Gypsy and Traveller Sites

If we have to have traveller Sites in the area, I believe this site is ideal and would impact on few. It was a Gypsy site previously, but they were evicted I seem to recal.

Gypsy and Traveller Sites

Any sites for gypsies and travellers must be monitored and retained solely for those purposes. They must not be allowed to build any permanent structures on green belt land. Time limits should be considered for staying on a site within Rochford in order to ensure that they are bona fide gypsies and travellers and their stay is only transitory i.e a gypsy or traveller is not someone who puts down roots and wishes to remain in one place for long.

If the demand is so low I fail to see why any development and its likely negative impact should be considered - I present Crays Hill as a prime example of how any such site could evolve. At risk of being labelled 'a bigot' - or is that just Gordon's lot - I'm unsure why the majority should support and cower to a minorities lifestyle choice.

The additional sites that have been identified for the travelling community is certainly not one that should be considered in this area. I appreciate that we should be supporting them and the community should not be tarred with the brush of the occasional ones that cause local issues. However, statistics are clearly evident that crime may increase within the local areas and unfortunately, as we have seen in the surrounding area of Basildon, there is a tendency for the perimeters and numbers to grow to an uncontrollable level.

I object to the priority being given to any section of the community over any other section. I appreciate the need to have sites for gypsies and travellers but feel that they should apply for building plots with existing planning consent just like anyone else.

Why are the majority of options in or around Rayleigh which is already under strain from constant development and yet there is no option in Rochford?

Given the problems at Crays Hill, any future site should be for no more than 6 caravans and in places where it would be impossible for the site to be extended illegally. We already have traveller sites in nearby areas, future sites should be in other areas of the district.

There seems to be a desire to create ONE 18 pitch site in West Rayleigh. There is already a site off the A1245 which could be legalised and then the remainder of the allocation should be distributed around the Rochford District.

Small sites should be created in locations that cannot be expanded legally or illegally to ensure that the Crays Hill situation is not created in this area.

Travellers do not wish to integrate into mainstream society, that is why they travel.

Having lived in Teignmouth Drive for almost 10 years, I am strongly against some of the developments being considered for this part of Rayleigh, specifically:
NLR1 (Particularly this planning application)
NLR2
NLR3
NLR4
NLR5

Why:
Loss of greenbelt land
Increased traffic, especially in the rat-run I live in (Teignmouth Drive)
Increased pressure on local healthcare (doctors/dentists)

As regards the traveller sites, I am opposed so long as they (travellers):

Don't pay council tax, or indeed any "tax" that other home-owners are required to pay
Flout planning rules by (for example) using sites for commercial purposes or erecting buildings outside of planning consent
Fail to send their children to school, a reason they often quote for wanting permanent sites
However, GT1&2 are looking to expand/make permanent an existing site - so I agree with this location. I do not agree with GT3 & GT7, new locations.

Re: Proposed housing development around Folly Chase

I am writing to express my deep concern having been made aware of the council's proposals to possibly build 50 houses at the end of Folly Chase.

Having moved to the road last year you and I are fully aware of its tranquillity and popularity with walkers and we have more walkers than cars down this road. Out of the 5 proposed sites 3 of them will deeply affect this road.

I recently requested a crown reduction to an Oak tree which has a preservation order on it in my front garden and this was refused. One of the reasons stated was the aesthetics of the road! Whilst I realise this is a different department the irony is it is obviously one rule for one and a differed for another!

I cannot understand how a council is allowed to even consider building at the end of a private road and totally transforming the 'aesthetics' by making it a cut through access road for 50+ cars.

I have been consulting with my neighbours who are all vehemently opposed to this taking place.

I have no doubt, whatsoever, that should this go ahead it will affect house prices to the detriment as when looking to purchase it is always marketed as a private road in one of the most sought after roads. I am also aware that if you adopt the road we will have to pay for the services you will bring down so financially we lose on both counts.

I realise that there is a shortage of land and need for houses but I cannot possibly see how this is aviable option.

I am aware that having 2 nurseries down here causes some element of noise with lorry deliveries but this is not a nuisance and is their business. I personally do not have a problem with that at all but I have a big problem with numerous cars potentially using this road as a cut through.

I am also aghast at the possible sites for gypsy camps. Working for Basildon District Council I am fully aware of the problems they cause in the local area, schools affected and the inability to evict them even with a court order!

When buying a property you take into account many things: the road, the immediate surrounding area and the town. I as many other people in Hockley like the village feel and whilst not opposed to any changes whatsoever if I wanted to live in a bigger town and have the feel about it I would have moved somewhere else.

I sincerely hope you take your residents concerns seriously and will look at alternatives.

