North of London Road, Rayleigh 550 dwellings

I am writing to inform you of my very strong objection to the councils housing options labelled NLR1,NLR2,NLR3,NLR4,NLR5 as they will:

Cause an unnecessary loss of agricultural land,
will increase traffic,
will create a green belt boundary that cant be defended in the future
will put extra strain on local services
and encourage a merging between Rayleigh and Rawreth.



Furthermore I would also like to let it be noted that I very strongly object to any planning for traveller sites in Rayleigh and in particular planning options GT1,GT2,GT3and GT7. As any increase in the number of travellers in the area will have a negative effect on the local community and local services.

Please note my objections to the proposed development of 770 houses on land between London Road and Rawreth Lane
in Rayleigh and also the resiting of the Rawreth Industrial site.I have lived in Rayleigh for 27 years and sadly have seen so much development take place on land when I bought my property was assured it would be kept for recreational purposes.The traffic that uses the London Road is now constant 24 hours where once upon a time you could have a peaceful nights sleep with your windows open that now is a thing of the past and a relaxing sit in the garden is also another novelty unless you put earplugs in.I travel to chelmsford to work and it quite often takes me longer to drive from Rawreth Lane to my home on the London Road then it takes me to do the other 14 miles so with another 770 houses I would probably find it quicker to walk to Chelmsford.I did note the local paper reported the council had refused the Rayleigh Boys football club's application for football pitches strange that being it will be were they want the new houses to be built.I would also object to the siting of a travellers site near to swallow nurseries.when you come round the roundabout a Carpenters arms you have a sign that says welcome to Rayleigh with a Travellers site a few yards away what a wonderful impression that will give to anyone coming to Rayleigh.When we asked for a Swimming pool to be put in Rayleigh town we were told no strange how decent rate paying residents get short shrift from Rochford Council

i object to options NLR1,NLR2,NLR3,NLR4,and NLR5 because they will cause unnecessary loss of agricultural land ,increase traffic,and create a green belt boundry that cant be defended in the future.i also object to options GT1,GT2,GT3 and GT7

hi i would just like to add that my wife and i are opposed to any new houses in the rayleigh area due to congestion in traffic this would caues also the thought of having travlers in my area does not fill me with joy one bit.

I strongly object to the proposed site GT3 for the travellers site in London Road , Rayleigh . When you turn off the
roundabout where London Road meets the A1245 into the London Road then their is the beautiful site of crops growing in the fields. To see 30 caravans on a site next to Swallow Aquatics and everything else that goes with their sites would totally spoil the whole area.
We only moved from Romford to Leonard Drive on the Louis Drive Estate 3 years ago. We chose this location after living in the hustle and bustle and crime ridden Romford to a peaceful, almost crime free Louis Drive Estate. If the Travellers are put into the GT3 site then as they head towards Rayleigh then our estate will be the first area of residents that they will come to. This means our crime rate will increase with sheds, garages and house burglaries. The estate is made up of a lot of elderly people and we do not need travellers nearby to make them feel vulnerable and upset .

If the proposed site of 550 houses is chosen and are built on the opposite side of the London Road (options NLR1 to NLR5 ) then London Road will Lose all of its beautifull naturalness and become just another housing jungle. Already opposite the end of Louis Drive West a single bungalow has been demolished and 14 three and four bedroom houses are being built in its place. Plans have been put into the council for a garage and car sales to be replaced by a large residential home for the elderly. It seems as though our whole end of London Road will be just one building site.

We wish to submit our OBJECTIONS to some of the proposals presented in the Allocations DPD. We are doing so by email because of the restrictions on the number of words that can be used within the online form.


1. Residential - Options NLR1, 2, 3, 4 and 5



We are very concerned that a large development is proposed for the area north of the London Road, Rayleigh.



1.1 Access to the town centre is already extremely challenging at peak times. A development of 550 homes would increase traffic unacceptably along London Road / Rawreth Lane.



1.2 This area was promised a new school, shops and amenities when the Little Wheatleys Estate was built 30 years ago. These did not materialise. In the intervening 30 years there have been several large scale housing developments in this area but still no additional infrastructure or amenities have been provided. This area cannot sustain any further large scale growth. It is hard to believe that the promised amenities will be built if the council's track record on honouring infrastructure development agreements is a yardstick.



1.3 These options would further erode the green belt and will from experience surely increase the risk of flooding in this area some of which is already in flood zone 3.



1.4 In addition we note that the site of Rawreth Industrial Estate has already been identified in the Urban Capacity Study as suitable for housing use. We also understand that this land will accommodate 220 dwellings. This adds even further weight to our objections to developing the sites NLR 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.



1.5 There are other areas in Rayleigh of a similar size that have more favourable assessment criteria, fewer constraints and less potential impact.



At Appendix 1, sites 29 and 195 are located to the South West of Rayleigh in close proximity to the town centre . As noted in the assessment criteria, they have good access to services, leisure facilities, schools and the highways network. Why were these areas not considered suitable for consultation? Was it because they are close to Great Wheatley Road and Western Road? Analysing the constraints, assessment criteria and potential impact sections these sites would seem to be more suitable that the proposed options NLR1 - 5.



1.6 Why do 550 dwellings have to be built in one area? Surely smaller clusters of houses in different parts of the district will mean less pressure on the existing infrastructure and amenities. It would also reduce additional traffic on already heavily congested highways.



1.7 Why are some areas of the district, for example Canewdon, not included in the housing allocation?








2. Gipsy and Travellers - Options GT1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7



2.1 The plan seems confused about the number of pitches that Rochford District Council is required to provide. The text on page 62 of the DPD indicates that there is a need to provide 11 additional pitches in order to achieve the required total of 18. However options GT1, 2, 5 and 7 would provide at minimum 15 pitches.



2.2 We are concerned that if the Gypsy and Travellers pitches are sited at GT1, 2, 3 or 6 the sites may expand illegally into the surrounding countryside as has happened at Dale Farm and Crays Hill.



2.3 The document states that integrating the Gypsy and Traveller sites into residential settlements to promote community cohesion is an important aim. Large sites do not encourage such integration as has been found at Dale Farm and Crays Hill.



For these reasons we would advocate that the requirement be met by smaller sites spread across the district in areas that cannot easily be expanded. This would provide smaller Gypsy and Traveller communities that are more likely to integrate with existing residential settlements.







3. Economic Development - Options E13, 14, 15 ,16 and 18



3.1 We feel that the options E13 - 16 are unsuitable for economic development. They are in close proximity to existing residential sites and schools. These will be detrimentally affected by, among other things, noise and air pollution and would add considerably to the existing traffic congestion already experienced on the London Road, Rayleigh which is not suitable for heavy goods vehicles.



3.2 We do not understand why the majority of future employment will be directed to the West of the district. There are surely more suitable sites that would better meet the aim of being "in proximity to London Southend Airport".



3.3 Of the options proposed we would advocate that option E18, which is detached from residential settlements and has close proximity to main routes which are suitable for heavy goods vehicles, would be a better choice.

I beleive I will be one in a long list of people that have mailed you.

I can not beleive that the above proposal can go ahead without the people of Rayleigh being made fully aware.

I object to the way this has been handled but I totally object to this proposal and the chaos on our roads and community it will cause.

