GT - Are these the best locations to consider?

GT2 is the only option that can suitably accomodate all 11 pitches.

object. object. object!

Hockley is too small to support yet more families, travellers or not. It does not have space in the schools and certainly does not need more traffic. If these people are travellers, then travel and book into proper caravan sites and pay nightly like everyone else! Do travellers pay council tax? I

PS We don't need any more houses in Hockley either!

its is to near the village and and there are enough in the county already

I believe that options GT4, GT5 and GT7 are too small to make a significant impact on the requirement and should be rejected. Equally option GT6 is too large for the requirement and is better suited to the proposed employment use (option E18).

I object to the proposed gypsy sites in and around Hockley and particularly Option GT4. First of all this land is currently designated as green belt by the local council and it is questionable why it is even being considered as a possible traveller site. The idea that such as a site in close proximity to a residential settlement will promote community cohesion is laughable and completely naive travellers/gypsies are a nomadic community with little interest in integrating themselves into the general population. Hockley is currently a desirable place to live, please don't spoil it!

I object to the "traveller" sites being at Plumberow Ave & New park road off lower road due to the affect it would have on local farmers and businesses.
On our farm we are visited regularly from Travellers who drive on to our property and try to steel things on more than one occasion i have felt in fear for myself and my children. Recently i was almost run over by one traveller van as it sped through our gates after trying to steal from us! If the sites were used then we are in walking distange from them and i would be in even more fear for my family.

I object to any gyspy sites being considered at all.

I think the best locations are GT6 or GT1, I dont think these two site's are a problem and should keep nearly everyone happy.
Mrs H Scott.

Most if not all of the locations listed are in green belt so I am assuming that the Council is only able to consider geen belt for the purposes of providing serviced sites for gypsies (ie persons of nomadic habit of life) to be able to stay. My understanding is that the Council has to provide a total of 18 sites or pitches in the Council area by 2011 to comply with the requirements laid down by the regional assembly. I object to most of the suggested locations as they are clearly unsuitable as I have detailed below.

I strongly object to all travellers sites in Rayleigh area but particularly proposed GT3 site. This is too near to local schools and will undoubtedly result in increased problems for the area. My hard earned council tax should not be used to increase travellers sites.

Greenbelt land must not be touched - Rayleigh is already overpopulated and road networks already struggle to cope without additional houses / travellers sites.

I object to the housing options NLR1 - NLR5 inclusive in Rayleigh. We need to find alternative options that do not involve agricultural land - leave our green belt alone so that our children can see fields and not just houses around them. Once we start losing green belt we will be left with nothing but housing / industrial developments.

This area is already over populated and road networks cannot cope with existing traffic. Plans seem to benefit the developers more than the local community.

Strongly Oboject:

GT3 South of London Road totally unacceptable. Area located too close to existing development which may result in higher crime figures for the area.

GT3 too close to unprotected school area and open to planning abuse by travellers wishing to 'expand' their settlement area. A good example can be seen in the Crays Hill area.

GT3 could also give out the wrong message if inadequately maintained. A rubbish tip on the main approach road to Rayleigh centre.

I do not support the allocation of any traveller site on or near the the London Road in Rayleigh. It is far too close to Our Lady of Ransom School and Swallow Acquatics.

A single location has to be the right solution ... There is no sense in spreading out small pitches throughout Hockley and Rayleigh, causing most costs to develop (e.g. GT4 which is totally unsuitable due to no sewage, no real road, no amenities..is too close to plumberow mount and childrens play area and increased traffic would be dangerous to children.....the list goes on!) not to mention most disruption/complaints etc...

I still feel strongly that Rochford District Council should agree to take any pitches at all.....should you not be representing your high council tax payers better!!! Can we expect council rates to drop?

All options are unacceptable .GTI and GT2 are both unsustainable in planning terms.The existing GT1 occupies an unauthorised site with at least 3 permanent dwellings .It is in a prominent position on a hillside with no tree screening .The entrance onto the busy A1245 is over the brow of a hill from traffic lights and is objected to by Essex County Highways on those grounds with any increase in numbers the danger to road users as well as residents will multiply .GT6 should be industrial .The site opposite Gt6 should be looked at to take all allocations.

Smaller sites should be used in conjunction with each other to provide the necessary pitches - reasonably close to schools and facilities as required.