With regret I must object to all proposed sites for fifty houses plus in Hockley sites WH1, WH2, WH3, WH4. In Folly Lane we have more traffic than enough, it is dangerous with 'S' bends and one sharp bend drivers use it now as a rat run and now with double yellow lines down to tennis courts, parking is very dangerous in Folly Lane. Please try to let common sense this is not the area for development. For gypsy site must also be out of order with more fly tipping etc, more rubbish left at site when they move on, we have to pay for removal of rubbish. It's one big NO!

See:-

Folly Chase Frontagers' Road Committee

Rochford District Council Development Plan
A number of residents have asked the Road Committee if a few pointers could be put forward on which any letter to the Council could be based.

The following suggestions are, therefore, presented for general use. It must be stressed that it is felt individual letters to the Council would have a greater impact on the Plan considerations.

The Land (being the field in which the parcels WH1, WH3 and WH4 are located)

1. This has been Green Belt for over 50 years.
2. This land has been well protected by such Green Belt Policy over all those years.
3. The existing Green Belt boundaries are well established being Folly Wood, The School, the Community Centre and Residential Properties protected by Oaklands Nursery.
4. The land (all of it including ref WH1) is agricultural land on which a healthy crop is growing at the present time.
5. The tenant farmer has over the years invested considerable time money and effort improving the quality of the soil and the drainage.
6. The present total parcel of land forms a natural lung of Green Belt to this part of the village.
7. The individual parcels selected are nothing more than paper exercises being pencil lines across an arable field in the Green Belt.

The land (being The Mushroom farm off Folly Lane WH2 and WH5)

1. This site is a Brown Field Site however any development over recent years has been refused by strongly recognized Planning Policies.

Folly Chase

1. This road is a quiet cul-de-sac serving a limited number of properties.
2. The road is a private street maintained by the frontagers and has been such for over 50 years.
3. The road has been maintained to protect a rural character ie no footways, shingle dress carriageway of irregular width with road side planting.
4. The road overall is limited in width and in places extremely narrow restricting the possible upgrading required to accommodate any additional traffic introduced.
5. The present road is managed by the Frontagers being the street mangers who are consulted by Service Authorities regarding road openings and reinstatement.
6. There is no wish by any of the Frontagers for the present arrangement to be changed. Nor is there any wish for road upgrading with kerbs, footways etc.
7. The present junction of Folly Chase with Folly Lane is restricted in line and level. The junction radii are sub standard and there is not the land, without entry onto private land, on which an upgraded junction could be formed.

Folly Lane

1. This is a local road meant to provide access to the adjacent limited residential areas. However, being a Public Highway it is used as a major 'rat run' and has to accommodate far more traffic than originally considered.
2. The Historic layout of Folly Lane with three extremely tight right angle bends, very poor junction with the main road B1013, all mean that this is a sub standard traffic route which should not be expected to accommodate additional traffic. Indeed, measures should be introduced to control the use of this highway.

B1013 and general road network through village.

The highway network through the village is totally over capacity. There are long queues of traffic many times during the day and often the only chance of entry onto the through route is by the courtesy of other road users.

West Hockley

The selected area of consideration for new residential development is far too restricted. West Hockley is a much bigger area than the area selected. The village of Hockley and immediate surrounds is already over developed. There will be infill and development consolidation. This is how it should be left and instead of new housing estates to further burden the village outstanding problems should be dealt with ie highway infrastructure, doctors, dentists, schools and other services.

It has just been brought to my attention, the councils proposed future development plans for the area surrounding my home. I am totally opposed to further development here. Since I moved here 31 years ago the area has had many area's developed and this has made the London Road far too busy. Morning and evening rush hours are horendous; traffic at a crawl or totally standstill. Trying to turn onto the road is nearly impossible because of the volume of traffic. The schols are not capable of taking the extra children. The sewers are not able to take the extra volume of sewage which would be created.

As for industrial sites closer to my home, this would bring even further traffic and pollution and stop the enjoyment of our homes in the area. I thought we were supposed to have the green belt in existence. It seems the council wants to toally spoil our area and allow building on every available space. Why?

There are many empty houses in the area, why allow more to be built. There have been many problems with traveller sites in our area. At Ramsden Heath problems have occured with the site/neightbouring houses. People withdrew their children from the local school and travellers enrolled their children there because they needed to be educated. The school now has massive abenteeism.

