Option E18

Already a commercial use site. however, what public transport links will this site require to lessen the environmental impact it's development have?

Of the options presented this seems the most sensible principally due to its proximity to the A127 and A130 and therefore its ease of access. As far as I am aware there is no existing industry on the site giving a 'blank sheet' to plan how best to use it. This is in marked constrast to other options which propose to use land already occupied by businesses, but without indicating what would happen to those businesses.

If I'm honest I object to all the options,but if we have to decide one then E18 is the best because it is away from the residential area and on the main roads that can take it,E17,E16,E15,E14,E13 are all by the London Road and the Carpenters Arms round about which would make this like hell on earth.
Mrs H Scott.

Of the sites proposed for employment land west of Rayleigh, option E18 would appear to be the best. The site is adjacent to the A127 and A1245 and thus would have good transport links, particularly for HGVs. The land is currently of untidy appearance and would benefit from development. The impact on Rayleigh residents would be minimal. There would appear to be scope for expanding this area up to the A130 in the future if the need arises.

This is an ideal location to relocate Rawreth Industrial site. Any polution is away from housing, local schools, stables and Kennels that are on the east of the A130. Having said that why not locate the gypsy site here as well.

I consider this to be an ideal location for the relocated industrial estate from Rawreth Lane as this land is not suitable for housing. This site clearly has excellent transport links and does not impact on any residential areas.

This is by far the better option for Rayleigh. It has REAL good access to A130 /A127.

However, access to and from this site should not be onto the Northbound Carriageway of the A1245 as this will be a safety issue and mean all exiting traffic will head towards the Carpenters Arms roundabout. An Access road with on and off sliproads needs to be buit as far west onto the A127 as possible or direct traffic light controlled access onto the A1245 / A127 interchange.

The site is very well screened, so will be visually unobtrusive. It has defensible Green Belt boundaries. The area is large enough to acommodate the whole of Rawreth Industrial Estate. The site is well situated for all vehicular access including HGVs and is well linked to the existing main road network. It is located adjacent to the railway line to take advantage of any future development for rail freight. It is well isolated from residential areas to negate any potential for nuisance. The land is of very poor quality.

I consider this to be an ideal location for the relocation of the Rawreth Industrial estate. This land is not suitable for housing and has excellent transport links to the road network including the A1245 and A127. This site would not negatively impact on any residential areas or schools.

I strongly support this option with its good links .It adjoins other areas put forward for industry in both Basildon and Castle Point Core strategies therefore with cooperation between three authorities it could become a showplace for the Thameschase Area . In the future there is the option of a rail link when the economies of railtransport become more favourable with the onset of "Peak Oil" and the consequential increase in road haulage costs .Is it it not time that this district promoted itself by forward thinking with a state of the art industrial site .

This site, IF PROPERLY SECURED - could provide an excellent site to house all thebusiness required. It gives good access to all surrounding major roads but, it MUST be made a SECURE site to prevent robbery, break-ins etc .

This site has excellent transport links to all the major road, A13, A130 and A127, it is adjacent to the railway offering alternative transportation methods. If the site was designed properly with security and quality stock it would make an excellent industrial site.

This is the best option of all the sites for industrial plans, due to getting rid of the excisting badly organised site and land and the fact of being close to the A127 for access and the extra traffic involved.

Background

In accordance with their representations to the Core Strategy, Countryside Properties are supportive of the proposals for the provision of additional employment land to the west of Rayleigh, but we consider that such provision should be made to the north of London Road as part of a comprehensive mixed-use development, not to the south of London Road (or at Michelins Farm).

Representations

In our view, the most appropriate location for new employment development west of Rayleigh is to the north of London Road, as part of a comprehensive mixed-use scheme. In our original submissions to the Core Strategy, we advanced a number of arguments to support this position, including:

* It is inherently more sustainable in principle to provide for an integrated mixed-use scheme, rather than segregated residential and commercial areas;
* The viability of providing the new employment land is increased as part of a mixed-use scheme, since the costs of infrastructure (including roads, drainage, and utilities) is shared;
* There is more than sufficient land north of London Road to deliver a mixed-use scheme - there is less certainty that the scale of development required could be successfully provided south of London Road;
* To be attractive to new business, a high quality business park of sufficient size will be required - there is more land north of London Road to achieve this;
* There are advantages in terms of public transport accessibility/viability in serving a business location alongside a residential location (greater patronage and two-way passenger flows);
* It is difficult to see how the Green Belt boundary south of London Road could successfully be changed to allow for a large scale employment area, without either creating a ribbon of development along London Road, or an isolated incursion not linked to the existing community;
* Countryside Properties has particular experience in successfully delivering mixed-use schemes, including the creation of modern, flexible business space.

In the light of the above, we do not support the potential employment sites E13, E14, E15, or E16, all of which lie to the south of London Road.

In addition to the general observations above, we note that in relation to the particular sites E13-E16 the following additional points:

* All of these options utilise to some extent of other land already in commercial use. This raises two significant questions: Is the land proposed genuinely available, given the existing uses, and is the land genuinely additional employment land, or simply a replacement of existing jobs?
On the first question, it appears to us that each of these options is based upon land in multiple ownership, and where there are existing businesses/tenancies which together may make the land impossible to bring forward in a comprehensive way.

On the second question, although the existing commercial uses may not be allocated for businesses purposes as such, there are long-standing commercial uses on the site that are an existing source of employment. All four options E13-E16 appear to be premised upon the loss of the existing commercial uses, and therefore any net increase in allocated employment land would need to take in to account the extent of existing land lost.

