North of London Road, Rayleigh 550 dwellings

Ref: NLR1 - NLR5. GT1, GT2, GT3 and GT7

We appose any of the above developments on the grounds of increase in traffic, use of greenbelt land, unnecessary loss of agricultural land. We further object to any further increase in travellers sites within our area and any new employment land (industrial units). Please be aware there is a forth coming general election and should you wish to proceed with these proposals, then you will undoubtedly not be getting our vote. Furthermore we object to your underhand way of passing these applications without proper consultations with the general public.

My family and I moved to Essex (Rayleigh) six years ago from London, and have been very happy. We moved like most families for a better way of life, although we have now heard that some of that happiness is going to be spoilt due to plans to have the following built:

- AN INDUSTRIAL ESTATE

- NEW HOUSES

- TRAVELLERS SITES

The Industrial estate will surely cause more traffic along what is already a really busy road!

More houses will also create more traffic, and when in the past new houses have been built no more local facilities (drs, schools, shops) were built!

Surely there are other sites where travellers can be sited!

Lastly surely land that is not green should be build on first? There is some land that is close to Battles bridge Rail Station that could be used!

I therefore would like to make my above concerns heard, and that the items listed should not go ahead.

Thank you for your time in reading this

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 severely 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 infrastructure - 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 am writing to object to the proposal to build 770 homes in West Rayleigh/Rawreth. I do not want us to loose our open agricultural land to another 'concrete jungle'. Once some of these fields are lost to housing and light industrial use there will be no stopping further expansion in the future. Rayleigh does not have the infrastructure or services to support another 770 homes. London Road is already congested during rush hour at both ends of the day and for most of the day on Saturdays. It is also used as an alternative route when there are problems with the A127 which happens on a regular basis. 770 additional homes will add to this congestion and bring London Road to a standstill.
We do want or need any further housing as Rayleigh has in recent years already had a massive new community established along Rawreth Lane.

I am writing to object to the proposal to build 770 homes in West Rayleigh/Rawreth. I do not want us to loose our open agricultural land to another 'concrete jungle'. Once some of these fields are lost to housing and light industrial use there will be no stopping further expansion in the future. Rayleigh does not have the infrastructure or services to support another 770 homes. London Road is already congested during rush hour at both ends of the day and for most of the day on Saturdays. It is also used as an alternative route when there are problems with the A127 which happens on a regular basis. 770 additional homes will add to this congestion and bring London Road to a standstill.

We do want or need any further housing as Rayleigh has only recently had a massive new community established along Rawreth Lane.

We wish to lodge an objection to the Local Development Allocations proposals for West Rayleigh under options NLR1, NLR2, NLR3,
NLR4 and NLR5.

- Current infrastructure is unsuitable for a housing development of
this site and traffic congestion is already a constant problem on the London Road A 129.
- Public transport is currently poor and an increase in traffic, noise
and pollution would not be good for the area.
- This is within a flood zone area and could cause problems for existing households living to the South of London Road.

I am writing to express my objection to the proposed housing development in West Rayleigh/Rawreth NLR 1-5 and proposed Traveller sites GT 1,2,3,7.



My family moved to Rayleigh 30 years ago and at that time we lived very close to the edge of the town surrounded by open fields. It was a small friendly town, which was why we chose it. Over the years it has grown to be a large, busy, noisy, congested and increasingly intimidating place.



Where once London Road was a quiet road it is now extremely busy and very noisy day and night, and trying to pull out of our road onto it is nigh on impossible at certain times of the day. Traffic noise keeps us awake many nights as it is.



The High Street car parks are overrun and trying to get doctors/dentist appointments is very difficult. Public Transport is crowded at peak times.Youths have nothing to do and hang around in ever increasing size gangs in the town centre and in chidren's parks. Adding more people to the same resources without massively upgrading the infrastructure will make all of these problems worse.



It can take over half an hour to get from the Carpenter's Arms roundabout up to the High Street on a normal weekday along London Road and when incidents occur on the A127 it comes to a virtual standstill. Adding more houses to this area, as well as businesses, is a ridiculous idea as the road simply cannot cope with any more traffic. 770 houses could, if each house has 2 cars, mean an extra 1400-1500 cars needing to use the road daily and all the business traffic would be on top of this .



