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?
Object
New Local Plan: Spatial Options Document 2021
Representation ID: 43856
Received: 20/09/2021
Respondent: Sheila Hobson
COL7 & COL20 are two sites being made residential, surely Rayleigh has had enough development in the few square miles around it, couldn't the housing I know the Gov wants be on outskirts, possibly as a new village development, with its own infrastructure i.e. doctors, schools etc.
Mill Hall is a great venue for learning and leisure, and so nice to have a cafe for social use on site. Rayleigh seems to be traffic locked most of the time. We are encouraged to walk, but where without fumes, unless you drive to venue which defeats purpose. Please don't turn my lovely Rayleigh into a concrete nightmare with a real parking problem and no green spaces.
COL7 & COL20 are two sites being made residential, surely Rayleigh has had enough development in the few square miles around it, couldn't the housing I know the Gov wants be on outskirts, possibly as a new village development, with its own infrastructure i.e. doctors, schools etc.
Mill Hall is a great venue for learning and leisure, and so nice to have a cafe for social use on site. Rayleigh seems to be traffic locked most of the time. We are encouraged to walk, but where without fumes, unless you drive to venue which defeats purpose. Please don't turn my lovely Rayleigh into a concrete nightmare with a real parking problem and no green spaces.
Object
New Local Plan: Spatial Options Document 2021
Representation ID: 43863
Received: 03/09/2021
Respondent: Mr Stephen Skinner
Site Ref COL7 (Mill Hall Arts & Events Centre - Capacity 25 dwellings)
I object to this site being included in the new Local Plan for residential development, for the following reasons:
1. Redevelopment would be likely to have an adverse visual impact on the scheduled monument Rayleigh Mount, largely due to the loss of existing tree/shrub screening to the rear of Mill Hall. It may also have adverse security implications for Rayleigh Mount if Mill Hall is demolished and the terraced area at its rear becomes more publicly accessible.
2. Redevelopment would be likely to have an adverse visual impact on the grade 11 listed building Rayleigh Windmill, hemming it in with buildings, and reducing the open aspect that it currently enjoys.
3. Likely loss of public car park spaces would have an adverse commercial / amenity impact on Rayleigh High Street.
4.Likely loss of existing trees on the site, including mature specimen trees, would have an adverse impact on the attractiveness of the street scene, and would be incompatible with the conservation area status of the site.
5. The demolition of Mill Hall would be very detrimental to the leisure/entertainment potential for the people of Rayleigh (and surrounding nearby areas in the Rochford District). Consideration should be given instead to greater community involvement in the management of Mill Hall.
Site Ref COL7 (Mill Hall Arts & Events Centre - Capacity 25 dwellings)
I object to this site being included in the new Local Plan for residential development, for the following reasons:
1. Redevelopment would be likely to have an adverse visual impact on the scheduled monument Rayleigh Mount, largely due to the loss of existing tree/shrub screening to the rear of Mill Hall. It may also have adverse security implications for Rayleigh Mount if Mill Hall is demolished and the terraced area at its rear becomes more publicly accessible.
2. Redevelopment would be likely to have an adverse visual impact on the grade 11 listed building Rayleigh Windmill, hemming it in with buildings, and reducing the open aspect that it currently enjoys.
3. Likely loss of public car park spaces would have an adverse commercial / amenity impact on Rayleigh High Street.
4.Likely loss of existing trees on the site, including mature specimen trees, would have an adverse impact on the attractiveness of the street scene, and would be incompatible with the conservation area status of the site.
5. The demolition of Mill Hall would be very detrimental to the leisure/entertainment potential for the people of Rayleigh (and surrounding nearby areas in the Rochford District). Consideration should be given instead to greater community involvement in the management of Mill Hall.
Comment
New Local Plan: Spatial Options Document 2021
Representation ID: 43865
Received: 12/11/2021
Respondent: Rosemary Parmenter
The development of land adjoining the Civic Suite (4 storey flats) will hugely impact me, especially as the foundations of my Victorian cottage are not as substantial as more modern properties and my garden will be overlooked 24/7. N.B. this is a CONSERVATION AREA.
Development of the Civic Suite site COL20 will cause substantial harm to a heritage asset.
I believe there will be a huge impact on local doctor's surgeries - it is already extremely difficult to get an appointment at Audley Mills Surgery.
Rayleigh used to be a popular and desirable place to live - now we are one huge traffic jam. More development will only add to this problem.
- I found the consultation extremely complicated and confusing.
- The development of land adjoining the Civic Suite (4 storey flats) will hugely impact me, especially as the foundations of my Victorian cottage are not as substantial as more modern properties and my garden will be overlooked 24/7. N.B. this is a CONSERVATION AREA.
- Development of the Civic Suite site COL20 will cause substantial harm to a heritage asset.
- I believe there will be a huge impact on local doctor's surgeries - it is already extremely difficult to get an appointment at Audley Mills Surgery.
- Rayleigh used to be a popular and desirable place to live - now we are one huge traffic jam. More development will only add to this problem.
- The limited consultation with residents is discriminatory to those who are not 'on-line'. I find it very difficult to get information and ask that RDC engage with those of us who do not have emails.
- I LOVE living in Rayleigh but fear for its future if these plans come to fruition.
Object
New Local Plan: Spatial Options Document 2021
Representation ID: 43882
Received: 03/09/2021
Respondent: Judy Charlesworth
Transport, Homes, Infrastructure, Bio-diversity
1. Rayleigh is already an over-developed area. More housing being built in Hall Road and Rawreth lane sites.
2. No infrastructure considerations - utilities, medical resources, roads, open spaces etc.
3. AIR POLLUTION. Air quality is already very poor in our area -queuing traffic - Crown Hill, Daws Heath Road and Castle Road (fir re-cycling centre) etc. More traffic will increase congestion and air pollution even worse.
4. Housing. Garden village, option 3a and 3b supported. Away from existing suburban sprawl. Co-operation with Southend in option 3a and 3b areas would be good for Rochford District and relieve extra pressure on Rayleigh.
5. Environment. Protection of wildlife habitats are being destroyed by over-development. Plant more trees for improved air quality and wildlife.
