Option NLR2

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.

Better to develop outside current town boundary.

This site represents an intrusion into the open countryside which will lead to future pressure to build on land to the north and south of it. I dispute it creates a defensible green belt boundary.

Flood zone 3 is a problem I feel and where would roads and walkways be placed for access to this site?

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

My comments are the same as option NLR1,why if there has to be more houses do you have to allocate building on green belt? what about brown fill sites?because these in a lot of cases have become eye sores and should be sorted out before they get worst.
Mrs H Scott.

Option NLR2 appears to be the worst. Its impact on the rural nature of the area would be the greatest, it is most exposed to the flood risk and access roads will consume further land.

I strongly object to development of this green belt land. This location will add to the already congested Rawreth Lane since the construction of the supermarket and the road network to Rayleigh Town Centre. As Rawreth Parish Council have welcomed development of the brown fields sites on the old A130 at the site of the garages and nursery opposite it is not necessary to use green land for housing.

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 development of this green belt land. This location will increase the traffic on the already congested road network including Rawreth Lane and the A129 to Rayleigh town centre. As Rawreth Parish Council have already welcomed development of the brown field site on the A130 at the site of the nursery and garages opposite it is not necessary to use green belt land for housing. This would be an unncessary waste of agricultural land.

This land is high quality farmland within the green belt which should be preserved. This huge amount of housing will cause extra problems with drainage and flooding in Watery Lane, closed twice this year already.
Would have better access to A129 but only if correct and adequate access roads are built. Will still cause additional traffic along all surrounding roads.

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

Infastructure insufficient

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,

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.

Proposed Planning Rayleigh Area

We would like to draw to your attention to our objections to the opposed housing NLR2, NLR3, NLR4 and NLR5 for the travellers site GT3 and to the industrial complex also planned for the London Road site.

Our main objections are as followed:-

* 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


The Industrial Site

The site in Rawreth lane was built originally in an isolated area. Then the Victoria Garage development was built. The residents were assured the site would not affect them but approx 10 years on the complaints regarding air quality and noise have resulted in the plans for relocation. To put a larger industrial complex opposite approx 770 new homes will result in continued complaints from new residents. Housing and industry do not mix and this industrial site must be more isolated. Again, the size of vehicles using this facility will, in the main, be wider than the A129. It took us about 4 minutes to proceed out from Little Wheatley Chase towards Carpenters arms due to heavy traffic. Quality of life for existing residents must be preserved and brown fill sites should be the site of choice therefore the A127/A130 junction or the A1245 beyond Bedlows corner would be more isolated and therefore less problems.

There are already other industrial units in Rawreth Lane surely they are enough for this small area.

Residential

Housing could be an option to replace the Eon site. Certainly the rumour of Tesco acquiring it would only raise the problems of traffic once again. Parking is a problem to residents in this area from workers at Eon and this would get worse with a supermarket there. Again this option would create extra traffic which the A129 cannot cope with.

In short, the infrastructure does not exist to cope with anymore.

We understand that highways object to the travellers site off the A1245 Bedlows Corner and that is onto a dual carriageway so how can they possibly agree to more access from and to the A129.

Finally we have only recently moved to this district from a local area where over development of both housing and Industrial sites made day to day a living misery. It must not happen in Rayleigh.

Proposed Planning Rayleigh Area

We would like to draw to your attention to our objections to the opposed housing NLR2, NLR3, NLR4 and NLR5 for the travellers site GT3 and to the industrial complex also planned for the London Road site.

Our main objections are as followed:-

* 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


The Industrial Site

The site in Rawreth lane was built originally in an isolated area. Then the Victoria Garage development was built. The residents were assured the site would not affect them but approx 10 years on the complaints regarding air quality and noise have resulted in the plans for relocation. To put a larger industrial complex opposite approx 770 new homes will result in continued complaints from new residents. Housing and industry do not mix and this industrial site must be more isolated. Again, the size of vehicles using this facility will, in the main, be wider than the A129. Quality of life for existing residents must be preserved and brown fill sites should be the site of choice therefore the A127/A130 junction or the A1245 beyond Bedlows corner would be more isolated and therefore less problems.

There are already other industrial units in Rawreth Lane surely they are enough for this small area.

Residential

Housing could be an option to replace the Eon site. Certainly the rumour of Tesco acquiring it would only raise the problems of traffic once again. Parking is a problem to residents in this area from workers at Eon and this would get worse with a supermarket there. Again this option would create extra traffic which the A129 cannot cope with.

