GT - Should any other locations be considered?

No.

I am writing to you about the proposal to change Hockley village which I totally against, it's a village and should not be changed at all.

As for the proposed gypsy sites the area near and around will be ruined by rubbish not to mention the burglary that will occur, they should be put on brown sites not on the green belt. If this proposal goes through it will down grade the whole area.

I object to any gyspy sites being considered at all.

I live in Louis Drive West and I am writing to say how strongly I object to there being a proposed travellers site being put in London Road . I moved to Rayleigh five years ago because, as a retired lady, I wanted to spend my retirement in a lovely peaceful environment . That is the reason I bought a property in Louis Drive West so that I could walk to the top of my road and see green fields. Not rows of houses and caravans. To put the Travellers Site next to Swallows Aquatics would upset a lot of people especially the elderly. I do realise however that the travellers have to go somewhere so why not allocate them where there are already travellers on the A1245 opposite View Nurseries or on the site at the junction of A127 and A1245. I am sure this would be the best and happiest solution for everyone. I do hope you consider the people already living in Rayleigh who make Rayleigh such a lovely place to live. Please don't spoil it for us.

Rayleigh is overcrowded already and although we understand that there has to be an increase in residential property we do not think that in addition we should have to have traveller sites as well. It is well known that the impression such a site gives is not very encouraging in attracting people to the area who wish to purchase residential property.

YES other areas that are definately NOT greenbelt, NOT on top of existing housing and DO NOT have poor road infrastructure!! NOT in close proximity to existing housing and communities, a single location near motorway would suit all.

BUT WHY does Rochford council have to take them at all when Southend Council are refusing !!!! Should you not be supporting your tenants views :-@

Land opposite Michelins Farm, North of the A127, East of the A1245

I think that sites nearer the M25/A127 would be more appropriate where;

- there are good access routes off main well-surfaced roads suitable for the large traveller vehicles
- they can all be located onto one site to provide a better lifestyle for them living with similar people
- the sites have appropriate utilities in place (sewerage etc).
- the sites should be near under-utilised schools and doctors etc
- not on green belt sites
- not where they have to drive through villages causing traffic issues
- close to local police station for monitoring and enforcement

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

Wallasea Island

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.

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

Gypsy and Traveller Site Allocations in Hockley - GT5 New Park Road

I have recently become aware of the above proposal and would like to submit my comments as this will very much affect my home. I live along Cavendish Road, at the bottom of the hill opposite the fields adjacent to Oakfield Road.

My main concern is there is NO MAINS DRAINAGE in this area. Already over the last few years with the heavier rainfall, my property has been very nearly subjected to flooding at the front, side and back of my property.

Firstly, directly opposite, there has been a development at the top of Oakfield Road, with many trees being felled and cleared. This, and the fact that my neighbour has concreted over one side of the field opposite, has caused the water from heavy rainfall to run very quickly directly down to Cavendish Road and into the ditch at the bottom of the field, over the road, and into my ditch next to my garage. This water also runs into a ditch alongside, between my property and Cherry Tree Cottage. This flooded earlier this year, and part of my side garden was underwater.

Secondly, the excess water from the heavy rainfall from the top of New Park Road runs down and into the ditch situated alongside Beckney Wood House. This together with the water running directly from Lower Road, runs into the ditch, which runs along the back of my property, and that of my neighbours at Woodview.

With the heavy rainfall we have experienced over the last few years, especially this year, I have been out many times clearing the ditches. On February 28th this year after particularly heavy bouts of rain over a period of days, I had to stay home and bail out with buckets and my broom to stop the water coming into my garage, and then going to the back of my property to keep the water running past the back of my garden as this ditch was at full capacity. If this proposal is accepted will the Council be prepared to pay for any flood damage to local residents properties?

My other concern is that these are unmade roads, and are maintained by the residents not the Council. With further proposed concrete sites that will mean more traffic along these roads, which will mean more maintenance and expense to the residents. Will the Council be prepared to help with this maintenance cost?

With climate change causing heavier rain and property prices falling drastically over the last few years in this area, I am already extremely worried. If this proposal goes ahead, then things will no doubt get worse for the local residents.

As the Council is planning to build in excess of 200 new homes on the Christmas Tree farm site in Rectory Road, Hawkwell. Can I suggest you consider making provision for these permanent traveller sites on this development where there will be sustainable mains drainage, and accessible and maintained roads?

I would be very grateful if you would take my comments into consideration. I look forward to hearing from you.

