Option GT1

Ref: NLR1 - NLR5. GT1, GT2, GT3 and GT7

We appose any of the above developments on the grounds of increase in traffic, use of greenbelt land, unnecessary loss of agricultural land. We further object to any further increase in travellers sites within our area and any new employment land (industrial units). Please be aware there is a forth coming general election and should you wish to proceed with these proposals, then you will undoubtedly not be getting our vote. Furthermore we object to your underhand way of passing these applications without proper consultations with the general public.

I am writing to express my objection to the proposed housing development in West Rayleigh/Rawreth NLR 1-5 and proposed Traveller sites GT 1,2,3,7.



My family moved to Rayleigh 30 years ago and at that time we lived very close to the edge of the town surrounded by open fields. It was a small friendly town, which was why we chose it. Over the years it has grown to be a large, busy, noisy, congested and increasingly intimidating place.



Where once London Road was a quiet road it is now extremely busy and very noisy day and night, and trying to pull out of our road onto it is nigh on impossible at certain times of the day. Traffic noise keeps us awake many nights as it is.



The High Street car parks are overrun and trying to get doctors/dentist appointments is very difficult. Public Transport is crowded at peak times.Youths have nothing to do and hang around in ever increasing size gangs in the town centre and in chidren's parks. Adding more people to the same resources without massively upgrading the infrastructure will make all of these problems worse.



It can take over half an hour to get from the Carpenter's Arms roundabout up to the High Street on a normal weekday along London Road and when incidents occur on the A127 it comes to a virtual standstill. Adding more houses to this area, as well as businesses, is a ridiculous idea as the road simply cannot cope with any more traffic. 770 houses could, if each house has 2 cars, mean an extra 1400-1500 cars needing to use the road daily and all the business traffic would be on top of this .



There are too many people and cars in the area already. This is not the place to put a major housing development, industrial site or Traveller camp. We the residents who know the area well can all see this would be a disaster and have a very negative impact on our lives.



Please keep me informed of future decisions relating to these issues.

wish to lodge an objection to the Local Development Alllocations proposal for Travellers sites in West Rayleigh under option GT3.

This site is far too close to the school in Little Wheatley Chase, businesses and residential area
It will lower house prices dramatically
Once occupied it will quickly expand beyond Council control
Refuse will compound the already huge rat problem in the area
Policing would need to be increased to ensure that residents and their property were protected
The existing site at Rawreth Lane should be made in to a legal site as recommended by Rawreth Council
Travellers do not in the whole wish to integrate with the local community and if they did they would be seeking jobs and living in proper houses, paying proper taxes like the rest of us.
Option E18 would be suitable for the Travellers it they needed to be sited in the district

A friend of mine mentioned to me that there was a meeting last week at Grange Hall on the Little Wheatleys Estate in Rayleigh, unfortunately I was unable to attend as I had no prior knowledge of this meeting, where would I have found the details ?

I was told that during this meeting the council proposed plans to further increase the levels of new houses built in Rayleigh by another 750, and the proposed Gypsies sites, I was appalled to hear this and feel I have to make my point by writing to you, I believe that the housing options are labelled NLR1 to NLR5, and that the gypsies sites are labelled GT1 to GT7.

I would like to make an official declaration that I do not agree with these proposals and would like to reject them for the following reasons.

1. NLR1, NLR2,NLR3,NLR4 and NLR5.

I have no issue with building affordable housing in the local area, but I have a concern with both the number of houses proposed and the locations. Between the A129, old A130 and Rawreth Lane.

These proposed changes will result in a green belt boundary which cannot be defended against future building projects, which will result in the erosion of this green belt area over time.

Traffic along the A129, which is already congested at peek times will further increase.
The local infrastructure such as public transport, road access, schools, doctors and amenities would all need to be increased as these are currently overstretched with the recent housing increases near my street around the area of the new ASDA store.

I understand that some of the proposed sites are within flood plains and so these would increase the risk of local flooding, how is this risk being addressed ?

An alternative to this would be to build fewer low cost houses further along the A1245 past the Rawreth traffic lights on the two current brown field sites, a garden nursery and garage.

These would have ample road access and are easily developed without causing any major disruption to the local community.



2. GT1,GT2,GT3 and GT7.

There is a very good reason why traveller sites are associated with trouble and rubbish. You only have to look at the sites along the A127, between the A130 and Pound Lane to see this clearly demonstrated. Rubbish has been thrown from the site into the neighbouring fields and there are regular fires which spill smoke across the A127.

