV where appropriate.
Q28. With reference to the options listed above, or your
own options, how do you feel we can best manage the
Airport’s adaptations and growth through the
planning system? [Please state reasoning]
No comments.
Q29. Do you agree that the plan should designate and
protect areas of land of locally important wildlife
value as a local wildlife site, having regard to the Local
Wildlife Sites review? Are there any other sites that
you feel are worthy of protection? [Please state
reasoning]
Yes. You should conform to and improve existing RDC policies for protecting wildlife areas. Everyone should be doing all in their power to protect wildlife sites. All wildlife is important and has been neglected, sites have been slowly lost over the years. Wildlife now enters suburban areas as their own habitats have diminished and they can no longer fend for themselves adequately from nature. Badgers and hedgehogs as well as rabbits, frogs, newts, voles and shrews are declining and are seldom seen apart from dead at the roadside. Bat numbers are declining as their habitats are lost. Designating initial sites is a step in the right direction but more must be done. It is proven that mental health issues can be relieved by nature and keeping the sites sacred is more important now than it ever was.
Keeping a biodiverse environment, with wildlife and the environment in which it relies is paramount. You mention that Doggett Pond no longer meets the standard but are there no steps to improve its status instead of dismissing it? It is obviously an important site for the wildlife in that area. To lose it would be to our detriment. You should be looking at creating new sites with every large housing
development, and protecting them to improve our district and our own wellbeing. Private households should not be allowed to take over grass areas and verges or worse, concreting the verges over for parking and cost savings. These areas, although small are still areas for wildlife. Bees and butterflies are also in decline, as are
the bugs which feed our birds. The plan should create new wildlife meadows to encourage the pollinators in order to future proof our own existence. You should be exploring smaller sites that could be enhanced, managed and protected to give future generations a legacy to be proud of.
Q30. Do you agree that the plan should designate and
protect areas of land of locally important geological
value as a local geological site, having regard to the
Local Wildlife Sites review? Are there any other sites
that you feel are worthy of protection? [Please state
reasoning]
Yes. The plan must protect them for future generations and teach our children their history and importance so that they can continue to keep them safe.
Q31. Do you consider net gains for biodiversity are best
delivered on-site or off-site? Are there specific
locations or projects where net gain projects could be
delivered?
On site. You can then assess in real time and sort out any issues you would not have known about off
site.
Q32. With reference to the options above, or your own
options, how do you feel we can best deliver a quality
green and blue infrastructure network through the
plan? [Please state reasoning]
You need to retain what we already have by ensuring the necessary links are in place to join as many as possible, and ensuring that public rights of way are not blocked by land owners and are kept free from debris. You also need to assess some paths to make them accessible to the disabled so that all is inclusive. There are some green areas that do not have public facilities and it would be advantageous to look into offering this in the larger spaces. For example, a small toilet block and hand washing facilities in the car park. Obtaining funding from new developments that can enhance existing areas as
well as providing new spaces and facilities. The sites should be well-maintained.
Q33. Do you agree that the central woodlands arc and
island wetlands, shown on Figure 32 are the most
appropriate areas for new regional parklands? Are
there any other areas that should be considered or
preferred? [Please state reasoning]
They are a step in the right direction, but you need to assess periodically in order to be able to add further links to any new parkland that may be created in the future. The map is unclear as it does not show exact routes. There is a large open space to the South West of Rayleigh (on the border), South of Bardfield Way and The Grange/Wheatley Wood, which could be enhanced. Existing sites must be retained
Q34. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to help deliver new
strategic green and blue infrastructure? [Please state
reasoning]
Enhancing existing areas and ensuring developers include green space and recreational facilities
within their developments. A new, separate development would be able to deliver this within their plan layout. Ensuring there are suitable links, access and footpaths. Making sure some of these footpaths are maintained and accessible for the disabled.
Q35. With reference to the options above, or your own
options, how can we address the need for sufficient
and accessible community infrastructure through the
plan? [Please state reasoning]
Assess the shortfall of facilities and networks before plans are approved so that adequate planning
and funding can be secured before any building takes place.
Q36. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to deliver new or
improved community infrastructure? [Please state
reasoning]
A new town would have this infrastructure built into its plans. Funding for improvements must otherwise come from developers if an area is already overpopulated.
Q37. Are there areas in the District that you feel have
particularly severe capacity or access issues relating to
community infrastructure, including schools,
healthcare facilities or community facilities? How can
we best address these? [Please state reasoning]
Rayleigh is overcrowded; it has a road network no longer fit for purpose, some schools are near to capacity, it is difficult to obtain a GP or dental appointment. There is little to no disabled play areas or play equipment. There are always issues with waste collections, drain and road cleaning and verge trimming. The District Council does not have the staff to deal with all these issues. The council should either build another waste recycling site, or develop a better waste collection program which allows extra waste to be collected next to the bin. The current recycling site at Castle Road is no longer
capable of expanding to meet the needs of an ever-growing population. The plan should also identify
a site to accommodate commercial waste facilities to stop fly tipping.
Q38. With reference to the options above, or your own
options, how do you feel we can best meet our open
space and sport facility needs through the plan?
[Please state reasoning]
Improve what we already have. The tennis courts on Fairview Park needs improvement. Safeguard our open spaces to protect wildlife and recreation. Develop different types of sporting facilities. We need to offer free recreation.
Q39. Are the potential locations for 3G pitch investment
the right ones? Are there other locations that we
should be considering? [Please state reasoning]
All-weather facilities should be considered
Q40. Are the listed potential hub sites and key centres the right ones? Are there other locations that we should
be considering? [Please state reasoning]
They look suitable. They will probably need funding.
Q41. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to help deliver
improvements to open space or sport facility accessibility or provision?
A new development would be able to deliver this in their plans or fund improvements for existing facilities in line with national strategy and requirements.
Q42. Are there particular open spaces that we should be
protecting or improving? [Please note, you will have
an opportunity to make specific comments on open
spaces and local green spaces in the settlement
profiles set out later in this report]
The sites will be specific in each parish. You must protect all of these recreational spaces and improve them, if necessary. Once lost to development, they can never come back.
Q43. With reference to the options listed in this section, or your own options, how do you feel we can best
address heritage issues through the plan? [Please
state reasoning]
You should reassess the planning policies regarding alterations made to the buildings on the heritage
list, especially those in conservation areas. There have been a few occasions where buildings of “interest” (or other) have been altered, and that places in conservation areas have been allowed canopies, shutters and internal illumination of signage without challenge. Any building work should be sympathetic to the area and you should require corrections to unauthorised changes, even if they
have been in place for some time. Shop fronts are huge areas of uninteresting glass with garish colours. No objections are raised to signage and advertising that is out of character with a conservation area in a heritage town. Ensure statutory bodies are consulted and heeded.
You should take effective actions to manage the footways, ‘A’ boards and barriers are obstructions to
those with impaired sight or mobility.
Q44. Are there areas of the District we should be
considering for conservation area status beyond those
listed in this section? [Please state reasoning]
You should not take areas of precious woodland to make way for housing. Sites within the existing Rayleigh Conversation Area should not be considered