If you need me to come and see you or speak in person please let me know

I strongly object to the proposed site GT3 for the travellers site in London Road , Rayleigh . When you turn off the
roundabout where London Road meets the A1245 into the London Road then their is the beautiful site of crops growing in the fields. To see 30 caravans on a site next to Swallow Aquatics and everything else that goes with their sites would totally spoil the whole area.
We only moved from Romford to Leonard Drive on the Louis Drive Estate 3 years ago. We chose this location after living in the hustle and bustle and crime ridden Romford to a peaceful, almost crime free Louis Drive Estate. If the Travellers are put into the GT3 site then as they head towards Rayleigh then our estate will be the first area of residents that they will come to. This means our crime rate will increase with sheds, garages and house burglaries. The estate is made up of a lot of elderly people and we do not need travellers nearby to make them feel vulnerable and upset .

If the proposed site of 550 houses is chosen and are built on the opposite side of the London Road (options NLR1 to NLR5 ) then London Road will Lose all of its beautifull naturalness and become just another housing jungle. Already opposite the end of Louis Drive West a single bungalow has been demolished and 14 three and four bedroom houses are being built in its place. Plans have been put into the council for a garage and car sales to be replaced by a large residential home for the elderly. It seems as though our whole end of London Road will be just one building site.

Our family wish to formally state our very strong objection to the plans for the proposed building of 770 new houses, sites for travellers between Rawreth Lane and London Road, and possibly a Tesco, and have copied this email to our local MP.

We object to housing options NRL1 to NLR5, and to traveller sites options GT1, GT2, GT3 and GT7.

I chose the location of my home because of its proximity to open fields, and do not want that spoilt with a lot of houses that a town like Rayleigh is too small to support. And I most certainly do not want to live next to a traveller's site!!!! One only has to look at the problems in Wickford and Cray's Hill to realise what a disaster that would be.

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

Our family wish to formally state our very strong objection to the plans for the proposed building of 770 new houses, sites for travellers between Rawreth Lane and London Road, and possibly a Tesco, and have copied this email to our local MP.

We object to housing options NRL1 to NLR5, and to traveller sites options GT1, GT2, GT3 and GT7.

I chose the location of my home because of its proximity to open fields, and do not want that spoilt with a lot of houses that a town like Rayleigh is too small to support. And I most certainly do not want to live next to a traveller's site!!!! One only has to look at the problems in Wickford and Cray's Hill to realise what a disaster that would be.

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

Please find attached a representation to the Site Allocations DPD Issues and Options consultation submitted on behalf of Mr Maughan and Mr Lambourn who seek land south of Rayleigh put forward as a site residential site allocation.

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 This Regulation 25 Statement has been produced by Ransome and Company in response to the Rochford District's Council Allocations DPD: Discussion and Consultation document. We act on behalf of Mr Maughan and Mr Lambourn who seek to put forward land south of Rayleigh as a residential site allocation. The site location plan is attached to the statement in Appendix 1. This site is available, achievable and deliverable.

Appendix 1

1.2 Mr Maughan and Mr Lambourn previously submitted separate representations to the 'Call for Sites' consultation and both requested to be contacted on future LDF consultations. It is noted that the Council misrepresented the sites put forward in terms of location and also failed to notify Mr Maughan and Mr Lambourn on the Council's LDF consultations. The Council has consequently been in breach of the Planning Regulations 2004 as amended. This matter is discussed in further detail in Section 2 of this statement.

1.3 This site should be considered alongside 'Land south of Wyburn Primary School' which is put forward as a residential site allocation under a separate cover. The two sites are both highly sustainable and collectively could deliver important benefits to Rayleigh.

1.4 Mr Lambourn has also submitted a separate representation that partially includes some of the land that constitutes 'Land south of Rayleigh'.

1.5 This Regulation 25 Statement puts forward land south of Rayleigh as a site allocation within the Rochford Allocations DPD. This Statement is structured as follows:

Section 2 sets out the procedural matters that the Council has been in breach of during the LDF process.
Section 3 sets out the site context for land south of Rayleigh.
Section 4 describes the proposed site allocation at land south of Rayleigh in the context of the Green Belt.
Section 5 considers the Council's housing land supply.
Section 6 considers the sites the Council has suggested as site allocation options.
Section 7 sets out the overall conclusions of the Statement.

SECTION 2: PROCEDURAL MATTERS

2.1 Mr Maughan and Mr Lambourn submitted separate representations to the Council's 'Call for Sites' consultation in 2007. Both Mr Maughan and Mr Lambourn requested that they be contacted for future LDF consultations. Neither Mr Maughan or Mr Lambourn were informed of the Rochford Core Strategy Pre-Submission consultation and as such were not given the opportunity to make representations on the soundness of the spatial strategy set out in the Core Strategy. By not informing Mr Maughan or Mr Lambourn, the Council are in breach of the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2004 as amended. The Core Strategy is consequently unsound on procedural matters. This matter is discussed in more detail below.

2.2 The Council have also misrepresented the representation submitted by Mr Maughan. This site was not recorded accurately and in fact the wrong site was accredited to Mr Maughan. For a matter of correctness both sites are now to be considered as one site and the site location plan is set in Appendix 1 of this report.

Appendix 1

2.3 In addition, the assessment of Mr Maughan's site wrongly states that this site would affect an existing recreational use and a public right of way. There are no public rights of way over this land and this site is not used for recreational purposes.

2.4 In respect to the procedural breach, Paragraph 24 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2004 states that representations may be accompanied by a request to be notified about further LDF consultations and importantly the submission of a DPD to the Core Strategy, a request that was undertaken by both Mr Maughan and Mr Lambourn.

2.5 Paragraph 28 relates to the submission of the DPD. Part (e) of this paragraph states that the Council must give notice to those persons who requested to be notified of the submission of the DPD to the Secretary of State. The Council did not do this as they failed to notify Mr Maughan and Mr Lambourn.

2.6 In addition, as significant landowners with land that adjoins Rayleigh and that they have requested to be notified by the Council, Mr Maughan and Mr Lambourn should be consulted as General Consultation Bodies under the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2004. This point has been clarified in paragraph 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2008 which states that a local planning authority must notify general consultation bodies who may have an interest in the subject of the proposed DPD. It is also stated that the local planning authority must consider whether it is appropriate to invite representations from persons who are resident and/or carrying out business in their area and invite each of those bodies to make representations to the DPD.

2.7 Paragraph 32 considers the handling of site allocation representations. The Council's 'Call for Sites' consultation constitutes a consultation under the planning regulations. Under part (2) of paragraph 32 it is stated that as soon as reasonably practicable after the consultation period the local planning authority must make a site allocation representation available for inspection. This site allocation must be sent to the DPD bodies and appropriate notifications, as listed in the regulations, must be made. Paragraph 33 states that any person may make representations regarding the site allocation put forward. The Council are in breach of the planning regulations under paragraph 32 and 33 as they have inaccurately recorded the sites and stated false information about the sites put forward by Mr Maughan and Mr Lambourn. Appendix 1 of the the Site Allocations Issues and Options document does not include the site put forward by Mr Maughan and instead considers the adjacent scrap site that Mr Maughan did not include in his representation. The Council has also inaccurately drawn the site boundaries put forward by Mr Maughan. This point has also been clarified under paragraph 30 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2008.

SECTION 3: THE PROPOSED SITE AND SURROUNDINGS

3.1 The proposed site extends to 6.4 hectares and is located to the south of the urban area of Rayleigh. This site has the potential to deliver up to approximately 190 market and affordable dwellings. The proposed main access into the site would be from Eastwood Road with a secondary access from South View Road.