Proposed Romany/Traveller Site in Hockley or Ashingdon

There are two alternative options proposed, so I understand, in Hockley, and a third alternative in Ashingdon. I am not familiar with the two options in Hockley, but understand that objections have been raised to them.

My objections are to the Ashingdon site (see paragraphs below), but I think some of them might apply to the Hockley sites.

This entails that I am opposed to all the sites so far proposed. However, this does not provide a solution to the problem.

I do not know whether or not the specification of a Romany site in the district is a statutory requirement imposed on the authority, or whether it is a precondition of the local development plan being confirmed as being in conformity with the Structure Plan. I would greatly appreciate it if you could kindly inform me whether provision of a Romany site is a statutory or Structure Plan requirement.

In my view, a Romany site needs to have the following features.

1. Latrines and foul drainage capacity linked to the foul drainage system.
2. Standpipes for water for cooking and washing.
3. The site must be divided into zones each for a caravan and space for commercial activity (eg breaking down and disposal of scrap metal).
4. Each of these zones be the subject of a Section 106 agreement (the successor to the Section 52 agreements under the 1971 Act), covering health, safety, and emission, storage and removal of pollutants. (Certain metals and chemicals in vehicles could cause poisonous leakages if left exposed to the weather.)
5. It should be near to an industrial site, to facilitate features 3 and 4 above.
6. There needs to be a recreation area, principally for the children nearby. This is to minimise the chance of inter-communal conflict between different gangs or categories of youth, which could become matters for the police.
7. The site should have access to education facilities, principally for Romany children.
8. It should not be adjacent to attractive landscape areas which are valued for their biodiversity or amenity value for recreation by ramblers and horse-riders.

A site adjacent to Cavendish Road, Oakfield Road and New Park Road, off Lower Road, Ashingdon, meets very few of the above features.

It would be expensive and awkward to fulfil features 1 and 2. Feature 3 would be compromised by legal complications arising from the area being green belt plotland, and part of the space to the east of Beckney Wood being the area of a proposed statutory common, in which Ashingdon Council is an interested party. Feature 4 would be similarly compromised. Feature 5 is not fulfilled, as the site is remote green belt plotland. Features 6 and 7 might just about be met, with supplementary financing. Feature 8 is emphatically not fulfilled, and would open up the danger of an exponentially growing scrap yard adjacent to Beckney Woods, in an area the planning history of which would probably give huge scope for evasion of and non-compliance with any Section 106 agreement conditions initially negotiated or imposed.

I recognise that Rochford District Council may have to make provision for unconventional types of land-use, when a demand for such types emerges.

However, I believe a more or less long-term solution to Romany demand cannot be achieved with the existing options on offer. I believe this demand could be met if Rochford DC could identify a hinterland to an existing industrial site where existing mains water and foul drainage capacity may already exist, and which has not yet been considered from among the options so far publicised.

Structure planning and local development control, at their best, succeeded in spatially separating different forms of land-use, where these can impinge adversely on each other. For example, New Park Road, Oakfield Road and Cavendish Road are being included in the local bridle-way system.

Local development control should separate scrap metal transport and dumping from an area of horse-riding recreation. The difficult point about the non-fulfilment of feature 8 is the danger of contaminated fallen metal or grass fragments cutting the legs of horses' hooves causing injury and infections which are difficult to treat.

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.

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.

Once again we would take the opportunity to remind you that we are still awaiting a response to questions we have previously raised on various planning matters e.g. HAAP and JAAP.



We would also like to make the following comments in respect of the above document:-



2 Residential pg 4 - how are these figures arrived at ( I understand by another Conservative controlled quango)? How can it be blithely stated that 250 houses are to be built per annum post 2021, surely at some point building will have to cease otherwise there will be no room?

No mention is made of the number of dwellings that have already been built in the area since 2006 and the fact that some of these are still for sale long after completion (e.g. Follygate development on Aldermans Hill near Folly Lane in Hockley)? What are these numbers and why aren't they shown?

How have the figures for each location been arrived at? Seems very arbitrary

The council seems to show a lack of appreciation for quality of life for existing residents and just seeks to cram in more and more development - bewildering having seen this morning that whole estates new properties in Northern Ireland are being demolished because their housing boom never quite materialised and surely something that nationally needs to be properly considered?



