North of London Road, Rayleigh 550 dwellings

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.

Dear Sir
With regards to options NRL1, NRL2, NRL3, NRL4 and NRL5 we have lived on the London Road for 29 years. During that time we have seen the completion of the Little Wheatley Estate and its extention, the 'Bird' Estate and a development at the top end of Victoria Avenue. We are now faced with continuous traffic and severe hold-ups each morning and evening with not a lot of let-up during the day. If any of these developments go ahead there will be an additional 500+ cars trying to get to Rayleigh either through London Road or Rawreth Lane with the same result - gridlock!!
I understand there are 'brown' sites north of Rawreth Lane which have been offered by Rawreth Parish Council. Why can this not be a viable proposition?
Why does it appear to be that every housing development for Rochford District Council has to be placed west of Rayleigh?
The plans show a light industrial estate on the London Road and our objections regarding traffic are as above. A site adjacent to the A127 and A1245 has been suggested and this would surely be a better solution.
If there has to be a travellers site in the area can it not be amalgamated with the illegal one that is near Rawreth Lane on the A1245.
the final thought on this is that you are taking agricultural land which is needed and where will we be once it has all gone?
Trust you will consider our feelings on this.

We live at 14 Latchingdon Close in Rayleigh, and have resided in the area for almost 11 years.

We are writing to express our concern about some of the options featured in the area development plan as given in the current document
which is out for public consultation.

Specifically, we are strongly opposed to options NLR1, NLR2, NLR3, NLR4 and NLR5.

We oppose any building of housing between London Road and Rawreth Lane, or that land being used for employment land or travellers sites.
There is already problematic traffic congestion in the area and the addition of such housing would exacerbate this. For example, the queue on Crown Hill to get to the High Street stretches down past Downhall Road on a saturday morning and often down the hill as far as Rayleigh Station in times that would be considered 'off peak' (e.g weekday late morning).

It is our understanding that the land is currently classed as 'green belt' and it should stay that way. The existing road, rail (The trains on the Liverpool Street line are already crammed) domestic and leisure facilities in the town would not support 550 houses plus the 220 we understand are intended for the current Rawreth Industrial site. In addition, we are very concerned that once the land begins to be developed, eventually all of it will be used up. This would be to the detriment of the overall quality of life for all residents in the area as well as the pressure on infrastructure noted above.

We oppose the siting of a travellers site on London Road. It would be to the detriment of the impression and appearance of the area given that the road is main 'gateway' to the town. A site in that position would not encourage 'cohesiveness' as there is consistent evidence that travellers do not wish to integrate with local communities. We are aware of this via annecdotal evidence, media reporting (both newpapers and television) and to some extent through knowledge gained in our professional working lives.

We are not opposed to relocating the businesses from the Rawreth Industrial estate to another venue, the suggested site by the A127/A1245 would seem a sensible and viable option, given the businesses that already seem to be there and the close accessed the A127/A130.

We understand that there is a need for additional housing. We understand that things are difficult for people trying to 'get on the housing ladder'. We understand there is the
possibility of previously used land further north next to the A1245 and would ask whether consideration has been given to using this land. We would also ask whether a proportion
of the proposed new housing will be 'affordable' housing, shared ownership etc.

Thanking you for your time.

Dear Sir/Madam

I'm writing to strongly protest about the above captioned. Despite there being a 'public consultation' on the above since 17th March 2010, it was purely by chance and word of mouth from a neighbour that I have been made aware of this. I have a fundamental problem with the fact that most of my local community are still unaware of this proposal which will severely impact all those who live in the Rayleigh area. I do think that Rochford District Council has a duty to disclose something as meaningful as this to their tax paying household and indeed could easily have mailshot us all as they have all our addresses! At the very least this proposal could have been laminated and tied to lampposts around the area, if it were a question of cost!

The congestion in Rayleigh High Street and access via London and Crown Hills is currently a nightmare. Even out of rush hour it has taken be more than 30 minutes to drive from home past the station and down to the Weir! What can you be thinking by introducing another 770 houses to this already crowded area? On the basis that each home will have on average 2 cars and 2 children, how will our infrasstructure- roads and schools cope with this? It is quite impossible and should not be allowed consent.

Our family wish to formally state our disagreement with these plans and have copied this email to our MP Mark Francois.

