Option NLR2

As for NLR1 except more of the site is within Flood Zone.

Please see our general comments.

This site does not show where the access will be and is also built with the flood zone in the centre of the site. If traffic was to enter via London Road it would add to the already heavily congestions into the town centre forcing people to shop outside of Rayleigh.

Residential Allocation- Options

North of London Road, Rayleigh. Options NLR1 to NLR5.
Over the past 30 years many of houses have been built off of the London Road corridor, especially off Little Wheatleys Chase and Victoria Road.

All the traffic from those houses had to use London Road, and for the 550 proposed new houses they would also have to use London Road or Rawreth Lane.

Even at current traffic levels it only takes us a few minutes to drive to Thurrock Lakeside as it does to Rayleigh town centre from our home in Alexandria Drive, such is the traffic.

Rayleigh, particularly this part, cannot take more traffic and local services would also be overloaded.


Gypsy and Traveller Sites

I am totally against the option GT3, South of London Road, between Little Wheatleys Chase and St. Johns Drive.

This site is very close to long standing local communities who would worry about the ramifications of it being so near.

History shows us such site soon fall into disrepute and general untidiness which taints the whole area, including the houses in that area causing them to be devalued. This in turn causes resentment towards the dwellers of that site.

This site is stated, could cause community cohesion and integration. Why assume either community wants to integrate?

If yorr are duty bound to provide sites for gipsy's and travellers I believe such sites would be more acceptable if they were located in areas not on top of local existing communities such as GT6 north of the A127 and east of the A1245.

Is it also the case the gipsy's already occupy a site as in Option GT1, to the east of A1245 and south of Rawreth Lane without Planning Permission?

Residential Allocation- Options

North of London Road, Rayleigh. Options NLR1 to NLR5.
Over the past 30 years many of houses have been built off of the London Road corridor, especially off Little Wheatleys Chase and Victoria Road.

All the traffic from those houses had to use London Road, and for the 550 proposed new houses they would also have to use London Road or Rawreth Lane.

Even at current traffic levels it only takes us a few minutes to drive to Thurrock Lakeside as it does to Rayleigh town centre from our home in Alexandria Drive, such is the traffic.

Rayleigh, particularly this part, cannot take more traffic and local services would also be overloaded.


Gypsy and Traveller Sites

I am totally against the option GT3, South of London Road, between Little Wheatleys Chase and St. Johns Drive.

This site is very close to long standing local communities who would worry about the ramifications of it being so near.

History shows us such site soon fall into disrepute and general untidiness which taints the whole area, including the houses in that area causing them to be devalued. This in turn causes resentment towards the dwellers of that site.

This site is stated, could cause community cohesion and integration. Why assume either community wants to integrate?

If your are duty bound to provide sites for gipsy's and travellers I believe such sites would be more acceptable if they were located in areas not on top of local existing communities such as GT6 north of the A127 and east of the A1245.

Is it also the case the gipsy's already occupy a site as in Option GT1, to the east of A1245 and south of Rawreth Lane without Planning Permission?

I write to you to strongly object as a paying rate payer in your district to the planning application to:NLR1 NLR2 NLR3 NLR5 proposals.

Reasons to object are plain to see: Traffic on A127,A13, A130 also the Rawreth area and access to Hullbridge and Hockley and the LONDON ROAD RAYLEIGH is already over crowded.

Children walking to school, also returning home during winter hours are already particularly walking under dangerous conditions in the London Road Rayleigh.

Seeing green pastures around communities makes living in an area pleasant and in the main people treat this with the greatest of respect once it goes and great housing ghettos are created we have all witnessed how things change, do you wish to see this happen?

Whilst I understand we all have to live somewhere surely the number of housing applications should be looked at !!!

I trust this planning objection will be taken in the spirit it is intended and these planning applications will be looked at again with far great understanding for all who are part this community.

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

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

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

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

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

Now to my objections to Section 2. Residential.