* Notwithstanding the above, none of the options presented are of sufficient scale to provide for the extent of employment land required under the Core Strategy. The four options vary between a minimum of 2.65 ha and a maximum of 5 ha. The Core Strategy identified a need for 2 ha for office use and 6 ha for the relocation of Rawreth Lane Industrial Estate, making a minimum of 8 ha. In our view (and notwithstanding our concerns regarding practicality), relocating Rawreth Industrial Estate would require more than 6ha - the existing estate is already over-crowded, as the extent of on-street parking demonstrates, allows no scope for businesses to expand, and the existing layout does not provide the quality of environment that the Council would rightly expect (and which new businesses would demand) from a new commercial park.

In our view, around 10 ha is a more realistic land-take for replacing Rawreth Lane Industrial Estate, making around 12 ha of land in total to be found west of Rayleigh to support the employment proposals of the Core Strategy. This scale of development cannot be found south of London Road (or at Michelins Farm).

E17 is the only option put forward to the north of London Road, and clearly therefore on the basis of the above, we feel this option warrants further consideration, albeit in isolation it would still not be large enough to accommodate the full employment land requirement (if Rawreth Lane Industrial Estate is to be redeveloped).

There is however potential to increase the size of site E17, whether by extension to the north (whilst still avoiding areas of flood risk), or by extension to the east, as part of or linking in with the proposed new residential neighbourhood. The potential to integrate with the proposed residential uses is a major advantage of land to the north of London Road, compared to the options proposed for south of London Road.

We note that the description of site E17 states that it is detached from any residential settlement, though it is not clear whether or not this is put forward as a point in its favour or against. It is of course a similar distance to Rayleigh as the most of the options south of London Road, but moreover has the potential to integrate with the proposed new residential development north of London Road, whilst still enabling good access to the highway network for commercial vehicles.

There is no reason why commercial uses should be separated from residential uses, and indeed planning policy at all levels extols the virtues of mixed-used development in sustainability terms. Our view is very strongly in favour of having commercial uses integrated with residential uses as part of a comprehensive mixed-use masterplan, that protects residential amenity whilst still promoting ease of access. Sites that are "detached" should not be favoured over sites that have the potential to create strong mixed-use neighbourhoods.

Turning then lastly to E18, we do not consider this to be a suitable site for commercial development.

Although it may be possible to enhance the existing sub-standard access to the site from the A127/A1245 slip road, the site is removed from the residential communities that the employment would serve, and there is no realistic prospect of accessing the site by public transport or by non-vehicular modes. This is an isolated site in the countryside, accessible only by car, where development would be contrary to advice in PPG13 regarding location of development attracting large numbers of trips and sustainable travel.

As an isolated development site in the heart of the countryside, development here would also have significant adverse impacts on the strategic purposes of the Green Belt, introducing an expanse of commercial development in a highly prominent location between the A127, A1245, A130 and Southend-Liverpool Street railway. This is not development that would be compatible with the retention of the site in the Green Belt, and it would therefore result in a release of Green Belt land in the heart of an area of strategic Green Belt significance.

In summary, in our view the most appropriate location for new employment land west of Rayleigh is to the north of London Road, as part of a comprehensive mixed-use scheme. The employment land provision could include all or part of E17, or alternative locations north of London Road.

I feel this would be a good site for all the reasons mentioned in the recommendation, but I do have concerns regarding the access and egress. It could cause more congestion at the Carpenters Arms roundabout which is already extremely busy at peak times.

This the best option for Indusrial Development in West Rayleigh. It is well away from residential areas and will not create any noise or other environmental issues. Access roads would need to be carefully considered to overcome any traffic issues. This offers the BEST access to A127 and A130 trunk routes.

This is the best choice from all the suggested sites in the Rayleigh area, but it would have additional traffic to the roundabout.

This is far and away the best and most suitable site for the allocation of employment land being close to transport links, including the A127, A129, and A130 and being suitably far from local residential communities. I fully support the employment site being located here as opposed to the other areas suggested in the development plan which are not suitable at all.

We live at 14 Latchingdon Close in Rayleigh, and have resided in the area for almost 11 years.

We are writing to express our concern about some of the options featured in the area development plan as given in the current document
which is out for public consultation.

Specifically, we are strongly opposed to options NLR1, NLR2, NLR3, NLR4 and NLR5.

We oppose any building of housing between London Road and Rawreth Lane, or that land being used for employment land or travellers sites.
There is already problematic traffic congestion in the area and the addition of such housing would exacerbate this. For example, the queue on Crown Hill to get to the High Street stretches down past Downhall Road on a saturday morning and often down the hill as far as Rayleigh Station in times that would be considered 'off peak' (e.g weekday late morning).

It is our understanding that the land is currently classed as 'green belt' and it should stay that way. The existing road, rail (The trains on the Liverpool Street line are already crammed) domestic and leisure facilities in the town would not support 550 houses plus the 220 we understand are intended for the current Rawreth Industrial site. In addition, we are very concerned that once the land begins to be developed, eventually all of it will be used up. This would be to the detriment of the overall quality of life for all residents in the area as well as the pressure on infrastructure noted above.

We oppose the siting of a travellers site on London Road. It would be to the detriment of the impression and appearance of the area given that the road is main 'gateway' to the town. A site in that position would not encourage 'cohesiveness' as there is consistent evidence that travellers do not wish to integrate with local communities. We are aware of this via annecdotal evidence, media reporting (both newpapers and television) and to some extent through knowledge gained in our professional working lives.

We are not opposed to relocating the businesses from the Rawreth Industrial estate to another venue, the suggested site by the A127/A1245 would seem a sensible and viable option, given the businesses that already seem to be there and the close accessed the A127/A130.

We understand that there is a need for additional housing. We understand that things are difficult for people trying to 'get on the housing ladder'. We understand there is the
possibility of previously used land further north next to the A1245 and would ask whether consideration has been given to using this land. We would also ask whether a proportion
of the proposed new housing will be 'affordable' housing, shared ownership etc.

Thanking you for your time.

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 have looked very carefully at the proposal in the Framework document and would like you to consider the following when making your decisions.