Please keep me updated of any news/meetings on this subject

i natalie reid object to options
NLR1
NLR2
NLR3
NLR4
NLR5
Because they will cause unnesccary loss of argircultral land
will increase traffic
will creat an green belt boundary that cant be defended in future and encourage a merging between rayleigh and rawreth

I VERY MUCH OBJECT TO THE TRAVELLERS SITES AS THIS DECREASES THE HIGH REPUTATION OF THE AREA
OBJECTION GT1, GT2, GT3, GT7

I would like to register my objection to the proposed residential development on land between Rawreth Lane and London Road. I would also like to object to the proposed siting of legal traveller sites in the area. Please send a short response to this email so that I know my objection has been legally noted & registered.

I have recently been informed of the detailed proposals to build a large number of homes in West Rayleigh/Rawreth, including 2 possible sites for travellers in the same area.

I am writing to strongly object to these proposed housing options labelled NLR1, NLR2, NLR3, NLR4 & NLR5. I am also strongly objecting to plans for any new traveller sites within Rayleigh/Rawreth (GT1, GT2, GT3 & GT7).

Rayleigh is already highly populated and has lost much of it's agricultural land to development over the past few years, we cannot allow more land to be given up. The green fields between London Road and Rawreth Lane should be left alone, no further housing, no employment and definately no new traveller sites. Such proposals will result in a further increase to traffic and pollution, and it will destroy what open spaces we have left.

Leave Rayleigh/Rawreth alone. We've sacrificed enough land already to greedy Councils and Developers.

To whom it may concern,

I am emailing as I want to express my concern and STRONG objection to the councils housing options NLR1 NLR2 NLR3 NLR4 NLR5 being built.

They will cause unnecessary loss of agricultural land, will increase traffic, will create a green belt boundary that cant be defended in future, and will encourage merging of Rayleigh and Rawreth.

The idea of building a travellers site outrages me even more so, and I again STRONGLY object to GT1 GT2 GT3 GT7 being built.
For this to be allowed to happen would be a outrage and would cause me to move out of the Rayleigh area.

I look forward to your response to this email, and would like to know that you are taking objections to these matters seriously.

I would like to object to the following options:-

NLR1 NLR2 NLR3 NLR4 and NLR5

Re:

the proposed building of 770 new houses in south-west Rayleigh between Rawreth Lane and London Road
the possibility of sites for travellers in south-west Rayleigh
rumours that Tesco may take over the Eon building


Dear Sir/Madam



It is with some concern that I learnt only yesterday of the public consultation on the proposed building of 770 houses between Rawreth Lane and London Road - a consultation that ends on April 30th. This has not been widely publicised, in spite of the huge impact it would have on those of us in the area, and on Rayleigh itself. I wish to make my objection to these developments clear.



Rayleigh simply does not have the infrastructure to cope with this size of development - the schools, doctors' surgeries etc could not cope with the increased population this would bring - 1400 adults and over 1000 children is a conservative estimate. The roads are already very busy, and even the smallest problem on the A127 causes log jam on the London Road and up Crown Hill. There is every possibility that 770 more households would add 1400 cars to these roads, thus compounding the existing problem.



The Crest development off Cheapside West, and the David Wilson estate at the top of Victoria Avenue have already added to the congestion. Also, the fact that these developments are on the flood plain of Rawreth brook has increased the risk of flooding and added to the cost of insurance for all houses in the area. It is also true to say that several houses in these developments are suffering structural problems because they are built on a flood plain. Any more development in the area would only make things worse.



There is already a permanent site for travellers in the area - there is no need for another.



Rayleigh is well served by Sainsbury's, Asda and Somerfield's, Tesco's nearby in Leigh and Morrison's in Eastwood - more than enough choice for those who wish to shop in supermarkets. There are several small convenience stores along the London Road which would struggle to survive if Tesco's were allowed to develop the Eon site. I believe it would be totally wrong to allow this.



Any development between London Road and Rawreth Lane will mean the loss of valuable agricultural land, and seriously affect the green belt boundary. A dangerous precedent would be set that could lead to the loss off all the open space between Rayleigh and Rawreth in the future.



I trust the Planning Committee will seriously consider these points and oppose the development.

Re: 770 New houses between Rawreth lane and London Road Rayleigh

Possible Tesco

Moving Traveller site

Moving Rawreth industrial estate



Dear Sir



May I register my dismay that my knowledge of these proposals came through informal sources and not official channels of public consultation. Could you please advise me where the proposals were published for future reference?



