I strongly object to the planning application for several reasons:

Firstly I would like to point out the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government have issued new planning rules to deliver homes for everyone. The very first paragraph reinforces the need to maximise the use of land (i.e. affordable housing) and to strengthen the protection for Green Belt land. This came into place on 5.3.2018.

1. I object to the New Local Plan, particularly for all the green belt land that has been proposed, as this increased the amount of air pollution proposed in this plan, along with substantial overcrowding in areas of this District.

2. Your proposals, particularly CFS147, CFS146, CFS143, CFS170 and 171 (I acknowledge CFS167 has already been given permission on green belt land in spite of a high level of objections at the time) are all on green belt land and I ask that these proposals listed above be removed as per my first paragraph in the new planning rules in strengthening protection for green belt land.

3. In addition to this reason for the above said proposed new land an Essex County Council (ECC) 'Growth and Infrastructure Report 2016' states that to support current infrastructure costs are at £210million, in ECC's costings there is already a shortfall of £104 million. How will the New Local Plan infrastructure be funded? After all, I was at the meeting when RDC did agree that infrastructure will 'go in first'. I cannot see in any reports where this has been addressed, therefore I object to the New Local Plan until all necessary infrastructure is in place ( including the new A127/Fairglen interchange which is essential for the proposal numbers listed above as well as the general flow of traffic in and out of the RDC area.
No address has been made with regards to infrastructure for schools, doctors surgeries, our hospitals (if they remain as they are) are already overloaded, has RDC any guarantees of 'infrastructure first' for these to name a few essential services?

4. The risk of flooding in the West of Rayleigh has not been properly addressed either. No flood risk has been forthcoming in the New Local Plan, pretty pictures of landscaped 'parks' aka flood plains on land already given to development is not a flood risk assessment. I object strongly to the proposals listed above on the basis that the current green belt land also acts as its own flood plain, thereby keeping West Rayleigh safer from flooding. There is no evidence in the New Local Plan to suggest any alternative to flooding run-off areas.

5. The increasing number of Residents in RDC, particularly West of Rayleigh, yet in increase with the impending 500 additional homes will add to the current, already publicly shamed failure, with regard to air pollution within legal limits. With the proposed infrastructure 'improvements' at the A127/Fairglen interchange, the air pollution issue will increase along this corridor too - any further development will just accelerate this life threatening issue. I cannot believe any Council would proceed on this basis alone. I have to strongly object on the basis that clean air is a basic right that needs to be afforded to everyone. I cannot find any traffic flow/density assessments to address the above issues.

6. Consultation has not been carried out fully. Yes, sessions have been held with virtually no visual information. A few planning officers were left to 'field' the many people who had questions as there were no maps and one laptop available. The Housing Councillor was not present (yes, I attended two of them in Rayleigh). This was not a consultation, this was a box ticking exercise. You should re-run these properly and actually consult as opposed to leave your planning officers to deal with the hundreds of question which they were largely unable to answer as they did not have the information to hand. One laptop per meeting is woeful.

I have no confidence that the decisions about to be made by the Council members of the planning committee will be made in the best interests of the people of Rayleigh and surrounding areas. You did not take in account last time any matters objected to and since then you have held important meetings 'in cabinet' or as closed sessions, your lack of transparency is of great concern and I hope you prove me wring this time.

Thank you for taking the time to read this objection.