Travellers are not in the main interested in joining the local community, their children normally do not attend schools on a regular basis and as and my 2 children attend St Nicholas School, this is the nearest school to the planned "sites", they will be directly affected.

Few pay council tax and as there name indicates they are migrant and move from site to site, without clearing the rubbish they generate, who will police these proposed sites and clean up the local area once they have been vacated? Who will pay for this service, the local community tax payers?

Who will ensure the sites do not expand illegally, the local residents or Police?

The site GT3 is too close to local schools, business and residential areas and needs to be removed from these plans immediately.

Recognising the targets set by the council for housing this group of non contributing individuals, and the detrimental effect that there arrival has to a community. I would suggest that any sites your do introduce or legalise are as remote as is possible in the area, and small so to ensure that there effect is minimised.

It is my view that we are too tolerant of these individuals needs and put them above the wishes and needs of the local law abiding tax payer.

I would like to add that in the event of these plans going forward as proposed I would look to seriously reconsider my vote in both the general and local elections.

Lastly I would be very interested in attending further meetings so please let me know where to find these details

We are writing to you to strongly object to the proposed plans to put travellers sites on/around London Road, Rayleigh (sites GT1, GT2 and GT3 in particular).

We have been informed by one of our local MPs that the legal amount of pitches Rochford District Council has to allocate for travellers can be spread over the whole borough, yet the proposal suggests making space for all of them in one place, on land to the north of London Road, Rayleigh and/or close by.

Surely anyone in their right mind would not allow such sites to be so close to our homes and schools, as this will have a detrimental and completely negative impact on our community and everyday lives.

For most people living in this part of Rayleigh, the first road they use to approach the town is London Road. To have a traveller's site here will destroy what is currently lovely countryside and will ruin the beautiful views we have. A traveller site being the first thing you see as you approach Rayleigh isn't good for any business in the area or home owner contemplating selling their property. Nobody wants to live near these sites and I'm sure the councillors giving the go ahead do not actually live anywhere near here, otherwise they would not do so! The green fields between London Road and Rawreth Lane should be left alone!

More importantly, the travelling community have no interest or desire in joining our community and the feeling is strongly reciprocated. Previous experiences of local traveller sites prove that the crime rate increases and morale amongst residents falls, as the police are usually unable to intervene due to intimidation by these travellers.

If provisions for some of these pitches have to be made, then why should Rayleigh have all of them? Surely it would be fairer if some of the other areas in the borough provided land for them and they were spread out? This would also help with policing them as the groups would be smaller and hopefully wouldn't expand as quickly.
There is a lot of unused land further out in the borough - on the A1245 for instance - surely this would be a better place for these sites to be located?

We urge you to strongly revise your plans to allow travellers so close to our residential community.

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.

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 wish to lodge my protest against the councils proposed development in the Rayleigh area.
I object to the housing options NLR1,NLR2,NLR3,NLR4 and NLR5.
These options would cause an unnecessary loss of agricultural land and would create an increase in traffic.
I am particularly opposed to NLR3 as it would mean the loss of Rayleigh Town Sports & Social Club, an important local sports and social facility.
I also object to the options for traveller sites GT1, GT2, GT3, and GT7.
The option GT3 would be particularly unsuitable given its proximity to local schools and existing housing, the travelling community have no wish to integrate with the settled community and vice versa.
Any future development should be small and spread throughout the district, not concentrated entirely in Rayleigh.

I am writing to strongly protest and object to the proposed planning application to Options Labelled: NLR1, NLR2, NLR3, NL4 & NLR5, and traveller's option GT1, GT2, GT3, & GT7, due to the following:



Traffic Congestion and Scenic Views



We strongly object to the proposal of 770 new homes. The area in question is the west main road into Rayleigh from the Carpenters Arms roundabout, and Rawreth Lane travelling to the rear of Rayleigh. London Road entry into Rayleigh is a picturesque route with a feel good factor leading into Rayleigh. There is farmland each side of the road and a view of the old barn which changes throughout the year with the seasons. Any redevelopment of the area will devalue the picturesque views for the residents, public and our future children, travelling by car, bicycle and foot into Rayleigh. In addition, the additional traffic coming into London Road from the Carpenters Arms roundabout will cause substantial traffic, noise and pollution which can harm the public, local to the area. With respect to speeding, I note that the council have just had to erect a speeding active warning sign to try and reduce the problem. As a resident, we have already felt the effect from noise pollution from the newly opened A130, which is a constant drone throughout the day and night. I also note that at peak times London Road cannot cope with the present volumes of traffic, with queues often past the Carpenters Arms roundabout, queuing to get into Rayleigh. This we thought would be alleviated when the old A130 was diverted by the new A130. In addition, I understand that Victoria Avenue will be opened up to allow traffic to travel into the development to the rear of Macros and Rawreth industrial estate. As you are well aware this will turn into "Rat Runs" for traffic, which I have experience in my childhood in Eastwood Essex, near Wren Avenue / Bosworth Road. It took many years of complaints to the council and now the council have just installed traffic calming in that area which from a safety point of view is great, but from a visual point of view is a disgrace. I have even seen young drivers using these humps as a chicane i.e. trying to dodge them in their cars, which is even more dangerous. My point here is that the roads do not have the capacity for the additional traffic, will be unsafe for the local schools and children, and will put their health in danger.



A127. This is the main route into the local area and has been under review for widening / improving for many years, just to cope with the present traffic capacity. Presently there are no plans or future funds (bearing in mind the economic crisis that we are in) to upgrade this road. However, a small step was taken recently to place average speed cameras on the A127, just to try to cope with the present traffic. This is not the long term answer, but it shows that the main road into the area cannot take any further traffic.



Loss of Agricultural Land and Environmental Impact.



As you are aware, the proposed development will take many acres of agricultural land, which is presently used every day by the local farmers. This loss of necessary agricultural land is totally unacceptable as we are all trying to prevent and reduce global warming, loss of this land will mean that food produced here will have to come from different locations which will produce more carbon omissions in transportation. There are many Brown Field sites in the area which assuming the infrastructure has the capacity, could be used instead of agricultural land.



I also note that the loss of agricultural land will place additional strain on our over stretched sewage and drinking water systems. Presently the land absorbs the rainwater and puts it to beneficial use, growing food, and not discharging it out to Sea, through the local overstretched brooks, culverts and rainwater ditches. I was also made aware that this area is in a flood plain from a local survey report on a house that a resident was proposing to buy, which was news to me, however, this suggests that building houses in this area is inappropriate, and as mentioned above placing additional strain on a congested water discharge service area.





Merging of Rayleigh and Rawreth



With the area being developed as proposed, it can be seen that Rayleigh and Rawreth will merge together, and be absorbed to create a new town which will lose its identity, character and history, turning into a new town which will look like any other lifeless new town.



Rayleigh Community Resources



The present infrastructure, schools, doctors, dentists, police, will be under strain and not be able to cope. Children's education will suffer, as schools are presently oversubscribed, with excessive class sizes, which prevents freedom of choice to attend whatever school you would like as promised by the government. This is presently happening as discussed by my neighbours, without the proposed expansion.



Industrial Employment land / Green Belt



I fail to see why green belt land is being designated as industrial land, when there is brown field employment land nearby. Why do we need additional industrial land when the Bryon Works Industrial estate and surrounding Industrial estates in Wickford, a short 2 miles away is virtually derelict and could be regenerated to supply the industrial land required. In point of fact the adjacent Enterprise way business park only looks 25% full and could also be regenerated to supply the employment land required. It appears that no attempt is being taken to look at other brown field site regeneration projects, but to rail road through demolition of the green belt.



Finally, my objection here is that the green belt boundary will be moved and cannot be defended in the future, for our children and children's children and brown field site regeneration projects should be proposed.





Proposed Travellers Sites GT1, GT2, GT3, & GT7



I oppose the proposed additional traveller's sites in both London Road and A1245 near Rawreth Lane. My complaint here is that areas should be allocated to them away from built up areas. From my experience, they are unfortunately, untidy, collecting rubbish for I presume recycling, however when this cannot be reused, they discard it locally for the council to dispose of. This is a health and safety issue for the residents. This site will also devalue the local properties. I understand travelling is their way of life; however, situating them on green belt land or fields is totally unacceptable. My suggestion would be to either increase the size of existing sites or put them on brown field sites.



We wish to formally state our objection with these plans.