You already appear to be doing nothing about the illegal site in Rawreth A130. Other sites keep appearing on A127 Rayleigh between Progress Road and A130 turnoff and further towards Basildon. Why do you not insist on planning permission being required as with the normal proceedures required and take appropriate action? We have done building in the past I had to obtain permission. It is one law for us and another for others. We had to find our own accommodation and pay for things legally. People who do things 'illegally' appear to get help by being given sites to live on. This doesn't seem right to me. You are giving the ok to spoil our area and this just is not right. The traffic/sewage/schools/doctors/dentists/hospitals etc will not be able to cope. Please see sense before ruining life here for everyone.

Re:

the proposed building of 770 new houses in south-west Rayleigh between Rawreth Lane and London Road
the possibility of sites for travellers in south-west Rayleigh
rumours that Tesco may take over the Eon building


Dear Sir/Madam



It is with some concern that I learnt only yesterday of the public consultation on the proposed building of 770 houses between Rawreth Lane and London Road - a consultation that ends on April 30th. This has not been widely publicised, in spite of the huge impact it would have on those of us in the area, and on Rayleigh itself. I wish to make my objection to these developments clear.



Rayleigh simply does not have the infrastructure to cope with this size of development - the schools, doctors' surgeries etc could not cope with the increased population this would bring - 1400 adults and over 1000 children is a conservative estimate. The roads are already very busy, and even the smallest problem on the A127 causes log jam on the London Road and up Crown Hill. There is every possibility that 770 more households would add 1400 cars to these roads, thus compounding the existing problem.



The Crest development off Cheapside West, and the David Wilson estate at the top of Victoria Avenue have already added to the congestion. Also, the fact that these developments are on the flood plain of Rawreth brook has increased the risk of flooding and added to the cost of insurance for all houses in the area. It is also true to say that several houses in these developments are suffering structural problems because they are built on a flood plain. Any more development in the area would only make things worse.



There is already a permanent site for travellers in the area - there is no need for another.



Rayleigh is well served by Sainsbury's, Asda and Somerfield's, Tesco's nearby in Leigh and Morrison's in Eastwood - more than enough choice for those who wish to shop in supermarkets. There are several small convenience stores along the London Road which would struggle to survive if Tesco's were allowed to develop the Eon site. I believe it would be totally wrong to allow this.



Any development between London Road and Rawreth Lane will mean the loss of valuable agricultural land, and seriously affect the green belt boundary. A dangerous precedent would be set that could lead to the loss off all the open space between Rayleigh and Rawreth in the future.



I trust the Planning Committee will seriously consider these points and oppose the development.

I wish to protest against the Domestic development of 500 Dwellings in South West Hullbridge, irrespective of the timing of the Development.

I was very pleased to attend a meeting at the Day Centre on Monday 12th April 2010 regards a proposed development which will extend the habitable boundary by approximately 30%.

I was always of the opinion that a Local Authority was set up to serve and represent the people, but your attitude at the meeting gave me the impression that you really serve the County Council and Central government dictates, please explain how this attitude serves Local Democracy.

Did you inform the 'community' at the meeting that you have already forwarded the incumbent Planning Application to the National Inspectorate?

I consider it somewhat regrettable that the truth course of action, under the rules and regulations of Local government, that prior notice was not given will in advance of Planning Applications being submitted.

It seems that you do not consider it prudent to allow the 'community' the opportunity to discuss and put forward our opinions, objections and grievances of your proposals, in this instance, affecting the existing community as a whole.

It is unacceptable, at short notice to inform me that all opinions are required by or before the 30th April, not providing me with the opportunity to make the necessary educated perusal of the advantages and disadvantages of the scheme being requested for approval.

It is also regrettable for the Planning Officer (Mr Scutton) not answering some very pertinent questions and to inform the people at the meeting that the eventual outcome lay in the hands of the inspectorate.

I presume the meeting was held in accordance with set procedures and principles and obligations of Local Government to inform the people only.

Did your secretaries (presuming they were present) make notes of the questions and answers being put forwarded by the residents, and will I get a copy of these 'minutes' for perusal. It was noted that, apart from the three officials of the District Council, the absence of the Councillors representing Hullbridge was clearly obvious. In my opinion this suggests the low esteem with which has always been treated in many respects.

Risk Assessment

In view of this most important issue, I wonder if you would be kind enough to provide me with the opportunity to scrutinise the 'General Risk Assessments' you are obliged to make to the inspectorate and which will have an impact on the proposal, such as:

The Environment
Infrastructure
Flood (Watery Lane in regular flood - featured on the National News recently).
Density
Drainage
Main Services
Roads
Access - to and from Hullbridge
Schools
Doctors
Council Services, including fire and police
Health and Safety.

