Q56b. With reference to Figure 44 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the land edged blue should be made available for any of the following uses?

CFS 147 north of London Road
I am objecting the abovementioned planning of London Road due to the fact that the area is already over developed and cannot take any further housing. The roads are totally clogged up and the fumes generated by the heavy traffic cause bad health. The buildings proposed are on green belt land which will displace wildlife even more than now. Only brown field sites should be used. More homes means more services which are never enough and take a toil on the existing services, which are not adequate. The air quality has to be mentioned because more homes is more traffic and more pollution. The traffic has increased by 34.5% this will obviously increase much more This particular area was green and pleasant but over the recent years has become congested and polluted and the pavements cannot be walked because of the health problem it brings to people living here. I must object strongly.

PLAN CFS053 –LAND OFF 38 & 39 WELLINGTON ROAD, RAYLEIGH

We purchased 67 Nelson Road as a new-build in 1983 and one of the attractions was that it backed on to Green Belt –then and still currently farmed.

In 1987 Beazer Homes submitted an application to develop this area and, from the RDC minutes of May 1988 the reasons given for refusal were:
1. Excessive development in the green belt
2. Insufficient visibility
3. Sewerage embargo
4. Detrimental to wildlife and local amenities
5. Contrary to existing character of the area.

I appreciate that in the intervening years some opinions on items 1 and 5 may have been modified but I would like to comment on the other areas:
Insufficient visibility – I take this to mean affecting the views from Nelson road properties across the open farmland and we have certainly enjoyed these.
Sewerage embargo – In the 1980s there were many instances of surface water overflowing into the foul water system resulting in manholes lifting and raw sewerage flowing out into gardens. (this happened with sufficient frequency for me to get on first name terms with the clean-up squad).
After some years this was largely solved by installing extra storage/pumping. I fear that further loading could upset the balance.
Detriment to Wildlife – positioned as we are we enjoy an abundance of birdlife, squirrels, foxes, badgers and even the occasional water vole. The development outlined would certainly affect this.

Perhaps, however the biggest impact would be on traffic flow with many more vehicles exiting Wellington Road onto the Hockley Road. At peak times it is already difficult to exit Nelson Road and even at off-peak times dustbin lorries, a parked van, etc can quickly lead to a queue of well over a mile between Rayleigh and Hockley.

Have reviewed the serious number of pages on this not easy to read local plan.
We have lived in Rayleigh 37 years and prior to that in Benfleet.
If you live in Rayleigh you will be well aware of the constant road traffic congestion at most times every day of the week .Rayleigh Weir in particular has grown into a nightmare to get through or even enter from any of the roads near the Weir onto the High street to access the Weir.
Similarly entering or exiting Rayleigh from Hockley or Eastwood is just as bad. With more housing being proposed especially on sites CFS055,CFS121,CFS077 and CFS087 the road infrastructure will just not cope. Add that to the already over burdened Doctors surgeries and Hospitals let alone the schools our current infrastructure will not cope.
Surely a more sensible plan in co-operation with Southend Council to create a new village ( believe the Government call them garden villages) in the East of the district close to Fossetts Way bordering Southend. This would we believe allow room to create a full infrastructure for roads,housing,schools and Doctor surgeries / hospital / clinics. At the same time putting in new major Roads,Rail and Bus services.
We would like to be kept in formed of any proposed plans please which will hopefully be a more sensible solution to the overcrowding of Rayleigh.

CFS027 CFS098 CFS086 CFS029 CFS053
I would like to note that I strongly object to the proposed housing developments for end of Bull Lane, Rayleigh.

I wish to comment on the above plan, specifically site references and CFS146/147.

Combing the two sites this would mean approx 1500 proposed houses, on top of the existing housing development which is underway on north of London Road.

The access to bus services for CFS146 is noted at a score of 1 and train access is 2. This would mean a huge amount of increase in traffic along the already congested London Road in order to access the station, town centre, schools, etc. Currently, this road is heavily congested at peak times, school days, etc and just one incident can completely grid lock the road right up to the High Street. There would also be a direct impact on pollution levels in this area, caused by all these extra vechicles on the road.

There is no mention in the plans for providing extra GP surgeries for all these new homes, an access score of 4 for example does not actually mean they will be able to register at the existing local GP surgeries (which currently must be fit to burst) - the access score means getting to a surgery via transport is possible, but actually registering with a GP is another issue/problem.

I was in Rochford recently and someone asked me for information on local walks in the area. The lady told me she had moved to Rochford recently from London and was dismayed at the lack of parks in the area, she commented that London had numerous parks and green spaces and she couldn't believe how few green spaces were in the local area! What a statement this is and it's sad that looking at these plans it means more of our green spaces will disappear under concrete. Of course, I realise housing is needed but surely the proposed sites could be smaller and more spread out in the county.