There are too many people and cars in the area already. This is not the place to put a major housing development, industrial site or Traveller camp. We the residents who know the area well can all see this would be a disaster and have a very negative impact on our lives.



Please keep me informed of future decisions relating to these issues.

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

I am 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 I have been made aware of this.

I 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. I 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!




I feel as residents in Rayleigh that our Council has severely let us down by even thinking it possible that we would wish or consent to a travellers site within or anywhere near us.

I also object the 770 homes that have been proposed, schools are full to capacity at present, roads are congested, children's after school clubs are full already with very long waiting lists, trains to London are already full to capasity, how will Rayleigh as a community cope with the pressures of all these homes being built and this Travellers site will bring?

The congestion in Rayleigh High Street and access via London and Crown Hills is currently a nightmare. Even out of rush hour it can take more than 30 minutes to drive from homes past the station to Rayleigh 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 infrastructure - roads and schools - cope with this? It is quite impossible and should not be allowed consent.

I wish to formally state my disagreement and STRONGLY APPOSE all these plans.

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

Rayleigh Town Sports and Social Club

Attachment 1 to the representation form on the Allocations DPD

These comments are attached to the form submitted by Rayleigh Town Sports and Social Club in relation to options NLR3 and NLR5.

The club objects to the allocation of housing North of London Road Rayleigh under options NLR3 and NLR5 as it appears to cover the area occupied by Rayleigh Town Sports and Social Club and without specific words to the contrary appears to wipe out the club. Club members and residents of the area have signed a petition supporting the club's objections and this is attached. This submission deals with NLR3 and NLR5 from the point of view of the club. The club's representation is supported by a petition signed by 347 people. The petition would have been much larger but for the fact that the club only found out about these proposals by word of mouth one week ago. It is disappointing that the council did not write to the club, which has over 500 members and a turnover of £125k per annum, to advise it of these plans. The final paragraph of the petition also contains wider objections to options NLR1, NLR2, NLR3, NLR4, and NLR5 and a separate representation form is submitted in respect of the objections in the final paragraph.

The objections are:

1. The petition and attachment 2 explain why and how The Rayleigh Town Sports & Social Club has become an important social amenity in the London Road area. It is used more extensively than the Pope John Paul Hall and Grange Community Centre and like them the entire club site should be included in the list of Community facilities safeguarded from development under option CF1 on page 133 of the Allocations DPD.

2. There appears to be a lack of awareness amongst planners about the exact nature of the Club and the significant benefits which it provides to the local community in terms of sport and social cohesion. These are in part referred to in the Petition and attachment 2. The club feels that removal of this site would be at odds with the social objectives referred to in the Council's Core Development Strategy. Our club performs an important function in affording social and sporting outlets to young people. Such facilities are widely recognised as important positive factors affecting the health and behaviour of young people, and the removal of the club would have a negative impact on young people in the area. Your attention is drawn to the statement in the petition that the club supports sports coaching in the local schools. It is, in short, part of the social fabric of the local community.

3. The current provision of sport and recreational facilities for the existing population of Rayleigh does not meet Sport England's criteria. There is no logic in removing a significant sport and recreational area when there will be a significant accompanying increase in the local population. The attachments emphasis the high quality of the pitches and building on them would be wanton disregard of the efforts the community has put in to developing and maintaining the site at no cost to the council.

4. Any offer to relocate the club to an alternative site would be rigorously contested because the club serves both sport and social members and the two sections of the club are interdependent in terms of the finance needed to run the club in its present form. It is unlikely that social members would follow the club to a different location which would mean it would not be a viable going concern in a different location. On a sporting level it is important that recreational facilities should be as close as possible to a town centre and local housing to provide easy access to facilities. Moving our site would be counter to that aim.

5. Apart from raising the simple question - why not build houses on any alternative site to be offered - we would expect any relocated cricket and football pitches to be of the same quality ( particularly in terms of drainage) and changing room and clubhouse facilities to be commensurate with those possessed now. This would involve the council in a huge outlay which could be avoided simply by keeping the club in its current location.

6. The club has been advised by Sport England to make objections to the plans, thus suggesting that wider society has concerns that the removal of the club's facilities would be socially undesirable.


