Gypsy and Traveller Sites

I beleive I will be one in a long list of people that have mailed you.

I can not beleive that the above proposal can go ahead without the people of Rayleigh being made fully aware.

I object to the way this has been handled but I totally object to this proposal and the chaos on our roads and community it will cause.

If you need me to come and see you or speak in person please let me know

RE: Proposed building of 770 new houses & sites for Gypsies between Rawreth Lane and London Road


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.

With regards to the housing and industrial plans for green fields between london road and the old A130 and Rawreth lane, I am totally opposed to these and wish to
object to housing options NLR1, NLR2, NLR3, NLR4 and NLR5.

This is for a number of very valid reasons. The loss of agricultural land, increase in traffic and polution, green belt boundaries which cannot be defended in the future
and the encouragement of merging between rayleigh and rawreth.

I would also like to object to the traveller sites and the problems which would arise from these in the area.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Proposed housing options - NLR1, NLR2, NLR3, NRL4 and NRL5 - I am writing in connection to your proposed building of 770 homes in the Rayleigh area. I feel that this would cause a great problem due to the fact the our roads and services in the area would not be able to withstand the extra load.

I moved to Rayleigh some thirteen years ago from Dagenham. We moved here as it is a rural environment but within in commuting to London. Since living here the traffic has got worst by the year due to extra houses being built. If you build and extra 770 homes the roads in the area would come to a stand still in rush hour not to mention the effect it would have on the environment. Our schools in the area are to capacity as the class sizes are in my view to large at present without any other children coming into the area not to mention that our doctors/police etc. which would not be able to cope with the increase. You mention that the A130 has helped with the traffic in the area but you should really look into the fact that the majority of cars travelling use the A127 and A13 which are grid locked during rush hour.

The Proposed Traveller Site - GT1, GT2, GT3 and GT7 - I oppose and additional traveller site in both London Road and Rawreth Lane. I feel that there must be other sites that can be used. I know that the site on the A130 (just passed the Rawreth Lane) is tidy but many sites that I have seen have been unkept and a health hazard with waste product and feel that this would spoil our lovely fields.

I don't understand why you feel that a new industrial estate needs to be built. Surely, there are enough sites already built that are not being used to there capacity due to the current economic situation that could be regenerated which would save money and as you state help with employment.

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

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

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

I would like to raise my concerns and objections to both the plans for a Travellers site and planning for over 500 houses in Rayleigh.

At times especially mornings for the school run it is difficult to join Hatfield Road from Falcon close. It is also difficult in get access into London Road even with the lights. With additional traffic in London Road the journey to and from town and school will be more congested then ever. There is not infa structure to deal with the additional houses already built in London Road on the new development so how are we expected to cope with the proposed extra new homes?

I would like to express my objections and concerns around the proposed development plans for the west end of Rayleigh. I appreciate that there is a need for new housing and that your proposals form part of a central government initiative, but there has already been a significant amount of development in this area over the past few years, and there are other brownfield sites in other parts of the district that would more than satisfy the initiative.



Rawreth Industrial Site Development



With regard to the 220 proposed homes being built on what is currently the Rawreth Industrial Estate, I can see the reasoning for considering this site, the fact that it is already developed land means that there will be little impact to the appearance and traffic flow in the area, however, it is obvious that the strain on an already stretched local infrastructure will only be made worse with all the additional residents. Currently as you will be aware the local secondary school (Sweyne Park) is oversubscribed at every annual in-take, and this will only become more of an issue as more people move into the area.



If these properties are built on the Rawreth Industrial Estate, I suggest the only site in the area that should be considered for an alternative employment site would be the area of land at the corner of the A127 and the A1245. This area is perfectly positioned for access to the A127, A1245 and the A130, and will therefore ensure that the majority of industrial traffic is kept away from the already busy A129 and Rayleigh High Street.



Development of additional 550 Homes



I vehemently object to the proposal to develop 550 properties in the area between London Road and Rawreth Lane, which your document has labelled as NLR1, NLR2, NLR3, NLR4 & NLR5 for a number of reasons:



West Rayleigh has had its fair share of development over the past few years with the development of the Victoria Grange Estate, the Birds Estate, the Little Wheatley Estate, as well as some other smaller developments off the London Road and Louis Drive areas. There have been no new schools, doctor's surgeries etc built to support these developments to date, where as I understand they were promised, so past experience would suggest that the same will apply this time around. This would not be acceptable as the current infrastructure is already stretched.



This development would result in an unnecessary loss of agricultural land.