CF086, CFS098, CFS029, CFS053, CFS027.

I would like to raise the following for your consideration.

As you are already aware Rayleigh and the adjoining area is already densely populated.

My immediate concerns is the lack of infrastructure and the loss of green belt and the consequence of such would be a severe impact on the natural wildlife which is much invaluable to the environment.

The practicalities of building hundreds of new houses in what is an already tightly packed area will impact on the residents.

With such a project roads in the area will be choked; the disruption to everyday life and more importantly the restructure of the access roads especially Napier Road, Wellington Road and Bull lane, which will be turned from a quiet country and side roads to a dangerous rat run.

On a practical level the disruption, noise and resitting of the roads will impact on the neighbourhood. Also, the bridle paths and public footpaths will be put at risk of disappearing.

With such a large development there will be total change for the immediate residents, with the local environment being eroded and what is now a peaceful enclose will be part of an urban sprawl, possibly impacting on property values.

So many new homes will need schools, doctors, dentists, etc and there have been no plans to extend the basic facilities.

Nationwide there seems to have been little consideration to the overall impact of development. The natural areas used for crops, the wildlife and human well being well be destroyed and never replaced, including waterways which may result in flooding.

I would like a detailed response to my concerns and I’m sure the other local people who will be affected would appreciate an honest and levelled explanation of what will be an ecological and human catastrophe leaving a blighted legacy for future generations.

Objections to Col 7 the re-development of Mill Hall

Demolishing Mill is removing a community facility without building an equivalent replacement. Mill Hall is in a state of disrepair because Rochford council wanted to demolish it for many years, so by not doing any regular maintenance they have created a self-fulfilling prophecy. It is in a poor state so we must knock it down.

Its proposed replacement is far too small, would this proposed new building have been able to cope with the Covid 19 crisis in the way that Mill hall has. Where would groups such as RODS perform, or any other major hall hire group go?

The building of multiple four storey flats and the loss of the car park - Rayleigh is short of car parking spaces. The major re-design of Websters Way car park created an extra 7 parking slots but at vast cost. Removing 40 car parking spaces at the mill is tantamount to gross stupidity, especially when the idea is to attract more visitors and business to Rayleigh. Building 500+ new houses, see below, where will these new vehicles park when they go shopping in Rayleigh

The new flats will result in multiple new cars, where will they park? If as the government intends that cars will go electric, where will all the new electric charging stations be sited? Has the necessity for this infrastructure been incorporated into the plan?

You are proposing to build in a conservation area, next to the Rayleigh Mill and Rayleigh Mount, has appropriate permission been given by the national Trust and English Heritage who between them are meant to manage the sites?


Objections to Col 20 the redevelopment of Rayleigh Civic Suite.

Having spent over £4000 re-decorating the suite last year, why knock it down, or if you are going to knock it down why spend money or re-decoration. This is another community facility that is being removed. It housed the Citizens Advice (Bureau) and RRAVS, both of which have had to relocate at considerable cost to each organisation. I am assuming that some monies were made available to these organisations to help with the move? People could go to the suite to get help with council related problems. They can’t now, they have to do it online. Most of the people who have troubles/questions with the council are the older generation who are not computer literate and have been left behind by modern technology. How are they meant to get help now?


Objections to general Housing development from Rawreth Lane to London Road

In its infinite wisdom the council demolished Park School and built a supermarket and some housing. Now it is proposing/in the process of building another 500+ houses. So where are all the children going to be schooled? You are not going to have to build a new school are you? The council has proven again it could not plan it escape form a soggy paper bag.

We moved to Rayleigh in 1979, and were not made to feel welcome by the locals and I understand why. The council had reneged on any promises to improve the infrastructure to cope with the extra residents. For all the new developments it has permitted since 1979 it has not done one iota of infrastructure improvements. Minor improvements such as a right turn lane have been made but nothing to enable the roads to handle and extra 500 cars in the morning and the same in the evening. This also takes no account of the extra traffic generated by general deliveries and such. No new roads, it can’t even maintain the ones it has, do not pass the buck to Essex county Council, I pay my council tax to Rochford so they are my service supplier, they are responsible for getting the potholes mended. Passing the buck to Essex CC is not an acceptable get out. No new shops, no extra facilities for youth entertainment, no new pubs/restaurants, except in the middle of Rayleigh where you cannot park.

This new development, which has already caused many traffic jams, and most of the houses have not even been built yet, has made no allowance for road improvement. 500 houses will mean at least 600 new cars in the area and 1000 new children Where will all the cars and children go. Where will all the car charging points be installed. Building houses at 15+ to the acre will not leave much room for roads, communal green spaces and gardens. Everyone has to go somewhere, but there must be some quality of life as well as a place to live.