Petition

We the undersigned support Rayleigh Town Sports and Social Club (RTSSC) in its objections to options NLR3 and NLR5 that allocate dwellings to land presently occupied by the club, as part of the residential allocations in the Local Development Framework. These plans would wipe out a club that has occupied its current site since 1972 as a lessee of Rochford District Council.

RTTSC is a members club that has developed into the biggest and most valuable social and recreational facility in the west of Rayleigh, thanks to the efforts and financial contributions of the members over the years. The site houses a clubhouse, changing rooms and sports pitches for 8 adult football teams, the Rayleigh Boys mini soccer teams and Rayleigh Fairview Cricket Club, which runs 4 adult and 3 junior teams. Rayleigh Boys and Rayleigh Fairview Cricket Club undertake coaching in the local schools. The pitches are of the best quality to be found in Rayleigh and are maintained entirely by the members at no cost to the council. The site was originally a potato field, and the clubhouse and pitches were constructed entirely by the members with no funding from the council.

The clubhouse is a social venue for the sports teams and local residents who participate in quizzes, ballroom dancing, bingo and concerts there. It is used for family events such as birthdays and wedding receptions. The removal of the club will severely deplete the community facilities available to residents in the area.

We propose that the Rayleigh Town Sports and Social Club site be added to the list of community facilities that will be safeguarded from development under option CF1 on page 133 of the Allocations DPD.

We also object to all the options, NLR1, NLR2, NLR3, NLR4 and NLR5 on the grounds that Rayleigh is already severely overdeveloped in comparison with the rest of Rochford District and the existing infrastructure of transport, education and health facilities which are already over loaded will not be able to cope with the additional housing. We feel that this housing and the proposed housing on the Rawreth Industrial Estate should be allocated elsewhere in the district in order to balance the over-development of Rayleigh in recent years.

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.

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.

A friend of mine mentioned to me that there was a meeting last week at Grange Hall on the Little Wheatleys Estate in Rayleigh, unfortunately I was unable to attend as I had no prior knowledge of this meeting, where would I have found the details ?

I was told that during this meeting the council proposed plans to further increase the levels of new houses built in Rayleigh by another 750, and the proposed Gypsies sites, I was appalled to hear this and feel I have to make my point by writing to you, I believe that the housing options are labelled NLR1 to NLR5, and that the gypsies sites are labelled GT1 to GT7.

I would like to make an official declaration that I do not agree with these proposals and would like to reject them for the following reasons.

1. NLR1, NLR2,NLR3,NLR4 and NLR5.

I have no issue with building affordable housing in the local area, but I have a concern with both the number of houses proposed and the locations. Between the A129, old A130 and Rawreth Lane.

These proposed changes will result in a green belt boundary which cannot be defended against future building projects, which will result in the erosion of this green belt area over time.

Traffic along the A129, which is already congested at peek times will further increase.
The local infrastructure such as public transport, road access, schools, doctors and amenities would all need to be increased as these are currently overstretched with the recent housing increases near my street around the area of the new ASDA store.

I understand that some of the proposed sites are within flood plains and so these would increase the risk of local flooding, how is this risk being addressed ?

An alternative to this would be to build fewer low cost houses further along the A1245 past the Rawreth traffic lights on the two current brown field sites, a garden nursery and garage.

These would have ample road access and are easily developed without causing any major disruption to the local community.



2. GT1,GT2,GT3 and GT7.

There is a very good reason why traveller sites are associated with trouble and rubbish. You only have to look at the sites along the A127, between the A130 and Pound Lane to see this clearly demonstrated. Rubbish has been thrown from the site into the neighbouring fields and there are regular fires which spill smoke across the A127.

Travellers are not in the main interested in joining the local community, their children normally do not attend schools on a regular basis and as and my 2 children attend St Nicholas School, this is the nearest school to the planned "sites", they will be directly affected.

Few pay council tax and as there name indicates they are migrant and move from site to site, without clearing the rubbish they generate, who will police these proposed sites and clean up the local area once they have been vacated? Who will pay for this service, the local community tax payers?

Who will ensure the sites do not expand illegally, the local residents or Police?

The site GT3 is too close to local schools, business and residential areas and needs to be removed from these plans immediately.

Recognising the targets set by the council for housing this group of non contributing individuals, and the detrimental effect that there arrival has to a community. I would suggest that any sites your do introduce or legalise are as remote as is possible in the area, and small so to ensure that there effect is minimised.