Pg 5 - I refer you back to our comments on the HAAP (attached). Why is the council so obsessed with supporting the overdevelopment of the area and concreting over everything, especially as the road infrastructure cannot support large numbers of houses along the B1013. The HAAP is still at consultation stage and I believe 95% of respondents rejected the Council's proposals for redevelopment as unsuitable.



Pg 6 - It could alternatively be stated that the Council rejects proposals for significant redevelopment as the infrastructure is incapable of receiving the necessary upgrade. In recent years RDC has lost a Hospital and a Secondary School (Park in Rayleigh) to housing development, even with significant redevelopment Southend Hospital will not be able to cope and the roads in the region (especially the B1013) will be at capacity.



Pg 8 - Rawreth - there is already a green buffer - undeveloped land! - Development will lead to the joining up of Rayleigh to Rawreth, something that the Council has always previously sought to avoid - the merger of separate community areas. A theme repeated on pages 16 & 18, which effectively will merge Rochford and Hawkwell.



Pg 19-24 West Hockley development - As mentioned above the Follygate development has I am certain only been completed since 2006 and comprises 14 flats. If there is a need for 50 dwellings in this area at least 14 have already been built reducing the required number to 36 (and that's without other developments that have taken place along the B1013 in West Hockley where single properties have been demolished to be replaced by 2 or 3 new ones). So it is difficult to justify squeezing any more properties in this area, particularly as significant development in this area takes no account of the poor road access (Folly Lane is often congested and Fountain Lane is one-way) and will also increase traffic onto the B1013, where it is not unusual to have tailbacks from the Spa to Folly Lane. Congestion problems are often exacerbated by horse riders travelling between the stables beyond Church Road and the Hockley Woods Bridle Way. Option WFH4 also makes no mention of the impact this will have on either the small woodland nor pupils at Hockley Primary School as lessons are disrupted by ongoing building works.



Pg 28 South Hawkwell SH3, as with Rochford there is a danger of the merger of two distinct areas Rochford and Hawkwell



Hullbridge and Canewdon - Both areas have particularly poor public transport links and are low lying - has the reality of this been properly considered? Council are apparently committed to getting people using public transport to cut down carbon emissions etc and to be located near their places of work, but, particularly with 500 properties in Hullbridge, this would clearly run contrary to this policy. Nationally recommendations are being made to avoid development of flood plains and yet construction appears to be welcomed on areas below 10m



West Gt Wakering WGW3 & 4 - As with many of the above points the potential merger of areas and use of low lying land with poor public transport.





Overall preference should be given to redevelopment of industrial sites which have closed. The danger is however that RDC's pursuit of Brownfield sites leads us to situations where agricultural land is used for something like a Christmas Tree farm and is then able to be classed as a Brownfield site (see Hawkwell) or worse a company decides to shut a perfectly good functioning site in order to sell the land for housing (Eon call centre in Rayleigh - significantly another site that hasn't apparently been taken into account since a number of properties have already been built in that location).



Gypsy and Traveller sites pg 62 - Again no explanation as to how these figures have been arrived at; or indeed, why.



The following questions also need to be answered:-



Why can't Travellers use commercial pitches like everyone else?



What would happen if the Council didn't allocate any additional pitches?


Where are the existing pitches?



How are Travellers allowed to exploit planning laws on illegal pitches and have access to public utilities (surely the council should be able to prevent the Utility companies from providing such services without planning permission)?



What fees does the council obtain from Travellers using pitches - e.g. Council Tax ?



How have the sites listed been selected? GT4 is particularly close to an historic site and



Why hasn't consideration been given to the strip of land beside the airport, identified in the JAAP as having little use and already fulfilling the function of serving a travelling community being the site of the circus every year?





Office space - pgs 81-88. Again not apparent how these figures are arrived at, there seems to be a fair amount of vacant sites including office space around the district. On the one hand seem to be saying that Eldon Way in Hockley is under pressure for alternative use because sites can't be let and on the other that you need to build more sites - can only be one or the other not both. Also don't believe that this takes account of Eon closure - if you refuse planning permission for the site then there is clearly a large amount of vacant office space in Rayleigh!





Pg 90 - Southend Airport - We refer to our previous objections to development of this site attached





4 pg 98 - what is "minimum" development - undefined and irrelevant term - refer to my previous comments on the Core Strategy (attached)



Pg 108 Upper Roach Valley - Certainly the area without development should be as wide as possible. However given the proximity of other woodland e.g. Betts Wood and Folly Wood - can they not be incorporated? Is it not possible to extend the area bordering Hockley and Rayleigh across the farmland to the Railway line or indeed the east side of Hockley to ensure that buffers are maintained between Hockley/Hawkwell and Rayleigh to the West and Rochford to the East?



