Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment

With regards the general locations selected for the emerging core strategy. To date I have seen no evidence to inform me why the general locations selected are preffered. What makes them the best locations? and best for who (RDC residents or the planning department)? RDC have selected large sites because it is easier for them to achieve the desired number of dwellings by preffering larger sites. IRDC's prefference for larger sites does not equate to the "best" solution for the Rochford District. It has been the most convienient method for RDC planning to consider.

Stambridge Parish Council objects to call for site allocation 123 - Coombes Farm, 134 land to rear of Gloster lodge and 81 land at Stambridge Road.
These locations are unsuitable for housing development and would have a major impact to the local area with many disadvantages, including weakening of openness of the Green Belt, traffic issues.

We have serious concerns relating to the deliverability and developability of some of the housing sites identified within the SHLAA, and also the sources of supply. The Council's strategy is over-reliant on the redevelopment of four existing employment sites which are currently not deliverable. Furthermore, the development of land to the north of London Road, Rayleigh, is highly dependent on the provision of new infrastructure, and will result in the loss of high quality agricultural land. There are alternative sites on the edge of Rayleigh (SHLAA Site 129), which offers a more sustainable development option.

How was the 9 land allocation areas defined? What criterion has been applied to these 9 areas and by whom? The housing needs and local community infrastructure can be achieved in smaller sites - and there are plenty of them available across the district. Are larger sites preferred because the bigger companies 'promise' to provide some community monies to subsidise the financial deficiencies in local council, highways, health and social care etc.? Hence reason for the locations. What is really in the best interests of the district? Are we all working towards the same goal but with different values?

Whilst plot reference no. 120 is not in the proposed strategic location, dwellings could be built which would benefit the local community whilst not affecting greatly the services in the area. As so much green belt land is currently being earmarked in the Rochford District area to reach government housing targets, and as you point out, this plot is located in a residential area, a new build on this plot would improve the current eyesore from the road whilst adding security to the surrounding plots. I therefore wish you to reconsider your decision and grant outline planning permission.

Chapter 1: Introduction: Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment - the acknowledgment that it is necessary to allocate land which is currently Green belt in order to meet the District's strategic housing requirement is agreed and supported.

Proposed Planning Rayleigh Area

We would like to draw to your attention to our objections to the opposed housing NLR2, NLR3, NLR4 and NLR5 for the travellers site GT3 and to the industrial complex also planned for the London Road site.

Our main objections are as followed:-

* Increase in traffic onto a very narrow road which cannot cope now with the traffic flow
* This area is notorious for flooding - fields under water most of winter

* There will be no defined green barrier between Rayleigh and Rawreth

* No planning for additional schools - doctors - sports facilities

* Pressure on existing utilities - already overstretched

* Rayleigh town already has inadequate parking and facilities - no attractions for 30+ age group

* Proposed extension to Southend Airport will add to local traffic problems


The Industrial Site

The site in Rawreth lane was built originally in an isolated area. Then the Victoria Garage development was built. The residents were assured the site would not affect them but approx 10 years on the complaints regarding air quality and noise have resulted in the plans for relocation. To put a larger industrial complex opposite approx 770 new homes will result in continued complaints from new residents. Housing and industry do not mix and this industrial site must be more isolated. Again, the size of vehicles using this facility will, in the main, be wider than the A129. It took us about 4 minutes to proceed out from Little Wheatley Chase towards Carpenters arms due to heavy traffic. Quality of life for existing residents must be preserved and brown fill sites should be the site of choice therefore the A127/A130 junction or the A1245 beyond Bedlows corner would be more isolated and therefore less problems.

There are already other industrial units in Rawreth Lane surely they are enough for this small area.

Residential

Housing could be an option to replace the Eon site. Certainly the rumour of Tesco acquiring it would only raise the problems of traffic once again. Parking is a problem to residents in this area from workers at Eon and this would get worse with a supermarket there. Again this option would create extra traffic which the A129 cannot cope with.

In short, the infrastructure does not exist to cope with anymore.

We understand that highways object to the travellers site off the A1245 Bedlows Corner and that is onto a dual carriageway so how can they possibly agree to more access from and to the A129.

Finally we have only recently moved to this district from a local area where over development of both housing and Industrial sites made day to day a living misery. It must not happen in Rayleigh.

