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?

329 new homes in Rayleigh
I would like to lodge my objections to the proposed new homes at Wellington Road, Napier Road, The horse paddock at Albert Road and Bull Lane. This area has been subject to flooding in recent years. A couple of the houses in Blower Close were so badly flooded that they were uninhabitable for 12 months. Other houses in Benjamin Close and Bull Lane have also been flooded. This was caused by surface run off from the fields that you now plan to build on. This will make the flooding worse in the future. You will not be allowing the rain water to soak away due to all the additional concrete.

ref nos CFS027, CFS098, CFS086, CFS029, CFS053
I would like to register my objection to the development of 329 houses in Wellington Road, Napier Road and end of Bull Lane Farm Road.

I believe the development of this green belt land, apart from the obvious effects that it will have on nature and wildlife will also lead to drainage problems in an area that is already subject to drainage issues.

I also feel that the surrounding infrastructure and amenities would be unable to support the increased traffic and use of community resources that an additional 329 homes would demand.

Ref. CFS027
CFS098
CFS029
CFS053

NO to any proposed planning on greenbelt land.

With ref to CFS027 CFS098 CFS086 CFS929 CFS053 regarding the housing development Napier rd and Bul Lane.
I appreciate that people need homes and you may be under government ruling to build a certain number, but homes are occupied by car owners, children who need schooling and medical facilities.
At the moment where are the school places for any more children who would be in the Edward Francis, Swain park and Fitzwimarc catchment area The exits to the houses would include on to Hockley road which is a very busy road now, the other week the Hullbridge road was closed and the hockley road was chaos, huge holdups. It cannot cope with extra traffic.
What extra medical facilities are there ? At the moment I am having to wait up to 3 weeks to get a review with the pharmacist for a repeat prescription. to get an appointment to speak to a doctor is causing a great concern and takes a lot of holding on to the phone , to find all the appointments have been taken. A lot of elderly patients do not have computers to try and get an appointment online at midnight. With over 300 more families needing a doctors and dentists , with the present services at stretching point where are the new ones?
I hope these concerns by the majority of residents of Rayleigh will be taken into account. 600 houses were built in hall lane with no amenities, and the traffic is horrendous..without these extra schools, roads and medical services the town of Rayleigh will be left floundering Yours Mrs Susan Parsons

Re: Houses 329 on Wellington Rd & Napier Road
I most strongly object to yet more houses being built in Rayleigh, especially as I’ve used these routes on horseback for many years. Our family have also used these unmade roads to keep fit running and walking our dogs.

We need off road riding as it’s so dangerous with the amount traffic now. The wildlife needs these Green corridors too. We have lost too many fields which where Agricultural growing crops in the Rochford District. Stop and think of nature for once, we all need some fresh air, not concrete jungles!

This land is Agricultural Land growing crops which we need more than ever now. We need to keep our Green Belt. It is important for people’s well-being of mind.

The roads are gridlocked now. It’s horrendous to try and drive in any direction with a traffic jam. It can take up to an hour just to drive from Rayleigh to Southend, avoiding the many dangerous pot holes.

I’m referring to your reference numbers

CFS027. CFS098. CFS086. CFS029 and CFS053

I have reviewed the proposals in your local plan with great concern and have listed the following questions:

1. Total lack of new roads and infrastructure 2. No reference to more schools 3. No new doctors surgeries or drop in centres 4. Congestion 5. Why is Rayleigh always the prime area for new development where there’s plenty of other parishes including Rochford which is available for new homes 6. If for instance a new development is built in Napier Road and Wellington Road the town of Rayleigh will merge into Hockley offering no distinction or borderline and of course more traffic

I have now read and digested your response to my comments detailed in hysweb354518155 and accept your confirmation that the Spatial Policy Programme was not designed for the average person residing and voting within the Rochford Doistrict.

As an accredited Professional Engineer with experience in Structural Integrity, Stress Analysis, Corrosion Protection and their management programmes, I actually survived to achieve the levels necessary to assess and make comments on three sites, plus the comment you have responded too.