3.2 The proposed site is located just 1 mile from Rayleigh town centre and 1.4 miles from Rayleigh Train Station which provides convenient public transport connections to Southend-on-Sea, Stratford and London Liverpool Street. A number of bus routes operate along Eastwood Road, with a bus stop adjacent to the proposed access. This provides good and convenient public transport accessibility to Rayleigh Town Centre and Rayleigh Train Station.

3.3 The site is well located to the main centres of employment in Rayleigh being located in close proximity to the town centre but is also just 800 metres by foot from Brook Street Industrial Estate or approximately 1.5 miles by bike or car.

3.4 The site adjoins the urban edge of Rayleigh to the south. The site abuts the rear boundary line of the dwellings located along South View Road and Eastwood Road.

3.5 The boundaries of the proposed site ensure that this site is enclosed. The eastern boundary is characterised by a mature wooded area that prevents views into the site and would also create a natural and defensible boundary for a future development. The southern boundary also has a mature tree line edge that screens the site from the A127 carriageway. The proposed site is located adjacent to an established small commercial site at its south-western boundary. The remainder of the western boundary is also characterised by a mature tree and hedge line. The site is enclosed by the mature landscaping along its boundary which prevents views into the site and provides natural screening.

3.6 The southern part of the proposed site is currently used for non-commercial grazing whilst the northern part has no function. The site has no beneficial agricultural function and no viable equestrian function.

3.7 There are no public footpaths or rights of way that cross this site and the site has no recreational value.

3.8 The proposed site is connected to existing utilities infrastructure.

3.9 The proposed site would be accessed from Eastwood Road.

SECTION 4: THE GREEN BELT

4.1 The site on land south of Rayleigh is currently designated as Green Belt in the Rochford Local Plan. It is considered that this designation is no longer relevant to this site. This matter is discussed in more detail below.

4.2 Very special circumstances to outweigh harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm to the Green Belt needs to be demonstrated for development on Green Belt land. Paragraph 1.4 of PPG2 outlines the intentions of Green Belt planning policy and states that the most important attribute of Green Belt is its openness.

4.3 Appendix 1 of this statement provides an illustrative demonstration of the enclosed nature of this site. It is clear that this site is enclosed and that there is a very limited degree of openness and as such this site does not fulfil the requirements of PPG2. The proposed site does not have any public footpaths running through it and is enclosed by the adjacent urban area of Rayleigh and the dense wooded area to the south, east and west. There are no views across the site from a public viewpoint.

4.4 The boundaries of the proposed site on land south of Rayleigh would create a more permanent or robust defensible boundary for the Green Belt at this location. The eastern and western boundary of the site contains a mature thick wooded area that provides a defensible boundary. The southern boundary is characterised by a mature landscaping with A127 carriageway running adjacent to the boundary. This road and the existing mature landscaping provides defensible boundary to the south.

4.5 Paragraph 1.5 of PPG2 lists the five purposes of the Green Belt:

1. To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;
2. To prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another;
3. To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;
4. To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and
5. To assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.

4.6 With reference to point 1 above, the proposed site is located adjacent to the southern edge of Rayleigh. A scrapyard is located adjacent to the site on the south-eastern boundary. This site constitutes a previously developed site within the Green Belt and provides an urban setting to the proposed site on land south of Rayleigh. It is considered that the containment of the site by the A127 carriageway and the mature landscaping along the boundary are important characteristics which ensure that development of the site would not represent unrestricted urban sprawl.

4.7 In defining Green Belt boundaries, PPG2 advises that such boundaries should be clearly defined, using readily recognisable features, such as roads and tree lines. It is considered that because the proposed site is enclosed by the mature landscaping on the eastern and western boundary and by the A127 carriageway, the site would have a robust and defensible boundary to the Green Belt, were residential development to be allocated at this site. The allocation of the proposed site for residential development would not make adjacent Green Belt land vulnerable to development.

4.8 Point 2 above states that the Green Belt will prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another. With reference to the second purpose, a distance of 0.25 miles separates Rayleigh and Southend-on-Sea at the closest point. The eastern edge of this proposed site is 0.5 miles from the boundary of Southend-on-Sea and would not bring Rayleigh any closer to Southend-on-Sea. Furthermore, the dense and mature landscaping along the proposed sites eastern boundary provides a robust barrier which prevents Rayleigh and Southend-on-Sea from ever merging.

4.9 Point 3 requires the Green Belt to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. The enclosed nature of the site would prevent encroachment. The loss of this site is essential for Council to meet its housing minimum housing targets.

4.10 Point 4 requires the preservation of the setting and special character of historic towns. The historic core of Rayleigh is centred along the High Street. Historically, Rayleigh has developed by building on open land to that surrounds the town centre, particularly in the post war years, such that the original historic core is surrounded by more modern development. In these circumstances, the application site does not perform a function in preserving the setting of the historic centre of Rayleigh.

4.11 Point 5 states that the Green Belt is required to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. This point is not applicable in this instance given the need for a release of Green Belt in Rochford District to meet housing targets.

4.12 Therefore it is considered that the site does not perform any of the Green Belt functions set out in PPG2. If the site were to be allocated for residential, the unrestricted sprawl of built-up area of Rayleigh would not follow, nor would Rayleigh and Southend-on-Sea merge. The mature wooded area to the east of the proposed site together with the mature landscaping along the boundary edge and the A127 carriageway to the south would act as a clear and defensible Green Belt boundary and development on the site would not encourage or justify further encroachment into open countryside.

SECTION 5: ROCHFORD'S HOUSING LAND SUPPLY

5.1 This section provides a brief overview of land supply in Rochford with a focus upon the national planning policy, Rochford Core Strategy Submission document and Rochford's Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA).
a) National Planning Policy Context

5.2 Paragraph 2 of PPS3 states that a principal aim of this policy document is to create a step-change in housing delivery, through a new, more responsive approach to land supply at the local level. Paragraph 7 states that Local Planning Authorities will need to identify and maintain a rolling five-year supply of deliverable land for housing, particularly in connection with making planning decisions.

5.3 Paragraph 11 states that policies in development plan documents should be evidence-based and land availability should be assessed through a Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment. In respect to the five-year supply, paragraph 54 states that Local Planning Authorities should identify sufficient specific deliverable sites to deliver housing in the first five years. It is stated that for sites to be considered deliverable, sites should:
Be Available - the site is available now.
Be Suitable - the site offers a suitable location for development now and would contribute to the creation of sustainable, mixed communities.
Be Achievable - there is a reasonable prospect that housing will be delivered on the site within five years.

5.4 Paragraph 55 states that Local Planning Authorities should also identify a further supply of specific, developable sites for years 6-10 and, where possible, for years 11-15. Strategic sites which are critical to the delivery of the housing strategy over the plan period should also be identified. Paragraph 56 states that to be considered developable, sites should be in a suitable location for housing development and there should be a reasonable prospect that the site is available for, and could be developed at the point envisaged.

