Option GT1

Object

Representation ID: 17360

Received: 20/03/2010

Respondent: Mr Ron Sadler

This area is not big enough to accomodate all 11 of the required new pitches.

Support

Representation ID: 17476

Received: 22/03/2010

Respondent: Mr Russell Payne

Rather than developing new sites, just develope this site to accommodate sufficient pitches.

Object

Representation ID: 17735

Received: 05/04/2010

Respondent: mrs s perks

no thank you!

Support

Representation ID: 17860

Received: 12/04/2010

Respondent: Ms Jean Townsend

Rawreth looks like the best place for this. The site is sufficiently remote and separate.

Support

Representation ID: 17898

Received: 12/04/2010

Respondent: ms Kim Harris

Gypsy travellers already occupy this area and therefore are established there. expanding this site would be more cost effective than building a completely mew one.

Comment

Representation ID: 17938

Received: 13/04/2010

Respondent: Mr Paul Sealey

The capacity of this site is not stated in the text although the caption suggests it could accommodate all 15 pitches. If this is the case why is option GT2 proposed?

Support

Representation ID: 18304

Received: 22/04/2010

Respondent: mr stephen honour

this site is currently illegal but would support the option if it was not to be expanded. only 11 sites are required not 15 or 18. any other future allocations would have to be in another area of the district so as not to create a concentration of gypsie/traveller sites in the area west of rayleigh

Support

Representation ID: 18308

Received: 22/04/2010

Respondent: Mrs Helen Scott

I think this is a very good idea as there is already a site there and I dont see a problem in a few more being there,it is maintain well and that must go a long way into the fact the people of that site making sure further residents keep it staying the same way.
Mrs H Scott

Object

Representation ID: 18332

Received: 24/04/2010

Respondent: mrs c cleverley

I strongly object to this site to be used as a larger travellers site. We have a lovely community and it is not appropriate to house travellers within the centre of a town. There are enough sites that travellers can use without making more of them in a residential area. Rayleigh is a historic market town and should be kept this way. There are other small sites across the district that could be used instead

Object

Representation ID: 18334

Received: 25/04/2010

Respondent: mr a cleverley

Being a local resident I strongly object to the expansion of this site. There must be more suitable areas in rural locations for these proposed pitches away from residential housing.

Object

Representation ID: 18338

Received: 25/04/2010

Respondent: Mrs Georgina Russell

Object to gypsy sites in Rayleigh

Comment

Representation ID: 18343

Received: 25/04/2010

Respondent: Mr Martyn Wilkins

Of the proposed traveller sites to the west of Rayleigh, options GT1 and GT2 appear to be least worst. I am not aware of any problems from the current occupants of this site. Provided the expansion is well managed and further expansion is not allowed, then I would have no objections.

Support

Representation ID: 18363

Received: 25/04/2010

Respondent: Mrs Ann Rawlinson

I would support the legalisation of the existing site and the provision of additional pitches.

Object

Representation ID: 18366

Received: 25/04/2010

Respondent: Linda M

We do not want travellers in Rayleigh! It's a lovely town and will drive people away!

Object

Representation ID: 18388

Received: 25/04/2010

Respondent: Mrs Jane Leadbeater

I strongly object to this site. I feel it would be detrimental to Rayleigh, situated on the approach to the town and would impact on house prices, crime rates, ambience of the area.

Support

Representation ID: 18400

Received: 25/04/2010

Respondent: mr terence hawthorn

as travellers already occupy this area it makes sense to put them there

Support

Representation ID: 18422

Received: 26/04/2010

Respondent: Mr Leslie Sampson

As this site is currently occupied (I assume by gypsy travellers) then the number of pitches occupied should be taken as being part of the required 18 and either this site extended or used in conjunction with GT2 to fulfill the Council's requirement to provide sites or pitches for persons of a nomadic habit of life. The good access to major highways are a plus factor and the visibility of the sites would help to ensure that they continue to be maintained and used in a responsible manner.

Object

Representation ID: 18455

Received: 27/04/2010

Respondent: Mr Stuart Kingston

This site has been currently occupied by travvelers for many years either illegally or with temporary permission. at present there are many pitches on this site and proberbly could be extended to make the complete 18 pitches required, so releasing all other temporary sites back to green belt/open space . The site has good road/service access which will allow for travellers frequent movements .