1. Housing

I consider option WLR1 to be the better option for the 550 homes currently planned. This would retain the farmland and open spaces. It would also keep some of the traffic away from the London Road which is already a busy road and is very congested at peak times. However there would need to be considerable improvements to the infra structure and amenities to support this level of occupation.

I also understand that a further 220 homes are proposed for the Rawreth Industrial Estate when it is relocated. However this building plan is not in the document.

2. Traveller/Gypsy sites

While I appreciate that you are obligated to make provision for travellers I think it would be a mistake to provide one huge site encompassing 15-18 pitches as this could lead to the same sort of problems experienced in Crays Hill. Travellers, in the main, do not want to integrate with the local population but may be more inclined to do so if the sites are smaller and dotted around the area so that no one community has to bear to total impact.GT1 and GT7 offer the best option but perhaps they could be smaller than indicated.

3. Industrial Areas

E18 seems to be the best option for a new industrial area. It is close to the A127, the A1245 and the A130 and is more suitable for the heavy lorries which would need to access the site. The existing Rawreth Industrial Estate could be relocated here and there would be space for additional businesses too.

4. Town Boundaries

I love our town and would like to keep the town boundaries as they are. It is a thriving area and in my opinion recent improvements made by the council have helped. However access to the town from London Road is restricted to Crown Hill and London Hill, both of which are very congested at peak times. Let us keep this as a shopping area. Adding more offices and other types of business will not improve our town.

5. Open Spaces and Leisure Facilities

When considering this amount of development you must ensure that there are ample leisure and sports facilities for the population together with the woods and walks we currently enjoy. Without them the area will turn into a concrete jungle containing a lot of miserable and unfit people.

6. Medical Matters

While not in your document, consideration should be given to the health of residents. Currently our doctors' surgeries are at full capacity and only available four and a half days a week, so provision should be made for at least one other surgery. The site of the Off License on London Road (which is now closed) would make an ideal area for a community clinic there being off road parking space which is not available close to the clinic in Eastwood Road.

The proposed employment locations (E13, E14, E15, E16, E17, & E18) are all located within the Green Belt between Rayleigh and Rawreth. There are a number of concerns with this option:
* These locations would be difficult to access by public transport (would be further away from the train station than the existing industrial estate that they seek to replace), which means that it would be in not as sustainable location;
* The locations of new offices in the proposed location would not accord with the locational requirements detailed within the policies of PPS4.
* The proposed employment locations would be in an isolated location (Options E17 & E18 more so), within the Green Belt, which would make it difficult to establish a defensible boundary and also contribute to the coalescence of the neighbouring settlements, contrary to the provisions of PPG2.

As Rawreth Industrial Park is a sustainable location, a better approach would be to redevelop the industrial park with a commercial scheme with a design of unit that is flexible enough to accommodate a range of employment uses.

The idea of de-allocating land in a sustainable location in order that it can be allocated for housing and then identifying new employment sites in less sustainable locations than the existing site is a contradiction.

The preference for future employment and housing provision should be to take a co-ordinated approach to the release of Green Belt land, and the requirements for employment and housing land considered together to limit the potential loss of Green Belt to the most sustainable locations, accessible by a range of means (including public transport), and with defensible boundaries.

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.

We wish to submit our OBJECTIONS to some of the proposals presented in the Allocations DPD. We are doing so by email because of the restrictions on the number of words that can be used within the online form.


1. Residential - Options NLR1, 2, 3, 4 and 5



We are very concerned that a large development is proposed for the area north of the London Road, Rayleigh.



1.1 Access to the town centre is already extremely challenging at peak times. A development of 550 homes would increase traffic unacceptably along London Road / Rawreth Lane.



1.2 This area was promised a new school, shops and amenities when the Little Wheatleys Estate was built 30 years ago. These did not materialise. In the intervening 30 years there have been several large scale housing developments in this area but still no additional infrastructure or amenities have been provided. This area cannot sustain any further large scale growth. It is hard to believe that the promised amenities will be built if the council's track record on honouring infrastructure development agreements is a yardstick.



1.3 These options would further erode the green belt and will from experience surely increase the risk of flooding in this area some of which is already in flood zone 3.



1.4 In addition we note that the site of Rawreth Industrial Estate has already been identified in the Urban Capacity Study as suitable for housing use. We also understand that this land will accommodate 220 dwellings. This adds even further weight to our objections to developing the sites NLR 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.



1.5 There are other areas in Rayleigh of a similar size that have more favourable assessment criteria, fewer constraints and less potential impact.



At Appendix 1, sites 29 and 195 are located to the South West of Rayleigh in close proximity to the town centre . As noted in the assessment criteria, they have good access to services, leisure facilities, schools and the highways network. Why were these areas not considered suitable for consultation? Was it because they are close to Great Wheatley Road and Western Road? Analysing the constraints, assessment criteria and potential impact sections these sites would seem to be more suitable that the proposed options NLR1 - 5.



1.6 Why do 550 dwellings have to be built in one area? Surely smaller clusters of houses in different parts of the district will mean less pressure on the existing infrastructure and amenities. It would also reduce additional traffic on already heavily congested highways.



1.7 Why are some areas of the district, for example Canewdon, not included in the housing allocation?








2. Gipsy and Travellers - Options GT1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7



2.1 The plan seems confused about the number of pitches that Rochford District Council is required to provide. The text on page 62 of the DPD indicates that there is a need to provide 11 additional pitches in order to achieve the required total of 18. However options GT1, 2, 5 and 7 would provide at minimum 15 pitches.



2.2 We are concerned that if the Gypsy and Travellers pitches are sited at GT1, 2, 3 or 6 the sites may expand illegally into the surrounding countryside as has happened at Dale Farm and Crays Hill.