I am sure that the plans for 770 new homes in Rayleigh form part of a wider plan for the Rochford district. Where might I see the whole structure plan to better understand the context of the development and dispel the rumour that Rayleigh is being asked to take an unfair share of new home building in the area?



Has an environmental impact survey been done and where might I view the conclusions?



The pressures of new homes in the location proposed on infrastructure will be well rehearsed and known to your planning department, as will the inadvisability of building on the flood plane of Rawreth Brook, factors ignored when allowing the David Wilson and Crest developments in the area. The consequences of these developments are well known. Congestion has increased; some properties have been subject to ground movement and heave, the costs of which are born by insurers. Insurance for my own home has increased as a result of claims in the area and the fact I am now deemed to be living in an area at risk of flooding.



Whilst wholeheartedly objecting to these plans I am also concerned about subsequent developments:



I understand that there are plans to move the manor Trading Estate in Benfleet and rumours have it that London Road is a possible new location. Are there plans to combine Manor and Rawreth trading estates in one great industrial complex?



Are you hoping to relocate the traveller's site closer to such an industrial complex and thus free up even more land for houses next to the old A130?



I object most strongly to relocation and inevitable expansion of industrial activity in what is clearly a residential community, especially when highly suitable locations are available for example at the Rayleigh Spur roundabout to the side of the old A130.



I am disappointed that residents are not invited to engage with planning both over a greater geographic area and a longer timeline. Residents engaging in the current planning application today in good faith sometimes may think differently if informed of wider issues and knock on effects.



As to the possible location of a new Tesco on the EON site consideration will be given to the new jobs to be created, balanced with the loss on other livelihoods in the area as shops in Rayleigh and the two local shopping parades close.



As you know Supermarkets stock levels are maintained through Just in Time stock control methods, this requires 24hr deliver schedules. Supply chain and cold chain requirements need round the clock access if shelves are to remain stocked. Heavy goods vehicle movements, flood lighting, and noise levels will be intolerable to those in the neighbourhood, not to mention traffic congestion alluded to earlier.



Such intrusion into a residential area is unacceptable given the large number of supermarkets already operating in the area and I object to the development most strongly.



Westminster politicians are all advocating greater involvement of local people in local decision making, from the NHS to Schools and Policing. I am disappointed in this age of mass communication, the Internet and E-mail that residents find out about major environmental changes through word of mouth and not official communication from planning departments. Residents need early access not only to the proposals themselves but the results of environmental impact surveys, wider planning applications that impact on our area and future knock on affects of today's decision making.

I am writing in respect of NLR1 - NLR5 options which have been drawn to my attention to object to these plans

I am also objecting to GT1, GT2, GT3 and GT7 in relation toTraveller sites.

All of th above will increase traffic, is an unnecessary loss of agricultural land. Part of the reason we moved to Rayleigh was because of the fact that it was in the countryand its tranquil setting.

Please take the local peoples opinion into account.

I object to options NLR1, NLR2, NLR3, NLR4 and NLR5 because they will:-

Cause unnecessary loss of agricultural land.
Will increase traffic ( London Road and Crown Hill are congested during rush hour & Saturdays already)
If these fields are built on, it paves the way for more building on green belt in the future, they will be no fields.


I object to options GT1, GT2, GT3 and GT7 because:-

These sites just increase in size with time.
Refer to Crays Hill which Basildon Council's decision has not been acted on.
Will Increase traffic
More demand on our already crowded schools.
Devalue the price of surround properties.

I wish to protest against the Domestic development of 500 Dwellings in South West Hullbridge, irrespective of the timing of the Development.

I was very pleased to attend a meeting at the Day Centre on Monday 12th April 2010 regards a proposed development which will extend the habitable boundary by approximately 30%.

I was always of the opinion that a Local Authority was set up to serve and represent the people, but your attitude at the meeting gave me the impression that you really serve the County Council and Central government dictates, please explain how this attitude serves Local Democracy.

Did you inform the 'community' at the meeting that you have already forwarded the incumbent Planning Application to the National Inspectorate?

I consider it somewhat regrettable that the truth course of action, under the rules and regulations of Local government, that prior notice was not given will in advance of Planning Applications being submitted.

It seems that you do not consider it prudent to allow the 'community' the opportunity to discuss and put forward our opinions, objections and grievances of your proposals, in this instance, affecting the existing community as a whole.

It is unacceptable, at short notice to inform me that all opinions are required by or before the 30th April, not providing me with the opportunity to make the necessary educated perusal of the advantages and disadvantages of the scheme being requested for approval.

