North of London Road, Rayleigh 550 dwellings

Better to develope on new sites rather than with existing town area. Adding to congestion etc. A logical site to develope.

Quite revealing about the mindset of the authors is what is not considered an issue i.e.
- building on productive agricultural land
- costs of infrastructure not defined
- flood risk
- loss of character of site
- openess of greenbelt
Better (smaller) sites are available that would have none of these issues but they would require more effort from RDC to contemplate. This is the easiest solution for RDC, not the best solution for RDC residents.

Productive agricultural land gone forever, huge infrastructure investment. Better sites exist.

If this development went ahead it would not only be the residents of the Western side of Rayleigh who would suffer due to an increase in traffic. A high proportion of the resultant increase in road traffic would need to head in a London or Southend direction via the A127. In selecting a single large preffered location in one area for all the additional housing required in Rayleigh the resulting traffic will be concentrated in one area, as opposed to spreading this additional road traffic burden across the three A127 junctions from Rayleigh. A larger number of smaller sites around Rayleigh would spread the additional traffic burden and offer a greater re-use of existing infrastructure. This would provide Rayleigh with a better solution and avoid a single point of failure or bottleneck.

This area is not the most suitable, with some of the area being Flood Zone 3, a flood risk assessment (FRA)would have to be passed by the environment agency, including a sequential test. As there are other options for housing in areas offered which are not in flood zone 3, then this application should fail, and other areas must be considered for housing which are not in flood Zone 3.

Any development with access roads leading to London Rd or Rawreth Lane would add to roads that cannot cope with existing traffic as queues form already. In addition, the development areas would be too far from the Station to allow workers to walk to the Station adding to traffic on the roads and parking problems.

Development should only be provided in areas with good public transport links that are not provided along existing roads.

Rayleigh does not have any NHS dentist and additional people would add to problems with the lack of leisure facilities like a cinema or swimming pool.

Further residential development to the west of Rayleigh is undesirable. The proposed large-scale development of 550 houses between London Road and Rawreth Lane should be reconsidered in favour of smaller developments spread within Rochford District. Reallocation of brown field sites such as Rawreth Industrial Estate and sites adjacent to Chelmsford Road north of Rawreth Lane should be reallocated to housing rather than sacrificing agricultural land and eroding the Green Belt.

London Road is already congested at peak times. Congestion on Crown Hill is a problem without an obvious solution. This development will potentially add another 1000 cars to local roads.

I OBJECT. The roads, town centre and communal facilities in Rayleigh are already over-loaded with previous development and lack expansion of infrastructure. This proposed development is huge compared to the existing size of Rayleigh and the facilities available on the edge of Rayleigh Town. I am concerned with the further development of green belt around Rayleigh and the use of flood zones.

I am also concerned by the lack of publicity of this document, given the scale of the proposals and adverse impact it will have on the town of Rayleigh.

The Green Belt area between Rayleigh and Wickford (Shotgate) is a precious commodity which should be vigorously protected.

There is evidence to show that once a small area of a 'greenfield' site is built upon it becomes the thin edge of the wedge. Little Wheatley Estate - The Council Development to Hatfield Road - The development south of Bardfield Way - The 'Birds' estate. All this was carried out with the promise of supporting facilities and improved infrastructure. None of this has materialised.

In fact, similarly to the statement on this document "Public park land providing buffer between future built environment and A1245", the area now occupied by the houses on the eastern end of Bardfield Way was designated as a 'Public Open Space' on the original plan yet the road was built to a standard required to take buses.

An extra 550 dwelling (plus the 220 on Rawreth Industrial Site which is not in this plan - making 770 dwellings) will put further strain on the infrastructure.
* Traffic on the A129 into Rayleigh Town Centre which is a current problem evenings and Saturdays.
* Traffic on the A129 at the Carpenters Arms roundabout. Again already an issue mornings and evenings.
* Traffic at the A1245 / A127 interchange where long queues form due to the lack of Traffic Light control for the Southbound Carriageway of the A1245.

