Firstly my own interest is in site 16, 287 Daws Heath Road Rayleigh, which I own with my niece and nephew.

Ref site 5 and 16: Your conclusion on both sites says they offer minimal contribution to housing targets.

It should be noted that our area of land map has been used when indicating site 5 area of land, as these two sites (5 and 16) are in fact adjoining. This gives the impression that the combined sites are smaller than in fact they are. Before any final decision is made this fault should be rectified and the two sites reconsidered as your conclusion has been made on incorrect information.

When these two sites are combined and reconsidered it would in fact provide some potential dwellings of 40-60 (your own estimates).

To take this point further, your conclusion for site 71 offers the same statement as above, however it does go on to say that 'Development of this site would mean that several other sites would need to be developed in order to fulfil the housing targets.' I would point out that this site at its north-east boundary virtually meets site 5. If these three sites were to be considered together there would then be the potential for 72-98 houses which must give a strong case for reconsideration of your conclusion.

These points seem to pose the question as to why, in your documents, these site pages are so far apart.

Finally your conclusion points out that 'there is a need to avoid coalescence of Rayleigh with Eastwood'. These sites are three quarters of a mile from the boundary, yet on the Eastwood Road there is less than a quarter of a mile break.

Conclusion: The conslusions have been drawn from inaccurate information and fail to take account of the wider potential and close proximity of other sites.