NLR - Are these the right options?

The Raweth Lane area is already overdeveloped. Only sites with existing industrial useage should be considered for residential development.

Untill the total development plans and impacts on total infrastructure have been considered, costed and incorporated in the development plans, it is impossible to say. We have to stop fragmented development, that leads to problems later. Lets do the total development once with all considered and relevant monies allocated to match a logical scheduled development plan, as would be expected of any company building major projects.

RDC have not properly considered all potental options sufficiently. They have concentrated on a limited number of large sites regardless of their current use, how they contribute to national Green Belt Policy, or what the impact is in relation to existing residential envelope. They have not provided supporting evidence to justify their evaluation of sites that do not fall into thier "preferred locations", and they have not justified why their preffered locations are preffered sufficiently. The rational employed seems to be focussed in on large sites only which is a mistake that will cost all RDC residents.

I don not believe that any of these options allow 'a strong defensible green belt boundary'. Whichever option is chosen there will inevitably be pressure to 'creep' development into adjoining land.

North of Lomdon Road is the correct area. However the land for release should be land north of 206 london road, (weston homes development) to include timber grove, and land to the north of timber grove. This needs release now and not in 2015, due to the shortfall elsewhere in the district. The whole site can be delivered within 5 years for residential development. The site already enjoys part planning permission for residential development, and a special needs home, the later will be built out within a larger scheme.

I dont think these options are right,I think for a new housing development that the old garden nursery which I believe was called Smiths up on the A1245 just past Rawreth Lane should be strongly considered,your interfering with green belt and good road access.

I dont think these options are right, you should consider the old garden nursery I believe that is called Smiths on the A1245 just past Rawreth Lane as that has good road access and not interfering with green belt.

I am strongly against the increase in residential housing in this area of Rayleigh. Traffic congestion on London road/ Rawreth lane is already excessive as the road network is overloaded. The plans also cover the possibility to add traveller sites which based on experiences in Basildon will increase the amount of policing required/crime and decrease the value of property. The area is quiet and fairly rural being bounded by fields and this benefit should not be taken away from the residents who bought here for these reasons. The development will also jeopardise community resources in the area, Pitches, community clubs.

None of these options are suitable, they will:
- cause an unnecessary loss of agricultural land
- increase further the traffic congestion already present on surrounding roads at peak times
- increase demands on current health services
- increase demands on current secondary schools
In addition, I strongly object to any loss of woodland or green belt land.

This location is protected Green Belt land and should remain so. More large scale development here will create unacceptable increase in traffic, put a massive burden on local amenities. Doctors, dentists, schools etc. Previous promises to improve amenities have proved to be empty promises. There is alternative Brown Belt land beyond Bedloes Corner that could be used, which would also be near a Travellers site which could be legalised and increased in size. Also the loss of sports facilities at Rayleigh Town is unacceptable, due to a lack of sports facilities locally.

I object to all of the planned areas for residential development NLR1 - NLR5, but very strongly object to NLR3. The A129 is a heavily used and often congested main route at peak times, and certainly could not cope with the additional number of vehicles that would be trying to use it if there were more housing to be built along it. As a resident of Rayleigh for 30 years I have seen more and more development occur with loss of green belt and little or no improvement to the area infrastructure and these plans are to the detriment of residents.

I believe the brown belt land which falls within the Rawreth boundary just past Bedloes Corner (sites of garage and nusery) along the A1245 would be a much better location for new housing.

I object to options NLR1,NLR2,NLR3,NLR4,NLR5,Cause an unecessary loss of agricultural land,will increse traffic,and encourage a merging of Rayleigh and Rawreth,will create an green belt boundary that cant be defended in the future, I also object to options GT1,GT2,GT3,&GT7,There are some very small sites spread accros the district that could be used instead.

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

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

Leave our greenbelt alone. The countryside should be preserved for agricultural use. The road networks are already gridlocked at rush hour and extra housing would only exacerbate this further.

Strongly object. NLR1,2,3,4,5 will require significant upgrade to access via Victoria Avenue & Cheapside West - already poorly maintained and restricted due to parked cars. A real danger of making these roads a 'Rat Run' through an existing residential area.

NLR2 shows no access route other than through Cheapside West.

Proposal to demolish Rawreth Industrial site WILL result in significant cleanup with disruption to neighbourhood North of Cheapside West.