I believe none of the proposed infrastructure / facility improvements indicated in this document will materialise as evidenced in the manner of the last 30 years of increased housing in this corner of Rayleigh.

There are 'brownfield' sites in Rawreth that Rawreth Parish Council have proposed as viable alternatives. What are these not being used? Rawreth are happy to have these why is Rochford Council not pursuing this?

I object to Options NLR1, NLR2, NRL3, NRL4 and NLR5 because they will:
cause an unnecessary loss of agricultural land, will increase traffic, will create a greenbelt boundary that cannot be defended in future and encourage a merging between Rayleigh and Rawreth. London Road and adjacent roads already suffer regular traffic congestion. This problem will become worse with additional vehicles from 550 homes regularly using these roads for commuting, school runs and shopping trips.

I also objects to the proposed traveller options for Rayleigh and Rawreth, namely Options GT1, GT2, GT3 and GT7.

Building 550 houses onhigh quality farmland within the Green Belt is completely unsustainable. It should be protected and preserved as such. GB1. Extra problems with drainage and run-off increases the potential for flooding in Watery Lane - closed twice this year already due to heavy rain.
Local roads A129/A1245/Rawreth Lane/Beeches Road/Watery Lane are already full to capacity and frequently gridlocked. Recent traffic survey registered over 7,000 vehicles during a 12 hour period in both directions along Rawreth Lane and over 2,000 each way in Beeches Road.

E17 is on our "buffer" which should prevent housing right upto A1245

1. The proposed development of 550 houses to the north of London Road would exacerbate existing problems in the area that have occured from previous large housing developments in this part of Rayleigh (e.g. Little Wheatleys estate and various developments off Victoria Avenue). In particular the traffic during weekday peak times and most of the time at weekends.
2. Further invasion of concrete into the green belt area not only detracts from the quality of life in this area it would also reduce the size of the "sponge" to mop up the water that floods off of the houses and paved areas that come with these developments. Climate change creating heavier rainfall periods coupled with an increase in houses and paved areas means that rainwater has increased and has less places to go to. Do we want to make this situation worse?
3. In addition to the housing developments, this area of Rayleigh is also looking at the prospect of a Care Home development on London Road and maybe a significant commercial development at the Eon site (also on London Road) when Eon moves out. More than our fair share of development I think.

In summary, I believe that this level of development is unacceptable. It would be unfair and inconsiderate to subject the people of this area of Rayleigh to developments on this scale. I accept that there is a need for more houses in the RDC area and I would be sympathetic to developments of a smaller scale that largely kept existing green belt intact. May I suggest that if houses must be built in this area, that the Rawreth Industrial Estate and the Eon site should be prime candidates because they (a)sit largely within developed areas, (b)constitute a redevelopment rather than a new development and (c)leaves the existing green belt intact.

I totally object to this development. This is far too many dwellings and Rayleigh does not have the infrastructure to cope with this number of dwellings. I am concerned about the impact this will have on roads being even more clogged up than they are now, the effect it will have on schooling in the area, the loss of green space, the environmental impact this will have, the effect this will have on public services and utility services in the area. If this carries on Rayleigh will soon be joined up with Shotgate and Wickford with no fields/countryside left.

Disappointed to see in the Rayleigh area, that good profitable agricultural land has been proposed, when there is a large amount of plot land that has become unprofitable to farm has not been identified for the purpose. We have land in Hooley Drive and Vandabilt Avenue which we would be happy to go forward for this purpose and cannot understand why in preference you propose to use good agricultural land, as apposed to unprofitable farming land.

The infrastructure inadequately services the needs of the existing developments in this area.

Traffic congestion is often at the point of gridlock at certain times of the day making it difficult for traffic leaving existing side roads and exceedingly dangerous for cyclists and padestrians .

This designated green belt and productive farmland should be protected the proposed development would make it even harder to protect against any future development.

The exhorbitant costs of replacing the electricity pylons for underground cabling and provide and maintain adequate flood defences could be used towards the long promised improvment in amenities for the existing residents

There is already a large concentration of housing developments in this area of Rayleigh and the infrastructure and amenities are insufficient to cater for the needs of the existing residents.

