Option GT6

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.

I feel I must object to the proposal that land at Goldsmith Drive becoming a travellers site for the following reasons:

Firstly and most importantly is that Goldsmith Drive itself can not cope with the extra traffic a travellers site will cause, especially as heavy vehicles are often used in their lines of work, such as tarmacing, roofing, road, patio work etc.

Secondly is the lack of utilities such as water, electric, main sewerage.

I do however think that option GT6 seems to be an ideal site, not only is it large enough and has main road access, I notice that it seems to be kept tidy looking maybe because it is on a main route.

I would also like to state that when I applied for permission to use land next to Option GT7 as a nursery Rochford Council stipulated that I cannot encourage public access for nursery sales because of the unsuitable road condition.

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.

I am writing to object to the proposal to place a travellers site on London Road, Rayleigh GT3. Unfortunately the reputation of travellers is such that we do not want a site close to our houses located off the London Road. If this site was given the go ahead, there would be nothing to stop it expanding out of control into the adjoining fields and I do not have confidence that Rochford District Council could stop this happening, no more than other councils have been able to prevent it. London Road is already a heavily congested route into Rayleigh and a travellers site will only add to this congestion. It will be an eyesore and not a good 'first impression' for anyone visiting Rayleigh. In my opinion, GT6 would be a much better option as the site would have the capacity to support the full allocation required. It would give the travellers good access to major routes and allow them their own community, which is what they appear to prefer.

I do not want London Road to become another Crays Hill!

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

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The full details of these surveys are attached.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Objection to the traveller sites.
See paper copy for details.

Objection to Traveller Site GT6. See paper copy for details.

RE: ALLOCATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT PLAN DOCUMENTS



Thank you for giving Anglian Water the opportunity to comment on the above document.



Please find our comments summarized on the attached document.

Comments made on Allocations, GT3, GT6 and E18.
See paper copy for details.

Comments made on Allocations, GT3, GT6 and E18.
See paper copy for details.

Support of GT6. See paper copy.

Due to its remoteness from existing residential development, this site is the least likely of the GT options to cause conflict with local residents. For this reason, it should be used to provide the entire allocation of additional traveller pitches for the Rochford District.