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



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


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


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


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


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

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

It is noted that with Options NLR1, NLR2, NLR4 & NLR5 part of the site lies within Flood Zone 3.

The sequential test of PPS25 seeks to direct development to areas at least risk of flooding (Zones 1 & 2). As such land in Zones 1 & 2 should be considered prior to considering residential development on land within Zone 3.

In addition, Options NLR1, & NLR2 would also project a considerable distance from the existing settlement into the Green Belt; as such it would be difficult to create a defensible boundary, contrary to PPG2.

On behalf of Rawreth Parish Council I confirm that this six page letter is a formal response of objection to the Allocations DPD, Discussion and Consultation Document on the following counts:
The overall proposals shown in the ADPD for the Parish of Rawreth amount to overdevelopment within a semi rural Parish with disproportionate allocations in comparison to the remainder of the District and are totally unacceptable and unsustainable under PPG2 and the Council object most strongly to the document as drafted and the proposals therein.

Within the ADPD the Parish of Rawreth has site specific allocations shown for housing, industry and gypsy and traveller sites, whilst other Towns and Parishes within the District appear in the document but are confined to one area of site allocations be it housing, industry or gypsy and traveller sites and on much smaller scales. Overall under the ADPD the Parish of Rawreth stands to take the biggest allocation of houses in one phase, with its overall allocation being only 50 less than that of West Rochford.

Rawreth Parish Council has never been opposed to development within the Parish, however they have always expressed that appropriate amounts of additional housing should be built on smaller, existing and brownfield sites within the greenbelt thus enhancing the lives of new and existing residents instead of eroding our green buffers and starting the coalescence of Rayleigh and Wickford.
Rochford District Council have chosen to totally ignore the alternative proposals put forward by Rawreth Parish Council in the "Call for Sites" document all of which would use previous brownfield sites within the green belt, enhance the centre of Rawreth and avoid the use of so much farmland GB1. Building approximately 200 houses within Rawreth village, with a possibility of more at a later date, would alleviate the need for such a large scale development of 550 houses all in one place. Drainage, traffic and access would all be much enhanced and under our proposal any development would have less impact on the lives of residents within the Parish and neighbouring areas. These proposals however have in the opinion of the Council never been considered or taken seriously.

The area surrounding the Parish of Rawreth is seen as "The Gateway to Rochford" yet under the ADPD the proposals for the land north of London Road NLR1 to NLR5 will take away beautiful, productive, open farmland and turn it into a mix of housing and industry. To build 550 houses on the North/South Eastern area of this land, to legalise and possibly double the Gypsy and Traveller Site on the North Western edge GT1 and to add an Industrial Site on the South Western Corner, which was supposed to be the Green Buffer within NLR1, is absolutely unacceptable and unsustainable under PPG2. To consider placing ANY of these proposals on this area of high quality farmland will absolutely destroy the openness and character of this entire part of Rawreth for ever. In addition the existing roads, A1245, A129, Rawreth Lane and Beeches Road/Watery Lane are already full to capacity and frequently at a standstill, to add more traffic as a result of these proposals is completely unacceptable.

On Thursday the 25th of March 2010 Rawreth Parish Council undertook a 12 hour constant traffic survey in both Rawreth Lane and Beeches Road. In Rawreth Lane during the hours of 7am and 7pm 7,179 vehicles were recorded travelling in an Easterly direction and 7,217 in a Westerly direction, this is a road that does not even have a B classification. In Beeches Road during the hours of 7am to 7pm 2,848 vehicles were recorded travelling in an Easterly direction and 2,022 were recorded travelling in a Westerly, this is a very small, winding rural lane.

The full details of these surveys are attached.

In addition to the above comments the Parish Councils observations, objections and proposals on specific options are as follows:

Land North of London Road. Large scale development here will have massive impact on all local roads- A1245, A129, Rawreth Lane and Beeches Road/Watery Lane. The development will impact highly on drainage and surface water run-off which will cause even more flooding to parts of the Parish which are already classified as being within Flood Zone 3, Watery Lane in particular has been closed twice already this year in February, with motorists needing to be rescued by the Fire Service using boats.