There are only limited places available in existing infant/primary schools and the two senior schools in this area are already heavily oversubscribed.

The lack of public transport and facilities for children, teenagers and adults in this area already adds to the increase in car travel and volume of traffic on an already heavily congested and dangerous road so additional housing on this scale would only make it worse.

My objection is based on loss of local wildlife, loss of natural greenbelt land, lack of road infrastructure, increased traffic, (I live on the London Road and traffic is already very busy, I have 3 young children and often worry about them), oversubscribed schooling/ Doctors surgery, increased crime / anti-social activity that works hand in hand with increased house dwellings within compact area.

My objection is based on loss of local wildlife, loss of natural greenbelt land, lack of road infrastructure, increased traffic, (I live on the London Road and traffic is already very busy, I have 3 young children and often worry about them), oversubscribed schooling/ Doctors surgery, increased crime / anti-social activity that works hand in hand with increased house dwellings within compact area.

Such a proposal will increase road congestion in a very busy road area as I have 3 young children and they walk to school with me on the London Road, Rayleigh. I have concerns also over-subscription of doctors- dentists- schooling (increased class sizes). increased crime, destruction of natural greenbelt area and local wildlife which i understand is against Rochford Council long term strategy. I moved to Rayleigh several years ago as it is a nice area to live and I agreed with RDC greenbelt protection strategies, I do hope that RDC keep those strategies in focus when considering such a large dwelling allocation in a key greenbelt area of Rayleigh.

Background

Countryside Properties have control of some 98 ha of land to the north of London Road, Rayleigh, which it is seeking to bring forward to meet the development proposals set out in the emerging Rochford Core Strategy (alongside adjoining owners, as appropriate).

Notwithstanding the matters of detail raised in these submissions, Countryside Properties are committed to working with the District Council towards the successful delivery of these proposals.

Over-Arching Representations (All Site Options)

The Site Allocations DPD sets out 5 potential land parcels on the western side of Rayleigh north of London Road, ranging from 23ha to 29ha, as possible locations for accommodating the 550 houses, primary school, youth/community facilities and play space proposed in the current draft of the Core Strategy. We assume the proposed Public Park would be accommodated on land outside the identified parcels, but with some open space accommodated within the allocated area (as implied by the notation used to describe each area in the published document).

In common with the representations made by Countryside Properties to the Core Strategy, there are we consider some important points to bear in mind in respect of all of the options being put forward, being:

(1) Flexibility - The need for flexibility in the area to be allocated, to cater for lack of delivery elsewhere and to reflect the fact that the proposed allocation is a "minimum";
(2) Site Area - Delivering even the minimum level of development as currently set out in the Core Strategy will require a greater land allocation that the Site Allocations options imply; and
(3) Long-term Green Belt boundary - In allocating new development land and amending the Green Belt boundary, the Site Allocations document will be setting a new, long term defensible Green Belt boundary, and under the terms of PPG2, this will require consideration of both potential development needs in the post-Plan period, and consideration of the most appropriate Green Belt boundary.

Before turning to consider site specific matters, we set out our comments on the above points more fully below.

(1) The need for flexibility

Countryside Properties have highlighted in their representations to the Core Strategy the requirement in PPS12 for Development Plan documents to have flexibility, in order to respond to changing circumstances. Also highlighted was the fact that the RSS housing requirement is a "minimum", and that all strategic site allocations need likewise to be considered as a minimum if the requirements of the RSS in this respect are to be enacted at the local level.

The definition of the specific land allocation at the Site Allocations stage needs to have regard to that strategic context. It needs to ensure that there is sufficient flexibility within the allocated area to respond to potential changes in development requirements over the Plan period, including the possibility that additional land for housing (or indeed other development needs) may need to be delivered.

(2) Site Area

Even without the requirement for flexibility, we do not consider that the Options put forward have fully considered the land-take required for the scale of development envisaged.