5.5 Annex C of PPS3 provides further information on the evidence base required as part of the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessments. It is stated that a Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment should:
Assess the likely level of housing that could be provided if unimplemented planning permissions were brought into development.
Assess land availability by identifying buildings or areas of land (including previously developed land and greenfield) that have development potential for housing, including within mixed use developments.
Assess the potential level of housing that can be provided on identified land.
Where appropriate, evaluate past trends in windfall land coming forward for development and estimate the likely future implementation rate.
Identify constraints that might make a particular site unavailable and/or unviable for development.
Identify sustainability issues and physical constraints that might make a site unsuitable for development.
Identify what action could be taken to overcome constraints on particular sites.
b) Rochford's Core Strategy Submission Document

5.6 The East of England Plan requires a minimum of 4,600 dwellings to be provided in the District between 2001 and 2021. In addition, the Local Planning Authority is required to plan for delivery of housing for at least 15 years from the date of adoption of the Core Strategy. Therefore housing needs to be identified for the period to 2024.

5.7 The 2009 Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) examined the supply of housing land and, although identified some capacity from extant permissions and other appropriate sites, also ascertained that Green Belt would have to be reallocated in order to meet the requirements of the East of England Plan. It is stated that 2,745 dwellings are required on Green Belt land between 2006 and 2024. This is in addition to the 2,005 dwellings to be delivered on previously developed land.

5.8 The Core Strategy sets out the general locations for housing development. The Council state that the primary factors in determining the location of future housing include current infrastructure; access to services; facilities; housing demand/need; deliverability; public transport/possibility of reducing car dependency; opportunities to utilise brownfield land; community needs and physical constraints; need to protect areas of landscape value, ecological importance and high quality agricultural land. The Council states that it seeks balance the distribution of housing by focusing growth upon the higher tier settlements.

5.9 The population of Rochford District is unevenly distributed with the largest settlement being Rayleigh which, in 2001, was home to 30,196 people, 38% of the District's residents. As such the Council identified Rayleigh as a primary tier settlement as it contains a range services and facilities including good public transport accessibility. The Core Strategy however notes that their housing needs evidence indicates that 44% of the housing need in the borough originates from Rayleigh. This provides a strong basis in which to focus housing development upon Rayleigh.

5.10 Despite what is said in the Core Strategy, it is clear that Council has failed to consider a balanced approach to housing delivery. However the Council's proposed housing locations do not reflect this statement as the scattered approach around the district will deliver housing away from public transport and key services and will lead to unsustainable patterns of growth. The Council's own evidence states that 44% of the need for housing is focused on Rayleigh, yet Rayleigh will only deliver 19% of housing on Green Belt sites. Indeed 57% of the Green Belt housing site allocations is focused outside the primary tier settlements. This will result in increased car movements between the settlements and will have an unsustainable impact upon the existing infrastructure.

5.11 There is a need for the Council to identify and significant increase in the housing provision for Rayleigh to meet the socio-economic objectives set out in the Rochford Core Strategy Submission draft.

c) Rochford's Housing Land supply (2001 to 2024)

5.12 The Council's SHLAA noted that there is an inadequate housing supply in the district over a fifteen year period to 2024 and as such there is a requirement for the allocation of Green Belt land for residential development. The SHLAA identifies a requirement to allocate 2,477 dwellings on Green Belt land in the period to 2024.

5.13 The Rochford Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) 2008 to 2009 demonstrates that Rochford has failed to deliver 309 dwellings of the required 1,840 between 2001 and 2009. The Council's SHLAA also suggests that 1,658 dwellings will be delivered between 2009 and 2014/15. The Council will also have to deliver 3,759 dwellings between 2009 and 2024.

5.14 It is considered that the land supply assessments used to indicate how these targets will be delivered is not based on a robust assessment and consequently it is clear that the Council cannot meet its housing supply requirements and that a significant dwelling shortfall will develop which will have significant implications for the future delivery of housing in Rochford.

5.15 It is considered that the Council's SHLAA and AMR do not provide an accurate assessment of the strategic housing land supply in Rochford and that in fact the future housing supply situation is worse than recorded. It is considered that the Council's SHLAA fails to take to account of:
Current housing market conditions in Rochford;
The time duration of the planning process i.e. from pre-application to completion;
The build out rates of housing sites; and
Site specific constraints.

5.16 The Council is unable to demonstrate a robust up-to-date five year supply of deliverable sites. The failure of the AMR to take account of these key matters is discussed below.

5.17 Rochford's annual East of England Plan housing supply requirement is to deliver 230 dwellings per annum. Between 2001 and 2009 this figure was met and exceeded on just two occasions, in 2005/06 and 2006/07. During this period Rochford was required to deliver 1,840 dwellings to meet the East of England housing supply requirement however just 1,531 dwellings were completed, resulting in a housing completion shortfall of 309 dwellings or a housing under-supply of 1.34 years.

5.18 The Council's housing trajectory set out in AMR states that over the next 5 years, annual housing per year will exceed 218 dwellings per annum. This level of growth is optimistic and does not reflect market trends in Rochford. It is a forlorn hope that housing supply could match its pre-credit crunch delivery rates over the five years given that during the pre-credit crunch years prior to 2007/08 Rochford was only able exceed its annual target on just two occasions. The Council has not provided any information that can justify how the housing market will be able to absorb the increased housing delivery that exceeds historical delivery records during a period when financial credit was more readily available.

5.19 The Council initiated a consultation titled 'Call for Sites', asking landowners and developers to put forward sites for consideration. This exercise was undertaken between January 2007 and April 2009. The Council's SHLAA states that these sites were assessed for their availability, suitability and achievability. However the land south of Rayleigh was not assessed and therefore it is clear that the Council is misleading in its assessment.

5.20 The SHLAA states that there is capacity within the District to accommodate 1,273 dwellings between 2009 and 2024 from outstanding planning permissions and other appropriate brownfield sites. This leaves an outstanding balance of 2,477 dwellings to be built by 2024 on land which is currently allocated as Green Belt.

5.22 The Council's SHLAA document and its AMR have failed to take account market factors that affect the delivery housing when consider housing supply to 2024. In particular the Council has not taken account the time delays caused by the planning system and the ability of the housebuilding industry to build out sites.

5.23 The Callcutt Review of Housebuilding Delivery (2007) was commissioned by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to asses housing land supply in the UK. In consideration of timing from planning application submission to project completion, the Calcutt Review it was considered that the average time taken between planning application submission to construction completion is as follows:
Schemes of 15 to 49 units - 35.3 months
Schemes of 50 to 149 units - 39.4 months
Schemes of 150+ units - 44.6 months

5.24 This assessment does not include pre-application preparatory work which is cited in the Callcutt Review as taking 15.4 months on average for all schemes and 25.1 months for schemes of 150+ units.

5.25 The AMR and the SHLAA also do not make an accurate assessment of build out rates for specific sites and it is apparent that these documents do not understand the market forces that dictate the build-out rates. It is clear that in their assessment the Council has used an arbitrary figure that is not based on substantiated evidence. The 'Housing Markets and Planning Analysis Expert Panel - Factors Affecting Housing Build-out Rates: A report by Professor David Adams and Dr Chris Leishman' (the Housing Build-Out Rate Report) sought to determine the speed at which approved housing sites are developed.

5.26 Paragraph 2.4 of this report states that the research results suggest that the average optimal sales rate is about 59 units per annum for greenfield houses and 67 for brownfield apartments. Paragraph 2.5 states that most builders generally appear to set a target of between 40 and 80 units built and sold from each outlet annually. Paragraph 6.2 states that a typical strategy of most companies was to aim for a build and sales rate of about one unit per week on greenfield sites and slightly higher than this on brownfield sites and that this rate reflects the institutional structure of the British housebuilding industry in which fierce competition for land requires controlled and phased release of new development to ensure that the ambitious development values necessary to capture land in the first place are actually achieved when new homes are eventually sold.