It is my view that we are too tolerant of these individuals needs and put them above the wishes and needs of the local law abiding tax payer.

I would like to add that in the event of these plans going forward as proposed I would look to seriously reconsider my vote in both the general and local elections.

Lastly I would be very interested in attending further meetings so please let me know where to find these details

We are writing to you as we strongly object to the proposed plans to build a further 550 homes on what is currently green belt land and an additional 220 on what is currently the Rawreth Industrial Estate site. The worry that all the residents of Rayleigh have is that once builders encroach on any of this land, they will not stop until it has all been built on!

Rayleigh has seen a surge of new homes built in the last 20 years, particularly in West Rayleigh and the Rawreth area, and whilst there may have been a need for this, the promise of additional amenities has never materialised. Our schools are oversubscribed, the local doctors and dentists have long waiting lists and traffic and parking in this area is absolutely horrendous! Not to mention the fact that our children have nowhere safe to play anymore. The green fields between London Road and Rawreth Lane should be left alone - NO houses, NO employment land and NO traveller sites, thank you! There isn't enough farmland and countryside left in this area as it is!
A better choice to site these homes would be on the A1245 as it will not affect the green belt land and would involve only brown belt land, but would still have good access to Battlesbridge Station.

Also, if these proposals do go ahead and these homes are built, the existing and new properties are likely to be affected by flooding as there will be nowhere for the water to run away. Some of the homes in the area are already affected by this.

Employment in the area will also be negatively affected. With the impending closure of Eon on London Road as well as HSBC in Southend, there will be an additional 1,000 unemployed people looking for work in this area. It would, therefore, be ludicrous to bring more people into the area who will then add to the local unemployment figures!

We do understand the reasons why the Rawreth Industrial Estate needs to move due to pollution, noise etc but, by the same token, we do not believe that by moving the site to London Road that this problem will be solved. In fact, it will be exactly the same, right next door to residential dwellings. Surely it would be better placed further out away from homes and schools and a good site would be at the junction of the A1245 and the A127. This would be a far safer option and would mean less traffic congestion with easier access to main roads.

All the residents of Rayleigh urge you to seriously consider the impact on the current community and surroundings when making your decision about our future.

I feel I have to write to express how outraged I am at the preposed plans to build more houses in Rayleigh and the preposed sites for Travellers.

Rayleigh used to be a nice quiet area to live in, now it's getting over crowded with too much traffic, there are not enough places for the existing children to go to school, let alone more children coming into the area. There are not enough doctors & dentists available, it takes ages to get an appointment anywhere, hospitals as well.

Why do the council have to build houses all the time to get more money for them. Why can't they give something back to the community & give us what we need. Build more schools, more doctors & dentists and somewhere for the teenage kids to go like a youth centre with activities that would be much more productive than hanging around the streets, or the proposed teen shelter in Sweyne park. Don't understand why they want to close the Rawreth Lane industrial estate and then start it us somewhere else, it's fine where it is.

Why can't we have a family place such as a bowling alley with a family restaurant, we're crying out for a descant place to go and eat, or a swimming pool? Basically, there are not enough amenities in this area.

And I've just read in the Rayleigh Times that Rayleigh Boys FC have been refused a planning application for a permanent home on land near The Old Rayleigh Road, why? This isn't fair to the youth of today. Football clubs are good for the youth of today, it teaches them discipline and exercise, they need a base!!!

Why don't the council have more meetings to talk to the public and listen to what we have to say & what we want, we live here, we pay our taxes, don't we have a say in what goes on in our community?

And by the way, when is something going to be done about the disgusting state of the roads in Essex, it's been quite a while now since the snow went. What do we pay our road tax for!!!

Look forward to your comments

Having been advised by District Cllr. C. Black that the RDC will accept representations by email in respect of the above document, I submit my comments and objections.

Section 2. Residential.
North of London Road, Rayleigh 550 dwellings.
Object. In general I object to all of the proposed sites, NLR1 to NLR5, being built on greenbelt land. (See reasons below).