The Spatial Policy Programme is ably named as it is the updated version of the arcade game Space Invaders. Your programme is designed to be non-user friendly with cleverly designed deviations and badly worded paragraph headings that lead to a position of being Zapped!

On physically walking and inspecting CFS 057 and CSF 098, to any laymen it is two fields, side by side with a public footpath from Wellington Road through to the unmade Napier Road. How devious to divide this site into two with 31 number difference, As you have said it is a non-user friendly programme requiring a person to troll through all the sites individually listed between CFS 057 and CFS 098

Having done the above without being deviated or Zapped.

Data was displayed and listed on the Initial Site Assessment Proforma for each of these sites which is fundamentally wrong, this results in falsehoods being part of the case being made. In Engineering terms these are construed as a corruption of the facts and as such, any false information must be removed from each Site Assessment Proforma and updated forthwith with real facts.

Residents living in Nelson Road have photographic evidence on CSF 057 and CSF 098 in support of the paragraph above and it is far worse in the COL7 case. This site has a known history and Historic England have now become involved due to Rochford DC’s mis-governance in ownership. Rayleigh Castle’s Outer Bailey is an Ancient Monument, this artefact is recorded to be over 900 years old.

Whoever undertook these Site Assessment Proformas, either does not have the intelligence or has deliberately provided false information (made up) to an extent that this document is worthless. as there is a clear corruption of the facts, all of which are freely available if investigated properly.

Furthermore, Rayleigh’s basic infrastructure is already at breaking point, as the residents (electors) are all to aware. Major capital investment is urgently required on new through roads, together with the essential updating all of our utilities from sewers etc through to the necessary expansion of our all of our basic services, including; Hospitals, Clinics, Doctors, etc, etc, etc to cater for any further expansion in Rayleigh’s population.

Yesterday an A4 sheet was posted through the door requesting comments on Rochford DC’s Spatial Options Paper and Statement of Community Involvement. This document is required to be returned by 5pm on Monday 6th September 2021, by email. (the day our schools return). It is without any basic information as too; where and how to obtain the necessary information to make a valid comment to complete the form, especially if an individual does not have these essential facilities at hand.

A quote from the famous Blackadder series seems appropriate at this time

Baldrick: “I have a plan, sir”

Blackadder: “Really, Baldrick? A cunning subtle one?”

Baldrick: “Yes sir”

Blackadder: “As cunning as a fox who’s just been appointed Professor of Cunning at Oxford University?”

I believe this quotation covers the current inane situation and ask is the perpetrator brave enough to come out of hiding.

339 Houses Wellington/Napier Road
To RDC office , I would strongly like to object to this new development on land growing crops . Agricultural land ??? Or green belt ??? I understand there is a public bridal way across this field , this would be ruined !!!! Ref nos CFS027 , CFS098, CFS086, CFS029, CFS053.

Please can I also add my concern over flooding. I have attached pictures of my house after flooding happened a few weeks ago. This is not the first time this has happened down Bull Lane and the problem still hasn’t been addressed properly. Adding more houses will only make this matter worse.

Q1. Are there any other technical evidence studies that
you feel the Council needs to prepare to inform its
new Local Plan, other than those listed in this section?

The Council would expect to see specific reference to:
• The Infrastructure Delivery and Funding Plan
• Level 2 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment
• Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan
These plans are vital to the long-term sustainability assessment of any proposed sites. Without these
we are unable to comment
Evaluation of the impact of current development on the town of Rayleigh
Rochford District Council should produce its own estimate of Housing need with which to Challenge the figures imposed by Westminster, it is known that the nearest neighbours have all done this.
The Town Council cannot comment on the suitability of the sites in the plan without completion of an
Infrastructure Delivery and Funding Plan which is being undertaken at present, why has this consultation been undertaken before this is available. RDC, ECC, and SBC,
I would expect it to see specific reference to
i) the main Roads and the principal junctions and exit points to Rayleigh, there is potential in this
plan is to build on London Road, Eastwood Road, Hockley Road and Hullbridge Road simultaneously.
ii) Consultation with the actual schools in Rayleigh as to capacity, too often there are no places in
specific school.
iii) Consultation with Doctors and Pharmacies as well the local Healthcare Trust, again there is
evidence of no capacity in certain parts of Rayleigh.
iv) Next level HealthCare such as Hospitals, need consulting, as they are overstretched.
v) Air Quality Management - too many parts of Rayleigh have poor CO2/CO readings
Any such Plan would need agreement with Rochford District Council, Essex County Council, and
Southend Borough Council as they are all affected

