Option GT3

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

I under stand that you are planning to develope a site for gypsies in london road behind Swallows.I think this is wrong to put asite there especially near the school.WE did not know about the meeting last Thursday and would have attended had we been informed.There is great opposition to your plan and you should hold another meeting,to discuss it again.There is no one iknow who agrees with the plan.

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 discovered quite by chance that there is a proposal to provide accomodation for Travellers (option GT3) immediately behind Our Lady of Ransom Catholic Primary/Junior school. This appears to have been managed in a very stealthy manner, with very few people being consulted about the proposal, and the details are difficult to track down even when you are aware. Quite apart from my concerns about the effects of such a site on the school, it's not a great advert to have this directly on the road into Rayleigh.

Now that this news is spreading around the schools parents, I imagine there will be considerable numbers of objections to the scheme. The outcome of such a decision is likely to make the council unpopular on the verge of an election?

I am writing to you to voice my objection to the proposed Travellers' site "Option GT3" which is to be situated on the London Road in Rayleigh close to Swallow's Aquatic Centre and the Little Wheatley's nursery.

The grounds for my objection are:
- lack of local infrastructure to support these Travellers i.e. potential impact on local amenities,
- the traffic volumes will increase along the London Road, yet again,
- the impact on the landscape that such a group will have especially around waste,
- security of isolated properties particularly the businesses close i.e. Swallow's Aquatics, Little Wheatly's nursery and not to mention the detached homes of which there are a few,
- that West Rayleigh appears to bare the brunt of all new developments ,
- of increased Costs to Council Tax Payers to cover the costs to set the site up in the first place and then to maintain it!

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 am deeply concerned, and outraged that we have heard that planning permission has been given, without locals consent for a travellers site to be built at the back of the swallows aquatic centre that also backs on to the fields of Our Lady Of Ransom School and national trust land.

I have lived in Rayleigh for 13 years now, under tory leadership, and I'm frankly disgusted that these decisions are made by people that will not have to live with the mess, insecurity and hassle that these sites create.

You only have to look at what has happened to the travellers sites in Basildon, over the years, these have been over looked by the authority, and, as is well documented, in the news and court cases, have grown and grown uncontrollably, and still nothing can be done.

Can you answer some questions at this point, When the house prices in the area drop (WHICH THEY WILL IF THIS GOES AHEAD), will the council tax payments drop as well?

Will the authorities come down on the travellers when there is the possibility that the children fail to attend the already over crowded schools?

Who will be picking up the bill for preparing the land and maintaining the up-keep?

Will we be getting more police patrols in the area to keep EVERYONE safe?

I would like you to confirm these plans and answer the questions i have propossed to you, and i am totally against the plans drawn up.

Re: Relocating the Rawreth Lane Industrial Estate

As a general rule, I have no objections to building new houses on an old industrial site, as long as the relevant facilities are also built, i.e.
Doctors, parks and schools.

In order to accommodate these 220 new homes it is VITAL that a new school is built as I do not believe the 4 schools in the local vicinity (St Nicholas, Downhall, Our Lady of Ransom and Glebe) can accommodate them without detrimental effect. IF THE NEW SCHOOL IS NOT GOING TO BE BUILT THEN I OBJECT TO THE HOUSES BEING BUILT!


Re: Relocating Rawreth Lane Industrial Estate

I strongly object to it being put anywhere on the London Road (A129) in West Rayleigh, as all industrial estates should be kept well away from residential areas. This is especially the case with Rawreth Lane Industrial Estate as it is experiencing lots of dust pollution. West Rayleigh would then be expected to put up with more traffic congestion, traffic pollution and dust pollution.

Re: Development Ref: NLR1-5

I also strongly object to a further 550 houses being built on both greenbelt land and a floodplain. I do not believe we should ever build houses on either as this is just asking for trouble bearing in mind our current climate. Floodplains are there for a very important reason!

I also feel the traffic it would cause down the A129 would be horrific as this road is already a very busy and congested road.

There is no way the local schools can accommodate a further 550 houses.

I believe West Rayleigh should/could not accommodate ANY more developments!
Our infrastructure cannot cope, i.e. Travel, schooling, doctors and sewerage.

Re: Gypsy & Travelers site Ref GT3

I do not feel the best place for the travelers site is down the A129. There is already a travelers site on the A1245, between Rayleigh and Rawreth, why not make this site bigger? Why lose more greenfields in an already built up area. I therefore feel option GT2 is the best solution.

I feel West Rayleigh is being bombarded with potential developments which will totally ruin the area - 770 house, an industrial estate and travelers site.

DO NOT BUILD EVERYWHERE AND RUIN OUR GREEN SPACE.

I am a resident of Rayleigh for over 10 years, and have lived within the District of Rochford for over 30 years.