Upggrade to water drainage necessary to ensure storm drain East & South of Fairmead is not overwhelmed

All options will change the character and result in loss of Green Belt

I strongly object to the proposals NLR1 to NLR5 for several reasons:
The increased urbanisation of Rayleigh will drastically change the character of the town.
Once the Green belt boundary is breached an important principle against further deveopment will be gone, with the probable merging of Rayleigh and Rawreth.
Local roads and infrastructure will not be able to cope, already at peak times there is much congestion in and around Rayleigh, especially on Rawreth Lane.

Myself and husband strong object to NLR1, NLR2, NLR3, NLR4 AND NLR5 as follows:-
- Increased traffic to surrounding roads will be totally unacceptable and unsafe
- infringes on green belt boundary - why is the council allowed to take green belt land. In future it can't be defined.
- the Rayleigh town station copes with all surrounding areas, ie Hullbridge, Eastwood etc.
- encouraging Rawreth and Rayleigh to be one town
- It is a 'flood' area
- Rayleigh sports and social club was given by the family to be used for sports - have they given their permission

I am strongly against the increase in residential housing in this area of Rayleigh. Traffic congestion on London road/ Rawreth lane is already excessive as the road network is overloaded. The plans also cover the possibility to add traveller sites which based on experiences in Basildon will increase the amount of policing required/crime and decrease the value of property. The area is quiet and fairly rural being bounded by fields and this benefit should not be taken away from the residents who bought here for these reasons. The development will also jeopardise community resources in the area, Pitches, community clubs.

I object to nlri,nlr2,nlr3 nrl4 nlr5.They all fulfill four of the five principles including land in the green belt (PPG2) and fly in the face of policyGBI in the core strategy.There are alternative sites which will have no effect on the openess and attractiveness of this high quality agricultural land .These sites were put forward in the call for sites but do not appear to have had due consideration .They have the advantage of being previously used brownfield sites that would provide a new hub for the community of rawreth both sides of the A1245 .

No these are not the right options. This large development will destroy the openness and character of this area. It will start the coalescence of Rayleigh with Wickford and erode the green buffer which should be preserved at all times and completely contrary to RDC Policy.

If you consider relocating Rawreth Industrial Estate to the South West corner - E17 - too this will have a massive impact on the rural, openness of the area which is seen as "The Gateway to Rochford".

I feel that these are 100% not the right options to be considered. There are currently not enough facilities for the communities within this area without bringing more families. It is fine saying that new facilities will be included within this development, but that is too little too late. There is currently nowhere for the children to meet without causing disruption to the neighbourhood and we all know that boredom leads to mischief and that sometimes leads to further trouble. It is already evident that we when we ring for the doctor we have to book a week in advance because they are to busy. The Council should be making the facilities the priority not the additional homes. The additional homes will bring additional traffic to what is already a busy area, the road traffic accidents will subsequently increase, and traffic delays for the bottleneck approach will increase. The ever-increasing development leads to the further erosion of surrounding farmland and greenery. The concrete jungle approach for more housing estates does not make Rayleigh a pleasant place to live. The plans mention Community Cohesion, I feel that this is a lip service approach and would ask what are the other plans that the Council have adopted to increase this community cohesion. The additional sites that have been identified for the travelling community is certainly not one that should be considered in this area. I appreciate that we should be supporting them and the community should not be tarred with the brush of the occasional ones that cause local issues. However, statistics are clearly evident that crime may increase within the local areas and unfortunately, as we have seen in the surrounding area of Basildon, there is a tendency for the perimeters and numbers to grow to an uncontrollable level.

I am totally opposed to any of these proposals including the ones for Rochford, Ashingdon and any more general development in this area. My reasons are simple the difficulties in getting anywhere with already congested roads at whatever time of the day, the cramped train services due to the amount of people living in this area, the open space available, overcrowded Doctors, schools and local hospitals, we just can not fit more people in this area!