6. Well designed open spaces / parks for all ages.
7. Housing - use of brownfield sites; re-purpose empty houses / flats unoccupied for more than 2 years.
8. Town centre (Rayleigh). Encourage more independent retailers by offering fair, not exorbitant rents from greedy landlords.
Transport, Homes, Infrastructure, Bio-diversity
1. Rayleigh is already an over-developed area. More housing being built in Hall Road and Rawreth lane sites.
2. No infrastructure considerations - utilities, medical resources, roads, open spaces etc.
3. AIR POLLUTION. Air quality is already very poor in our area -queuing traffic - Crown Hill, Daws Heath Road and Castle Road (fir re-cycling centre) etc. More traffic will increase congestion and air pollution even worse.
4. Housing. Garden village, option 3a and 3b supported. Away from existing suburban sprawl. Co-operation with Southend in option 3a and 3b areas would be good for Rochford District and relieve extra pressure on Rayleigh.
5. Environment. Protection of wildlife habitats are being destroyed by over-development. Plant more trees for improved air quality and wildlife.
6. Well designed open spaces / parks for all ages.
7. Housing - use of brownfield sites; re-purpose empty houses / flats unoccupied for more than 2 years.
8. Town centre (Rayleigh). Encourage more independent retailers by offering fair, not exorbitant rents from greedy landlords.
Object
New Local Plan: Spatial Options Document 2021
Representation ID: 43898
Received: 20/09/2021
Respondent: Mr and Mrs C & A Malyon
Number of people: 2
COL07 COL20
I object to site COL7 (Mill Hall, car park and green) and also site COL20 Civic Suite with landscape gardens to the rear being included in the local plan as a future residential development site.
We need to preserve the green areas and trees on both sides. This is a conservation area, with mature trees and open spaces owned by the public. This would make is unacceptable for use as a residential area.
The loss of public car parking within COL7, COL20 would be detrimental to our town centre in Rayleigh.
I also object to the loss of a major community centre at Mill Hall, it brought people in from other areas and visitors who spent money in the town and could enjoy the beautiful windmill and church. Also the area is of great historic value and should be preserved.
COL07 COL20
I object to site COL7 (Mill Hall, car park and green) and also site COL20 Civic Suite with landscape gardens to the rear being included in the local plan as a future residential development site.
We need to preserve the green areas and trees on both sides. This is a conservation area, with mature trees and open spaces owned by the public. This would make is unacceptable for use as a residential area.
The loss of public car parking within COL7, COL20 would be detrimental to our town centre in Rayleigh.
I also object to the loss of a major community centre at Mill Hall, it brought people in from other areas and visitors who spent money in the town and could enjoy the beautiful windmill and church. Also the area is of great historic value and should be preserved.
Object
New Local Plan: Spatial Options Document 2021
Representation ID: 43906
Received: 20/09/2021
Respondent: Mr Terence Buck
I strongly object to demolishing Mill Hall, COL07, to build flats. The only people this benefits is the developer, certainly not the citizens of Rayleigh. This site together with the Civic Suite, COL20, should not be included in the local plan for future residential development. The loss of car parking at Mill Hall will have a bad effect on the town centre shopping. Rayleigh has been spoilt in the past by terrible development and redevelopment so lets not make things worse by going ahead with this ill conceived plan.
I strongly object to demolishing Mill Hall, COL07, to build flats. The only people this benefits is the developer, certainly not the citizens of Rayleigh. This site together with the Civic Suite, COL20, should not be included in the local plan for future residential development. The loss of car parking at Mill Hall will have a bad effect on the town centre shopping. Rayleigh has been spoilt in the past by terrible development and redevelopment so lets not make things worse by going ahead with this ill conceived plan.
Object
New Local Plan: Spatial Options Document 2021
Representation ID: 43911
Received: 20/09/2021
Respondent: Carol Anne Linge
COL7 & COL20
The Mill Hall is so important to so many people young and old, myself included. I used the hall three times a week for 14 years, it is where people make friends. We don't need to demolish the Mill, it would be bad for the environment, loss of parking space, trees and wildlife.
COL7 & COL20
The Mill Hall is so important to so many people young and old, myself included. I used the hall three times a week for 14 years, it is where people make friends. We don't need to demolish the Mill, it would be bad for the environment, loss of parking space, trees and wildlife.
Object
New Local Plan: Spatial Options Document 2021
Representation ID: 43921
Received: 03/09/2021
Respondent: Mrs Jean Gilbert
DO NOT DEMOLISH MILL HALL
Four years ago I lost my dear husband due to a brain haemorrhage, and as you can imagine the devastation and total despair me and my family were experiencing.
I was introduced to the Monday and Tuesday clubs held at the Mill Hall, my salvation!
These two clubs combined had an average of over 200 people plus, men and women, some disabled.
So please, please give some more thought before you carry out your intentions, which I consider was ill thought out, to demolish the Mill Hall.
DO NOT DEMOLISH MILL HALL
Four years ago I lost my dear husband due to a brain haemorrhage, and as you can imagine the devastation and total despair me and my family were experiencing.
I was introduced to the Monday and Tuesday clubs held at the Mill Hall, my salvation!
These two clubs combined had an average of over 200 people plus, men and women, some disabled.
So please, please give some more thought before you carry out your intentions, which I consider was ill thought out, to demolish the Mill Hall.
Object
New Local Plan: Spatial Options Document 2021
Representation ID: 43923
Received: 20/09/2021
Respondent: Betty Day
No! to destroying Mill Hall. We need it as a meeting place for the public to use. The trees are well-established and should not be removed, As the nearest housing to the Mill Hall, we at Homeregal have had NO notification about the Mill Hall and proposed plans. It is a conservation area built with public money. The Mill is part of Rayleigh history and should not be hidden with buildings. There are water wells underneath the green. More traffic would be a danger to Homeregal residents. Ambulances etc need space. There is plenty of land for houses, schools, doctors surgeries etc on the outskirts of Rayleigh. The town is congested enough already. The public should be consulted about plans. Rayleigh residents say NO. Don't forget, where are meetings etc to meet without a public hall?
