Option NLR5

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 offers the chance of a strong defensible Green Belt boundary, and does not harm the landscape.
With proper landscaping the effects could be minimal, and it obscures the Industrial mess to the east.

I feel this one is totally unacceptable, especially when it will remove a established family buisness.

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.

Again this is another mad idea because it comes out onto the London Road and as I said before the road could not cope with this amount of traffic,I have to laugh at your phase,this location would enable community cohesion,because I dont think the town centre services and facilities and the transport network would be up for all these exeter people,you say we will have this infrastructure,but will we?,I can see a lot of people becoming very bad tempered and disillusioned by
the lack of or inadequate facilities.
Mrs H Scott.

Options NLR4 and NLR5 would appear to be the least worst, although still highly unwelcome. These options minimise the loss of agricultural land and to some extent preserve the semi-rural character of this part of Rayleigh.

A reduced version of these options combined with redevelopment of the industrial estate could be a reasonable compromise if there is no alternative to development in this area.

Option NLR5 has merits in that traffic can be shared between Rawreth Lane and London Road. A through route between these two roads creates the possibility of a rat run that needs to be avoided.

I strongly object to development on this green belt land which is a flood zone when Rawreth Parish Council have already welcomed development of the brown field site on the old A130 at the site of the garages and nursery opposite. An additional 550 houses would put unnecessary strain on the already congested Rawreth Lane, A1245 and A129. Development would be an unnecessary loss of agricultural land.

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 this green belt land. A development of this size would put further strain on the already congested A129 and road network in and around Rayleigh to the town centre. To build on this land would be an unncessary loss of agricultural land and would make other green belt land vulnerable to development in the future. As Rawreth Parish Council have already welcomed development of the brown field site on the old A130 near the nursery and garages opposite it would be uncessary to build on this green belt land.

This site would probably be the least damaging to both the Green Belt and the Countryside.

This site is the same as NLR4 and with direct access onto Rawreth Lane would cause huge increases in traffic - already frequently gridlocked.

Sport England strongly objects to option NLR5 as this would include the majority of 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 NL5 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 of the massive increase in traffic that it will brig to the area that the road infrastructure will not be able to cope with. Things are already too busy on the roads in this area and this will make it unbearable. There is also an unnecessary loss of agricultural land

No development should be allowed on any green belt/agricultural land

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,

The transport links here are much better with access available to both the north and south and the proposed bus route. It provides a very strongly delineated boundary to the west to provide a clear green belt. It allows clear integration with the existing developments and good access to local amenities and shops. It would become a part of Rayleigh rather than some of the other options which would seem to be attached to the nearest road. I feel this would be the best option of all of the NLRs

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. Rawreth Lane is not adequate to cope with increased traffic.
Would create a peak time rat-run between Rawreth Lane and London Road exacerbating traffic problems.

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 NLR5 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, 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.

Object to NLR1, NLR2, NLR3, NLR4, NLR5, and to sites GT1, GT2, GT3 and GT7.

Infrastructure cannot cope.
Increased traffic
loss of agricultural/green land
Over crowded as it is. Town is already far too busy.