We strongly object to Options NLR1 - NLR5 for several reasons:
There is already a clearly defined and 'defensible' green belt boundary at the edge of Rawreth Industrial estate. It is felt that once this boundary is moved west that there will be little to stop it continuing across the entire area up to the A1245 over coming years.
The pylons, which run from north to south directly over the land, would need to be relocated. This would incur substantial additional cost to the development and there is no where they can easily be moved to, without bringing them significantly closer to existing housing.
Part of the area has been identified as being flood zone 3. With new housing on this land the natural drainage from the land will be lost leaving a greater risk of flooding to the area around London road.
The proposal states there is 'good access to the transport network although the impact of increased traffic on surrounding highway network will need consideration'. The A1245, which is the main route in and out of this area is already over congested. Likewise the roads into Rayleigh and Rawreth are frequently grid locked in the mornings and evenings. These roads cannot be expanded or improved as they are surrounded by existing housing.
The proposal also covers relocating Rawreth Industrial Estate to London road. This would only cause additional problems to the existing traffic situation. This would also be located either adjacent to or directly opposite the proposed public park and play area, which would create an unsuitable environment for children.

Background

Countryside Properties have control of some 98 ha of land to the north of London Road, Rayleigh, which it is seeking to bring forward to meet the development proposals set out in the emerging Rochford Core Strategy (alongside adjoining owners, as appropriate).

Notwithstanding the matters of detail raised in these submissions, Countryside Properties are committed to working with the District Council towards the successful delivery of these proposals.

Over-Arching Representations (All Site Options)

The Site Allocations DPD sets out 5 potential land parcels on the western side of Rayleigh north of London Road, ranging from 23ha to 29ha, as possible locations for accommodating the 550 houses, primary school, youth/community facilities and play space proposed in the current draft of the Core Strategy. We assume the proposed Public Park would be accommodated on land outside the identified parcels, but with some open space accommodated within the allocated area (as implied by the notation used to describe each area in the published document).

In common with the representations made by Countryside Properties to the Core Strategy, there are we consider some important points to bear in mind in respect of all of the options being put forward, being:

(1) Flexibility - The need for flexibility in the area to be allocated, to cater for lack of delivery elsewhere and to reflect the fact that the proposed allocation is a "minimum";
(2) Site Area - Delivering even the minimum level of development as currently set out in the Core Strategy will require a greater land allocation that the Site Allocations options imply; and
(3) Long-term Green Belt boundary - In allocating new development land and amending the Green Belt boundary, the Site Allocations document will be setting a new, long term defensible Green Belt boundary, and under the terms of PPG2, this will require consideration of both potential development needs in the post-Plan period, and consideration of the most appropriate Green Belt boundary.

Before turning to consider site specific matters, we set out our comments on the above points more fully below.

(1) The need for flexibility

Countryside Properties have highlighted in their representations to the Core Strategy the requirement in PPS12 for Development Plan documents to have flexibility, in order to respond to changing circumstances. Also highlighted was the fact that the RSS housing requirement is a "minimum", and that all strategic site allocations need likewise to be considered as a minimum if the requirements of the RSS in this respect are to be enacted at the local level.

The definition of the specific land allocation at the Site Allocations stage needs to have regard to that strategic context. It needs to ensure that there is sufficient flexibility within the allocated area to respond to potential changes in development requirements over the Plan period, including the possibility that additional land for housing (or indeed other development needs) may need to be delivered.

(2) Site Area

Even without the requirement for flexibility, we do not consider that the Options put forward have fully considered the land-take required for the scale of development envisaged.

Within the allocated area, there will be a requirement not only to provide the number of homes specified, but also to deliver the highway infrastructure necessary to serve the residential use, to deliver the appropriate social and community infrastructure necessary to support the housing proposed, the associated open space and strategic landscaping, and the drainage infrastructure and sustainable drainage systems necessary to create the quality of residential environment that both Countryside Properties and residents will expect to see.

We also note the requirement in the Core Strategy to provide additional employment land to the West of Rayleigh. For the reasons set out in our representations to the Core Strategy, and set out in our response to the site options presented in the Site Allocations DPD, the additional employment land proposed should be located north of London Road as part of a comprehensive mixed-use scheme.

In our experience of creating successful new residential and mixed-use communities, it is essential not to under-estimate the land required to deliver a quality scheme. In particular for and edge-of-settlement location, integrating a structural landscape framework to 'green' the environment and achieve a successful transition between town and country is essential.

The land west of Rayleigh is relatively free of physical or environmental constraints, but that does not mean that any Masterplan for the site can ignore such features as do exist - there is a public sewer, some specific areas identified as being at flood risk, the potential for existing sports pitches to be retained, the potential need for a buffer to the existing Rayleigh Industrial Estate (assuming it does not relocate), a nearby Listed Building, and existing trees and hedgerows. Any Masterplan will need to be sensitive to these existing features, even if they do not pose significant constraints, and this will inevitably have an impact on the disposition of development and therefore land-take.

