Rawreth Industrial Estate

Raweth Lane is already overdeveloped. However, this is existing industrial land. If acceptable and suitable relocation of existing local businesses can be accomodated, then this option should be considered. The environmental impact of the relocation of the loacl work force must be of prime concern.

By building on existing industrial land the environmental impact would be lessoned.

If this site is of poor quality and a residential site would mean a better enviroment for the area, then this might be a good option

Any proposals regarding development of this area need to be considered in the light of proposals for development North Of London Road (NLR1 - 5 above). The site currently sits at the very edge of the built up area rather than 'within a residential area' and I disagree that there is 'excellent accessibility to the highway network'.

PPS4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth

This document was published in December 2009 and is material to the extent that it is likely to alter the extent to which RDC can rely on redeveloping its existing employment sites for alternate uses as set out in the SCS. In this context making the most efficient and effective use of sites within the Green Belt is important and justifies the need to plan flexibly by allowing scope for additional housing on identified Green Belt sites.

Policy EC2 of PPS4 provides direct policy advice on planning for sustainable economic growth. Criterion a) seeks a positive approach through identifying priority areas where there is deprivation and where regeneration is urgently required. This is not the case with the this Industrial area. Criterion b) seeks support for existing business sectors and planning for their expansion and contraction. This is a well used estate. A strategy for their removal would be at odds with PPS4. Criterion i) only encourages alternative uses if it is on vacant or derelict buildings. This is not the case at the Rawreth Lane estate.

Rawreth Industrial Estate contains a range of buildings however the existence of ownership constraints or any other legal constraints are unknown. The longevity of leases is important if this site is to be reasonably included. There has been no assessment of the viability of removing the existing uses and whether residential can replace them. The loss of over 5 ha of employment land which constitutes 1 of only 2 main employment areas in Rayleigh would significantly erode the supply of land for economic development in this town and this will be contrary to PPS4 (Policy EC2). I note the aims of SCS Policy ED4 but this site is on the western side of the District and serves a purpose. The appellant's have objected to this policy through the SCS and will be testing it at the Examination. There is therefore uncertainty whether the site will be delivered for housing and the amount. On this basis it cannot be classed, at present, as a development opportunity.

PPS3 criteria focus attention on the reuse of vacant and derelict land or underused employment areas (paragraph 38). This is not the case here. I find, as I have for the Eldon Way site, that the objection lodged to the SCS make the quantum of housing from this source a distinct uncertainty. I conclude that this further reinforces my view that there is insufficient Green Belt land devoted to housing development and that in the monger term more housing will need to be found on Green Belt sites.

The redevelopment of Rawreth Industrial Estate for housing land would enhance the area. The estate is scruffy and does not fit well with adjoining residential areas. Noise and the burning of rubbish is an unwelcome nuisance. This will be more of an issue if the proposed residential development between London Road and Rawreth Lane goes ahead. The cost of assisting established business within this estate to relocate must be factored into the plan.

These 220 houses will adjoin the proposed 550 houses in 'West Rayleigh'.

This could turn into a 770 house development. The Defensible Green Belt Boundary will disappear with these other 550 houses and its Defensible Green Belt Boundary will disappear with the new industrial site which will fill the gap up to the A1245!

The Defensible Green Belt Boundary is not even being defended in this set of proposals.

The site is immediately adjacent to residential areas and contains some uses that are incompatible with this location demonstrated by the fact that there are ongoing complaints from nearby residents regarding the site and the effect it has on their health and amenities. The redevelopment of the site for residential use would benefit the immediate neighbours and the wider area. It is preferable to further encroachment upon the Green Belt. There are appropriate sites fairly close by to accommodate the heavy industrial uses which would mean that the disruption to businesses from relocation would be kept to a minimum.

Does not encroach upon green belt.

Is close to main roads so doesn't present a local traffic problem

This site is in multiple ownership and may not be deliverable for housing .If the freeholders are offered generous terms with relocation to a secure modern site with good transport links then I would support the use for houses .This of course means the new site satisfies the criteria for use in green belt .ideally it should be land of low attractiveness and low agricultural value .Added to the proposed 550 houses to the west it makes for further congestion on the inadequate infrastructure .