18 Gypsy Sites.

I was informed that 18 gypsy sites are required to be made available for 'Travellers' who make no contribution whatsoever to the financial requirements of the locality and, indeed could you explain the benefits to the community.
I am required by 'Law' to make payment for all services, but there is no requirement for these people whatsoever to observe the same rules and regulations as the rest of us, I wonder if you can make some plausible argument to pay for the services through our Council Tax.

Have you learnt from the experiences by other Local Authorities and that is well known that these people have no respect for us whatsoever.

Designation and Classification of Land

Please provide me with the information on the designation/classification of 'Green Belt', White Land and Brown field land.

Investment

I was also informed at the meeting that you were trying to attract 'investment' in this area, please explain how a Domestic Development will have the capacity to attract 'investment'.

Developers

Could you also please explain how the Developers gain the knowledge that the 'Green Belt' land would be available for 'Development', hence their purchase and planning applications which you admit have been forwarded by them for approval on this development.
Can you explain how 'Social Affordable Housing' will be purchased, or indeed will not be only made available for 'economic migrants'.
It is well known that it is extremely difficult to get mortgages or indeed the finances to rent properties.

Your response will be welcomed and I hope you will provide me with the opportunity to debate the merits of this development, and a proper timetable given to me/community.

I recently attended 2 meetings at Hullbridge regarding the proposed 500 houses that to be built at Hullbridge and Gipsy Sites. We strongly oppose to this.

Hullbridge is a low crime area and everyone in Hullbridge have worked hard within the community to keep it this way, but with the proposed plans no way would this be the case and would result in more policing etc.

Hullbridge would not be able to cope with the drainage as we already have problems with flooding and many houses have needed underpinning etc.

Access to and from - Hullbridge to Rayleigh and surrounding areas is already a problem, but capable it the proposed plans take place there would be big problems to residents getting in and out of the village and putting extra lengthy times on their travel to work etc. The roads in and around Hullbridge are not good enough to hold more traffic and would cause more accidents etc.

Tourists from London etc visit Hullbridge to get away from hustle and bustle, but once your proposed plans take place this will decline drastically as it will not be the pretty, clean village where they can have a quiet drink along the river anymore. The village will be to built up and more like an Estate and will need policy at all times.

The residents in Hullbridge have worked very hard to keep it clean, tidy lovely village but this will all change and our hard work would have been a complete and utter waste of time and money.

We pay our Council taxes and should be heard as to what would be good for Hullbridge and strongly as you to block these proposed plans as Hullbridge would no longer be a village but become a concrete jungle.

I recently attended 2 meetings at Hullbridge regarding the proposed 500 houses that to be built at Hullbridge and Gipsy Sites. We strongly oppose to this.

Hullbridge is a low crime area and everyone in Hullbridge have worked hard within the community to keep it this way, but with the proposed plans no way would this be the case and would result in more policing etc.

Hullbridge would not be able to cope with the drainage as we already have problems with flooding and many houses have needed underpinning etc.

Access to and from - Hullbridge to Rayleigh and surrounding areas is already a problem, but capable it the proposed plans take place there would be big problems to residents getting in and out of the village and putting extra lengthy times on their travel to work etc. The roads in and around Hullbridge are not good enough to hold more traffic and would cause more accidents etc.

Tourists from London etc visit Hullbridge to get away from hustle and bustle, but once your proposed plans take place this will decline drastically as it will not be the pretty, clean village where they can have a quiet drink along the river anymore. The village will be to built up and more like an Estate and will need policy at all times.

The residents in Hullbridge have worked very hard to keep it clean, tidy lovely village but this will all change and our hard work would have been a complete and utter waste of time and money.

We pay our Council taxes and should be heard as to what would be good for Hullbridge and strongly as you to block these proposed plans as Hullbridge would no longer be a village but become a concrete jungle.

I recently attended 2 meetings at Hullbridge regarding the proposed 500 houses that to be built at Hullbridge and Gipsy Sites. We strongly oppose to this.

Hullbridge is a low crime area and everyone in Hullbridge have worked hard within the community to keep it this way, but with the proposed plans no way would this be the case and would result in more policing etc.

Hullbridge would not be able to cope with the drainage as we already have problems with flooding and many houses have needed underpinning etc.

Access to and from - Hullbridge to Rayleigh and surrounding areas is already a problem, but capable it the proposed plans take place there would be big problems to residents getting in and out of the village and putting extra lengthy times on their travel to work etc. The roads in and around Hullbridge are not good enough to hold more traffic and would cause more accidents etc.

Tourists from London etc visit Hullbridge to get away from hustle and bustle, but once your proposed plans take place this will decline drastically as it will not be the pretty, clean village where they can have a quiet drink along the river anymore. The village will be to built up and more like an Estate and will need policy at all times.

