Option GT3

I strongly object to this proposed site.
This land should not be set aside for this use.
There was land on the A130 by pass that was suitable, used for a while before being ruined and everything taken from it.

Do you not realise this is next to a school? Surely this should not be allowed to happen so close to children? My experience with 'Travellers' is that all you get is increased crime and disruption to the community, not increased cohession.

Rgds
Anthony May

This proposed site is next to what is an already very busy road and would put more pressure on the existing infrastructure. This, coupled with the proposed new housing off the London Road is over-development.
Rayleigh is losing its green spaces too quickly .

Objections

* Increase in traffic onto a very narrow road which cannot cope now with the traffic flow

* This area is notorious for flooding - fields under water most of winter

* There will be no defined green barrier between Rayleigh and Rawreth

* No planning for additional schools - doctors - sports facilities

* Pressure on existing utilities - already overstretched

* Rayleigh town already has inadequate parking and facilities - no attractions for 30+ age group

* Proposed extension to Southend Airport will add to local traffic problems

OBJECTION ON THE BASIS OF:

Access via London Road is ridiculous as this road is already gridlocked at certain times due to traffic turning off onto existing developments. (Hasn't the council already turned down a request for a very small sports club development due to the issue of traffic congestion on London Road)?

Risk that the site will "spread" east to swallow up adjacent land.

Likelihood that "travellers" will live on site permanently (and build permanent structures). If they wish to become permanent residents of the district, surely there are due processes such as council waiting lists for accommodation? Equal treatment for all people would surely enhance "community cohesion".

Potential impact on nearby school. Ask the residents of Crays Hill.

Presumably pylons would need re-routing to accommodate this proposal. Cost could be significant. Who pays?

Impact that site could have on any potential to attract businesses to nearby "new employment land".

The land along London Road would be far better used to create some facility for the council tax paying residents, such as allotments.

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.

London Road is already far to busy with traffic.

I totally object to this proposal. I do not believe the pylons would constrain the residential setllement and 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.

An unlikely location to select. Not the best use for land on a prime gateway into Rayleigh.

To locate this site so close to existing schools, residential and businesses would be inappropriate when it has been well documented that integration with neighbouring residents and the local community is not something that the majority of travellers want.

A travellers site is already located on A1245 to either expand this or allocate a further site so close may encourage illegal expansion. It would be more desirable and easier to manage if much smaller plots were to be allocated throughout the whole district not confined to one area.

A travellers site already exists near Rawreth Lane on A1245 to have another located so close could potentially result in illegal expansion which would be difficult to contain, manage and police.

It has been found in the past that travellers by tradition have no wish to integrate with the surrounding community so smaller sites spread over the entire district would be more appropriate.

As a Rayleigh resident, very close to the proposed site I STRONGLY object to this proposal. Schools, roads and all facilities seem to be pushed to their limits without further development in the area. I also have absolutely no idea how this proposal could offer the potential for increased 'community cohesion'.

This area is currently farmland, (greenbelt) and unless all brownbelt sites have been utilised under no circumstances should it be used. Traffic into Rayliegh at peak times along the 129 is at a standstill and to increase it would not be acceptable.
A travellers site being the first impression that somebody sees as they enter Rayleigh is hardly the perfect advert to try to attract an proffesional, affleuent population.
Too close to the exisiting population and will increase animosity towards them.

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

Placing a site for travellers here would further increase the traffic congestion on London Road which is already at a standstill for several hours at peak times, stretching from Carpenters Arms roundabout to the Town Centre.
In my experience Travellers have no wish to integrate with their surrounding communities.
Judging by the problems that Basildon Council are experiencing with the site at Crays Hill, this would be inviting trouble in the form of overcrowding, sanitation problems, conflict with local residents and a blot on the landscape.

I do not think that the site should be near a primary school, local playing fields or residential property. You mention throughout that residential settlement is essential. However, it is evident from the news and media coverage that travellers have no interest in integrating with the local community. I therefore would strongly recommend that GT6 option should be used.

This area is too close to the school, and gives the opportunity for an illegal extension to become a large site. Given the problem at Crays Hill with police fearing to go on the site, all traveller sites should be kept small with no opportunity for them to made larger. Travellers do not wish to integrate with the community, they are travellers and travel so do not integrate. There is a traveller site on the A1245 surely this is sufficient for the Rayleigh area, and other parts of the district should take their share.

I object to proposal GT3 as combined with the NLR proposals it will increase traffic and is unlikely to constrained to the allocated land. Many of these areas become permanent with brick walls etc (see the other sites in Rochford). The arguments around integration into the local community are not valid as these communities often do not seek the integration.