2.3 The document states that integrating the Gypsy and Traveller sites into residential settlements to promote community cohesion is an important aim. Large sites do not encourage such integration as has been found at Dale Farm and Crays Hill.



For these reasons we would advocate that the requirement be met by smaller sites spread across the district in areas that cannot easily be expanded. This would provide smaller Gypsy and Traveller communities that are more likely to integrate with existing residential settlements.







3. Economic Development - Options E13, 14, 15 ,16 and 18



3.1 We feel that the options E13 - 16 are unsuitable for economic development. They are in close proximity to existing residential sites and schools. These will be detrimentally affected by, among other things, noise and air pollution and would add considerably to the existing traffic congestion already experienced on the London Road, Rayleigh which is not suitable for heavy goods vehicles.



3.2 We do not understand why the majority of future employment will be directed to the West of the district. There are surely more suitable sites that would better meet the aim of being "in proximity to London Southend Airport".



3.3 Of the options proposed we would advocate that option E18, which is detached from residential settlements and has close proximity to main routes which are suitable for heavy goods vehicles, would be a better choice.

HAWKWELL PARISH COUNCIL: RESPONSE TO ALLOCATIONS DPD DISCUSSION AND CONSULTATION DOCUMENT

1 INTRODUCTION:

Hawkwell Parish Council is still of the opinion that a new village should be created in South West Rayleigh to enable the benefits of easy access to the highway network to be realised and where all the infrastructure could be provided in a phased way without compromising existing settlements.

We consider that a Local Development Framework should be a document that sets out the strategy for spatial planning in the district. Whilst we understand that the Planning Authority has a statutory obligation to undertake a call for sites we are firmly of the opinion that such an approach mitigates against a truly strategic approach with the result that around 200 sites have now being put forward. We note that the DPD asserts that, of the 3,790 dwellings that have to provided according to the East of England Plan, some 2745 of these dwellings will be on green belt. The maths is simple, that means over 72% of the dwellings will be on green belt which is contrary to the stated policy of using brown field sites for the majority of these new dwellings. With such a gross distortion of the guidelines established by government a truly strategic approach (ie a new settlement) is all the more essential.

However, bearing in mind the above view, the Parish will respond to the proposed site allocations on the basis of preference for those which will do the least damage and provide the best defence to the remaining greenbelt. In this respect sites in Rayleigh, Rawreth area NLR5 seem the most suitable option.

2 RESIDENTIAL:

West Rayleigh

NLR5 is probably the best option because it has a strong defensible boundary and a bus service could be provided between London Rd and Rawreth Lane.

West Rochford

600 dwellings and a school in this location would destroy the rural nature of Hall Road. It would reduce and indeed almost remove the differentiation between Rochford and Hawkwell and is a prime example of urban creep. It will contribute to congestion as traffic tries to access the A127 via the B1013 Cherry Orchard Way. The loss of high quality agricultural land is always regrettable, especially in view of recent comment in the popular press on the need to protect prime agricultural land for food production in the coming years. Option WR1 is possibly the least damaging if the hedge line is protected along Ironwell Lane and Hall Road and access to Ironwell Lane by motor vehicle is prohibited.

West Hockley WH2

This option is preferred because it has previous industrial use and can be accessed off Folly Lane.

South Hawkwell 175 dwellings

The Parish Council maintains that this location is unsuitable and does not meet the sustainability requirements. Of these options, SH2 is the least damaging because it retains the wooded area behind Thorpe Close.


SH3 or SH4

These options must not be entertained because they encompass land between Rectory Road and Hall Road as well as Hawkwell Nursery site. The Jewson's site as a brown field site should, with resolution of access problems, take some of the allocation for South Hawkwell.

East Ashingdon 100 dwellings and land for extension of King Edmond School

Kind Edmond School would be large enough if a secondary school was provided in Great Wakering. This would save long journeys for the children (some 600 bussed every day causing increased traffic and pollution to local roads). However, Option EA is the least damaging as it limits development to one side of Brays Lane.

South West Hullbridge 500 dwellings

Option SWH1 is probably the least damaging.

South Canewdon 60 dwellings

SC6 is the most suitable providing a defensible boundary can be maintained.

South East Ashingdon 500 dwellings

All of the sites are unsuitable because they have an impact on Oxford Road.

SEA1 could be accessed off Oxford Road, The Drive and Ashingdon Road which will cause further traffic problems in these locations. West Great Wakering Option WGW5 would be most suitable.

Rawreth Industrial Estate

It is possibly better relocated and replaced by housing.

Stambridge Mills

This site would benefit from being zoned for housing providing public access is maintained to the waterfront.

Star Lane Industrial Estate and Star Lane Brickworks could accommodate housing although it is well located as an industrial site.

Eldon Way/Foundry Estate

Eldon Way should stay as local employers convenient for the station and has leisure uses. The Foundry Site could well be relocated and developed for housing, it would be a natural extension to the flats either side of Railway approach.


Gypsy and Traveller site locations

Option GT3 is the most suitable as it is closer to shops and schools.

3 ADDITIONAL EMPLOYMENT LAND:

West Rayleigh E18

Seems the most suitable because of its Highway location.

South of Great Wakering

Option E22 offers the least disruption to residents and has less impact on Poynters Lane.

4 ENVIRONMENTAL ALLOCATIONS:

The Parish Council agrees that areas shown on figure 4.3 and listed in table 41 should be allocated wildlife sites. Also agree that figure 4.4 should be allocated as the upper Roach Valley.

We also agree that the Coastal protection Belt should be shown as figure 4.5.

5 COMMUNITY FACILITIES:

Education

The Parish agrees in principle with the approach that a new Primary School be provided within future residential locations.

If the proposed site west of Rochford is on the eastern side of the new development it would appear to be far too near Rochford Primary we would question the need in this location.