5.27 Whilst the SHLAA has only recently been published, it is considered that it is not robust as the site assessment has not sufficiently taken into consideration the deliverability of sites as there is no technical evidence that demonstrates an understanding of the relationship between local housing markets and housing supply.

5.28 The AMR and SHLAA assessment of sites are optimistic and simplistic in their assessment of construction start dates and build-out rates. The housing land supply in Rochford is in fact worse than that set out in the AMR and SHLAA documents. Based on the assumptions using well founded national research it is clear that the Council has over estimated to the delivery of at least three sites identified within their SHLLAA and AMR. These sites are addressed below:
North London Road - The Council's AMR states that construction will start at this site in 2016/17 and that 550 dwellings will be delivered by 2019/20. The Council's projected delivery rate exceeds that cited by Government research. Assuming that the start date is correct it likely that site would take up to 9 years to deliver with 60 dwellings delivered per annum. At least 120 dwellings would be delivered in the period post 2024.
West Rochford - The Council's AMR states that construction will start at this site in 2012 and that 600 dwellings will be delivered by 2016/17. The Council project that 200 dwellings will be delivered in 2013/14 and that build out rates exceed 100 in four of the five years. This assumption is unrealistic and does not take account of the ability of the construction industry to deliver new dwellings. The start date is optimistic as it takes at least 2-years on large sites exceeding 150 dwellings from planning to start date. The first dwellings that would be completed, assuming a planning application is submitted in 2010, in 2013. Given the current stage of this DPD consultation it is unlikely that this site have a start date pre-2016. It is also highly optimistic that 600 dwellings would be delivered within 5-years as stated by the Council. Government research indicates that it would take up to 10 years to deliver this site. It is likely that the majority of this site will be delivered at the end of the 15-year period and that at least 120 dwellings will be delivered post 2024.
South West Hullbridge - The Council's AMR states that construction will start at this site in 2019/20 and that 250 dwellings will be delivered by 2021 and a further 250 dwellings to be delivered post 2021. If the start date is correct then this site will only be able to deliver 120 dwellings by 2021 and 260 dwellings post 2024.

5.29 The housing supply over estimation amounts to at least 500 dwellings or an undersupply of over 2-years of housing. It is clear therefore that Council needs to identify more housing sites. It is necessary for the Council to allocate more residential sites to ensure that sufficient sites are available to meet the minimum housing requirements set out in the East of England Plan.

SECTION 6: THE COUNCIL'S PROPOSED OPTIONS

6.1 This section considers the options for residential development put forward by the Council in the Site Allocations Issues and Options consultation. The comments in respect to these sites are follows:
a) North of London Road, Rayleigh

6.2 My clients support the principle of a release of Green Belt land in Rayleigh to support residential development to meet the East of England Plan requirements however my clients objects to Options NLR1, NLR2, NLR3, NLR4 and NLR5.

6.3 This site is characterised by its open undulating landscaping that makes it a visually prominent site at the edge of Rayleigh. This site has a number of constraints such as the pylons that cross the site and part of the site being within a flood zone. The removal of the pylons to allow residential development will be a costly undertaking that would reduce the potential community benefits that the Council seeks from this site.

6.4 Furthermore the site conflicts with the objectives of the Green Belt as set out in paragraph 1.5 of PPG2. The conflicts can be described as follows:
The development of this site will result in the unrestricted sprawl of Rayleigh in a visually prominent location.
The open nature of this location will set the precedent for further development to take place to the west of Rayleigh. This will create the risk of materially reducing the gap between Wickford and Rayleigh. Consideration should be given to recent development to the east of Wickford as gap between the settlements is eroding.
This location constitutes good quality agricultural arable land that is characterised by its undulating form. Development at this location would prevent the safeguarding of the countryside from encroachment.

6.5 This location would also conflict with paragraph 2.9 of PPG2 which states that Green Belt boundaries should be clearly defined, using readily recognisable features such as roads, streams, belts of trees or woodland edges where possible. This location constitutes open countryside and consequently there are no easily defined boundaries. The built edge of Rayleigh would be very prominent from the Green Belt at this location.

b) West Rochford

6.6 My clients do not object to the principle of a release of Green Belt land at Rochford to support residential development to meet the East of England Plan requirements however my clients object to identification of land west of Rochford and Options WR1, WR2, WR3 and WR4 as a suitable option.

6.7 This site is characterised by open agricultural land that forms the gateway into Rochford from Hockley and Hawkwell. Neither of the options would be appropriate and constitutes urban sprawl that conflicts with the objectives of the Green Belt as set out in paragraph 1.5 of PPG2. The conflicts can be described as follows:

The development of this site will result in the unrestricted sprawl of Rochford in a visually prominent location that links Hockley, Hawkwell, Rochford and Southend-on-Sea.
The proposed options will result in the development of land that provides an important gap that prevents the coalescence of Rochford with Hawkwell and Southend-on-Sea.
The open nature of each option would fail to prevent the safeguarding of the countryside from encroachment.

6.8 This location would also conflict with paragraph 2.9 of PPG2 which states that Green Belt boundaries should be clearly defined, using readily recognisable features such as roads, streams, belts of trees or woodland edges where possible. This location constitutes open countryside with no easily defined boundaries. Development at this location would create a built edge at this prominent Green Belt location.

c) South Hawkwell

6.9 My clients object to the principle of a release of Green Belt land at Hawkwell as development at this location will result in unrestricted development that threatens to create a sense of coalescence with Rochford, particularly given that the Council proposes development to the west of Rochford. Consequently my client objects to Options SH1, SH2, SH3 and SH4 as a suitable option for residential development.

6.10 This site is characterised by its wooded character that provides an important green lung for this part of Essex. Each of the proposed options will result in the destruction of an important wooded area. It is considered that this location cannot support the quantum of development suggested within the Issues and Options consultation document.

d) East Ashingdon

6.11 My clients object to the principle of a release of Green Belt land at Ashingdon and all the proposed options as this location is not a primary tier settlement and would conflict with the objectives of the Council's Core Strategy Submission document. My clients do not consider that this location can support the quantum of development proposed. My clients consider that residential development should be concentrated on Rayleigh, the primary settlement in Rochford District.

6.12 Each of the proposed options would result in the development of open countryside and as such would conflict with the objectives of the Green Belt as set out in paragraph 1.5 of PPG2. The conflicts can be described as follows:
The development of this site will result in the unrestricted sprawl of Ashingdon.
The open nature of each option would fail to prevent the safeguarding of the countryside from encroachment.

6.13 This location would also conflict with paragraph 2.9 of PPG2 which states that Green Belt boundaries should be clearly defined, using readily recognisable features such as roads, streams, belts of trees or woodland edges where possible. This location constitutes open countryside with no easily defined boundaries. Development at this location would create a built edge at this prominent Green Belt location.