We wish to object to the proposed travellers sites for West Rayleigh,GT1, GT2, GT3 and GT7 plus GT6. We have very strong objections to the proposed site GT3 adjacent to Swallows Aquatics in London Road Rayleigh, I understand Rochford District Council are obliged to make land available for 15 travellers pitches across the whole of the borough, why therefore are all 15 pitches proposed for West Rayleigh. This seems totally unfair. Site the pitches in small units across the whole of the borough if we have to have them in Rochford District, not in one area & certainly not off London Road near a school & housing estate. There are enough problems in West Rayleigh as it is with youths congregating on the recreation ground next to the Grange Community Centre, without adding more problems with travellers.

Site GT1 & 2 appear, according to the map to be where there is already a amall illegal site of 3-4 mobile homes. If we have to add a few more to this end of Rayleigh , maybe this site can be made legal and increased to take 4 pitches ( 8 caravans) in total NOT the entire 15. We have been lead to believe Essex County Council have objected to this site being made legal, due to road access, but have also heard some of the residents are paying council tax. I thought in accepting council tax Rochford Council would be be seen as accepting the site as legal. This small settlement has been there for some time now & we do not appear to have heard of any problems arising from there in the local press.

Please take this e-mail as an objection to the propsed 15 travellers sites in West Rayleigh, inparticular area GT3 off London Road between Little Wheatley Chase & St Johns Rd, adjacent to Swallows Aquatics.

On behalf of Rawreth Parish Council I confirm that this six page letter is a formal response of objection to the Allocations DPD, Discussion and Consultation Document on the following counts:
The overall proposals shown in the ADPD for the Parish of Rawreth amount to overdevelopment within a semi rural Parish with disproportionate allocations in comparison to the remainder of the District and are totally unacceptable and unsustainable under PPG2 and the Council object most strongly to the document as drafted and the proposals therein.

Within the ADPD the Parish of Rawreth has site specific allocations shown for housing, industry and gypsy and traveller sites, whilst other Towns and Parishes within the District appear in the document but are confined to one area of site allocations be it housing, industry or gypsy and traveller sites and on much smaller scales. Overall under the ADPD the Parish of Rawreth stands to take the biggest allocation of houses in one phase, with its overall allocation being only 50 less than that of West Rochford.

Rawreth Parish Council has never been opposed to development within the Parish, however they have always expressed that appropriate amounts of additional housing should be built on smaller, existing and brownfield sites within the greenbelt thus enhancing the lives of new and existing residents instead of eroding our green buffers and starting the coalescence of Rayleigh and Wickford.
Rochford District Council have chosen to totally ignore the alternative proposals put forward by Rawreth Parish Council in the "Call for Sites" document all of which would use previous brownfield sites within the green belt, enhance the centre of Rawreth and avoid the use of so much farmland GB1. Building approximately 200 houses within Rawreth village, with a possibility of more at a later date, would alleviate the need for such a large scale development of 550 houses all in one place. Drainage, traffic and access would all be much enhanced and under our proposal any development would have less impact on the lives of residents within the Parish and neighbouring areas. These proposals however have in the opinion of the Council never been considered or taken seriously.

The area surrounding the Parish of Rawreth is seen as "The Gateway to Rochford" yet under the ADPD the proposals for the land north of London Road NLR1 to NLR5 will take away beautiful, productive, open farmland and turn it into a mix of housing and industry. To build 550 houses on the North/South Eastern area of this land, to legalise and possibly double the Gypsy and Traveller Site on the North Western edge GT1 and to add an Industrial Site on the South Western Corner, which was supposed to be the Green Buffer within NLR1, is absolutely unacceptable and unsustainable under PPG2. To consider placing ANY of these proposals on this area of high quality farmland will absolutely destroy the openness and character of this entire part of Rawreth for ever. In addition the existing roads, A1245, A129, Rawreth Lane and Beeches Road/Watery Lane are already full to capacity and frequently at a standstill, to add more traffic as a result of these proposals is completely unacceptable.

On Thursday the 25th of March 2010 Rawreth Parish Council undertook a 12 hour constant traffic survey in both Rawreth Lane and Beeches Road. In Rawreth Lane during the hours of 7am and 7pm 7,179 vehicles were recorded travelling in an Easterly direction and 7,217 in a Westerly direction, this is a road that does not even have a B classification. In Beeches Road during the hours of 7am to 7pm 2,848 vehicles were recorded travelling in an Easterly direction and 2,022 were recorded travelling in a Westerly, this is a very small, winding rural lane.