It is also regrettable for the Planning Officer (Mr Scutton) not answering some very pertinent questions and to inform the people at the meeting that the eventual outcome lay in the hands of the inspectorate.

I presume the meeting was held in accordance with set procedures and principles and obligations of Local Government to inform the people only.

Did your secretaries (presuming they were present) make notes of the questions and answers being put forwarded by the residents, and will I get a copy of these 'minutes' for perusal. It was noted that, apart from the three officials of the District Council, the absence of the Councillors representing Hullbridge was clearly obvious. In my opinion this suggests the low esteem with which has always been treated in many respects.

Risk Assessment

In view of this most important issue, I wonder if you would be kind enough to provide me with the opportunity to scrutinise the 'General Risk Assessments' you are obliged to make to the inspectorate and which will have an impact on the proposal, such as:

The Environment
Infrastructure
Flood (Watery Lane in regular flood - featured on the National News recently).
Density
Drainage
Main Services
Roads
Access - to and from Hullbridge
Schools
Doctors
Council Services, including fire and police
Health and Safety.

18 Gypsy Sites.

I was informed that 18 gypsy sites are required to be made available for 'Travellers' who make no contribution whatsoever to the financial requirements of the locality and, indeed could you explain the benefits to the community.
I am required by 'Law' to make payment for all services, but there is no requirement for these people whatsoever to observe the same rules and regulations as the rest of us, I wonder if you can make some plausible argument to pay for the services through our Council Tax.

Have you learnt from the experiences by other Local Authorities and that is well known that these people have no respect for us whatsoever.

Designation and Classification of Land

Please provide me with the information on the designation/classification of 'Green Belt', White Land and Brown field land.

Investment

I was also informed at the meeting that you were trying to attract 'investment' in this area, please explain how a Domestic Development will have the capacity to attract 'investment'.

Developers

Could you also please explain how the Developers gain the knowledge that the 'Green Belt' land would be available for 'Development', hence their purchase and planning applications which you admit have been forwarded by them for approval on this development.
Can you explain how 'Social Affordable Housing' will be purchased, or indeed will not be only made available for 'economic migrants'.
It is well known that it is extremely difficult to get mortgages or indeed the finances to rent properties.

Your response will be welcomed and I hope you will provide me with the opportunity to debate the merits of this development, and a proper timetable given to me/community.

I wish to register my objection to the Council's housing options NLR1, NLR2, NLR3, NLR4 and NLR5 because they will contribute to increased traffic, will create a decreased green belt boundary that will be difficult to defend in the future and encourage a merging of Rayleigh and Rawreth.

I also wish to register my objection to the Traveller and Employment options for Rayleigh and Rawreth, GT1, GT2, GT3 and GT7.

To whom it may concern,
I am writing to object to the councils housing options NLR1, NLR2, NLR3, NLR4 and NLR5 as they will:

1) Cause an unnecessary loss of agricultural land, given that we are being told that more land is required to produce more food.

2) Will increase traffic, at some periods of the day it already takes between 5 and 10 minutes to access London Road, Rayleigh from Louis Drive West.

3) Will create a green belt boundary that cannot be defended in the future and encourage a merging of Rayleigh and Rawreth.

I also object to the travellers sites, GT1, GT2, GT3, and GT7 for the same reason as No 1) above and the fact these sites are proven to cause a drop in surrounding property prices. There is also a danger that the crime rate for the area will increase, as experienced at Crays Hill, Wickford.

I am writing to strongly object to the proposal to build 770 new houses in Rayleigh. The main routes in & out of Rayleigh are already heavily used so this will just add to the congestion. All the proposed sites are not within walking distance of the high street or station so there will be an increase of cars used to get to these locations if the houses are built. Both the London Road & Rawreth Lane become very busy at peak times & the infrastructure just won't be able to cope. It is an unnecessary loss of agricultural land & there will be an increase in pollution from the increase in traffic on London Road & Rawreth Lane.

The schools in the proposed area of the town are already over subscribed, so where do you intend the children of people who move into these houses attend school? There are spaces for primary education at the other end of the town which would mean a car journey for children who were offered places there, which does not go with the "walk to school" initiatives that Essex County Council run & will result in serious problems for parking around the schools in question.

What about medical provisions for the area. The Doctors Surgeries in the London Road & Rawreth Lane are small & the 2 larger surgeries in the High Street are always very busy. An increased number of patients at any of these surgeries will mean an increase in appointment waiting times.