No! to destroying Mill Hall. We need it as a meeting place for the public to use. The trees are well-established and should not be removed, As the nearest housing to the Mill Hall, we at Homeregal have had NO notification about the Mill Hall and proposed plans. It is a conservation area built with public money. The Mill is part of Rayleigh history and should not be hidden with buildings. There are water wells underneath the green. More traffic would be a danger to Homeregal residents. Ambulances etc need space. There is plenty of land for houses, schools, doctors surgeries etc on the outskirts of Rayleigh. The town is congested enough already. The public should be consulted about plans. Rayleigh residents say NO. Don't forget, where are meetings etc to meet without a public hall?
Object
New Local Plan: Spatial Options Document 2021
Representation ID: 43927
Received: 20/09/2021
Respondent: Mr John Whitwell
Mill Hall COL07 and Civic Suite COL20
These sites are in a conservation area. You cannot change that definition just because you want to sell the land. Nor should you change the status to achieve housing targets when other more suitable land is available within Rochford - albeit near to where Rochford councillors live.
You are not considering biodiversity (you are obliged to do so under S.40 of the Natural Environment Act 2006).
Under the listed buildings and planning legislation laws you are obliged to preserve the listed buildings and the scheduled ancient monument affected by your proposals.
Car parking in Rayleigh is at a premium. Prior to Covid these car parks were often full. They will be again in the future - reducing car parking will significantly affect local business.
Again, I see nothing here but the blatant 'not in my back yard' that I have seen promulgated by Rochford councillors ever since I moved to Rayleigh 40 years ago. This must end!
Finally, by demolishing existing buildings you are increasing, considerably and unnecessarily, your carbon footprint.
Mill Hall COL07 and Civic Suite COL20
These sites are in a conservation area. You cannot change that definition just because you want to sell the land. Nor should you change the status to achieve housing targets when other more suitable land is available within Rochford - albeit near to where Rochford councillors live.
You are not considering biodiversity (you are obliged to do so under S.40 of the Natural Environment Act 2006).
Under the listed buildings and planning legislation laws you are obliged to preserve the listed buildings and the scheduled ancient monument affected by your proposals.
Car parking in Rayleigh is at a premium. Prior to Covid these car parks were often full. They will be again in the future - reducing car parking will significantly affect local business.
Again, I see nothing here but the blatant 'not in my back yard' that I have seen promulgated by Rochford councillors ever since I moved to Rayleigh 40 years ago. This must end!
Finally, by demolishing existing buildings you are increasing, considerably and unnecessarily, your carbon footprint.
Object
New Local Plan: Spatial Options Document 2021
Representation ID: 43932
Received: 20/09/2021
Respondent: Mrs Helen Whitwell
Mill Hall COL07 and Civic Suite COL20
Since I moved to Rayleigh in 1978 a considerable amount of new houses have been built; both as estates and in-fills. The bungalow is an endangered species in Rayleigh! Hockley, Hullbridge and Hawkwell have also been markedly developed as extra housing.
No new westward routed roads have been built and the current main roads (A13 and A127) are worn out and much congested. Rayleigh is used as a through route route, and these proposals are designed to remove the last civic amenities that the town possesses and turn an ancient market town into a non-community.
If the Mill Hall is under-used (ignoring Covid) it is due to a lack of proactive management and council support, Proper advertising would help! This also applies to the Windmill - surely a landmark worth showcasing for the many not obscuring for the enjoyment of a few flat dwellers.
As for the Civic Suite - it is a lovely building - perhaps the Town Museum could use it. Or is that the next thing to go!?
Mill Hall COL07 and Civic Suite COL20
Since I moved to Rayleigh in 1978 a considerable amount of new houses have been built; both as estates and in-fills. The bungalow is an endangered species in Rayleigh! Hockley, Hullbridge and Hawkwell have also been markedly developed as extra housing.
No new westward routed roads have been built and the current main roads (A13 and A127) are worn out and much congested. Rayleigh is used as a through route, and these proposals are designed to remove the last civic amenities that the town possesses and turn an ancient market town into a non-community.
If the Mill Hall is under-used (ignoring Covid) it is due to a lack of proactive management and council support, Proper advertising would help! This also applies to the Windmill - surely a landmark worth showcasing for the many not obscuring for the enjoyment of a few flat dwellers.
As for the Civic Suite - it is a lovely building - perhaps the Town Museum could use it. Or is that the next thing to go!?
Object
New Local Plan: Spatial Options Document 2021
Representation ID: 43936
Received: 06/09/2021
Respondent: Peter & Valerie Gough
Number of people: 2
CFS053
As a resident of Nelson Road for 17 years we are deeply concerned as are many others in this area regarding the Council's promotion green belt and buffer zone land to the rear of our bungalow. The drainage system has failed tp prevent flooding on a few occasions here, and as our rear garden is only about 30 feet in depth with some sort of culvert behind our back fence which never gets cleared of weeds we dread to think what will happen when bad rain occurs. There is also concern regarding traffic access to an already congested area.
On top of this it will obviously affect our prices when trying to sell our property which we bought for the views which will be completely lost.
We consider there are so many other areas in Rayleigh which would not impact on peoples homes.
CFS053
As a resident of Nelson Road for 17 years we are deeply concerned as are many others in this area regarding the Council's promotion green belt and buffer zone land to the rear of our bungalow. The drainage system has failed tp prevent flooding on a few occasions here, and as our rear garden is only about 30 feet in depth with some sort of culvert behind our back fence which never gets cleared of weeds we dread to think what will happen when bad rain occurs. There is also concern regarding traffic access to an already congested area.
On top of this it will obviously affect our prices when trying to sell our property which we bought for the views which will be completely lost.
We consider there are so many other areas in Rayleigh which would not impact on peoples homes.
Object
New Local Plan: Spatial Options Document 2021
Representation ID: 43971
Received: 06/09/2021
Respondent: Mr Michael Livermore
1. Is this amount of Development proven to be required for local population bearing in mind the amount of housing that Basildon and Southend and Castle Point councils are also being asked to provide?
2. There needs to be a co-ordinated approach to development with adjoining councils so that additional infrastructure can be planned alongside any additional development proven to be required. The A127 needs to be upgraded and an additional bypass road to serve the east end of Southend/Shoebury / Wakering constructed.
3. Following conversations with council planning representative in Rayleigh High Street and assuming that it is proven the capacity is required I would favour larger development taking place to the west of Rayleigh so as to access additional funding for infrastructure. I.e., improved rail capacity, roads, doctors etc.
