Option GT2

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.

The additional sites that have been identified for the travelling community is certainly not one that should be considered in this area. I appreciate that we should be supporting them and the community should not be tarred with the brush of the occasional ones that cause local issues. However, statistics are clearly evident that crime may increase within the local areas and unfortunately, as we have seen in the surrounding area of Basildon, there is a tendency for the perimeters and numbers to grow to an uncontrollable level.

I totally object to this proposal. There is already a traveller site on this area and object to it being expanded, as has been seen elsewhere traveller sites appear to grow without any real control. I believe Rayleigh would be overrun with the traveller community and would not be such a nice place to live. From experience of the sites near Basildon, I believe there would be an increase in crime and anti social behaviour and there would be little the Police or Council could/would do to control these people. I have live in Rayleigh all my life but if this proposal was to go ahead I would strongly consider moving away for the area.

I am also concerned about the impact this will have on roads being even more clogged up than they are now, the effect it will have on schooling in the area, the loss of green space, the environmental impact this will have, the effect this will have on public services and utility services in the area. If this carries on Rayleigh will soon be joined up with Shotgate and Wickford with no fields/countryside left.

This site is adjacent to the A1245 with dangerous access. This is Greenbelt land and no development shoudl be allowed to encroach on the green fields between Rawreth Lane, London Road and the A1245.

100% object to this. There is already the illegal site. No more should be allowed!

Increased traffic
Town already over populated
Loss of green space

Background

We recognise that there is both a need for suitable sites for gypsies and travellers, and indeed a requirement under the RSS for provision, and therefore Countryside Properties support the principle of provision through the Site Allocations DPD.

However, in our view, sites GT1, GT2 are not suitable for allocation, for the reasons we set out.

Representations

Sites GT1 and GT2 essentially relate to the same area of land to the immediate east of the A1245, with GT2 representing a slightly larger area of land (which falls within the control of Countryside Properties) compared to GT1.

The Site Allocations DPD notes that "access to the A1245 would need to be negotiated carefully". The site is already used for the siting of mobile homes and caravans, accessed from what is essentially a 90 degree turn from the dual carriageway. Our understanding is that the existing use already causes concerns in terms of the suitability and safety of the access. It is difficult to see how a feasible and viable alternative can be created to accommodate a significant increase in usage. Slip lanes in to and out of the site would be both expensive to provide and would significantly decrease the amount of land available, as well as disrupting the existing occupiers. We are not sure how else an improved access to the site can be provided.

The area of land between the A1245 and the extent of the proposed new development west of Rayleigh has been identified as a 'buffer' in the Core Strategy, and for the provision of a 'Public Park'. Clearly if there is development on the western side of Rayleigh and additional development on the eastern side of the A1245, that 'buffer' will be squeezed from both sides. It is difficult to see how the provision of a substantial additional area of land for mobile homes/caravans is consistent with the concept of the proposed 'buffer'.

In terms of the question raised at the end of this section of the consultation, it would be rare if one site were suitable for the entirety of the gypsy and travelling communities. As with the provision of homes for the remainder of the population, choice is an important consideration in the provision of sites for gypsies and travellers, and providing a range of sites in different locations and of different sizes helps to ensure that those members of the community that have different site or family needs can be catered for. In principle, therefore, provision should be made on several sites, not one large site.

As indicated above, site GT2 includes land under the control of Countryside Properties. Countryside Properties do not support this proposal, and it is difficult to see therefore how this site could be delivered.

I strongly object to the development of this area as a permanent traveller site. There are numerous practical considerations. The access to the site is onto a busy dual carriageway and some 100 metres south of the traffic lights at Rawreth Lane. As a local resident, I have lost count of the number of times that I have had to brake sharply or swerve to avoid vehicles entering and exiting the site. In addition, there are very regular occurences of vehicles doing illegal u-turns at the traffic lights - coming up the A1245 and then illegally turning back down the A1245 to enter the traveller site. As the traffic light sequence means that traffic turning right into Rawreth Lane goes at the same time as traffic turning left out of Rawreth Lane, this has led to numerous near misses and I can assure you some very unpleasant abuse from the offending u-turners.
There is talk of a need for community cohesion - this site is relatively isolated and there has been little or no integration of the travellers within the Rawreth community. There are no amenities close by, and no public transport links which means that the only means of transport to and from the site for the residents is by vehicle. Any amenities that the travellers say they require - shops, doctors etc. are only accessible by getting in a vehicle. Increasing the size of the site would exacerbate an already dangerous situation, and I understand that Essex Highways objected to the site on safety grounds.
Apart from this, the fact remains that there is a planning enforcement notice on the site and conveying official approval to the site just reinforces the notion that travellers do not have to abide by the same planning laws as the rest of the population - another damaging precedent.