Part of the area is flood plain, which currently acts as a natural defence for the properties currently on and around London Road, so if this land is built on these properties will inevitably be at greater risk of flooding.



The A129 London Road and Rayleigh High Street are already busy, and at peak times traffic barely moves. Any further development will only make this worse.



The NLR3 and NLR5 sites are on the land currently occupied by the Rayleigh Town Sports and Social Club, and has been on the current site since 1972 as a lessee of Rochford Council. The club has sports pitches currently used by 8 adult football teams, junior mini soccer teams, 4 adult and three junior cricket teams. Having been involved in junior football myself, I know that there are already insufficient sports facilities in the local area, so losing this facility as well would be nothing short of scandalous.

The club also has its own clubhouse which is used by the local community for various social, family and fundraising events, this will be a great loss to the community, which will probably never be replaced.



There is currently a clear green belt boundary which will need to be moved. Once development has taken hold, the boundaries will be increasingly difficult to defend. So my fear is that the whole area will eventually become one huge housing estate. At the moment, as you come into Rayleigh from the Carpenters Arms roundabout you get the sense of countryside which is easy on the eye, this will all be gone if development takes place in this area.



Gipsy and Traveller Sites



I strongly object to the proposal to accommodate Gipsies and Travellers in the West Rayleigh area, there is no real reason to do so as there are other sites, such as the area on the A1245 north of Rayleigh, which are currently occupied that can be legalised. This will bring Rochford district up to quota without creating any further sites.



The GT3 area should not even be given consideration, as once this area becomes occupied and accessible, the surrounding area will inevitably become illegally occupied creating a much larger than intended site. The point mentioned in the document about Gipsies and Travellers being able to integrate with the local community is completely invalid, as they will never want to, and neither will they ever be accepted by the local community. This has been evidenced by the experience of other sites around Essex. The only way integration will ever take place is if the Gipsies and Travellers are situated on single plot sites with reasonable distance between them, and not on larger sites where they will form their own exclusive community.



Therefore I propose that if you do intend to create (unnecessary) additional sites, then you do make them small single plot sites at a number of different locations around the Rochford district.



Finally I wish to express my utter disgust at the lack of information supplied by the council regarding the above issues, no doubt you have fulfilled any legal obligation by putting some sort of notice in the corner of a local paper somewhere knowing full well it would go unnoticed by the majority of the district. These are important issues for the people of Rayleigh and our consideration should be foremost in any proposals or decisions made. The fact that I and many others were made aware of all this by the good work of a local residents association as little as 2 weeks ago, is quite frankly disgraceful. I urge you to take steps to improve this matter in the future.

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

Objection to housing in Hullbridge and traveller Sites. See paper copy for details.

Objection to housing in Hullbridge and traveller Sites. See paper copy for details.

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

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

Objection to Traveller Sites. See paper copy for details.

Objection to Traveller Sites. See paper copy for details.

Objection to housing in Hullbridge and traveller Sites. See paper copy for details.

Once again we would take the opportunity to remind you that we are still awaiting a response to questions we have previously raised on various planning matters e.g. HAAP and JAAP.



We would also like to make the following comments in respect of the above document:-



2 Residential pg 4 - how are these figures arrived at ( I understand by another Conservative controlled quango)? How can it be blithely stated that 250 houses are to be built per annum post 2021, surely at some point building will have to cease otherwise there will be no room?

No mention is made of the number of dwellings that have already been built in the area since 2006 and the fact that some of these are still for sale long after completion (e.g. Follygate development on Aldermans Hill near Folly Lane in Hockley)? What are these numbers and why aren't they shown?

How have the figures for each location been arrived at? Seems very arbitrary

The council seems to show a lack of appreciation for quality of life for existing residents and just seeks to cram in more and more development - bewildering having seen this morning that whole estates new properties in Northern Ireland are being demolished because their housing boom never quite materialised and surely something that nationally needs to be properly considered?



Pg 5 - I refer you back to our comments on the HAAP (attached). Why is the council so obsessed with supporting the overdevelopment of the area and concreting over everything, especially as the road infrastructure cannot support large numbers of houses along the B1013. The HAAP is still at consultation stage and I believe 95% of respondents rejected the Council's proposals for redevelopment as unsuitable.



Pg 6 - It could alternatively be stated that the Council rejects proposals for significant redevelopment as the infrastructure is incapable of receiving the necessary upgrade. In recent years RDC has lost a Hospital and a Secondary School (Park in Rayleigh) to housing development, even with significant redevelopment Southend Hospital will not be able to cope and the roads in the region (especially the B1013) will be at capacity.