Of the options presented Option KES2 is the most suitable however we maintain the view that if a new Secondary School were built in Great Wakering there would be no need to extend Kind Edmonds School and a large number of children would have their journey to school substantially reduced .

Open Space

We agree with the open space being protected through OS1 and consider that sites must be allocated rather than to left to determination by the vagary of negotiations with developers. We are again offended by the continuance of the Planning Authority to regard Hawkwell as a sub set of Hockley (there is no mention of Hawkwell in figure 5.1) - Glencroft is in Hawkwell, it is leased and managed by Hawkwell ( as are Spencers and Magnolia) and to state on page 127 that it is in Hockley undermines our confidence in the knowledge of the author of the detail of the layout of the district and the importance of community identity in such an important document.

Community Facilities

We believe community facilities proposed in (Option CF1) and illustrated and listed in figure 5.2 must be safeguarded. However we note that no account has been taken of the other community facilities that exist in the district (eg we draw specific attention to Hawkwell Village & Ashingdon & East Hawkwell Village Halls - both charitable trusts) that make significant contributions to community in the district, these too must be safeguarded.

6. TOWN CENTRES:

Rayleigh Town Centre Option TC1

Existing town centre boundary to be maintained.

Rochford TC4 is less restrictive but also allows customers to move around a smaller area.

Hockley Option TC8 seems the best option providing a more contained area.

We support the view that Hockley should be re-allocated as a District Centre.

Option TC12 Rayleigh

There must be a distinction between primary and secondary shopping frontages to maintain a vibrant town centre.

Rochford TC13

The distinction between secondary and primary should be maintained. The mixed-use development must be included in the primary shopping area because it contains the Supermarket.

Hockley TC15

We support this option as it utilises the existing primary shopping frontage to form primary shopping area.


7 OTHER ISSUES AND NEXT STEPS:

Hawkwell Parish Council wishes to be represented at The Examination in Public.

With regards to the Traveller/Gypsy site and new housing proposals. We object to your proposals. Why built on green belt, playing fields and flood plain. Disrupting peoples lives when it is unnecessary

Having failed to evict the travellers from the site at the junction of Rawreth Lain and the A1245 why not make that one legal and find a smaller site outside Rayleigh to for fill requirements. Or does Rayleigh get what Rochford doesn't want?

The Industrial Site could be situated on the junction of the A127 and A1245 this area is already an industrial area and would give good road links for companies . As a bonus this would clean up this site which looks like a tip.

The houses could be built on brown land adjacent to the A1245 which Rawreth Parish Council says can be used and it would accommodate all the housing required.

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.

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.

Response of Essex County Council

Essex County Council welcomes the production of an Allocations DPD by Rochford District Council. The setting out of site specific options for development at the general locations identified within the Core Strategy Submission Document will positively assist realisation of the Core Strategy and the Vision for the District. The inclusion of options not just for residential and business development but also for community facilities and environmental designations is particularly supported as providing a firm basis for the holistic and sustainable approach to the future of the District. Similarly, the stated intent (Page 6) to ensure delivery of required infrastructure alongside residential development is fully supported.

The scope and coverage of the Allocations DPD is broadly supported but the general approach to site assessment, selection and definition could benefit from some further considerations, as follows,

1. as presented, many of the site specific options for development suggest artificial and/or straight.site boundaries. The definition of boundaries of the sites eventually selected should be based on and incorporate existing boundaries, in order to,
* respect the often ancient field patterns;
* existing hedges and other vegetation can provide a screen to the development or a feature at the periphery of the development;
* avoid odd parcels of land remaining which are too small to function independently;
* preserve often important wildlife habitats.

2. new single-form entry primary schools will be required to serve proposed residential at two locations - the site North of London Road, Rayleigh, and the site to the West of Rochford. Chapter 5 (Community Facilities) lists site characteristics for school provision at each of these sites (Pages 110 and 111). Essex County Council does not agree to these lists of characteristics. The criteria for identification and selection of school sites are much broader.

Essex County Council has produced an 'Education Contributions Guidelines Supplement' to its 'Developers Guide to Infrastructure Contributions (2010 Edition)' - both of which were subject to a public consultation exercise closing in February 2010. The 'Education Contributions Guidelines Supplement' (copy attached to response) sets out the detailed requirements for provision of new school sites. In the context of the statements on pages 110 and 111 of the Allocations DPD particular attention is drawn to the procedures and requirements for identification and selection of new school sites as set out in Appendices D, E and F. Within Appendix D particular attention is drawn to the section of the Checklist addressing the question of 'suitable safe access' to the site to emphasise that the design of the school and its relationship to the proposed and existing residential areas should facilitate provision of the best and safest walking routes to schools. The Supplement should be referenced within the Allocations DPD and other relevant documents within the Local Development Framework.

3. provision of Early Years and Childcare facilities is not discussed by the Document. Clear statements should be included that the two potential new primary schools would also need to incorporate Early Years and Childcare facilities. The District's Core Strategy (Policy CLT2) also requires provision of new Early Years and Childcare facilities in Hockley. Although it is not currently envisaged that a site could be identified in the Allocations DPD the requirement could be usefully identified in discussion of Hockley Town Centre (Page 144).

4. the proposed allocation of sites for education use is noted. However, allocation of such sites, and other County Council or public service sites, should not be applied such that it seeks to preserve existing uses on sites in perpetuity, thereby restricting the service provider's ability to expand/relocate the facility to better cater for future needs. Should a public service site cease to be required for its current purpose, its future use should be determined on the merits of the site and its location. Public service sites become surplus because local demand for the service has fallen to uneconomic levels or the facility has been replaced by more suitable facilities elsewhere. The Allocations DPD, and other documents within the Local Development Framework, should acknowledge that there will be circumstances when a better option for the community would be redevelopment of a public service site and re-investment of the proceeds elsewhere as part of a strategic programme of infrastructure replacement.