The reason for this is any further development east of Rayleigh is likely to create even more traffic problems within Rayleigh and due to being smaller developments no additional money would be available for infrastructure. Perhaps we could see some tougher restrictions on developers regarding contributions to infrastructure.
4. No further development within Rayleigh and the town centre including the Mill Hall and Civic Suite site because as quoted by the leader of the council Cheryl Roe "Rayleigh is already gridlocked more often than not" (article in local paper the Echo).
Also, if this amount of development is planned and the Mill Hall needs to be demolished due to it being economically unviable and unable to meet the councils green target then a new facility of at least equivalent size should be built on the site. The Mill Hall was built 50 years ago and Rayleigh has seen a massive increase in population over those years so logic dictates that we should have a larger than existing facility.
5. I would like to see the Council oppose the figures dictated by the Government and ideally no additional development until all infrastructure has been updated.
All of the recent development is having a massive impact on our quality of life in Rayleigh by means of overcrowding, excess traffic limiting our ability to move around and air quality.
1. Is this amount of Development proven to be required for local population bearing in mind the amount of housing that Basildon and Southend and Castle Point councils are also being asked to provide?
2. There needs to be a co-ordinated approach to development with adjoining councils so that additional infrastructure can be planned alongside any additional development proven to be required. The A127 needs to be upgraded and an additional bypass road to serve the east end of Southend/Shoebury / Wakering constructed.
3. Following conversations with council planning representative in Rayleigh High Street and assuming that it is proven the capacity is required I would favour larger development taking place to the west of Rayleigh so as to access additional funding for infrastructure. I.e., improved rail capacity, roads, doctors etc.
The reason for this is any further development east of Rayleigh is likely to create even more traffic problems within Rayleigh and due to being smaller developments no additional money would be available for infrastructure. Perhaps we could see some tougher restrictions on developers regarding contributions to infrastructure.
4. No further development within Rayleigh and the town centre including the Mill Hall and Civic Suite site because as quoted by the leader of the council Cheryl Roe "Rayleigh is already gridlocked more often than not" (article in local paper the Echo).
Also, if this amount of development is planned and the Mill Hall needs to be demolished due to it being economically unviable and unable to meet the councils green target then a new facility of at least equivalent size should be built on the site. The Mill Hall was built 50 years ago and Rayleigh has seen a massive increase in population over those years so logic dictates that we should have a larger than existing facility.
5. I would like to see the Council oppose the figures dictated by the Government and ideally no additional development until all infrastructure has been updated.
All of the recent development is having a massive impact on our quality of life in Rayleigh by means of overcrowding, excess traffic limiting our ability to move around and air quality.
Object
New Local Plan: Spatial Options Document 2021
Representation ID: 43997
Received: 17/09/2021
Respondent: David Henry Openshaw
REF CFS027, 098, 086, 029 and 053
This is a letter of objection to the proposed development/building of 329 houses in Wellington Road, Napier Road, Bull Lane, Farm Road, Rayleigh.
The primary objection is lack of infrastructure and public services which would be needed for such a significant development. The areas are already poorly served with roads which are constantly congested and overloaded.
In addition there are not enough school places, doctors surgeries, hospital capacity in Rayleigh now, so adding 329 houses and probably over 500 cars to this situation will make things much worse.
Also the loss of green space and land for country walks is very detrimental to the mental health of all residents.
REF CFS027, 098, 086, 029 and 053
This is a letter of objection to the proposed development/building of 329 houses in Wellington Road, Napier Road, Bull Lane, Farm Road, Rayleigh.
The primary objection is lack of infrastructure and public services which would be needed for such a significant development. The areas are already poorly served with roads which are constantly congested and overloaded.
In addition there are not enough school places, doctors surgeries, hospital capacity in Rayleigh now, so adding 329 houses and probably over 500 cars to this situation will make things much worse.
Also the loss of green space and land for country walks is very detrimental to the mental health of all residents.
Object
New Local Plan: Spatial Options Document 2021
Representation ID: 44005
Received: 07/09/2021
Respondent: Mrs Sharon Richards
Proposed development on land at Sandhill Road, Eastwood. Site Ref. CFS059
I wish to object to the proposed development at the end of Sandhill Road, Eastwood, SS9 5BY, for the following reasons;
1. Access to the site through narrowed Sandhill Road (east side). Sandhill Road was upgraded and adopted by Essex County Highway in 2011. The road on the East side of Eastwood Rise (where the proposed development is sited) was significantly narrowed during this upgrade. Half the length of the road is only 1 vehicle width wide and has caused lots of problems since the upgrade. There is no way that two vehicles can pass. Delivery vans and refuse lorries have to either drive in and reverse all the way back to the junction or reverse in and drive back. This can only get worse with all the increased traffic using the road. Before the road was upgraded all the residents had to agree to pay for the construction of the frontage of each property (taken from the width of the unmade road). This money was to be paid from the sale of the properties as and when they are sold. many of the houses have changed hands since 2011. The frontages now belong to the properties so there is no possibility of the road being widened again. It is only a matter of time before an emergency vehicle is needed by one of the properties and their access is blocked by visiting parked cars or delivery vehicles. This could prove to be fatal if the access to the new houses are blocked.
2. Environmental effects of the development.
The land in question is home to some mature trees. These are needed to help clean the air, for the benefit of all RDC residents. Badgers can be seen in the field and local area. Badgers are protected by law and can't be killed or moved.
Because of the affect of the pandemic and the speeding up of climate change. I don't think there should be any developments in the RDC area. You should take stock of all the empty shops and business premises and turn those into homes, as they have done in Southend.
Proposed development on land at Sandhill Road, Eastwood. Site Ref. CFS059
I wish to object to the proposed development at the end of Sandhill Road, Eastwood, SS9 5BY, for the following reasons;
1. Access to the site through narrowed Sandhill Road (east side). Sandhill Road was upgraded and adopted by Essex County Highway in 2011. The road on the East side of Eastwood Rise (where the proposed development is sited) was significantly narrowed during this upgrade. Half the length of the road is only 1 vehicle width wide and has caused lots of problems since the upgrade. There is no way that two vehicles can pass. Delivery vans and refuse lorries have to either drive in and reverse all the way back to the junction or reverse in and drive back. This can only get worse with all the increased traffic using the road. Before the road was upgraded all the residents had to agree to pay for the construction of the frontage of each property (taken from the width of the unmade road). This money was to be paid from the sale of the properties as and when they are sold. many of the houses have changed hands since 2011. The frontages now belong to the properties so there is no possibility of the road being widened again. It is only a matter of time before an emergency vehicle is needed by one of the properties and their access is blocked by visiting parked cars or delivery vehicles. This could prove to be fatal if the access to the new houses are blocked.