Please see below my comments on the proposed gypsy sites in and around Rayleigh:

* My first concern is to the general location - why is only Rayleigh / Rawreth / Hullbridge / Hockley being considered? Whilst not technically within the District of Rochford, the A127 corridor already has a significant gypsy population (Dale Farm, Cranfield Park, Hovefields etc) which would already place an increased burden on Rayleigh's resources, so why place a further strain on the town? Surely it would be better to spread the population across the District;

* If the new site has to be situated in the West of the District, I would strongly object to it being sited next to schools, due to the potential for disruption, so for me GT3 should be discounted.

* If the District has a commitment to 18 pitches in total, why is such a large site like GT6 being considered? If only 11 new pitches are required, then surely a smaller site should be considered. We have seen what problems occur when a large site for travellers is set up at Dale Farm, it becomes a significant drain on local resources, and also crime rate are also increased.

* Can you please confirm to me the arrangement for travellers and the facilities / utilities the council are required to provide? Will the travellers be required to pay Council Tax to help pay for the set up of their new site?

I would appreciate you considering my comments when reviewing the proposal, and if possible some feedback on the concerns raised?

A gypsy site on the side A129 is stupid. The A129 is a busy enough road as it is, turning out of Little Wheatley Chase is bad enough now and can take up to 10 minutes some evenings.

Also in the past when we have had gypsy and travellers in the area, we have had many more break ins, stuff going missing from our gardens and garages, plus loads of litter left everywhere. A gypsy camp would put a blight on the whole area, leaving us unable to sell our property.

Our green belt land should stay green belt.

I wish to state in the strongest possible terms my complete opposition to your proposal OPTION GT3 for development and a planned travellers site in west Rayleigh. This area is already over developed and this will do nothing to help the area, in fact it will have the opposite effect on the entire town and residents. I am sure you have many areas better for this sort of thing and the thought of yet another traveller site in an area already well supplied for these people (many sites off the A127 within a couple of miles plus Wickford/Crays hill). Goodness knows what will become of the town if this is allowed to go ahead for either housing or worse... the current road infrastructure is already inadequite for the current traffic and all you are proposing is to make this worse AND reducing a currently good area into a no go zone. Given the threat we all suffer with the development of Southend Airport this will just add more suffering and chaos to Rayleigh !!!

RE: Proposed building of 770 new houses, sites for Gypsies between Rawreth Lane and London Road, and possibly a Tesco

We are writing to strongly protest about the above captioned. Despite there being a 'public consultation' on the above since 17th March 2010, it was purely by chance and word of mouth from neighbours that we have been made aware of this.

We have a fundamental problem with the fact that most of the local community are still unaware of this proposal which will severely impact all those who live in the Rayleigh area. We do think that Rochford District Council has a duty to disclose something as meaningful as this to their tax paying households and indeed could easily have mailshot us all as they have all our addresses! At the very least this proposal could have been laminated and tied to lampposts around the area, if it were a question of cost!

We feel as residents in Rayleigh that our Council has severley let us down by even thinking it possible that we would wish or consent to a traveller camp within or anywhere near us. Our crime rate with go through the roof, our beautiful town will no longer be so, we will be unable to move (as who would want by choice to live near that). Many people have said they will no longer pay their council tax should this go ahead, if its good enough for the traveller community it will be good enough for us. Unfortunately there is a stigma attached to these folk, who do nothing but cause havoc and upset wherever they settle and still do nothing to change that stigma. If these people were travellers, please explain why they need pre-fab homes.

The congestion in Rayleigh High Street and access via London and Crown Hills is currently a nightmare. Even out of rush hour it has taken more than 30 minutes to drive from homes past the station and down to the Weir! What can you be thinking by introducing another 770 houses to this already crowded area? On the basis that each home will have an average of 2 cars and 2 children, how will our infrasstructure - roads and schools - cope with this? It is quite impossible and should not be allowed consent.

Our family wish to formally state our disagreement with these plans and have copied this email to our local MP.

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

Our family wishes to formally state our disagreement with the plans for Proposed building of 770 new houses, sites for Gypsies between Rawreth Lane and London Road, and possibly a Tesco.

I am outraged that as a tax paying resident within the immediate vicinity of the proposed site the earliest I heard about this was YESTERDAY the 27th April and by word of a mother from my son's preschool. My family and I absolutely object to the proposed build of 770 new homes for travellers in a beautiful town such as Rayleigh.