In the last 10-15 years there has been a considerable amount of housing already built in the proposed area of Rayleigh (eg Birds Estate, Victoria Grange, Downhall Park Way, Laburnum Way) so why do we need even more in this area?

i have also heard rumours that the EON building will be knocked down & a Tesco store built on the site? Is this true? I cannot see how we need anymore supermarkets in the area. Sainsburys at the Rayleigh Weir & Basildon and Tescos at Basildon are both easily accessible from Rayleigh & we also have the relatively new Asda store on Rawreth Lane. There is also a Somerfields in the Town Centre.

Our family is strongly objecting the these proposals.

Subject: Proposed building of 770 new houses/possible Tesco and sites for Travellers between Rawreth Lane and London Road

Proposals NLR 1 to 5 and GT 1,2,3,7

Dear Sir/Madam

I'm writing to express my strong objection to the proposed building in West Rayleigh (options NLR1 to 5) and the Traveller sites (GT1, GT2, GT3 and GT7). Despite there being a 'public consultation' on the above since 17th March 2010, it was purely by chance and word of mouth from a neighbour and a LibDem leaflet that I have been made aware of this. I have a fundamental problem with the fact that most of my local community are still unaware of this proposal which will severely impact all those who live in the Rayleigh area. I do think that Rochford District Council has a duty to disclose something as important as this to their tax paying households and indeed could easily have mailshot us all as they have all our addresses! This has been a most underhand way of dealing with things.

The local infrastructure within Rayleigh can not cope with the introduction of another 770 houses into this already crowded area.

Congestion on the roads is already at ridiculous levels with it regularly taking 30 minutes to drive from Victoria Avenue to the Weir out of rush hour. During rush hour the queue to the High Street regularly extends down along London Road all the way back to the A130. If anything happens on the A127 and traffic tries to come off the road then London Road suffers terribly and is often at a standstill.

As a rail commuter I see on a daily basis how crowded the train services are between Rayleigh and London. During the morning and evening commute it is difficult to get a seat and it only takes one service to be cut and hundreds of passengers are left standing, often for the entire 40 minute journey. This is far from satisfactory in itself considering a season ticket now costs over £3000!

Making the assumption that the majority of the new houses are likely to have children then where will they go to school? With 2 children in school myself, it is obvious the strain on the local schools already with large class sizes and insufficient places at local schools. The only school with spaces is Grove Wood Primary but this is a 15 minute car drive at school times from this area of Rayleigh.

Local doctors, dentists and hospitals are already over stretched - adding more housing to Rayleigh will only make the problem worse. It is already extremely difficult to get appointments and adding 2-3000 extra residents to the lists for doctors and dentists will make it virtually impossible to get through by telephone to book. My children have had to suffer several times because I could not get them appointments to see a doctor.

Surely the area being considered for the 770 houses is green belt and therefore should be protected? How can the local council allow building on such precious land further ruining what little countryside we have left? Once building begins on this land it will set a precedent and future building applications will no doubt follow, swallowing up the entire area.

I am also concerned that a Traveller site will be built. There are many of these in Essex already and putting one so close to established housing areas and businesses is a very unpopular decision locally. Not one resident around here thinks it is a good idea. Surely your job is to enhance the local area for the benefit of local people, not upset the entire local population? We are all very much aware of the effect the site at Crays Farm had on the schools, crime rates and house prices and do not want a repeat of this here. I also hear that Tesco plan to build on the E-On site. There are many supermarkets in the area already. Adding more will make traffic worse, kill local shops already struggling to compete with Asda and Sainsburys. It is not needed or wanted.

My family and I wish to formally state our objections to these plans. I have also copied this email to our MP Mark Francois.

Please keep me updated of any news/meetings on this subject.