I would also prefer not to have 220 dwellings built on the Rawreth Industrial Estate but as this is a re-use of brown field land, I could reluctantly accept it provided the all five sites, NLR1 to NLR5 are axed from the proposal.
Personally I have no complaints regarding the Rawreth Industrial Estate and see no good reason to remove it. The relocation of a couple of the larger heavy vehicle premises makes sense and moderisation of the site would be preferable to relocation.
I see this as a better proposition which would retain job security and allow for a few new industrial premises and more job opportunities.

I also support the proposal put forward by the Rawreth Parish Council to expand the village and provide circa 250 dwellings on either side of the A1245 road.
Why the RDC and in particular the elected LDF Committee are so opposed to this is beyond belief. It makes far more sense than building on the greenbelt. It is welcomed by the residents and added to the 220 dwellings at the Industrial Estate, if this is chosen, would provide 470 additional dwellings in the parish. This number represents an approximate 125% increase over the existing 373 dwellings at present.

I am also concerned about surface water drainage and run-off. The reason that, as stated, "Consideration must be given to the section of the site to the south, which lies within Flood Zone 3" is that the land falls toward the south of most of the sites. Major development will create large quantities of run-off water and due account of this does not seem to have been taken. The natural course of the water from the sites is toward the River Crouch via the Rawreth Brook. Properties along this valley have been flooded in the past and I feel sure the situation will worsen following any new development.

Now to my objections to Section 2. Residential.

OPTION NLR1 and NLR4 Object
Firstly it further increases and extends all the residential development that has taken place off Rawreth Lane in the past 20 years and will directly add to the coalescence between Rayleigh Town and Rawreth Parish, which RDC have already stated in the Core strategy that they wanted to avoid at any Rochford District location.
Total traffic access to and from Rawreth Lane would add to the congestion that is a regular problem on this road. I also envisage that another traffic light junction would be needed, which added to those we already have will create even more traffic jams.
It appears that the full allocation of 550 dwellings will be added to the 220 proposed for the industrial estate making 770 in total. This figure is approximately the same as those built in the past 20 years off Rawreth Lane and is well in excess of the "Fair Shares For All" policy promised in the Local Development Framework.



OPTION NLR2 Object
My objections are generally the same as NLR1 and NLR4 above.
I do not agree with the vague comment of "Access to this site would be via London Road or the surrounding residential development". This is too open to suggesting that routes through existing housing estates could be used.


OPTION NLR3 Object
Again my main objection is to development on greenbelt and the disproportionate number of dwellings proposed for the Parish of Rawreth.
The location of the site is probably the best of all five but I must object to this in favour of a new proposal to expand the village of Rawreth either side of the A1245.


OPTION NLR5 Object
Jointly with NLR1, these are the most unfavourable. The prospect of joining London Road to Rawreth Lane by one massive development will be a disaster.
I totally disagree with the statement "This location would enable community cohesion due to its location adjacent to existing residential settlement". It is a further example of coalescence between Rayleigh Town and Rawreth Parish which as I have already commented on above.


Section 2 Gypsy and Traveller Sites Object
I do not agree with large Gypsy/Traveller sites as larger communities seem to have greater power over authority and are more inclined to abuse their position by ignoring the law.
I accept that RDC must make provision for Gypsy/Traveller sites but I feel that no site should be larger than six pitches and distributed equally in the East, Central and West areas of the district as represented by the Area Committees.


OPTION GT1 and GT2 Object
As you well know this site has an eviction order on it and I am disgusted that it is even being considered, let alone extended to accommodate more units.
The current occupants have abused their rights and do not relate to 'other developments or village life'. In fact they are considered to be bad neighbours by many of the locals.
They run businesses from the site eg. car sales adjacent the highway, with well in excess of six vehicles a year displayed For Sale. As I understand it, such trading requires them to register the site as a business.
The site access/egress is directly off a dual carriageway 'A' road and is on a fast bend.
Any housing development would be refused by County Highways in such circumstances and the same rules should apply to this Gypsy/Travellers site.

OPTION GT3 Object
Yet another large site with access on to a main road. Also, if Option NLR3 is a chosen site, there will be a similar situation where occupants do not relate with other developments. It is not in their nature.

Re: Relocating the Rawreth Lane Industrial Estate

As a general rule, I have no objections to building new houses on an old industrial site, as long as the relevant facilities are also built, i.e.
Doctors, parks and schools.

