Option GT1

I am writing to object to the following options with regard to Residential land allocations in rayleigh. I object strongly with the following NLR1, NLR2, NLR3, NLR4, NLR5. We do not need to loose our agricultural land, we don't need an increase of traffic. London Road and surrounding roads can not cope especially during rush hour.

I also object to any more travellers sites. The one on the A1245 seems to be fine even though it is illegal, perhaps make that legal and have the other pitches that needed around the district and not in and around Rayleigh.

On the subject of the industrial site I have no objection to the possibilty of moving the industrial site to the site option E18, but feel that to be replaced with 220 houses is something we do not need.

The infrasturcture in my opinion would not cope with everything that is proposed.

I am contacting you to express my feelings regarding the planning proposal to the north of the London Road, Rayleigh.
I consider the building on any green fields to be entirely out of order.
We may as well build on it everywhere and make Britain a massive concrete jungle. Once the area is being built on then it wont stop until the whole area bound by the roads is residential etc.

I also find the proposals totally unsuitable because of the extra traffic which would be using both London Road and Rawreth Lane.
As a regular motorist down both of these roads during the rush hour, I can advise that the traffic - particularly in London Road
is horrendous and often a stop / start situation. Basically the roads are totally unsuitable, single track each way, which cannot
be widened along their whole stretch without substantial disruption to the whole area - no doubt together with the costs of purchasing
residential properties.

I understand that the areas suggested are vulnerable to flooding and that there is a sewage point in the area as well.
This doesn't seem to be a very attractive proposition - especially if (when) the two combine!

Rayleigh is a proud town with it's own character and as a resident of the town, I do not wish to merge with Rawreth into one
mass sprawl - once again, this would resemble a concrete jungle.

As for the travellers sites - well, I really don't need to describe the problems these sites bring. I have seen these sites
in use and basically I do not wish to have one in my neighbourhood. I don't think that any more of an explanation is required.
Just ask yourselves honestly - would you want one in your vicinity?

I strongly object to building of the land in housing options NLR1 to NLR5 and the travellers sites at GT1, GT2, GT3 and GT7
for the above reasons.

Surely more suitable land can be found - like either side of the A1245 near Battlesbridge - the 'A' road there would be able to cope easier with the extra traffic.

Please totally reject this proposal as it is unsuitable for the area proposed.

I am writing with regard to The Allocations Development Plan Document for which the public consultation ends at 17.00 today.

I feel that whilst the consultation period has lasted 6 weeks from 17th March there has been extremely little publicity provided by The Council to ensure that all interested parties have the opportunity to respond.

It would have been a simple matter to include a flier with the Council Tax demands which were sent to all residents at the end of February to provide the relevant information. It is almost as though there has been a deliberate policy to keep the proposals under wraps.

The LDP comes under the East of England Plan of May 2008 from which I quote as follows:-

Overall Spatial Strategy SS2 states:-

"The target is for 60% development to be on previously developed land."

Green Belt Policy SS7 states:-

"The broad extent of green belts in the East of England is appropriate and should be maintained."

Paragraph 3.29 states:-

"The reviews will result in significant change locally but can be made without eroding the principles and overall functioning of the green belt."

Policy T8 Local Roads states:-

Local Authorities should manage the local road network in accordance with their local transport plan objectives to complement the aims of Policies T2 - T7 with the following priorities:-

"tackling congestion and its environmental impacts."

I would therefore suggest that proposals NLR1, NLR2, NLR3, NLR4, and NLR5 do not seem to comply with these objectives.

As a resident who unfortunately needs to use London Road Rayleigh (A129) on a daily basis I find it incredible that there is any proposed development which includes access via this road or indeed Chelmsford Road (A1245). The traffic is generally significant and at certain times totally excessive without considering what would happen if any of these proposals were to be adopted. There are frequent occasions when there is an "incident" on the A127 usually at Rayleigh Weir or Progress Road which means gridlock on that road leading to even more traffic using London Road as a "rat run." Rawreth Lane is also totally inadequate for any additional access without creating even more congestion.

The existing Green Belt and agricultural land would be irrevocably eroded and lead almost certainly to further future adjacent development meaning a complete eventual loss of such land in the area.

Rayleigh and Rawreth would more or less cease to be entities in their own right.

Access to Rayleigh Town Centre would be made even more onerous than currently. This could only lead to the centre becoming even less attractive to shoppers and become more and more run down in the longer term.

I would suggest that the land either side of the A1245 just north of the Rawreth Lane junction be considered. These are both existing brownfield sites with easy access to Battlesbridge Railway Station. Some of the traffic considerations would still apply but should be less onerous than your proposals.