I am writing to strongly protest and object to the proposed planning application to Options Labelled: NLR1, NLR2, NLR3, NL4 & NLR5, and traveller's option GT1, GT2, GT3, & GT7, due to the following:

Traffic Congestion and Scenic Views

We strongly object to the proposal of 770 new homes. The area in question is the west main road into Rayleigh from the Carpenters Arms roundabout, and Rawreth Lane travelling to the rear of Rayleigh. London Road entry into Rayleigh is a picturesque route with a feel good factor leading into Rayleigh. There is farmland each side of the road and a view of the old barn which changes throughout the year with the seasons. Any redevelopment of the area will devalue the picturesque views for the residents, public and our future children, travelling by car, bicycle and foot into Rayleigh. In addition, the additional traffic coming into London Road from the Carpenters Arms roundabout will cause substantial traffic, noise and pollution which can harm the public, local to the area. With respect to speeding, I note that the council have just had to erect a speeding active warning sign to try and reduce the problem. As a resident, we have already felt the effect from noise pollution from the newly opened A130, which is a constant drone throughout the day and night. I also note that at peak times London Road cannot cope with the present volumes of traffic, with queues often past the Carpenters Arms roundabout, queuing to get into Rayleigh. This we thought would be alleviated when the old A130 was diverted by the new A130. In addition, I understand that Victoria Avenue will be opened up to allow traffic to travel into the development to the rear of Macros and Rawreth industrial estate. As you are well aware this will turn into "Rat Runs" for traffic, which I have experience in my childhood in Eastwood Essex, near Wren Avenue / Bosworth Road. It took many years of complaints to the council and now the council have just installed traffic calming in that area which from a safety point of view is great, but from a visual point of view is a disgrace. I have even seen young drivers using these humps as a chicane i.e. trying to dodge them in their cars, which is even more dangerous. My point here is that the roads do not have the capacity for the additional traffic, will be unsafe for the local schools and children, and will put their health in danger.

A127. This is the main route into the local area and has been under review for widening / improving for many years, just to cope with the present traffic capacity. Presently there are no plans or future funds (bearing in mind the economic crisis that we are in) to upgrade this road. However, a small step was taken recently to place average speed cameras on the A127, just to try to cope with the present traffic. This is not the long term answer, but it shows that the main road into the area cannot take any further traffic.

Loss of Agricultural Land and Environmental Impact.

As you are aware, the proposed development will take many acres of agricultural land, which is presently used every day by the local farmers. This loss of necessary agricultural land is totally unacceptable as we are all trying to prevent and reduce global warming, loss of this land will mean that food produced here will have to come from different locations which will produce more carbon omissions in transportation. There are many Brown Field sites in the area which assuming the infrastructure has the capacity, could be used instead of agricultural land.

I also note that the loss of agricultural land will place additional strain on our over stretched sewage and drinking water systems. Presently the land absorbs the rainwater and puts it to beneficial use, growing food, and not discharging it out to Sea, through the local overstretched brooks, culverts and rainwater ditches. I was also made aware that this area is in a flood plain from a local survey report on a house that a resident was proposing to buy, which was news to me, however, this suggests that building houses in this area is inappropriate, and as mentioned above placing additional strain on a congested water discharge service area.

Merging of Rayleigh and Rawreth

With the area being developed as proposed, it can be seen that Rayleigh and Rawreth will merge together, and be absorbed to create a new town which will lose its identity, character and history, turning into a new town which will look like any other lifeless new town.

Rayleigh Community Resources

The present infrastructure, schools, doctors, dentists, police, will be under strain and not be able to cope. Children's education will suffer, as schools are presently oversubscribed, with excessive class sizes, which prevents freedom of choice to attend whatever school you would like as promised by the government. This is presently happening as discussed by my neighbours, without the proposed expansion.

Industrial Employment land / Green Belt

I fail to see why green belt land is being designated as industrial land, when there is brown field employment land nearby. Why do we need additional industrial land when the Bryon Works Industrial estate and surrounding Industrial estates in Wickford, a short 2 miles away is virtually derelict and could be regenerated to supply the industrial land required. In point of fact the adjacent Enterprise way business park only looks 25% full and could also be regenerated to supply the employment land required. It appears that no attempt is being taken to look at other brown field site regeneration projects, but to rail road through demolition of the green belt.

Finally, my objection here is that the green belt boundary will be moved and cannot be defended in the future, for our children and children's children and brown field site regeneration projects should be proposed.

Proposed Travellers Sites GT1, GT2, GT3, & GT7

I oppose the proposed additional traveller's sites in both London Road and A1245 near Rawreth Lane. My complaint here is that areas should be allocated to them away from built up areas. From my experience, they are unfortunately, untidy, collecting rubbish for I presume recycling, however when this cannot be reused, they discard it locally for the council to dispose of. This is a health and safety issue for the residents. This site will also devalue the local properties. I understand travelling is their way of life; however, situating them on green belt land or fields is totally unacceptable. My suggestion would be to either increase the size of existing sites or put them on brown field sites.

We wish to formally state our objection with these plans.