I object to the plans, as it will cause more traffic in a already very heavily populated road.

Placing a travellers site here would further increase the traffic to the already busy A129. In my experience travellers do not wish to be integrated with the local community. Councillors should also look carefully to the problems that have arisen in the Crays Hill area and if they were to go ahead they would be inviting trouble with untidyness, sanitation, and conflicts with the local community.

I have strong objections to this site. The idea that travellers or indeed the settlements nearby want to integrate and have community cohesion is not likely. There are better sites for the pitches, and putting them all here is a bad idea and is vociferiously opposed by local residents.

House prices fall in areas with gypsy/traveller sites. Increased crime rate whether it's their doing or someone elses as others would blame them to more likely to commit crime in this area.

Local surroundings will be spoiled due to increased rubbish and mess left around the site as they don't treat the areas they live in with the same respect as home owners and residents. Why does Rayleigh want such a site? The answer is it does not want one now or ever no benefit whatsoever, just trouble and loss of peace of mind in security to home and surrounding areas.

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.

Not necessary in this area. Existing site on A1245 is enough.

I do not believe that either of these proposals are going to be constructive to the look or to the benefit of Rayleigh.

We already have parking problems and the roads are very busy.

I do not think we have the facilities to maintain either of these projects and am therefore against them.

Residential Allocation- Options

North of London Road, Rayleigh. Options NLR1 to NLR5.
Over the past 30 years many of houses have been built off of the London Road corridor, especially off Little Wheatleys Chase and Victoria Road.

All the traffic from those houses had to use London Road, and for the 550 proposed new houses they would also have to use London Road or Rawreth Lane.

Even at current traffic levels it only takes us a few minutes to drive to Thurrock Lakeside as it does to Rayleigh town centre from our home in Alexandria Drive, such is the traffic.

Rayleigh, particularly this part, cannot take more traffic and local services would also be overloaded.


Gypsy and Traveller Sites

I am totally against the option GT3, South of London Road, between Little Wheatleys Chase and St. Johns Drive.

This site is very close to long standing local communities who would worry about the ramifications of it being so near.

History shows us such site soon fall into disrepute and general untidiness which taints the whole area, including the houses in that area causing them to be devalued. This in turn causes resentment towards the dwellers of that site.

This site is stated, could cause community cohesion and integration. Why assume either community wants to integrate?

If yorr are duty bound to provide sites for gipsy's and travellers I believe such sites would be more acceptable if they were located in areas not on top of local existing communities such as GT6 north of the A127 and east of the A1245.

Is it also the case the gipsy's already occupy a site as in Option GT1, to the east of A1245 and south of Rawreth Lane without Planning Permission?

Residential Allocation- Options

North of London Road, Rayleigh. Options NLR1 to NLR5.
Over the past 30 years many of houses have been built off of the London Road corridor, especially off Little Wheatleys Chase and Victoria Road.

All the traffic from those houses had to use London Road, and for the 550 proposed new houses they would also have to use London Road or Rawreth Lane.

Even at current traffic levels it only takes us a few minutes to drive to Thurrock Lakeside as it does to Rayleigh town centre from our home in Alexandria Drive, such is the traffic.

Rayleigh, particularly this part, cannot take more traffic and local services would also be overloaded.


Gypsy and Traveller Sites

I am totally against the option GT3, South of London Road, between Little Wheatleys Chase and St. Johns Drive.

This site is very close to long standing local communities who would worry about the ramifications of it being so near.

History shows us such site soon fall into disrepute and general untidiness which taints the whole area, including the houses in that area causing them to be devalued. This in turn causes resentment towards the dwellers of that site.

This site is stated, could cause community cohesion and integration. Why assume either community wants to integrate?

If your are duty bound to provide sites for gipsy's and travellers I believe such sites would be more acceptable if they were located in areas not on top of local existing communities such as GT6 north of the A127 and east of the A1245.

Is it also the case the gipsy's already occupy a site as in Option GT1, to the east of A1245 and south of Rawreth Lane without Planning Permission?

Hello,


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


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


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


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


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


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


Thanks,

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,

I am writing to object to the proposal to locate a gypsy site on London Road, Rayleigh and the moving of the industrial estate from Rawreth Lane to London Road.

We do not need the eye sore of both a gypsy site and an industrial estate on this approach into Rayleigh, what impression does this give of Rayleigh.

Your website proposed an alternative site as you leave the A127 by the Fairglens roundabout, in my opinion this would be a much better option especially as the travellers do not wish to be integrated into the local community.