Too big. I have seen what impact there has been at Crays hill. Travellers do not integrate-generally of their choosing. Schools can only cope with financially with a few traveller children - Rawreth school would be overwhelmed. Schools pour aid and time into children that move on in a matter of months or even weeks. Local children who are not quite so disadvantaged miss out when resouces are limited.

I understand this is an illegal site with 7 pitches. Why not make this a legal site and make other small sites in the rest of the district. Given the problem at Crays Hill with polce fearing to go on the site, all traveller sites should be kept small. They do not wish to integrate with the community, they are travellers and travel so do not mix with the community.

This option encroaches into areas of Flood Zone 2 and 3 and would therefore not be in line with PPS25 or the emerging Policy H7 of the Rochford Core Strategy. According to PPS25, gypsey and travellers sites are deemed to be 'highly vulnerable' and are therefore not appropriate in Flood Zone 3 and would require the Exception Test.

Please see our general comments.

I am objecting to this part of the document as I do not believe the addition of a gypsy or travellers site is in the best interests of all the local residents schools and shops to have such an association with such a site. The years of hard work and investment into residential homes and the peace of mind living in a quiet low crime area without due cause to worry about personal safety and belongings would be shattered with the arrival of a site associated with increased crime and lowering of home values due to this kind of settlement.

Re: Highlighted Travellers Sites - Rayleigh

As a resident of Louis Drive West I write to object in the strongest possible terms against any proposal to provide a travellers site on the land between Swallow Aquatics and Little Wheatley Drive which I understand is one of three sites highlighted in the Council's Proposed Future Development Plan.

It is my understanding that there are three highlighted sites:

1. Land adjacent Swallows Aquatics
2. Land on the A1245 opposite View Nurseries
3. Land on the site at the junction of A127 and A1245

I shall deal with the sites a number above. Number 1 is totally unsuitable for purposes in that it is in very close proximity to both residential housing and a junior school and as such would be extremely contentious. As you will be aware from other sites in the general area (Gardiners Lane, Basildon and Crays Hill) unfortunately these sites very soon become very dirty and extremely untidy, an absolute breeding ground for vermin of all sorts. Not the sort of thing which would be acceptable near a school and housing which in the main is inhabited by an older population. Again from experience with other sites, the area designated is invariably expanded to a totally unacceptable level.

Number 2, whilst marginally not quite so contentious in that there is no immediate residential housing, is an area of pleasant open Greenland which in a town which is increasingly expanding and loosing all of its open spaces can ill afford to lose even more. Again aesthetically this would also be an eyesore on a busy main road.

It would appear to me that whilst not wanting a traveller site anywhere in this area, option Number 3 is the most obvious in that on passing it regularly I am aware it already houses a large proportion of travellers and its position would impinge on far fewer residents than either of the two previous sites. This are with its existing industrial uses and untidy users would seem to be the most obvious.

My husband and I are elderly residents who struggled to buy our own house through difficult times and a traveller site on the land adjacent to Swallow Aquatics would have a serious impact on the value of our home should we need in the future to sell it to fund nursing home or health care costs.

Once again, I reiterate that I would have the strongest objection to a development on either of the first two options and hope that my views will be taken into account when deciding this issue.

Support of GT1/2

We understand this site has been in existence for approx 5 years. From talking to various public bodies there have been no reported detrimental problems with this site or its residents. The site is tucked away from the residential zone.

On highway issues there are many businesses and properties with similar access onto the A1245 which are all used on a daily basis with no impact on road safety.