In March this year Cllr Hudson said quite categorically in a local newspaper that all the traffic generating from the proposed sites North of London Road would gain access to and from the A129 and, therefore, would have no effect whatsoever upon Rawreth Lane, this statement is completely contra to the proposals detailed under NLR1, NLR4 and NLR5 where access is quite clearly gained from Rawreth Lane.
NLR1, NLR4 and NLR5, would have massive impact on the traffic in Rawreth Lane and are completely unsustainable and impracticable.

NLR2, NLR3 would have better access in and out of the area as long as correct and adequate roads are put in.

SWH1 States that "sustainable urban drainage systems MUST be implemented" - this is an absolute minimum as the whole area is only just above sea level and subject to possible large scale flooding. Areas within the Parish are already within Flood Zone 3.

All schemes for the Parish of Hullbridge would result in a huge increase in traffic using either Rawreth Lane or Beeches Road/Watery Lane which are both already full to capacity. Watery Lane is a very narrow, winding lane which is frequently closed due to 3 foot deep flooding and any attempt to "straighten " it must also be subject to consideration of the resident Water Vole population which nest within the watercourses and ditches in this area, this is a protected species . No scheme at all should include housing along any part of Watery Lane as in SWH2 and SWH4.

GT1 - The only gypsy and traveller site pinpointed for real consideration is in the Parish of Rawreth , alongside the very busy A1245 dual carriageway. Essex Highways have already objected to this site on the grounds of safe access. It is within 100metres of traffic lights at the junction with Rawreth Lane, with traffic accelerating at this point. To allow access at this point is extremely dangerous.

GT2 - Is even more dangerous as, to double the size of this site to accommodate ALL the pitch requirements for the whole district, would result in even more traffic accessing the site within the area of this busy junction.

GT3, 4 & 5 - could all accommodate some of the pitches and, all have good access to surrounding roads.

GT6 - would have good access and would be able to accommodate all pitches required.

GT7 - Has very restricted access, is an unmade road/track with no mains services. Use of this site would lead to increase in traffic in Rawreth Lane.

In addition to the ADPD gypsy and traveller proposals Rawreth Parish Council put forward a proposal within the "Call for Site" document that land to the North of the A127 and East of the A1245 directly opposite GT6 in a Easterly direction would be very suitable as a Gypsy and Traveller site, this proposal in the opinion of the Council should be reconsidered, the site has the capacity to support the full allocation of required pitches has access to all routes and allows the Traveller community to remain in one area continuing their own community cohesion.

E13, E14, E15 & E16 would all be able to accommodate the relocation of Rawreth Industrial Estate and could fit in fairly well with the already established businesses, Wheatleys Garden Centre, Swallows Fish Centre and the Cafe. They would all provide good access to A1245, A129 and A127, but would initially increase the traffic on the immediate A129 area.

E17 Is most strongly objected to. This is the "green buffer", the land that Rochford District Council have indicated in all the Land to the North of London Road Proposals would be put to green "park" use to establish a barrier to stop houses etc., being built right up to the A1245.

In additional ADPD Industrial Site proposals the Parish Council put forward a proposal within the "Call for Site" document that land to the North of the A127 and West of the A1245 shown in the ADPD document as GT6 would be very suitable as an industrial site if properly designed with security, the site would also adjoin proposed industrial sites within the Basildon District. The site provides excellent road and transport links with its close proximity to all the major routes, the A127, A130 and A13 and adjoining the main Southend to London Liverpool Street railway line. The site is currently under enforcement action for inappropriate use therefore to develop this further as an industrial site would ensure the correct use of what is already semi industrial land thus ensuring the environmental improvement of the site as a whole. This proposal in the opinion of the Council should be reconsidered,
Community Facilities - Education:
Rawreth Parish Council do not agree with allocating land on North of London Road for a new Primary School. This would have a very serious detrimental effect on St Nicholas Primary School, located within less than a mile of this proposal EDU11. St Nicholas has capacity and planning to double the size of the present school but is unable to do this, as all other local Primary Schools have spare capacity and a new school with its enormous incumbent costs is, therefore, not necessary in this location. Education predictions have indicated that there will be spare capacity within the area in the next few years which could result in one of the local schools having to close.

