RDC have not examined all other options. In 2009 RDC initiated a call for sites exercise, requesting landowners to submit potential sites for consideration. I submitted my site which is situated on the edge of Rayleigh. The site is part of the built environment on two of its four sides, has all services to the site, has a fully made up road to the frontage along it (176ft). The site contributes little, if anything to the 5 stated green belt objectives, yet RDC have selected to build on green belt that is prone to flooding, will cost millions in preparatory work (like removing pylons, and laying infrastructure), will result in massive expension of the existing built area in a single place, will likely result in a merging of one settlement with another (Rayleigh and Rawreth), will replace productive agricultural land with concrete forever.
RDC did not even visit my site until after the public consultation on the submitted core strategy had started, so it was not considered. In the allocations document, my site was detailed (site 207) but they failed to get even the basics correct such are correctly showing the boundary correctly. Also unsubstantiated negative comments had been made against the site like "will require significant investment in access and public walkways" remain unsubstantiated by RDC, (they have refused to do this to date). I have schools, shops, busses, dentists, doctors, playing fields all close at hand.
The fact is that RDC dont like my site because it is small. It could cater for up to 15 houses, but RDC do not wish to consider this size of plot properly because "it is of limited strategic value" in the view of Mr Scrutton. I believe this means it would take too much effort to examine sites of this size. Instead they have preffered to consider sides which are huge, and address a high proportion of the number of dwellings to be built in one go. This prefference for larger sites comes with hidden costs, as follows:
- Large sites will require a greater investment in infrastructure before a single dwellinghouse is provided.
- Coalescence of communities (like Rawreth and Rayleigh) are more likely with large sites.
- Large sites will result in massive increases in the built area, with the resulting chaos in traffic etc)
- Large sites have a big impact in one area, whereas by selecting more numerous smaller sites the impact is distributed.
- Replacing productive agricultural land with concrete.
- Large sites contribute more to the 5 greenbelt objectives, especially the most important one "openness".
- Preffered areas are prone to flooding.
- Large sites do not integrate as well as more numerous smaller sites into their surrounding areas.
RDC have not provided adequate evidence as to why they preffer the locations detailed in their core strategy, in comparision with other locations that were available for them to consider.
RDC have not detailed at all their prefference for selecting large sites over more numerous smaller sites.
This is not the best plan that could be adopted for Rochford, it is the easiest for the planning department to produce.