Rochford Development Plans - Spatial Options Development 2021 - Site Ref: CFS059 - Land at Sandhill Road, Eastwood
I have become aware of an intention to develop a piece of land at the above site by building possibly 20 properties. This site backs directly on to my property in Gravel Road, Eastwood.

I am writing to strongly object to this proposed development. There is insufficient infrastructure to support such a development. It could result in an additional 40 or more cars using the local roads, specifically Gravel Road. The roads in this are already extremely busy so much so that when there are any traffic problems on Rayleigh Road, Gravel Road going into Wren Avenue is at a standstill. It is also a very bad Road for speeding as it is used as a “cut through”. If access is proposed to be sited in Tudor Close/ Tudor Mews, this will result in parking problems and the potential for harm to children using that area to attend Edwards Hall School. There are already severe problems in this regard. Too many cars, insufficient clear space for children to cross. It is not an exaggeration to say it is an accident waiting to happen. Further cars will exacerbate this. The thought of Lorries accessing the site from this area, is frightening.

Also I am surprised that this land should be considered for development having regard to the wildlife in that specific area. There are foxes, muntjac deer, numerous species of birds and more particularly badgers. For the number of badgers that visit our garden it is clear there is a badger sett in the immediate vicinity. At a time when parks, roadsides and hedgerows are being left uncut in the name of biodiversity, it is inappropriate and highly questionable for this land to be developed.

In 2004 there was an application for this land which was rejected by the Planning Inspector and it was stated this was within the Metropolitan Green belt and as such it does not accord with the provisions of the local development plan. Further the site was stated to be part of the green belt urban fringe boundary and as such is particularly sensitive to “making adjoining land vulnerable to development pressures. At that time it was based on an application for one single dwelling. not 20 as now being proposed. How has that changed? The extensive house building programme by the government laid emphasis on the availability of Brown Field sites, which must always be prioritised.
If such a development were to be allowed, it would seriously and irreversibly affect the whole appearance and character of the area. To summarise this is a wholly unacceptable development proposal.

I await the result of your review.

CFS098, CFS027 and CFS105
I live in Albert Road and in 2020/21 the winter was no more wet than usual. The land all around us though was boggy all winter and the road flooded a few times.
If you build houses to the rear of Albert Road, on flood land, you will make the problem far worse, especially as our winters are forecast to get wetter.
The farm land to the north of Napier Road brings an abundance of wildlife to the area. Why do we need to build on farm land? There are enough brownfield site throughout Essex. We will need all the farm land we have because of Brexit, and because we must move to a more traditional / sustainable way of farming.
We do not have the land of population growth in the UK to warrant doubling the amount of housing in Rayleigh.
Rayleigh's infrastructure , ESPECIALLY ROADS, already cannot cope with the traffic, so how does the Council propose to remedy this?
The pandemic is reducing the need for housing close to London - Don't give permission for houses we don't need.

CFS027, CFS098, CFS086, CFS029, CFS053
Re proposed development @ Wellington Road/Napier Road (end of Bull Lane Farm Road)

I am writing to lodge my concerns and dismay at the above proposed development.

Firstly, the roads in and around Rayleigh are already very congested and prone to being grid locked in most days. With the increase of more cars that the new homes will bring, the roads will become impossible to get around.

Secondly, with the new homes that are proposed there is no mention of providing more schools, Doctors surgeries or Dentists. The existing facilities are already under a strain, so how do you think they will be able to cope with increase of people moving into the area?

Thirdly, has any one given thought to whether the electricity, gas, water and sewage systems will be able to.cope.

It is all very well keep giving permission for more homes to be built, but providing homes with no real guarantee of the facilities/utilities that a council tax payer has a right to is completely and utterly irresponsible. I worked for a Building company years ago and all of the above points would have been looked into when drawing up the p!ans.

And on a final note during the last 18 months, when we have all lived through a horrible time with the pandemic, our valued green spaces were very important. Not only for our mental Well Being but also for our daily exercise. also what about the Wild life whose homes are the green spaces. Maybe neither of these two points or in fact any of the above matter to you at all.

However, once you get rid of the green spaces, you can never get them back again; they will be go e for good.

Proposed development of Wellington Road, Napier Road and end of Bull Lane Farm
Reference No CF027 CFS098 CFS 086, CFS 029 and CFS 053

I wish to record my objection to this proposed development. My reasons are:

1) There has been excessive and ongoing development all over the Rayleigh area. I think it is time to pause and take stock of the position, particularly concerning the impact of traffic and the pressure on available facilities.

2) This is a fine area of Green Belt, that is widely used by walkers. There needs to be some restriction on the spread of development between Rayleigh and Hockley. The brook at the rear of Nelson Road is a natural boundary.

