4.24

I have lived in Rayleigh for over forty years and in that time, Rayleigh has morphed from a small pleasant market town into a developers free for all in building. This has resulted in loss of green space, loss of schools (knocking down Park School to build more houses - surely more schools not less??), traffic jams, lack of school space, overcrowded trains, doctors and dentists.

Why is it that Rayleigh gets all the housing whereas Rochford, Ashington and the outlying areas appear to stay green and pleasant areas??

Ironically, Rochford is a much smaller town than Rayleigh but manages to keep all the amenities around Rochford to the detriment of Rayleigh. Rochford Town Centre remains quaint with most of the old buildings renovated whereas Rayleigh's quaintness has been obliterated by the same Council...

The H2 plan to increase housing (550 dwellings) North of London Road,Rayleigh with Rawreth Lane at saturation point ( traffic at 17:00 is at a standstill Monday-Friday) is totally unfounded and at all costs be stopped. This road is the only approved road to Hullbridge and other villages, how will this work when at least another 1,000 vehicles will be using it when the extra houses are built. Does not make any sense?

Additional housing for North of London Road Rayleigh is not the most viable, proposed with additional housing in Hullbridge brings traffic to an unsustainable level. PPS12 applies. See LDF Oct 2008 H2 p29 states there is a need to avoid the coalescence of Rayleigh with Hullbriudge..
Proposal of adding a roundabout & cycle path at Hullbridge together with straightening Watery Lane to go safely to and from where?? is not be the answer.

Rayleigh lacks mixture of shops without travel.

To ensure that an adequate five year supply, a flexible approach needs to be adopted with regards the timing and release of land for residential development. In light of the current economic climate sites that are identified for the period up to 2021, may not come forward for a variety of reasons and need to be augmented by site(s) identified in period post 2021 in order to maintain the 15 year supply. The sites for the period post 2021 should also be delineated in the Allocations Development Plan Document.

The objective of the Local Development Framework is not just about allocating sufficient land to provide new homes but is about ensuring that, subject to the prevailing market conditions, allocations will actually deliver the required amount of housing over the plan period. This relies largely on allocating sites where there is a real prospect (available, suitable and achievable), of delivery within the anticipated timescale. It also requires a mechanism to ensure that sufficient sites are brought forward at the right time to enable delivery.

This approach is consistent with the guidance contained within Planning Policy Statement 3 (PPS3) which advocates local planning authorities maintain a flexible and responsive supply of housing land that reflects the 'Plan, Monitor, Manage' approach. This supports the need for a clear policy approach that indicates the timing of potential housing sites in relation to the housing trajectory and the 5 year supply of land. In addition, to the 5 year supply of deliverable land, PPS3 also requires a further supply of specific, developable sites for years 6-10 and where possible, years 11-15. Sufficient sites will therefore be allocated up to 2026 to meet the 15 year requirement in PPS3. In the event that the market does not deliver sufficient homes to meet requirements, sites will need to be brought forward from future year's allocations to ensure housing delivery targets are met.

As we are currently in a period of recession it is not unreasonable that some of the sites allocated in the early years of the 15 year supply may not come forward as for a combination of reasons the sites may no longer be deliverable (eg no longer available and/or achievable). In addition, it is necessary to provide private housing in order to ensure that the associated/linked affordable housing is also provided.

Therefore, in order to ensure that a continuous 5 year supply is maintained it may be necessary for sites identified in future years to be brought forward and to ensure this happens these sites should also be specifically delineated on the Proposals Map, which accompanies the Allocations Development Plan Document.

Paragraph 4.24 - amend as follows:

In considering the general development locations for post-2021 development, the same issues as for Policy H2 above have been considered. These sites have been assessed for their ability to be delivered early to compensate for any shortfall in the pre-2021 site. The assessment will include a review of available infrastructure and the impact on existing communities to ensure that their early delivery would be appropriate.