Good morning i found out over the weekend an application has been approved for 550 new house to be build on the site and possibly another 220 on the industrial estate.

Can i strongly protest about this development which is far to big the the area. How on earth all these new people with all the cars are going to be delt with i do not know. Where are all the new school places it just go's on.

With a development this size the council should have informed local residents better. I have the imnpression you do what you have to do and no more and if residents do not know then all the better.

When you move into a town as i did in 1987 you don't just buy the house you also but into the town as well in as much that i like the area. We all expect development but on this scale its too much.

If this development had not received approval i am left thinking E On would still be employing people from our town

I am very disappointed in the way this whole matter has been delt with

As a long term resident in Rayleigh, I am writing to lodge a complaint and opposition to the referenced proposals.

The complaint is due to the lack of public consultation which has taken place. As all residents will be affected by these plans, due to increased congestion, increased crime rate etc..., all residents in Rayleigh should be consulted. We learned of this through word of mouth.

The opposition is that such a housing development will further hamper traffic flow in the area. Rayleigh is already a crowded town, difficult to maneovre around, and more residents, housing and cars will compound these problems.

Also, these proposals would have a negative ecological effect to the area.

I also oppose the proposed development of new gypsy / traveller sites., We already have a site on the old Chelmsford Road, and there was a noticeable increase in crime when this opened. By considering additional sites or spaces on the doorstep of a town is an injustice against the town residents.

By considering these proposals, you are not considering the current residents who pay the taxes, that pay your wages.

I move here 2 & half years ago from Dagenham, so we could we thought! have better life but now it seems that you, without proper DECLARATION or CONSULATION are going to build these houses without a thought for the people or the consequences it will have on everything.
Please tell me where the HOSPITALS SCHOOLS DOCTORS are to come from, what about the traffic you are supposed to look after the community not ruin it and on top of that you will take away the lovely fields and wild life,i know this is not an ideal world but YOU do not have to make it worse. By the way i am very poor user of a computer so i struggled with your very clever web site, gave up and Emailed you instead.

Please accept this email as objection to NLR1 to NLR5 because i believe they will increase traffic and also cause an unecessary loss of agricultural land.

I am writing to strongly protest about the proposed 770 new homes to be built in Rayleigh.I therefore wish to register a strong objection to the council housing options-NLR1, NLR2, NLR3,NLR4, NLR5.These proposals will lead to unnecessary loss of green fields,add to an existing traffic problem for the town centre and encourage a merging between Rayleigh and Rawreth.I was also mortified to learn that there are even proposals for Gypsy sites.Does this council really want the same problems that are experienced at Crays Hill.I can assure you that the residents of Rayleigh certainly do not and after all it is the councils job to represent the views and wishes of Rayleigh residents, rather than to meet some politically correct Government target!Rayleighs infrastructure cannot cope with these additional demands and if you insist with this obsession to build on every available piece of green land then you are on your way to ruining,what is,the lovely town of Rayleigh. I trust that the council will see sense and reject the proposals forALL Gypsy sites and to reduce the number of proposed houses.Finally I should be grateful if you could enlighten me as to any proposals for the EON site on the London Road as I am sure you will be considering proposals for housing on that site as well.

I object to housing options NLR1, NLR2, NLR3, NLR4 and NLR5 because they will -

cause an unnecessary loss of agricultural land
will increase traffic, in an already traffic blackspot
will create a green belt boundary that cannot be defended in the future
will encourage a merging of Rayleigh and Rawreth, creating a sprawl of housing.

I strongly object to traveller options GT1, GT2, GT3 and GT7 as they will introduce unwelcome elements to a currently stable environment.

I would like to raise my objection to the council's housing options NLR1, NLR2, NLR3, NLR4 and NRL5 because they will:

cause an unnecessary loss of agricultural land,
will increase traffic,
will create a green belt boundary that can't be defended in future and encourage a merging between Rayleigh and Rawreth.

I also object to traveller sites and employment - options GT1, GT2, GT3 and GT7.

I trust you will take my obections into consideration

Having attended a meeting on the subject, I object to housing options NLR1 NLR2 NLR3 NLR4 & NLR5 as they will :

cause an unnecessary loss of agricultural land
will increase traffic, without major improvements to infrastructure
will create a green belt boundary that cannot be defended in future
will encourage a merging of Rawreth and Rayleigh


I strongly object to traveller options GT1 GT2 GT3 & GT7

I wish to object to the proposed site for Travellers near Swallow Aquatics in Rayleigh.