Proposed Planning Rayleigh Area

We would like to draw to your attention to our objections to the opposed housing NLR2, NLR3, NLR4 and NLR5 for the travellers site GT3 and to the industrial complex also planned for the London Road site.

Our main objections are as followed:-

* Increase in traffic onto a very narrow road which cannot cope now with the traffic flow
* This area is notorious for flooding - fields under water most of winter

* There will be no defined green barrier between Rayleigh and Rawreth

* No planning for additional schools - doctors - sports facilities

* Pressure on existing utilities - already overstretched

* Rayleigh town already has inadequate parking and facilities - no attractions for 30+ age group

* Proposed extension to Southend Airport will add to local traffic problems


The Industrial Site

The site in Rawreth lane was built originally in an isolated area. Then the Victoria Garage development was built. The residents were assured the site would not affect them but approx 10 years on the complaints regarding air quality and noise have resulted in the plans for relocation. To put a larger industrial complex opposite approx 770 new homes will result in continued complaints from new residents. Housing and industry do not mix and this industrial site must be more isolated. Again, the size of vehicles using this facility will, in the main, be wider than the A129. Quality of life for existing residents must be preserved and brown fill sites should be the site of choice therefore the A127/A130 junction or the A1245 beyond Bedlows corner would be more isolated and therefore less problems.

There are already other industrial units in Rawreth Lane surely they are enough for this small area.

Residential

Housing could be an option to replace the Eon site. Certainly the rumour of Tesco acquiring it would only raise the problems of traffic once again. Parking is a problem to residents in this area from workers at Eon and this would get worse with a supermarket there. Again this option would create extra traffic which the A129 cannot cope with.

In short, the infrastructure does not exist to cope with anymore.

We understand that highways object to the travellers site off the A1245 Bedlows Corner and that is onto a dual carriageway so how can they possibly agree to more access from and to the A129.

Finally we have only recently moved to this district from a local area where over development of both housing and Industrial sites made day to day a living misery. It must not happen in Rayleigh.

Proposed Planning Rayleigh Area

We would like to draw to your attention to our objections to the opposed housing NLR2, NLR3, NLR4 and NLR5 for the travellers site GT3 and to the industrial complex also planned for the London Road site.

Our main objections are as followed:-

* Increase in traffic onto a very narrow road which cannot cope now with the traffic flow
* This area is notorious for flooding - fields under water most of winter

* There will be no defined green barrier between Rayleigh and Rawreth

* No planning for additional schools - doctors - sports facilities

* Pressure on existing utilities - already overstretched

* Rayleigh town already has inadequate parking and facilities - no attractions for 30+ age group

* Proposed extension to Southend Airport will add to local traffic problems


The Industrial Site

The site in Rawreth lane was built originally in an isolated area. Then the Victoria Garage development was built. The residents were assured the site would not affect them but approx 10 years on the complaints regarding air quality and noise have resulted in the plans for relocation. To put a larger industrial complex opposite approx 770 new homes will result in continued complaints from new residents. Housing and industry do not mix and this industrial site must be more isolated. Again, the size of vehicles using this facility will, in the main, be wider than the A129. Quality of life for existing residents must be preserved and brown fill sites should be the site of choice therefore the A127/A130 junction or the A1245 beyond Bedlows corner would be more isolated and therefore less problems.

There are already other industrial units in Rawreth Lane surely they are enough for this small area.

Residential

Housing could be an option to replace the Eon site. Certainly the rumour of Tesco acquiring it would only raise the problems of traffic once again. Parking is a problem to residents in this area from workers at Eon and this would get worse with a supermarket there. Again this option would create extra traffic which the A129 cannot cope with.

In short, the infrastructure does not exist to cope with anymore.

We understand that highways object to the travellers site off the A1245 Bedlows Corner and that is onto a dual carriageway so how can they possibly agree to more access from and to the A129.

Finally in the main housing will be aimed at the 30 plus age group who need the sort of entertainment currently not avaliable in Rayleigh. A look at night life in Billericay for example must be considered if plans are being made for more housing. The children too will need local sports and recreation facilities, again not currently in Rayleigh

The study was obviously flawed as it did not look at derelict land on existing plot land developments throughout the area and only concentrated on blocks attractive to large developers.

Objection to NLR1-NLR5 (inclusive)

For further details/accompanying report, see paper copy