The GT1/2 site has if required plenty of room to construct an access slip road to resolve all highway issues.

We feel this traveller site should be given legal status as this proposal fulfils Rochford District Council's entire traveller pitch needs. It would cause minimal impact on the greenbelt unlike the other traveller/show people proposed sites ie GT3, GT4, GT5, GT6 and GT7.

I am objecting to land options NLR1, NLR2, NLR3, NLR4 and NLR5

because they will cost the unnecessary loss of agricultural land, increase traffic immensly( as if the roads are busy enough),
will create an green belt boundary that can't be defended in future and encourage a merging between Rayleigh and Rawreth.

I would like to also object to the traveller sites options GT1, GT2 and GT3.

My family and I moved to Rayleigh 6 years ago and have been welcomed by a host of wonderful residents, who have a mutual appreciation for this beautiful area, surely we must preserve this green belt area, we need to encourage bees and natural habitats to quite simply to ensure our survival! No habitat - no bees - no pollenation - no plants - no oxygen - no humans!!!!!

I will be passing this information onto as many people as I can to ensure this travesty doesn't happen,

Dear Sir
With regards to options NRL1, NRL2, NRL3, NRL4 and NRL5 we have lived on the London Road for 29 years. During that time we have seen the completion of the Little Wheatley Estate and its extention, the 'Bird' Estate and a development at the top end of Victoria Avenue. We are now faced with continuous traffic and severe hold-ups each morning and evening with not a lot of let-up during the day. If any of these developments go ahead there will be an additional 500+ cars trying to get to Rayleigh either through London Road or Rawreth Lane with the same result - gridlock!!
I understand there are 'brown' sites north of Rawreth Lane which have been offered by Rawreth Parish Council. Why can this not be a viable proposition?
Why does it appear to be that every housing development for Rochford District Council has to be placed west of Rayleigh?
The plans show a light industrial estate on the London Road and our objections regarding traffic are as above. A site adjacent to the A127 and A1245 has been suggested and this would surely be a better solution.
If there has to be a travellers site in the area can it not be amalgamated with the illegal one that is near Rawreth Lane on the A1245.
the final thought on this is that you are taking agricultural land which is needed and where will we be once it has all gone?
Trust you will consider our feelings on this.

i natalie reid object to options
NLR1
NLR2
NLR3
NLR4
NLR5
Because they will cause unnesccary loss of argircultral land
will increase traffic
will creat an green belt boundary that cant be defended in future and encourage a merging between rayleigh and rawreth

I VERY MUCH OBJECT TO THE TRAVELLERS SITES AS THIS DECREASES THE HIGH REPUTATION OF THE AREA
OBJECTION GT1, GT2, GT3, GT7

I would like to register my objection to the proposed residential development on land between Rawreth Lane and London Road. I would also like to object to the proposed siting of legal traveller sites in the area. Please send a short response to this email so that I know my objection has been legally noted & registered.

I have recently been informed of the detailed proposals to build a large number of homes in West Rayleigh/Rawreth, including 2 possible sites for travellers in the same area.

I am writing to strongly object to these proposed housing options labelled NLR1, NLR2, NLR3, NLR4 & NLR5. I am also strongly objecting to plans for any new traveller sites within Rayleigh/Rawreth (GT1, GT2, GT3 & GT7).

Rayleigh is already highly populated and has lost much of it's agricultural land to development over the past few years, we cannot allow more land to be given up. The green fields between London Road and Rawreth Lane should be left alone, no further housing, no employment and definately no new traveller sites. Such proposals will result in a further increase to traffic and pollution, and it will destroy what open spaces we have left.

Leave Rayleigh/Rawreth alone. We've sacrificed enough land already to greedy Councils and Developers.

To whom it may concern,

I am emailing as I want to express my concern and STRONG objection to the councils housing options NLR1 NLR2 NLR3 NLR4 NLR5 being built.

They will cause unnecessary loss of agricultural land, will increase traffic, will create a green belt boundary that cant be defended in future, and will encourage merging of Rayleigh and Rawreth.

