The proposals for the building of 772 dwellings mainly on Green belt agricultural land North of the London Road an South of Rawreth Lane will have the effect of removing the last open vista on the historic route into Rayleigh Town Centre. The London to Southend coaching route travelled this way for centuries. The views towards Rayleigh are an important aspect of many works of local art. The rural nature of the distance views of the Holy Trinity Church and Historic Mill, situated on the Rayleigh Mount, will be forever lost by this act of vandalism. The road access currently shows a town surrounded by a rural environment, this development will make it appear like any other characterless dormatory town. Future generations will consider this disgraceful despoiling of the district in the same way the residents view the ruination of the top end of the High Street, in the 1960/70's, when the ugly carbuncle Police Station and adjacent development were permitted by Planners and Councillors. All the flower baskets and green ironwork on earth cannot obscure that appalling debacle.

The proposed development will result in the area being virtually linked to Wickford/Shotgate to the west losing a valuable rural buffer between our towns. The long held view that the Essex series of towns along the old London to Southend road should remain seperate and distinct from each other, by the ribbons of rural land being maintained between them, is in danger of being ignored with these proposals. This policy has been long held to be almost sacristant. What has prompted a reversal of this stated aim? The beautiful open views of farmland stretching towards the sunset on summer evenings, as you approach our town from Chelmsford or London, will be lost to future generations. Instead residents will leave the expanding road network to be greeted by soulless rooftops. That is, of course, if they are not distracted by the proposed new commercial carbuncle, to be allowed on their right, on the London Road.

Do the current cabal of Councillors have no vision? Are they blind to the destruction this current set of plans will make to the general ambience of this area? Given that they have allowed such intrusive and unwelcome developments previously perhaps that answer is a given.

Who cannot be dismayed at the bright green, 24 hour neon lit, supermarket development they agreed on Rawreth lane without suitable restrictions on the shielding of light from residential homes during the night? The permitting of the huge ugly distribution outlet sign that dominates part of the skyline as you drive up Rawreth Lane, not to mention the failure to protect the residents in Vernon Avenue from the Tesco parking menace that has been foisted upon them? The Geoff Bray site is another disgrace, there are numerous other smaller failures that have blighted the lives of residents. Those trusted with the protection of our town have, and are continuing, to fail in their duty to the people who have trusted them with their vote and paid them with their taxes.

The tragedy is that the deplorable decision to spoil this attractive entrance to our town is not necessary. The requirement of the Local Authority to find extra housing development sites could easily be met if the Council Planning group and Councillors charged with this task hadn't been so LAZY. They are throughout Rochford and district. It is a quick simple action to draw a line round virgin Greenbelt farmland and redesignate it as residential building land. A small child with a crayon could have done this with ease. The many areas of scrubland and unused small parcels of land, in Daws Heath and at the back of Great Wheatleys (surely not!), could fill part of the need. To the South of London Road there are acres of land that is unused and scruffy, much of it rat infested. I understand an approach, by a landowner, to use part of this wasted site was refused. There is a wealth similar under utilized plotlands and ragged unused commercial sites North of Rawreth Lane that could provide as much, if not more, land for building than the present suggested open green belt farmland. Yes, it would take more time and negotiation. Yes, it will prove more difficult to develop. Yes, a relief road would be needed to access the area and Hullbridge beyond, but that would truly be a future benefit to the whole area. We currently experience road delays and sometimes gridlock on the two roads that will straddle this proposed develoment.

To suggest another 772 dwellings can be accommodated without any new major road infrastructure is lunacy at it extreme. This development will effectively be a sizeable village added to the west side of Rayleigh with no upgrade of any services. 772 households will mean thousands of more cars and many thousands of extra daily car movements in this already congested area. The ridiculous suggestion that a bus route through this 'estate' will allieviate many of the problems this development will generate would be laughable if it wasn't so dishonest. Can the Council staff and Councillors responsible for this proposal advise how many 'bus' miles they travel in the course of their duties? I suggest a small postcard will suffice for the answer. I have never met a Councillor who didn't arrive in a car, nor a Council official, so please do not treat the public you serve with such contempt.

The redesignation of agricultural 'Green belt' land to 'Building land' will result in a tremendous 'windfall' in financial terms for the landowners concerned. I would request that a full disclosure of the names of the landowners involved be made public prior to the decision to proceed. A forensic test should be made to examine just who will 'benefit' from this unwelcome plan. I'm sure no one has anything to hide but the details should be fully disclosed.

As I have such serious reservations about the need for the greenbelt land to be despoiled, believing there are alternatives, I would want to be sure that those charged with making this decision have made it in the full interest of the local people and not for any other reason. Can we be sure that no Councillor (past or present), no Council employee (past or present) their family, friends, or business interests etc. will be enriched by this unwelcome proposal.? Can we be clearly sure that large building concerns have not paid 'retainers' to any of the stated persons or businesses on an understanding that they get first preference of purchase should the status of the Greenbelt farmland be changed?

I have a recollection of the issues that pertained at Doncaster Council and would want to be assured that the present decisions were not purposefully, or obliquely, made due to any unacceptable influence by those charged with overseeing this new allocation . Simply removing oneself from meetings when ones friends/colleagues are deciding whether such enrichment should befall one is not enough to quell any unease the residents might have that the decisions were in the public interest. The Doncaster Council corruption scandal saw many such conflict of interest deals to the detriment of the people of Doncaster. A full disclosure of those gaining from this new proposal will dispell any fears that residents might have.

The pressure on services such as doctors and police even if school places are met has not been addressed. It is vital that our health services and security requirements can be met when such a large number of extra residents are being encouraged into such a already over-subscribed area.

My concerns are such that I believe a full unfettered Judicial Review should be called for due to the far reaching change this proposal will have on this area. In particular the change, in status of the Green belt area North of London Road, will make to this district.