In the last year alone my home and family have been victims of serious crime no less than 3 times and the local police force has struggled to cope with each incident.
I am disgusted that the cost of my home would depreciate within hours of this proposal being agreed which would render us unable to move away from the problem. My husband suffers from serious depression regarding the recent financial downturn and the effect that this has had on our family and my concern for his health would be immensely heightened.
I do not want my children growing up around the disrepute these travelling communities would bring and I certainly do not wish my children to attend a school with them.
Our road is already disrespected by a lot of people using it as a rat run and the prospect of having an accident with a traveler whom doesn't have insurance will incense most law abiding residents
thus providing a worry for vigilante behaviour
this is a beautiful town with a fabulous reputation why ruin that?
Local businesses would all suffer at the hands of criminal behaviour
My childminding business would be affected by people not wishing to come to this side of town.
All of the vulnerable residents, elderly/those less able would be frightened to go out and this in turn would also affect the local businesses
My home insurance would increase also because of the added risk.
What demographic reason do you have in favour of this proposition? Do you really think our little town could cope with the addition of freeloaders and illegal motorists?

With the election looming, my vote will go to whomever will put a stop to this nonsense. Why should they not pay taxes? and why are they not accounted for because of it? if it so that they do not have a fixed abode then why build them fixed addresses?

I want to be kept informed of all meeting and news regarding this proposition.

Our Family wish to formally state our disagreement with these plans for a proposed building of 770 New Houses, sites for Gypsies between Rawreth Lane and London Road also the site/s in Hockley, a possible Tesco and have copied this complaint to our local MP. Please keep me informed of any meetings/news on this subject.

It was brought to my attention about the possible building of new houses and a gypsy site nr swallows on London road. I was rather concerned that i had no knowledge of this when i live near this area. The traffic is bad enough on that road without all this extra traffic this could cause. Ourchildren will be growing up not knowing what a green field looks like if all our fields are taken for housing. The community should be made more aware of what the council are proposing after all you are supposed to be working for the good of all

Subject: Opposition to Proposed Building of 500 homes and Gypsy Sites in London Road area of Rayleigh


To Whom it may concern

Our family wish to formally state our opposition to the plans that propose the building of 500 new houses and sites for Gypsies and Travellers on greenbelt land in Rayleigh especially off London Road to the north of the A127 and possibly a Tesco on the EDP site on London Road and have copied this email to our local MP.

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

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.

Our family wish to formally state our disagreement and anger with these plans for proposed building of 770 new houses, sites for Gypsies between Rawreth Lane and London Road, Rayleigh. We are also aware of a possiblity of a Tesco also being built.
I along with my wife have lived in Rayleigh all our lives and can easily notice the overcrowding of such a beutifull area as a result of constant building of new housing estates. This area struggles to cope with traffic at this time and any further building will just add to this problem.
My wife is a teacher and already has class sizes of approx 30 plus children. How can the schools possibly cope with any further development resulting in further school placements needed??? This is detrimental to a childs education as well as overly stressfull for any teacher with such class sizes.
Due to the economic climate, funding for policing will be frozen/ cut back and local police will be unable to cope with the almost garunteed increase in crime rates in the area. Being a police officer in the Metropolitan police I am already witnessing these cut backs with the almost daily increased demand to cut crime and reach pointless figures to satisfy beurocrates.

The sewage will be unable to cope with the demand along with many other areas of the infrastructure.

I would also like to add that I find it appauling and disrespectful to tax paying residents that I, along with almost all other people I have spoken to, have only been made aware of this issue by word of mouth. Is this how the council wish to treat its clients???

I have copied this email to my local MP. I would appreciate any updates on any further news/meetings regarding this subject as this directly involves my family.

Dear Sirs

I am sending this email to object to the possibility of a permanent travellers site in Rayleigh. My reasons are as follows:

1. I believe that this land is green belt and in which case it is contrary to Government Policy.

2. It is contrary to Local Government Policy.

3. Affordable housing in Rayleigh will become unsellable.

4. Loss of visual amenities.

5. Finally and most importantly, the demans on local infrastructure (i.e. local schools, doctors surgeries, traffice pollution etc.)

I look forward to hearing from you.

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.

Re: Travellers sites in and around Rayleigh, Essex

Our Family wish to formally state our disagreement with the plans for a proposed building of 770 new houses, sites for gypsies between Rawreth Lane/London Road also the site/s in Hockley and a possible Tesco.

I have copied this complaint to our local MP. Please keep me informed of any meetings or further news on this subject.

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

RE: Proposed building of 770 new houses & sites for Gypsies between Rawreth Lane and London Road


We are writing to strongly protest about the above captioned. Despite there being a 'public consultation' on the above since 17th March 2010, it was purely by chance and word of mouth from neighbours that we have been made aware of this.

We have a fundamental problem with the fact that most of the local community are still unaware of this proposal which will severely impact all those who live in the Rayleigh area. We do think that Rochford District Council has a duty to disclose something as meaningful as this to their tax paying households and indeed could easily have mailshot us all as they have all our addresses! At the very least this proposal could have been laminated and tied to lampposts around the area, if it were a question of cost!