Q45. Are there any buildings, spaces or structures that
should be protected for their historic, cultural or
architectural significance? Should these be considered
for inclusion on the Local List of non-designated
assets? [Please state reasoning]
Yes there are many sites of historic importance which should be included.
Q46. With reference to the options listed above, or your
own options, how do you think we can best plan for
vibrant town centres in Rochford, Rayleigh and
Hockley? How can we also ensure our village and
neighbourhood centres remain vibrant? [Please state
reasoning]
You can only have a vibrant town centre if there are shops to go to. If these units are subsequently changed to residential then our town centres will be fractured and uninviting. The new Use Class E will mean it will be even more important for the council to protect our retail outlets. You need to work actively with premises owners in order to assist in the re-letting of any empty shops. Maybe
offer a reduced rent to new businesses as a start-up scheme. You could contain this as a “local”
business only – allowing the entrepreneurs in the Rochford District a chance to showcase their
businesses. You also need to be able to negotiate with the owners of empty shops how they can best strive to fill these premises and if not, then have some visual displays in the windows, perhaps photos of the old towns or useful information, to make them more attractive. Explore business rates levies. Any plan should be reviewed frequently; at least every 5 years
It is a well-documented fact that independent businesses have done better than large chains during Covid as they are able to diversify at short notice. RDC need to incentivise new small or micro businesses into our town centre, either through grant support or another mechanism. Occupied premises create employment, increase footfall and reduce vandalism. Landlords should be engaged with to ensure quick turn-arounds, or for more flexible lease agreements where for example a new
business can take on a shorter lease to test the market.
Good public transport links are crucial for our villages, neighbourhoods and town centres.
Q47. Do you agree with the local centre hierarchy set out in Figure 36? If not, what changes would you make?
[Please state reasoning]
Yes
Q48. With reference to Figures 38-40, do you agree with
existing town centre boundaries and extent of
primary and secondary shopping frontages in
Rayleigh, Rochford and Hockley? If not, what
changes would you make? [Please state reasoning]
Yes.
Q49. Should we continue to restrict appropriate uses within town centres, including primary and secondary
shopping frontages within those centres? If yes, what
uses should be restricted? [Please state reasoning]
Yes. A mix of retailers is essential as a lack of variety will eventually kill off the high streets. We need to have a balance of outlets that keep the area viable as you would lose the vibrancy you are hoping to achieve.
Q50. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to deliver improved
retail and leisure services in the District? [Please state
reasoning]
Unfortunately, there has been a tendency to switch from commercial outlets to residential, where smaller retail areas have been sold off and housing development has been allowed. In a new development there would be scope to add a small, medium or large retail precinct, depending on the development size. Retail parks, leisure areas and outlets are proving in many cases, the preferred option for consumers, normally as a result of having everything in one place, free on-site parking and maximum choice. We feel that some of the sites, whilst not suitable for large housing developments, may be suitable for something of this type. It would create much needed employment, opportunity and tourism for the
area.
Q51. With reference to the options above, or your own
options, how do you feel we can best address our
transport and connectivity needs through the plan?
[Please state reasoning]
The council needs to follow the rule “No development before infrastructure”. Houses are being built without adequate road, pedestrian and cycle networks in place. New developments should be planned with cycle paths and walkways that link up with existing paths. The existing paths need updating and attention
Q52. Are there areas where improvements to transport
connections are needed? What could be done to help
improve connectivity in these areas?
More work needs to be done on the A127 and The Carpenters Arms roundabout. The feeder lanes
proposed some years ago to link the Fairglen interchange with The Rayleigh Weir in both directions is
now essential as this is a bottleneck. Hockley needs another access. Connecting the cycle ways into a
cycle network as part of the plan.
Q53. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to deliver new
transport connections, such as link roads or rapid
transit? What routes and modes should these take?
[Walking, cycling, rail, bus, road etc.]
As the preferred strategy option is 3b, this could create opportunities for improved links to Southend. You should also consider more and smaller buses to link the towns and villages. Designated cycling paths that are separated from existing roads and pavements, but adjacent to our road networks would help improve traffic flow. Ensure the cycle network links with public transport as part of a
complete review of sustainable transport.
Q54. Do you feel that the plan should identify rural
exception sites? If so, where should these be located
and what forms of housing or employment do you feel
need to be provided? [Please note you may wish to
comment on the use of specific areas of land in the
next section]
This may be a suitable option for a retirement village that could be restricted to single storey dwellings only, and could include community facilities such as convenient store, community centre and so on.
Q55. Are there any other ways that you feel the plan should be planning for the needs of rural communities?
[Please stare reasoning]
Better public transport and sustainable transport links.
Q56.
a. Do you agree with our vision for Rayleigh? Is there
anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]
The plan is adequate so far is it goes, but you have more work to do. You must plan for a reduced volume of traffic and air pollution. More attention is needed to initiatives that design-out crime and fear of crime, and this needs to be functional, sustainable and viable. The Draft Vision Statement ignores the over-development, the lack of infrastructure and facilities we already suffer. Indeed, Rochford District Council’s stated aim within their Asset Strategy and the plans of other Public Service providers is to reduce facilities in the Town further. This is at the same time as demand is growing from a sharply increasing population. This is particularly relevant for the growing elderly population. This will make the next 25 years very challenging.
1/ Cycling infrastructure and other sustainable transport methods should be prioritised over a carcentric highway use. We regret we do not because it is unrealistic, our response must be to inject a note of realism looking forward based on RDCs policies and past action. This goes to the heart of the new Local Plan.
We regret a realistic Vision Statement based on the current trajectory of further development recommended in the Draft Local Plan will be rather more dystopian. We could see a Rayleigh chocked by traffic. Although pollution should decrease with electric vehicles the advent of driverless vehicles, both domestic and commercial, servicing an ever-expanding population could result in gridlock. Pollution will increase from fossil burning home heating systems in many of the new homes. Failure to support public transport will inevitably maroon older residents in their homes far from those few
facilities and shops that remain in our town centre.
Public services offered by police and council (most likely giant unitary council catering for half million people based far away in an urban area), will seem very distant to most people. Most of the green open spaces not in public ownership, also some that are publicly owned, will be built on and have disappeared by 2050. Many public facilities and local public service providers will be taken away and sold off to property developers. The town centres will cease to be the shopping and social areas we know today as a result of Council plans and changing shopping habits. Rayleigh retail business will have closed and online and out of town retail parks will prosper with their free parking facilities. In the same way that London boroughs developed through the decades and centuries, the traditional housing we know today, with private gardens will be replaced by blocks of flats with large vehicle parking areas with recharge points.
2/ Another vision could be forged with the right policies in an enlightened Local Plan. RDC could opt for a garden village settlement away from all the Districts Towns and villages. Rayleigh like other towns that have suffered from overdevelopment in recent decades and should be protect from large scale private development during the forthcoming Plan Period. Only development or local needs should be permitted. Local facilities like Mill Hall would be saved and car parking retained and made
cheaper to assist local town centre business to survive what will be a challenging period. Secondary
shopping facilities in Rayleigh would be supported and encouraged with public finance where required. Public transport would be supported and encouragement, especially when given for children to reach school without parents’ vehicles. Renovation and refurbishment of historic buildings with modern green energy would be promoted over demolition and intensification. Public services would be encouraged to return/expand to Rayleigh, in existing buildings like Council Offices, Police Station and Library etc. The town centre should be the heart of our community not just something you drive
through to reach somewhere else. This could be our vision and our aim for the future.
b. With reference to Figure 44 and your preferred
Strategy Option, do you think any of the promoted
sites should be made available for any of the following
uses? How could that improve the completeness of
Rayleigh?
Balancing access against increased congestion will be the issue for a lot of the sites in Rayleigh. If you keep adding small developments to the boundaries of the town, it will overcrowd existing houses and add to urban sprawl.
i. Rayleigh has taken the brunt of development without significant infrastructural improvement.
ii. Commercial [offices, industrial, retail, other]
Commercial development should be supported in town centres, secondary shopping facilities and on approved industrial estates (the latter should not become retail / entertainment locations and residential development should not encroach on them to avoid conflict). Community Improvement Districts should be established
iii. Community infrastructure [open space, education, healthcare, allotments, other]
Community infrastructure should be preserved and extended. Access to town centres and secondary
shopping by bicycle and foot should be made easier and safer.
c. Are there areas in Rayleigh that development should
generally be presumed appropriate? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
No. Large scale residential development in Rayleigh should be resisted in the new Local Plan. So called
windfall development should be incorporated in the overall development targets thereby reducing
large scale development.
d. Are there areas that require protecting from
development? Why these areas? [Please state
reasoning]
Conservation areas and green belt and sites subject to the exclusion criteria on the call for sites should be protected. Proposed sites within Rayleigh and on the Western side should not be considered for development. Only an infrastructure plan would provide evidence that the chosen sites are sustainable in the long term, and greenbelt and environmental policies should be adhered to in relation to open spaces on the edge or within the town.
e. Do you agree that the local green spaces shown on
Figure 44 hold local significance? Are there any other
open spaces that hold particular local significance?
All green spaces, no matter how small, hold some significance, especially to those who use them for
recreation. They are of particular community value and should not be developed. They must be seen as the vital green area not the next place along the line to be built on. It is reasonable for RDC to encourage the development of a garden village away from existing communities to accommodate the Governments home building targets
Q57.
d. Are there areas that require protecting from
development? Why these areas? [Please state
reasoning]
Hockley Wood
Q58.
a. Do you agree with our vision for Hockley and
Hawkwell? Is there anything you feel is missing?
[Please state reasoning]
Yes. Insofar as it relates to Rayleigh.
Q58.
d. Are there areas that require protecting from
development? Why these areas? [Please state
reasoning]
As Hockley Woods is the largest remaining wild woodland in the country you should be doing
EVERYTHING you can to save it from development, either adjacent to or close by. You should also actively be adding to it by planting more trees to future proof its existence and status. You must protect any thoroughfares that access Hockley Wood.
Q60.
a. Do you agree with our vision for Hullbridge? Is there
anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]
Yes. Insofar as it relates to Rayleigh.
d. Are there areas that require protecting from
development? Why these areas? [Please state
reasoning]
Anything too close to the river due to flood risk.
e. Do you agree that the local green spaces shown on
Figure 48 hold local significance? Are there any other
open spaces that hold particular local significance?
[Please state reasoning]
All green spaces, no matter how small, hold some significance, especially to those who use them for
recreation. They are of particular community value and should not be developed. They must be seen as the vital green area not the next place along the line to be built on. It is reasonable for RDC to encourage the development of a garden village away from existing communities to accommodate the
Governments home building targets
Q63.
a. Do you agree with our vision for Rawreth? Is there
anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]
Yes. Insofar as it relates to Rayleigh.
c. Are there areas in Rawreth that development should
generally be presumed appropriate? Why these
areas? [Please state reasoning]
d. Are there areas that require protecting from
development? Why these areas? [Please state
reasoning]
Protection needs to be given to development that change the dynamics of the village and those areas that border Wickford. There needs to be a significant amount of green belt land left to separate the two areas to prevent urban sprawl. Rawreth Lane gets heavily congested at peak times, and with Wolsey Park still not complete this is likely to increase. If there is an accident or breakdown on the road network, it has a huge knock on through Rayleigh and the surrounding areas and Watery Lane isn’t a reliable back up for when there are issue. Therefore, further development on the boundary or
otherwise could be detrimental to not only local residents but the wider District too. RDC should be supporting farmers wherever possible to continue to grow their crops in the district and protect suitable farm land in the area. We do not want to lose the local producers