Housing on this land would be preferable to the Industrial Estate, however, this site must be moved to a completely suitable situation and the owners/business people should be consulted and offered an agreed suitable alternative.

The existing site is occupied by multiple established users on the western edge of Rayleigh. It is an important local industrial area which provides a number of premises for small businesses, which would be difficult to relocate. The land is likely to be heavily contaminated and would require extensive remediation to support new housing development subject to viability issues. The site is a 25 minute walk from Rayleigh train station, and it is further to the Town Centre; there are no existing bus stops adjacent to the site and it therefore has a poor accessibility rating. Furthermore, the existing road network already suffers from congestion, and very heavy traffic movement. The existing industrial estate is within Flood Zone 3, is subject to a tree preservation order and is close to the setting of a listed building. Residential development is considered to be an unsuitable re-use of the site.

Rawreth Lane suffers from traffic congestion,and the development of the Asda supermarket and adjacent residential properties has increased this traffic congestion considerably. Developing this industrial area will only make matters worse

Background

Both the Core Strategy and the Site Allocations DPD identify Rawreth Industrial Estate for re-allocation to residential uses. For the reasons set out by Countryside Properties in their submissions to the Core Strategy (re-iterated below), we do not consider that the site is necessarily desirable, suitable or deliverable for residential development. We consider that the site can remain as an important source of local employment, and this should be reflected in both the Core Strategy and the Site Allocations DPD.

Representations

The representations to the Core Strategy raise significant concerns regarding both the desirability/suitability of redeveloping Rawreth Lane Industrial Estate, and the achievability of this proposal.

The Core Strategy seeks the provision of an equivalent area of land to compensate for redevelopment, and notes that this will require the use of Green Belt land. Although notionally the redevelopment of the Estate for housing will reduce the amount of housing in the Green Belt, there will be no lesser amount of Green Belt development in total. Indeed, it will be evident that the existing Estate is actually already over-crowded, with substantial on-street parking, limited opportunities for servicing, limited landscaping, and no space for firms to expand.

To meet current standards and design expectations, the replacement Industrial Estate will inevitably end up being materially larger than the existing site, if it is to be attractive to occupiers and if it is to meet the Council's expectations. Ironically, this proposal is therefore likely to lead to a greater loss of Green Belt than would be the case if the Estate were to stay in its current location.

We have reservations as to whether or not existing firms will be able to relocate in any event. The Council will note that many of the existing businesses are relatively 'low value' users, that are well established in their existing premises. They are likely to be paying relatively low rents, given the nature of the site. Even if new premises can be provided at equivalent rents, relocating a business is expensive. Existing (and often fixed) plant, equipment, tools, stocks and materials have to be moved, as well as the disruption to trading caused by moving. Even where uses operate primarily from open yards, new portacabins/buildings have to be paid for and installed. Relocation will be a substantial cost to these existing businesses, and if the existing estate is redeveloped, it has to be open to question as to how many would in fact be able to afford to relocate.

In the meantime, in advance of redevelopment, there is likely to be a disincentive to owners to invest in the existing infrastructure, and a lack of will to take on new long-term tenants. The effect is likely to be years of decline and job losses, before new land is brought forward. Whilst this may be compensated in the future by the creation of new employment at West Rayleigh, this is as much likely to be based on new investment and new enterprises, as it is the relocation of existing users from Rawreth Lane.

We are also doubtful as to whether or not redevelopment will be practically possible. The existing Estate contains numerous tenants, many of whom may have long term tenancies or even own their own premises. The site has a long history of potentially contaminative uses, which would be likely to add significantly to the cost of redevelopment for suburban residential development, and which would also make partial redevelopment very unlikely. There is therefore no certainty either that the land is genuinely available for redevelopment, or that redevelopment is viable.

In accordance with representations made by Countryside Properties to the Core Strategy, we consider either that the Estate should continue to be identified for commercial purposes, or at least that the Site Allocations Document does not prevent or prejudice continued commercial use or commercial re-development, even if an option for residential redevelopment remains.