Q2. Do you agree with our draft vision for Rochford
District? Is there anything missing from the vision that
you feel needs to be included? [Please state
reasoning]
Mostly. Although you have not included enough information on how you might achieve housing for
the hidden homeless or those on low incomes, schemes to allow the elderly in large houses to be able
to downsize or how you plan to provide suitable commercial units of varying sizes, to allow businesses
to up or downsize into a suitably sized premises without them needing to relocate into another area.
No provision for emergency housing.

Q3. Do you agree that we should develop a range of
separate visions for each of our settlements to help
guide decision-making? [Please state reasoning]
Yes, as each settlement has its own characteristics and needs.

Q4. Do you agree with the strategic priorities and
objectives we have identified? Is there anything
missing from the strategic priorities or objectives that
you feel needs to be included? [Please state
reasoning]
No comments.

Q5. Do you agree with the settlement hierarchy
presented? If not, what changes do you think are
required? [Please state reasoning]
Yes. Rayleigh is the largest town in the district but care needs to be taken to maintain the integrity of
the existing settlements with respect to green boundary between Rayleigh and its neighbours.

Q6. Which of the identified strategy options do you
consider should be taken forward in the Plan? [Please
state reasoning]
Creating a new town would enable all the infrastructure to be put in place, allowing more scope for
cycling routes and pedestrianised areas. This will stop the urban sprawl which is currently happening
in the larger town (and proposed in option 1), creating traffic havoc and pollution. A single large
"garden" village, possibly shared with Southend could allow a more environmentally friendly
development. A development that allows the infrastructure to be developed in advance of the
housing.

Q7. Are there any reasonable alternatives to these options that should be considered instead? [Please state
reasoning]
Small development and windfall developments should be included in housing count.

Q8. Are there any key spatial themes that you feel we
have missed or that require greater emphasis? [Please
state reasoning]
Yes: Cultural and Accessibility.

Q9. Do you agree we should take a sequential approach to flood risk and coastal change in our plan, locating
development away from areas at risk of flooding and
coastal change wherever possible? How can we best
protect current and future communities from flood
risk and coastal change? [Please state reasoning]
Yes. You must ensure the district has a suitable plan to protect not only the towns and village communities, their houses and businesses but also the natural areas as well. The district needs adequate defences to limit flooding in all areas, protecting people and wildlife. Maybe these could be incorporated in the “natural” landscape theming so as to deflect any water away from these areas.
New developments not only need to address their carbon footprint but also the design of the housing they build so that they limit flood damage; raised floors, bunded gardens etc.
The plan must include or identify a flood plane that is protected from development.

Q10. Do you agree that the Coastal Protection Belt and
Upper Roach Valley should be protected from
development that would be harmful to their
landscape character? Are there other areas that you
feel should be protected for their special landscape
character? [Please state reasoning]
All the coastal areas and areas of special interest, especially where there is a significant risk of
flooding and harm to the environment need careful consideration.
The Ancient woodlands such as Kingley Woods, Hockley Woods and Rayleigh Grove Woods and all
natural parks, not just the actual woodlands but also the surrounding areas

Q11. Do you agree we should require development to
source a percentage of their energy from low-carbon
and renewable sources? Are there other opportunities
in the district to supply low-carbon or renewable
energy?
Yes.
New developments should be able to source some or all of their energy from renewable sources.

Q12. Do you agree we should require new development to achieve energy efficiency standards higher than
building regulations? What level should these be set
at? [Please state reasoning].
Yes. The Town Council believes that you should aim to achieve a higher standard if possible and
encourage developers to put forward new ways of achieving this. You must plan for future generations and should not be stuck in the past. Why go for minimum standards? Always aim higher! Keep the technology under review to capitalise on new development.