Pg 8 - Rawreth - there is already a green buffer - undeveloped land! - Development will lead to the joining up of Rayleigh to Rawreth, something that the Council has always previously sought to avoid - the merger of separate community areas. A theme repeated on pages 16 & 18, which effectively will merge Rochford and Hawkwell.



Pg 19-24 West Hockley development - As mentioned above the Follygate development has I am certain only been completed since 2006 and comprises 14 flats. If there is a need for 50 dwellings in this area at least 14 have already been built reducing the required number to 36 (and that's without other developments that have taken place along the B1013 in West Hockley where single properties have been demolished to be replaced by 2 or 3 new ones). So it is difficult to justify squeezing any more properties in this area, particularly as significant development in this area takes no account of the poor road access (Folly Lane is often congested and Fountain Lane is one-way) and will also increase traffic onto the B1013, where it is not unusual to have tailbacks from the Spa to Folly Lane. Congestion problems are often exacerbated by horse riders travelling between the stables beyond Church Road and the Hockley Woods Bridle Way. Option WFH4 also makes no mention of the impact this will have on either the small woodland nor pupils at Hockley Primary School as lessons are disrupted by ongoing building works.



Pg 28 South Hawkwell SH3, as with Rochford there is a danger of the merger of two distinct areas Rochford and Hawkwell



Hullbridge and Canewdon - Both areas have particularly poor public transport links and are low lying - has the reality of this been properly considered? Council are apparently committed to getting people using public transport to cut down carbon emissions etc and to be located near their places of work, but, particularly with 500 properties in Hullbridge, this would clearly run contrary to this policy. Nationally recommendations are being made to avoid development of flood plains and yet construction appears to be welcomed on areas below 10m



West Gt Wakering WGW3 & 4 - As with many of the above points the potential merger of areas and use of low lying land with poor public transport.





Overall preference should be given to redevelopment of industrial sites which have closed. The danger is however that RDC's pursuit of Brownfield sites leads us to situations where agricultural land is used for something like a Christmas Tree farm and is then able to be classed as a Brownfield site (see Hawkwell) or worse a company decides to shut a perfectly good functioning site in order to sell the land for housing (Eon call centre in Rayleigh - significantly another site that hasn't apparently been taken into account since a number of properties have already been built in that location).



Gypsy and Traveller sites pg 62 - Again no explanation as to how these figures have been arrived at; or indeed, why.



The following questions also need to be answered:-



Why can't Travellers use commercial pitches like everyone else?



What would happen if the Council didn't allocate any additional pitches?


Where are the existing pitches?



How are Travellers allowed to exploit planning laws on illegal pitches and have access to public utilities (surely the council should be able to prevent the Utility companies from providing such services without planning permission)?



What fees does the council obtain from Travellers using pitches - e.g. Council Tax ?



How have the sites listed been selected? GT4 is particularly close to an historic site and



Why hasn't consideration been given to the strip of land beside the airport, identified in the JAAP as having little use and already fulfilling the function of serving a travelling community being the site of the circus every year?





Office space - pgs 81-88. Again not apparent how these figures are arrived at, there seems to be a fair amount of vacant sites including office space around the district. On the one hand seem to be saying that Eldon Way in Hockley is under pressure for alternative use because sites can't be let and on the other that you need to build more sites - can only be one or the other not both. Also don't believe that this takes account of Eon closure - if you refuse planning permission for the site then there is clearly a large amount of vacant office space in Rayleigh!





Pg 90 - Southend Airport - We refer to our previous objections to development of this site attached





4 pg 98 - what is "minimum" development - undefined and irrelevant term - refer to my previous comments on the Core Strategy (attached)



Pg 108 Upper Roach Valley - Certainly the area without development should be as wide as possible. However given the proximity of other woodland e.g. Betts Wood and Folly Wood - can they not be incorporated? Is it not possible to extend the area bordering Hockley and Rayleigh across the farmland to the Railway line or indeed the east side of Hockley to ensure that buffers are maintained between Hockley/Hawkwell and Rayleigh to the West and Rochford to the East?



Pg 111 - interesting selection for a school given that Southend Council have agreed that as many flights as possible should take off in this direction. As objectors to airport expansion we would support a school being sited here if this would prevent airport expansion and aircraft being directed over residential areas of Hawkwell and Hockley as seems to happen at present



Pg 111-115 - Whilst not knowing any of these areas in any great detail concern would be that expansion of the schools and access would lead to pressure to develop other adjacent sites , which were previously inaccessible, putting further strain on Green Belt.