Within the allocated area, there will be a requirement not only to provide the number of homes specified, but also to deliver the highway infrastructure necessary to serve the residential use, to deliver the appropriate social and community infrastructure necessary to support the housing proposed, the associated open space and strategic landscaping, and the drainage infrastructure and sustainable drainage systems necessary to create the quality of residential environment that both Countryside Properties and residents will expect to see.

We also note the requirement in the Core Strategy to provide additional employment land to the West of Rayleigh. For the reasons set out in our representations to the Core Strategy, and set out in our response to the site options presented in the Site Allocations DPD, the additional employment land proposed should be located north of London Road as part of a comprehensive mixed-use scheme.

In our experience of creating successful new residential and mixed-use communities, it is essential not to under-estimate the land required to deliver a quality scheme. In particular for and edge-of-settlement location, integrating a structural landscape framework to 'green' the environment and achieve a successful transition between town and country is essential.

The land west of Rayleigh is relatively free of physical or environmental constraints, but that does not mean that any Masterplan for the site can ignore such features as do exist - there is a public sewer, some specific areas identified as being at flood risk, the potential for existing sports pitches to be retained, the potential need for a buffer to the existing Rayleigh Industrial Estate (assuming it does not relocate), a nearby Listed Building, and existing trees and hedgerows. Any Masterplan will need to be sensitive to these existing features, even if they do not pose significant constraints, and this will inevitably have an impact on the disposition of development and therefore land-take.

At net residential densities of between 30 and 35 dwellings per hectare, 550 residential units would require around 16-18 ha. Allowing a ratio of 60% built area to 40% landscaping, formal open space, incidental open space, children's play space, and green routes (cycleways/pedestrian ways), would produce a gross housing area of 27-30 ha.

The provision of a primary school and other youth/community facilities could equate to around a further 2.0 ha (including parking and servicing etc). We note the site specific requirements for the primary school set out on page 110 of the document, and clearly these could impact on the extent of land required in practice.

Strategic road infrastructure (including bus priority measures) alongside appropriate surface water drainage would equate to around a further 2 ha (a spine road providing bus access at Rawreth Road and linking to London Road could have a distance, avoiding a straight route, or around 1.4km).

Even if no employment land is provided north of London Road, and even assuming no more than 550 residential units, the minimum land-take for the proposed development would in our view be in the order of 30ha, but more likely in the order of 35ha.

(3) Long Term Green Belt Boundary

The Site Allocations DPD provides the mechanism not just by which a specific land allocation will be made to meet the immediate development requirement set out in the Core Strategy, but also by which the long-term, defensible Green Belt boundary will be re-set. PPG2 provides the relevant guidance, and paragraphs 2.8, 2.12 and Annex B are particularly relevant.

Paragraph 2.8 notes that if boundaries are drawn excessively tightly around existing built-up areas, it may not be possible to maintain the degree of permanence that Green Belts should have, and that such an approach devalues the concept of Green Belt and reduces the value in Plans making proper provision for necessary development in the future.

Paragraph 2.12 in respect of Safeguarded Land confirms that any proposals affecting Green Belts must relate to a longer timeframe than for other aspects of the Plan, i.e. in this case, beyond 2025. There is a positive requirement (as opposed to an optional choice) on Local Planning Authorities to address the need for Safeguarded Land when reviewing Green Belt boundaries, and there is a need to be certain that Green Belt boundaries will not need to be reviewed at the end of the Plan period. The RSS provides a strategic context for this consideration, since H1 makes clear that the same rates of provision should continue after 2021.

There is currently no reference in the Site Allocations DPD to the issue of the revised Green Belt boundary, but under the provisions of PPG2, the immediate land release and the long-term Green Belt boundary are not one and the same issue.

There are exceptional circumstances arising from the RSS development requirement to review the inner Green Belt boundary, but this should be a one-off review that re-establishes a permanent Green Belt for the future, which is capable of accommodating development requirements beyond the Plan period without needing to change. Irrespective therefore of whether or not the Core Strategy identifies a need for more than 550 units at West Rayleigh now, the revised Green Belt boundary should be capable of accommodating more than 550 units, should a need for additional units come forward either within the lifetime of this Plan, or beyond this Plan, to provide the permanence that PPG2 requires.