Q13. How do you feel the plan can help to support the local generation of low-carbon and renewable energy? Are there locations where you feel energy generation
should be supported? [Please state reasoning]
Solar in all new development as standard. Incentives to encourage existing developments to install
solar onto their properties as well as any commercial buildings to be fitted with solar to their roofs;
there are many flat roofed buildings all over the district that could accommodate solar panels without
damaging the landscape. Explore tidal energy and seek out suitable locations in order to ascertain
whether it is viable. Retrofitting existing housing and commercial buildings

Q14. Do you consider that the plan should include a placemaking charter that informs relevant policies? Should the same principles apply everywhere in the district, or should different principles apply to different areas? [Please state reasoning]
The district has some very distinct areas and a “one shoe fits all” would be detrimental to some smaller communities. The place-making charter should be bespoke, with each area being considered
in its own right. The rules on building should be strict so as to enhance the areas of development and needs to consider the wider picture in respect of amenities, open spaces, retail, schools, services, pollution, character and accessibility (to name but a few). There should not be deviation of plans unless there are exceptional circumstances. Time and again, SPD2 documents are ignored and ugly extensions and dormers are built to the detriment of the area.

Q15. Are the principles set out in the draft place-making
charter the right ones? Are there other principles that
should be included? [Please state reasoning]
They are, as long as they are adhered to.

Q16.
a. Do you consider that new design guides, codes or
masterplans should be created alongside the new
Local Plan?
Yes.
b. If yes, do you think it is more appropriate to have a
single design guide/code for the whole District, or to
have design guides/codes/masterplans for individual
settlements or growth areas? [Please state reasoning]
You need different design guides as this district is both unique and diverse and the “one shoe fits all"
would be detrimental to its character and charm.
c. What do you think should be included in design
guides/codes/masterplans at the scale you are
suggesting? [Please state reasoning].
You need to ensure that the character and heritage of the settlements are adhered to whilst allowing for some growth, in order to rejuvenate the smaller settlements if needed.

Q17. With reference to the options listed above, or your
own options, how do you feel we can best plan to
meet our need for different types, sizes and tenures of
housing? [Please state reasoning]
By working closely with planners and developers, as well as different charities and communities,
residents and businesses. You will then get a better understanding as to what you need and what will
be achievable.

Q18. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there areas or sites in Rochford that you feel require a specific approach to housing types, size and tenure?
What is required to meet housing needs in these
areas? [Please state reasoning]
The district has a large number of houses, existing and approved that have four or five bedrooms. The number of homes available with two or three bedrooms is minimal, which increases their price and availability. The smaller properties are the ones that need to be affordable for families. You must ensure that the “affordable“ properties are not all flats and that minimum or higher standards are
met for gardens and recreational space. There are sure to be single, elderly residents that would like to downsize from their large family homes, into a smaller, more manageable one but do not wish to go into an assisted living, residential or retirement homes. They may want a one or two bedroomed property, maybe one storey, or low-rise apartment that they own freehold. The Council would like to safeguard the number of smaller bungalows available and make sure that the existing stock is preserved and a suitable number are provided in the housing mix. You need to consider that some residents may need residential care and you should be looking at ways to cope with the rising number of elderly and provide accommodation for them also.
Consideration should be given to the provision of house for life, bungalows and other potential buildings for downsizing families.
The plan makes no reference to social housing quotas.
The district desperately needs to meet the needs of the hidden homeless. People like the adult children on low wages who have no hope of starting a life of their own away from their parents. By living in these conditions, even if the family unit is tight and loving, it will cause mental health issues, stress and anxiety. You also need accessible properties for the disabled members of our community, where they are assisted in order to fulfil a normal as possible life. All these issues, and perhaps many more, need be addressed.

Q19. Are there any other forms of housing that you feel we should be planning for? How can we best plan to meet the need for that form of housing? [Please state
reasoning]
Housing for the hidden homeless – those “sofa surfing”, or adult children living at home with parents as they are on low wages or wages that would not allow them to move out to rent or buy somewhere on their own. Adapted homes for the disabled. Smaller, freehold properties for the older generation to enable them to downsize from large family homes. Emergency housing.