3) There are drainage problems in the field leading from Wellington Road to Nelson Road.

To whom it may concern,

Please stop building huge housing estates in Rayleigh!

(I prefer the garden village option).

Our towns infrastructure CANNOT support these additional homes:
I can never get a doctors appointment because they have too many patients.
The roads are always busy.
Our roads are a state.
The water mains have been bursting all over town under the strain.
Our secondary schools have been disrupted with building work to accommodate the additional places needed, on top of COVID these kids have not had a fair school life experience.
If you allow housing to be developed between Wellington Road and Albert road I am concerned that we will be affected by flooding, without the fields and trees to drain the rain water.
Stop building on farm land, a growing population needs food, if you build on all of the arable land we are not going to have enough food to support ourselves.
I am totally opposed to the plans for the Mill Hall site. A town that has grown so much needs a large space to host events, it also needs to be fit for purpose; your plan’s aren’t.
Before COVID the trains were always busy, with many commuters having to stand for their journey. As people start to return to work are they even going to be able to get on a train; with everywhere along the line having increased their populations by hundreds of people?
Please do something about the recycling centre on Castle Road, it is ridiculous the amount of traffic jams it causes with people waiting to use it.

COL7 Mill Hall

MILL HALL:

I object to the development of the Mill Hall site (code number COL7) - with it's proposed 24 flats and houses which the council plans to build on the site.

The council's own impact testing states that the site is MODERATE ADVERSE. "There are likely no options for mitigation. Proposal causing this level of harm to the significance of a heritage asset should be avoided".

Thee Mill Hall site sits on the ancient outer Bailey of the 11th century Rayleigh Mount, adjacent to the 200 year old Grade 2 listed Windmill and is also situated inside RDC's designated Conservation Area.

Spatial Consultation is overly complicated, very confusing and difficult to answer, particularly for elderly people with and without computers. |Far too many questions being asked and how to respond is extremely difficult.

The amount of housing proposed will have severe impact on highways. RDC have already refused an application in Ashingdon because they deemed the development would result in severe impact on the local highway network. The toxic fumes caused from constant traffic congestion will cause health problems and is totally unacceptable. Without large scale road building and infastructure no further housing should be built in this area. Enough is enough
.
Piece meal development should be avoided. A dedicated new town with all infastructure (doctors/dentist/schools/hospitals etc) should be planned to accommodate the total number of future housing needs. Garden villages although a better option are not enough, its just another name for a large housing estate. South East Essex has already had its fair share of house building. Any more house building would be completely unfair to current inhabitants lifestyles. Too many people already find it difficult to get appointments with doctors/dentist and schools are over subscribed.

RDC's objectives with regard to utilizing brownfield sites for house building should be strictly adhered to and on no account should any more greenfield/agricultural sites be used. Our greenbelt is essential not only to prevent urban sprawl by creating green boundaries between towns and villages but it is also needed for biodiversity/flood prevention/reducing air pollution and combating climate change.

Apart from the site put forward for housing in Castle Road, Rayleigh (waste disposal site which should be re-located to a more suitable area), no other sites should be used for housing in Rayleigh, especially not in Rayleigh Town centre a CONSERVATION area. Both the Mill Events Centre (Mill Hall) and Civic Suite (Council Offices) have been put forward in this Spatial Consultation and WITHOUT prior consultation with residents, RDC have ALREADY earmarked these sites for housing with Voyage Partnership and contracts have been signed.

Rochford DC requested Essex CC's opinions on document prepared by Place Services - High Level Heritage Assessment of the Heritage input for 270 potential site allocations for Rochford's New Local Plan. The assessments for:

Mill Events Centre (Mill Hall) COL7 is assessed as MODERATE ADVERSE - Medieval town extent and impacts scheduled monument of mott and bailey and lies within Conservation Area. The development of this site will cause considerable harm to a HERITAGE ASSET and this harm is considerable. There are likely NO options for mitigation. Proposals causing this level of harm to the significance of a heritage site should be AVOIDED.
Civic Suite(Council Offices) - COL20 is assessed as MAJOR ADVERSE - Lies within Rayleigh Conservation and Historic area and contains Barringtons a Grade 2 listed building. Development of this site will cause substantial harm to a HERITAGE ASSET.There are likely NO options for mitigation. Proposals causing this level of harm to the significance of a heritage asset should be AVOIDED.

Given RDC's assessments of the above sites, it is impossible to understand the reason they were included in this Spatial Consultation and RDC's Asset Delivery Plan in the first place. This not only goes against the opinions of the vast majority of residents in this area, (the Asset Delivery Plan was decided upon by RDC together with Voyage Partnership in private meetings) residents were denied the opportunity to debate it properly in the public forum, but it also conflicts with its own Rayleigh Centre Action Plan which was adopted in October 2020.