Pg 116 - 125 - Not sure what the document is driving at here. If the suggestion is that none of these education sites should be used for anything other than the existing function and not be sold off then this is of course sensible. Although, this overlooks the fact that many of them are locked in residential areas and cannot expand. Indeed spare land adjacent to Fitzwimarc School was sold some while back and the front playground has now been lost to car parking. It would be more sensible therefore for the council to propose protection of the areas immediately adjacent to schools to enable them to expand if and when necessary rather than use existing space for non-educational purposes e.g. car parking. The current proposals are just a continuation of the lack of foresight that has seen school sites developed and then pressure to build new ones or expand existing sites e.g. loss of Park School in Rayleigh.





Pg 125-127 - Have to question what the protection actually offers - there doesn't seem to be a great deal of protection offered by Green Belt status and we would welcome additional protection. The map however makes it almost impossible to see the full extent (or limitation) of the proposals. From the areas known to us would suggest that Land South of Nelson Gardens, Hockley Woods and Turret House Open Space should all link up and provide a buffer stretching from rear of Wellington Road where it adjoins B1013 right over to Albert Road and all the way up to and beyond Hockley Woods, but this isn't apparent from the map.



Would also question why so little consideration is given to area between Hockley and Hullbridge, around Betts Wood, Folly Lane etc, all open land and part of public footpath network and currently affording good views across open land. Similarly Gusted Hall area?, Belchamps? Etc all omitted



Pg 130 Leisure Facilities - Less than 7% population within 20 minutes of 3 different leisure facilities. Although no definitions are given of "leisure facilities" I'd really question the accuracy of this statement. Leaving aside "fringe" activities such as snooker; bowling and fishing there are least 3 Sports Centres in Rayleigh, Hawkwell, Wakering, (plus just outside district Thundersley; Eastwood etc) offering a variety of activities and most of the population live within 10 minutes drive of these. There are numerous footpaths and cycleways, local gyms and dance studios, football pitches and children's play areas in every town (including adjacent to the sports centres) and a number of community and church halls offering leisure activities for adults and children e.g. Judo





Pg 135 - As with above these need to form part of the leisure strategy - certainly our local community centre (Hockley) is under-utilised and from knowledge of Grange that too wasn't used enough. But why are other sites omitted? Why are the sites listed given preference over many other community sites e.g. Hockley Public Hall; Castle Road Hall and why isn't more consideration given to encouraging schools to use their facilities outside of school hours/term?



With or without protection the fear is that the Council will offload these to "Developers" as with Clements Hall and the real likelihood is that sites such as Grange and Hockley Community Centre will then be deemed "uncommercial" and closed by any developer before being redeveloped as housing



Pg 136 Town Centres - There appears to be a lack of recognition that traditional town centres are declining anyway and therefore if there is housing pressure this could be accommodated by contracting the retail area.



Incidentally with regard to Rayleigh and Rochford there was a recent article in the Evening Standard that referred to studies demonstrating that one-way systems exacerbate the decline of town centres as drivers pass through too quickly and are discouraged from stopping.



For Hockley - again contraction of the area to the West needs to be considered, this area has suffered in every recession and shops here have stood unoccupied for years (e.g. Old Post Office Bathroom Store and could provide housing. However other business are (hopefully surviving). One of the main problems in the centre is lack of parking (the car park is located too far from the shopping area and now that there are good leisure facilities (e.g. bowling alley in Eldon Way access from the High St could be easier (many of the stores have parking to the rear and with the loss of Alldays there is an opportunity for another access point). Foundry contains many vacant office sites that could be better utilised, particularly if there is housing pressure. Full consideration should be given to reallocating it as a District Centre, but this shouldn't mean that it is neglected.



We've previously commented on HAAP and Rayleigh development and would repeat those comments for town centre development.

Objection to Traveller Sites. See paper copy for details.

Objection to Traveller site G T 4. See paper copy for details.

With regards to the Traveller/Gypsy site and new housing proposals. We object to your proposals. Why built on green belt, playing fields and flood plain. Disrupting peoples lives when it is unnecessary

Having failed to evict the travellers from the site at the junction of Rawreth Lain and the A1245 why not make that one legal and find a smaller site outside Rayleigh to for fill requirements. Or does Rayleigh get what Rochford doesn't want?

The Industrial Site could be situated on the junction of the A127 and A1245 this area is already an industrial area and would give good road links for companies . As a bonus this would clean up this site which looks like a tip.