At net residential densities of between 30 and 35 dwellings per hectare, 550 residential units would require around 16-18 ha. Allowing a ratio of 60% built area to 40% landscaping, formal open space, incidental open space, children's play space, and green routes (cycleways/pedestrian ways), would produce a gross housing area of 27-30 ha.

The provision of a primary school and other youth/community facilities could equate to around a further 2.0 ha (including parking and servicing etc). We note the site specific requirements for the primary school set out on page 110 of the document, and clearly these could impact on the extent of land required in practice.

Strategic road infrastructure (including bus priority measures) alongside appropriate surface water drainage would equate to around a further 2 ha (a spine road providing bus access at Rawreth Road and linking to London Road could have a distance, avoiding a straight route, or around 1.4km).

Even if no employment land is provided north of London Road, and even assuming no more than 550 residential units, the minimum land-take for the proposed development would in our view be in the order of 30ha, but more likely in the order of 35ha.

(3) Long Term Green Belt Boundary

The Site Allocations DPD provides the mechanism not just by which a specific land allocation will be made to meet the immediate development requirement set out in the Core Strategy, but also by which the long-term, defensible Green Belt boundary will be re-set. PPG2 provides the relevant guidance, and paragraphs 2.8, 2.12 and Annex B are particularly relevant.

Paragraph 2.8 notes that if boundaries are drawn excessively tightly around existing built-up areas, it may not be possible to maintain the degree of permanence that Green Belts should have, and that such an approach devalues the concept of Green Belt and reduces the value in Plans making proper provision for necessary development in the future.

Paragraph 2.12 in respect of Safeguarded Land confirms that any proposals affecting Green Belts must relate to a longer timeframe than for other aspects of the Plan, i.e. in this case, beyond 2025. There is a positive requirement (as opposed to an optional choice) on Local Planning Authorities to address the need for Safeguarded Land when reviewing Green Belt boundaries, and there is a need to be certain that Green Belt boundaries will not need to be reviewed at the end of the Plan period. The RSS provides a strategic context for this consideration, since H1 makes clear that the same rates of provision should continue after 2021.

There is currently no reference in the Site Allocations DPD to the issue of the revised Green Belt boundary, but under the provisions of PPG2, the immediate land release and the long-term Green Belt boundary are not one and the same issue.

There are exceptional circumstances arising from the RSS development requirement to review the inner Green Belt boundary, but this should be a one-off review that re-establishes a permanent Green Belt for the future, which is capable of accommodating development requirements beyond the Plan period without needing to change. Irrespective therefore of whether or not the Core Strategy identifies a need for more than 550 units at West Rayleigh now, the revised Green Belt boundary should be capable of accommodating more than 550 units, should a need for additional units come forward either within the lifetime of this Plan, or beyond this Plan, to provide the permanence that PPG2 requires.

We feel the Site Allocations DPD needs to address the revised Green Belt boundary explicitly, and set out a proper consideration of the alternative options, having specific regard to the requirements of PPG2, including the need for safeguarded land.


Site Specific Representations (All Site Options)

It follows from the matters raised above that we do not wholly agree with any of the 5 options put forward in the Site Allocations DPD.

We agree that all of the 5 sites have potential for development, but given our comments above regarding likely land-take, we consider that a combination of the sites put forward, together potentially with additional neighbouring land, is likely to provide the right solution at the detailed master-planning stage.

In terms of some specific observations, we would offer the following:

* We do not disagree with the Council regarding the potential desirability of achieving a 'through' public transport route between Rawreth Road and London Road;

* There is a reference under several of the options presented to the need to avoid development in land at risk of flooding. Clearly we agree with the need for development to avoid flood risk areas, which in reality affects only a very small proportion of the site, and a sensible approach to Masterplanning will ensure that flood risk does not impose a constraint on the new development, and that there is no risk to existing development. The need to address flood risk and sustainable drainage within the scheme does however add weight to our argument that the size of the site allocation does require some flexibility, if the Masterplan is to be able to respond positively to existing site features (including but not exclusively flood risk);