In order to accommodate these 220 new homes it is VITAL that a new school is built as I do not believe the 4 schools in the local vicinity (St Nicholas, Downhall, Our Lady of Ransom and Glebe) can accommodate them without detrimental effect. IF THE NEW SCHOOL IS NOT GOING TO BE BUILT THEN I OBJECT TO THE HOUSES BEING BUILT!


Re: Relocating Rawreth Lane Industrial Estate

I strongly object to it being put anywhere on the London Road (A129) in West Rayleigh, as all industrial estates should be kept well away from residential areas. This is especially the case with Rawreth Lane Industrial Estate as it is experiencing lots of dust pollution. West Rayleigh would then be expected to put up with more traffic congestion, traffic pollution and dust pollution.

Re: Development Ref: NLR1-5

I also strongly object to a further 550 houses being built on both greenbelt land and a floodplain. I do not believe we should ever build houses on either as this is just asking for trouble bearing in mind our current climate. Floodplains are there for a very important reason!

I also feel the traffic it would cause down the A129 would be horrific as this road is already a very busy and congested road.

There is no way the local schools can accommodate a further 550 houses.

I believe West Rayleigh should/could not accommodate ANY more developments!
Our infrastructure cannot cope, i.e. Travel, schooling, doctors and sewerage.

Re: Gypsy & Travelers site Ref GT3

I do not feel the best place for the travelers site is down the A129. There is already a travelers site on the A1245, between Rayleigh and Rawreth, why not make this site bigger? Why lose more greenfields in an already built up area. I therefore feel option GT2 is the best solution.

I feel West Rayleigh is being bombarded with potential developments which will totally ruin the area - 770 house, an industrial estate and travelers site.

DO NOT BUILD EVERYWHERE AND RUIN OUR GREEN SPACE.

NO

TO ALL

THE DROSS PLANNING

BEING SENT TO RAWRETH

WE DO NOT WANT INDUSTRY

TRAVELLORS

OR MORE HOUSING

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.


Petition received with approx 230 signatures, for further details see paper copy.

I wish to register my objection to the extensive housing development which I understand is being considered in the areas to the west of Rayleigh, between Rawreth Lane and the London Road.

I wish to object to the housing options NLR1 NLR2 NLR3 NLR4 and NLR5. My main objection relates to the increase in traffic on the already congested London Road, and to the pressures on infrastructure such as schools.

I have no wish to object to the proposal for a small traveller site. I would rather live in a society which welcomes people who adopt a lifestyle different to my own. All that I would request is that the traveller community is consulted about the suitability of the location and facilities.

I understand that it is the Council's responsibility to give residents the opportunity to make objections: I looked on the council's website and look regularly in the local paper, but I had not been made aware of this scheme, until now. The Council can hardly be said to have consulted local people, if they have not published details of the scheme in a way which people can access.

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.

Our family wishes to formally state our disagreement with the plans for Proposed building of 770 new houses, sites for Gypsies between Rawreth Lane and London Road, and possibly a Tesco.

I am outraged that as a tax paying resident within the immediate vicinity of the proposed site the earliest I heard about this was YESTERDAY the 27th April and by word of a mother from my son's preschool. My family and I absolutely object to the proposed build of 770 new homes for travellers in a beautiful town such as Rayleigh.

In the last year alone my home and family have been victims of serious crime no less than 3 times and the local police force has struggled to cope with each incident.
I am disgusted that the cost of my home would depreciate within hours of this proposal being agreed which would render us unable to move away from the problem. My husband suffers from serious depression regarding the recent financial downturn and the effect that this has had on our family and my concern for his health would be immensely heightened.
I do not want my children growing up around the disrepute these travelling communities would bring and I certainly do not wish my children to attend a school with them.
Our road is already disrespected by a lot of people using it as a rat run and the prospect of having an accident with a traveler whom doesn't have insurance will incense most law abiding residents
thus providing a worry for vigilante behaviour
this is a beautiful town with a fabulous reputation why ruin that?
Local businesses would all suffer at the hands of criminal behaviour
My childminding business would be affected by people not wishing to come to this side of town.
All of the vulnerable residents, elderly/those less able would be frightened to go out and this in turn would also affect the local businesses
My home insurance would increase also because of the added risk.
What demographic reason do you have in favour of this proposition? Do you really think our little town could cope with the addition of freeloaders and illegal motorists?

