Q56a. Do you agree with our vision for Rayleigh? Is there anything you feel is missing?

Object

Representation ID: 38270

Received: 30/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Duncan Robertson

As I live in Wellington Road (no.3) I am strongly opposed to any housing development at the end of my road ( CFS053 and CFS027 ) Wellington road is a narrow road with a blind bend halfway down,if this road was opened up for over 300 houses the road traffic would be catastrophic and would be used as a rat run.
Also on the field at the end of Wellington Road there is a bridleway,which is used quite frequently ( what would happen to the bridleway? )

Object

Representation ID: 38326

Received: 31/08/2021

Respondent: Ms Laura Campbell

With the proposed demolition of the much-needed Mill Hall, the hub of the community will be gone.This means a suitably-sized community venue will be missing.Mill Hall must stay the size it is to enable all the community groups to continue to meet locally & not add to pollution being forced to drive further afield to bigger venues. Having to go out of town for a venue the same size as Mill Hall is now will be impossible for some residents. Mill Hall, managed properly, must remain & remain the size it is now, with all the facilities it has now

Object

Representation ID: 38330

Received: 31/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Neil Gordon

The amount of open countryside and woodland to be built upon is truly horrific: Rayleigh will be hemmed in by new estates on all sides, especially to the west around the Carpenter's Arms. The road system, already under strain, will be gridlocked with extra traffic, as some roads already are at rush hour. Infrastructure, creaking at present, will be overwhelmed: schools, doctors and other services need drastic augmentation even now. Rayleigh will transform from a delightful small town into an overcrowded urban nightmare whic long-standing residents will be desperate to leave.

Object

Representation ID: 38339

Received: 01/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Stephen Bertram

Higher density housing in the town centre.

Comment

Representation ID: 38341

Received: 01/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Julia Beaumont

I recognise the need for housing. I hope that the new housing will be affordable to the younger generation. I also hope that the relevant infrastructure will be implemented.

Object

Representation ID: 38363

Received: 01/09/2021

Respondent: Mr C Thackeray

Valuable green space and access to other green space areas that provide safer and peaceful haven away from heavily trafficked highways, inadequate footpaths and existing housing. The highway access, maintenance, adequate utilities and infrastructure in Rayleigh has seriously lacked proper investment and upkeep and further development cannot be supported. The impact of such developments in Rayleigh without the infrastructure in place before construction have proven untenable with the latest large development being built West of Rayleigh have revealed Rochford DC lack of thought, care and attention for those living in Rayleigh and those passing through the area.

Comment

Representation ID: 38368

Received: 01/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Shirley Page

To provide "a diverse range of housing" the council should ensure a majority of affordable housing with decent-sized gardens. - "job opportunities meeting the needs of all in the community," - apart from house-building what does the council propose? - "whilst retaining its strong historic and cultural character." by protecting and enhancing it, not spoiling it (i.e.with housing at the Mill Hall site). For Rayleigh to thrive, the council should limit further house building to allow the town to absorb the huge population increase the current house building will cause. Housing needs to be shared more fairly throughout the district.

Object

Representation ID: 38371

Received: 01/09/2021

Respondent: Mr chris ward

no I don't agree with your vision as CFS053, has a bridal path through it, also a public foot path which is regularly used by walkers and also is a habitat for wildlife, which is something we need to hold on to, for the future. Children like too walk through this area with their parents and explore and understand that green space is precious.

Object

Representation ID: 38384

Received: 02/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Brian Keech

We disagree strongly with the potential plans for Rayleigh developments:
CFS 027,029,053,086,098.
We say ‘No More Development’.
Main reason is the impact on road traffic which is already in a dreadful state. Rayleigh is often gridlocked with motorists queuing in traffic jams or increasingly using ‘Rat Runs’ like our road – Victoria Road, to the detriment of residents and their families’ safety.

In your ‘Spatial Options’, on the ‘Site Assessment Proformas’, we'd like to know:
- Why is there no category for the impact on the traffic situation?
- What does Level 2 mean on the ‘Potential Plan Strategy Option’?