Comment

Representation ID: 18462

Received: 27/04/2010

Respondent: Mrs Ann Vaufrouard

This has to be the best option, developing what is already there. Although why does Rochaford council agree to take additional gypsy sites at all as the infrastructure of Hockley and Rayleigh is just not capable of supporting them....I understand Southend council has said NO, so why is Hockley council not representing the views of its people!? I believe transport links, away from local housing and a site capable of fulfilling all dwelling requirements has to be the answer.

Comment

Representation ID: 18473

Received: 27/04/2010

Respondent: Mr Ken Stanton

I would support the legalisation of this site with the existing number of pitches.

Of the 3 options, assuming Rochford is forced by legislation and not by soft Political Correctness to have these sites, GT1 is the better.

If the current pitches can be legalised why does West Rayleigh have to be burdened with the remainder of the allocation required??

Object

Representation ID: 18517

Received: 27/04/2010

Respondent: Mr & Mrs J M Wilson

I strongly object to GT1, GT2, GT3 and GT7. Rayleigh does not need these sites, the introduction of them could have an adverse effect on the town, especially to the local schools.

Object

Representation ID: 18574

Received: 27/04/2010

Respondent: Patricia Wheeler

Southend have no do traveller sites - why does Rochord refuse?
Why do traveller sites have to be near the community.
Land defined as GT1 is owned by the travellers but they do not have permission to live there. Why have they been allowed too.
One pitch equals two caravans - they do not need as much land as Rochord is proposing to give them.
Out of the traveller sites proposed in West Rayleigh GT1 or GT2 are preferable.
However, we do not travellers sites near our busy highway network and busy town.

Comment

Representation ID: 18577

Received: 27/04/2010

Respondent: Mr Stephen Rayner

As I understand from other submissions, this site already has a level of infrastructure to support the accomodation of a level of Travellers. This, together with the location warrants serious consideration.

Support

Representation ID: 18580

Received: 27/04/2010

Respondent: Miss Nicola Rawlinson

I would support the legalisation of the existing site and some additional pitches. Rayleigh should not, however, take the full allocation required by the district.

Object

Representation ID: 18582

Received: 27/04/2010

Respondent: Mr Neil Euesden

I do not believe that the local infrastructure will support this type of development, or that RDC has the necessary expertise to manage such a development. I oppose any buildings on green belt or agricultural land.

Object

Representation ID: 18784

Received: 28/04/2010

Respondent: Mrs Lyn Hopkins

To legalise this present illegal site which is the subject of Enforcement action would be completely irresponsible.
This site is directly alongside the very busy A1245 dual carriageway, 100metres from the traffic lights at the junction with Rawreth Lane. Traffic accelerates from the traffic lights and has to brake hard to avoid vehicles accessing this site. Dogs are running free and frequently run out onto this road.
Essex Highways have objected to this site on the grounds of access and safety.
This site is not near to required schools or medical facilities that the Gypsies say they require.

Object

Representation ID: 18984

Received: 28/04/2010

Respondent: Mr Robert Mepham

A gypsy and traveller site on this location is not appropriate. Access to the main dual carriageway road is dangerous, and drainage across the main road in this area at present is bad. Further activity on this land will increase water flow across the road which freezes in winter causing a driving hazzard

Object

Representation ID: 19039

Received: 28/04/2010

Respondent: Mr Carl Moller

There are already travellers at this site so what is the point of proposing this site. Waste of time. There are aready problems with access to the site, entering a dual carrigeway. Making this larger would further increase problems

Object

Representation ID: 19080

Received: 28/04/2010

Respondent: Mrs Hayley Bloomfield

This site has been illegally used for a number of years, to legalise it now would just add to the opinion of many Travellers that they are above planning law and that eventually District Councils will give in. This site is adjacent to the A1245 with extremely dangerous access. There are better sites which would allow Traveller cohesion, these sites such as the Land adjacent to the A1245 and the A127 opposite Michelins Farm should be explored as it offers a more viable option. This is Greenbelt land and should be returned to its former use, a field.

Object

Representation ID: 19094

Received: 28/04/2010

Respondent: Mr David Hopper

This site is an illegal development that should have been dealt with when it first came to light. The council have failed local residents with their inactions. This site should be returned to green belt and not considered for a traveller site or any development.