We feel the Site Allocations DPD needs to address the revised Green Belt boundary explicitly, and set out a proper consideration of the alternative options, having specific regard to the requirements of PPG2, including the need for safeguarded land.


Site Specific Representations (All Site Options)

It follows from the matters raised above that we do not wholly agree with any of the 5 options put forward in the Site Allocations DPD.

We agree that all of the 5 sites have potential for development, but given our comments above regarding likely land-take, we consider that a combination of the sites put forward, together potentially with additional neighbouring land, is likely to provide the right solution at the detailed master-planning stage.

In terms of some specific observations, we would offer the following:

* We do not disagree with the Council regarding the potential desirability of achieving a 'through' public transport route between Rawreth Road and London Road;

* There is a reference under several of the options presented to the need to avoid development in land at risk of flooding. Clearly we agree with the need for development to avoid flood risk areas, which in reality affects only a very small proportion of the site, and a sensible approach to Masterplanning will ensure that flood risk does not impose a constraint on the new development, and that there is no risk to existing development. The need to address flood risk and sustainable drainage within the scheme does however add weight to our argument that the size of the site allocation does require some flexibility, if the Masterplan is to be able to respond positively to existing site features (including but not exclusively flood risk);

* We do not consider that the existing pylon line forms a logical boundary to the development area. As we have set out in submissions elsewhere, these pylons can be re-laid underground (in whole or part, or take a new alignment) and therefore should not be regarded as a determining factor, either on site selection or Masterplanning;

* We do consider that the Core Strategy proposals for additional employment land west of Rayleigh should be accommodated to the north of London Road, as part of a comprehensive mixed-use scheme - we address this matter further in our representations on the employment land options;

* Finally, we note the reference to using a "Public Park" to provide a buffer between any future built development and the A1245. Countryside Properties agree that any development will need to provide appropriate open space, and that there may well be opportunities for greater public access and a Park between the built development and the A1245. This is a substantial area of land, and we do have some concerns that the reference to "park" may imply a substantially landscaped and formal area of open space. We are also unclear as to the extent of land which the Council might be considering for inclusion in the "park". In our experience, access to the countryside is an important source of informal leisure activity, and therefore retaining part at least of this land in agricultural use (perhaps with improved access) may provide both a better 'green' buffer and a greater recreational resource than an (underused) formal "park".

In terms of the individual options, our preliminary comments would be as follows:

* NLR1 - This appears to be a logical area for inclusion as part of an allocation - the land is generally free of physical and environmental constraints, is suitable for residential development, and is deliverable. In isolation, it is not of sufficient size, nor does it have the benefit of a frontage to London Road, which it is assumed at this stage will be the primary point of access;

* NLR2 - This site is constrained by flood risk, and in isolation has no suitable access. It is not a realistic option for development, except as part of a wider scheme.

* NLR3 - This appears to be a logical area for inclusion as part of an allocation - the land is generally free of physical and environmental constraints (assuming the pylons are laid underground or diverted), and it is likely that the principle point of access to London Road will lie on this part of the frontage to London Road. The site is not of sufficient size on its own, and also would not provide for a public transport link to Rawreth Lane, and therefore we assume this site would need to form part of a more comprehensive allocation.

* NLR4 - Our comments in relation to this land are largely the same as for NLR1 - a minimum of physical/environmental constraint (small area of flood risk), but a developable and deliverable site. It is not large enough in isolation, and does not have a frontage to London Road where we assume the primary access will be taken. It appears as if the western boundary is based on the line of the pylons, but as stated elsewhere in our representations, we do not consider the pylons to form a logical boundary to the development area.

* NLR5 - Our comments in relation to this land are largely the same as for NLR4 - although this option does have a frontage to London Road, it would necessitate disruption to the existing playing fields, and we feel that there are better options for accessing London Road. Again, the site is not large enough in isolation.