The idea of building a travellers site outrages me even more so, and I again STRONGLY object to GT1 GT2 GT3 GT7 being built.
For this to be allowed to happen would be a outrage and would cause me to move out of the Rayleigh area.

I look forward to your response to this email, and would like to know that you are taking objections to these matters seriously.

We are local residents and have in the last 48 hours become aware of the proposal to build a new travellers site along the London Road or alternativeyl expand the existing one nearby Rawreth Lane.

We strongly object to any such proposal as there must be alternative rural locations as opposed to siting the travellers in an established residential area.

Rayleigh is a historic market town and it will not create a good entrance to the town seeing travellers on approach.

Along the London Road the travellers would be in close proximity to Our Lady of Ransom school and this is really not appropriate.

To whom this may concern

Following review of construction planning for the Rayleigh area I wish to object in regards to building on green fields between London Road and Rawreth Lane.and in respect of small scale travellers sites options GT1, GT2, GT3 and GT7.

I understand the need for additional housing in the local however to consider building on green field sites is not a viable option - loss of these sites will create a green belt which will be, over time diminished until no such belt exists.

I note that there are two areas of land which have good access to Battlesbridge Rail station which are deemed as brown field sites. These areas should be considered above all other areas for development.

Also, I am hearing conflicting information in regards to the NPower Building on London Road. I understand that this is deemed to be 'commercial' land however if and when NPower do vacant, the site should either be demolished and transferred to residential use or demolished and smaller commercial units (restricted to ground and one upper floor) to be used for offices / light industrial only.

New modern employment land is needed, agreed. Surely common sense is that this is developed on the plot of land near the A127 with the best road connections (with A127 and A13) otherwise the A1245 and in particular London Road around the Richlee Motor Garage will become even more congested. This area of land I understand at this time is used for tyre storage - it seems every other day there is a fire on site belching black smoke across the roadways.

A travellers site on the A1245 (old A130) would be most viable option for small scale development on a quality scale which meets the needs of the traveller community. A site on London Road would add to further congestion and perhaps to some less open minded locals would not be welcoming at all to potential new residents.

I am writing in respect of NLR1 - NLR5 options which have been drawn to my attention to object to these plans

I am also objecting to GT1, GT2, GT3 and GT7 in relation toTraveller sites.

All of th above will increase traffic, is an unnecessary loss of agricultural land. Part of the reason we moved to Rayleigh was because of the fact that it was in the countryand its tranquil setting.

Please take the local peoples opinion into account.

I object to options NLR1, NLR2, NLR3, NLR4 and NLR5 because they will:-

Cause unnecessary loss of agricultural land.
Will increase traffic ( London Road and Crown Hill are congested during rush hour & Saturdays already)
If these fields are built on, it paves the way for more building on green belt in the future, they will be no fields.


I object to options GT1, GT2, GT3 and GT7 because:-

These sites just increase in size with time.
Refer to Crays Hill which Basildon Council's decision has not been acted on.
Will Increase traffic
More demand on our already crowded schools.
Devalue the price of surround properties.

I wish to register my objection to the Council's housing options NLR1, NLR2, NLR3, NLR4 and NLR5 because they will contribute to increased traffic, will create a decreased green belt boundary that will be difficult to defend in the future and encourage a merging of Rayleigh and Rawreth.

I also wish to register my objection to the Traveller and Employment options for Rayleigh and Rawreth, GT1, GT2, GT3 and GT7.

To whom it may concern,
I am writing to object to the councils housing options NLR1, NLR2, NLR3, NLR4 and NLR5 as they will:

1) Cause an unnecessary loss of agricultural land, given that we are being told that more land is required to produce more food.

2) Will increase traffic, at some periods of the day it already takes between 5 and 10 minutes to access London Road, Rayleigh from Louis Drive West.

3) Will create a green belt boundary that cannot be defended in the future and encourage a merging of Rayleigh and Rawreth.

I also object to the travellers sites, GT1, GT2, GT3, and GT7 for the same reason as No 1) above and the fact these sites are proven to cause a drop in surrounding property prices. There is also a danger that the crime rate for the area will increase, as experienced at Crays Hill, Wickford.