Employment land Options E13,E14,E15,E16,E17.

All of the observations relative to the above Residential Allocation apply but are exacerbated by the fact that most of the resulting traffic would be HGV's resulting in even more congestion and damage to road structure. All in all these options are a recipe for disaster.

Option E18 would appear to be the most acceptable option with the following reservation. Access from this site would presumably need to be on to the A1245 which is dual carriageway. This would necessitate all traffic emanating from the site using the A1245 North up to the roundabout junction with the A129. This junction is already a source of much congestion.

Gypsy/Traveller sites.

Options GT1&2 are both on the site currently there but is this existing site not illegal anyway? I would suggest that enlarging the current site could lead to problems with exiting on to the southbound A1245.

Option GT3 is totally unacceptable given the proximity to existing housing and the access via London Road. Even though there may be a desire by the council to integrate travellers into the local community it is not something that even the travellers themselves wish to happen. Although an obvious statement their chosen way of life means they travel and as such tend to move frequently. This would naturally lead to frequent changes of occupants at the site and make any integration with the community very difficult.

Overall I do not believe that the Allocation DPD (certainly as it applies to Rayleigh West) is in the best interest of the residents of the area and that here will be considerable opposition to many of the proposals.

If there is a change of leadership in the Government on 6th May it is a distinct possibility that the whole East of England Plan will be scaled-down if not scrapped entirely and I certainly hope this is the eventual outcome.

Comments made on Allocations, GT3, GT1 and E18.
See paper copy for details.

Dear sir or madam we object to the options NLR(1)(2)(3)(4)(5) because this will cause the lost of agricultural land will also create a green belt boundary that cannot be defended in future. The extra traffic for the proposed 550 and 220 houses would mean between 1000 and 2000 extra cars depending on the time of property built. If Rayleigh town Club and football pitches was taken out I would assume a road would go through, the London Road would become a night mare, even this morning when we came off Louis Drive West the traffic was constant this was at 10 am after children have gone to school. We have the new development of 14 houses on this road which could mean 30 odd cars.

The bus which goes along the London Road is not that reliable, also trying to get into Rayleigh some days
the tail back comes down to the traffic lights.


The travellers sites GT(1) (2) (3) not really acceptable, as for the travellers mixing with the Locals that is laughable they prefer to be in there own community. Last week a traveller asked if the could have a sealed window unit on our drive, I said no as we were going to use, next day when we were out the window had gone leaving the glass behind, I am not pointing a finger but who knows.

The compulsory purchase of units on the Rawreth industial doesnot seems right when Makros can stay,
where is the justice.


We have livid Rayleigh for over 40 years and the amount of large developments which gone up we believe are excessive and we have never really had the extra facilities for the public use.

A number of years ago we lived right near Sweyne School so was able for a time to be able to take our children there swimming, but was then told the council could not afford to keep it open for public use, funny a few weeks later a new car was purchased for the Mayor..


We feel quite angry about all this has the Residents of this area are not keeped informed enough also I thought the councellors are suppose to work for the good of us.

Public Consultation Allocations DPD

I would like to object to any development on Rawreth' green fields there are alternatives. I object to options NLR1, NLR2, NLR3, NLR4 and NLR5 but especially NLR1 because they will cause an unnecessary loss of agricultural land which is of high quality, this is a large scale development with enormous impact on all surrounding roads where Rawreth Lane and London Road are already at full capacity, will create a green belt boundary that can't be defended in future and encourage a merging between Rayleigh and Rawreth.
Rawreth is I thought, a Gateway to Rochford, I wonder what sort of Gateway this would be. The traveller options are all for small-scale sites, options GT1, GT2, GT3 and GT7 surely in particular GT2 would change the whole character of Rawreth village. This would all lead to overdevelopment with in a beautiful semi rural village. Rawreth also appears to have the largest allocation which seems unfair.

I trust you will also acknowledge receipt of my response.

Objection to Traveller site GT1 GT2 GT3. See paper copy for details.

Objection to Traveller Sites GT1, GT2 and GT3. See paper copy for details.

Object to the proposed development of land between London Road and Rawreth Lane.

Proposed Industrial site on London Road would also be unsuitable because of additional heavy traffic. The only suitable site in my opinion would be at the junction of the A1245 and A127, this site already has the road network in place.

Regarding the traveller sites, why not legalize the existing site on the A1245.

Objection to North of London Road, Rayleigh 550 dwellings NLR1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and Gypsy and Traveller Sites GT1, 2, 3 and 7. See paper copy.