A large number of houses have been built here in recent years - at the bottom of Little Wheatley Chase & Hatfield Road. The land surrounding the Bardfield Way estate was to be public open space, the council estate was built there. Provision for amenities- leisure, doctors etc; were promised, none has materialized. The area cannot cope with the amount of traffic and people that this number of houses will bring. We already have a problem here with theft and vandalism and numbers of youths 'hanging around' at night, we do not need these numbers increased.

I would not like to see this development. If it were to go ahead I would rather there was a buffer between existing developments and this new one. i.e. create a green space between the existing housing and new housing rather than green space being along the A1245 (Creating a woodland for instance with connections to other green areas for migration and movement of fauna and flora.) From a logistical point of view option NLR3 is probably beneficial to developers and commuters as is has direct access to London Road and quicker access to existing bus and rail connectivity. The grounds to the north and west would then benefit from being turned into a secured green space or country park or even the reintroduction of woodland as previously mentioned. In summary :I object and do not want to see this development, failing which put a green barrier between Rawreth industrial estate road and the existing housing or finally Option NLR3 which has better connections.

Heavier traffic volumes - particularly at rush hour periods - roads in disrepair now; can only get worse. Pressure on train services which are already busy. Disruption to existing business in and around the London Road area. Impact on schooling choices for my daughter - key reason for moving to Rayleigh was to get better choice - could be undermined by new families moving to area. There is sufficient play space in area to support existing housing, but perhaps not an additional 550 houses

Dear sir / madam, i would like to take this opportunity to object to the proposed housing in and around Rawreth Lane.

I believe your sites are identified as NLR 1-5

As a long term Rayleigh resident I believe housing in this area is already unsustainable, any increase will continue to increase traffic levels beyond what is already an excessive amount.

We moved to this house 10 years ago to be close ot the country side, not to live in the middle of another urban sprawl.

Additional houses would require more facilities (such as a swimming pool etc) to keep the young people entertained, yet none has been mentioned.

Queues at the traffic lights to turn from the old A130 into Rawreth Lane (when heading north) are already long enough to block dangerously the fast lane of the road


It will also cause an unnecessary loss of agricultural land, and continue to blur the boundary between Rawreth and Rayleigh.


Presumably Travelers on what ever site they end up on will be subject to the same planning rules (and punishment for non compliance) as they rest of the population ?

Having lived in Teignmouth Drive for almost 10 years, I am strongly against some of the developments being considered for this part of Rayleigh, specifically:
NLR1 (Particularly this planning application)
NLR2
NLR3
NLR4
NLR5

Why:
Loss of greenbelt land
Increased traffic, especially in the rat-run I live in (Teignmouth Drive)
Increased pressure on local healthcare (doctors/dentists)

As regards the traveller sites, I am opposed so long as they (travellers):

Don't pay council tax, or indeed any "tax" that other home-owners are required to pay
Flout planning rules by (for example) using sites for commercial purposes or erecting buildings outside of planning consent
Fail to send their children to school, a reason they often quote for wanting permanent sites
However, GT1&2 are looking to expand/make permanent an existing site - so I agree with this location. I do not agree with GT3 & GT7, new locations.

Dear Sirs, i wish to object to the housing options proposed for options NLR1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, as i believe that they will have a negative effect on the area. I do not think that using agricultural land for building is a good idea and nor do i believe that the area can cope with the additional traffic that will be generated. Having lived in the are for 16 years i have seen it change from a semi rural location and the infrascruture can not sustain this additional housing. Rayleigh and Rawreth should remain apart and not joined together by further building. This green belt land must be protected.

It has just been brought to my attention, the councils proposed future development plans for the area surrounding my home. I am totally opposed to further development here. Since I moved here 31 years ago the area has had many area's developed and this has made the London Road far too busy. Morning and evening rush hours are horendous; traffic at a crawl or totally standstill. Trying to turn onto the road is nearly impossible because of the volume of traffic. The schols are not capable of taking the extra children. The sewers are not able to take the extra volume of sewage which would be created.