We feel as residents in Rayleigh that our Council has severley let us down by even thinking it possible that we would wish or consent to a traveller camp within or anywhere near us. Our crime rate with go through the roof, our beautiful town will no longer be so, we will be unable to move (as who would want by choice to live near that). Many people have said they will no longer pay their council tax should this go ahead, if its good enough for the traveller community it will be good enough for us. Unfortunately there is a stigma attached to these folk, who do nothing but cause havoc and upset wherever they settle and still do nothing to change that stigma. If these people were travellers, please explain why they need pre-fab homes.

The congestion in Rayleigh High Street and access via London and Crown Hills is currently a nightmare. Even out of rush hour it has taken more than 30 minutes to drive from homes past the station and down to the Weir! What can you be thinking by introducing another 770 houses to this already crowded area? On the basis that each home will have an average of 2 cars and 2 children, how will our infrasstructure - roads and schools - cope with this? It is quite impossible and should not be allowed consent.

Our family wish to formally state our disagreement with these plans and have copied this email to our local MP.

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

RE: Proposed building of 770 new houses & sites for Gypsies between Rawreth Lane and London Road


We are writing to strongly protest about the above captioned. Despite there being a 'public consultation' on the above since 17th March 2010, it was purely by chance and word of mouth from neighbours that we have been made aware of this.

We have a fundamental problem with the fact that most of the local community are still unaware of this proposal which will severely impact all those who live in the Rayleigh area. We do think that Rochford District Council has a duty to disclose something as meaningful as this to their tax paying households and indeed could easily have mailshot us all as they have all our addresses! At the very least this proposal could have been laminated and tied to lampposts around the area, if it were a question of cost!




We feel that our Council has severley let us down by even thinking it possible that we would wish or consent to a traveller camp within or anywhere near us. Our crime rate with go through the roof, our beautiful town will no longer be so, we will be unable to move (as who would want by choice to live near that). Many people have said they will no longer pay their council tax should this go ahead, if its good enough for the traveller community it will be good enough for us. Unfortunately there is a stigma attached to these folk, who do nothing but cause havoc and upset wherever they settle and still do nothing to change that stigma. If these people were travellers, please explain why they need pre-fab homes.

The congestion in Rayleigh High Street and access via London and Crown Hills is currently a nightmare. Even out of rush hour it has taken more than 30 minutes to drive from homes past the station and down to the Weir! What can you be thinking by introducing another 770 houses to this already crowded area? On the basis that each home will have an average of 2 cars and 2 children, how will our infrasstructure - roads and schools - cope with this? It is quite impossible and should not be allowed consent.

Our family wish to formally state our disagreement with these plans and have copied this email to our local MP.

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

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.

We are writing to strongly protest about the above captioned. Despite there being a 'public consultation' on the above since 17th March 2010, it was purely by chance and word of mouth from neighbours that we have been made aware of this.

We have a fundamental problem with the fact that most of the local community are still unaware of this proposal which will severely impact all those who live in the Rayleigh area. We do think that Rochford District Council has a duty to disclose something as meaningful as this to their tax paying households and indeed could easily have mailshot us all as they have all our addresses! At the very least this proposal could have been laminated and tied to lampposts around the area, if it were a question of cost!



We feel as residents in Rayleigh that our Council has severley let us down by even thinking it possible that we would wish or consent to a traveller camp within or anywhere near us. Our crime rate with go through the roof, our beautiful town will no longer be so, we will be unable to move (as who would want by choice to live near that). Many people have said they will no longer pay their council tax should this go ahead, if its good enough for the traveller community it will be good enough for us. Unfortunately there is a stigma attached to these folk, who do nothing but cause havoc and upset wherever they settle and still do nothing to change that stigma. If these people were travellers, please explain why they need pre-fab homes.

The congestion in Rayleigh High Street and access via London and Crown Hills is currently a nightmare. Even out of rush hour it has taken more than 30 minutes to drive from homes past the station and down to the Weir! What can you be thinking by introducing another 770 houses to this already crowded area? On the basis that each home will have an average of 2 cars and 2 children, how will our infrasstructure - roads and schools - cope with this? It is quite impossible and should not be allowed consent.

Our family wish to formally state our disagreement with these plans and have copied this email to our local MP.

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

I have tried to navigate through your planning permissions site to find the right page on which to lodge my opposition to a planned housing of a travellers site on land behind swallow aquatics in rayleigh near the carpenters arms roundabout. This a very residential area in rayleigh and near a lot of schools and current housing.

Please can you ensure that this opposition is passed onto the correct office/authority and send confirmation that this has been actioned.