The full details of these surveys are attached.

In addition to the above comments the Parish Councils observations, objections and proposals on specific options are as follows:

Land North of London Road. Large scale development here will have massive impact on all local roads- A1245, A129, Rawreth Lane and Beeches Road/Watery Lane. The development will impact highly on drainage and surface water run-off which will cause even more flooding to parts of the Parish which are already classified as being within Flood Zone 3, Watery Lane in particular has been closed twice already this year in February, with motorists needing to be rescued by the Fire Service using boats.

In March this year Cllr Hudson said quite categorically in a local newspaper that all the traffic generating from the proposed sites North of London Road would gain access to and from the A129 and, therefore, would have no effect whatsoever upon Rawreth Lane, this statement is completely contra to the proposals detailed under NLR1, NLR4 and NLR5 where access is quite clearly gained from Rawreth Lane.
NLR1, NLR4 and NLR5, would have massive impact on the traffic in Rawreth Lane and are completely unsustainable and impracticable.

NLR2, NLR3 would have better access in and out of the area as long as correct and adequate roads are put in.

SWH1 States that "sustainable urban drainage systems MUST be implemented" - this is an absolute minimum as the whole area is only just above sea level and subject to possible large scale flooding. Areas within the Parish are already within Flood Zone 3.

All schemes for the Parish of Hullbridge would result in a huge increase in traffic using either Rawreth Lane or Beeches Road/Watery Lane which are both already full to capacity. Watery Lane is a very narrow, winding lane which is frequently closed due to 3 foot deep flooding and any attempt to "straighten " it must also be subject to consideration of the resident Water Vole population which nest within the watercourses and ditches in this area, this is a protected species . No scheme at all should include housing along any part of Watery Lane as in SWH2 and SWH4.

GT1 - The only gypsy and traveller site pinpointed for real consideration is in the Parish of Rawreth , alongside the very busy A1245 dual carriageway. Essex Highways have already objected to this site on the grounds of safe access. It is within 100metres of traffic lights at the junction with Rawreth Lane, with traffic accelerating at this point. To allow access at this point is extremely dangerous.

GT2 - Is even more dangerous as, to double the size of this site to accommodate ALL the pitch requirements for the whole district, would result in even more traffic accessing the site within the area of this busy junction.

GT3, 4 & 5 - could all accommodate some of the pitches and, all have good access to surrounding roads.

GT6 - would have good access and would be able to accommodate all pitches required.

GT7 - Has very restricted access, is an unmade road/track with no mains services. Use of this site would lead to increase in traffic in Rawreth Lane.

In addition to the ADPD gypsy and traveller proposals Rawreth Parish Council put forward a proposal within the "Call for Site" document that land to the North of the A127 and East of the A1245 directly opposite GT6 in a Easterly direction would be very suitable as a Gypsy and Traveller site, this proposal in the opinion of the Council should be reconsidered, the site has the capacity to support the full allocation of required pitches has access to all routes and allows the Traveller community to remain in one area continuing their own community cohesion.

E13, E14, E15 & E16 would all be able to accommodate the relocation of Rawreth Industrial Estate and could fit in fairly well with the already established businesses, Wheatleys Garden Centre, Swallows Fish Centre and the Cafe. They would all provide good access to A1245, A129 and A127, but would initially increase the traffic on the immediate A129 area.

E17 Is most strongly objected to. This is the "green buffer", the land that Rochford District Council have indicated in all the Land to the North of London Road Proposals would be put to green "park" use to establish a barrier to stop houses etc., being built right up to the A1245.

In additional ADPD Industrial Site proposals the Parish Council put forward a proposal within the "Call for Site" document that land to the North of the A127 and West of the A1245 shown in the ADPD document as GT6 would be very suitable as an industrial site if properly designed with security, the site would also adjoin proposed industrial sites within the Basildon District. The site provides excellent road and transport links with its close proximity to all the major routes, the A127, A130 and A13 and adjoining the main Southend to London Liverpool Street railway line. The site is currently under enforcement action for inappropriate use therefore to develop this further as an industrial site would ensure the correct use of what is already semi industrial land thus ensuring the environmental improvement of the site as a whole. This proposal in the opinion of the Council should be reconsidered,
Community Facilities - Education:
Rawreth Parish Council do not agree with allocating land on North of London Road for a new Primary School. This would have a very serious detrimental effect on St Nicholas Primary School, located within less than a mile of this proposal EDU11. St Nicholas has capacity and planning to double the size of the present school but is unable to do this, as all other local Primary Schools have spare capacity and a new school with its enormous incumbent costs is, therefore, not necessary in this location. Education predictions have indicated that there will be spare capacity within the area in the next few years which could result in one of the local schools having to close.