* We do not consider that the existing pylon line forms a logical boundary to the development area. As we have set out in submissions elsewhere, these pylons can be re-laid underground (in whole or part, or take a new alignment) and therefore should not be regarded as a determining factor, either on site selection or Masterplanning;

* We do consider that the Core Strategy proposals for additional employment land west of Rayleigh should be accommodated to the north of London Road, as part of a comprehensive mixed-use scheme - we address this matter further in our representations on the employment land options;

* Finally, we note the reference to using a "Public Park" to provide a buffer between any future built development and the A1245. Countryside Properties agree that any development will need to provide appropriate open space, and that there may well be opportunities for greater public access and a Park between the built development and the A1245. This is a substantial area of land, and we do have some concerns that the reference to "park" may imply a substantially landscaped and formal area of open space. We are also unclear as to the extent of land which the Council might be considering for inclusion in the "park". In our experience, access to the countryside is an important source of informal leisure activity, and therefore retaining part at least of this land in agricultural use (perhaps with improved access) may provide both a better 'green' buffer and a greater recreational resource than an (underused) formal "park".

In terms of the individual options, our preliminary comments would be as follows:

* NLR1 - This appears to be a logical area for inclusion as part of an allocation - the land is generally free of physical and environmental constraints, is suitable for residential development, and is deliverable. In isolation, it is not of sufficient size, nor does it have the benefit of a frontage to London Road, which it is assumed at this stage will be the primary point of access;

* NLR2 - This site is constrained by flood risk, and in isolation has no suitable access. It is not a realistic option for development, except as part of a wider scheme.

* NLR3 - This appears to be a logical area for inclusion as part of an allocation - the land is generally free of physical and environmental constraints (assuming the pylons are laid underground or diverted), and it is likely that the principle point of access to London Road will lie on this part of the frontage to London Road. The site is not of sufficient size on its own, and also would not provide for a public transport link to Rawreth Lane, and therefore we assume this site would need to form part of a more comprehensive allocation.

* NLR4 - Our comments in relation to this land are largely the same as for NLR1 - a minimum of physical/environmental constraint (small area of flood risk), but a developable and deliverable site. It is not large enough in isolation, and does not have a frontage to London Road where we assume the primary access will be taken. It appears as if the western boundary is based on the line of the pylons, but as stated elsewhere in our representations, we do not consider the pylons to form a logical boundary to the development area.

* NLR5 - Our comments in relation to this land are largely the same as for NLR4 - although this option does have a frontage to London Road, it would necessitate disruption to the existing playing fields, and we feel that there are better options for accessing London Road. Again, the site is not large enough in isolation.

OBJECT to NRL1/2/3/4/5. The A129 London Road cannot cope with any further traffic; the building of 550 new homes would only exacerbate this problem. The local roads and facilities can barely cope with the current population and the reduction of the agricultural land would be a great loss to the local area. The number and frequency of buses servicing this road has also been reduced in the last few years. I object to the proposed traveller options for Rayleigh and Rawreth and am also very concerned about the lack of publicity surrounding this consultation.

I understand that Rawreth Parish council have suggested a brownfield site in their area, why not build the houses there?

No these are not the right options.

I object to NLR1, NLR2, NLR3, NLR4 & NLR5. There are alternative sites which will have no effect on the openess and attractiveness of this high quality agricultural land and I believe sites were put forward in the call for sites but do not appear to have had due consideration. Traffic congestion on London road/ Rawreth lane is already excessive as the road network is overloaded. The development will also jeopardise community resources in the area, pitches and community clubs, while also putting a strain on local health services and both primary and secondary schools.

Once the encroaching onto a green belt boundary begins it will be impossible to defend in the future.

I also object to options GT1,GT2,GT3,&GT7, there are some very small sites spread across the district that could be used instead.

I object to NLR1,NLR2,NLR3,NLR4,NLR5. The increase in traffic would have a huge effect on the extremely busy London Road which is already congested. The loss of agricultural land would be detrimental to the area. It would create a green belt boundary which can't be defended in the future and would encourage a merging between Rayleigh and Rawreth. The developments would increase the strain on the infrastructure in the area. Public transport is poor.

