Option NLR1

Do you not learn. Building in flood zones is the planning of the asylum. Houses will be at risk and few will want them.

To locate 550 dwellings in this location will have a major impact on the infrastructure, not just in the vicinity of it but to the whole of Rayleigh. Before any approval is given, studies must be carried out to determine the impacts on the Rayleigh Area. This should include but not be limited to Schools, Roads (RDC & ECC responsibility), Doctors, Dentist, Increase Parking in Rayleigh Town Centre, Station access and parking. The total plan must then be costed and incorporated in the development plans, this document should be submitted for public consultation. Hopefully this will stop fragmented development.

This site is an intrusion into the open countryside, and will be a blot on the landscape.

This site is an ugly intrusion into the landscape, and will have a very negative impact on the setting of the listed Rawreth Hall, to which it will swamp with concrete.
It will also allow for future development pressures on land to the south.

Options NLR1 - NLR5

Infrastructure improvements listed are:-
1. local highway capacity and infrastructure improvements
2. improvements to public transport service and infrastructure
3. enhancement and links to pedestrian, cycle and bridleway network.

There is local concern that Rayleigh town centre cannot cope with the traffic which is already flowing to and through it. The additional housing will place an increased demand on these routes and car parking. There does not appear to be any potential to increase the capacity of these so congestion and its associated pollution will increase. This development site is quite simply unsustainable from the highway and traffic point of view. It's not the immediate locality that's the problem but the town centre. It is not realistic to expect all residents and their family members to travel to and through the town centre by bus and bicycle. It is strongly recommended that proper, transparent traffic modelling is carried out to assess the impact on Rayleigh town centre and environs and appropriate mitigation measures must be implemented as part of any planning permission. There must be nil detriment to the highway infrastructure in the town centre area since it is already over capacity and it must not be allowed to get worse.

Attention is drawn to Section 10.9 of the Core Strategy which states "It is important that new development be accompanied by the requisite highway infrastructure improvements to mitigate their impact on the existing network". Mitigation must be carried out to achieve nil detriment to the existing town, roads and car parks, if it's possible. If it's not possible then the scheme must proceed.

It is suggested that this proposal is in breach of the Core Strategy Environmental Issue Objective 8.

It is further suggested that this proposal could be contrary to the Traffic Manager's duty to reduce congestion under the Traffic Management Act 2004.

Increased traffic congestion around Rayleigh town centre will be contrary to Objective 4, bullet point 1 of Section 03 of the Rayleigh Area Action Plan (Make the town centre easier to reach by all modes of transport (Walking, cycling, bus and by car)). Notice that it says that it should be easier to reach by car.

I assume that the argument over the stress that will be placed on water supply, energy supply and health providers has already been lost since these are generally not regarded as being planning matters? These are issues however which appear to be constantly overlooked while there is felt to be a need to keep providing housing. If there is still an opportunity for these issues to be fully considered in this process then I think they ought to be.

The document states "The site has sufficient capacity to deliver significant community benefit to the nearby town of Rayleigh . . ." What benefit does it deliver? This is not explained or believable.

The argument that taking this green belt for housing would have the advantage of providing a strong, defensible green belt boundary is illogical. The existing boundary could easily have been defended if it was expedient to do so.

Productive agricultural land gone forever, necessitating a massive investment in infrastructure, loss of character if you live in Rawreth whilst other sites have not been properly considered.

Very concerned about flood zone 3 and foul sewer mentioned and although good access to main roads, these road are very congested at times, especially between 3.30pm and 7.30pm.

I cannot see how option NLR1 would enable a link between Raweth Lane and London Road. The area highlighted does not link the 2 roads. Should this comment be associated with option NLR5 which allocates a complete band of land between the 2 roads?

NLR1 should not be considered as part of the area is in Flood Zone 3, a flood risk assessment (FRA)would have to be passed by the environment agency, including a sequential test. As there are other options for housing in areas offered which are not in flood zone 3, then this application should fail, and other areas must be considered for housing which are not in flood Zone 3.
All other areas have not been considered which is evident by the lack of completion witihin SHLAA Proforma document.
Plus costs of necessary schools , transport , sustainability is too high.

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

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

I also object to the traveller sites options GT1, GT2, and GT3 and the employment land.

I very strongly object to this,as we will be losing our green belt,once one lot is built on them more will follow,and as for infrastructure,I find this word meaningless as when the houses off of Wheatley Chase and Bardfield Way were built no infrastructure was forthcoming there,I would expect the same thing to happen again and the roads will grind to a halt.
Mrs H Scott.

Welcome to Rayleigh a beautiful concrete jungle. Once a small historic town with countryside boundries. Strongly object to NLRI,NLR2,NLR3,NLR4,NLR5. Building in a flood zone, road congestion, merger of Rawreth and Rayleigh.
Parking in town a premium as it is, to name just a few of the many reasons the the council needs a strong re-think.
NO, NO, NO.

I strongly object to any development on green belt land. This location will only add to the increased traffic on Rawreth Lane since construction of the supermarket. The road network to Rayleigh Town Centre will not support the increased traffic that would ensue. Any development allowed on green belt land would leave existing green belt vulnerable to future development.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I strongly object to any development on green belt land. A development of 550 houses on this land would increase the traffic on the already congested road network in the area and to Rayleigh town centre. There has been a notable increase in traffic on Rawreth Lane since the building of the supermarket. This would cause an unncessary loss of agricultural land and leave existing green belt land vulnerable to development in the future.

We at CPRE consider this site would greatly affect the open aspect of the surrounding area. Would also be damaging to both the Green Belt and countryside.