In addition to the ADPD the Council have considered the Development Management DPD Regulations document and comment as follows.

The National Policy on Green Belt PPG2 states "The most important aspect of the Green Belt is its openness". PPG2 states that the purpose of including land with the GB are as follows:

To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas.
To prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another.
To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.
To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns.
To assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.

The Land North of London Road in its current use complies with all of these points and MUST therefore be retained and preserved as it stands.

The Parish Council looks forward to receiving your acknowledgement of this submission by return.

With reference to the above proposals I wish to register my objections as follows:

1. Unnecessary loss of agricultural land
2. The volume of traffic in the area will increase greatly.
3.Will create a green belt boundary that cannot be defended in the future and encourage a merging between Rayleigh and Rawreth

We wish to object to parts of the proposed planning Allocations Document.



Travellers Site A1245 GT 1 GT 2



550 Houses NLR 1 - 5



This area, Rawreth, is fast becoming over developed. The area cannot take anymore development without further problems to those already living in the area. Roads are at times a nightmare to negotiate and without drastic alterations and expansion of the existing roads the area will become unbearable for the local population at present residing in Rawreth.



Allowing Asda to develop their site in Rawreth Lane has put a great deal of extra traffic to and from the store and the extra burden from further housing being built in the surrounding area will only add to this.



To allow the Travellers site on the A1245 to become a permanent site is completely inappropriate. The extra traffic pulling onto the road is dangerous and I have witnessed several near misses with occupants/visitors to the site, performing illegal U turns at the traffic lights to return to the site, and vehicles suddenly braking to pull into the site. Only yesterday I had to take avoiding action as a vehicle pulled off the site straight onto the road and into my path. If another vehicle had been travelling on my offside there could have a nasty accident.



The community garden which has been developed for residents on the corner of A1245/Church Road has already, in recent weeks, been used as a grazing area for horses.



I hope you will take these comments into consideration when dealing with this planning document.

Your ref: NLR 1,to NLR 5, please note my objection to these planning proposals because I feel they would cause an unnecessary lose of agricultural land and see an un acceptable rise in traffic. I further object to the proposal of the small scale traveller sites( your ref: GT 1,GT 2,GT 3 and GT 7 on the grounds that there are more suitable areas for these else where. I would like to know how the law would be enforced should these sites be granted to the traveller community as it is not being dealt with effectively else where in this area resulting in a poor quality of life for the established community, many of whom have lived here most of our lives. Why does this small section of the community seem to be above the law and the authorities unable and un willing to deal with the problems that inevitably occur when they move into an area such as Rayleigh. They are not above the law and should not be treated any differently to the rest of the community. For the record I am the son of Irish immigrants who came to this country in the 1950,s and worked hard and contributed to society just like every one else in return for a better life and future for their families.

I would like to object to the councils housing options labelled NLR1 to NLR5

We purchased our house because it looks out onto Farmland, I do not want to look out onto another housing estate, and do not want a traveller site in Rayleigh this will bring down the cost of every house in the area!!!!! Also the proposal for Cheapside West in Rayleigh to be made a through road I oppose.

it will cause unnecessary loss of agricultural land,
Will increase traffic in the area
Will create a green belt boundary that can't be defended in future and encourage a merging of Rawreth and Rayleigh

I object to the traveller sites options GT1, GT2, GT3, GT7.

I cannot believe that you have NOT contacted ANY of the LOCAL residents directly affected by this, it has been totally underhanded with no regard for local residents whatsoever!!!!

I only found out about this by chance.

I am writing to inform you of my very strong objection to the councils housing options labelled NLR1,NLR2,NLR3,NLR4,NLR5 as they will:

Cause an unnecessary loss of agricultural land,
will increase traffic,
will create a green belt boundary that cant be defended in the future
will put extra strain on local services
and encourage a merging between Rayleigh and Rawreth.



