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

You are proposing building on green belt land to start. You are harming local wildlife, causing pollution and overpopulation of local roads. You’ll be destroying public footpaths and walking routes that are sought out and people (from towns) travel here to use. Stop destroying the countryside!

I have reviewed the plans indicated in all three area’s around the village of Stambridge. These areas have been identified as CFS141, CFS072 and CFS073.

My objection covers many strands. Threat to wildlife, decrease house values of residents and lack of infrastructure.

The area has an abundance of wildlife and this will be threatened with such a significant building development. The area of CFS072 is a flood plain according to my deeds. Also, this will reduce my view and property value of which I will personally suffer financially and will seek compensation if a build takes place.

Lastly the village does not of the roads, schools or amenities to accommodate this development and creation of such amenities will cause further catastrophic effect of the environment.

I OBJECT to all three sites.

I object, we have views across countryside this will block our views, block out our light due to the sun rising that way, also this will be so noisy being built and unsafe for my two year old , it will devalue our houses and out us all in financial difficulties

I object to the developments outlined by developments CFS141, CFS072 and CFS073.

My grounds are that this type of significant build is on a flood plane especially on site CFS072. All three developments have a massive impact on wildlife and environment.

The village hasn’t got the amenities and infrastructure to support such a development and the creation of an infrastructure to support the development will effect the environment and wildlife.

The development will destroy the view I have and significantly impact the value of my property. If this takes place I will be seeking legal action. This development has been underhand and the development has not been communicated to any residents in Stambridge and legal advice will be sought.

I have reviewed this particular planning application and object on the following grounds.

The development does not have the infrastructure to support the amount of properties proposed. The roads already have a large number of collisions with the volume of cars it services.

The damage to the environment will be significant.

In addition the damage to green belt land and wildlife on the area will be significant.

I have reviewed this particular application and oppose on the following grounds.

The infrastructure in particular roads and public services will not be able to cope with the properties proposed.

In addition the impact on the environment will be significant and harm our green belt land.

Outrageous proposal. Completly object and so will the whole of the community. A beautiful countryside of stambridge. Leave greenery and the fields and countryside and wildlife alone. Rochford is too busy already on the roads in the doctors and at schools how will more housing benefit or help our community. It will worsen it massively.

Your vision does not represent your plan to build 500 plus new houses in the village.
It can not remain an independent village with a sense of community by increasing its inhabitants by 200% plus.
You already state the infrastructure does not exist; lack of healthcare, schools, transport, roads inadequate.
You state any development should “strictly “ be in keeping with the village. How can anyone say this truthfully by increasing its inhabitants from 440 to a potential 1500 plus?
The proposed destruction of an ancient village that is Great Stambridge is criminal.
I moved here 22 years ago to get away from built up areas and urbanism, I paid a premium for the green open spaces, the wildlife, and peace and quiet. Many people move to such areas for their physical and mental health. PTSD and anxiety eased by the open landscape and being one with nature.
RDC will have a lot to answer for if they go ahead with their plans to develop Stambridge from a village in to another concrete jungle.

We moved here especially for the peace and quiet and healthy environment. We have badgers, foxes, squirrels and pheasants, with some actually visiting our gardens. We do not want their habitats ruined. The roads are already busy and if they are made busier it's only a matter of time before there is a fatality or maiming as someone is crossing the winding road through our village, not to mention the animals. Our beautiful healthy walks will be lost to all. There is also the care home residents to consider when taking exercise.

Overall I agree with the vision for Great Stambridge, however, I believe that by allowing development on the land surrounding the village, this directly contradicts the vision as laid out above. You state that there are a good number of facilities but yet there is no Doctors surgery, no shops at all, and the primary school is very small, only accounting for less than 20 children per school year. This infrastructure would not stand up against over 500 new houses and we would lose the ‘relative tranquility’ that you have referenced.