Site options GT1, 2, 3 and 7 lie near to the CBC boundary. It would have been helpful if the DPD included information on the criteria used to select the proposed sites and more detail on how well the proposed sites perform in terms of access to services and any site constraints e.g. ground conditions, flood risk and land levels. As such, we feel unable to comment specifically on whether these proposed sites are in the most suitable locations. However, whatever site(s) are chosen, we would like to ensure that they are well designed and under good management.

NO. The sites in GT4 and GT5 should not be considered.

GT4 is on an unmade road and is a very small site with poor access not near any major roads. I would hope that common sense makes this an unsuitable location to consider.

GT4 should also not be considered.

No

I object to us wasting time and resources even considering supporting them.

No the locations are still too near other residential areas site should be as far away as possible.

We object to GT7. We are the only house in Maple Drive, however, what the plans do not point out is that directly opposite our house is an authorised site for one Gypsy Family. On the 25 January 1994 we instructed our solicitors to write to the council and support the (late) Mrs Dunn's and her family with their application (CU/0025/94/ROC) for the siting of a mobile and one touring caravan. We were and still are, of the opinion, that if it is a traveller's family wish, to join the settled community, we do not have an issue with this.
As can be seen from the above paragraph we can not be accused of being in the 'Not In My Back Yard' brigade. The notion of siting more Gypsies or Travellers within 200 or 300 meters of an existing authorised site is unfair, the burden of the sites, if approved, should be spread throughout the District. We believe the site is not suitable for development as a Gypsy and Traveller pitch. The only motorised access off the Hullbridge Road leading to Goldsmith, Maple and McCalmont Drive is for a total of 8 permanent dwellings, 1 traveller pitch plus rear access to Woodville, (which is on the corner of Goldsmith Drive and Hullbridge Road). The planning document states that the site 'integrates well' by my calculations this proposal increases the number of dwellings by over 160%. That is more like saturation. The infrastructure is simply not in place to support this proposal.
Matthew and Louise Kirby

I strongly oppose the planned travellers sites in the residential community of Hockley, on the ground that I am led to beleive that they are not made to pay council tax, income tax, or indeed any form of tax, but expect to receive all available benifits, finacial. educational, medical, etc.
If i have indeed been misinformed on these points, i would appreciate confirmation of these facts.
Furthermore on viewing the diagrams it also appears that these sites are on our ever decreasing greenbelt!
All residents are not aware of your plans, and should have been better informed.

Background

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

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

Representations

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

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

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

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

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

I object strongly to GT3. This site would add congestion to an otherwise busy and dangerous road which is already overstretched at peak times. The traveller community bring problems of their own, I have direct knowledge of the theft of petrol from our business which the Police have informed me is due to the traveller community and now you want to put them on my doorstep, this is a recipe for disaster and there has been no consultation with ourselves at any stage, more communication needed.

I object to GT1, GT2, GT3 and GT7.
The site GT3 is far too close to local schools and residential areas. Sites tend to expand unless carefully policed to prevent this happening. The travellers are not interested in joining the rest of the community and vice versa so the idea of cohesiveness would not happen.

My family object to the housing proposals Hockley near the school, the land is green and the council should find another site to build new homes ie brown land at the old mushroom farm in folly lane. Building homes on this land will disrupt the school and the pupils, many Hockley residences will agree that the Betts farm estate roads are already busy, building more homes here will only add to the traffic and disruption. The estate is a very built up area and and although more homes are needed the should be built in less populated areas.

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.

My family and I moved to Essex (Rayleigh) six years ago from London, and have been very happy. We moved like most families for a better way of life, although we have now heard that some of that happiness is going to be spoilt due to plans to have the following built:

- AN INDUSTRIAL ESTATE

- NEW HOUSES

- TRAVELLERS SITES

The Industrial estate will surely cause more traffic along what is already a really busy road!

More houses will also create more traffic, and when in the past new houses have been built no more local facilities (drs, schools, shops) were built!

Surely there are other sites where travellers can be sited!

Lastly surely land that is not green should be build on first? There is some land that is close to Battles bridge Rail Station that could be used!

I therefore would like to make my above concerns heard, and that the items listed should not go ahead.

Thank you for your time in reading this