GT - Should the Gypsy and Traveller pitch allocation be located on one site or distributed over several?

The traveller sites should be distributed over several sites, and not all of them should be in Rayleigh, the burden should fall across the whole district.

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 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?

I am registering my concerns about the proposed planning option for a traveller's site on London Road, Rayleigh (site GT3).

I appreciate that these members of our community are entitled to appropriate areas in which to live but am concerned about the number of pitches proposed in one area on the London Road site. I believe smaller sites spread through out the borough would be a preferable option as this would be less likely to cause issues between the communities and avoid the potential for a "ghetto" area to develop. Also, given the future planned development of a considerable number of additional houses in the area, a large traveller's site would add to the increased demands on all the local services, particularly schools and doctors, whereas several smaller sites spread throughout the borough would have a reduced impact in each area.

I strongly propose that the council consider the option of several smaller traveller sites.

I understand that the council are now considering, as part of the above consultation proposals, allowing the building of a further 550 houses on agricultural land bordered by London Road, Rawreth Lane and the A1245 (formerly A130). As this would be in addition to another proposal to build 220 houses on the Rawreth Industrial Estate, it frankly beggars belief that such an idea should be countenanced given the large number of other developments that have taken place and which now put such an intolerable strain on our local infrastructure.



I am fervently against the further development of any of the land labelled on the proposal as NRL1-5 for the following reasons:



* The loss of valuable agricultural land which acts as useful run off drainage from the swathes of built up areas to the East. The land is extremely low lying and is already in a flood plain.

* The loss of a natural and defensible green belt boundary to the Western edge of Rayleigh. Presumably, if allowed, we will carry on building until Wickford meets Rayleigh and Rayleigh meets Wickford.

* No doubt much play will be made of the potential for planning gain by way of new schools, health centres etc. which will ne negotiated. Frankly this will not wash. I recall that the amalgamation of the Park and Sweyne schools was supposed to lead to a new VIth Form College on the Park Site and what did we end up with - Asda!

* If these houses are built then I assume that they will require access to the Town Centre and Rail station along the already severely congested London Road.



Your documents also call for comments on the provision of Traveller Sites within the district although it is confusing, to say the least, as to how many additional sites/pitches are required. I was surprised to learn that the existing Traveller Site on the A1245, south of Bedloes Corner, is an illegal one in that planning consent was apparently withheld due to Highways objections. I would have thought that the new A130 removes, or at least mitigates this objection, and the site has always appeared to me to be well run. If this site were to be legitimised surely this would assist in meeting the required provision.



However locating further Traveller Sites around Swallow Nurseries or Lower Barn Farm would seem to me to concentrate too many pitches in one area which cannot be to the existing residents benefit or I suspect the wishes of the Traveller community themselves. I would have thought that they would be anxious to have the ability to stay in all parts of the District and therefore I firmly believe that more consideration should be given to developing sites further East in Hockley and Hullbridge to say nothing of Rochford itself. Only by spreading these sites throughout the district can we truly be said to be embracing the diversity of so many cultures and avoiding the ghetto mentality of simply sticking a single pin in a map and hoping that this meets a Government inspired requirement.



I sincerely hope that elected Members will take on board my comments and reject the notion of yet more development in West Rayleigh. To judge by conversations that I have had with neighbours I am not the only one to consider that we have taken enough and I can only hope that they have taken the trouble to express themselves to you in a similar vein.

I am writing to object to the following options with regard to Residential land allocations in rayleigh. I object strongly with the following NLR1, NLR2, NLR3, NLR4, NLR5. We do not need to loose our agricultural land, we don't need an increase of traffic. London Road and surrounding roads can not cope especially during rush hour.

I also object to any more travellers sites. The one on the A1245 seems to be fine even though it is illegal, perhaps make that legal and have the other pitches that needed around the district and not in and around Rayleigh.

On the subject of the industrial site I have no objection to the possibilty of moving the industrial site to the site option E18, but feel that to be replaced with 220 houses is something we do not need.

The infrasturcture in my opinion would not cope with everything that is proposed.

