We wish to submit our OBJECTIONS to some of the proposals presented in the Allocations DPD. We are doing so by email because of the restrictions on the number of words that can be used within the online form.


1. Residential - Options NLR1, 2, 3, 4 and 5



We are very concerned that a large development is proposed for the area north of the London Road, Rayleigh.



1.1 Access to the town centre is already extremely challenging at peak times. A development of 550 homes would increase traffic unacceptably along London Road / Rawreth Lane.



1.2 This area was promised a new school, shops and amenities when the Little Wheatleys Estate was built 30 years ago. These did not materialise. In the intervening 30 years there have been several large scale housing developments in this area but still no additional infrastructure or amenities have been provided. This area cannot sustain any further large scale growth. It is hard to believe that the promised amenities will be built if the council's track record on honouring infrastructure development agreements is a yardstick.



1.3 These options would further erode the green belt and will from experience surely increase the risk of flooding in this area some of which is already in flood zone 3.



1.4 In addition we note that the site of Rawreth Industrial Estate has already been identified in the Urban Capacity Study as suitable for housing use. We also understand that this land will accommodate 220 dwellings. This adds even further weight to our objections to developing the sites NLR 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.



1.5 There are other areas in Rayleigh of a similar size that have more favourable assessment criteria, fewer constraints and less potential impact.



At Appendix 1, sites 29 and 195 are located to the South West of Rayleigh in close proximity to the town centre . As noted in the assessment criteria, they have good access to services, leisure facilities, schools and the highways network. Why were these areas not considered suitable for consultation? Was it because they are close to Great Wheatley Road and Western Road? Analysing the constraints, assessment criteria and potential impact sections these sites would seem to be more suitable that the proposed options NLR1 - 5.



1.6 Why do 550 dwellings have to be built in one area? Surely smaller clusters of houses in different parts of the district will mean less pressure on the existing infrastructure and amenities. It would also reduce additional traffic on already heavily congested highways.



1.7 Why are some areas of the district, for example Canewdon, not included in the housing allocation?








2. Gipsy and Travellers - Options GT1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7



2.1 The plan seems confused about the number of pitches that Rochford District Council is required to provide. The text on page 62 of the DPD indicates that there is a need to provide 11 additional pitches in order to achieve the required total of 18. However options GT1, 2, 5 and 7 would provide at minimum 15 pitches.



2.2 We are concerned that if the Gypsy and Travellers pitches are sited at GT1, 2, 3 or 6 the sites may expand illegally into the surrounding countryside as has happened at Dale Farm and Crays Hill.



2.3 The document states that integrating the Gypsy and Traveller sites into residential settlements to promote community cohesion is an important aim. Large sites do not encourage such integration as has been found at Dale Farm and Crays Hill.



For these reasons we would advocate that the requirement be met by smaller sites spread across the district in areas that cannot easily be expanded. This would provide smaller Gypsy and Traveller communities that are more likely to integrate with existing residential settlements.







3. Economic Development - Options E13, 14, 15 ,16 and 18



3.1 We feel that the options E13 - 16 are unsuitable for economic development. They are in close proximity to existing residential sites and schools. These will be detrimentally affected by, among other things, noise and air pollution and would add considerably to the existing traffic congestion already experienced on the London Road, Rayleigh which is not suitable for heavy goods vehicles.



3.2 We do not understand why the majority of future employment will be directed to the West of the district. There are surely more suitable sites that would better meet the aim of being "in proximity to London Southend Airport".



3.3 Of the options proposed we would advocate that option E18, which is detached from residential settlements and has close proximity to main routes which are suitable for heavy goods vehicles, would be a better choice.