Comment

Representation ID: 38422

Received: 02/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Vilma Wilson

Yes
This means COL 7 and 20 being cancelled if you want to keep this draft statement true.
To meet the needs of ALL the community Mill Hall needs to kept in its current form as this will add to the draft statement of strong historic and cultural character of.

COL 7 and 20 contradict this statement

Object

Representation ID: 38458

Received: 03/09/2021

Respondent: Individual Resident

Roads - already cannot cope with the amount of traffic coming through, this will put another 500 cars within a small area.
Drainage -we are seeing the result of mismanagement of land, climate change and flooding- paving over natural ground soak always and feeding more homes into existing sewer/water systems, will lead to regular events such as that experienced recently in Bull Lane/Chase junction.
Essential services - we are not increasing these to keep pace with house building, are we just accommodating the overspill/flight from London.
Eroding the countryside and its beauty is not the answer.

Comment

Representation ID: 38473

Received: 03/09/2021

Respondent: Dr Michael McDowall

The vision sounds fine but is pointless unless the plan considers now to achieve it and what impact the new housing will have..
Given the ageing population what's your definition of "walking Distance".

Object

Representation ID: 38474

Received: 03/09/2021

Respondent: Please select

Quality of life for residents is diminished by current development plans, increased traffic and poor air quality.

Object

Representation ID: 38475

Received: 03/09/2021

Respondent: Please select

Current vision for Rayleigh lacks any respect of residents wishes for retaining green spaces and improved transport infrastucture.

Object

Representation ID: 38512

Received: 05/09/2021

Respondent: Mr BARRY CATLING

Currently there is insufficient infrastructure to support the current popultion, to add to that would be both foolhardy and reckless.
We are forever being told of increased greenhouse gases and how this should be reduced for both ours but more importantly for future generations for our children and grandchildren...
The intended site is populated with many mature trees, sadly I expect many of these will disappear, these trees provide some sound barriers from the ever busy A127..
The Rayleigh Weir roundabout is often gridlocked, these intended applications will make this even worse, with the added addition of pollution.

Object

Representation ID: 38514

Received: 05/09/2021

Respondent: Mr P Davey

- Lack of infrastructure to support this development, including Schools, Doctors, Road Networks & Public Transport.
- Noise Pollution created from this development (during and after)
- Increased traffic on small, poorly maintained surrounding roads
- Inconvenience during construction with construction vehicles and workers
- Citizens using neighbouring roads as 'cut-throughs' creating more traffic, noise and pollution
- Environmental concerns- wildlife, land and pollution from more cars, and the construction
- Farm field drainage concerns with runoff and potential flooding in neighbouring areas

Object

Representation ID: 38531

Received: 06/09/2021

Respondent: Miss tracy ward

I feel Rayleigh does not need anymore housing, due to the council having to use the open spaces to build more houses. This would take away the areas of wildlife, play areas. The local roads are not made to take that amount of traffic, along with schools, GP surgeries. You should also take into account the polloution, more households mean more rubbish to get rid of.

Comment

Representation ID: 38535

Received: 06/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Stephanie Tabbitt

the proposed 7,200 homes in Rochford would on average mean over 17,000 people and over 9,000 cars (based on the governments own stats of 2.4 people and 1.3 cars per household). This is a similar population as South Woodham Ferrers to put this in perspective.

Object

Representation ID: 38540

Received: 06/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Wayne Clifton

Infrastructure in Rayleigh cannot support this plan to build significant housing near the centre of Rayleigh. Traffic is currently an issue as is pollution as per the 2019 air quality report.
We need our green space and building on agricultural land is absolutely not the answer. The fields from Wellington Road, behind Nelson road and along to Bull Lane are a safe haven for dog walkers, cyclists, and the local community were particularly grateful of this land during the recent pandemic. Please dont build on our open space, please don't build in the centre of Rayleigh.