Q66. Do you agree that our rural communities do not
require individual vision statements? Are there
communities that you feel should have their own
vision? [Please state reasoning]
At this time – yes, but we feel they should have some consideration in the future, in order to protect
them. It would be for the communities to decide their vision statements and we would be happy to
support them.
Q67. Do you agree with our vision for our rural
communities? Is there anything you feel is missing?
[Please state reasoning]
Yes.
Q68. Are there other courses of action the Council could
take to improve the completeness of our rural
communities?
Listen to the residents to see where they would like to go next. See if they require anything specific; travel links, facilities, affordable housing and so on. Empower Parish and Town Councils to take
relevant local actions

I have just looked into the above document. Firstly I would like to start by saying that the vision statement for Hullbridge should’ve been put together by Hullbridge, as this in no way reflects the Hullbridge community and what there vision for Hullbridge is!
I do not feel that Hullbridge is a candidate for Yet even more housing development. Hullbridge is already trying to deal with the impact of approx 500 new homes which has had an impact on traffic in and out of the area and affecting local amenities.
I am also concerned that the proposed areas within Hullbridge listed are on Green belt land which is going to hugely impact natural habitat and wildlife whilst posing a flood risk to an area which is already a flood plane. Since moving into the area a year ago the impact of the ongoing new builds has already had ongoing effects with travelling in and out of the area whilst causing the water pressure to be low. I do not feel that having even more development to this area would be beneficial for anyone and feel that there are alternative areas which would be better suited and not have such a negative impact to neighbouring areas.
West of Raleigh would be a much better option to build in one location whilst enabling residents easy access to commute whilst providing amenities in the area to cope with the increasing population.

I felt it necessary to email in with my concerns after hearing of the new local plan. It concerns me that you are proposing to build yet more houses within a village that is already suffering from the already increase in property that is currently being done. The roads are constantly gridlocked and there is concern of flooding with the natural flood drainage being turned into yet more houses. Your vision for Hullbridge does not reflect local residents vision at all.
>
> Would it not be more appropriate to increase housing in Raleigh west ( one of the proposed sights) where you would be able to increase amenities along with the population. This would also give residents a more sufficient commute when using public transport i.e trains, buses.
> This would also be less of an impact on habitat.
>

SITE ASSESSMENT PROFORMA: CFS172
In relation to the ‘spatial options consultation’, I would like to request you go back to government to politely tell them where they can place their housing targets!
Not sure if you have heard about the IPCC report but WE ARE IN A CLIMATE EMERGENCY, humanity would be grateful if you would start taking action towards that instead, as it is a much bigger priority than a new local plan!
We may need our greenbelt and agricultural land to grow crops if food supplies become affected, it is madness to consider covering them in concrete! Our roads are constantly gridlocked through infrastructure neglect and surely must be at dangerous pollution levels already. Not to mention the fact that a lot of the district is expected to be under water by 2050!
In light of the above, here are my reasons for objecting to this site:

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

As a Hullbridge resident I have tried to understand the very complex and I believe deliberately word intensive New Local Plan and I have came to the following


The Vision statement has not been completed with resident feedback as it was written without consultation it would be a good idea for those involved to spend time with people that live within these areas to find out what the real impact on them and the local area would really be.