2. Environmental effects of the development.
The land in question is home to some mature trees. These are needed to help clean the air, for the benefit of all RDC residents. Badgers can be seen in the field and local area. Badgers are protected by law and can't be killed or moved.
Because of the affect of the pandemic and the speeding up of climate change. I don't think there should be any developments in the RDC area. You should take stock of all the empty shops and business premises and turn those into homes, as they have done in Southend.
Object
New Local Plan: Spatial Options Document 2021
Representation ID: 44012
Received: 17/09/2021
Respondent: Mr and Mrs L & C Shrubsole
Number of people: 2
COL07 and COL20 is land owned by the Council. It is ours! Developers are not pressing to build on this land. It is the historic heart of Rayleigh. Next to Mount, the Windmill and the Church. I feel proposed building would obscure the Windmill, which is such an attractive view. The historic heart of Rayleigh should become a pleasant area for the Rayleigh community. Plans for the demolition of the Mill Hall should be scrapped and a more imaginative plan devised.
Re: The proposed building of 8,000- to 10,000 houses in Rayleigh.
I am disgusted by the plans of Rochford council (mainly Conservative) to build most of 8,000 to 10,000 houses they are required to build in Rayleigh (WHY RAYLEIGH). The new houses should be spread in the Rochford council area (Hockley, Rochford etc), Rayleigh is already the most crowded town. Driving around Rayleigh is already a nightmare and the infrastructure cannot cope with more housing.
COL07 and COL20 is land owned by the Council. It is ours! Developers are not pressing to build on this land. It is the historic heart of Rayleigh. Next to Mount, the Windmill and the Church. I feel proposed building would obscure the Windmill, which is such an attractive view. The historic heart of Rayleigh should become a pleasant area for the Rayleigh community. Plans for the demolition of the Mill Hall should be scrapped and a more imaginative plan devised.
I like the idea of a garden village proposed by the Liberals using option 3a and 3b close to Fossetts Lane.
I am a Conservative voter through and through but will never, ever vote Conservative in a local election again. I know many, many Conservative voters in Rayleigh who feel the same as me. Conservative councillors in Rayleigh suffered at the last election due to Mill Hall proposals. If this housing proposal is approved, things will be worse for Rayleigh councillors at the next election (local). A Conservative councillor representing Rayleigh will be rarer than a Yeti.
Object
New Local Plan: Spatial Options Document 2021
Representation ID: 44123
Received: 17/09/2021
Respondent: Mr Raymond Osborne
I wish to object in the strongest possible terms to the proposed development of Mill Hall and Civic Suite, COL07 and COL20 respectively. I think the council has a responsibility to uphold and maintain our conservation area and not use the sites for housing development. I draw your attention to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 legislation, Achieving Sustainable Development. The Mill Hall remains fit for purpose. Should these plans proceed it will bring into question my continued voting for the Conservative Party!
I wish to object in the strongest possible terms to the proposed development of Mill Hall and Civic Suite, COL07 and COL20 respectively. I think the council has a responsibility to uphold and maintain our conservation area and not use the sites for housing development. I draw your attention to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 legislation, Achieving Sustainable Development. The Mill Hall remains fit for purpose. Should these plans proceed it will bring into question my continued voting for the Conservative Party!
Object
New Local Plan: Spatial Options Document 2021
Representation ID: 44126
Received: 16/09/2021
Respondent: Mrs Rosalind Osborne
I wish to object to site COL07 (Mill Hall, car park and green) and COL20 (Civic Suite and gardens) being included in the Local Plan as a future residential development site.
Rochford Council has a duty to preserve and enhance the Rayleigh Conservation Area. Both sites are surrounded by listed buildings and should not be developed for housing.
The carbon footprint of demolishing existing buildings will increase the carbon footprint of the whole district. Please do not destroy - INVEST in the present buildings.
The high street needs the car parking area for customers to help the town thrive - if you take that away for private parking for housing - you will kill the town!
I have been a resident of Rayleigh for 38 years and am totally disgusted and against this proposal.
I wish to object to site COL07 (Mill Hall, car park and green) and COL20 (Civic Suite and gardens) being included in the Local Plan as a future residential development site.
Rochford Council has a duty to preserve and enhance the Rayleigh Conservation Area. Both sites are surrounded by listed buildings and should not be developed for housing.
The carbon footprint of demolishing existing buildings will increase the carbon footprint of the whole district. Please do not destroy - INVEST in the present buildings.
The high street needs the car parking area for customers to help the town thrive - if you take that away for private parking for housing - you will kill the town!
I have been a resident of Rayleigh for 38 years and am totally disgusted and against this proposal.
Object
New Local Plan: Spatial Options Document 2021
Representation ID: 44179
Received: 08/09/2021
Respondent: Jeanette Wade
There is no way Rayleigh can cope with anymore housing. Whichever way you go into Rayleigh there are queues. You can't get a doctors appointment. The A1245 has water laying dangerously on it after rain.
If we must have more houses in this overcrowded area I support option 3b.
There is no way Rayleigh can cope with anymore housing. Whichever way you go into Rayleigh there are queues. You can't get a doctors appointment. The A1245 has water laying dangerously on it after rain.
If we must have more houses in this overcrowded area I support option 3b.
Object
New Local Plan: Spatial Options Document 2021
Representation ID: 44183
Received: 08/09/2021
Respondent: Jeanette Wade
The Mill Hall needs to be kept. It is well used and the only hall in the area. Flats around the Mill itself would ruin this heritage site.
The Mill Hall needs to be kept. It is well used and the only hall in the area. Flats around the Mill itself would ruin this heritage site.