I understand that 220 houses are to be built on this site in addition to the 550 houses adjacent to this area. The surrounding roads already suffer conjestion this amount of houses would exacerbate this. This area is also close to flood zones and building on the land will not improve this problem. Why has the number of houses not been listed in the heading? Why was this not included in West Rayleigh?

Consideration will have to be given to any potential contamination issues that might arise out of this sites previous use as an industrial estate.

Please see our general comments.

The replacement of Rawreth Industrial Estate with 220 residential dwellings appears to be a sensibile proposal and one that will benefit residents living around Rawreth Industrial Estate and prevent the use of greenbelt sites as this land has already been used for industrial uses. As long as the businesses are compenstated fairly, and given space on the new industrial estate, this is a very sensible idea and proposal.

Hello,


It has been brought to my attention by a colleague who attended the meeting last night about the proposed gypsy site on London Road, Rayleigh.


Why do you want to make us into the next Crays Hill? I appreciate you have a legal obligation to provide 18 gypsy pitches across the borough but why in turn do you want to move the Industrial site near Makro and re-locate it for more housing as well?


It seems more costly to move the industrial estate to London Road as well and who bears the cost? Who wants to drive into Rayleigh to see a Gypsy site, an industrial estate and lots of housing? The London Road is busy enough as it is, and it's impossible to get yourself registered in a new school, doctors or dentists as the town is already over-populated-new housing isn't going to help.


I understand again that you need to build more houses in the town-is a new school going to go along with this?


I'm sure you wouldn't like to have a gypsy site, industrial estate and lots of new housing on your door step, but what would a mear mortal like me know?


I get that you have to do it, but why not spread it about it so we keep some of our nice greenery when driving along the London Road?


Thanks,

To Whom It May Concern

I am writing to you as I strongly object to the proposed plans to build a further 550 houses on what is currently green belt land and an additional 220 on the Rawreth Industrial Estate.

Rayleigh has seen a surge of new houses built in the last 20 years, particularly in West Rayleigh and the Rawreth area, whilst there may have been a need for this, the promise of additional amenities has never materialised into anything more.

Our schools are oversubscribed; doctors and dentists have long waiting lists; and traffic and parking in the area is horrendous. Not to mention the fact that our children have nowhere to play safely anymore.

If these proposals go ahead and these houses are built, the existing and new properties are likely to be affected by flooding. There will be nowhere for the water to run; some houses in the area are already affected by this.

Employment in the area will also be affected. With the impending closure of Eon on London Road as well as HSBC in Southend, there are an additional 1000 unemployed people now looking for work in this area. How is bringing more people into the area going to help reduce the unemployment figure?

I believe that green belt land should be left exactly that. There isn't enough farmland and countryside left in this area, and once building works start it may not stop.

I understand the reasons why the Rawreth Industrial Estate needs moving, pollution, noise etc but for the same reasons I do not believe that by moving them to London Road this problem will be solved.

Some of the suggestions that have been raised previously include using the land on the junction of the A1245 and the A127. This is further away from residential areas and schools therefore a safer option for residents and less traffic congestion as well as providing easier access to the main roads.

With regards to the 550 new houses, maybe the site on the A1245 would be a better choice as it will not affect the green belt land but be built on what is currently brown belt land.
When making this decision, please seriously consider the impact on the current community and surroundings; and ensure ample facilities are provided time.

As a long term resident in Rayleigh, I am writing to lodge a complaint and opposition to the referenced proposals.

The complaint is due to the lack of public consultation which has taken place. As all residents will be affected by these plans, due to increased congestion, increased crime rate etc..., all residents in Rayleigh should be consulted. We learned of this through word of mouth.

The opposition is that such a housing development will further hamper traffic flow in the area. Rayleigh is already a crowded town, difficult to maneovre around, and more residents, housing and cars will compound these problems.

Also, these proposals would have a negative ecological effect to the area.