RDC's Strategic Objectives 15 & 16 are completely at odds with regard to the Mill Events Centre (Mill Hall). This is the only multi purpose space equipped for theatre/arts/dance/fitness and community purposes and to consider replacing it with a much smaller hall that is not fit for purpose and include yet more unwanted housing is NOT PROTECTING cultural facilities in the district but REDUCING them.

Instead of accepting this unwanted level of housing in this area, imposed on them by Government, it is RDC's duty on behalf of its residents to challenge these Government figures.

Objections to Col 7, the re-development of Mill Hall

Demolishing the Mill Hall is removing a community facility without building an equivalent replacement. Mill Hall is in a state of disrepair because Rochford council wanted to demolish it for many years, so by not doing any regular maintenance they have created a self-fulfilling prophecy. It is in a poor state so we must knock it down.

Its proposed replacement is far too small, would this proposed new building have been able to cope with the Covid 19 crisis in the way that Mill hall has? Where would groups such as RODS perform, or any other major hall hire group go?

The building of multiple four storey flats and the loss of the car park - Rayleigh is short of car parking spaces. The major re-design of Websters Way car park created an extra 7 parking slots but at vast cost. Removing 40 car parking spaces at the mill is tantamount to gross stupidity, especially when the idea is to attract more visitors and business to Rayleigh. Building 500+ new houses, in progress London Road to Rawreth Lane, where will these new vehicles park when they go shopping in Rayleigh?

The new flats will result in multiple new cars, where will they park? If, as the government intends, cars all go electric, where will all the new electric charging stations be sited? Has the necessity for this infrastructure been incorporated into the plan?

You are proposing to build in a conservation area, next to the Rayleigh Mill and Rayleigh Mount, has appropriate permission been given by the national Trust and English Heritage who between them are meant to manage the sites?


Objections to Col 20 the redevelopment of Rayleigh Civic Suite.

Having spent over £4000 re-decorating the suite last year, why knock it down, or if you are going to knock it down why spend money or re-decoration? This is another community facility that is being removed. It housed the Citizens Advice (Bureau) and RRAVS, both of which have had to relocate at considerable cost to each organisation. I am assuming that some monies were made available to these organisations to help with the move? People could go to the suite to get help with council related problems. They can’t now, they have to do it online. Most of the people who have troubles/questions with the council are the older generation who are not computer literate and have been left behind by modern technology. How are they meant to get help now?


Objections to general Housing development from Rawreth Lane to London Road

In its infinite wisdom the council demolished Park School and built a supermarket and some housing. Now it is proposing/in the process of building another 500+ houses. So where are all the children going to be schooled? You are not going to have to build a new school are you? The council has proven again it could not plan its escape from a soggy paper bag.

We moved to Rayleigh in 1979, and were not made to feel welcome by the locals and I understand why. The council had reneged on any promises to improve the infrastructure to cope with the extra residents. For all the new developments it has permitted since 1979 it has not done one iota of infrastructure improvements. Minor improvements such as a right turn lane have been made but nothing to enable the roads to handle an extra 500 cars in the morning and the same in the evening. This also takes no account of the extra traffic generated by general deliveries and such. No new roads, it can’t even maintain the ones it has, do not pass the buck to Essex county Council, I pay my council tax to Rochford so they are my service supplier, they are responsible for getting the potholes mended. Passing the buck to Essex CC is not an acceptable get out. No new shops, no extra facilities for youth entertainment, no new pubs/restaurants, except in the middle of Rayleigh where you cannot park.

This new development, which has already caused many traffic jams, and most of the houses have not even been built yet, has made no allowance for road improvement. 500 houses will mean at least 600 new cars in the area and 1000 new children. Where will all the cars and children go? Where will all the car charging points be installed? Building houses at 15+ to the acre will not leave much room for roads, communal green spaces and gardens. Everyone has to go somewhere, but there must be some quality of life as well as a place to live.

Proposed development rear of Gravel Road, Sandhill Road.
I object to this development as i thought this was green belt land. To destroy this area is a sad days work. I look out of my window and can see muntjac deer, foxes and at night 4 badgers and a barn owl which is it the tree at the end of my garden. I have lived here for over 40 years and worked all that time for BT in Rochford, Rayleigh, Wickford and Hockley, and have gradually seen lots of open space disappear. Sandhill Road is a road I have often worked in, how nice to see children playing in the road. Plus this will add 30 - 40 cars using the rat runs that are Gravel Road, Wren Avenue and Green Lane, where nearly all the drivers drive way above the legal speed limit, and most of the people living in these roads have lived here for years and are elderly. I know profit and money are every thing these days but don't let the area become like London too many cars over crowded noisy and dirty.