Pg 111 - interesting selection for a school given that Southend Council have agreed that as many flights as possible should take off in this direction. As objectors to airport expansion we would support a school being sited here if this would prevent airport expansion and aircraft being directed over residential areas of Hawkwell and Hockley as seems to happen at present



Pg 111-115 - Whilst not knowing any of these areas in any great detail concern would be that expansion of the schools and access would lead to pressure to develop other adjacent sites , which were previously inaccessible, putting further strain on Green Belt.



Pg 116 - 125 - Not sure what the document is driving at here. If the suggestion is that none of these education sites should be used for anything other than the existing function and not be sold off then this is of course sensible. Although, this overlooks the fact that many of them are locked in residential areas and cannot expand. Indeed spare land adjacent to Fitzwimarc School was sold some while back and the front playground has now been lost to car parking. It would be more sensible therefore for the council to propose protection of the areas immediately adjacent to schools to enable them to expand if and when necessary rather than use existing space for non-educational purposes e.g. car parking. The current proposals are just a continuation of the lack of foresight that has seen school sites developed and then pressure to build new ones or expand existing sites e.g. loss of Park School in Rayleigh.





Pg 125-127 - Have to question what the protection actually offers - there doesn't seem to be a great deal of protection offered by Green Belt status and we would welcome additional protection. The map however makes it almost impossible to see the full extent (or limitation) of the proposals. From the areas known to us would suggest that Land South of Nelson Gardens, Hockley Woods and Turret House Open Space should all link up and provide a buffer stretching from rear of Wellington Road where it adjoins B1013 right over to Albert Road and all the way up to and beyond Hockley Woods, but this isn't apparent from the map.



Would also question why so little consideration is given to area between Hockley and Hullbridge, around Betts Wood, Folly Lane etc, all open land and part of public footpath network and currently affording good views across open land. Similarly Gusted Hall area?, Belchamps? Etc all omitted



Pg 130 Leisure Facilities - Less than 7% population within 20 minutes of 3 different leisure facilities. Although no definitions are given of "leisure facilities" I'd really question the accuracy of this statement. Leaving aside "fringe" activities such as snooker; bowling and fishing there are least 3 Sports Centres in Rayleigh, Hawkwell, Wakering, (plus just outside district Thundersley; Eastwood etc) offering a variety of activities and most of the population live within 10 minutes drive of these. There are numerous footpaths and cycleways, local gyms and dance studios, football pitches and children's play areas in every town (including adjacent to the sports centres) and a number of community and church halls offering leisure activities for adults and children e.g. Judo





Pg 135 - As with above these need to form part of the leisure strategy - certainly our local community centre (Hockley) is under-utilised and from knowledge of Grange that too wasn't used enough. But why are other sites omitted? Why are the sites listed given preference over many other community sites e.g. Hockley Public Hall; Castle Road Hall and why isn't more consideration given to encouraging schools to use their facilities outside of school hours/term?



With or without protection the fear is that the Council will offload these to "Developers" as with Clements Hall and the real likelihood is that sites such as Grange and Hockley Community Centre will then be deemed "uncommercial" and closed by any developer before being redeveloped as housing



Pg 136 Town Centres - There appears to be a lack of recognition that traditional town centres are declining anyway and therefore if there is housing pressure this could be accommodated by contracting the retail area.



Incidentally with regard to Rayleigh and Rochford there was a recent article in the Evening Standard that referred to studies demonstrating that one-way systems exacerbate the decline of town centres as drivers pass through too quickly and are discouraged from stopping.



For Hockley - again contraction of the area to the West needs to be considered, this area has suffered in every recession and shops here have stood unoccupied for years (e.g. Old Post Office Bathroom Store and could provide housing. However other business are (hopefully surviving). One of the main problems in the centre is lack of parking (the car park is located too far from the shopping area and now that there are good leisure facilities (e.g. bowling alley in Eldon Way access from the High St could be easier (many of the stores have parking to the rear and with the loss of Alldays there is an opportunity for another access point). Foundry contains many vacant office sites that could be better utilised, particularly if there is housing pressure. Full consideration should be given to reallocating it as a District Centre, but this shouldn't mean that it is neglected.



We've previously commented on HAAP and Rayleigh development and would repeat those comments for town centre development.