Furthermore I would also like to let it be noted that I very strongly object to any planning for traveller sites in Rayleigh and in particular planning options GT1,GT2,GT3and GT7. As any increase in the number of travellers in the area will have a negative effect on the local community and local services.

i object to options NLR1,NLR2,NLR3,NLR4,and NLR5 because they will cause unnecessary loss of agricultural land ,increase traffic,and create a green belt boundry that cant be defended in the future.i also object to options GT1,GT2,GT3 and GT7

Our family wish to formally state our very strong objection to the plans for the proposed building of 770 new houses, sites for travellers between Rawreth Lane and London Road, and possibly a Tesco, and have copied this email to our local MP.

We object to housing options NRL1 to NLR5, and to traveller sites options GT1, GT2, GT3 and GT7.

I chose the location of my home because of its proximity to open fields, and do not want that spoilt with a lot of houses that a town like Rayleigh is too small to support. And I most certainly do not want to live next to a traveller's site!!!! One only has to look at the problems in Wickford and Cray's Hill to realise what a disaster that would be.

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

Our family wish to formally state our very strong objection to the plans for the proposed building of 770 new houses, sites for travellers between Rawreth Lane and London Road, and possibly a Tesco, and have copied this email to our local MP.

We object to housing options NRL1 to NLR5, and to traveller sites options GT1, GT2, GT3 and GT7.

I chose the location of my home because of its proximity to open fields, and do not want that spoilt with a lot of houses that a town like Rayleigh is too small to support. And I most certainly do not want to live next to a traveller's site!!!! One only has to look at the problems in Wickford and Cray's Hill to realise what a disaster that would be.

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

I am writing to object to the proposed plans to destroy the land opposite our homes in order to build new homes and traveller sites.

The plans which I am opposed to are housing options NLR1 to NLR5 and to the traveller site options GT1, GT2, GT3 and GT7.

Our objection is based on various reasons including:

* Uneccessary destruction of agricultural land
* Uneccessary increase to traffic
* Creation of green belt boundary that cannot be defended

I am disspointed as a home owner in this area that the council has not bothered to consult with us home owners regarding the prosposed plans - as one would expect this should have been a basic stage of the planning process.

We moved to our current home because of the nice location and green land which surrounded our living space. We believe that by destroying the little green open space we have to make room for homes and traveller sites will destroy the very tranquility of the area in which we reside. Cramming homes and increasing the population in an area which does not have the infrastructure designed to cope will be an absolute reason for us to want to move out to another district where the council considers the quality of life of tax paying residents.

PLEASE NOTE THAT WE ARE WHOLLY AGAINST THE PROPOSALS.

I wish to object to the following planning proposals.

Housing options NLR1 to NLR5

Travellers site options GT1, GT2, GT3 and GT7.

I understand that the council are now considering, as part of the above consultation proposals, allowing the building of a further 550 houses on agricultural land bordered by London Road, Rawreth Lane and the A1245 (formerly A130). As this would be in addition to another proposal to build 220 houses on the Rawreth Industrial Estate, it frankly beggars belief that such an idea should be countenanced given the large number of other developments that have taken place and which now put such an intolerable strain on our local infrastructure.



I am fervently against the further development of any of the land labelled on the proposal as NRL1-5 for the following reasons:



* The loss of valuable agricultural land which acts as useful run off drainage from the swathes of built up areas to the East. The land is extremely low lying and is already in a flood plain.

* The loss of a natural and defensible green belt boundary to the Western edge of Rayleigh. Presumably, if allowed, we will carry on building until Wickford meets Rayleigh and Rayleigh meets Wickford.

* No doubt much play will be made of the potential for planning gain by way of new schools, health centres etc. which will ne negotiated. Frankly this will not wash. I recall that the amalgamation of the Park and Sweyne schools was supposed to lead to a new VIth Form College on the Park Site and what did we end up with - Asda!

* If these houses are built then I assume that they will require access to the Town Centre and Rail station along the already severely congested London Road.



Your documents also call for comments on the provision of Traveller Sites within the district although it is confusing, to say the least, as to how many additional sites/pitches are required. I was surprised to learn that the existing Traveller Site on the A1245, south of Bedloes Corner, is an illegal one in that planning consent was apparently withheld due to Highways objections. I would have thought that the new A130 removes, or at least mitigates this objection, and the site has always appeared to me to be well run. If this site were to be legitimised surely this would assist in meeting the required provision.