With the election looming, my vote will go to whomever will put a stop to this nonsense. Why should they not pay taxes? and why are they not accounted for because of it? if it so that they do not have a fixed abode then why build them fixed addresses?

I want to be kept informed of all meeting and news regarding this proposition.

Our Family wish to formally state our disagreement with these plans for a proposed building of 770 New Houses, sites for Gypsies between Rawreth Lane and London Road also the site/s in Hockley, a possible Tesco and have copied this complaint to our local MP. Please keep me informed of any meetings/news on this subject.

Our family wish to formally state our disagreement with these plans for proposed building of 770 new houses, sites for Gypsies between Rawreth Lane and London Road and possibly a Tesco and have copied this email to our local MP. Please keep me updated of any news/meetings on this subject.

I would like to express my objections and concerns around the proposed development plans for the west end of Rayleigh. I appreciate that there is a need for new housing and that your proposals form part of a central government initiative, but there has already been a significant amount of development in this area over the past few years, and there are other brownfield sites in other parts of the district that would more than satisfy the initiative.

Rawreth Industrial Site Development

I have no real objection to the 220 proposed homes being built on what is currenly the Rawreth Industrial Estate, as I can see the reasoning behind it, the fact that it is already developed land means that there will be little impact to the appearance and traffic flow in the area. The only issue real issue I see here is that the local infrastructure may struggle to cope with the additional residents. Currently as you will be aware the local secondary school (Sweyne Park) is oversubscribed at every annual in-take, and this will only become more of an issue as more people move into the area.

If these properties are built on the Rawreth Industrial Estate, the I suggest the only site in the area that should be considered for an alternative employment site would be the area of land at the corner of the A127 and the A1245. This area is perfectly positioned for access to the A127, A1245 and the A130, and will therefore ensure that the majority of industrial traffic is kept away from the already busy A129 and Rayleigh High Street.

Development of additional 550 Homes

I vehemently object to the proposal to develop 550 properties in the area between London Road and Rawreth Lane, which your document has labelled as NLR1, NLR2, NLR3, NLR4 & NLR5 for a number of reasons:

West Rayleigh has has it's fair share of development over the past few years with the development of the Victoria Grange Estate, the Birds Estate, the Little Wheatley Estate, as well as some other smaller developments off the London Road and Louis Drive areas. There has been no new schools, doctor's surgeries etc built to support these developments to date, where as I understand they were promised, so past experience would suggest that the same will apply this time around. This would not be acceptable as the current infrastructure is already stretched.

This development would result in an unnecessary loss of agricultural land.

Part of the area is flood plain, which currently acts as a natual defence for the properties currently on and around London Road, so if this land is built on these properties will inevitably be at greater risk of flooding.

The A129 London Road, and Rayleigh High Street is already busy, and at peak times traffic barely moves. Any further development will only make this worse.

The NLR3 and NLR5 sites are on the land currently occupied by the Rayleigh Town Sports and Social Club, and has been on the current site since 1972 as a lessee of Rochford Council. The club has sports pitches currently used by 8 adult football teams, junior mini soccer teams, 4 adult and three junior cricket teams. Having been involved in junior football myself, I know that there are already insufficient sports faciilities in the local area, so losing this facility as well would be nothing short of scandalous.
The club also has it's own clubhouse which is used by the local community for various social, family and fundraising events, this will be a great loss to the community, which will probably never be replaced.

There is currently a clear green belt boundary which will need to be moved. Once development has taken hold, the boundaries will be increasingly difficult to defend. So my fear is that the whole area will eventually become one huge housing estate. At the moment, as you come into Rayleigh from the Carpenters Arms roundabout you get the sense of countryside which is easy on the eye, this will all be gone if development takes place in this area.

Gipsy and Traveller Sites

I strongy object to the proposal to accommodate Gipsies and Travellers in the West Rayleigh area, there is no real reason to do so as there are other sites, such as the area on the A1245 north of Rayleigh, which are currently occupied that can be legalised. This will bring Rochford district up to quota without creating any further sites.