This is high quality green belt farmland and should be preserved as such .Building 550 houses on this land is completely unsustainable and commences coalescence with Rayleigh and Wickford.
Drainage systems and extra run off will cause extra flooding in Watery Lane, closed twice this year due to flooding.
All surrounding roads are full to capacity and frequently gridlocked. Cllr Hudson stated categorically that all access to this development would be from A129, clearly this is untrue - access would be directly from Rawreth Lane too, causing massive increase in traffic.
This is the worst of the NLR proposals.

I wish to strongly object to options NLR1, NLR2, NLR3, NLR4 and NLR5 because all of these options will:

1. cause further losses of agricultural land and green space

2. increase traffic levels further in Rayleigh which is already at an unacceptable level, especially when compared with say 10 years ago.

3. create a green belt boundary that can't be defended in future

4. encourage a merging between Rayleigh and Rawreth

It has to be no. The proposed developments are unacceptable to all of us that live in the Rayleigh community

Residents in Battlesbridge could benefit from the new community services and facilities as part of the development although we note there is a number of existing site constraints.

I object to this beacuse it will create unneccessary loss of agricultural land, will increase traffic and encourage a merging between Rayleigh and Rawreth. In addition it will create a green belt boundary that can't be drfined in the future.

Infrastructure not in place to cater for such a large scale development and no provisions made for the upgrading of the infrastructure. Such a large development would undoubtably be to the detriment to the existing residents of the area.
None of the options in any shape or form should be adopted. The south east corner of Essex should not be made to pay the price for the rest of the country.

There is not enough greenbelt land left in the District, to erode into yet more is unacceptable, this land is prime agricultural land in the greenbelt and should remain as so. There are more viable options that have been put forward for smaller sites within the Parish of Rawreth that would enhance and not overtake furthermore they are brownfield sites, the options for NLR1-5 are too vast and are disproportionate to a semi rural Parish. Rawreth has the largest allocation in any one phase, and the housing should be shared out fairly within the District,

Options NLR1, NLR2, NLR3, NLR4, NLR5
Traffic from A1245 and London Road leading up to Rayleigh High Street is already congested to the point of standstill at varioius times of the day.

Proposed sites are part of an ever diminishing barrier of green belt land which if built upon would be exceedingly difficult to protect against further development.

Removal of the pylons and providing and maintaining an adequate defence against flooding would be a considerable long term expense and commitment.

The infrastructure as it stands is barely adequate to cope with the existing housing in this area.

Please note that I strongly object to the council's housing options NLR1, NLR2, NLR3, NLR4 & NLR5 (but especially LNR1) because they will;

cause an unnecessary loss of agricultural land,

will increase traffic,

will over load the local services such as schools and doctors surgeries,

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

and encourage a merging between Rawreth and Rayleigh.

I also srongly oppose traveller site options GT1, GT2, GT3 and GT7.

Please note my comments.

I wish to register my objection to the proposals for future housing in the Rayleigh / Rawreth area.

I object to NLR1, 2, 3 4 and 5 because they will

Cause an unnecessary loss of agricultural land - unlike Southend the Rochford district has so far managed to maintain a percentage of agricultural land. To start to build on this area between London Road and Rawreth Lane would be the thin end of the wedge. If this continues how long would it be before Rayleigh, Rawreth & Wickford all merge together? The green belt boundary must be protected.

These proposals will increase the traffic which is already at breaking point - since the arrival of Asda, the Sports Centre, the relocation of the school and the increased housing in that area Rawreth Lane is always busy and at peak times it is almost impossible to get out of our road.

I object to options NLR1,NLR2, NLR3, NLR4 and NLR5 because
They will increase traffic and encourage a merge between Rayleigh and Rawreth. There has been too much house building, but doctors, dentists and schools haven't increased that much and jobs are less and less. The trains could not cope with anymore passengers at Rayleigh. Rayleigh is fast becoming the new Basildon, overcrowded and unruly. It's loosing it's identity and charm. We'll end up having bigger cime issues to deal with.
I also object to options GT1, GT2, GT3 and GT7 for travellers sites at this time.

Options NLR 1, NLR2, NLR3, NLR4, NLR5
The infrastructrue and amenities are barely adequate to cope with the current volume of development in this area.

Traffic congestion from A1245/London Road almost reaches gridlock on a regular basis further development would make it even more hazardous.

This land is designated green belt if built upon it would leave a very small area of green belt which would be impossible to defend against any future development.

Part of the development area is a known flood plain, to provide and maintain adequate defences against flooding would be a long term and expensive commitment.

I object to NLR1, NLR2, NLR3, NLR4 and NLR5. All will result in the loss of farmland and\or open space and act as a further 'nail in the coffin' to what most people consider to be the green belt around the town.

Inadequacy of Rawreth Lane to cope with increased traffic flow.

Also, this proposal seems to be eliminating a potential green belt boundary rather than creating the potential for one!

There has already been too much development to the west of Rayleigh. More traffic will force even more residents to abandon Rayleigh town centre for other shopping centres rather than increase usage of the town.

We see the usual promises of infrastructure provision to meet the needs of the development. A look at other recent developments will show that such promises are rarely kept once the developer gets the go-ahead.

I object to NLR1, NLR2, NLR3, NLR4 and NLR5 for the travellers site GT3 and to the industrial complex also planned for the London Road site.

Objections

* Increase in traffic onto a very narrow road which cannot cope now with the traffic flow

* This area is notorious for flooding - fields under water most of winter

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

* No planning for additional schools - doctors - sports facilities

* Pressure on existing utilities - already overstretched

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

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