I have been contacted by my neighbours to have a look at this as the school and parking situation is diabolical already, I then noticed this was situated right behind my house, I walk with my dog and young children, I have absolutely loved living in Stambridge with the village feel but now this will be lost as my children grow up I hated rochford and what it had become and now our tiny but lovely village is looking to go the same way, I fear fo the roads and how much it already costs me to keep repairing my car due to the road being terrible, with great big lorries etc going through, how many more cars are going to be here and that again brings me back to my children and playing out the front.

I have been contacted by my neighbours to have a look at this as the school and parking situation is diabolical already, I then noticed this was situated right behind my house, I walk with my dog and young children, I have absolutely loved living in Stambridge with the village feel but now this will be lost as my children grow up I hated rochford and what it had become and now our tiny but lovely village is looking to go the same way, I fear fo the roads and how much it already costs me to keep repairing my car due to the road being terrible, with great big lorries etc going through, how many more cars are going to be here and that again brings me back to my children and playing out the front.

I have been contacted by my neighbours to have a look at this as the school and parking situation is diabolical already, I then noticed this was situated right behind my house, I walk with my dog and young children, I have absolutely loved living in Stambridge with the village feel but now this will be lost as my children grow up I hated rochford and what it had become and now our tiny but lovely village is looking to go the same way, I fear fo the roads and how much it already costs me to keep repairing my car due to the road being terrible, with great big lorries etc going through, how many more cars are going to be here and that again brings me back to my children and playing out the front.

I have been contacted by my neighbours to have a look at this as the school and parking situation is diabolical already, I then noticed this was situated right behind my house, I walk with my dog and young children, I have absolutely loved living in Stambridge with the village feel but now this will be lost as my children grow up I hated rochford and what it had become and now our tiny but lovely village is looking to go the same way, I fear fo the roads and how much it already costs me to keep repairing my car due to the road being terrible, with great big lorries etc going through, how many more cars are going to be here and that again brings me back to my children and playing out the front.

No I don't, only moving here last year because its quite little village, 700 more houses in the area will cause no end of problems with traffic and ruin a nice small local community. The school is too small and after spending alot of money moving here will seek to move if yet another estate goes up in the rochford area already far too many new builds with no real infrastructure for schools doctors etc. Definitely oppose any new housing development. Traffic issues bad enough and we can't get a doctors surgery so will make it worse

“Grt Stambridge lies on the north bank of the River Roach.It has numerous creeks & inlets interspersed with saltings & old oyster pits. With its water meadows, landscapes and riverside walks, Stambridge is one of the most picturesque areas of Rochford – tranquil, and in parts – lonely and desolate, its scenes of natural beauty untouched by time” Your own words from your brochure....this is not only a flood plain but an area full of rare and protected wildlife to build on it would be folly & disgraceful

Used to live in Cagefield Road. So much wildlife depends on those fields. Pheasants, hedgehogs, kestrels, badgers… plus the migrating geese that visit.
Being directly on the flight path, it will be a massive deterrent to many people wanting to live somewhere without significant noise from planes. Not within walking distance of key services, shops or schools. And to build these would change the makeup of the village.

I think that building houses on the areas highlighted will change Stambridge from a idyllic peaceful little village, to a busy noisy town. We haven't got the infrastructure in place, the school has too many pupils at the moment,
the drainage just about copes when it rains, the doctor's surgery is at breaking point, (no appointments for weeks). The Hall Road development was promised a school and GP surgery but it never happened. We have some very beautiful nature walks full of wild life, which would be decimated if built on. Better public transport would really help the village.

because it is a small village and i like it that way. also i bought my home in a countryside and don't want it built up.

I cannot disagree more strongly with the plan for this village. I have lived here for over 20 years and in that time have watched Rochford and change from a beautiful historic village to a runway surrounded by housing estates with house prices becoming so inflated by external migration that our own are unable to afford to stay in this area. To continue this rampant growth out into our surrounding villages, thus destroying outlying communities, greenbelt and wildlife, is beyond belief. Seems that the Government is talking a good environmental game but their actions say differently

Absolutely not!!! This is a flood plain. Land that would usually absorb 20 x its own weight in water when the river levels are at their highest. To concrete over this would be a disaster for the older housing in the area regardless of any mitigation undertaken for the new homes.