New Local plan- ref no's CSF027 CFS098 CSF086 CFS029 CFS053 NO!

NO - to house building Wellington Rd, Napier Rd, End of Bull lane Farm Road.

Briefly:

Rayleigh already too built up.

Specific to the above plans:

Bull Lane and area around is already too congested with traffic -

We live in Bull Lane and traffic in the morning starts from around 4 o'clock - increased noise pollution and poor sleep

I have severe asthma and my daughter has severe lung and heart disease - increased air pollution affects this

Schools and GP services are already oversubscribed - extremely difficult to get appointments with GP's.

Loss of Greenbelt - so important for our mental health -

Several years ago planning permission was denied for the end of Bull Lane - nothing has changed so why is it being considered now?

Flooding from fields affecting houses in Albert Rd area

I realise that you will argue that you are following government instructions, but remember that as councillors it is your job to listen to the views of those whom you represent and that those who voted you in can also vote you out.

Ref no CFS027 CFS098 CFS086 CFS029 CFS053
I would like to comment on your proposed spatial strategy these are my comments below.
This is a clear violation to the green belt policy. This will have a negative impact on the ecology in the area i.e. birds, badgers, hedgehogs, snakes etc .
Some of these species are protected.
This will have an impact on surface water this could cause flooding to my property.
I do not believe that Rayleigh and especially Nelson Rd has the infrastructure capacity to cope .
Since I moved to this area I have become aware of how difficult it is to travel in and out of Rayleigh at this present time adding more cars to this area is madness.
I believe this will be a visual pollution .

Building more houses in Rayleigh.
I write to advise of my concern with reference to the building of houses on farm land behind Albert Road Rayleigh and Nelson Road Rayleigh.

The floods that we have had in the past would obviously mean this is not suitable land to build on, the farmer has actually dug a trench to try and prevent further flooding to houses. Any new building would cause more flooding when we have torrential downpours and the houses would fail to get insurance.

Also our roads are a joke, the high street is always chocker block with traffic and cars use Bull Lane as a cut through so another 350 houses in the area wouldn't help this situation at all.

We have lots of wildlife including Badgers behind us, this would all be ruined if you build more on our green belt land.

I moved to Rayleigh thirty odd years ago it was a lovely well looked after town but it's really going down hill the council don't maintain the roads, pathways, fields, grass verges and i can't remember the last time the road sweepers were out. Such a shame to what was a truly lovely and well maintained town.

Ref COL/07 ( Rayleigh Mill Hall area ) -
I am surprised to see that Council Officers are considering the re-use of a National Trust designated Ancient Monument and Council defined Conservation Area ( see RDC Map below ). To be quite clear :-

The National Trust has recently confirmed that the area known as the ‘Rayleigh Mount’ does include the original Outer Baillie of the Castle.

This is clearly indicated ( see Map ) within RDC’s own definition within there awarded Conservation Area status of the same zone (including the area occupied by the Mill Hall ).

The same ‘red’ zone also includes the Main Car Park area which is the subject of a legal Covenant which precludes development of it.

More recently a belated RDC Partner’s Consultation, related to a covert development scheme, has received a 9:1 rejection response from the Public at large.

To be clear, I object to the concept of even considering this area in
question, on the basis that it breaks every conceivable moral and legal code of practice relating to Ancient Monuments and Conservation Area objectives. In fact I question the competence of both Council Officers
and Rochford District Councillor’s themselves.

The Local Plan/Spatial document on your website is very complicated and difficult to understand and so I have given up with that and stake below what I feel.
It seems that Rayleigh is AGAIN in the pipeline for much more housing development according to the local Lib Dems. The former Housing Secretary, Robert Jenrick, wanted to rip up the planning rules and allow people no say in what happens in their areas. He has now been replaced by Michael Gove, who wants to review the situation after so much backlash from the public over excessive over-development everywhere.
In Rayleigh we have had our fair share of housing development over the years and to have another local because landowners want to make money in their eagerness to sell their land for housing is totally unfair. It means Rayleigh just becoming an easy option dumping ground, with all the inherent problems such as traffic congestion, pressure on local services, the disappearance of green space and turning what is a pleasant place into nothing more than a concrete jungle.
Yes people needp laces to live but it is hoped having a new Housing Secretary appointment, a fairer scheme can be considered which will share out housing more equally instead of particular areas being crammed with over-development.
What about the consideration perhaps of Option 3a and 3b areas for a garden village somewhere near Fossetts Way on the Southend border?
Hopefully there can now be a pause and rethink about the housing development situation!?

New house developments CFS027 CFS098 CFS086 CFS029 CFS053. NO.