In addition to the ADPD the Council have considered the Development Management DPD Regulations document and comment as follows.

The National Policy on Green Belt PPG2 states "The most important aspect of the Green Belt is its openness". PPG2 states that the purpose of including land with the GB are as follows:

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

The Land North of London Road in its current use complies with all of these points and MUST therefore be retained and preserved as it stands.

The Parish Council looks forward to receiving your acknowledgement of this submission by return.

It is premature to consult on options for this site until the Core Strategy has been adopted since the Inspector may

- not accept the principle of a strategic allocation North of London Road, Rayleigh
- accept the principle of a strategic allocation North of London Road, Rayleigh but amend its capacity or land use mix.

As a consequence, it is meaningless attempting to comment on options NLR1 to 5.

RE: ALLOCATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT PLAN DOCUMENTS



Thank you for giving Anglian Water the opportunity to comment on the above document.



Please find our comments summarized on the attached document.

Regulation 25 - Allocations Development Plan Document

Re; Land West of Rawreth Industrial Estate and South of Rawreth Lane, Rayleigh, Essex

Thank you for your letter dated 17th March 2010 advising me that the Council is seeking
comments on the recently published Regulation 25 Allocations Development Plan Document.

I continue to act for Robin Levy and Lisa Jane Jinks the freehold owners of the land shown
on the accompanying plan, and I would be grateful if the following comments are registered
in respect of the relevant allocation options.

My clients' land extends to approximately 11 acres and is situated immediately adjoining the
existing settlement boundary on the western side of the town of Rayleigh. I have already
made representations proposing the allocation this land for residential and other purposes
and I have considered the latest LPA DPD publication in this light. I reiterate my clients wish
to see their land identified for development in association with adjacent land. I also reiterate
my clients' intention to collaborate fully with adjacent landowners to ensure a smooth and
timely delivery of development if allocated.

I note that there are three proposals in the DPD for the allocation of land north of London
Road, Rayleigh, for housing, a primary school, public park, youth and community facilities,
and play space. These are identified as Options NLR1, NLR2, and NLR3.

Options NLR1, 4 and 5

These appear to be the most practical and efficient options for an allocation to meet the Core Strategy Submission Document 'desire' for 550 dwellings etc. on land to the west of
Rayleigh.

These are the largest of the five option sites and their 'regular' size and shape would enable
an efficient development to be easily planned. For NLR1 and 4 there are no existing land
uses that would be displaced or need to be relocated. My comments in respect of NLR3
concerning the displacement of sports pitches, should be considered in relation to the
potential allocation of NLR5

The extant road access off Rawreth Lane was engineered to accommodate a greater volume of traffic than presently utilises it. Rawreth Lane experiences no traffic flow stress at this point and so would be a sensible access point for new development for options 1, 4 and 5, with good access onto the A129 and A1245. The existing electricity pylons are located close to the western site boundary (or outside it in the case of NLR4 and 5) and can be planned around (i.e. retained within the public park and/or relocated) without constraining the efficient use of the land. With a public park and play space located on the western side of these option sites a strong and defensible Green Belt boundary can be created and a buffer provided to the A1245.

The orientation of these option land areas would mean that they would be ranged along the
existing settlement boundary and would be seen from the principal vantage points to the
west in that context and against the backdrop of the town. Those principal vantage points
would also be farther than equivalents for Option site NLR3. The landscape impacts of
development at NLR1, NLR4 and NLR5 would thus be less than that of Option NLR3, even
taking into account the elevated position of some of the land concerned.