6.14 The quantum of development proposed is inappropriate as this location is away from the main public transport routes, key employment areas and key services and as such would result in a significant increase in car movements across the district.

e) South West Hullbridge

6.15 My clients object to the principle of a release of Green Belt land at Hullbridge as it is not a primary tier settlement and would conflict with the objectives of the Council's Core Strategy Submission document. My clients do not consider that this location can support the quantum of development proposed. My clients consider that residential development should be concentrated on Rayleigh the primary settlement in Rochford District and development at Hullbridge would fail to meet the housing need that exists in Rayleigh. The quantum of development at this location is broadly similar to that proposed for Rayleigh, however the Council's own evidence demonstrates that 44% of the identified housing need in the borough comes from Rayleigh. The Hullbridge options therefore constitute a mismatch between location and the need and demand for housing. My clients consequently object to options SWH1, SWH2, SWH3 and SWH4.

6.16 Furthermore each of the proposed options would result in the development of open countryside and as such would conflict with the objectives of the Green Belt as set out in paragraph 1.5 of PPG2. The conflicts can be described as follows:
The development of this site will result in the unrestricted sprawl of Hullbridge at this prominent location.
The open nature of each option would fail to prevent the safeguarding of the countryside from encroachment.

6.17 This location would also conflicts with paragraph 2.9 of PPG2 which states that Green Belt boundaries should be clearly defined, using readily recognisable features such as roads, streams, belts of trees or woodland edges where possible. This location constitutes open countryside with no easily defined boundaries. Development at this location would create a built edge at this prominent Green Belt location.

6.18 This Green Belt location is also constrained by its location in proximity to the River Croach and the impact of flooding.

6.19 The quantum of development proposed is inappropriate as this location is away from the main public transport routes, key employment areas and key services and as such would result in a significant increase in car movements across the district.

f) South Canewdon

6.20 My clients object to the principle of a release of Green Belt land at Canewdon as it is not a primary tier settlement and would conflict with the objectives of the Council's Core Strategy Submission document. My clients also do not consider that this location can support the quantum of development proposed. My clients consider that residential development should be concentrated on Rayleigh the primary settlement in Rochford District. My clients consequently object to options SC1, SC2, SC3 and SC4.

6.21 Furthermore each of the proposed options would result in the development of open countryside and as such would conflict with the objectives of the Green Belt as set out in paragraph 1.5 of PPG2. The conflicts can be described as follows:
The development of this site will result in the unrestricted sprawl of Canewdon at this prominent location.
The open nature of each option would fail to prevent the safeguarding of the countryside from encroachment.

6.22 This location would also conflicts with paragraph 2.9 of PPG2 which states that Green Belt boundaries should be clearly defined, using readily recognisable features such as roads, streams, belts of trees or woodland edges where possible. This location constitutes open countryside with no easily defined boundaries. Development at this location would create a built edge at this prominent Green Belt location.

6.23 The quantum of development proposed is inappropriate as this location is away from the main public transport routes, key employment areas and key services and as such would result in a significant increase in car movements across the district.

g) South East Ashingdon

6.24 My clients object to the principle of a release of Green Belt land at Ashingdon as it is not a primary tier settlement and would conflict with the objectives of the Council's Core Strategy Submission document. My clients also do not consider that this location can support the quantum of development proposed and that development at this location would have a detrimental impact the character of the countryside. My clients consider that residential development should be concentrated on Rayleigh the primary settlement in Rochford District. My clients consequently object to Options SEA1, SEA2, SEA3 and SEA4.

6.25 Furthermore each of the proposed options would result in the development of open countryside and as such would conflict with the objectives of the Green Belt as set out in paragraph 1.5 of PPG2. The conflicts can be described as follows:
The development of this site will result in the unrestricted sprawl of Ashingdon at this prominent location.
The open nature of each option would fail to prevent the safeguarding of the countryside from encroachment.

6.26 This location would also conflicts with paragraph 2.9 of PPG2 which states that Green Belt boundaries should be clearly defined, using readily recognisable features such as roads, streams, belts of trees or woodland edges where possible. This location constitutes open countryside with no easily defined boundaries. Development at this location would create a built edge at this prominent Green Belt location.

6.27 The quantum of development proposed is inappropriate as this location is away from the main public transport routes, key employment areas and key services and as such would result in a significant increase in car movements across the district.

h) West Great Wakering

6.28 My clients object to the principle of a release of Green Belt land at Great Wakering as it is not a primary tier settlement and would conflict with the objectives of the Council's Core Strategy Submission document. My clients also do not consider that this location can support the quantum of development proposed and that development at this location and that the proposed quantum of development is disproportionate when considered against the size of the settlements in Rochford District and against the locations of identified housing need. West Great Wakering is remote from the rest of the district and has poor transport links. Residential development at the quantum proposed would result in a significant increase in the number car trips in this part of South East Essex, My clients consider that residential development should be concentrated on Rayleigh the primary settlement in Rochford District which has the greatest proportion of identified need and has good public transport access. My clients consequently object to options WGW1, WGW2, WGW3, WGW4 and WGW5.

6.29 Furthermore each of the proposed options would result in the development of open countryside and as such would conflict with the objectives of the Green Belt as set out in paragraph 1.5 of PPG2. The conflicts can be described as follows:
The development of this site will result in the unrestricted sprawl of Ashingdon at this prominent location.
The open nature of each option would fail to prevent the safeguarding of the countryside from encroachment.

6.30 This location would also conflict with paragraph 2.9 of PPG2 which states that Green Belt boundaries should be clearly defined, using readily recognisable features such as roads, streams, belts of trees or woodland edges where possible. This location constitutes open countryside with no easily defined boundaries. Development at this location would create a built edge at this prominent Green Belt location.

6.31 The quantum of development proposed is inappropriate as this location is away from the main public transport routes, key employment areas and key services and as such would result in a significant increase in car movements across the district.

SECTION 7: CONCLUSIONS

7.1 We request that land south of Rayleigh be allocated as a residential site within the Site Allocations DPD. This statement has demonstrated that:
1. The proposed site is well located to Rayleigh and would meet the Council's housing objectives and will assist in delivering housing to meet the Council's identified housing need in Rayleigh.
2. The proposed site would not conflict with the Green Belt objectives set out in PPG2.
3. The Council has under-estimated the amount of housing required on Green Belt sites to meet the districts housing requirements and consequently the Council needs to identify more housing locations and sites.
4. The Council's proposed residential sites are inappropriate as they constitute sites that conflict with PPG2 and the dispersed nature of these sites would result in unsustainable development away from public transport and key services that will lead to significant increases in car movements. Furthermore these sites would not assist in relieving the housing need in Rayleigh as identified by the Council.

I would like to object to the proposed housing developments for west Rayleigh NLR1 NLR2 NLR3 NLR4 NLR5 as I feel proposed numbers of houses are too high and will cause increase in traffic on already often congested roads,loss of agricultural land,and once this farmland starts to be built on on a large scale, I am concerned that this building develpoment will lead to further development and possible increase in size to eventually involve all the farmland between Rawreth Lane and London Road

RE: Proposed building of 770 new houses & sites for Gypsies between Rawreth Lane and London Road


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 am writing to object to the proposed plans to destroy the land opposite our homes in order to build new homes and traveller sites.

The plans which I am opposed to are housing options NLR1 to NLR5 and to the traveller site options GT1, GT2, GT3 and GT7.

Our objection is based on various reasons including:

* Uneccessary destruction of agricultural land
* Uneccessary increase to traffic
* Creation of green belt boundary that cannot be defended

I am disspointed as a home owner in this area that the council has not bothered to consult with us home owners regarding the prosposed plans - as one would expect this should have been a basic stage of the planning process.