Subject: Proposed building of 770 new houses/possible Tesco and sites for Travellers between Rawreth Lane and London Road

Proposals NLR 1 to 5 and GT 1,2,3,7

Dear Sir/Madam

I'm writing to express my strong objection to the proposed building in West Rayleigh (options NLR1 to 5) and the Traveller sites (GT1, GT2, GT3 and GT7). Despite there being a 'public consultation' on the above since 17th March 2010, it was purely by chance and word of mouth from a neighbour and a LibDem leaflet that I have been made aware of this. I have a fundamental problem with the fact that most of my local community are still unaware of this proposal which will severely impact all those who live in the Rayleigh area. I do think that Rochford District Council has a duty to disclose something as important as this to their tax paying households and indeed could easily have mailshot us all as they have all our addresses! This has been a most underhand way of dealing with things.

The local infrastructure within Rayleigh can not cope with the introduction of another 770 houses into this already crowded area.

Congestion on the roads is already at ridiculous levels with it regularly taking 30 minutes to drive from Victoria Avenue to the Weir out of rush hour. During rush hour the queue to the High Street regularly extends down along London Road all the way back to the A130. If anything happens on the A127 and traffic tries to come off the road then London Road suffers terribly and is often at a standstill.

As a rail commuter I see on a daily basis how crowded the train services are between Rayleigh and London. During the morning and evening commute it is difficult to get a seat and it only takes one service to be cut and hundreds of passengers are left standing, often for the entire 40 minute journey. This is far from satisfactory in itself considering a season ticket now costs over £3000!

Making the assumption that the majority of the new houses are likely to have children then where will they go to school? With 2 children in school myself, it is obvious the strain on the local schools already with large class sizes and insufficient places at local schools. The only school with spaces is Grove Wood Primary but this is a 15 minute car drive at school times from this area of Rayleigh.

Local doctors, dentists and hospitals are already over stretched - adding more housing to Rayleigh will only make the problem worse. It is already extremely difficult to get appointments and adding 2-3000 extra residents to the lists for doctors and dentists will make it virtually impossible to get through by telephone to book. My children have had to suffer several times because I could not get them appointments to see a doctor.

Surely the area being considered for the 770 houses is green belt and therefore should be protected? How can the local council allow building on such precious land further ruining what little countryside we have left? Once building begins on this land it will set a precedent and future building applications will no doubt follow, swallowing up the entire area.

I am also concerned that a Traveller site will be built. There are many of these in Essex already and putting one so close to established housing areas and businesses is a very unpopular decision locally. Not one resident around here thinks it is a good idea. Surely your job is to enhance the local area for the benefit of local people, not upset the entire local population? We are all very much aware of the effect the site at Crays Farm had on the schools, crime rates and house prices and do not want a repeat of this here. I also hear that Tesco plan to build on the E-On site. There are many supermarkets in the area already. Adding more will make traffic worse, kill local shops already struggling to compete with Asda and Sainsburys. It is not needed or wanted.

My family and I wish to formally state our objections to these plans. I have also copied this email to our MP Mark Francois.

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

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.

I object to housing options NLR1, NLR2, NLR3, NLR4 and NLR5 because they will -

cause an unnecessary loss of agricultural land
will increase traffic, in an already traffic blackspot
will create a green belt boundary that cannot be defended in the future
will encourage a merging of Rayleigh and Rawreth, creating a sprawl of housing.

I strongly object to traveller options GT1, GT2, GT3 and GT7 as they will introduce unwelcome elements to a currently stable environment.

I would like to raise my objection to the council's housing options NLR1, NLR2, NLR3, NLR4 and NRL5 because they will:

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

I also object to traveller sites and employment - options GT1, GT2, GT3 and GT7.

I trust you will take my obections into consideration

Having attended a meeting on the subject, I object to housing options NLR1 NLR2 NLR3 NLR4 & NLR5 as they will :

cause an unnecessary loss of agricultural land
will increase traffic, without major improvements to infrastructure
will create a green belt boundary that cannot be defended in future
will encourage a merging of Rawreth and Rayleigh


I strongly object to traveller options GT1 GT2 GT3 & GT7