The residents in Hullbridge have worked very hard to keep it clean, tidy lovely village but this will all change and our hard work would have been a complete and utter waste of time and money.

We pay our Council taxes and should be heard as to what would be good for Hullbridge and strongly as you to block these proposed plans as Hullbridge would no longer be a village but become a concrete jungle.

I am writing to strongly protest about the proposed 770 new homes to be built in Rayleigh.I therefore wish to register a strong objection to the council housing options-NLR1, NLR2, NLR3,NLR4, NLR5.These proposals will lead to unnecessary loss of green fields,add to an existing traffic problem for the town centre and encourage a merging between Rayleigh and Rawreth.I was also mortified to learn that there are even proposals for Gypsy sites.Does this council really want the same problems that are experienced at Crays Hill.I can assure you that the residents of Rayleigh certainly do not and after all it is the councils job to represent the views and wishes of Rayleigh residents, rather than to meet some politically correct Government target!Rayleighs infrastructure cannot cope with these additional demands and if you insist with this obsession to build on every available piece of green land then you are on your way to ruining,what is,the lovely town of Rayleigh. I trust that the council will see sense and reject the proposals forALL Gypsy sites and to reduce the number of proposed houses.Finally I should be grateful if you could enlighten me as to any proposals for the EON site on the London Road as I am sure you will be considering proposals for housing on that site as well.

It has been brought to my attention that there are significant plans been drafted to build in excess of 500 houses within the village boundary. There have also been rumours of 18 gypsy pitches being allocated again within our village boundary.

I have a number of questions relating to the proposals that I seek clarification on:

* I have not received any formal notification from RDC as to the Core strategy and the proposals due to their significance. I would like to receive confirmation that you have indeed acted upon this.
* Also, I have not received any door drop either via RDC / the local parish or any other method of communication. I would appreciate proof or confirmation that you have successfully delivered such notification to my address.
* Such as sizeable plan must have been created many months ago. I understand that this process of searching was back in September 2009 and any objection has to be raised by the 30th April 2010. Again, I seek clarification of notice and in particular the consultation to the residents of Hullbridge.
* I understand that Rayleigh recently went through a similar process and apparently reduced their allocation of 1800 by 50%. I am led to believe that the original allocation for Hullbridge was 50 houses under the Council target plan. Could you confirm that the dramatic increase in allocation for Hullbridge is a direct result of other parishes reducing their allocation and significantly increasing the allocation for Hullbridge? The Rayleigh scenario has surely created and unequivocal precedent. Please confirm the RDC position on this precedent.
* What infrastructure plans have been drafted to cope with the volume of people and cars inclusive of the amenities required supporting such an influx?
* Can RDC explain the rationale for creating such an overwhelming construction as opposed to a stepped increase across wider region? There appears to be a definite decision on the number of new builds but no supporting documentation on how the area is supposed to cope with such an increase in housing and the subsequent effects on services and amenities. Please clarify and substantiate the RDC scooping document
* In theory if there are three times the houses then there be three times the benefits / amenities to support the new build. Please clarify.
* Such a development will bring untold challenges including health and safety issues inclusive of access, availability of emergency support services and quality of life for existing residents?
* What contingencies has RDC considered for flooding in the region? I am concerned bearing in mind the intended location of the new build will have on the river and adjacent land, which are prone to flooding?
* Recent searches made by new residents moving into the village had no sight of any such development plans. Their solicitors would not have visibility if not mad available. Can RDC confirm that the plans that have been made available for all local searches by legal and conveyance companies?
* I am aware of huge difficulty in obtaining planning permission for 1 house or extension particularly within Green Belt. If this is the case then plans on this scale should be brought to the attention of the residents immediately affected by them. Please clarify the position and the position on Green Belt policy.

I am formally requesting that RDC reconsiders these unfair proposals and amends its core strategy forthwith.
I have never challenged local governance before but being a home owner and tax payer I fundamentally disagree with the plans to build such an excessive number of houses. I am shocked and dismayed at the position I find myself in and respectfully request that RDC listens to its residents.

RE: Proposed building of 770 new houses, sites for Gypsies between Rawreth Lane and London Road, and possibly a Tesco

We are writing to strongly protest about the above captioned. Despite there being a 'public consultation' on the above since 17th March 2010, it was purely by chance and word of mouth from neighbours that we have been made aware of this.

We have a fundamental problem with the fact that most of the local community are still unaware of this proposal which will severely impact all those who live in the Rayleigh area. We do think that Rochford District Council has a duty to disclose something as meaningful as this to their tax paying households and indeed could easily have mailshot us all as they have all our addresses! At the very least this proposal could have been laminated and tied to lampposts around the area, if it were a question of cost!