As for industrial sites closer to my home, this would bring even further traffic and pollution and stop the enjoyment of our homes in the area. I thought we were supposed to have the green belt in existence. It seems the council wants to toally spoil our area and allow building on every available space. Why?

There are many empty houses in the area, why allow more to be built. There have been many problems with traveller sites in our area. At Ramsden Heath problems have occured with the site/neightbouring houses. People withdrew their children from the local school and travellers enrolled their children there because they needed to be educated. The school now has massive abenteeism.

You already appear to be doing nothing about the illegal site in Rawreth A130. Other sites keep appearing on A127 Rayleigh between Progress Road and A130 turnoff and further towards Basildon. Why do you not insist on planning permission being required as with the normal proceedures required and take appropriate action? We have done building in the past I had to obtain permission. It is one law for us and another for others. We had to find our own accommodation and pay for things legally. People who do things 'illegally' appear to get help by being given sites to live on. This doesn't seem right to me. You are giving the ok to spoil our area and this just is not right. The traffic/sewage/schools/doctors/dentists/hospitals etc will not be able to cope. Please see sense before ruining life here for everyone.

To Whom It May Concern

I am writing to you as I strongly object to the proposed plans to build a further 550 houses on what is currently green belt land and an additional 220 on the Rawreth Industrial Estate.

Rayleigh has seen a surge of new houses built in the last 20 years, particularly in West Rayleigh and the Rawreth area, whilst there may have been a need for this, the promise of additional amenities has never materialised into anything more.

Our schools are oversubscribed; doctors and dentists have long waiting lists; and traffic and parking in the area is horrendous. Not to mention the fact that our children have nowhere to play safely anymore.

If these proposals go ahead and these houses are built, the existing and new properties are likely to be affected by flooding. There will be nowhere for the water to run; some houses in the area are already affected by this.

Employment in the area will also be affected. With the impending closure of Eon on London Road as well as HSBC in Southend, there are an additional 1000 unemployed people now looking for work in this area. How is bringing more people into the area going to help reduce the unemployment figure?

I believe that green belt land should be left exactly that. There isn't enough farmland and countryside left in this area, and once building works start it may not stop.

I understand the reasons why the Rawreth Industrial Estate needs moving, pollution, noise etc but for the same reasons I do not believe that by moving them to London Road this problem will be solved.

Some of the suggestions that have been raised previously include using the land on the junction of the A1245 and the A127. This is further away from residential areas and schools therefore a safer option for residents and less traffic congestion as well as providing easier access to the main roads.

With regards to the 550 new houses, maybe the site on the A1245 would be a better choice as it will not affect the green belt land but be built on what is currently brown belt land.
When making this decision, please seriously consider the impact on the current community and surroundings; and ensure ample facilities are provided time.

I should like to register my opposition to the above developments.

NLR 1 and 5 are particularly unsustainable. However each of the proposals cause an unnecessary loss of agricultural land; will increase traffic; will undermine the principles of the green belt system and will encourage a merging between Rayleigh and Rawreth.

These propositions will grid lock this part of Rayleigh, and based on previous ill thought out developments will not generate the required level of investment for schools, GP's or attraction for small firms.

No new housing, no new industrial site and no travellers site is the right course for this part of Rayleigh. The Local Authority should be thinking long term not of short term profiteering.

I am objecting to land options NLR1, NLR2, NLR3, NLR4 and NLR5

because they will cost the unnecessary loss of agricultural land, increase traffic immensly( as if the roads are busy enough),
will create an green belt boundary that can't be defended in future and encourage a merging between Rayleigh and Rawreth.

I would like to also object to the traveller sites options GT1, GT2 and GT3.

My family and I moved to Rayleigh 6 years ago and have been welcomed by a host of wonderful residents, who have a mutual appreciation for this beautiful area, surely we must preserve this green belt area, we need to encourage bees and natural habitats to quite simply to ensure our survival! No habitat - no bees - no pollenation - no plants - no oxygen - no humans!!!!!

I will be passing this information onto as many people as I can to ensure this travesty doesn't happen,