Q20. With reference to the options listed, or your own
options, what do you think is the most appropriate
way of meeting our permanent Gypsy and Traveller
accommodation needs? [Please state reasoning]
You need to find a permanent site that has a little room to expand but not exponentially. The “Traveller” life has changed over the years and you should revisit the criteria for the traveller community to meet the legal requirements. Strong controls are needed to prevent illegal building work and to ensure the site populations do not exceed capacity.

Q21. With reference to the options listed, or your own
options, what do you think is the most appropriate
way of meeting our temporary Gypsy and Traveller
accommodation needs? [Please state reasoning]
See answer to Q20

Q22. What do you consider would need to be included in a criteria-based policy for assessing potential locations
for new Gypsy and Traveller sites? [Please state
reasoning]
See answer to Q20.

Q23. With reference to the options listed above, or your
own options, how do you feel we can best ensure that
we meet our employment and skills needs through
the plan? [Please state reasoning]
The council should stop developing existing commercial land into housing. Too many sites have already been lost and many more are planned to go. Consider how the plan can help those businesses wanting to expand. Work with local schools and colleges, as well as businesses and the job centre, to see what sustainable employment is needed in the district. Incorporate ways to assist in schemes to train all ages get back into work or upskill. Developers should be encouraged to use local labour

Q24. With reference to Figure 30, do you consider the
current employment site allocations to provide
enough space to meet the District’s employment
needs through to 2040? Should we seek to formally
protect any informal employment sites for commercial
uses, including those in the Green Belt? [Please state
reasoning]
No. The current employment site allocations on Figure 30 do not provide enough space to meet the district’s employment needs through to 2040. There are eighty-seven thousand people in the district. There is no data on the form to suggest how many of these are in employment and how many are looking for work but the council need to reassess its future needs in order to future-proof our residents’ opportunities. The plan should only formally protect sites the that have a future and a
potential to expand or continue effectively.