I do not agree. The area on which you have proposed to build is not suitable. Not only is it home to many wildlife, whose homes would be disturbed and quite possibly destroyed by the construction but it is surrounded by a flood plain and marshlands. Every winter the farmers have to double dig the ditches surrounding all of Cagefield Road in order to mitigate flooding. The ground is not suitable for construction nor housing. Not only that but adding more houses would put a considerable strain on the schools and Rochford's amenities (such as Doctors and Dentists) that are already well over capacity. In Stambridge there are no buses, no doctors surgery, no dentist, no youth services, no shops and so it is not a place suitable for the average family. Growing up in Stambridge was no easy task. I did not have access to a lot of the average things a child or student needs. We had a 2Mb internet connection (up until a few of years ago) because the phone lines are so old they couldn't carry the data for a decent internet speed. Cagefield road still uses copper wire phone lines and BT cannot upgrade them. There was no running bus service for me to get to school, my mother had to fight for one to be supplied. In harsh winters we have been snowed in unable to get to the shops for basic necessities. Delivery services seldom come out this far. Despite it being quite an isolated village, it is home to people who have lived here all their lives. It is a tight knit community of young and old. The addition of over 500 homes would very much tarnish the history of Great Stambridge and the mental health and livelihood of the people who have lived here for generations.

Great Stambridge is developed enough already. Stop building more houses. Stop any kind of building/development on green belt land.

There should be no further building in the district without the necessary infrastructure being in place. The Council should be pushing back to national government for their investment in roads, schools, gps, hospital before agreeing to further development.

My husband and I moved to great Stambridge over 4 years ago to escape the hustle and bustle of the town. It is a quiet rural community of which we enjoying being a part of. We do have to travel out of the village to shop but this is not a problem to keep our village as it is with its wonderful walks and vast amount of wildlife. We feel that building more homes in Great Stambridge would totally ruin the community. The roads and infrastructure are not here to support it. It is already becoming a nightmare to get out of Rochford whichever way you choose to go. The Hall road development contributing to this greatly and building in Ashingdon. We would need a better road system, more schools, doctors etc., it will be impossible to achieve all this without spoiling the village. The Stambridge road would then become congested with many more cars on the road as most houses have at least two cars.

it is important to keep the village feel for Stambridge. The farm land and footpaths in the area are important parts of why people come here for exercise and to explore the isolated area.

I agree that Stambridge should remain an independent village, but don't agree that it should have any further development.

I agree there should be less dependence on the private car. One way of doing this is keeping roads quieter, so cycling to travel hubs is seen as a safe way of travel. I don't believe there could be an increase in public transport as there isn't enough of a demand for it.

As a resident I am happy with the scale of the settlement and chose to live here for the rural tranquillity at the expense of having facilities at hand. I regularly walk in to Rochford. I value the small size of the population and the different types of people that live here. The walking routes and countryside around us provide great joy and I'm happy to share this with visitors. I love the biodiversity around us and am proud to live near and witness local farming. The pub and allotments are a great place to meet people and make friends.

Great stambridge is a rural farming village, the character itself will be destroyed by increasing the number of houses. Sense of community is built on knowing our neighbours and interacting with the small number of residents- increasing this will only ruin the community.

