Site 207 has many advantages over the large sites preferred by RDC, or others detailed in appendix a as follows:
- It would not necessitate development on productive agricultural land.
- It is not prone to flooding.
- It would not result in a single large extension to the existing residential envelope of Rayleigh and is therefore more compliant with the government's greenbelt policy. i.e. a purpose of Greenbelt is to "Check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas", unlike RDC's single preferred location in Rayleigh.
- Would not significantly reduce the "openness of the countryside" to the extent that RDC's other preferred locations or others in appendix a would. The site is currently a private residential garden with no public access.
- Would not require substantial investment in infrastructure before dwellings could be provided as infrastructure bordering onto the site could be re-used. Little or no additional infrastructure would be required. All domestic services are already present on the site and adequate local capacity exists.
- Would provide a better level of integration with the existing local community as opposed to overwhelming local communities with large areas of new housing.
- Good public transport, walkways and local services already exist in the area within easy walking distance.
- The site has other residential development on three of the four sides of it already.
- The current line of the Greenbelt would require only minor change as two of the four sides of the area bordering the property boundary are not green belt.
- Would not result in neighbouring communities in merging as is the case with the North London Road location preferred by RDC. Rayleigh will merge with Rawreth under RDC's preferred location
- Make better use of existing green and open spaces by locating dwellings within walking distance of nearby parks and woodlands, without the need to use a car.
The rationale that has been employed to date by RDC focuses in on a limited number of large sites to obtain the desired number of dwellings. The benefits of utilising more numerous smaller sites around the existing residential areas has not been investigated fully. This approach warrants further investigation, and is surely essential to ensure the RDC residents are provided with the best possible solution.
Site 207 has not been properly considered by RDC because it is relatively small. I have raised an official complaint with regards this with Shaun Scrutton and the local government ombudsman as RDC should have undertaken evaluation of all sites submitted for consideration with the necessary level of diligence and transparency.