I have commented on specific parts of the document but wish to also comment on the document as a whole. I would state that I live in a small development of 4 houses built on land previously belonging to 3 houses at the rear. This was objected to by local residents due to further traffic created down the cul de sac and the loss of part of a small communal green.

There is a need for further housing in our district as in other parts of the County and the Country. However this should be primarily provided for children of residents of the area and not an overspill from London. The overspill from London needs to be provided for separately by the provision of further new towns with the required infrastructure to create these as happened in the 1960s with the creation of Basildon and the 1980's with South Woodham Ferrers.

The housing need in the district should be met as much as possible by smaller infill sites, use of vacant brownfield sites rather than allocating greenbelt for development. If larger sites are created the improvements to local roads needs to be made in order to cope with the increased traffic. By stopping traffic being at a standstill it will lessen the pollution effect which is already too high in the area. 7500 extra dwellings means at at least 7,500 - 15,000 more cars and other vehicles. This increase in traffic is not viable on the roads we currently have in the district.

There is a serious shortfall in funding for road and infrastructure projects due the governments austerity measures. The planned road works for the Fairglen interchange are not scheduled to be started for another year and full completion is expected to take several years.

Other forms of transport - I commute from Rayleigh to Southend by car. Whilst I can get to work by bus or train if needed it is not practical on a daily basis as I do need to make home visits to clients and I often work late when the buses are less frequent. I work 6 miles from home and would only consider cycling if there was a fully separate cycle path meaning I did not need to cycle on the roads as with the amount of traffic I would not feel safe cycling on Eastwood Road. I am in walking distance of Rayleigh high street and therefore generally have no need to drive there but this means I can only carry limited shopping and I drive to do my main food shop out of town but this is partly due to the cost of doing a weekly shop at M & S.

Other services - Schools are not an issue for me personally but I understand some in the area are oversubscribed. Medical services are also a breaking point, part of the issue being lack of GP's but the other part being oversubscription of surgeries. These issues are inadequately addressed in the plan.

As outlined above I object to large scale developments with in the RDC area that have no corresponding infrastructure and service improvements. I therefore support the proposal made by Rayleigh Action Group:

To call for a scheme to build a new Garden City on the Dengie Peninsular with a road and rail bridge over the River Crouch linking Southend to the north of the county. Links could be provided to provide further development in future. This would help to preserve the semi-rural nature of South East Essex and prevent the total URBANISATION of our part of Essex. They could call on the new proposed Infrastructure Policy, announced recently by the the Government, to help fund the roads and bridge.

Members of Parliament representing constituencies along the Cambridge to Oxford corridor and those serving Kent constituencies have secured such funding for Garden Cities with all the necessary infrastructure, roads, hospital, schools etc. This is in order to protect their residents.

I would suggest this type of scheme to be more appropriate to meet our housing needs over the next 2 decades rather than keep expanding and expanding on what we already have and pushing our roads and services further past their breaking point.