We feel as residents in Rayleigh that our Council has severley let us down by even thinking it possible that we would wish or consent to a traveller camp within or anywhere near us. Our crime rate with go through the roof, our beautiful town will no longer be so, we will be unable to move (as who would want by choice to live near that). Many people have said they will no longer pay their council tax should this go ahead, if its good enough for the traveller community it will be good enough for us. Unfortunately there is a stigma attached to these folk, who do nothing but cause havoc and upset wherever they settle and still do nothing to change that stigma. If these people were travellers, please explain why they need pre-fab homes.

The congestion in Rayleigh High Street and access via London and Crown Hills is currently a nightmare. Even out of rush hour it has taken more than 30 minutes to drive from homes past the station and down to the Weir! What can you be thinking by introducing another 770 houses to this already crowded area? On the basis that each home will have an average of 2 cars and 2 children, how will our infrasstructure - roads and schools - cope with this? It is quite impossible and should not be allowed consent.

Our family wish to formally state our disagreement with these plans and have copied this email to our local MP.

Please keep me updated of any news/meetings on this subject.

I would like to strongly object to the proposed traveller sites in Rayleigh. We already have a site (GT1) and I do not see why we should have to accomodate more.

The sites would put additional pressure on the local schools, especially Our Lady of Ransom which is already heavily oversubscribed.

I also feel that little information has been provided to local residents regarding this.

I feel I have to write to express how outraged I am at the preposed plans to build more houses in Rayleigh and the preposed sites for Travellers.

Rayleigh used to be a nice quiet area to live in, now it's getting over crowded with too much traffic, there are not enough places for the existing children to go to school, let alone more children coming into the area. There are not enough doctors & dentists available, it takes ages to get an appointment anywhere, hospitals as well.

Why do the council have to build houses all the time to get more money for them. Why can't they give something back to the community & give us what we need. Build more schools, more doctors & dentists and somewhere for the teenage kids to go like a youth centre with activities that would be much more productive than hanging around the streets, or the proposed teen shelter in Sweyne park. Don't understand why they want to close the Rawreth Lane industrial estate and then start it us somewhere else, it's fine where it is.

Why can't we have a family place such as a bowling alley with a family restaurant, we're crying out for a descant place to go and eat, or a swimming pool? Basically, there are not enough amenities in this area.

And I've just read in the Rayleigh Times that Rayleigh Boys FC have been refused a planning application for a permanent home on land near The Old Rayleigh Road, why? This isn't fair to the youth of today. Football clubs are good for the youth of today, it teaches them discipline and exercise, they need a base!!!

Why don't the council have more meetings to talk to the public and listen to what we have to say & what we want, we live here, we pay our taxes, don't we have a say in what goes on in our community?

And by the way, when is something going to be done about the disgusting state of the roads in Essex, it's been quite a while now since the snow went. What do we pay our road tax for!!!

Look forward to your comments

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.

I attended the meeting on Monday 12 April. The main overriding aspect which will effect every other topic on the agenda.

The gypsy/traveller sites:-

The word infrastructure was mentioned countless times, to put 'meat on the bones' of the word I have a suggestion.

1. Any site/s must be at least four miles from any residents/businesses.
2. The site will have one access/exit which be controlled by a barrier.
3. Manned by 2 men/24 hours every day seeing all occupants on and off the site. If no illegals get onto the site the lengthy and expensive regulations are not required for eviction.
4. Your rules adopt and make clear it's 1 strike and out policy. If they want to live 'close' to the community the same rules apply, no fires, area kept clean, the site is a living area not a working area and not a dumping area, comply or 'travel'.

If this method of policing was put in place I would not mind paying a little extra on Council tax to maybe make sure you can control the site unlike the festering Crays Hill disaster.

Please consider carefully this plan, these people cannot be left to stay without control, if they don't like it - tough!

Think Crays Hill - chances lost.
I/we wish to register the following objections and comments regarding the above document:

Housing Allocation

As clearly previously stated in the Hockley Parish Plan, large scale housing developments in Hockley, are not supported for the following reasons:
There should be no loss of countryside, greenbelt and open spaces in and around Hockley
There should be no large housing estates due to lack of infrastructure
There are no proposed solutions to traffic issues on the already congested main artery roads between Rayleigh and Rochford, i.e. the B1013 and Rectory Road, which are narrow and winding, and include the narrow railway bridge in Hawkwell
Bus services (Nos. 7 and 8) are inadequate in the area to support the additional housing
There is no proposed solution to traffic issues (congestion and parking) caused by the 'school runs' in the morning and evening, which would be considerably worse than the current problems due to the additional children

Proposed 50 additional dwellings in West Hockley

The development of any additional housing in the area is not supported for the following reasons:
There is no proposed solution to traffic issues on the already busy roads around Church Road, Folly Lane and Fountain Lane, which are dangerous, narrow, winding and used by many horseriders.
There is no proposed solution to traffic issues at Hockley primary school caused by 'school runs' due to the additional children
However, if development is enforced, then Option WH2 (mushroom farm - brownfield site) is preferred as it avoids the loss of greenbelt and open spaces.