Q25. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to deliver new
employment facilities or improvements to existing
employment facilities?
Option 3 could deliver new opportunities for employment as it would be a new site completely. Industrial units of various sizes, with room for expansion plus retail, hospitality and other employment could be included in the criteria for the development.
Q26. Are there any particular types of employment site or
business accommodation that you consider Rochford
District is lacking, or would benefit from?
Environmental services - woodland conservation and management. (We need to find funding for this
as it is important!) HGV training school and modern transport training. Improve manufacturing base.
Q27. Are there other measures we can take through the
plan to lay the foundations for long-term economic
growth, e.g., skills or connectivity?
Better road networks, gigabit broadband and Wi-Fi. Apprenticeships or training for all ages with jobs
at the end of training. CCTV where appropriate.
Q28. With reference to the options listed above, or your
own options, how do you feel we can best manage the
Airport’s adaptations and growth through the
planning system? [Please state reasoning]
No comments.
Q29. Do you agree that the plan should designate and
protect areas of land of locally important wildlife
value as a local wildlife site, having regard to the Local
Wildlife Sites review? Are there any other sites that
you feel are worthy of protection? [Please state
reasoning]
Yes. You should conform to and improve existing RDC policies for protecting wildlife areas. Everyone should be doing all in their power to protect wildlife sites. All wildlife is important and has been neglected, sites have been slowly lost over the years. Wildlife now enters suburban areas as their own habitats have diminished and they can no longer fend for themselves adequately from nature. Badgers and hedgehogs as well as rabbits, frogs, newts, voles and shrews are declining and are seldom seen apart from dead at the roadside. Bat numbers are declining as their habitats are lost. Designating initial sites is a step in the right direction but more must be done. It is proven that mental health issues can be relieved by nature and keeping the sites sacred is more important now than it ever was.
Keeping a biodiverse environment, with wildlife and the environment in which it relies is paramount. You mention that Doggett Pond no longer meets the standard but are there no steps to improve its status instead of dismissing it? It is obviously an important site for the wildlife in that area. To lose it would be to our detriment. You should be looking at creating new sites with every large housing
development, and protecting them to improve our district and our own wellbeing. Private households should not be allowed to take over grass areas and verges or worse, concreting the verges over for parking and cost savings. These areas, although small are still areas for wildlife. Bees and butterflies are also in decline, as are
the bugs which feed our birds. The plan should create new wildlife meadows to encourage the pollinators in order to future proof our own existence. You should be exploring smaller sites that could be enhanced, managed and protected to give future generations a legacy to be proud of.
Q30. Do you agree that the plan should designate and
protect areas of land of locally important geological
value as a local geological site, having regard to the
Local Wildlife Sites review? Are there any other sites
that you feel are worthy of protection? [Please state
reasoning]
Yes. The plan must protect them for future generations and teach our children their history and importance so that they can continue to keep them safe.
Q31. Do you consider net gains for biodiversity are best
delivered on-site or off-site? Are there specific
locations or projects where net gain projects could be
delivered?
On site. You can then assess in real time and sort out any issues you would not have known about off
site.
Q32. With reference to the options above, or your own
options, how do you feel we can best deliver a quality
green and blue infrastructure network through the
plan? [Please state reasoning]
You need to retain what we already have by ensuring the necessary links are in place to join as many as possible, and ensuring that public rights of way are not blocked by land owners and are kept free from debris. You also need to assess some paths to make them accessible to the disabled so that all is inclusive. There are some green areas that do not have public facilities and it would be advantageous to look into offering this in the larger spaces. For example, a small toilet block and hand washing facilities in the car park. Obtaining funding from new developments that can enhance existing areas as
well as providing new spaces and facilities. The sites should be well-maintained.
Q33. Do you agree that the central woodlands arc and
island wetlands, shown on Figure 32 are the most
appropriate areas for new regional parklands? Are
there any other areas that should be considered or
preferred? [Please state reasoning]
They are a step in the right direction, but you need to assess periodically in order to be able to add further links to any new parkland that may be created in the future. The map is unclear as it does not show exact routes. There is a large open space to the South West of Rayleigh (on the border), South of Bardfield Way and The Grange/Wheatley Wood, which could be enhanced. Existing sites must be retained
Q34. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to help deliver new
strategic green and blue infrastructure? [Please state
reasoning]
Enhancing existing areas and ensuring developers include green space and recreational facilities
within their developments. A new, separate development would be able to deliver this within their plan layout. Ensuring there are suitable links, access and footpaths. Making sure some of these footpaths are maintained and accessible for the disabled.
Q35. With reference to the options above, or your own
options, how can we address the need for sufficient
and accessible community infrastructure through the
plan? [Please state reasoning]
Assess the shortfall of facilities and networks before plans are approved so that adequate planning
and funding can be secured before any building takes place.
Q36. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to deliver new or
improved community infrastructure? [Please state
reasoning]
A new town would have this infrastructure built into its plans. Funding for improvements must otherwise come from developers if an area is already overpopulated.
Q37. Are there areas in the District that you feel have
particularly severe capacity or access issues relating to
community infrastructure, including schools,
healthcare facilities or community facilities? How can
we best address these? [Please state reasoning]
Rayleigh is overcrowded; it has a road network no longer fit for purpose, some schools are near to capacity, it is difficult to obtain a GP or dental appointment. There is little to no disabled play areas or play equipment. There are always issues with waste collections, drain and road cleaning and verge trimming. The District Council does not have the staff to deal with all these issues. The council should either build another waste recycling site, or develop a better waste collection program which allows extra waste to be collected next to the bin. The current recycling site at Castle Road is no longer
capable of expanding to meet the needs of an ever-growing population. The plan should also identify
a site to accommodate commercial waste facilities to stop fly tipping.
Q38. With reference to the options above, or your own
options, how do you feel we can best meet our open
space and sport facility needs through the plan?
[Please state reasoning]
Improve what we already have. The tennis courts on Fairview Park needs improvement. Safeguard our open spaces to protect wildlife and recreation. Develop different types of sporting facilities. We need to offer free recreation.
Q39. Are the potential locations for 3G pitch investment
the right ones? Are there other locations that we
should be considering? [Please state reasoning]
All-weather facilities should be considered
Q40. Are the listed potential hub sites and key centres the right ones? Are there other locations that we should
be considering? [Please state reasoning]
They look suitable. They will probably need funding.
Q41. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to help deliver
improvements to open space or sport facility accessibility or provision?
A new development would be able to deliver this in their plans or fund improvements for existing facilities in line with national strategy and requirements.
Q42. Are there particular open spaces that we should be
protecting or improving? [Please note, you will have
an opportunity to make specific comments on open
spaces and local green spaces in the settlement
profiles set out later in this report]
The sites will be specific in each parish. You must protect all of these recreational spaces and improve them, if necessary. Once lost to development, they can never come back.
Q43. With reference to the options listed in this section, or your own options, how do you feel we can best
address heritage issues through the plan? [Please
state reasoning]
You should reassess the planning policies regarding alterations made to the buildings on the heritage
list, especially those in conservation areas. There have been a few occasions where buildings of “interest” (or other) have been altered, and that places in conservation areas have been allowed canopies, shutters and internal illumination of signage without challenge. Any building work should be sympathetic to the area and you should require corrections to unauthorised changes, even if they
have been in place for some time. Shop fronts are huge areas of uninteresting glass with garish colours. No objections are raised to signage and advertising that is out of character with a conservation area in a heritage town. Ensure statutory bodies are consulted and heeded.
You should take effective actions to manage the footways, ‘A’ boards and barriers are obstructions to
those with impaired sight or mobility.
Q44. Are there areas of the District we should be
considering for conservation area status beyond those
listed in this section? [Please state reasoning]
You should not take areas of precious woodland to make way for housing. Sites within the existing Rayleigh Conversation Area should not be considered