We moved to our current home because of the nice location and green land which surrounded our living space. We believe that by destroying the little green open space we have to make room for homes and traveller sites will destroy the very tranquility of the area in which we reside. Cramming homes and increasing the population in an area which does not have the infrastructure designed to cope will be an absolute reason for us to want to move out to another district where the council considers the quality of life of tax paying residents.

PLEASE NOTE THAT WE ARE WHOLLY AGAINST THE PROPOSALS.

With regards to the housing and industrial plans for green fields between london road and the old A130 and Rawreth lane, I am totally opposed to these and wish to
object to housing options NLR1, NLR2, NLR3, NLR4 and NLR5.

This is for a number of very valid reasons. The loss of agricultural land, increase in traffic and polution, green belt boundaries which cannot be defended in the future
and the encouragement of merging between rayleigh and rawreth.

I would also like to object to the traveller sites and the problems which would arise from these in the area.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Proposed housing options - NLR1, NLR2, NLR3, NRL4 and NRL5 - I am writing in connection to your proposed building of 770 homes in the Rayleigh area. I feel that this would cause a great problem due to the fact the our roads and services in the area would not be able to withstand the extra load.

I moved to Rayleigh some thirteen years ago from Dagenham. We moved here as it is a rural environment but within in commuting to London. Since living here the traffic has got worst by the year due to extra houses being built. If you build and extra 770 homes the roads in the area would come to a stand still in rush hour not to mention the effect it would have on the environment. Our schools in the area are to capacity as the class sizes are in my view to large at present without any other children coming into the area not to mention that our doctors/police etc. which would not be able to cope with the increase. You mention that the A130 has helped with the traffic in the area but you should really look into the fact that the majority of cars travelling use the A127 and A13 which are grid locked during rush hour.

The Proposed Traveller Site - GT1, GT2, GT3 and GT7 - I oppose and additional traveller site in both London Road and Rawreth Lane. I feel that there must be other sites that can be used. I know that the site on the A130 (just passed the Rawreth Lane) is tidy but many sites that I have seen have been unkept and a health hazard with waste product and feel that this would spoil our lovely fields.

I don't understand why you feel that a new industrial estate needs to be built. Surely, there are enough sites already built that are not being used to there capacity due to the current economic situation that could be regenerated which would save money and as you state help with employment.

I wish to object to the following planning proposals.

Housing options NLR1 to NLR5

Travellers site options GT1, GT2, GT3 and GT7.

Our household wish to formally inform you of our dismay at the plans for building 770 new houses for travelers between Rawreth Lane and London Road.

I have lived in Rayleigh for 36 years, attending Edward Francis and Fitzwimarc school, and would not choose anywhere else to live, hence my disapproval of a plan to add 770 new homes for travelers in a town which is already becoming over populated.

Please keep me updated on the status of this horrendous proposal.

I have copied this mail to our local MP for awareness.

OBJECTION TO OPTIONS NLR1, NLR2, NLR3, NLR4 and NLR5

I would like to register my objections to the proposals outlined in the above planning objections. This objection is made on the basis that these proposals if implemented will:

* Cause unnecessary loss of agricultural land.
* Cause an irreversible and detrimental impact to the environment.
* Increase the volume of traffic in an area where the infrastructure is
already overstretched and inadequate.
* Create a green belt boundary that cannot be defended in the future.
* Encourage the merging of Rayleigh and Rawreth.

I have lived in this area for 15 years. During this time the demand on the local infrastructure has increased to a near unsustainable level. Whilst the number of houses has been permitted to continually increase, the levels of investment in upgrading the infrastructure remained unchanged.

I strongly object to the development of green belt land. These areas were created nationwide by far sighted individuals for the benefit of residents and to prevent the creation of urban sprawl. They should remain intact. Any development should be restricted to existing brown field sites.

The constant development of this area has had a detrimental effect on the quality of life of the residents and I therefore object to yet further development on some of the few remaining green areas of this district.

I am writing to strongly protest about the planned building of 550 new homes on agricultural green belt land north of London Road, Rayleigh.

I believe, once we encrouch on these areas we will loose our unique (and cherished) identities as individual communities and end up as one large cosmopolitan area merging Rayleigh, Rawreth and Wickford. There are other options.

I believe the proposal to re-locate the Rawreth Industrial estate and make the site a residential area makes absolute sense as this site is next to a current residential area. The re-employment of the Industrial estate to the junction of the A1245 and A127 being the most practical option. I would suggest that the current EON site, which will no longer be in use after June 2010, could also be redeveloped into a residential site as this currently sits within a residential area. The previously used land on the A1245 in Rawreth is also an option.

Within Rayleigh itself, for every one house that is demolished three or four are erected in its place. In the past the council have justified this by stating that it will help avoid having to use green belt land to meet housing requirements. Another concern is the impact on the current infrastructure. Can our roads, railway station, schools, doctors, dentists cope with such a large number of additional residents?

Given the above, I do not believe the council are justified in proposing housing development on the green belt.

I understand that the council are now considering, as part of the above consultation proposals, allowing the building of a further 550 houses on agricultural land bordered by London Road, Rawreth Lane and the A1245 (formerly A130). As this would be in addition to another proposal to build 220 houses on the Rawreth Industrial Estate, it frankly beggars belief that such an idea should be countenanced given the large number of other developments that have taken place and which now put such an intolerable strain on our local infrastructure.



I am fervently against the further development of any of the land labelled on the proposal as NRL1-5 for the following reasons:



* The loss of valuable agricultural land which acts as useful run off drainage from the swathes of built up areas to the East. The land is extremely low lying and is already in a flood plain.

* The loss of a natural and defensible green belt boundary to the Western edge of Rayleigh. Presumably, if allowed, we will carry on building until Wickford meets Rayleigh and Rayleigh meets Wickford.

* No doubt much play will be made of the potential for planning gain by way of new schools, health centres etc. which will ne negotiated. Frankly this will not wash. I recall that the amalgamation of the Park and Sweyne schools was supposed to lead to a new VIth Form College on the Park Site and what did we end up with - Asda!

* If these houses are built then I assume that they will require access to the Town Centre and Rail station along the already severely congested London Road.



Your documents also call for comments on the provision of Traveller Sites within the district although it is confusing, to say the least, as to how many additional sites/pitches are required. I was surprised to learn that the existing Traveller Site on the A1245, south of Bedloes Corner, is an illegal one in that planning consent was apparently withheld due to Highways objections. I would have thought that the new A130 removes, or at least mitigates this objection, and the site has always appeared to me to be well run. If this site were to be legitimised surely this would assist in meeting the required provision.



However locating further Traveller Sites around Swallow Nurseries or Lower Barn Farm would seem to me to concentrate too many pitches in one area which cannot be to the existing residents benefit or I suspect the wishes of the Traveller community themselves. I would have thought that they would be anxious to have the ability to stay in all parts of the District and therefore I firmly believe that more consideration should be given to developing sites further East in Hockley and Hullbridge to say nothing of Rochford itself. Only by spreading these sites throughout the district can we truly be said to be embracing the diversity of so many cultures and avoiding the ghetto mentality of simply sticking a single pin in a map and hoping that this meets a Government inspired requirement.



I sincerely hope that elected Members will take on board my comments and reject the notion of yet more development in West Rayleigh. To judge by conversations that I have had with neighbours I am not the only one to consider that we have taken enough and I can only hope that they have taken the trouble to express themselves to you in a similar vein.