5. Section 4, Environment, of the Allocations DPD would benefit from an additional section that discusses the Historic Environment of Rochford District. Essex County Council would welcome early discussion with the District Council with the aim of producing jointly agreed text for such a section.

6. it should be noted that the County Library Service's medium-term plans include moving the existing library from its existing premises in Great Wakering. This may offer the opportunity for a joint project associated with the proposed enhancement of the Leisure Centre in the village, dependent on detailed location, access and other considerations.

7. the selected sites will generally be associated with greenspace creation. Information on greenspace deficiencies in the area is available in the 'Analysis of Accessible Natural Greenspace Provision for Essex, including Southend-on-Sea and Thurrock Unitary Authorities', which may be found on the Essex Wildlife Trust website.

8. the emphasis of the Document on provision of Sustainable Urban Drainage systems is welcomed, but it should be linked to broader support for the use of associated Green Infrastructure and greenspace creation.

9. the Allocations DPD should acknowledge and note the proportion of the development requirements that will be provided on existing development or brownfield sites.

In respect of the proposed site specific options and environmental designations Essex County Council has the following observations,

A. King Edmund School education site - there is an identified need to provide additional land to accommodate expansion of the school to meet additional demand and to secure improved vehicular access to the school via Brays Lane. Options KES2 and KES3 are preferred by Essex County Council because each presents an opportunity to contribute to both identified needs. Improvements to King Edmund School will need to be linked with adjacent proposals for residential development at the East Ashingdon location. Options EA1 or EA3 are preferred because of the opportunities they present to enable the improvements to the school, which Option EA1 does not. Essex County Council would welcome early discussion with the District Council to ensure the suitability of the detailed site specific requirements for improvement to King Edmund School and residential development at the East Ashingdon location. It should be noted that provision of access from King Edmund School to Brays Lane should be of a standard sufficient to accommodate cars and all associated vehicles serving the school.

B. the proposed environmental designations discussed in Chapter 4 (Environment) are supported. The proposed definition of a boundary for the Coastal Protection Belt is particularly supported as assisting realisation of Policy ENV2 of the Core Strategy and reflecting the currently saved Policy CC1 of the Essex and Southend-on-Sea Replacement Structure Plan (2001). Also, the designation of Cherry Orchard Jubilee Country Park and the Upper Roach Valley is supported. However, the Allocations Document should also include the proposed Stonebridge Park, which is highlighted in the Parklands Vision as a potential sub-regional park centred around Great Wakering.

C. further detailed consideration would be required of the potential employment/ business density of the site and its transport and access requirements of Option E18, Michelins Farm (an option for 8.6 hectares of employment uses, Page 88) should the District Council wish to proceed with allocation of the site. The A1245 is classified as a Main Distributor in the Route Hierarchy and direct access from this class of road is normally prohibited. In addition, the distance on the A1245 between the A127 Fairglen junction and the railway line acts against achievement of the required technical specifications for a new junction. Any changes to the Fairglen junction to provide an access to the site would require comprehensive realignment of the northern western sector and, in addition, the existing roundabout contains a pumping station. Direct access to the A127 and A130 is also prohibited due to the classification of those roads and would need third party land.

D. Assessment of the preferred site options should also include specific consideration of their Historic Environment Character in terms of known and potential features and their contribution to the cultural and historic landscapes of the District. There should be a programme of archaeological evaluation to ensure that the cultural heritage potential of each site is taken into account at an early stage in selection of preferred site options and taken forward in subsequent work on the preferred sites. A summary description of the historic environment characteristics and the requirements for archaeological investigation of the residential, brownfield and new employment locations presented in the Allocations DPD is set out in the Annex to this response. The summaries have implications for choice of sites within the locations at West Hockley, South West Hullbridge, South Canewdon and West Great Wakering (residential) and at South of Great Wakering (employment). Essex County Council would be willing to contribute further detailed evaluation of the historic environment characteristics of each site to inform further stages in preparation of the Allocations DPD.


ANNEX TO ESSEX COUNTY COUNCIL RESPONSE TO ROCHFORD ALLOCATIONS DPD, DISCUSSION AND CONSULTATION DOCUMENT (REGULATION 25) FEBRUARY 2010

SUMMARY REVIEW OF HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT CHARACTERISTICS

A. Residential Land Allocations

1. North of London Road Rayleigh - the Rochford Historic Environment Character (HEC) project identifies the options NLR1-4 for land north of London Road as lying within an area characterised by an historic dispersed settlement pattern retaining good potential for below ground deposits (HEC Zone 34). Whilst there would be no objection to any of the four options suggested, given the sites' adjacency to known heritage sites, the historic environment character and potential any future large scale housing development would require a programme of archaeological evaluation to ensure that the cultural heritage potential of the area is taken into account at an early stage and to make sure that opportunities for pro-active assessment, management and enhancement are fully considered.

2. West of Rochford - the Rochford Historic Environment Character project identifies the site West of Rochford as lying within an area of high potential for surviving below ground deposits in un-quarried areas (HEC Zone 18). The limited archaeological knowledge of the site probably relates to a lack of fieldwork than to a genuine lack of early settlement as extensive evidence of prehistoric occupation lies to the south of the site at Westbarrow Hall. The area around the scheduled Rochford Hall should also be considered one of archaeological potential, as the postulated location of medieval settlement. Whilst there would be no objection on Historic Environment grounds to any of the four options (WR1-4) suggested for land West of Rochford, given the sites adjacency to known heritage sites and its archaeological potential any future housing development would require a programme of archaeological evaluation to ensure that the cultural heritage of the area is taken into account at an early stage and to make sure that opportunities for pro-active assessment, management and enhancement are fully considered

3. West Hockley - this proposed location lies with an historic landscape of dispersed settlement which dates to the medieval or earlier periods and within a zone (HEC Zone 33) identified in the Rochford Historic Environment Character project as retaining a high potential for historic environment assets. There would be no objection on Historic Environment grounds to any of the five options (WH1-5) suggested for land West of Hockley, although options WH2 or WH5 be would preferred due to previous development, they would entail the least impact on any surviving remains. The other options would however require a programme of archaeological evaluation to ensure that the cultural heritage is taken into account at an early stage and to make sure that opportunities for pro-active assessment, management and enhancement are fully considered. Consideration should also be given to the landscape character of the area and the woodland setting.