Of the Spatial/Strategy Options given I believe the most agreeable would be Strategy 3 Given that all infrastructure would be built in as the development was built and therefore less of an impact on local roads and services.

Of the Hullbridge sites put forward, I am aware of the need for housing but as proved with the new estate already being built within Hullbridge the houses are priced so high they are not helping to house the local people and the impact on our village has been immense especially the roads.

There seems to be a lot of green belt included in the proposed building plots which is going to be very detrimental to wildlife and residents combined. We have already had building on our flood plain with the High Elms development.

As a village we are proud of our environment and the services within however the local doctors practice is already over subscribed and unable to cope with demand and the local public transport is extremely unreliable even to get the children to school let alone people to work on time. It would be nice if there was a check that First bus are running the number 20 bus as regularly as they say they do and ask why that now schools have returned they have CUT the regular school bus.

It has been proved that access to open spaces and amenities is beneficial to people's health and wellbeing and this is something that should be considered especially with our overstretched health system.
We have lost footpaths and bridleways already and those left need to be protected and not 'conveniently' lost once building is approved as in the case of the High Elms development.
With the drive to reduce our carbon footprint as proposed by the government It seems counter intuitive to reduce the amount of agricultural land that could be used to produce food and save the cost and fuel of transporting from far afield.
It would be nice if the infrastructure was in place to serve those already here before trying to add to our numbers. There is one road in and through the village which is getting more dangerous recently, with 2 incidents in the last week that needed the air ambulance to attend.

The potential for the regional park to the West of Hullbridge would be a nice addition to the local area.
As would the protection of our local wildlife, geological and specific scientific interest sites, the Hullbridge meadows and Hullbridge Foreshores

I hope that more consideration is taken with these proposals and the community feedback than has been in the past.

I have been to a meeting held by our local councillors to explain your unrealistic vision for housing development in this area. We do not have the infrastructure to support these extravagant proposals. I strongly object to any further developments in this area. The current housing development has had an devastating effect on our surroundings and it would be ridiculous to impose any more development in this area.
I suggest that you build a new town, similar to that recently built at Beaulieu near Chelmsford, schools, shops , doctors were built within the new estate so there was minimum strain and impact on surrounding towns snd villages.

After reading the Spatial Options on the Rochford website and attending the Hullbridge drop in organised by Michael Hoy I would like to express my concerns over the proposed plans.

After attending meetings before the first stage of building I feel as though the people of Hullbridge were completely ignored and it was a done deal before information was revealed to the village and we were notified very late in the day and feel this is the case again.

I know that extra housing is needed everywhere but I strongly feel that there is going to be too much building in Hullbridge etc. Our concerns about infrastructure upgrading, shops, doctors, transport seem to be ignored. We live in the village and for years there has been trouble getting in and out of the village as the roads are not adequate. When it rains Watery Lane gets flooded so alternate roads are used which causes traffic jams etc. more often or not the children who go to Sweyne Park are late, there is a lot of traffic through the village and it seems that global warming is on the increase so more rain. We seem to be completely forgotten by the council when things need upgrading or repairing but the first place to go to when extra houses are needed. The latest plans are proposing to build over 800 houses on CFS099 and also on CFS172 added to the other sites that is around an extra 4000 houses in the village but no adequate infrastructure proposals as Rochford keep saying that Hullbridge can cope with it, you don't live here on a day to day basis. CFS099 proposed site has always been a designated flood plain for years but now its not and ok to build on along with a lot of greenbelt land, There is a lot of open land that could be used to perhaps build a large estate for all the houses with the appropriate infrastructure and facitilies i.e. roads, bus stop, doctors and another school to accommodate the extra population. Why does it all have to be put on top of a village that cannot cope with it. Also, they are mainly big houses that are not readily affordable for younger people to buy so it is not helping the locals so more people further up the housing ladder will move in, this is not fair on the locals.

After reading the Spatial Options on the Rochford website I think before you go ahead with any of this proposal you definitely need to look at the infrastructure of the roads, 2 lorries passing each other cannot pass without going on the pavement at times on the Lower Road as it narrows.
Bus services do not exist on the Lower Road up by the breakers yard and beyond, only school buses.
Thought we were suppose to save the planet, but not able to if we all need our cars up this end.
Just needs one hip cup like Watery Lane being closed mostly for flooding etc. and the whole of Hockley , Rayleigh comes to a stand still can’t get in or out of village.
When heavy rain comes the drains at the new housing estate at the bottom of Lower Road/Watery Lane cannot cope with it, the rain comes up onto the road from the drains, no wonder sinkhole not so long ago chaos once again.
All these houses you now want to put in will not help any of us trying to get to work or school, maybe firms and schools can change hours to suit.
I know you can change the rules to suit yourselves especially as I doubt any of you live here, but do give some of us a bit of thought, or is it a done deal and your just going through the motions.
Do we really need another 4000 properties, and how many will be affordable for young families, will we ever be able to see a doctor again or do we get priority over the 12000 new people or perhaps even more that will come with these 4000 houses.
As I live CFS100 I am the only property on that site itself so will be in centre of it all that you decide to do, not against the houses being built, just the amount you want to build.

Potential development in Hullbridge promoted sites
This plan is ridiculous for many reasons some of which list below

Plans once again include development on green belt land Grade 1 agricultural land Transport assessment clearly wrong (likely done at quite time, school holidays etc.) Frequency of buses is wrong. Sometimes as few as 1 or two per hour No new schools No new health facilities This plan will bring gridlock to the area.
Local roads are often at a standstill on an average day are completely overwhelmed when the weather is bad This plan is nothing more or less than planning blight for the residents of Hullbridge The government has publicly stated their intent to balance up the north south divide, this is clearly an opportunity for them to do just that.
In particular Once green belt and grade 1 agricultural land is gone it is gone forever this cannot be allowed to happen There are areas (3a) west of Rayleigh and (3b) north of Southend where Development will have less of an effect on the local population.

Dear Sir/Madam

Re Spatial-Options Consultation

I wish to lodge my objections to your idea of allowing building development on the plot no CFS190 in Hullbridge.

I have lived in Keswick Avenue over 15 years and back on to the fields between Keswick Ave and Pooles Lane. I consider this area needs protecting as we have an abundance of wildlife in this area. We see foxes and badgers on a daily basis, and the badgers have a set within these fields. We see bats flying around of an evening and as both the bats and the badgers are protected animals this development should not be permitted.

Access to this site is extremely limited, as you know Pooles lane is single file at some points and Keswick Avenue only has access to the field at the end of the avenue and is also very tight which is why the farmer does not enter the fields for harvesting via Keswick Avenue.

Burnham Road is an unadopted road at the top, therefore only has a single track so is not suitable for a extra traffic or construction lorries as route into Keswick from Lower Road, therefore this whole area is not practical for development.

I wish to lodge my objections to your idea of allowing building development on the plot no CFS190 in Hullbridge.