CFS087 Address: Land between Western Road and Weir Farm Road, Rayleigh
We have been made aware of this promoted site in the Localplan 2021.
The proposal to build 108 homes in such a place close to the A127 would be ill advised as will increase noise pollution.
The increased households and population will increase traffic congestion to access the high street.
This site is not close enough to the station which would mean many people will be driving to access the trains and other public amenities resulting in excessive traffic and air pollution.
The Rayleigh Weir traffic is already one of the heaviest and a blemish to the town. Building more homes in this area will add to this problem.
The effects of noise and air pollution on health of residents has recently been gaining more focus and increasing awareness particularly following the coroner case in London. We feel taking a deliberate decision to house people next to such a busy road is taking unnecessary risks with their health and exposing the council to future liability.
There’s already pressure on local amenities and facilities e.g. schools and GP surgeries, additional houses in this area will worsen this problem.
This land provides a natural space with trees ,shrubs etc, a very useful green and area of tranquility for all Rayleigh residents. The number of these areas are disappearing significantly to the detriment of the natural environment, mental and physical health of our residents. This land should not be added to this growing list.
We will therefore for the above reasons oppose this new development.

To whom it may concern
I object to site COL07 (Mill Hall, car park and green) and also site COL20 Civic Suite with landscaped gardens to the rear being included in the Local Plan as a future residential development site.
Under Section 71 of the Planning (listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and other legislation Rochford District Council has a duty to preserve and enhance the Rayleigh Conservation Area. Both sites are surrounded by listed buildings and a Scheduled Ancient Monument in the case of Mill Hall, neither should not be developed for housing. The setting of the listed buildings are also greatly enhanced by the gardens and the landscaped car parks which make a significant contribution to the conservation area, these would be lost if developed for residential use.
Under S.39 Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and other legislation and guidance, Rochford has a duty to contribute towards achieving sustainable development.
It is widely acknowledged that the greenest building is the one already there. The carbon footprint of demolishing existing buildings on these sites will significantly increase the carbon footprint of the whole district. In is important therefore to invest in the present buildings and make them more sustainable (Mill Hall would appear to offer significant opportunities.).
Under S.40 of the Natural Environment & Rural Communities Act 2006, the local planning authority has a duty, when exercising its functions, to conserve biodiversity. The green areas and trees on both sites greatly contribute to the biodiversity of the area. In particular in this conservation area, which is not only valued for its buildings but for the mature trees and open space owned by the public. The loss of this biodiversity would be unacceptable if these sites were changed to residential use in the next local plan.
The contribution of car parking to the vitality of the town centre is significant and loss of public car parking within COL07 an COL20 would be detrimental to the Rayleigh Town Centre.
The above are borne out by Rochford Council's own plans and policy documents.

Re Rochford New Local Plan, Spatial Options Consultation 2021
Topic Paper 8. Heritage.
I wish to object to aspects of the plan, as follows.
Having read the document Topic paper 8, Heritage, and looked at the local spatial options plan, I note that both the Mill Hall area COL07 and the Civic Suite area COL20 are both included in the local plan as future sites for development. (Blue edged and shaded blue on the map)
Both these sites are situated within Rayleigh’s conservation area, and currently not assigned for residential use.
The Mill Hall site COL07 includes a listed building (the historic Windmill) and an environment of historic importance (Rayleigh castle mount). The site currently includes green areas and trees. This very important amenity is Rayleigh’s heritage and as the term implies must be conserved for the people of Rayleigh.
The Civic suite area COL20 faces on to Rayleigh’s grade 2 *listed Parish Church. Development of this site would detract from the local environment, with loss of green space and trees.
Both areas are valued as open spaces with important heritage significance. They are protected by being in the conservation area.

Spatial Options Consultation - Rayleigh
I write regarding the above consultation for the Rayleigh area and would like to state my OPPOSITION to the plans to build further housing in the local area.

I have tried to work through the documents online but unfortunately the system is so time-consuming and difficult to understand, I have decided to send over my OBJECTIONS to the plan by this email, and also have a number of questions as follows:

• Was it the Council’s intention to make this process so difficult that residents are unable to reply?
• Why is this campaign primarily online given the number of elderly people who live in Rayleigh?
• How are you advising the whole of Rayleigh about the impact of these potential changes and sharing this consultation?

Unfortunately, from this I can only conclude that the Council appears to have no intention of taking the residents views seriously and ploughing on regardless.