4. South of Hawkwell - within the Rochford HEC the proposed development south of Hawkwell lies within the HEC Z one26, Land between Hockley and Ashingdon. This area of predominantly rural landscape slopes down to the Crouch Estuary between Hawkwell and Ashingdon, is noted for its dispersed settlement and the number of find spots, particularly of prehistoric material and its potential for archaeological sites despite little formal investigation having been carried out. Having considered the sites' historic environment character and potential there would be no objection to the options (SH1-4) but given the sites archaeological potential any future housing development would require a programme of archaeological evaluation to ensure that the cultural heritage is taken into account at an early stage and to make sure that opportunities for pro-active assessment, management and enhancement are fully considered.

5. East Ashingdon - the site lies within HEC Zone 13, characterised by its landscape of dispersed and polyfocal settlements, church/hall complexes and historic farms. The medieval church/hall complex of Ashingdon Hall/St Andrews Church lies less than a 1km to the north while a number of halls, moated sites and farms including Apton Hall, Little Stambridge Hall, Moated site of Rectory Hall and Doggetts Farm lie close by. The zone is also noted for the many archaeological sites of a multi-period date and the potential for archaeological survival due to lack of development. Although there is limited archaeological knowledge within the limits of the proposed site, the area has been identified as being sensitive to change. There would be no objection to the options (EA1-4) but there would be a requirement for a programme of archaeological evaluation to ensure that the cultural heritage is taken into account at an early stage and to make sure that opportunities for pro-active assessment, management and enhancement are fully considered.

6. South West Hullbridge - the HEC Zone 36 for land west of Hullbridge states that whilst archaeological deposits are rare, prehistoric sites are present within the inter tidal zone and in general the area has potential for deposits to survive. Two known undated earthworks at Maylons and South of Maylons lie within the proposed area while a medieval moated site is close by. Options SWH1 and 2 have the greatest impact on the earthwork sites, Options 3 and 4, less impact. Whilst there would be no objection to the options outlined for South West Hullbridge, there would be a requirement for a programme of archaeological evaluation to ensure that the cultural heritage is taken into account at an early stage and to make sure that opportunities for pro-active assessment, management and enhancement are fully considered.

7. South Canewdon - the HEC Zone 12 shows that Canewdon is an example of a late Saxon/early Medieval settlement focused on the church hall complex but surrounded by a wider dispersed pattern of manors. On comparison with similar settlements it is reasonable to assume that archaeological remains survive within and in the proximity of the historic settlement particularly those historic assets associated with the coast and historic core. Some archaeological finds have been unearthed immediately north of options SC2, 3 and 4 but little to the south, further away from the historic core, in the area of SC1. There would be no objection to the options outlined for South Canewdon, but there would be a requirement for a programme of archaeological evaluation to ensure that the cultural heritage is taken into account at an early stage and to make sure that opportunities for pro-active assessment, management and enhancement are fully considered.

8. South East Ashingdon - the location lies within HEC Zone 13 characterised by its landscape of dispersed and poly-focal settlements, church/hall complexes and historic farms. The medieval church/hall complex of Ashingdon Hall/St Andrews Church lies nearby while a number of halls, moated sites and farms including Apton Hall, Little Stambridge Hall, Moated site of Rectory Hall and Doggetts Farm are in close proximity. Roman material has also been identified to the west of Doggetts Farm. The zone is also noted for the many archaeological sites of a multi-period date and the potential for archaeological survival due to lack of development. Although there is limited archaeological knowledge within the limits of the proposed site, the area has been identified as being sensitive to change. There would be no objection to the options (SEA1-3) but there would be a requirement for a programme of archaeological evaluation to ensure that the cultural heritage is taken into account at an early stage and to make sure that opportunities for pro-active assessment, management and enhancement are fully considered.

9. West Great Wakering - options for West Great Wakering lie within HEC Zone 7, an area notable for its multi period landscape dating from the Middle Bronze Age. Brickearth quarrying has had a significant impact upon the historic environment although there remains a high potential for archaeological remains in those areas not previously subject to quarrying. There would be no objection to the options (WGW 1-5), although those incorporating, or part incorporating, former extractions such as WGW1-3 will have the least impact upon the historic environment. Otherwise non-quarried areas (most of WGW4 and 5) would require a programme of archaeological evaluation to ensure that the cultural heritage is taken into account at an early stage and to make sure that opportunities for pro-active assessment, management and enhancement are fully considered.

B. Brownfield Sites

1. Stambridge Mills - the location survives as a complex multi-period site comprising a wide range of buildings, structures and earthworks which together chart the development of an historic milling site dating from the 18th century or earlier. In a wider context it sits within an industrial backdrop of quays and wharfs and a prehistoric landscape, with important Bronze Age and Iron Age settlement recently unearthed at nearby Coombes Farm. There would be no objection to the redevelopment of the Stambridge Mills site, but there would be a requirement for a historic building survey to record the complex prior to any demolition and an archaeological evaluation to ensure that the cultural heritage is taken into account at an early stage and to make sure that opportunities for pro-active assessment, management and enhancement are fully considered.

C. New Employment Land Allocations

1. West of Rayleigh - the Rochford Historic Environment Character project identifies that the options for land West of Rayleigh lie within an area characterised by historic dispersed settlement retaining good potential for below ground deposits (HEC Zone 34). Whilst there would be no objection to the options for a new employment park, options E13 and E15 would have the least impact on the historic environment. Any future development would require a programme of archaeological evaluation to ensure that the cultural heritage potential of the area is taken into account at an early stage.