Representations have been made by Andrew Martin Associates on behalf of MD Smith and Son at previous stages of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy consultations. These representations, together with the attached document which is based on that previously submitted, identifies the potential land available at the Hambro Nursery and Clovelly Works site, Rawreth. Part of this site is set out and identified as Site No. 73 of the Site Allocations Assessment Criteria Document. The available site should be considered more substantial (9.6ha) than that identified in the assessment criteria and should be known to be, suitable, available and achievable for delivering mixed use development in preference to other sites proposed by the Council.

The response is made to the Council's identified preferred development sites set out in the Regulation 25 Development Plan Document (DPD). The strategy behind the earmarked sites stems from the unadopted Core Strategy which is still to undergo Examination in Public (EiP) in order to assess its soundness. MD Smith and Sons therefore question the approach of the overriding spatial strategy in relation to the identification and best use of previously developed land within the district. In particular:
-where sites are no longer in active use;
-are well located to access to the highway network;
-are closely related to existing settlements;
-can provide for improved landscape and public access opportunities; then
-the sustainability of such sites is likely to outweigh the disbenefits of identified Green Belt allocations.

The Council's sustainability assessment is not, however, within the public domain.

MD Smith and Sons object to the identification of parcels of land (NLR1, NLR2, NLR3) to the north of London Road (to the South of Rawreth) which both in isolation and collectively fail to make the best use of available and previously developed land in the locality. Any significant development on this land is likely to bring about a coalesce between the settlement of Rawreth and Rayleigh. This will be to the detriment of the surrounding area as a result of the sites prominence and have an adverse impact in landscape, flood risk and sustainability terms.

In additional, the former Hambro Nursery and Clovely works site adjoins an area of Public Open Space (PoS) which is poorly located for growth proposed to be accommodated on land north of London Road. The Council's approach here fails to recognise the potential for this POS to be added to, improved or enhanced. This POS exists for the benefit of the local community but will not easily link or form part of a new community to the north of London Road. It will become isolated from the proposed sites north of London Road and fail to make the best use of the opportunities in the vicinity. This includes the potential to improve the landscaped setting of the former nursery site on previously developed land which would present an opportunity to remove and/or screen significant development by consolidating the site's built footprint, enhancing the POS in the process.


In the Council's assessment within the Site Allocations Assessment Criteria, it is concluded that the site (No.73) is not within the preferred development location as set out within the Core Strategy Submission Strategy and would need to consider transport routes into the town centre which may impact on highway network. The site is, however, closely located to the proposed NLR1-3 sites and is within 500m of them in the same broad location. The impact upon the highway networks will be limited as the site is accessible off Chelmsford Road. Opportunities for improvements for cycling and pedestrian links would be made possible as the result of any development proposed on the former nursery site.

In addition to the above comments, the allocation of existing employment areas within the district for housing uses is likely to cause otherwise avoidable problems with economic delivery and growth. By allocating land upon which successful business are currently operating, the Council has failed to consider the needs and wishes of those business who would be otherwise unlikely to relocate as a matter of choice to other sites within the district. Such sites are clearly not available and the evidence base has not adequately addressed this matter. A significant employment 'leakage' will result with business likely to relocate outside the district. The costs and benefits of such relocation remains to be assessed adequately in our opinion. The strategy for allocation of such sites therefore remains unsound and wholly vacant or previously developed sites should be considered where the landowners and business are in favour of relocation as part of a holistic redevelopment.

In proposing to take forward a strategy which neglects redundant and previously developed land within the district, a policy favoured nationally, the Council fail in its obligation to direct growth appropriately. For example, in support of this argument Planning Policy Statement 4 (PPS4), Policy EC2, sets out that Council's should seek to make the most efficient and effective use of land, prioritising previously developed land which is suitable for re-use and... reflects the different location requirements of businesses. It goes on to say that LPAs should identify a range of sites, to facilitate a broad range of economic development, including mixed uses. Furthermore, Site allocations should not be carried forward without evidence of the need and reasonable prospect of their take up during the plan period. This evidence base does not address these matters fully.

Any development in this area of Rayleigh is madness!
1. It borders already very busy & congested roads.
2. Several major junctions converge at this point, i.e. the A130, A13, A129, A127.
3. Anyone with any knowledge of the area knows that it is often completely gridlocked. Even a small incident on the above named roads results in traffic congestion on the others.
4. The development as proposed would have a detrimental effect on the area, & begin the erosion of the identities of Rayleigh & Wickford.
Please, let common sense prevail!