I am writing with regard to The Allocations Development Plan Document for which the public consultation ends at 17.00 today.

I feel that whilst the consultation period has lasted 6 weeks from 17th March there has been extremely little publicity provided by The Council to ensure that all interested parties have the opportunity to respond.

It would have been a simple matter to include a flier with the Council Tax demands which were sent to all residents at the end of February to provide the relevant information. It is almost as though there has been a deliberate policy to keep the proposals under wraps.

The LDP comes under the East of England Plan of May 2008 from which I quote as follows:-

Overall Spatial Strategy SS2 states:-

"The target is for 60% development to be on previously developed land."

Green Belt Policy SS7 states:-

"The broad extent of green belts in the East of England is appropriate and should be maintained."

Paragraph 3.29 states:-

"The reviews will result in significant change locally but can be made without eroding the principles and overall functioning of the green belt."

Policy T8 Local Roads states:-

Local Authorities should manage the local road network in accordance with their local transport plan objectives to complement the aims of Policies T2 - T7 with the following priorities:-

"tackling congestion and its environmental impacts."

I would therefore suggest that proposals NLR1, NLR2, NLR3, NLR4, and NLR5 do not seem to comply with these objectives.

As a resident who unfortunately needs to use London Road Rayleigh (A129) on a daily basis I find it incredible that there is any proposed development which includes access via this road or indeed Chelmsford Road (A1245). The traffic is generally significant and at certain times totally excessive without considering what would happen if any of these proposals were to be adopted. There are frequent occasions when there is an "incident" on the A127 usually at Rayleigh Weir or Progress Road which means gridlock on that road leading to even more traffic using London Road as a "rat run." Rawreth Lane is also totally inadequate for any additional access without creating even more congestion.

The existing Green Belt and agricultural land would be irrevocably eroded and lead almost certainly to further future adjacent development meaning a complete eventual loss of such land in the area.

Rayleigh and Rawreth would more or less cease to be entities in their own right.

Access to Rayleigh Town Centre would be made even more onerous than currently. This could only lead to the centre becoming even less attractive to shoppers and become more and more run down in the longer term.

I would suggest that the land either side of the A1245 just north of the Rawreth Lane junction be considered. These are both existing brownfield sites with easy access to Battlesbridge Railway Station. Some of the traffic considerations would still apply but should be less onerous than your proposals.

Employment land Options E13,E14,E15,E16,E17.

All of the observations relative to the above Residential Allocation apply but are exacerbated by the fact that most of the resulting traffic would be HGV's resulting in even more congestion and damage to road structure. All in all these options are a recipe for disaster.

Option E18 would appear to be the most acceptable option with the following reservation. Access from this site would presumably need to be on to the A1245 which is dual carriageway. This would necessitate all traffic emanating from the site using the A1245 North up to the roundabout junction with the A129. This junction is already a source of much congestion.

Gypsy/Traveller sites.

Options GT1&2 are both on the site currently there but is this existing site not illegal anyway? I would suggest that enlarging the current site could lead to problems with exiting on to the southbound A1245.

Option GT3 is totally unacceptable given the proximity to existing housing and the access via London Road. Even though there may be a desire by the council to integrate travellers into the local community it is not something that even the travellers themselves wish to happen. Although an obvious statement their chosen way of life means they travel and as such tend to move frequently. This would naturally lead to frequent changes of occupants at the site and make any integration with the community very difficult.

Overall I do not believe that the Allocation DPD (certainly as it applies to Rayleigh West) is in the best interest of the residents of the area and that here will be considerable opposition to many of the proposals.

If there is a change of leadership in the Government on 6th May it is a distinct possibility that the whole East of England Plan will be scaled-down if not scrapped entirely and I certainly hope this is the eventual outcome.