2. Michelins Farm - the Rochford Historic Environment Character project identifies that option E18 for employment land at Michelins Farm lies within an area characterised by multi-period settlement, as revealed during the recent excavations along the A130, with a good potential for below ground deposits (HEC Zone 40). Whilst there would be no objection to option E18 any future development would require a programme of archaeological evaluation to ensure that the cultural heritage potential of the area is taken into account at an early stage.

3. London Southend Airport and Environs - within the Rochford Historic Environment Character report the relevant character zones (HEC Zones 17 and 18) identify the areas at this location that not already developed as having a high potential for the survival of historic environment assets. The area is one which, although partially disturbed through construction of the airport and modern industrial buildings, retains a significant archaeological and more general historic environment potential. In addition to known sites, such as the medieval church of St. Lawrence, moated sites, post-medieval tile kilns and brickworks, further finds in the area of the on- going airport railway terminal and to the west of the site indicate extensive prehistoric activity. Furthermore the airfield was established by the RFC during WWI and was later requisitioned to become RAF Rochford, part of the Fighter Command during WWII. The airfield was heavily defended and still contains a large number of extant features relating to the security of the airfield. Any future development proposals would require a programme of archaeological evaluation to ensure that the cultural heritage potential of the area is taken into account at an early stage and to make sure that opportunities for pro-active assessment, management and enhancement are fully considered.

4. South of Great Wakering - options for south of Great Wakering lie within HEC Zone 7, an area notable for its multi period landscape dating from the Middle Bronze Age. Brickearth quarrying has had a significant impact upon the historic environment although there remains a high potential for archaeological remains in those areas not previously subject to quarrying. Due to quarrying, option E22 (south of Star Lane brickworks) and options E23 and& E24 (south of Poynters Road) have no historic environment implications and option E19 would have the least impact of the remaining options. Otherwise non- quarried areas would require a programme of archaeological evaluation to ensure that the cultural heritage is taken into account at an early stage.

I am writing with regard to The Allocations Development Plan Document for which the public consultation ends at 17.00 today.

I feel that whilst the consultation period has lasted 6 weeks from 17th March there has been extremely little publicity provided by The Council to ensure that all interested parties have the opportunity to respond.

It would have been a simple matter to include a flier with the Council Tax demands which were sent to all residents at the end of February to provide the relevant information. It is almost as though there has been a deliberate policy to keep the proposals under wraps.

The LDP comes under the East of England Plan of May 2008 from which I quote as follows:-

Overall Spatial Strategy SS2 states:-

"The target is for 60% development to be on previously developed land."

Green Belt Policy SS7 states:-

"The broad extent of green belts in the East of England is appropriate and should be maintained."

Paragraph 3.29 states:-

"The reviews will result in significant change locally but can be made without eroding the principles and overall functioning of the green belt."

Policy T8 Local Roads states:-

Local Authorities should manage the local road network in accordance with their local transport plan objectives to complement the aims of Policies T2 - T7 with the following priorities:-

"tackling congestion and its environmental impacts."

I would therefore suggest that proposals NLR1, NLR2, NLR3, NLR4, and NLR5 do not seem to comply with these objectives.

As a resident who unfortunately needs to use London Road Rayleigh (A129) on a daily basis I find it incredible that there is any proposed development which includes access via this road or indeed Chelmsford Road (A1245). The traffic is generally significant and at certain times totally excessive without considering what would happen if any of these proposals were to be adopted. There are frequent occasions when there is an "incident" on the A127 usually at Rayleigh Weir or Progress Road which means gridlock on that road leading to even more traffic using London Road as a "rat run." Rawreth Lane is also totally inadequate for any additional access without creating even more congestion.

The existing Green Belt and agricultural land would be irrevocably eroded and lead almost certainly to further future adjacent development meaning a complete eventual loss of such land in the area.

Rayleigh and Rawreth would more or less cease to be entities in their own right.

Access to Rayleigh Town Centre would be made even more onerous than currently. This could only lead to the centre becoming even less attractive to shoppers and become more and more run down in the longer term.

I would suggest that the land either side of the A1245 just north of the Rawreth Lane junction be considered. These are both existing brownfield sites with easy access to Battlesbridge Railway Station. Some of the traffic considerations would still apply but should be less onerous than your proposals.

Employment land Options E13,E14,E15,E16,E17.

All of the observations relative to the above Residential Allocation apply but are exacerbated by the fact that most of the resulting traffic would be HGV's resulting in even more congestion and damage to road structure. All in all these options are a recipe for disaster.

Option E18 would appear to be the most acceptable option with the following reservation. Access from this site would presumably need to be on to the A1245 which is dual carriageway. This would necessitate all traffic emanating from the site using the A1245 North up to the roundabout junction with the A129. This junction is already a source of much congestion.

Gypsy/Traveller sites.

Options GT1&2 are both on the site currently there but is this existing site not illegal anyway? I would suggest that enlarging the current site could lead to problems with exiting on to the southbound A1245.

Option GT3 is totally unacceptable given the proximity to existing housing and the access via London Road. Even though there may be a desire by the council to integrate travellers into the local community it is not something that even the travellers themselves wish to happen. Although an obvious statement their chosen way of life means they travel and as such tend to move frequently. This would naturally lead to frequent changes of occupants at the site and make any integration with the community very difficult.

Overall I do not believe that the Allocation DPD (certainly as it applies to Rayleigh West) is in the best interest of the residents of the area and that here will be considerable opposition to many of the proposals.

If there is a change of leadership in the Government on 6th May it is a distinct possibility that the whole East of England Plan will be scaled-down if not scrapped entirely and I certainly hope this is the eventual outcome.