I have lived in Keswick Avenue over 15 years and back on to the fields between Keswick Ave and Pooles Lane. I consider this area needs protecting as we have an abundance of wildlife in this area. We see foxes and badgers on a daily basis, and the badgers have a set within these fields. We see bats flying around of an evening and as both the bats and the badgers are protected animals this development should not be permitted. There are several Oak trees in these field which I know are now protected.

Access to this site is extremely limited, as you know Pooles lane is single file at some points and Keswick Avenue only has access to the field at the end of the avenue and is also very tight which is why the farmer does not enter the fields for harvesting via Keswick Avenue.

There is a ditch that runs at the bottom of our garden which has flooded on several occasions, there is also and a major Gas main also runs through these fields

Burnham Road is an un-adopted road at the top, therefore only has a single track so is not suitable for a extra traffic or construction lorries as route into Keswick from Lower Road, therefore I consider that this whole area is not practical or suitable for development.

New local plan - potential impact on Hullbridge
I have been a resident in Hullbridge since 2009. During this time the addition of 500 houses in Hullbridge alongside the large housing estate being built just outside on Rawreth Lane has resulted in significant strain on the local road infrastructure. I commute to Chelmsford and this can often take over an hour (up to 2 when watery Lane is closed). Despite the existing houses there is repeated issues with the roads and often residents are trapped in the village. The potential for more houses in this area will need consideration to improve the roads. We have received additional houses which have already put strain on our GP surgery and small village school which will not be able to accommodate an increase in residents in the area.

The spatial options could lead to 20 sites in Hullbridge with over 4000 houses. I am particularly concerned about the extension to the new houses at the end of Grasmere Avenue. This area is liable to flooding and would destroy a vineyard which is creating business for the community. Access would also be down roads which are unmade and therefore not suitable for heavy machinery.

I have concerns with the impact on the impact on natural habits and destruction of wildlife. Hullbridge is a village with greenbelt which has already been built on. I am an avid walker/runner and the new proposed houses will mean the loss of footpaths.

I am unsure how the houses fit with preserving our rural costal village outlook because Hullbridge will effectively become a town but without the resources to support this. There is no youth centre in the village and there is a lack of amenities, this will worsen and likely lead to increased anti-social behaviour.

The plan provides inaccurate information regarding public transport. For example the bus service does not run 4-7 times per hour.

Looking at the local plan I would recommend focusing the houses in one area rather than destroying villages. The area towards the a130 near the back of wickford seems to he the most sensible option. It is close to main roads and the existing town.

Plans for the proposed new housing in the Hullbridge Rayleigh and Rochford areas.
We are horrified to hear of all the new housing designated for this area. As receivers of in excess of 500 new houses currently being built in Hullbridge and having to suffer the consequences of this building scheme we are horrified to hear of the further number being designated not only for us but also the outrageous quantity for our neighbouring towns.

Our infrastructure cannot take this!

Roads ,which are under stress at the normal time but in the frequent event of road works ,any repair works and improvements? The area comes to a standstill.

Hospital and health care which is under pressure and Covid has added to is going to take at least 5 years plus to get under control.

Our green spaces are disappearing fast farms and spaces for our horses to be stabled going.

Leisure facilities for our children and older residents and families are going fast.

The environment and habitats for wildlife is under serious threat. It seems our priorities are for ourselves only and we do not know how the disappearance of species will affect lives in the future

This is the turning point for our planet do not pay lip service to our problems we are the ones who will be judged in the future. You are supposed to be OUR representatives and OUR VOICES

To try and halt the destruction of our planet.

It seems we are trying to make things better with the pollution on things we have. or things we do but you are not considering the impact that all these house s which are

Adding at least 2 new cars and at least doubling the number of people to all of the above . It fills me with dread for mine and other families as to how their lives will be in years to come.

Education in this are is stretched and I wonder how it will cope with the extra children joining the system. New schools will have to be built with the extra cars as the parents take them to school.

| AM SURE I COULD LIST MANY MORE THOUGHTS AND OBJECTIONS BUT AT THE MOMENT IAM TOO UPSET AT THE THOUGHT OF SUCH FEW VOICES ARE SPEAKING FOR SO MANY OF US .(AS WINSTON CHURCHILL WOULD HAVE SAID)

I have reviewed the consultation and would like to make comments.
In relation to the following areas (cf5099, cf5149, cf5006, cf5172, cf5265, cf5163) I have strong concerns regarding the insufficient road infrastructure to support the development of more houses in Hullbridge. We were allocated 500 new houses without any additional resources to the village and further houses will add more strain. I want to know how the roads will cope? Three sites run along watery lane which is liable to flooding and also will destroy more protected greenbelt land. Hullbridge is not set up for more people. It is a rural village that is being turned into a town but our schools and Gp surgery cannot cope as it is.
The current development at lower road has destroyed wildlife and the additional proposed areas will have a further devastating effect. It will also lead to further loss of agricultural land and no doubt cause drainage and flooding issues.
I recognise the need for houses in the area but think these should be concentrated in one area to minimise the impact on villages such as Hullbridge. Although I think the number is high, the proposed site CFS222 looks like a better option with limited harm to existing villages.

I strongly object to any more building in this area (Hockley, Hawkwell, Ashingdon, Rochford, Hullbridge, Rayleigh).
In the UK there are over 600,000 (six hundred thousand) empty unused buildings. Why do councils not concentrate on bringing some of these buildings back into use.
My objections are probably the same as everyone else. Schools, doctors, hospital, wildlife, open spaces (small areas of green don’t count), large supermarket, roads, infrastructure, congestion etc.
Over 99% of meadows have been lost since the end of WW2. How can the council even consider building on land off of Greensward Lane (and other sites) some of the last remaining meadows around. A breathing space for people and animals.
Rochford mustn’t become like Westcliff, Leigh etc where there is no countryside.

Living in Hullbridge for many years, we have seen the green belt disappearing with alarming regularity.
Houses have and are still being built on what we know is a flood plain. Watery lane flooding, even with preventative measures in place.
The bus service often doesn’t run into Ferry Road owing to obstacles due to building and road works. We have been kept prisoner in Hullbridge, on many occasions for this reason.
The infrastructure we have would offer nothing to families in new builds, as the doctors surgery is full, the one primary school is full and all secondary school pupils have to get busses, the 820 to Sweyne school has just been cancelled, causing the parents and pupils much distress. How will they get to school.
There isn’t anywhere for the children to have fun. Pooled lanes has limited apparatus, which is mainly for small children.
This lack of amenities causes the children to get up to mischief with occasional damage to property.
The major problem is that a significant part of Hullbridge will be below sea level by 2040.
Madness to build here.
The better option is No 3
West of Rayleigh, North of Southend and East of Rochford.

These are my views on Rochford District Council’s new local plan up to 2040, the plan having been written by yourselves without any consultation of our community.

I have strong objections to any more new housing in Hullbridge as we are now suffering already from the present construction of the 550 houses previously given permission for. People’s lives have been made a misery from the increase in traffic, noise, pollution and constantly being stranded from roads being closed for numerous reasons. Even when the 550th house is finished I cannot see life becoming any easier.

If this latest plan is supposed to be extended to 2040, I understand Hullbridge will have a considerable amount of land that will be below sea level by then anyway! This village is renowned for flooding particularly in the Watery Lane area and I seriously wonder how the latest development being built now will manage over time.

