May I first of all introduce the SPEAC organisation. SPEAC is a residents association formed some two years ago to scrutinise development plans along the Thames corridor in Essex. We seek to represent the community of East Thurrock in protecting environmental and quality of life issues arising from development plans, thereby ensuring that sustainability principles and objectives are met. In this we refer to the East of England Regional Assembly document "A Sustainable Development Framework for the East of England" which itself refers to the UK Government publication "A Better Quality of Life—A Strategy for Sustainable Development in the UK". We therefore endorse the statement that "new development is important but that the balance must be adjusted in favour of the environment if revival is to be lasting".

  Fundamental to our objectives, and to the proposals now put forward for the inquiry into planning for housing and communities, is the influence of the Thames Gateway initiative. When RPG9A was first published the boundary for Thames Gateway did not extend into East Thurrock. That boundary has since been moved to encompass the whole of the Essex bank of the Thames to Southend. This then introduces the first major concern for our community.

  The perception is that a development zone from East London to the Thames estuary will place undue emphasis on the built environment and the demands for development, to the extent that we may find ourselves occupying a concrete jungle throughout that vast area. This would, indeed, be urban sprawl on an unprecedented and unacceptable scale. This concern is somewhat amplified by the London Plan, as introduced by the Mayor, Ken Livingstone. Discussions on this Plan have revealed an attitude that more and more commercial and residential development of the Thames corridor is seen as essential to achieving the objectives for London, without necessarily promoting the interests of existing residents of Essex. On paper the stated objectives for Thames Gateway and the London Plan seem to emphasise the regeneration of derelict brownfield sites. This must be supported, but it is clear that the momentum being generated for development extends far beyond these sites. For many decades Thurrock has been, quite literally, the dumping ground for London and the feeling of residents here now is that this perception of Thurrock as being a run down district is taken as justification for any "improvement" that can be thrown at us. Open spaces and green fields will suffer to meet the objectives, such as the scale of housing declared as necessary by the Deputy Prime Minister.

  This proposal for in excess of 100,000 new homes in the region is a major concern and is considered unsustainable for a number of reasons.

—  This south east corner is already highly congested.

—  The transport infrastructure is already unable to cope with demand. In this particular area we see roads such as the A13 and A127 as being two of the most congested in the country, as has recently been confirmed by Trafficmaster studies. The M25 overload situation is well recognised and the ORBIT Study is seeking to introduce relief routes that will drive that traffic deeper into Essex so exacerbating our problems, particularly with the potential introduction of toll charges on the M25.

—  There are no north-south rail links capable of relieving the situation by offering users suitable public transport alternatives. A north-south rail journey would involve travel into London and back out again. Both time consuming and costly.

—  Local public services are already totally overloaded and unable to cope. GP surgeries are over subscribed and refusing new patients whilst many doctors are nearing retirement. The hospitals, in our case Basildon, cannot cope with demand. In A&E situations patients are often taken to Kent for treatment, thus having to negotiate the M25/Thames crossing.

—  Police resources are patently inadequate with a rapidly declining standard of service being evident. In some areas the schools are oversubscribed.

—  Development plans could involve more building on the flood plain. This area of East Thurrock is identified by the Environment Agency as "high risk" for flooding. It is recognised that climate change may well have a greater impact in the east of England than elsewhere since the region is slowly sinking due to geological processes. We see, almost daily, reports of concerns regarding the potential for future flooding along the Thames as a result of rising sea levels and extreme weather conditions. Flooding issues are therefore pertinent to both potential new and existing properties.

  It is considered unlikely that the proposals for housing would significantly reduce house prices in the area but rather that they will result in a reduction in the rate of increase and thereby a stabilisation of prices. However, this question is partly connected with that of the balance between housing for sale and social housing. Social housing is an essential requirement but some experiences have shown that, unfortunately, the use of social housing as an instrument in social engineering can result in decline of a residential area. Our area is currently successful in integrating these two aspects of housing demand and future plans must seek to protect that success. It is possible to identify other areas where inappropriate use of social housing has resulted in rapid decline, social problems and loss of house value. We must also be careful to accommodate the real need for social housing whilst at the same time recognising the aspirations of people to have access to affordable housing for purchase rather than having to rely upon renting. In neither case must we allow these demands to result in developers producing what might be seen as the "slums" of the future.

  In making the plans for housing numbers, tenure and density we consider that local authorities must be instrumental in decision taking. It is the local authority that best understands local issues. In this respect we have serious concerns as to the potential for regional assemblies to eventually have major control over such issues. This has obviously been raised in responses to the recent Green Paper on planning and it is encouraging that the two documents; "Sustainable Communities—Delivering through Planning" and "Making the System Work Better"; published by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on 18 July, place emphasis upon community involvement in development plans. We would hope that this will be fully implemented in considering future strategies prior to implementation.

  Overall the impression given is that a "predict and provide" policy for housing is being adopted regardless of the ability of the region to successfully absorb the level of housing expected in a sustainable manner. There does not appear to be an attempt to determine what level of development is realistically achievable within a given area. In this the previously referenced emphasis on development in the southeast regions is a major concern. There are many areas of the country desperate for both commercial and residential development that could provide both employment and housing for their young people who are currently forced to move away from the area of their birth in search of employment, due to regional decline. This creates a self-perpetuating situation where homes that are available in that area are taken up as second homes thus making them even less affordable to locals whilst at the same time areas around London become more congested demanding more homes, then more jobs and so more homes ad infinitum. Our development strategies currently concentrate on the London region to the extent that we must wonder when we might reach some saturation point and what we do then!

  This response to your notice of 30 October is necessarily brief given the urgent timescale. Please contact me if any expansion or clarification is appropriate.

Derek Parker

Chairman