Object

Core Strategy Submission Document

Representation ID: 15929

Received: 30/10/2009

Respondent: Mr Alan Stone

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Failure of RDC to accept land offered in Rawreth village for 250 dwellings. Residents and landowners supported this.
Good road and rail facilities within half mile. Would reduce greenbelt use by 45% in Rawreth.
*** I disagree with these summaries, please read the full submission.

Full text:

Unsound Statement: Does not comply with the Statement of Community Involvement.
Failure of RDC to take full advantage of land offered in Rawreth although their policy is to use "previously developed land to ensure the delivery of appropriate sites within existing settlements".
Rawreth Parish Council identified sufficient land of this nature within the centre of Rawreth village to accommodate approximately 250 dwellings.
The village residents and land owners supported this as it would benefit the community and provide much needed accommodation for next generations of families, who currently have no option but to move away to find places to live.
The village benefits from a good transport infrastructure, being approximately half a mile from a mainline railway station to London. It is also in close proximity to the A127 & A130 trunk roads.
Had this proposal been accepted by RDC, it would have reduced by 45%, the need for 550 dwellings on the GREENBELT site identified as 'North of London Road Rayleigh'.

To express my objections, I refer to the 'Introduction' section of the Core Strategy Submission Document. June 2009 page 5.
* Column 1. Fostering Greater Community Cohesion
* Column 2. The sense of community is vital for eliminating social exclusion and encouraging cohesion. The Core Strategy seeks to ensure that a sense of community and identity is retained in existing residential areas, and that new residential developments are such that they will foster a sense of community.

Here I question the soundness of the document in respect of the above, as it does not have a "robust and credible evidence base" and "does not provide the most appropriate strategy when considered against reasonable alternatives" as policy states in the document.