Public transport is becoming increasingly more difficult with buses cut out and the whole of the No. 20 bus route sometimes just ceasing for several days for all sorts of reasons – road flooded, road impassable from holes appearing etc. The No. 20 bus route has 4 buses an hour – not 4-7 buses an hour! Where did the council come up with that figure? We have two roads in and out of the village and Watery Lane which can be hit and miss. If anything goes wrong with either of these roads chaos occurs. People are so delayed when these problems happen they are frequently late for work or appointments. With an increase in the population right now and not even thinking about the future the buses will be unable to cope.

The infrastructure in and around Hullbridge is very poor right now so in the future it can only get worse. Poor road links, poor public transport, not enough school places or medical services. There are very few leisure facilities in the village, and this is particularly bad for the young.

Green spaces - will there be much left by 2040 if the plan goes ahead? I thought we were in a Green Revolution but it would appear not in this area. Most of the greenbelt in and around Hullbridge will be non-existent and the character of our lovely village will be lost. The people of Hullbridge enjoy the few public footpaths and bridleways we have and the lovely walks along the river but in the future, these could be non-existent with huge numbers of new houses and an increase in population. The wildlife in and around the village will be seriously affected as I believe has happened already.

The saddest part for me is the nature of our ‘village’ is being trampled over and we could become just another urban sprawl.

These are my views and I hope you will consider them seriously.

I’m writing to object the new local plan in which Rochford council want to build another 4,298 new homes in Hullbridge. Iv lived in Hullbridge for 27 years, it’s becoming busier and busier the changes are not good. Our roads and pavements are terrible, we are forever having gas leaks and water leaks. The doctors is a nightmare trying to get an appointment all the schools in the area are full. They say we have 4 to 7 buses an hour we’ll that’s a lie and now they have cancelled the school bus!! The houses that are being built are mostly huge and not affordable for our children to buy. Which is why your building new homes isn’t it? And where is all the traffic going to go? Watery lane floods a lot so we have one road for everyone to come in and out of the village in bad weather. Where are the wildlife going to go? If you keep cutting down trees digging up our fields no wildlife no insects well all die. So what’s the point in building loads of houses. DONT RUIN OUR LOVELY PLACE WE LIVE. go build your massive houses elsewhere. Or don’t build any at all.

I have been reading and looking at the plans I collected from the hullbridge community centre meeting, and also reading other articles and info online. I just do not understand how these plans can be thought of, to build on all those sites surrounding our village. Yes village. But it will not be if this building is done it will become a town. It will have a severe impact on the community and education and medical facilities. Also local transport, and other facilities. We all know we need more housing, but I agreee with the option suggested as east of rochford, (3c) as there has to be consideration given to the climate change and whatever plans, national and local that will have to be adhered to. We already have flooding problems in this area, and it seems that much work was needed when the recent area of development was carried out. So I say leave Hullbridge alone.

Why is it that we never see plans for more simple housing solutions, like renovating old buildings , including houses, small hotels etc. We only ever see plans of people and probably companies, who want to rip up the countryside and spoil things.

Also all this stuff we have to read and what we have to do to object is made complicated and hard to understand, and therefore many people won’t bother to do anything at all, which is probably what you hope for.

Objection to Local Plan
Despite the awful system that has been put in place by RDC to allow residents to comment on various aspect of the spatial Options or new local plan I have managed to make some comments.

However it should be noted that the system is not user friendly, issuing a separate email to each and every question, I feel the system has been deliberately made arduous for the general public to use and this is completely unfair to residents.

I ardently object to any new local plans being drawn up until there is a full and current infrastructure study completed on the whole of Essex and that should be updated yearly to properly inform and advise residents and the council alike of the impact of any housing.

Any new housing in Hullbridge will severely impact the current infrastructure as the current building of 500 very shoddy houses (not yet at completion) has already done so. The roads are not fit for purpose, schools are underfunded and the local services such as doctors so stretched it is impossible to get appts, just to name a few issues.

I urge the council to push back to the government that Essex is already part of an Urban Sprawl with a severe reduction in greenbelt and it needs to stop now!

Hullbridge
Please may I suggest if new houses have to be placed some where that they are placed at the Potential cross-boundary point on the A130? I believe Rawreth originally wanted development there so they didn't feel like a disjointed community and the have easy access to a130, a127 and a12 plus train access at Wickford, Battlesbridge and Rayleigh.
I do not think anymore homes should come east of that point as the roads just cannot take any more traffic. Also the 820 school bus has just been taken away from Hullbridge, the children are currently fighting with commuters on the 20 bus for transport to and from Rayleigh.
The strategy option I would chose is option 3.
Fingers crossed the new homes will be more affordable for our kids this time. The Hullbridge ones are ridiculously overpriced!

I feel the need to contact you to put my comments forward regarding the new local plan that is currently being consulted on. I understand that the council is under pressure to build homes to meet housing needs but I really do question who these new homes are for. We live in the area (Hullbridge). We have a 22 year old daughter and a 25 year old son. We are sadly in the process of having 500 homes built just down the road to us and a further huge development near Makro in Rayleigh and our own children and other local families cannot afford them! This cannot be right surely! If any housing is to be considered then it really does need to be affordable for local families and not sold on to inner and outer London housing associations!!

After looking at the area map in great detail and the proposed development sites being put forward, I would suggest that all housing is in one location either as mentioned in the consultation document: 3a - West of Rayleigh or 3b North of Southend.

Hullbridge once again, appears to have been targeted as a major area for development. My own garden and the land that we back onto, is designated as Green Belt/Agricultural land, yet this is still being considered. We wish to ask some questions and bring to your attention some issues with this that may have been completely overlooked when setting out this consultation document and map of proposed sites, in particular those EAST of Ferry Road CFS128, CFS265, CFS151, CFS172, CFS042, CFS041, CFS243, CFS237, CFS100:

• Most if not all of this land is designated green belt land and we have already had a large amount of housing in our 'village'. We want to maintain our village status!

• CFS151, CFS128, CFS172, CFS265 - have a large number of very old oak and ash trees bordering the land that should not be destroyed but have the potential of being so if the sites are developed. A neighbour had plans turned down for a wooden annexe because it would mean that trees needed to be cut down so this should also be the case when considering future development sites.

• CFS 151/CFS172 - I am not sure if you are aware but there is a history of JAPENESE KNOT WEED on/ near to both of these sites. I am sure that any future developer/prospective purchasers of homes on these sites would be very interested to know this, as any future homes could be rendered completely worthless.

• CFS151/CFS172 - The lane that borders this land (Long Lane) is a bridleway and pubic footpath that allows riders and the public to enjoy our countryside safely. We do not want, nor can we afford for these to be lost. Horse riders are already in danger when trying to access these bridleways from the main road (Lower Road). The road is so busy without the additional traffic that new homes would bring!

• CFS100 - This land was part of the old NSEC site and must be contaminated land. We would like to know how this is going to be dealt with, if development plans go through?

• CFS128 - This land is a haven for wildlife, including munt jac deer and barn owls that roost in the barn on site. Other areas should be considered before destroying the habitat of these animals. Where will they go if you build homes on all the fields in this area?