Comment

Representation ID: 38545

Received: 07/09/2021

Respondent: mrs Sarah de Cristofano

the proposed 7,200 homes in Rochford would on average mean over 17,000 people and over 9,000 cars (based on the governments own stats of 2.4 people and 1.3 cars per household). Our doctors surgery and roads are already struggling. This is like putting a small town into our already overcrowded town.

Object

Representation ID: 38548

Received: 07/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Patricia Bertram

Ref Numbers
Cfs027 Cfs098 Cfs086 csf029 cfs053
We strongly object to this proposed development. Rayleigh is already grid locked with traffic on the surrounding roads in this area. It links Hockley to Rayleigh making it a cut through on unsuitable local roads. This is our precious green belt land, other ways should be found to achieve the plan. Particularly to the west of Rayleigh where there is more access to the main road and rail network. There is also no supporting infrastructure.
Please keep us updated on the project and note our objections.

Comment

Representation ID: 38552

Received: 07/09/2021

Respondent: Glenis Beardwell

If the proposed 7,200 homes are built in Rochford the population will increase by approximately 17,000 people . Rayleigh cannot cope with
anymore footfall and traffic

Object

Representation ID: 38567

Received: 07/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Carly Rand

There is already a lack of infrastructure to support the population of Rayleigh.

Object

Representation ID: 38578

Received: 07/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Valerie Tarte

It is completely inappropriate to even consider developing for housing or commercial use any of those beautiful natural areas of parkland, woods and green space which give Rayleigh its character and enable its residents to enjoy a good quality of life. These areas enhance our physical and mental well-being. Allowing development on such sites will also encourage 'rat runs' and increase traffic flow in areas which are currently safe for pedestrians and road users alike.

Comment

Representation ID: 38593

Received: 07/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Gillian Wells

The green open spaces and parks within Rayleigh are insufficient for the number of people .These can get quite crowded especially during the weekends and school holidays The advent of the COVID pandemic has made this problem even more apparent and acute .Our wellbeing depends on such spaces being accessible and available.

Comment

Representation ID: 38657

Received: 08/09/2021

Respondent: Rayleigh Mount committee of the National Trust

With reference to the redevelopment of the Mill Hall Arts and Events centre, Bellingham lane, Rayleigh. It may well have a detrimental impact on the scheduled ancient monument as the development is on the boundary of the site. It may well have an impact on the natural screening that is currently provided by the vegetation between the site and our property. We are also concerned about the potential impact to the security of our property both during and after the project is completed.

Object

Representation ID: 38682

Received: 09/09/2021

Respondent: SE Essex Organic Gardeners

No further development within this area.

Object

Representation ID: 38778

Received: 13/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Stephen Gunn

Looking at the potential loss of arable land highlighted in Fig 44, will result in a massive loss of potential food production.. At a time when our goverment, post brexit, are encouraging our farmers to increase production, we must safeguard all the arable land we can. At an average wheat yeild of 9.6ton per (HA), the fields near me themsevles (CFS053, CFS098) will result in a loss of 62 tons per annum.
The potential food loss is just the tip of the iceberg. We have the loss of wildlife habitat, loss of bridleways, increased congestion in an already overcrowded area.

Object

Representation ID: 38794

Received: 14/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Linda Copsey

Insufficient consideration has been given to infrastructure and facilities required.
Current house building in the District, Rayleigh, Hockley, Rochford, Hullbridge, no consideration for doctors, road congestion being relieved, schools etc.
Plan contradicts , better life and health for all, better air quality but no real plans for roads, schools, doctors. There will be more demand on services as residents will suffer from a polluted, congested town as cars from most of the District pass through Rayleigh. Services cannot cope now so how will they cope as there is no real promise of extra facilities/infrastructure. The Council will not deliver.

Support

Representation ID: 38814

Received: 14/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Jeff Higgs

Broadly agree with the vision for Rayleigh.
However I feel it needs to reflect in context, with our existing overdevelopment of housing.