If there are to be Gypsy sites I don't think Rayleigh should have them all, I believe they would be better scattered, so they could integrate into the residential settlement. Other locations to consider perhaps next to the houses of Parliament seeing as the government has footed the bill, then they can see how the project goes. I hate to see green belt lost, that is what makes the areas so nice. Coombes Farm could house a lot of homes maybe that would be a good idea. Rayleigh boys football club asked for some ground in Rayleigh (off of London Road I think) that was refused, but these kids need something, more houses mean more children, they have to have somewhere to go. Put the houses in Rawreth Hall with a few gypsy sites.

Local Development Framework Allocations DPD

Thank you for allowing an extension on time for Rayleigh Town Council to submit its response to this consultation. We would like to congratulate Rochford District Council for the care and diligence taken in preparing this document. We also recognise the creation of this document has provoked many unfair criticisms. It must be recognised by all interested parties that these plans have been required by the Government under the auspices of the East of England Regional Assembly (an unelected quango) creating both socially and politically difficult circumstances.

It is the Town Council's opinion that in principal we totalling reject the validity of an unelected body to impose targets on the peoples elected representatives, such as 550 dwellings required to be built in the town of Rayleigh between now and 2021. We are therefore forced to acknowledge these basic democratic principals have been replaced by a dictatorial quango, made legal by the Government, which runs roughshod over local requirements. Given these circumstances, finding the least worst, best option is the best we can do.

We were heartened to hear that the PPS3 requirements had changed, due to vigorous lobbying by Rochford District Council to lengthen the time required to accommodate the 3,790 dwellings, this will now run till 2031, giving an average requirement build of 126 properties per year.

The Town Council having studied the various options on offer, considered site NLR5, to be the least worst, due to its ease of access to either the A129 or Rawreth Lane. It is important to maintain current sporting facilities and if option NLR5 is selected Rochford District Council must ensure that Rayleigh Town Sports and Social Club is allowed to remain at its existing site. The Town Council also feels that emphasis should be placed on co-ordinated infrastructure. With such a huge development, especially in an area through which streams run and the threat of flooding is highlighted on the Environment Agency's own research documents. Clear, concise provisions for sewerage removal and proper drainage must be put in place, even at the expense of the contractor replacing old sewerage and drainage in the area of Rawreth Lane and London Road, as a condition of the contract to build. As well as good public open spaces, youth and community facilities, a viable road and public transport system must be in place, enabling continuity and through flow of an enlarged Rayleigh population.

The East of England Regional Assembly in their East of England plan, require Rochford District Council to provide 18 pitches for Gypsies and Travellers. We acknowledge this has proved a most contentious issue in the area. The Town Council being aware of possible future problems does not wish to accept traveller sites in the district but if this is unavoidable the provision of traveller sites should be spread throughout the district and not located in one area.

The Town Council wishes to emphasise the need to attract high quality employers to the area, so the possible redevelopment of site E7 as a possible "signature industrial site" at the junction of Rayleigh Weir is extremely attractive to the further enhancement of the Town. The Town Council supports E18 (Michelins Farm) as a suitable location for a relocated Rawreth Industrial Estate. The surrounding area has fantastic housing stock and attracting high spec businesses, with the real opportunity to offer some of the finest education, healthcare, and general high quality of life in the UK, must be at the forefront of any initial planning.

This town is in a unique position to attract high quality employers, as well as having the schools to provide high quality students.
Investing in a progressive promotional programme, linking schools and high tech industries could open a new age in apprenticeships. These positive qualities should be promoted to ensure the health, wealth and well being of the residents of Rayleigh and Rochford District as a whole.

The Town Council, though acknowledging the need for houses, feels the loss of Green Belt to 2745 new dwellings in the District needs reviewing. The recent volcanic eruption in Iceland, which is continuing to have such an
adverse economical effect, is a reminder that we are an island, and we should not be giving up valuable land which could be used for food
production in the event of a national emergency. Once the land is concreted over it is lost forever. we would urge our District Councillors to seriously question these targets at this present time.

Please contact me if you require clarification of any of these points.