The houses could be built on brown land adjacent to the A1245 which Rawreth Parish Council says can be used and it would accommodate all the housing required.

I am not sure who to send this too as I have found you site very confusing, I am hoping you can send this on to the relevant department.

I have recently been informed that there is a plan in circulation to build 770 new houses in Rayleigh, together with a legalised Travellers site. My partner and myself are getting married at the end of this year and are planning to start a family next year, we are very concerned in the increase this proposal will do to the current population in Rayleigh. There are only just enough schools in Rayleigh to cope with the current population and I have be told by my friends who have children in the nearing schools that they are already at maximum capacity. I have lived in Rayleigh all my life and wish for my children to have the option to attend the same schools I did.

Also, Rayleigh is extremely busy during the rush hours and weekends, increasing the population is going to make it near impossible to travel around Rayleigh and nearing towns.

Increasing the population will also automatically have an impact on crime and noise population especially in the evening around closing times for pubs and the Pink Tooth Brush.

We strongly object to this proposal and would like our concerns noted.

I am writing in reference to object to the proposal to build another 770 houses in Rayleigh. Rayleigh in recent years has had its fair share of new houses. I have lived in Rayleigh all my life. I have seen the growth of the town within my short life span, some for the worst and some for the better. It used to be a small town. We are already experiencing the effects of over crowding. For example the roads around Rayleigh are frequently congested making driving locally far from pleasurable. More people will create even more congestion thus extending the time of our journeys even more. Getting a doctors appointment, when you are actually ill, is always a struggle. This proves that the community is already over populated and local services are already suffering. I strongly feel there are more suitable towns/areas in which to build new houses.



Can you also tell me if its true that a Gypsy site and a Tesco are to be located in Rayleigh? I also wish to strongly oppose both of these. We certainly do not need yet another supermarket. I would like to see a swimming pool though within Rayleigh. This would be more beneficial to local people young and old alike. I would also like to know if a Gypsy site is erected that their occupants are subject to paying taxes like everyone else. If not I would like to apply for my pitch now. I only found out about all these proposals through word of mouth. Im very disappointed that we were not sent any information to any future development plans but I have surprisingly received my council tax statement, strange that.



Please keep me informed of any news or meeting on all of the above. I have also forwarded this email to my MP Mark Frances & Jackie Dillnutt (Lim Dem councillor)

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

Objection to Traveller site. See paper copy for details.

Objection to NLR1,2,3,4,5 and GT1,2,3,6,7 See paper copy for details.

Comments on the Traveller sites.
See paper copy for details.

It has been brought to our attention via meetings and various literature of your plans to build 770 new homes on farm land/green fields/greenbelt land around the area of London Road, Rayleigh, Rawreth Lane, and the old A130 in the Rayleigh area.

We strongly object to the above proposals for the following reasons:

1. An increase in traffic, causing even more congestion around the whole of Rayleigh area, especially during rush hour, which is becoming totally congested during those times. (no proposal for new road structure in Rayleigh High Street or the old A130).
2. Loss of farm land for agricultural needs.
3. Destructive effect on local wildlife and eco system.
4. Loss of open spaces for health benefits both for local children to play, and adults to walk i.e in Wheatley Woods.
5. Loss of trees important for sustaining life and the future of the planet.
6. Flooding caused by over building (already a problem in the local area from over development).
7. Loss of green belt land.
8. Extremely busy traffic up into Rayleigh High Street, which is already very congested discouraging people from using local shops, and perhaps going to Chelmsford or Lakeside.

Other questions this raises are what would be the cost of construction and taking into consideration the removal of pylons in this area.

Public transpor (at present poor)
More schools needed
More doctor surgeries
More dentist
More leisure facilities

More concerning to myself and the local area is the proposal of 2 legal sites in the area for travellers. I feel the proposed areas are too close to local schools, residential areas and businesses. Some concerns are:-

1. What happens to their sewage?
2. What happens to their rubbish?
3. What about doctors surgeries for them?
4. Who pays for the clean up of the site?
5. What does past experience say about crime levels?
6. Extra policing to prevent the site from expanding and to protect law and order?

Will they be liable for council tax? if not why not and where will the cost for the above come from?

As for the idea of integrating with the local community, I am sure we are all well aware this will not happen, due to the way they choose to live their lives, it is against everything that we all stand for.

Objection to the traveller sites.
See paper copy for details.

Comments on Traveller Sites and Objection to Option GT5. See paper copy for details.