Eldon Way / Foundry Industrial Estate (TC7/9)

The relocation of Industrial Units to the proposed Airport Business Park to provide space for redevelopment and additional housing in the Town Centre is not supported for the following reasons:
There should be no large housing estates due to lack of infrastructure
There is no proposed solution to traffic issues on the already congested main artery road between Rayleigh and Hockley, i.e. the B1013.
There is no public transport (trains or buses) to support the Airport Business Park
Based on the results of a resident survey in October 2009, seven out of every eight residents in Hockley opposes major redevelopment of Eldon Way / Foundry Industrial Estates
Based on the results of a resident survey in October 2009, if redevelopment of Eldon Way / Foundry Industrial Estates is enforced, the recommendations for change include a youth centre, a healthcare centre, a community centre and leisure facilities, with only 1% support for housing.
It contradicts RDC's own Retail & Leisure Study 2008 proposal to reclassify Hockley as a District centre - Hockley should be kept as a Village!


Proposed Gypsy Sites (GT4/5)

These options are not supported. As stated in the Core Strategy, gypsy sites are best suited to the west of the district due to transport links and access to services.
It is essential that any gypsy site developments are matched by appropriate infrastructure such as water / gas / electric supply, sewerage, access for refuse / recycling collection, access to healthcare and schools.
Hockley already has a small site off Lower Road. and the development of additional gypsy sites in the Hockley area either at Plumberow Avenue or off Lower Road is not supported for the following reasons:
Loss of countryside, greenbelt and open spaces in and around Hockley
Hockley is already highly developed with relatively less open spaces than other regions in the district.
Access to transport links and utility services (water, gas, electric, sewerage) is poor in both proposed Hockley sites

Town Centre Boundaries

Option TC7 (the current town centre boundaries remain) is recommended.
The exclusion of the shops to the west of Hockley (Option TC8) is not supported - regeneration (not expansion) of this row of shops / businesses must be encouraged without detriment to the village feel.
Eldon Way / Foundry Industrial Estates (Option TC8), whether remaining as industrial / leisure or redeveloped for other purposes, should not be included in the town centre boundaries.

District Centre versus Town Centre

Option TC10 should be adopted to redesignate Hockley as a district centre. This would protect the area from expansion and preserve the village feel that was requested by residents in both the Hockley Parish Plan and in the recent resident survey in October 2009. This must not however be allowed to prevent opportunities for minor regeneration and improvements.
The Retail & Leisure Study in 2008 indicated maintaining and developing existing strengths rather than retail expansion. Expansion of the town centre to include Eldon Way / Foundry Industrial Estates is not promoted within the Retail & Leisure Study and would detract the focus away from maintaining and improving the current town centre.

Primary Shopping Area

Option TC16 (existing primary and secondary shopping frontages) should remain the Primary Shopping Area and encourage minor regeneration and improvements of the secondary frontages. Option TC15 is too restrictive and does not fairly support those shops / businesses away from the 'centre'.

I was invited to attend a meeting at the Day Centre on Monday 12th April 2010 regards a proposed development of Domestic Dwellings in Hullbridge extending the habitable boundary by approximately 30% courtesy of my neighbour informing me as I did not have the pleasure of receiving any information from RDC.

At the meeting I was informed that you have already forwarded the incumbent Planning Application, is this correct?

I am surprised and disappointed that advance notice was not given that Planning applications were being forwarded, to at least allow me the opportunity to discuss and put forward my objections to your proposals which affects the whole Community. And it is unacceptable, to give me such short notice that a response is required by the 30th April.

I was also surprised that the Planning Officer (Mr Scrutton) was unable to answer questions put to him from the floor.

I wish to register my strong protest at this proposal, particularly as, in my view, it will have a detrimental affect on primary issues such as flood (Watery Lane floods every year several times), drainage, roads-access from and to Hullbridge and the obvious affect on our Doctors.

I was also informed that 18 gypsy sites will be erected in various parts of Rochford and some sites will be located in Hullbridge, I do strongly object to the site's which will have a detrimental affect on Health and Safety issues.

Does the Council require the financial burden to be funded by me.

I am astounded that the green belt land is to be used for this development without any explanation why re-designation has not gone through the proper procedures.