The GT3 area should not even be given consideration, as once this area becomes occupied and accessible, the surrounding area will inevitably become illegally occupied creating a much larger than intended site. The point mentioned in the document about Gipsies and Travellers being able to integrate with the local community is completely invalid, as they will never want to, and neither will they ever be accepted by the local community. This has been evidenced by the experience of other sites around Essex. The only way integration will ever take place is if the Gipsies and Travellers are situated on single plot sites with reasonable distance between them, and not on larger sites where they will form their own exclusive community.

Therefore I propose that if you do intend to create (unnecessary) additional sites, then you do make them small single plot sites at a number of different locations around the Rochford district.

It was brought to my attention about the possible building of new houses and a gypsy site nr swallows on London road. I was rather concerned that i had no knowledge of this when i live near this area. The traffic is bad enough on that road without all this extra traffic this could cause. Ourchildren will be growing up not knowing what a green field looks like if all our fields are taken for housing. The community should be made more aware of what the council are proposing after all you are supposed to be working for the good of all

Subject: Opposition to Proposed Building of 500 homes and Gypsy Sites in London Road area of Rayleigh


To Whom it may concern

Our family wish to formally state our opposition to the plans that propose the building of 500 new houses and sites for Gypsies and Travellers on greenbelt land in Rayleigh especially off London Road to the north of the A127 and possibly a Tesco on the EDP site on London Road and have copied this email to our local MP.

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

I wish to lodge my protest against the councils proposed development in the Rayleigh area.
I object to the housing options NLR1,NLR2,NLR3,NLR4 and NLR5.
These options would cause an unnecessary loss of agricultural land and would create an increase in traffic.
I am particularly opposed to NLR3 as it would mean the loss of Rayleigh Town Sports & Social Club, an important local sports and social facility.
I also object to the options for traveller sites GT1, GT2, GT3, and GT7.
The option GT3 would be particularly unsuitable given its proximity to local schools and existing housing, the travelling community have no wish to integrate with the settled community and vice versa.
Any future development should be small and spread throughout the district, not concentrated entirely in Rayleigh.

Our family wish to formally state our disagreement and anger with these plans for proposed building of 770 new houses, sites for Gypsies between Rawreth Lane and London Road, Rayleigh. We are also aware of a possiblity of a Tesco also being built.
I along with my wife have lived in Rayleigh all our lives and can easily notice the overcrowding of such a beutifull area as a result of constant building of new housing estates. This area struggles to cope with traffic at this time and any further building will just add to this problem.
My wife is a teacher and already has class sizes of approx 30 plus children. How can the schools possibly cope with any further development resulting in further school placements needed??? This is detrimental to a childs education as well as overly stressfull for any teacher with such class sizes.
Due to the economic climate, funding for policing will be frozen/ cut back and local police will be unable to cope with the almost garunteed increase in crime rates in the area. Being a police officer in the Metropolitan police I am already witnessing these cut backs with the almost daily increased demand to cut crime and reach pointless figures to satisfy beurocrates.

The sewage will be unable to cope with the demand along with many other areas of the infrastructure.

I would also like to add that I find it appauling and disrespectful to tax paying residents that I, along with almost all other people I have spoken to, have only been made aware of this issue by word of mouth. Is this how the council wish to treat its clients???

I have copied this email to my local MP. I would appreciate any updates on any further news/meetings regarding this subject as this directly involves my family.

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.

Whilst we have no objection to the plans to build 220 new homes on Raweth Industrial Estate we do object to a further 550 on land between Raweth Lane & London Road Rayleigh.

London Road Rayleigh, in both directions, is busy almost all day and in particular early mornings & early evenings ie commuter time. Image the extra burfden on the roads an extra 550 houses would have, with most homes having least 2 cars. I (Mrs Budd) travel to Benfleet for work each day, on average this journey takes 25 mins, when I first started approx 20 years ago the journey took 10mins. If there are any hold ups as was the A127 last week, it takes considerably longer, in this case almost an hour. The A1245 and A13 were nose to tail all the way.

I moved to West Rayleigh because it is on the edge of Rayleigh with open fields, since moving here there have been 2 large housing sites in close proximity, the Bird Estate near the station and Langley Drive estate, which is an extension of Little Wheatleys.

Perhaps the number of properties could be reduced to the area and would then be more acceptable.

We object in principle to an extra 550 homes between London Road & Raweth Lane.