Hello in response to the consultation paper I have the following comments/concerns

In response to Q6 I object to further development within Rayleigh (maximising development density under Option 1, Urban extensions under options 2a and 2b)

- The infrastructure will not support further development. In the 3 years I have lived here I have seen a marked increase in traffic and congestion. Rayleigh will become a gridlock preventing access in/out the district
- Further development will erode the remaining historic character and appeal of the town.
- Quality of life is reduced - noise, pollution, congestion , associated social issues that the town was not developed or designed for
- It will have the opposite effect - more densely populated developments will be a dissentive in attracting people into the District to live or visit
- I strongly believe Options 3a and 3b should be considered. introducing a fit for purpose and favoured Garden village, collaborating with our neighbours . This can be introduced with due consideration and sympathetic to the surrounding environment

In general I believe the consultation underrepresents the lack of infrastructure investment needed or how it is constrained possible under options 1 2a, 2b.Or take into account the negative impacts have on circa 40% of the districts population

Q56d I believe that areas adjacent to Rayleigh Mill i.e Mill Hall should not be developed/redeveloped. Reasons similar to above . Centralised congestion, erosion in the quality of historic features. Reduction in public amenity (Mill hall) contrary to planned increases in population and desire to attract in population. Rayleigh town centre then becomes at risk of having no heart or attraction .

In addition I believe that Brookland Park warrants recognition/ongoing maintenance support as a small but significant open space . It offers an appreciation of wildlife features close to the town and nearby schools