I also oppose the proposed development of new gypsy / traveller sites., We already have a site on the old Chelmsford Road, and there was a noticeable increase in crime when this opened. By considering additional sites or spaces on the doorstep of a town is an injustice against the town residents.

By considering these proposals, you are not considering the current residents who pay the taxes, that pay your wages.

We are writing to you as we strongly object to the proposed plans to build a further 550 homes on what is currently green belt land and an additional 220 on what is currently the Rawreth Industrial Estate site. The worry that all the residents of Rayleigh have is that once builders encroach on any of this land, they will not stop until it has all been built on!

Rayleigh has seen a surge of new homes built in the last 20 years, particularly in West Rayleigh and the Rawreth area, and whilst there may have been a need for this, the promise of additional amenities has never materialised. Our schools are oversubscribed, the local doctors and dentists have long waiting lists and traffic and parking in this area is absolutely horrendous! Not to mention the fact that our children have nowhere safe to play anymore. The green fields between London Road and Rawreth Lane should be left alone - NO houses, NO employment land and NO traveller sites, thank you! There isn't enough farmland and countryside left in this area as it is!
A better choice to site these homes would be on the A1245 as it will not affect the green belt land and would involve only brown belt land, but would still have good access to Battlesbridge Station.

Also, if these proposals do go ahead and these homes are built, the existing and new properties are likely to be affected by flooding as there will be nowhere for the water to run away. Some of the homes in the area are already affected by this.

Employment in the area will also be negatively affected. With the impending closure of Eon on London Road as well as HSBC in Southend, there will be an additional 1,000 unemployed people looking for work in this area. It would, therefore, be ludicrous to bring more people into the area who will then add to the local unemployment figures!

We do understand the reasons why the Rawreth Industrial Estate needs to move due to pollution, noise etc but, by the same token, we do not believe that by moving the site to London Road that this problem will be solved. In fact, it will be exactly the same, right next door to residential dwellings. Surely it would be better placed further out away from homes and schools and a good site would be at the junction of the A1245 and the A127. This would be a far safer option and would mean less traffic congestion with easier access to main roads.

All the residents of Rayleigh urge you to seriously consider the impact on the current community and surroundings when making your decision about our future.

I have looked very carefully at the proposal in the Framework document and would like you to consider the following when making your decisions.

1. Housing

I consider option WLR1 to be the better option for the 550 homes currently planned. This would retain the farmland and open spaces. It would also keep some of the traffic away from the London Road which is already a busy road and is very congested at peak times. However there would need to be considerable improvements to the infra structure and amenities to support this level of occupation.

I also understand that a further 220 homes are proposed for the Rawreth Industrial Estate when it is relocated. However this building plan is not in the document.

2. Traveller/Gypsy sites

While I appreciate that you are obligated to make provision for travellers I think it would be a mistake to provide one huge site encompassing 15-18 pitches as this could lead to the same sort of problems experienced in Crays Hill. Travellers, in the main, do not want to integrate with the local population but may be more inclined to do so if the sites are smaller and dotted around the area so that no one community has to bear to total impact.GT1 and GT7 offer the best option but perhaps they could be smaller than indicated.

3. Industrial Areas

E18 seems to be the best option for a new industrial area. It is close to the A127, the A1245 and the A130 and is more suitable for the heavy lorries which would need to access the site. The existing Rawreth Industrial Estate could be relocated here and there would be space for additional businesses too.

4. Town Boundaries

I love our town and would like to keep the town boundaries as they are. It is a thriving area and in my opinion recent improvements made by the council have helped. However access to the town from London Road is restricted to Crown Hill and London Hill, both of which are very congested at peak times. Let us keep this as a shopping area. Adding more offices and other types of business will not improve our town.

5. Open Spaces and Leisure Facilities

When considering this amount of development you must ensure that there are ample leisure and sports facilities for the population together with the woods and walks we currently enjoy. Without them the area will turn into a concrete jungle containing a lot of miserable and unfit people.

6. Medical Matters

While not in your document, consideration should be given to the health of residents. Currently our doctors' surgeries are at full capacity and only available four and a half days a week, so provision should be made for at least one other surgery. The site of the Off License on London Road (which is now closed) would make an ideal area for a community clinic there being off road parking space which is not available close to the clinic in Eastwood Road.