Object
New Local Plan: Spatial Options Document 2021
Representation ID: 44216
Received: 08/09/2021
Respondent: Mr Paul Claydon
I am writing to register my objection to the RDC Local Plan to build between 7200 to 10,800 new homes in the Rochford district and principally in Rayleigh where the majority of new homes will be built. My general objection is to the damage to the local environment and nature with said construction on green belt land which has been allowed to have become over grown with trees and vegetation allowing wild life to thrive. For RDC to state in their draft vision for Rochford in 2050 that Rochford will be a "green and pleasant place" is nothing short of insulting to the local residents with the proposals put forward. Rayleigh in particular cannot take on the scale of new homes being proposed and I urge Rochford District Council to rethink their current plans and instead support the Liberal Democrat alternative proposal to build a new garden village close to Fossetts Way near Southend.
My general objections to this consultation are as follows:
1. You will be destroying green belt, farming land and nature habitats; I refer specifically to your site references CFS053; CFS098 and CFS029
2. You will be destroying nature habitats in site reference CFS086, specifically badger sets, bat colonies, fox dens, squirrels and general bird and insect life.
3. The roads in Rayleigh in particular become very congested in weekday morning and early evening rush hours especially when there is the school run. In addition the roads become almost grid locked when there is a vehicle breakdown, accident or road works due to necessary emergency repair of utility services (which we have frequently). So, with the potential of 7200 new homes which will provide at a conservative estimate of over 14,000 new cars to the district I would like to know how the current road network can handle this increased volume of traffic?
4. The current utilities are creaking at the sides with the current volume of homes, specifically;
a. Electricity - we in Nelson road experience on average around 4 power cuts per year, most recently on 15th August. How will the building of 7200 new homes help this situation?
b. Water and Sewerage - Essex Water and Anglia water are frequent visitors to Nelson Road (as recent as week commencing 23rd August) to repair their overstretched infrastructure. In particular they have attended Hamilton Mews on I would estimate at least 4 times within the past 12 months. Additionally, we had the problem in Bull Lane with water supply issues which must have been worked on for the best part of a year causing yet more traffic disruption. Clearly there is a major problem with the water and sewerage supplies in the Rayleigh area, so how can building this vast amount of new homes improve the situation with the current overstretched water and sewerage infrastructure?
5. Doctors surgeries within Rayleigh are over run now, particularly with Audley Mills which has an "open book" policy and for the older population it is becoming increasingly difficult and stressful to book an appointment. The 7200 new homes, the majority being in Rayleigh, will increase the population by an estimated 2.4 people per home, this will increase to 17,280 new people. You will need to build a new surgery the size of Audley Mills to cater for the increased volume but the amount of qualified GP's in the UK is reducing so how would the NHS find the staff?
My specific objections to the following sites are as follows:
CFS086 (Land between Rivendell and Brookside, Napier Road). This development directly effects my family as from what I can understand you are considering building 11 homes at the bottom half of my garden.
a. We moved to this house in 2002 at not an inconsiderable cost and then my neighbour at No. XX had a garden that run adjacent to mine. I was aware that he owned the spare land in Napier road but at no time was there any discussion or consultation that when he sold his house to Mr and Mrs XXXX approximately 12 years ago, he was going to keep the bottom half of his garden for a housing development. I would have course objected to any such proposal as it is a direct violation of our privacy in our own garden.
b. The space has become extremely over grown over the past 10 years and is now effectively a small forest which has become a home for a vast amount of wild life which have access into my garden. These include Badgers, Foxes, Bats and we've even had a monk jack deer in our garden all which come from Mr XXXX land. I am aware that Bats and Badgers are a protected species and I will be informing the Bat Conservation trust to invite them at the bottom of our garden to watch them take flight at dusk.
c. Access in Napier Road. A planning request was turned down approximately three years ago due in part to limited access in and out of Napier Road, nothing has changed in terms of access as the road is extremely narrow and will allow only one vehicle width where this space of land is. with the large amount of construction vehicles, building deliveries, builder's vehicles etc., the road would effectively be blocked denying access to and from Nelson Road to the "Brookside" property and the house further east by the stables.
d. If it is true that RDC are planning on building 11 homes in this small plot of land they can only be classed as "affordable homes" which is totally out of context with Nelson Road which is regarded as one of the best roads in Rayleigh for quality homes.
e. Noise pollution and loss of privacy will be a major issue for me and my neighbours with the construction of the new homes and the resulting loss of privacy following the construction of the homes.
CFS053 (Land South of 38 & 39 Wellington Road), CFS098 (Land North of Napier Road) and CFS029 (Land at Turrett farm, Napier Road)
a. This land id green belt and should not be built on.
b. The land in CFS053 and CFS098 is at a fairly steep gradient towards the gardens in Nelson Road. Certainly during the winter period we can experience heavy rainfall which causes water to cascade down the fields towards the gardens. I am concerned that with the building of a "concrete jungle" this will only heighten the problem as the rain will not have the opportunity of soaking into the sodden ground and not only will it be a problem for the outbuildings many of us have at the bottom of our respective gardens it will also be a major problem for the new homes built at the bottom of the slope.
c. As mentioned above, we are privileged to experience much nature in this area due to the surrounding fields. The removal of these fields will only do damage to the nature conservation in this area with the loss of habitats for badgers, foxes, deer, bird wild life, insects etc.
I am writing to register my objection to the RDC Local Plan to build between 7200 to 10,800 new homes in the Rochford district and principally in Rayleigh where the majority of new homes will be built. My general objection is to the damage to the local environment and nature with said construction on green belt land which has been allowed to have become over grown with trees and vegetation allowing wild life to thrive. For RDC to state in their draft vision for Rochford in 2050 that Rochford will be a "green and pleasant place" is nothing short of insulting to the local residents with the proposals put forward. Rayleigh in particular cannot take on the scale of new homes being proposed and I urge Rochford District Council to rethink their current plans and instead support the Liberal Democrat alternative proposal to build a new garden village close to Fossetts Way near Southend.
My general objections to this consultation are as follows:
1. You will be destroying green belt, farming land and nature habitats; I refer specifically to your site references CFS053; CFS098 and CFS029
2. You will be destroying nature habitats in site reference CFS086, specifically badger sets, bat colonies, fox dens, squirrels and general bird and insect life.