Less vulnerable uses can be accommodated at the southern end of the sites, of which a very
small proportion is at some risk of flooding in an extreme flood event.

Accordingly, my clients would strongly support the allocation of the land identified as
Option NLR1 and NLR4 for residential and associated purposes, closely followed by
NLR5.

Option NLR2

This site includes some of my clients land. Access to the option site could easily be provided by extending the existing public highway leading to the Macro Store southwards. Whilst the option site is bisected by the river along who's banks a risk of flooding exists, the extent of land concerned is small and can be planned around. Access could also be provided through to the adjacent residential estate and thus would improve permeability. In landscape terms, the site would provide a hard urban edge, particularly if public open space is located towards the western side and used to create a buffer to the A1245. This would be defensible in a Green Belt sense in the long term.

My clients therefore support the allocation of the land identified as NLR2 for residential and associated purposes but consider that Option NLR1, 4 and 5 are preferable.

Option NLR3

This option site would be located alongside the London Road, which suffers from significant
traffic flow problems at peak times as a result of commuters leaving and returning to the
town of Rayleigh each morning and evening at 'rush hour'. The creation of a new access to
serve 550 dwellings and associated developments so close to the Carpenter's Arms
roundabout is likely to exacerbate traffic flow issues. I can see no obvious way of
addressing this matter, even with substantial developer contributions utilised to modify the
road layout or alignment in the area.

I also consider that this option site would have the greatest effect upon the landscape
because it would project into the countryside the furthest of the three options. It would be a
linear ribbon-like development with its greatest length projecting into the rural area to the
west of Rayleigh, rather than being oriented along the settlement's western boundary as with
Option Sites 1 and 2. Development of this land would be visible from the A1245 and A129 to
a significant degree on what are two principal approaches to the town of Rayleigh. Land at
NLR3 would be particularly visible for much of the A1245 to the west seen from its elevated
position when facing southwards. From this vantage point the urban extension would not
relate well to the existing settlement boundary and would make the town appear
disproportionately large in the landscape. For these reasons, this option would have the
greatest visual impact and I do not agree that a strong and defensible Green Belt boundary
would be created. I believe that it would in fact lead to pressure to allocate, develop or
otherwise urbanise the land intervening between it and the Carpenter's Arms roundabout to
the west.

In addition, the land is presently occupied by the Lower Barn Farm business complex and by
adjacent sports pitches (at least two football pitches and a cricket pitch) with associated
pavilion/clubhouse and changing facilities. It would be illogical to propose to retain these
sports facilities in situ and site housing development to the west, and if this was to be
proposed then why include the land within the option site. Development of Option NLR3 will
therefore require the loss or at least the reallocation of the existing sports pitches. This
would be in addition to provision of the public park and play space required by the Core
Strategy Submissions Document. Even if replacement pitches can be accommodated
elsewhere within their present 'catchment' it is nevertheless a further 'burden' to the
development and complicates delivery due to the normal requirement to provide
replacement sports facilities before the existing ones are redeveloped. The
relocation/cessation of business units at the Lower Barn Farm may also affect delivery,
although I acknowledge that the long lead-in time would mean that leases can be terminated
and land acquired if necessary. Whilst these constraints are not unassailable they render the
site less attractive in my view than Options NLR1 and NLR2.

For these reasons my clients would object to the allocation of the land identified as
NLR3 for residential and associated purposes due to access, Green Belt, landscape,
design and layout, and delivery issues. Further, my clients consider that Options
NLR1 and 4 are firstly equally preferable, followed by Options NLR5 and 2.

I would be grateful if you would register my clients support and objections as appropriate.
Please do not hesitate to contact me should you wish to discuss any matters relating to the
above.

Comments and objections made.
See paper copy for details.

Objection to housing in Rayleigh and Traveller Sites.
See paper copy for details.

Objections made on housing in Rayleigh and Traveller Sites.
See paper copy for details.