A. Stonebridge
Comments relate to the sites around Stonebridge, as far as CFS260AD, CFS26AB and CFS260AE to the west and CFS260L, CFS260Tand CFS260K to the east.
Sites commented upon: CFS260B; CFS260H ; CFS260C; CFS260J; CFS260F; CFS260L; CFS260T; CFS260K ; CFS260I; CFS071; CFS103; CFS260G; CFS260AH; CFS260AF; CFS260AE; CFS260AB; CFS260AD
Development on these sites is objected to on the following grounds:
• 76% (13) of the 17 sites have parts of the site in a critical drainage area.
• In all sites, development would result in high harm to the Green Belt.
• For all sites, based on the Landscape Character, Sensitivity and Capacity Study, the majority of the site falls within only the medium capacity category for accommodating development.
• In 76% (13) of the sites part of the site falls within a minerals safeguarding area.
• The DEFRA provisional agricultural land classification (ALC) Natural England Open Data maps updated April 2017 show the area as almost entirely Grade 1 agricultural land. All sites are described in the Rochford DC Site Appraisal Paper as containing Grade 1-3 agricultural land in the majority of the site.
• In terms of the impact of development on archaeology and built heritage, the Rochford District Council ‘Rochford District Historic Environment Characterisation Project’, March 2006 describes the area as characterised by known dispersed medieval farms and associated fields, with potential likelihood of extensive archaeological deposits. It states that the coherence of dispersed settlement and structure of the historic landscape, together with potential buried deposits, would suffer if significant change occurred.
• Access to bus services is graded by the Transport Assessment as 1 for all sites, indicating transport sustainability as low, with no bus services received at stops within 400m.
• Access to train services is graded by the Transport Assessment as ‘2’ for 15 of the 17 sites – with access at least 2.3 km from a train station (2 sites are graded 1 – more than 5km from a train station).
• 4 sites are graded in the bottom 40% of site options close to junctions onto the strategic road network; 11 are not in the top 40% of site options closest to junctions onto the strategic road network.
• There is a significant amount of land being promoted in Stonebridge and Sutton, the vast majority not adjacent to existing communities. Stonebridge should remain an independent hamlet with its own character and sense of community. Any development should be strictly in keeping with the character of the hamlet and take inspiration from its individual rural and low-density character. The existing community of Stonebridge has very low need for new services such as education, healthcare, retail and jobs, which are easily accessible to inhabitants in Southend and further afield.

B. Stambridge
Comments relate to sites CFS072; CFS073; CFS141.
Development on these sites is objected to on the following grounds:
• All sites have parts of the site in a critical drainage area.
• In all sites, development would result in high harm to the Green Belt.
• For sites CFS072 and CFS073, based on the Landscape Character, Sensitivity and Capacity Study, the majority of each site falls within the low-medium capacity category for accommodating development. Site CFS141 falls in the medium capacity category.
• Part of each site falls within a minerals safeguarding area.
• The DEFRA provisional agricultural land classification (ALC) Natural England Open Data maps updated April 2017 show the area as Grade 2 agricultural land. All sites are described in the Rochford DC Site Appraisal Paper as containing Grade 1-3 agricultural land in the majority of the site.
• In terms of the impact of development on archaeology and built heritage, the Rochford District Council ‘Rochford District Historic Environment Characterisation Project’, March 2006 describes the area as characterised by archaeological deposits and features of multi-period date with a number of medieval moated sites. There is a focus of prehistoric and Roman activity centred on the settlement of Great Stambridge, which itself possesses a church of Saxon origin. World War II and Cold War Military remains lie on the periphery of the built-up area of Rochford. Historic dispersed settlement, with known medieval farms and associated fields and an overall structure of tracks and roads survives well. There is a potential likelihood of extensive archaeological deposits, and the coherence of the dispersed settlement and the structure of historic landscape, together with potential buried deposits would suffer if significant change occurred.
• Access to bus services is graded by the Transport Assessment as ‘2’ for all sites, indicating transport sustainability as low, with only 1-3 bus services received at stops within 400m.
• Access to train services is graded by the Transport Assessment as ‘2’ for all sites – with access between 2.3 km and 5 km from a train station.
• All sites are graded in the bottom 20% of site options closest to junctions onto the strategic road network.
• The draft vision statement for Great Stambridge states that in 2050, it should remain an independent village with its own character and sense of community. It should benefit from improved accessibility to wider services in Rochford town, but any development should be strictly in keeping with the character of the village and be of a form and type that responds to the individual needs of the village. We do not believe that significant development of any of the above three sites would achieve these aims.