Some of our residents consider that the social housing is to be provided for the benefit of 'economic migrants' and not for the Essex Community.

I have lived in Hullbridge for some 40 years and in my retirement years I looked forward to continue a peaceful 'village' life.

Could you please respond to this letter.

Against re development

I strongly oppose the development of 250 or more houses in Hullbridge.

I chose to live in a village and moved here from London 7 years ago to improve my quality of life in my retirement, and feel safe living in the community and feel this would be compromised if the development went ahead.

Also I am against the travellers site.

We moved to Hullbridge on 19th March 2010, attracted to the village feel and rural character. We were therefore horrified to learn three weeks later (by way of posters displayed on lamp posts throughout the village) that Rochford District Council are proposing to use land in Hullbridge for the construction of 500 houses and for gypsy sites. We are obviously very concerned by this and would appreciate your response to the following question.

1) Why did this not show up in the local searches made when we purchased this house? Surely this is a legal requirement?
2) How did you intend to deal with the increased traffic volumes especially when Watery Lane is closed due to local flooding?
3) Where do you intend to school the children from these new houses? I am informed that the nearest senior school is oversubscribed and the old Park school was demolished for more housing.
4) At what point will there be no further housing developments, will we have to wait until there is no green belt land left?
5) If we are having to provide land for travellers does that mean they will be required to pay for the services they receive via council tax just as we the existing residences of Hullbridge do? If not perhaps you could explain why.
6) This development would increase the village population by 30%, this is an exceptionally large increase which would have a detrimental affect on the current community. How do you justify such an increase?

We strongly appose this development and await your response.

We moved to Hullbridge on 19th March 2010, attracted to the village feel and rural character. We were therefore horrified to learn three weeks later (by way of posters displayed on lamp posts throughout the village) that Rochford District Council are proposing to use land in Hullbridge for the construction of 500 houses and for gypsy sites. We are obviously very concerned by this and would appreciate your response to the following question.

1) Why did this not show up in the local searches made when we purchased this house? Surely this is a legal requirement?
2) How did you intend to deal with the increased traffic volumes especially when Watery Lane is closed due to local flooding?
3) Where do you intend to school the children from these new houses? I am informed that the nearest senior school is oversubscribed and the old Park school was demolished for more housing.
4) At what point will there be no further housing developments, will we have to wait until there is no green belt land left?
5) If we are having to provide land for travellers does that mean they will be required to pay for the services they receive via council tax just as we the existing residences of Hullbridge do? If not perhaps you could explain why.
6) This development would increase the village population by 30%, this is an exceptionally large increase which would have a detrimental affect on the current community. How do you justify such an increase?

We strongly appose this development and await your response.

NO

TO ALL

THE DROSS PLANNING

BEING SENT TO RAWRETH

WE DO NOT WANT INDUSTRY

TRAVELLORS

OR MORE HOUSING

RE: Proposed building of 770 new houses, sites for Gypsies between Rawreth Lane and London Road, and possibly a Tesco

We are writing to strongly protest about the above captioned. Despite there being a 'public consultation' on the above since 17th March 2010, it was purely by chance and word of mouth from neighbours that we have been made aware of this.

We have a fundamental problem with the fact that most of the local community are still unaware of this proposal which will severely impact all those who live in the Rayleigh area. We do think that Rochford District Council has a duty to disclose something as meaningful as this to their tax paying households and indeed could easily have mailshot us all as they have all our addresses! At the very least this proposal could have been laminated and tied to lampposts around the area, if it were a question of cost!




We feel as residents in Rayleigh that our Council has severley let us down by even thinking it possible that we would wish or consent to a traveller camp within or anywhere near us. Our crime rate with go through the roof, our beautiful town will no longer be so, we will be unable to move (as who would want by choice to live near that). Many people have said they will no longer pay their council tax should this go ahead, if its good enough for the traveller community it will be good enough for us. Unfortunately there is a stigma attached to these folk, who do nothing but cause havoc and upset wherever they settle and still do nothing to change that stigma. If these people were travellers, please explain why they need pre-fab homes.

The congestion in Rayleigh High Street and access via London and Crown Hills is currently a nightmare. Even out of rush hour it has taken more than 30 minutes to drive from homes past the station and down to the Weir! What can you be thinking by introducing another 770 houses to this already crowded area? On the basis that each home will have an average of 2 cars and 2 children, how will our infrasstructure - roads and schools - cope with this? It is quite impossible and should not be allowed consent.

Our family wish to formally state our disagreement with these plans and have copied this email to our local MP.

Please keep me updated of any news/meetings on this subject.


Petition received with approx 230 signatures, for further details see paper copy.