I also wish to object to the proposal of building 550 new homes on the London Road, my son currently attends Our Lady Ransom Pre-School and another 550 homes would put more pressure on the local roads, schools and public services.

RE: Proposed building of 770 new houses, sites for Gypsies between Rawreth Lane and London Road, and possibly a Tesco

We are writing to strongly protest about the above captioned. Despite there being a 'public consultation' on the above since 17th March 2010, it was purely by chance and word of mouth from neighbours that we have been made aware of this.

We have a fundamental problem with the fact that most of the local community are still unaware of this proposal which will severely impact all those who live in the Rayleigh area. We do think that Rochford District Council has a duty to disclose something as meaningful as this to their tax paying households and indeed could easily have mailshot us all as they have all our addresses! At the very least this proposal could have been laminated and tied to lampposts around the area, if it were a question of cost!


We feel as residents in Rayleigh that our Council has severley let us down by even thinking it possible that we would wish or consent to a traveller camp within or anywhere near us. Our crime rate with go through the roof, our beautiful town will no longer be so, we will be unable to move (as who would want by choice to live near that). Many people have said they will no longer pay their council tax should this go ahead, if its good enough for the traveller community it will be good enough for us. Unfortunately there is a stigma attached to these folk, who do nothing but cause havoc and upset wherever they settle and still do nothing to change that stigma. If these people were travellers, please explain why they need pre-fab homes.

The congestion in Rayleigh High Street and access via London and Crown Hills is currently a nightmare. Even out of rush hour it has taken more than 30 minutes to drive from homes past the station and down to the Weir! What can you be thinking by introducing another 770 houses to this already crowded area? On the basis that each home will have an average of 2 cars and 2 children, how will our infrasstructure - roads and schools - cope with this? It is quite impossible and should not be allowed consent.

Our family wish to formally state our disagreement with these plans and have copied this email to our local MP.

Please keep me updated of any news/meetings on this subject.

I did try to put some comments on the Rochford Website, but I couldn't find the right page, so I've put them here!

I would like to voice my opposition to the (further) development of Rayleigh. In particular, I am against any form of development on site NLR1 (and sites NLR2-5). My reasons are the following:

- The traffic along this stretch is already very congested and constant. Between rush hours it is not so much a steady stream as a nose-to-tail line from the traffic lights at Rawreth to the mini roundabout at the junction on Lubbards Farm. We simply do not have the capacity to increase this further. As an individual who lives on Rawreth Lane and whose property looks directly over the fields, when in my house and garden there is a constant rumble of traffic at all hours of the day and late into the night.

- The loss of green belt or brown belt land will be final. There is no going back. Rayleigh and Rawreth will be merged, which in turn will merge with Wickford, so we will lose a part of our identity, which at present makes Rayleigh such a pleasant place to be.

- I do not want to see a new industrial site, or traveller site anywhere within the Rayleigh area. We have enough industrial areas at present which are not fully utilised, so why create another, which will be half empty and derelict within a year or so. As far as traveller sites go, we have been fairly lucky in avoiding the trouble, mess and disruption that these generally cause, so why on earth would you want to encourage another one? (From what I understand, people who will contribute little or nothing to the local area or economy, but will want to make use of it for their own advantage)?

- The proposed development of land North of London Road for houses are at best ill conceived. Where will these people work? Imagine 550 houses, each with at least one car - that means potentially 550 extra cars every day on this already very busy road. Where will these people get their health services from? Where will their children go to school? When I once questioned where infant school children would go after their education (in response to a comment of "we will built an infant school on this land", I was told that we would simply expand the existing schools. How are these intended to be expanded when they are already squeezed into the land they already possess? That's right, take away our growing children's facilities in favour of more concrete! The idea seems to be a case of shoving anything on the land to justify filling it up. It doesn't make sense.

- The well publicised flooding is an issue too. When Watery Lane was closed, it was HELL getting to and from my property on Rawreth Lane. A normal 4 minute journey from the traffic lights took me 35 minutes. This is unacceptable at present - let alone if there are more houses and therefore cars, proposed to use this highway.

I don't know why our land has to be interfered with so ferociously. It would be nice if current residents could enjoy the little open space we have left without the knowledge that it is about to be snatched away from us. This area is already overpopulated. The houses should be placed somewhere else, out of the East altogether. If I wanted to live in a City, I'd move to one!