Re: Relocating the Rawreth Lane Industrial Estate

As a general rule, I have no objections to building new houses on an old industrial site, as long as the relevant facilities are also built, i.e.
Doctors, parks and schools.

In order to accommodate these 220 new homes it is VITAL that a new school is built as I do not believe the 4 schools in the local vicinity (St Nicholas, Downhall, Our Lady of Ransom and Glebe) can accommodate them without detrimental effect. IF THE NEW SCHOOL IS NOT GOING TO BE BUILT THEN I OBJECT TO THE HOUSES BEING BUILT!


Re: Relocating Rawreth Lane Industrial Estate

I strongly object to it being put anywhere on the London Road (A129) in West Rayleigh, as all industrial estates should be kept well away from residential areas. This is especially the case with Rawreth Lane Industrial Estate as it is experiencing lots of dust pollution. West Rayleigh would then be expected to put up with more traffic congestion, traffic pollution and dust pollution.

Re: Development Ref: NLR1-5

I also strongly object to a further 550 houses being built on both greenbelt land and a floodplain. I do not believe we should ever build houses on either as this is just asking for trouble bearing in mind our current climate. Floodplains are there for a very important reason!

I also feel the traffic it would cause down the A129 would be horrific as this road is already a very busy and congested road.

There is no way the local schools can accommodate a further 550 houses.

I believe West Rayleigh should/could not accommodate ANY more developments!
Our infrastructure cannot cope, i.e. Travel, schooling, doctors and sewerage.

Re: Gypsy & Travelers site Ref GT3

I do not feel the best place for the travelers site is down the A129. There is already a travelers site on the A1245, between Rayleigh and Rawreth, why not make this site bigger? Why lose more greenfields in an already built up area. I therefore feel option GT2 is the best solution.

I feel West Rayleigh is being bombarded with potential developments which will totally ruin the area - 770 house, an industrial estate and travelers site.

DO NOT BUILD EVERYWHERE AND RUIN OUR GREEN SPACE.

To meet the number of new jobs required in the RSS, if sites are de-allocated, then additional employment sites will be required. As the supply of employment land within the District is limited, any new sites will require the release of Green Belt land. As these sites will be outside of the existing urban areas, it is unlikely that these sites will be in as sustainable locations as the existing employment sites.

This site has very good accessibility, with links to the road network and close to the train station.

Instead of developing the whole site for residential; it would be more appropriate to redevelop the site for a mixed use scheme, including an element of new purpose built commercial space to meet current employment demands, in accordance with the provisions of PPS1 and PPS4.

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

I have no real objection to the 220 proposed homes being built on what is currenly the Rawreth Industrial Estate, as I can see the reasoning behind it, the fact that it is already developed land means that there will be little impact to the appearance and traffic flow in the area. The only issue real issue I see here is that the local infrastructure may struggle to cope with 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, the 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 has it's 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 has 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 natual 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 is 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 faciilities in the local area, so losing this facility as well would be nothing short of scandalous.
The club also has it's 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 strongy 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.

Please note my objections to the proposed development of 770 houses on land between London Road and Rawreth Lane
in Rayleigh and also the resiting of the Rawreth Industrial site.I have lived in Rayleigh for 27 years and sadly have seen so much development take place on land when I bought my property was assured it would be kept for recreational purposes.The traffic that uses the London Road is now constant 24 hours where once upon a time you could have a peaceful nights sleep with your windows open that now is a thing of the past and a relaxing sit in the garden is also another novelty unless you put earplugs in.I travel to chelmsford to work and it quite often takes me longer to drive from Rawreth Lane to my home on the London Road then it takes me to do the other 14 miles so with another 770 houses I would probably find it quicker to walk to Chelmsford.I did note the local paper reported the council had refused the Rayleigh Boys football club's application for football pitches strange that being it will be were they want the new houses to be built.I would also object to the siting of a travellers site near to swallow nurseries.when you come round the roundabout a Carpenters arms you have a sign that says welcome to Rayleigh with a Travellers site a few yards away what a wonderful impression that will give to anyone coming to Rayleigh.When we asked for a Swimming pool to be put in Rayleigh town we were told no strange how decent rate paying residents get short shrift from Rochford Council

I am writing to strongly protest about the planned building of 550 new homes on agricultural green belt land north of London Road, Rayleigh.