3. The roads in Rayleigh in particular become very congested in weekday morning and early evening rush hours especially when there is the school run. In addition the roads become almost grid locked when there is a vehicle breakdown, accident or road works due to necessary emergency repair of utility services (which we have frequently). So, with the potential of 7200 new homes which will provide at a conservative estimate of over 14,000 new cars to the district I would like to know how the current road network can handle this increased volume of traffic?
4. The current utilities are creaking at the sides with the current volume of homes, specifically;
a. Electricity - we in Nelson road experience on average around 4 power cuts per year, most recently on 15th August. How will the building of 7200 new homes help this situation?
b. Water and Sewerage - Essex Water and Anglia water are frequent visitors to Nelson Road (as recent as week commencing 23rd August) to repair their overstretched infrastructure. In particular they have attended Hamilton Mews on I would estimate at least 4 times within the past 12 months. Additionally, we had the problem in Bull Lane with water supply issues which must have been worked on for the best part of a year causing yet more traffic disruption. Clearly there is a major problem with the water and sewerage supplies in the Rayleigh area, so how can building this vast amount of new homes improve the situation with the current overstretched water and sewerage infrastructure?
5. Doctors surgeries within Rayleigh are over run now, particularly with Audley Mills which has an "open book" policy and for the older population it is becoming increasingly difficult and stressful to book an appointment. The 7200 new homes, the majority being in Rayleigh, will increase the population by an estimated 2.4 people per home, this will increase to 17,280 new people. You will need to build a new surgery the size of Audley Mills to cater for the increased volume but the amount of qualified GP's in the UK is reducing so how would the NHS find the staff?
My specific objections to the following sites are as follows:
CFS086 (Land between Rivendell and Brookside, Napier Road). This development directly effects my family as from what I can understand you are considering building 11 homes at the bottom half of my garden.
a. We moved to this house in 2002 at not an inconsiderable cost and then my neighbour at No. XX had a garden that run adjacent to mine. I was aware that he owned the spare land in Napier road but at no time was there any discussion or consultation that when he sold his house to Mr and Mrs XXXX approximately 12 years ago, he was going to keep the bottom half of his garden for a housing development. I would have course objected to any such proposal as it is a direct violation of our privacy in our own garden.
b. The space has become extremely over grown over the past 10 years and is now effectively a small forest which has become a home for a vast amount of wild life which have access into my garden. These include Badgers, Foxes, Bats and we've even had a monk jack deer in our garden all which come from Mr XXXX land. I am aware that Bats and Badgers are a protected species and I will be informing the Bat Conservation trust to invite them at the bottom of our garden to watch them take flight at dusk.
c. Access in Napier Road. A planning request was turned down approximately three years ago due in part to limited access in and out of Napier Road, nothing has changed in terms of access as the road is extremely narrow and will allow only one vehicle width where this space of land is. with the large amount of construction vehicles, building deliveries, builder's vehicles etc., the road would effectively be blocked denying access to and from Nelson Road to the "Brookside" property and the house further east by the stables.
d. If it is true that RDC are planning on building 11 homes in this small plot of land they can only be classed as "affordable homes" which is totally out of context with Nelson Road which is regarded as one of the best roads in Rayleigh for quality homes.
e. Noise pollution and loss of privacy will be a major issue for me and my neighbours with the construction of the new homes and the resulting loss of privacy following the construction of the homes.
CFS053 (Land South of 38 & 39 Wellington Road), CFS098 (Land North of Napier Road) and CFS029 (Land at Turrett farm, Napier Road)
a. This land id green belt and should not be built on.
b. The land in CFS053 and CFS098 is at a fairly steep gradient towards the gardens in Nelson Road. Certainly during the winter period we can experience heavy rainfall which causes water to cascade down the fields towards the gardens. I am concerned that with the building of a "concrete jungle" this will only heighten the problem as the rain will not have the opportunity of soaking into the sodden ground and not only will it be a problem for the outbuildings many of us have at the bottom of our respective gardens it will also be a major problem for the new homes built at the bottom of the slope.
c. As mentioned above, we are privileged to experience much nature in this area due to the surrounding fields. The removal of these fields will only do damage to the nature conservation in this area with the loss of habitats for badgers, foxes, deer, bird wild life, insects etc.
Object
New Local Plan: Spatial Options Document 2021
Representation ID: 44292
Received: 13/09/2021
Respondent: Mr and Mrs D & I Ford
Number of people: 2
CFS027, CFS029, CFS053, CFS098, CFS086
My comments refer to all five of the above proposed/promoted sites. My first comment should cover it all -
1. FLOOD!
In August 2013, that whole area (our home included) was flooded. This was not the first time this area had suffered flooding. I note from your grading criteria that 'critical drainage risk' is assessed as a 2. The flooding in this area is always from surface water, and is an ongoing and constant threat.
After the flood of 2013 we attended council meetings to discuss the issue. A very interesting comment was made, that houses should never have been built in Blower Close in the first place. We are at the bottom of a 'bowl', where all surface water, and water flooding from streams where the culvert has been allowed to become overgrown and blocked has contributed to the flooding issue.
My husband is in constant communication with Cllr Dave Sperring, who in turn has to badger the EA to once again clean the ditches/culvert. Cllr Sperring also visited our close after our flood and witnessed first hand the devastating effect it had.
2. LACK OF INFRASTRUCTURE
The access to these proposed sites is currently unmade tracks and single track minor roads. If these roads were to be upgraded to roads able to service new houses, it would quickly become a rat run to cut out having to travel through Rayleigh Town Centre, which is a nightmare at the best of times. The surrounding roads all suffer from double parking, making it impossible with the added traffic, and a danger for the emergency services. There only has to be a problem on the A127, the Weir, A130, and the whole of Rayleigh becomes gridlocked.
Our local schools are full and our doctors are completely overrun. Having to wait two weeks for a telephone appointment currently will only become longer and unacceptable. There is also no good links to bus services.
3. GREEN BELT AND OPEN SPACES
All of these proposed sites are either backing onto or in very close proximity to green belt (green belt harm - assessed as 1). Since lockdown, open spaces have become so important to people for exercise, health and mental health.
We are fortunate to have the Upper Roach Valley bordering where we live, providing a buffer between Rayleigh and Hockley. It is the lung of this area. Protected trees and ancient woodland form part of the Roach Valley (assessed as a 2).
