Option NLR3

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 is the worst of all, as it will greet visitors to Rayleigh with a mass of concrete, and obscure the scenic northerly views. It will allow for future development to the north and not create a strong Green Belt boundary.

This site would mean a long standing business would be lost. There is also the issue of flood zone 3.
Electrical structures would need to be moved, as there is evidence that where these structures are built too near to rediential properties there seems to be more cases of cancer in the population.
Also there is the issue of very dense traffic conditions, for some hours during the early evening.

Proposed housing here in Rayleigh -not the best choice , with Flood Zone 3, a flood risk assessment (FRA)would have to be passed by the environment agency, including a sequential test.

Costs of schools , transport , sustainability too high.

As there are options for housing at other sites then this application should fail, and other areas must be considered for housing which are not in flood Zone 3. Sites put foward have not been considered - evident by the lack of completion witihin SHLAA Proforma document.

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.

This again I dont think is acceptable because it comes out onto the London Road which is already over loaded at peck times,we have already got a development of new properties going up on the land that Mrs Gunn use to live on,how many more cars is that going to create.Option NLR1,NLR2,NLR3 are in my opinion ridiculous if they come out on the London Road.
Mrs Scott.

I find option NLR3 unacceptable. It would destroy the rural nature of the approach to Rayleigh along the A129 and risks the development expanding up to the Chelmsford Road.

I strongly object to development on this green belt land. In the last 30 years three housing estates have been built in close proximity to Little Wheatley Chase. The increased traffic would stretch the already congested London Road at peak times. The access from this proposed estate on to the London Road is unsuitable. As Rawreth Parish Council have welcomed development of the brown field site on the old A130 at the site of the garages and nursery opposite it is not necessary to use green belt land for additional 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 on green belt land. Three housing estates have already been built in recent years which are in very close proximity to Little Wheatley Chase. A development of this kind would increase traffic on the already congested A129 to Rayleigh town centre. The access from the proposed estate onto the busy London Road is unsuitable. As Rawreth Parish Council have already welcomed development of the brown field site on the old A130 near the nursery and garages opposite it is not necessary to use this green belt land for a new development.

We at CPRE consider that this site would affort less damage to the surrounding Countryside and the Green belt.

This site, although probably the best option out of the 5 proposed for this land, is still on high quality green belt farmland and should not be built.
Access, although directly onto A129 , would still cause a huge increase in all surrounding roads.
The opportunity to provide a "strong defensible green belt boundary" would be completely eroded by the proposal to relocate Rawreth Industrial Estate - E17 - here in the South West corner.

Sport England strongly objects to option NLR3 as this would include Rayleigh Sports & Social Club's site which is where Rayleigh Town Football Club and Rayleigh Fairview Cricket Club are based and play their matches. These are two of the principal community sports clubs in the Rayleigh area. Potential redevelopment of the site would result in the loss of the entire playing field (which are large enough to accommodate the equivalent of at least three football pitches and a cricket pitch). No reference is made to the loss of these facilities in the document or to replacement provision being an essential pre-requisite of any development. The loss of the Rayleigh Sports & Social Club's site to development is therefore objected to for the following reasons:

* The development would result in the loss of one of Rayleigh's main community outdoor sports facilities. The Football Association and the England & Wales Cricket Board have advised that the clubs would be very concerned about losing the facilities and both the FA and the ECB strongly object;
* No replacement provision is proposed for the playing fields and other sports facilities. Consequently, there would not appear to be any compensatory provision proposed.;
* There is no up-to-date evidence base available that, in Sport England's view, would justify the playing fields being released for development on the basis of them being surplus to community needs i.e. an up-to-date playing pitch strategy. In any case, even if there was a confirmed surplus of playing fields in the district, there would still be a need to relocate the club's facilities to another site.

If this option was pursued as a site allocation in the DPD, it would not be considered to meet any of the tests of soundness in terms of being justified, effective or according with national policy e.g. lack of evidence base to justify disposal, lack of certainty of delivery in view of need to relocate existing facilities in advance of any development and not accord with Government planning policy guidance in PPG17 (especially paragraph 15). In addition, it should be noted that Sport England would be a statutory consultee on any future planning application affecting the site. If this site was allocated for development in the DPD without satisfactory replacement playing field provision being made, Sport England would have to object to a future planning application as a statutory consultee. Due to the weight that should be applied to objections made by statutory consultees and the need to refer planning applications to the Secretary of State (through the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2009) that Sport England objects to, there would be potential for significant uncertainty and delays in the delivery of any development on this site.

It is therefore requested that Rayleigh Sports and Social Club site be removed from option NL3 if it is pursued unless the development was to make provision for at least like for like replacement facility provision which is supported by the users of the playing field.

I object to this proposal because it will encourage a merging between Rayleigh and Rawreth, and will create a green belt boundary that cant be defined in the future. It will also create way too much traffic and cause an unnecessary loss of agricultural land

overdevelopment of the area with insufficient infastructure

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,

I strongly object to NLR1,NLR2, NLR3, NLR4, NLR5. The loss of green belt and agricultural land is unacceptable. It will cause a major increase in traffic on already congested roads and will increase congestion in Rayleigh town centre. It will also destroy the pleasant semi rural entry into Rayleigh.

The London road is very busy and one of only two roads into Rayleigh from the west. At rush hour this road is always jammed and adding 200+ houses and a primary school here would only increase the pressure on this very congested route. It also takes away the farmland that currently provides a sense of being in a country town as you approach from the A1245. It is difficult to see how this provides a defensible area since developers could then push for land to the north and west to be used to Rawreth Lane and the A1245.

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

thank you RDC i might be out of work because of this

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 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.

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 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 option NLR3 on the following grounds:

1. The development would be directly adjacent to the London Road and require access to the London Road. Presently, at peak times, the traffic congestion on this road is enormous and if there are traffic problems on the A127 at any time, traffic on the London Road comes to a standstill as a result of motorists trying to avoid the A127. This development will exacerbate the traffic problems with the additional access from the proposed development.

2. Water will not be able to drain away if the area is built upon up to the London Road and the likelihood is that the low lying Little Wheatleys Estate will itself become a flood risk area.

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 and leave the rest of the fields here very vulnerable to further development in the future.