I believe, once we encrouch on these areas we will loose our unique (and cherished) identities as individual communities and end up as one large cosmopolitan area merging Rayleigh, Rawreth and Wickford. There are other options.

I believe the proposal to re-locate the Rawreth Industrial estate and make the site a residential area makes absolute sense as this site is next to a current residential area. The re-employment of the Industrial estate to the junction of the A1245 and A127 being the most practical option. I would suggest that the current EON site, which will no longer be in use after June 2010, could also be redeveloped into a residential site as this currently sits within a residential area. The previously used land on the A1245 in Rawreth is also an option.

Within Rayleigh itself, for every one house that is demolished three or four are erected in its place. In the past the council have justified this by stating that it will help avoid having to use green belt land to meet housing requirements. Another concern is the impact on the current infrastructure. Can our roads, railway station, schools, doctors, dentists cope with such a large number of additional residents?

Given the above, I do not believe the council are justified in proposing housing development on the green belt.

HAWKWELL PARISH COUNCIL: RESPONSE TO ALLOCATIONS DPD DISCUSSION AND CONSULTATION DOCUMENT

1 INTRODUCTION:

Hawkwell Parish Council is still of the opinion that a new village should be created in South West Rayleigh to enable the benefits of easy access to the highway network to be realised and where all the infrastructure could be provided in a phased way without compromising existing settlements.

We consider that a Local Development Framework should be a document that sets out the strategy for spatial planning in the district. Whilst we understand that the Planning Authority has a statutory obligation to undertake a call for sites we are firmly of the opinion that such an approach mitigates against a truly strategic approach with the result that around 200 sites have now being put forward. We note that the DPD asserts that, of the 3,790 dwellings that have to provided according to the East of England Plan, some 2745 of these dwellings will be on green belt. The maths is simple, that means over 72% of the dwellings will be on green belt which is contrary to the stated policy of using brown field sites for the majority of these new dwellings. With such a gross distortion of the guidelines established by government a truly strategic approach (ie a new settlement) is all the more essential.

However, bearing in mind the above view, the Parish will respond to the proposed site allocations on the basis of preference for those which will do the least damage and provide the best defence to the remaining greenbelt. In this respect sites in Rayleigh, Rawreth area NLR5 seem the most suitable option.

2 RESIDENTIAL:

West Rayleigh

NLR5 is probably the best option because it has a strong defensible boundary and a bus service could be provided between London Rd and Rawreth Lane.

West Rochford

600 dwellings and a school in this location would destroy the rural nature of Hall Road. It would reduce and indeed almost remove the differentiation between Rochford and Hawkwell and is a prime example of urban creep. It will contribute to congestion as traffic tries to access the A127 via the B1013 Cherry Orchard Way. The loss of high quality agricultural land is always regrettable, especially in view of recent comment in the popular press on the need to protect prime agricultural land for food production in the coming years. Option WR1 is possibly the least damaging if the hedge line is protected along Ironwell Lane and Hall Road and access to Ironwell Lane by motor vehicle is prohibited.

West Hockley WH2

This option is preferred because it has previous industrial use and can be accessed off Folly Lane.

South Hawkwell 175 dwellings

The Parish Council maintains that this location is unsuitable and does not meet the sustainability requirements. Of these options, SH2 is the least damaging because it retains the wooded area behind Thorpe Close.


SH3 or SH4

These options must not be entertained because they encompass land between Rectory Road and Hall Road as well as Hawkwell Nursery site. The Jewson's site as a brown field site should, with resolution of access problems, take some of the allocation for South Hawkwell.