In short, the infrastructure does not exist to cope with anymore.

We understand that highways object to the travellers site off the A1245 Bedlows Corner and that is onto a dual carriageway so how can they possibly agree to more access from and to the A129.

Finally we have only recently moved to this district from a local area where over development of both housing and Industrial sites made day to day a living misery. It must not happen in Rayleigh.

Proposed Planning Rayleigh Area

We would like to draw to your attention to our objections to the opposed housing NLR2, NLR3, NLR4 and NLR5 for the travellers site GT3 and to the industrial complex also planned for the London Road site.

Our main objections are as followed:-

* 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


The Industrial Site

The site in Rawreth lane was built originally in an isolated area. Then the Victoria Garage development was built. The residents were assured the site would not affect them but approx 10 years on the complaints regarding air quality and noise have resulted in the plans for relocation. To put a larger industrial complex opposite approx 770 new homes will result in continued complaints from new residents. Housing and industry do not mix and this industrial site must be more isolated. Again, the size of vehicles using this facility will, in the main, be wider than the A129. Quality of life for existing residents must be preserved and brown fill sites should be the site of choice therefore the A127/A130 junction or the A1245 beyond Bedlows corner would be more isolated and therefore less problems.

There are already other industrial units in Rawreth Lane surely they are enough for this small area.

Residential

Housing could be an option to replace the Eon site. Certainly the rumour of Tesco acquiring it would only raise the problems of traffic once again. Parking is a problem to residents in this area from workers at Eon and this would get worse with a supermarket there. Again this option would create extra traffic which the A129 cannot cope with.

In short, the infrastructure does not exist to cope with anymore.

We understand that highways object to the travellers site off the A1245 Bedlows Corner and that is onto a dual carriageway so how can they possibly agree to more access from and to the A129.

Finally in the main housing will be aimed at the 30 plus age group who need the sort of entertainment currently not avaliable in Rayleigh. A look at night life in Billericay for example must be considered if plans are being made for more housing. The children too will need local sports and recreation facilities, again not currently in Rayleigh

Access via London Road is ridiculous as this road is already gridlocked at certain times due to traffic turning off onto existing developments. Hasn't the council already turned down a request for a very small sports club development due to the issue of traffic congestion on London Road?

Also, this proposal seems to be eliminating a potential green belt boundary rather than creating 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.

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

Use of this land should be opposed. Green belt greenfield sites should not be touched when there are alternative brownfield sites. Building here would cause extra traffic, damage an attractive vista towards Rayleigh and leave the rest of the fields here very vulnerable to further development in the future. It would also damage the community cohesion of Rawreth.

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

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

Option NLR2 adjoins Rayleigh to the east but extends west beyond the current settlement boundary it therefore encroaches onto the green belt. It would also be difficult to create strong defensible green belt boundaries to the north, south and west. If brought forward, the site would need to carefully consider the area of Flood Risk Zone 3, particularly as this runs through the centre of the site.

Background

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

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

Over-Arching Representations (All Site Options)

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

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

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

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

(1) The need for flexibility

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

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

(2) Site Area

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(3) Long Term Green Belt Boundary

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

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

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

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

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

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


Site Specific Representations (All Site Options)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This proposed site would have serious consequences for traffic on London Road, Rayleigh. The traffic is extremely busy at peak times at the moment with the queues stretching from the Town Centre back to the Carpenters Arms roundabout from around 4.45 p.m. until 6.30 p.m., and the same in the morning rush hour.
With 550 houses there is a likelihood of an extra 600 to 700 extra cars using this road - traffic would be at an absolute standstill with access for emergency vehicles anywhere within this area as impossible.
Building on Flood Zone 3 is also a cause for concern.

If access is to be via London Road, there will be a significant increase in traffic. (500 dwellings = probable 700 vehicles) When there are problems with the A127 and the traffic is diverted through London Road, it becomes a problem already to get out of Little Wheatley Chase. Why does the Green Belt become more defensible if green sites are built on? In the past 20 years we have had 2 large sites - gas holder and Wheatly farm- built on with no increase in infrastructure. Not even a better bus sevice.

London Road already suffers congestion, more houses will exacerbate this. We should not be building close to a flood plain as it will make more problems. The amount of Green Belt land in the area should be preserved as much has been built on in recent years.