Rayleigh quite simply cannot cope with more houses and the subsequent population increase – we do not have the infrastructure of roads, buses, trains, schools, GPs and hospitals necessary to be able to cope with over 7,200 new homes. Even as Rayleigh stands at the moment, it only takes one small accident on the A127 or roadworks in the local area for the roads in the whole of Rayleigh to grind to a halt. Having commuted for a number of years, I can confirm that Greater Anglia run an appalling service that cannot cope with the current number of commuters travelling to/from London – it will not stand up to an increased number of travellers. Many people have returned to work and yet Greater Anglia have still not returned to their normal timetabled service and number of coaches. We share just one hospital with Southend and Castle Point which was classified as “at or near capacity” in 2011. It is my belief that allowing the building of this significant number of homes makes Rochford Council negligent in their duty of care to their residents.

Additionally, I do not agree to destroying green belt land – the damage we are doing to our environment and the local wildlife is horrendous and should be stopped. I understand badgers’ setts have been destroyed by the housebuilders during the building of the new homes off Rawreth Lane and yet no one is being held accountable. How can you allow this to continue? Where is it planned that the wildlife go? I DO NOT agree with the planned redevelopment of Mill Hall and the surrounding areas – do you have no consideration at all for our environment and the increased pollution and flooding this will cause? Where are you planning to send local people to for their clubs, concerts, etc?

This leads on to the lack of leisure facilities in the area – the only leisure centre in Rayleigh is not being managed properly nor does it have the capacity to serve the current population. Who takes accountability for this? Where is the swimming pool that was promised when it was originally built?

Not only is mill Hall and the surrounding area, I believe a conservation area, but is also an important part of local history..there are already far too many new builds going up in rayleigh and surrounding areas, so enough is enough..please listen to the opinion of local people and stop any redevelopment of this area, otherwise I will consider suing rochford district council for what I believe is probably illegal activity any way.

Rgds

Michael wood

Ps how many councillors who make these decisions actually live in Rayleigh?
Probably hardly any

I wish to put on record my opposition to the reasoning of areas in Rayleigh that are valuable from a biodiversity perspective and amenity land for the local community, in particular, in the vicinity of Bull Lane, Napier Road and Wellington Road. Particularly during lockdown this area, this area provides a valuable green lung enabling people to maintain their mental health. It includes footpaths and bridleways. It is home to many birds, butterflies, bats, foxes and badgers. Other than that there is arable land which is important for food production and provides a pleasant vista and also a habitat. Rezoning will destroy the character of the area and make Rayleigh an unpleasant and oppressive place to live. Further, the replacement of Mill Hall with a tiny facility will mean that cultural opportunities for new residents will be extremely limited. Already the roads and doctors’ surgeries cannot cope. And all this for what? To build homes that are no doubt barely affordable for the average citizen. It is doubtful that planning permission should be given after reasoning, in view of the environmental concerns. This is surely just about pure profit and in no way necessary when there exist hundreds of empty homes throughout the country.

Ref CFS053, CFS027, CFS098, CFS086, CFS029,
I believe that your initial assessment for CFS053 and the other sites above are that these are not considered suitable for urban development but fall into the Green and blue spaces and Biodiversity spokes on the spectrum wheel and I would wholeheartedly agree with that for the following reasons:
1. CFS053 is an area which slopes steeply to the water course (which is tributary of the River Roach) that runs behind the residential properties along the South eastern side of Nelson road. If houses were to be built on the above sites this would cause a critical drainage problem with the potential of flooding to properties in Nelson Road and to others in the Albert Road area and beyond.
2 The whole of Rayleigh Town, especially the Centre, is already failing to cope with the daily volume of traffic, the residential roads surrounding outside the town centre are becoming rat runs and car parking is also causing problems. As is air pollution which can easily be confirmed by readings found on the BBC and other reliable weather channels. Building over 300 plus more houses, mostly with 2 cars, would only exacerbate the situation and make journeys in and out of the town even more difficult it they are now.
3. The above areas, which have several dedicated rights of way running through them are well used by residents as they only Green belt / wild areas within easy walking distance of the town centre. They are especially important for their mental wellbeing.
Besides woodland a couple also contain wild grassland. With the addition of native species of wild flowers these sites could, in line with Government policy, become wild flower meadows to aid pollinators like bees and butterflies to enhance food crops and Biodiversity.
4.Other facilities such as Doctor's surgeries and schools are already under pressure coping with additional patients/pupils moving into the area from various building projects already progressing in the area such as those along the Hockley Road and near Bullwood Hall.

To the chairman of council
Dear Sir,
As a resident of Rayleigh I am very concerned about the plans for further housing development in the area. Piecemeal development will not provide the infrastructure absolutely necessary for this area to survive. Already schools and surgeries are over subscribed and the level of traffic and street parking is nearly saturated. The best idea for the area is that suggested by building a new town in the outskirts of Southend with proper schools and Dr`s practices for the residents. I understand that the councils are being pushed by the government to provide more houses but please don`t do this at the expense of current residents.