East Ashingdon 100 dwellings and land for extension of King Edmond School

Kind Edmond School would be large enough if a secondary school was provided in Great Wakering. This would save long journeys for the children (some 600 bussed every day causing increased traffic and pollution to local roads). However, Option EA is the least damaging as it limits development to one side of Brays Lane.

South West Hullbridge 500 dwellings

Option SWH1 is probably the least damaging.

South Canewdon 60 dwellings

SC6 is the most suitable providing a defensible boundary can be maintained.

South East Ashingdon 500 dwellings

All of the sites are unsuitable because they have an impact on Oxford Road.

SEA1 could be accessed off Oxford Road, The Drive and Ashingdon Road which will cause further traffic problems in these locations. West Great Wakering Option WGW5 would be most suitable.

Rawreth Industrial Estate

It is possibly better relocated and replaced by housing.

Stambridge Mills

This site would benefit from being zoned for housing providing public access is maintained to the waterfront.

Star Lane Industrial Estate and Star Lane Brickworks could accommodate housing although it is well located as an industrial site.

Eldon Way/Foundry Estate

Eldon Way should stay as local employers convenient for the station and has leisure uses. The Foundry Site could well be relocated and developed for housing, it would be a natural extension to the flats either side of Railway approach.


Gypsy and Traveller site locations

Option GT3 is the most suitable as it is closer to shops and schools.

3 ADDITIONAL EMPLOYMENT LAND:

West Rayleigh E18

Seems the most suitable because of its Highway location.

South of Great Wakering

Option E22 offers the least disruption to residents and has less impact on Poynters Lane.

4 ENVIRONMENTAL ALLOCATIONS:

The Parish Council agrees that areas shown on figure 4.3 and listed in table 41 should be allocated wildlife sites. Also agree that figure 4.4 should be allocated as the upper Roach Valley.

We also agree that the Coastal protection Belt should be shown as figure 4.5.

5 COMMUNITY FACILITIES:

Education

The Parish agrees in principle with the approach that a new Primary School be provided within future residential locations.

If the proposed site west of Rochford is on the eastern side of the new development it would appear to be far too near Rochford Primary we would question the need in this location.

Of the options presented Option KES2 is the most suitable however we maintain the view that if a new Secondary School were built in Great Wakering there would be no need to extend Kind Edmonds School and a large number of children would have their journey to school substantially reduced .

Open Space

We agree with the open space being protected through OS1 and consider that sites must be allocated rather than to left to determination by the vagary of negotiations with developers. We are again offended by the continuance of the Planning Authority to regard Hawkwell as a sub set of Hockley (there is no mention of Hawkwell in figure 5.1) - Glencroft is in Hawkwell, it is leased and managed by Hawkwell ( as are Spencers and Magnolia) and to state on page 127 that it is in Hockley undermines our confidence in the knowledge of the author of the detail of the layout of the district and the importance of community identity in such an important document.

Community Facilities

We believe community facilities proposed in (Option CF1) and illustrated and listed in figure 5.2 must be safeguarded. However we note that no account has been taken of the other community facilities that exist in the district (eg we draw specific attention to Hawkwell Village & Ashingdon & East Hawkwell Village Halls - both charitable trusts) that make significant contributions to community in the district, these too must be safeguarded.

6. TOWN CENTRES:

Rayleigh Town Centre Option TC1

Existing town centre boundary to be maintained.

Rochford TC4 is less restrictive but also allows customers to move around a smaller area.

Hockley Option TC8 seems the best option providing a more contained area.

We support the view that Hockley should be re-allocated as a District Centre.

Option TC12 Rayleigh

There must be a distinction between primary and secondary shopping frontages to maintain a vibrant town centre.

Rochford TC13

The distinction between secondary and primary should be maintained. The mixed-use development must be included in the primary shopping area because it contains the Supermarket.

Hockley TC15

We support this option as it utilises the existing primary shopping frontage to form primary shopping area.


7 OTHER ISSUES AND NEXT STEPS:

Hawkwell Parish Council wishes to be represented at The Examination in Public.

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.

RE: ALLOCATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT PLAN DOCUMENTS



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



Please find our comments summarized on the attached document.