In summary, the distance to strategic road network is poor (2), access to bus services is very poor (1). The damage to green belt (1), agricultural land (1), protected trees (2) is unacceptable. The increased rise of flooding due to poor drainage in this area and a record of flooding due to surface water, in my opinion, makes the sites I have commented on unviable (critical drainage risk 2).
I have attached some newspaper reports to remind those involved in making these decisions, the effect flooding has.
[see attached document for cuttings. Annotation on first cutting as follows:]
Blower Close - Rayleigh, August 2013 - flooded from fields (where housing is proposed) in two directions. Floodig to the other side of our close has occurred at least 3 times from the field behind (where houses are planned). A flood protection ditch was built behind 9-14 Blower Close. We have to keep a constant watch and review of the culvert in the nearby field which is often completely blocked - a major focus in our flooding too.
CFS027, CFS029, CFS053, CFS098, CFS086
My comments refer to all five of the above proposed/promoted sites. My first comment should cover it all -
1. FLOOD!
In August 2013, that whole area (our home included) was flooded. This was not the first time this area had suffered flooding. I note from your grading criteria that 'critical drainage risk' is assessed as a 2. The flooding in this area is always from surface water, and is an ongoing and constant threat.
After the flood of 2013 we attended council meetings to discuss the issue. A very interesting comment was made, that houses should never have been built in Blower Close in the first place. We are at the bottom of a 'bowl', where all surface water, and water flooding from streams where the culvert has been allowed to become overgrown and blocked has contributed to the flooding issue.
My husband is in constant communication with Cllr Dave Sperring, who in turn has to badger the EA to once again clean the ditches/culvert. Cllr Sperring also visited our close after our flood and witnessed first hand the devastating effect it had.
2. LACK OF INFRASTRUCTURE
The access to these proposed sites is currently unmade tracks and single track minor roads. If these roads were to be upgraded to roads able to service new houses, it would quickly become a rat run to cut out having to travel through Rayleigh Town Centre, which is a nightmare at the best of times. The surrounding roads all suffer from double parking, making it impossible with the added traffic, and a danger for the emergency services. There only has to be a problem on the A127, the Weir, A130, and the whole of Rayleigh becomes gridlocked.
Our local schools are full and our doctors are completely overrun. Having to wait two weeks for a telephone appointment currently will only become longer and unacceptable. There is also no good links to bus services.
3. GREEN BELT AND OPEN SPACES
All of these proposed sites are either backing onto or in very close proximity to green belt (green belt harm - assessed as 1). Since lockdown, open spaces have become so important to people for exercise, health and mental health.
We are fortunate to have the Upper Roach Valley bordering where we live, providing a buffer between Rayleigh and Hockley. It is the lung of this area. Protected trees and ancient woodland form part of the Roach Valley (assessed as a 2).
In summary, the distance to strategic road network is poor (2), access to bus services is very poor (1). The damage to green belt (1), agricultural land (1), protected trees (2) is unacceptable. The increased rise of flooding due to poor drainage in this area and a record of flooding due to surface water, in my opinion, makes the sites I have commented on unviable (critical drainage risk 2).
I have attached some newspaper reports to remind those involved in making these decisions, the effect flooding has.
[see attached document for cuttings. Annotation on first cutting as follows:]
Blower Close - Rayleigh, August 2013 - flooded from fields (where housing is proposed) in two directions. Floodig to the other side of our close has occurred at least 3 times from the field behind (where houses are planned). A flood protection ditch was built behind 9-14 Blower Close. We have to keep a constant watch and review of the culvert in the nearby field which is often completely blocked - a major focus in our flooding too.
Object
New Local Plan: Spatial Options Document 2021
Representation ID: 44306
Received: 13/09/2021
Respondent: Mr Stephen Skinner
[re COL20]
[possible missing text ahead of this]
Remove the Civic Suite function as a central part of the local government presence in Rayleigh.
I am also concerned that residential development would lead to the loss of at least part of the attractive garden area to the rear of the Barringtons building, including the likely loss of protected trees. This area currently complements the open space area of King George's Playing Field, and brings it closer towards the High Street - a finger of open space going right into the centre of town. Residential development of the site would greatly diminish, if not totally destroy, the green corridor, to the detriment of the town.
I am growing increasingly concerned at how Rochford District Council is concentrating its consultations more and more online. It seems that anyone unable to access information online, or respond online, is becoming regarded as an afterthought in the consultation process.
This marginalising of a section of the population without access to a computer, or without computer skills, is gradually edging them out of the [ENDS].
Remove the Civic Suite function as a central part of the local government presence in Rayleigh.
I am also concerned that residential development would lead to the loss of at least part of the attractive garden area to the rear of the Barringtons building, including the likely loss of protected trees. This area currently complements the open space area of King George's Playing Field, and brings it closer towards the High Street - a finger of open space going right into the centre of town. Residential development of the site would greatly diminish, if not totally destroy, the green corridor, to the detriment of the town.
Object
New Local Plan: Spatial Options Document 2021
Representation ID: 44323
Received: 20/09/2021
Respondent: Homeregal House Residents
Number of people: 39
COL07
I am representing Homeregal House residents. There are 39 residents in the building. We object to COL07 (Mill Hall, car park and garden) as there will be a very big impact on the area. The traffic in the area will increase.
Our car park will have people parking in it due to the lack of parking.
The site proposed will block the view of many flats.
Demolishing the existing building will impact on the environment. Many trees and green areas will be lost and harm wildlife. Also people use the green everyday, it is a very social area.
The road structure they propose will cause problems with the ambulance bay as it will be 2 way. Ambulances can be on site for 4 hours in some cases.
COL07
I am representing Homeregal House residents. There are 39 residents in the building. We object to COL07 (Mill Hall, car park and garden) as there will be a very big impact on the area. The traffic in the area will increase.
Our car park will have people parking in it due to the lack of parking.
The site proposed will block the view of many flats.
Demolishing the existing building will impact on the environment. Many trees and green areas will be lost and harm wildlife. Also people use the green everyday, it is a very social area.
The road structure they propose will cause problems with the ambulance bay as it will be 2 way. Ambulances can be on site for 4 hours in some cases.