Option GT7

This site is not large enough to support all 11 pitches. This location is too close to existing residential dwellings. The impact of traveler sites on the local community is best demonstrated by that which has happened at Crays Hill. RDC should learn by other DC's mistakes.

Site not large enough, and one can only assume that the surounding fields would become a rubbish tip and we the tax payers would have to pay to clear it or the cost of policing the site.

This site is too small to be of significant use in meeting the overall target. I also disagree that it integrates well into the existing residential settlement - it is again 'out on a limb'.

Not good,stop think about integrateing into the existing residentail settlement because that will not happen,there will be nothing but trouble.

This site is clearly too small and should not be considered, GT1 & GT2 are much more suitable to the needs of the Traveller's that have to have facilities provided for them to stop at.

With sites GT1 and GT2 being clearly more suitable this site again provides no services for use by travelling families .

Site too small to accommodate all the required allocation of pitches. It would be better to have all the pitches in the same location.

I do not believe that the local infrastructure will support this type of development, or that RDC has the necessary expertise to manage such a development. I oppose any buildings on green belt or agricultural land.

Too close to residential areas

This site has no direct access and would cause massive disruption to all the local residents and add hugely to the traffic problems in Rawreth Lane and the Hullbridge Road.

The access to and from Goldsmith Drive is not adequate to accomodate a traveller site, Goldsmith Drive is unadopted, has no mains services and lies within the Greenbelt, there are more viable sites that should be considered

This is not an appropriate location for a traveller site

Please note that I strongly object to the council's housing options NLR1, NLR2, NLR3, NLR4 & NLR5 (but especially LNR1) because they will;

cause an unnecessary loss of agricultural land,

will increase traffic,

will over load the local services such as schools and doctors surgeries,

will create a green belt boundary that can't be defended in future

and encourage a merging between Rawreth and Rayleigh.

I also srongly oppose traveller site options GT1, GT2, GT3 and GT7.

Please note my comments.

Iobject on the grounds of increase in traffic the impact on greenbelt land and open spaces increase in carbon footprints the negative impact this will have on the local community.

I strongly object to this site. I feel it would be detrimental to Rayleigh. It would impact on house prices, crime rates, ambience of the area and take divert spending away from other more important sectors.

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.

Not a suitable location. Poor access by road, poor utility provision and too close to existing housing.

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

Too big an impact on the environment. Isn't this Green Belt? Although I believe Wheatley Farm was,too,and look what happened to that! Children would be able to go to Glebe School which has enough on it's plate already. Our Lady of Ransom school would become a focus.

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. 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.

Once again, the intention appears to be to create the complete allocation required in West Rayleigh. If we MUST have this number of sites they should be smaller ard spread around the whole of the Rochford District.

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 wish to protest against the proposal to build appox 400/500 houses on green belt land in Hullbridge.

I have been a resident of the village for more than 47 years and have seen many changes some good some bad but to allow this development to go ahead is in my view a big mistake. We do not have the school, transport community facilities or infrastructure required to cope with the extra number of people both adults and children this scale of building will produce.

I also disagree with the proposed travellers site on the outskirts of the village as this will also impact on the above facilities and reports of the problems experienced in some areas containing other travellers sites could give rise to a similar situation in Hullbridge which I feel has grown enough in the time I have lived here.

Hullbridge is a village and building on this scale is in danger of changing this status forever.

Objections to GT7

Road Issues
Goldsmith Drive is unmade single track with no public passing places before proposed travellers site needing constant repair due to existing heavy traffic use which is:

1. Busy angling club which can peek at approx 80 car trips per day
2. Plant nursery lorries etc approx 8 per day
3. 4 barns generating traffic approx 8 per day
4. Various horse owners visiting horses and fields approx 10 per day

Existing residents' dwellings numbering 10 with all the usual traffic approx 24 cars and
vans x 6 trips per day each, approx 144 per day
various deliveries approx 6 x 2 per day, approx 12 per day
visitors to residents approx 10 visitors x 2, approx 20 per day
pedestrian traffic approx 20 people x 2, approx 40 per day
horse riders (all roads are now public bridleways) 12 x 2, approx 24 per day
Total (mostly occurring 8am-6pm) 346 traffic movements per day.

We feel that the road has reached capacity and is unable to cope with any extra traffic. As it is an unmade unadopted road with no pavements and no street lights, no passing places.

Caravan Club
The Angling Club was refused Caravan Club status due to the unsuitability of the access raods for caravans. Entrance to Goldsmith - vision is quite limited to the left caravans leaving at slow speed would cause problems as although Hullbridge Road is 40mph speeding is quite common.

Utilities
Gas - There is no gas available in Goldsmith Drive. Service is already over used.
Water - There is no dedicated water supply in Goldsmith Drive. Existing residents are fed from Montifiore Avenue and have at present very poor water pressure and water flow rates due to over use of existing supplies.
Sewerage - There is no foul sewer in Goldsmith Drive.
Electricity - There are no electric cables close to site. Electricity at the moment is already over loaded and power cuts are frequent.
The Site - The site proposed is rather on the small side could it take the proposal plus all the enterprises which are normally associated with travellers/travelling show people ie tarmac, building work, garden work, show paraphernalia where would all this equipment go on this very small site.

Existing Travellers Sites
On the Rayleigh Parks estate consisting of approx 100 dwellings there are already 3 such sites. One traveller mobile home in Maple Drive opposite the residence called Pengelly just off Goldsmith Drive. Secondly, travellers mobile home at the junction of Vanderbilt and Hullbridge Road. Thirdly, travellers mobile home Rayleigh Turf Yard site in Trenders Avenue. Rayleigh Parks being quite a small estate, surely three legal gypsy traveller sites more than covers the percentage allocation considering the huge size of the Rochford District Council District, any more pitches allocated to this area will understandably cause considerable resentment.

Public Discontentment
Over recent years there have been a lot of residents' planning applications for various building improvements most of these have been refused. Reasons cited are detrimental visual impact on the green belt, failure to meet various government regulations. Legitimate businesses which have been in existence for many years have been refused dwellings and other improvements which has caused hardship and stagnation to these enterprises and yet people who have never contributed to the Park's Estate residents are allowed to drive in with no personal planning objection and carry out their business straight away even in an ideal world this will cause resentment in the local population. All residents of Goldsmith, Maple and McCalmont regularly contribute towards the upkeep of the roads. However the occupants of the present traveller/gypsy site in Maple Drive have been asked on several occassions to contribute towards road repairs but each time have refused to contribute!

Effects on the Residences: Woodville and 1 and 2 Goldsmith Drive and Glenross
This proposal no matter how put, in the real world will have an adverse effect on the dwellings especially 1 and 2 Goldsmith's - history tells us this. A negative impact of a drop in property values will result and sale of these properties would be very difficult.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To whom it may concern,

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

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

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

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

To whom this may concern

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please take the local peoples opinion into account.