• There is a distinct lack of infrastructure in our village to cope with the amount of housing proposed! This was completely overlooked in order to push through plans for the 500 homes currently being built West of Ferry Road in Hullbridge and we are paying for it! Our roads are busier than ever. We now struggle to get a doctors appointment, there is one private dentist that only opens a few days a week and the public transport is totally unacceptable and unreliable, especially when it comes to getting children to and from school. We have the following questions that we would like to be carefully considered and then answered before any further homes are built in this area:
1. When were traffic surveys carried out? If they were during or since the pandemic, or conducted during the school holidays, then they will not give an accurate reflection of the amount of traffic that passes through our village nor the congestion that we face coming in and out of our village. A six minute journey has taken over an hour when Watery Lane is closed!
2. Has the Environment Agency's new potential flood maps been considered? This shows that most of Hullbridge will flood by 2040. It is going to be very difficult for home owners to get house insurance now that this new map has been released and will make it more difficult to sell homes.
3. What public transport will be available for any prospective new home owners East of Ferry Road? We DO NOT HAVE ANY public transport links, yet it was scored a '5' as 'very good public transport links'. This is not correct at all and does not even reflect the number of buses that leave Ferry Road per hour, let alone public transport for homes at the top of Coventry Hill. A score of '5' means 10+ buses an hour. This is totally inaccurate! The 820 bus school bus service for children travelling to and from Sweyne Park school has just been suspended, leaving many school children without a bus service to school. The bus company's answer is to use public transport but as I have previously mentioned, this is completely inadequate and we are already seeing children left stranded at the bus stops both in Hullbridge and then near Rayleigh station. Stopping this service will only put more pressure on our roads and add to pollution levels. This is without the number of new homes that you are once again considering for Hullbridge.
4. What traffic calming measures will be put into place to slow traffic down for any vehicles on the proposed sites to enter/exit Lower Road? Nobody has listened to current residents regarding the danger that we face pulling out onto Lower Road where it bends and narrows. We have been asking for a speed camera or flashing speed signs for years and have been passed back and forth between the council and highways, with no resolution at all.
5. What increase in local services will we see? Our doctors are already over stretched and the building of 500 homes West of Ferry Road has not yet reached completion, so we are yet to see the full impact of these new homes, let alone the homes proposed in this new local plan. Will there be additional doctors surgeries built? Will there be an NHS dentist? How will you ensure that local school children can get a place in the village school? What measures will be put into place to prevent the flooding, as detailed in the Environment Agency's map? How will you ensure that children have access to school transport to and from the local secondary school? What will you do to ensure that vital services such as policing, waste collections, postal services and emergency services are maintained with the influx of residents? Most of the services are overstretched as it is!
I fully appreciate that you are under pressure from the Government to build new homes but 4298 homes in our village is far too many and will more than double the size of our village, meaning that we will are unable to preserve our rural coastal village outlook.
Any homes that are built should have a large proportion set aside for residents of Rochford District Council to purchase affordable housing. There is not any point in building homes that are going to be bought up by wealthier London Boroughs, leaving our own local families without homes! This should not just be a money making/box ticking exercise but something that has a positive impact on local families in within Rochford District Council boundaries.

I feel the need to contact you to put my comments forward regarding the new local plan that is currently being consulted on. I understand that the council is under pressure to build homes to meet housing needs but I really do question who these new homes are for. We live in the area (Hullbridge). We have a 22 year old daughter and a 25 year old son. We are sadly in the process of having 500 homes built just down the road to us and a further huge development near Makro in Rayleigh and our own children and other local families cannot afford them! This cannot be right surely! If any housing is to be considered then it really does need to be affordable for local families and not sold on to inner and outer London housing associations!!

After looking at the area map in great detail and the proposed development sites being put forward, I would suggest that all housing is in one location either as mentioned in the consultation document: 3a - West of Rayleigh or 3b North of Southend.

Hullbridge once again, appears to have been targeted as a major area for development. My own garden and the land that we back onto, is designated as Green Belt/Agricultural land, yet this is still being considered. We wish to ask some questions and bring to your attention some issues with this that may have been completely overlooked when setting out this consultation document and map of proposed sites, in particular those EAST of Ferry Road CFS128, CFS265, CFS151, CFS172, CFS042, CFS041, CFS243, CFS237, CFS100:

• Most if not all of this land is designated green belt land and we have already had a large amount of housing in our 'village'. We want to maintain our village status!

• CFS151, CFS128, CFS172, CFS265 - have a large number of very old oak and ash trees bordering the land that should not be destroyed but have the potential of being so if the sites are developed. A neighbour had plans turned down for a wooden annexe because it would mean that trees needed to be cut down so this should also be the case when considering future development sites.

• CFS 151/CFS172 - I am not sure if you are aware but there is a history of JAPENESE KNOT WEED on/ near to both of these sites. I am sure that any future developer/prospective purchasers of homes on these sites would be very interested to know this, as any future homes could be rendered completely worthless.

• CFS151/CFS172 - The lane that borders this land (Long Lane) is a bridleway and pubic footpath that allows riders and the public to enjoy our countryside safely. We do not want, nor can we afford for these to be lost. Horse riders are already in danger when trying to access these bridleways from the main road (Lower Road). The road is so busy without the additional traffic that new homes would bring!

• CFS100 - This land was part of the old NSEC site and must be contaminated land. We would like to know how this is going to be dealt with, if development plans go through?

• CFS128 - This land is a haven for wildlife, including munt jac deer and barn owls that roost in the barn on site. Other areas should be considered before destroying the habitat of these animals. Where will they go if you build homes on all the fields in this area?

• There is a distinct lack of infrastructure in our village to cope with the amount of housing proposed! This was completely overlooked in order to push through plans for the 500 homes currently being built West of Ferry Road in Hullbridge and we are paying for it! Our roads are busier than ever. We now struggle to get a doctors appointment, there is one private dentist that only opens a few days a week and the public transport is totally unacceptable and unreliable, especially when it comes to getting children to and from school. We have the following questions that we would like to be carefully considered and then answered before any further homes are built in this area:
1. When were traffic surveys carried out? If they were during or since the pandemic, or conducted during the school holidays, then they will not give an accurate reflection of the amount of traffic that passes through our village nor the congestion that we face coming in and out of our village. A six minute journey has taken over an hour when Watery Lane is closed!
2. Has the Environment Agency's new potential flood maps been considered? This shows that most of Hullbridge will flood by 2040. It is going to be very difficult for home owners to get house insurance now that this new map has been released and will make it more difficult to sell homes.
3. What public transport will be available for any prospective new home owners East of Ferry Road? We DO NOT HAVE ANY public transport links, yet it was scored a '5' as 'very good public transport links'. This is not correct at all and does not even reflect the number of buses that leave Ferry Road per hour, let alone public transport for homes at the top of Coventry Hill. A score of '5' means 10+ buses an hour. This is totally inaccurate! The 820 bus school bus service for children travelling to and from Sweyne Park school has just been suspended, leaving many school children without a bus service to school. The bus company's answer is to use public transport but as I have previously mentioned, this is completely inadequate and we are already seeing children left stranded at the bus stops both in Hullbridge and then near Rayleigh station. Stopping this service will only put more pressure on our roads and add to pollution levels. This is without the number of new homes that you are once again considering for Hullbridge.
4. What traffic calming measures will be put into place to slow traffic down for any vehicles on the proposed sites to enter/exit Lower Road? Nobody has listened to current residents regarding the danger that we face pulling out onto Lower Road where it bends and narrows. We have been asking for a speed camera or flashing speed signs for years and have been passed back and forth between the council and highways, with no resolution at all.
5. What increase in local services will we see? Our doctors are already over stretched and the building of 500 homes West of Ferry Road has not yet reached completion, so we are yet to see the full impact of these new homes, let alone the homes proposed in this new local plan. Will there be additional doctors surgeries built? Will there be an NHS dentist? How will you ensure that local school children can get a place in the village school? What measures will be put into place to prevent the flooding, as detailed in the Environment Agency's map? How will you ensure that children have access to school transport to and from the local secondary school as this has already been cancelled by the bus service and is causing chaos trying to get the children to and from school? What will you do to ensure that vital services such as policing, waste collections, postal services and emergency services are maintained with the influx of residents? Most of the services are overstretched as it is!
I fully appreciate that you are under pressure from the Government to build new homes but 4298 homes in our village is far too many and will more than double the size of our village, meaning that we will are unable to preserve our rural coastal village outlook.
Any homes that are built should have a large proportion set aside for residents of Rochford District Council to purchase affordable housing. There is not any point in building homes that are going to be bought up by wealthier London Boroughs, leaving our own local families without homes! This should not just be a money making/box ticking exercise but something that has a positive impact on local families in within Rochford District Council boundaries.

