4.16

i support the principle of using green belt adjacent to current developed land in sites that are sustainable etc and have good transport links, so long as other land is put into green belt to compensate

I feel the use of green belt land is totally unacceptable for new development.

I agree that it is necessary to use green belt land to accomodate the additional housing that is required. However, I do not agree that the strategy detailed in this document is the best solution to address the requirement.

Breaches re "Soundness" include:
The evidence is flawed since the Hambro Nursery and Clovelly Works site has been disregarded without due process or logic.
Brownfields must always be preferred ahead of green belt.
Breaches re "Legal Compliance" :
It clearly does not comply with the Statement of Community Involvement, as the Parish Council has proposed alternatives and these have not been actively considered. This is not a NIMBY proposal, brown field sites have been identified within Rawreth (Hambro Nursery and Clovelly Works).
Revised wording : Clovelly Works and Hambro Nursery will be included as substitute locations as the combined site provides a credible alternative within the community with good access to roads and services. This would also 'spread the load' and reduce the impact of such a large scale 'one site' development.

The interests of the pragmatic and willing local residents, views of the Parish and District councillors and serving MP should be taken into consideration. The open-minded approach of the local residents (in accepting a degree of change) has been betrayed by the Ditsrict Council's inflexibility in forming these adopted proposals.

Breaches falling under the "Soundness" umbrella include:

Despite logical, lower impact proposals for Hambro Nursery and Clovelly Works to be included the District Council have proceeded with the neatest proposal from a developers viewpoint. therefore it does not have a robust and credible evidence base, nor does it provide the most appropriate strategy when considered against reasonable alternatives.

It is not consistent with national policy since brownfields are always preferred ahead of green belt.

Breaches under the "Legal Compliance" umbrella include:

It clearly does not comply with the Statement of Community Involvement, as the Parish Council has proposed alternatives and these have not been actively considered. This is not a NIMBY proposal, brown field sites have been identified within Rawreth (Hambro Nursery and Clovelly Works).
Does the document conform generally to the Regional Spatial Strategy and national policy?

Unsound Statement: Does not comply with the Statement of Community Involvement.
Failure of RDC to take full advantage of land offered in Rawreth although their policy is to use "previously developed land to ensure the delivery of appropriate sites within existing settlements".
Rawreth Parish Council identified sufficient land of this nature within the centre of Rawreth village to accommodate approximately 250 dwellings.
The village residents and land owners supported this as it would benefit the community and provide much needed accommodation for next generations of families, who currently have no option but to move away to find places to live.
The village benefits from a good transport infrastructure, being approximately half a mile from a mainline railway station to London. It is also in close proximity to the A127 & A130 trunk roads.
Had this proposal been accepted by RDC, it would have reduced by 45%, the need for 550 dwellings on the GREENBELT site identified as 'North of London Road Rayleigh'.

To express my objections, I refer to the 'Introduction' section of the Core Strategy Submission Document. June 2009 page 5.
* Column 1. Fostering Greater Community Cohesion
* Column 2. The sense of community is vital for eliminating social exclusion and encouraging cohesion. The Core Strategy seeks to ensure that a sense of community and identity is retained in existing residential areas, and that new residential developments are such that they will foster a sense of community.

Here I question the soundness of the document in respect of the above, as it does not have a "robust and credible evidence base" and "does not provide the most appropriate strategy when considered against reasonable alternatives" as policy states in the document.

Descriptions such as "Rayleigh, north of London Road" have deliberately been used in this document, from the start, to distort the true facts. The area being proposed is proven to be in Rawreth and is in no way part of Rayleigh.
It was only due to local pressure from residents that RDC finally conceded that Rawreth was the true location. However, this has still not been acknowledged by RDC in their final submission to the Planning Inspectorate.
A similar unsound statement is made where different part of Rawreth is described as South West Hullbridge.

Sensitive development on Green belt land will enable Rochford to meet the housing needs identified for the next few years

Extension of residential envelope into greenbelt land in the Rawreth area is contrary to the greenbelt policy of preventing urban sprawl, and more consideration of available brownfield sites should be made.

CPREssex is very concerned at the policies for new housing which state that there is a lack of alternative or brownfield sites and therefore Green Belt must be released for development The quantity of brownfield sites is not static and more will be created during the plan period.

Support the findings that in order to fulfil the requirements of the East of England Plan to meet the housing need of the District, it will be necessary to allocate additional land for residential development, including land which is currently allocated within the Green Belt.

These new residential allocations should be in the most sustainable locations, as extensions to the higher tier settlements, which will require alterations to the settlement boundaries and removal of land from the Green Belt.