North of London Road, Rayleigh

I have asked several people from outside of the district where they would consider "North of London Road, Rayleigh" would be. I showed them a Ordnance Survey Explorer Map No. 175 (see Appendix 1) and showed them the Civil Parish boundaries as identified on the map. None of them thought the area you highlight to be North of London Road, Rayleigh. They believe the area you show to be North of London Road, Rawreth. They also identified the land at Sweyne school and Sweyne Park to fit the title you use here.

The title was used to indicate in the emerging Core Strategy document (page 44 Policy H2) where development of 550 houses would be.
Either the emerging Core Strategy is wrong or you have chosen the wrong site(s).

South West Hullbridge 500 dwellings

I have asked several people from outside of the district where they would consider "South West Hullbridge" would be. I showed them a Ordnance Survey Explorer Map No. 175 (see Appendix 1) and showed them the Civil Parish boundaries as identified on the map. None of them thought the area you highlight to be South West Hullbridge. They believe the area you have highlighted to be North West and or at a push West Hullbridge. They identified the land to the right of Hullbridge Road to be South West Hullbridge.

The title was used to indicate in the emerging Core Strategy document (page 44 Policy H2 and page 45 Policy H3) where development of 500 houses would be, (250 + 250).

Either the emerging Core Strategy is wrong or you have chosen the wrong site(s).

OPTION SWH1
Highlighted fields

The field top left, if you check on the Civil Parish Boundaries of the Ordnance Survey Map is not Hullbridge, but Rawreth. By including it under the envelope of Hullbridge is wrong !

OPTION SWH2
Highlighted fields

The field bottom left, if you check on the Civil Parish Boundaries of the Ordnance Survey Map is not Hullbridge, but Rawreth. By including it under the envelope of Hullbridge is wrong !

OPTION SWH3
Highlighted fields

See also my question Add 3 also the field top left, if you check on the Civil Parish Boundaries of the Ordnance Survey Map is not Hullbridge, but Rawreth. By including it under the envelope of Hullbridge is wrong !

OPTION SWH4
Highlighted fields

Please refer to my question Add 4. The same field in question is included in this option.

Please take this email as an objection to the following planned housing developments: NLR1, NLR2, NLR3, NLR4 and NLR5. And also strongly objecting to the traveller sites GT1, GT2, GT3 and GT7.

RE: Proposed building of 770 new houses & sites for Gypsies between Rawreth Lane and London Road


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 will 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 it's 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.

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

Please can you register my objection to NLR1, NLR2, NLR3, NLR4 and NLR5.



I object because I believe that these applications will -

* cause an unnecessary loss of agricultural land

* increase traffic

* create a green belt boundary that can't be defended in the future

* encourage a merging between Rayleigh and Rawreth

I would like to raise my concerns and objections to both the plans for a Travellers site and planning for over 500 houses in Rayleigh.

At times especially mornings for the school run it is difficult to join Hatfield Road from Falcon close. It is also difficult in get access into London Road even with the lights. With additional traffic in London Road the journey to and from town and school will be more congested then ever. There is not infa structure to deal with the additional houses already built in London Road on the new development so how are we expected to cope with the proposed extra new homes?

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



With regard to the 220 proposed homes being built on what is currently the Rawreth Industrial Estate, I can see the reasoning for considering this site, the fact that it is already developed land means that there will be little impact to the appearance and traffic flow in the area, however, it is obvious that the strain on an already stretched local infrastructure will only be made worse with all 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, 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 had its 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 have 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 natural 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 are 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 facilities in the local area, so losing this facility as well would be nothing short of scandalous.

The club also has its 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 strongly 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.



Finally I wish to express my utter disgust at the lack of information supplied by the council regarding the above issues, no doubt you have fulfilled any legal obligation by putting some sort of notice in the corner of a local paper somewhere knowing full well it would go unnoticed by the majority of the district. These are important issues for the people of Rayleigh and our consideration should be foremost in any proposals or decisions made. The fact that I and many others were made aware of all this by the good work of a local residents association as little as 2 weeks ago, is quite frankly disgraceful. I urge you to take steps to improve this matter in the future.

Reference to The Local Developement Plan for Rayleigh ... Objection to the Proposed
Housing Estate NLR 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.


While I appreciate that homes are needed I do NOT believe this area is an appropriate site for such a large number of homes for the following reasons:-

1. Excess traffic the A129 into Rayleigh is very busy everyday, we have to queue to get into or through Rayleigh,
the A127 already resembles a carpark everyday, there are constant queue's on this road, if anything we need to widen the A127 to cope with today's traffic.
2. The pollution from said traffic.
3. But my Main Concern is the flooding that would ensue after heavy rain or snow, we cannot continue to concrete this area without flood problems, the actual drainage is of great concern. The Grange Estate has creeks running through it and until my garden was landscaped with the facility built for drainage we did on occasion have flooding and when it rains heavily I have excess water running to the drain.

We object to the proposed housing options - NLR1, NLR2, NLR3, NLR4, NLR5.
We believe they will:- cause an unnecessary loss of agricultural land, create an green belt boundary that can't be defended in future, encourage a merging between Rayleigh and Rawreth and will increase traffic.

We also object to the Travellers Site options for Rayleigh and Rawreth:- GT1, GT2, GT3 and GT7.
We believe that they will:- have a large impact on the value of our housing in the area.

I would like to register my objections to the Council's Housing options NLR1, NLR2, NLR3, NLR4 and NLR5.

My reasons for this are:

- Unnecessary use of agricultural land

I feel the housing options don't seem to have been thought through very well and gives an impression of being the "easy route" for Council and developers.



Green field sites in Western Rayleigh are now at a premium because of constant and vast housing construction over the last 15 years, so to use more green field is totally unnecessary in this already crowded area, especially as there are other viable sites nearby, e.g. previously used land alongside the A1245.



There must also be many more brown field sites that can be properly utilised over the whole Rayleigh area over the next 10 or so years, without the need to destroy any more green field sites, thereby spreading the load and integrating new housing more acceptably into the nearby communities.



- Green belt boundary

This would be under threat because once broken, couldn't be defended in the future. The green fields and green belt are two main reasons for people wanting to live, and stay, in the area.



Developers don't care about green belt land, the people who live in the area do.



- Loss of valuable recreational facilities for the young

The removal of recreational areas, such as Rayleigh Town Sports and Social Club will seriously deplete the community of facilities available to all residents in the area, young and old.



- Lack of Infrastructure

With all the new builds in Western Rayleigh over the years there has been no additional infrastructure to cope with this, thereby putting a great strain on the existing services. To add even more pressure on to these facilities would be totally detrimental to everyone already in the area.



- Increase in traffic/pollution/disturbance

Rayleigh is already suffering from traffic overload on a daily basis and trying to get into, or around the Rayleigh area on a weekend is very difficult and very frustrating. To massively add to this would seriously impact on people wanting to use the local facilities, and would just drive people out of town even more. Realistically, people don't use public transport from choice to get in and around town, and improving things wouldn't make the traffic situation any better because of it's layout.



- Traveller Sight on London Road

The proposed traveller sight alongside London Road would not improve the aesthetics of a very busy main road coming into Rayleigh. At present because of the fields and farmland, entering Rayleigh is a pleasant viewing experience, and that would be destroyed if a site was put there.

It would not be a good advert for Rayleigh.