Thank you for taking the time to read our comments. I look forward to your answers to our questions.

Building objections
Hi there im a resident of hullbridge and want to object totally to any new building in the area as well as other surrounding areas.

Reasons being that we don’t have enough doctors hospitals schools or roads to cope at the minute let alone if there was any more building!

Dear Sir / Madam,

Q60a. Do you agree with our vision for Hullbridge? Is there anything you feel is missing?
Answer - No we do not agree with the vision for Hullbridge.

Q60b. With reference to Figure 48 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the promoted sites should be made available for any of the following uses? How could that improve the completeness of Hullbridge?
Answer - Our preferred option would be #3 (West of Rayleigh, North of Southend or East of Rochford).

Q60c. Are there areas in Hullbridge that development should generally be presumed appropriate? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning] Answer - No, the infrastructure cannot cope with further development, i.e. if there is an issue to Lower Road or Watery Lane, the whole area becomes gridlocked. The doctors surgery is overwhelmed at the best of times now let alone if more pressure is put on it. The local primary school will need extending to cope with the additional children that will need educating locally.

Q60d. Are there areas that require protecting from development? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning] Answer - Yes, all of them, the infrastructure within Hullbridge cannot sustain further development. Any improvements to the infrastructure (i.e. widening of watery lane / third route in/out), upgrading of the doctors surgery and school so they will be able to cope with the additional pressures should be completed prior to any development works.

Q60e. Do you agree that the local green spaces shown on Figure 48 hold local significance? Are there any other open spaces that hold particular local significance? [Please state reasoning] Answer - In a world that is under serious threat from climate change, surely all green areas hold significance.

I'm writing to protest against the futher housing development of Hullbridge. I live in Hullbridge and the infrastructure is already beyond its capacity!
Our roads, doctors, transport etc are all causing me and others serious problems.

I'm upset about even Futher loss of green belt land which will never be recovered and lost forever.

Hullbridge is under threat from flooding which will become worse with climate change.
Hullbridge has already had a major housing development which has resulted in a major displacement of wild life and enough is enough. Please stop any new proposals.

I would like to put forward my own opinions regarding the Spatial Options Consultation for my local area of Hullbridge and also for Rochford as a whole.

Vision for Hullbridge:

A large area of Hullbridge is NOT accessible by walking or public transport. If the proposed sites to the East along Lower Road are developed this will add to the horrific congestion on Lower Road from Coventry Hill. There are no pavements or crossings and personally, I am unable to cross over to the other side from Central Avenue where I live. It is dangerous standing on the "pavement" (such as it is) as there is no room to step back from the large lorries often going past. If building work continues this will worsen. There are no regular bus services along this route despite the bus stops and old timetables. If I find I can no longer drive I will be marooned in my road along with many others like myself.

There are indeed a growing number of older residents in this area. I feel the current trend of making bungalows into houses with loft conversions is not helping their housing needs. Rather than develop more of HUllbridge for family housing a site needs to be set aside for maybe sheltered warden controlled housing and care facilities close to the facilities around the Doctors Surgery in Ferry Road.

Our riverfront does NOT need to be developed - it is fine as it is - I feel that any development of the riverfront would be very detrimental to the rural coastal village outlook and the Hullbridge Foreshores.. A regional park to the West is a wonderful idea - a local country park would preserve habitats and wild life for the future. Much of this land to the West is flood plain and would be problematic if built on.

Building of homes:

If every site in Hullbridge is developed the scanty local facilities would totally be overwhelmed! There would be more pollution from more cars commuting to Rayleigh station or Hockley.

This is no doubt true of many of the existing towns and villages. WE are already in danger from eroding green belt. Rather than develop the needed new homes piecemeal without adequate infrastructure I feel it would be better to place them all on one site much like South Woodham Ferrears. However if any of the sites proposed are to the East of Rochford or North of Southend I feel it would place a larger burden on already busy roads. I have two suggestions:

Build on the Potential cross Boundary Opportunity marked to the West of Rayleigh - this is close to major roads and a railway line and a new station could easily be sited. This has the benefit of keeping the traffic away from local towns and not adding to congestion.

I also feel that the airport will not recover from the lost business due to the pandemic and in any case I know from experience working there how awful the pollution is from aircraft - not to mention the many cars and lorries also going there. There are already roads and a rail station and buses. Why not build on the airport. It is my understanding that the land belongs to Rochford in any case.

I hope my views are useful to the council.

I would like to comment on your recent proposals for house building particularly in the Hullbridge area.
Whilst I understand a certain amount of house building must take place most the areas proposed are completely unacceptable.
Small plots and areas such as the site of the Coventry Hill service station and the old car scrap yard and brown field sites are acceptable.
Areas such as green belt and agricultural land is totally unacceptable bearing in mind we already have the housing estates in Lower Road and Rawreth Lane in the process of being built. The new roundabout on the corner of Rawreth Lane and Hullbridge Road is far too small and I’m sure not according to original plans. It’s far too dangerous.
The road infrastructure is already overwhelmed and if any council member had been present last Wednesday 1st September when Watery Lane was closed they would have experienced first hand the congestion caused which is always the case when the rat run is blocked for any reason.
The area cannot tolerate any future builds other than those examples mentioned above. There is no provision for additional schools or medical centre which are already being over run.
The council must find any further development sites within brown site areas or not at all.

Objection
I would like to put an objection against building new housing in the area of Rochford council especially in smaller areas such as Hullbridge. I feel there is not enough infrastructure in the area to accommodate any more housing. The hospitals schools and doctors are already over run and are struggling to accommodate the people in the area as it is. The green belt land should be left for people to enjoy. Roads around Hullbridge and the surrounding areas struggle at peak times with out the increased traffic and foot fall.