However locating further Traveller Sites around Swallow Nurseries or Lower Barn Farm would seem to me to concentrate too many pitches in one area which cannot be to the existing residents benefit or I suspect the wishes of the Traveller community themselves. I would have thought that they would be anxious to have the ability to stay in all parts of the District and therefore I firmly believe that more consideration should be given to developing sites further East in Hockley and Hullbridge to say nothing of Rochford itself. Only by spreading these sites throughout the district can we truly be said to be embracing the diversity of so many cultures and avoiding the ghetto mentality of simply sticking a single pin in a map and hoping that this meets a Government inspired requirement.



I sincerely hope that elected Members will take on board my comments and reject the notion of yet more development in West Rayleigh. To judge by conversations that I have had with neighbours I am not the only one to consider that we have taken enough and I can only hope that they have taken the trouble to express themselves to you in a similar vein.

I am writing in distress as I have just found out about the above proposed traveller sites in Rayleigh, namely GT1, GT2, GT3 and GT7. As I live along the London Road this would directly affect myself and my young family.

I am absolutely opposed to any of these sites. I have previously lived in a town which had at least 2 traveller site near them. This created problems for the local schools, doctors and police authority. Not to mention the local business's and residents.

Local schools were legally obliged to take the traveller children and as such the level of education within these classes fell as the teachers were forced to teach at the lower level to cater to the new children. Doctors surgeries were swamped, local business reported a higher level of bad behaviour as did the local police authority.

I also feel that by mentioning the word small you are misleading people, these site may start small but they soon grow as word gets out.

I am disapointed and angry that these proposed sites seemed to have been kept very quite and feel that no matter what the council have already decided the matter in favour of these sites. In all fairness the council should grant an extension to the closing date for any queries/questions or anty decision so that the matter could be discussed openly by residents and concerned people of Rayleigh

I would appreciate a reply to this email as this matter affects me greatly.

Please take this email as an objection to the following planned housing developments: NLR1, NLR2, NLR3, NLR4 and NLR5. And also strongly objecting to the traveller sites GT1, GT2, GT3 and GT7.

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.

We object to the proposed housing options - NLR1, NLR2, NLR3, NLR4, NLR5.
We believe they will:- cause an unnecessary loss of agricultural land, create an green belt boundary that can't be defended in future, encourage a merging between Rayleigh and Rawreth and will increase traffic.

We also object to the Travellers Site options for Rayleigh and Rawreth:- GT1, GT2, GT3 and GT7.
We believe that they will:- have a large impact on the value of our housing in the area.

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.

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.

I would like to make a representation against the plans which you have outlined in the above document. While I understand the population of our local area has to increase and the government has plans afoot to outline our obligations for extra homes I do not agree with building on green built and the influx of travelling families being imposed upon our home area.

I think the public should be consulted further on this and our playing fields at Rayleigh Sports club remain safe along with our green belt area which is threatened by some of these plans.

The Travellers site on the A1245 should be expanded and legalised to house our travller family (pitch) obligation and they should not be sited near existing communities as despite consideration being given to them for integration in to our existing communities they do not want to and anyone who lives near or knows traveller will tell you that they do not want to integrate and become part of our community.

The proposed site for them in LONDON ROAD near (swallows) is a joke. This road is the entrance to our community and the 1st impression visitors get. If the travellers are sited there it will be littered with rubbish and the area around the "WELCOME TO RAYLEIGH" SIGN will deteriorate beyond belief. It is my assumption that you have proposed the travellers site there so we the community contest this and you then suggest houses here instead, tricking us in to thinking we have won, however instead you litter this area with cheap social houses further reducing the quality of the are we live in.



I have a firm stance on my intentions for RAYLEIGH and the surrounding area and I assure you I will be leading the pack to contest your plans should you go ahead with them to the very last and we will win.

I would like to object to the following housing options:
NLR1, NLR2, NLR3, NLR4 and NLR5.

My reasons fo this are that it will increase traffic in my area that is already heavy. It will also cause an unnecessary loss of agricultural land and will create a green belt boundary that can't be defended in the future and encourage a merge between Rayleigh and Rawreth.
Also it will put added strain on already stretched services such as doctors, schools and travel in this area.

I would also like to object to the travellers sites options GT1, GT2,
GT3 and GT7. My reasons are that GT3 is far too close to my local school that my daughter attends.
Travellers on the whole are not interested in joining the localcommunity and vice versa. Who will clear up the site afterwards.