Q45. Are there any buildings, spaces or structures that
should be protected for their historic, cultural or
architectural significance? Should these be considered
for inclusion on the Local List of non-designated
assets? [Please state reasoning]
Yes there are many sites of historic importance which should be included.
Q46. With reference to the options listed above, or your
own options, how do you think we can best plan for
vibrant town centres in Rochford, Rayleigh and
Hockley? How can we also ensure our village and
neighbourhood centres remain vibrant? [Please state
reasoning]
You can only have a vibrant town centre if there are shops to go to. If these units are subsequently changed to residential then our town centres will be fractured and uninviting. The new Use Class E will mean it will be even more important for the council to protect our retail outlets. You need to work actively with premises owners in order to assist in the re-letting of any empty shops. Maybe
offer a reduced rent to new businesses as a start-up scheme. You could contain this as a “local”
business only – allowing the entrepreneurs in the Rochford District a chance to showcase their
businesses. You also need to be able to negotiate with the owners of empty shops how they can best strive to fill these premises and if not, then have some visual displays in the windows, perhaps photos of the old towns or useful information, to make them more attractive. Explore business rates levies. Any plan should be reviewed frequently; at least every 5 years
It is a well-documented fact that independent businesses have done better than large chains during Covid as they are able to diversify at short notice. RDC need to incentivise new small or micro businesses into our town centre, either through grant support or another mechanism. Occupied premises create employment, increase footfall and reduce vandalism. Landlords should be engaged with to ensure quick turn-arounds, or for more flexible lease agreements where for example a new
business can take on a shorter lease to test the market.
Good public transport links are crucial for our villages, neighbourhoods and town centres.
Q47. Do you agree with the local centre hierarchy set out in Figure 36? If not, what changes would you make?
[Please state reasoning]
Yes
Q48. With reference to Figures 38-40, do you agree with
existing town centre boundaries and extent of
primary and secondary shopping frontages in
Rayleigh, Rochford and Hockley? If not, what
changes would you make? [Please state reasoning]
Yes.
Q49. Should we continue to restrict appropriate uses within town centres, including primary and secondary
shopping frontages within those centres? If yes, what
uses should be restricted? [Please state reasoning]
Yes. A mix of retailers is essential as a lack of variety will eventually kill off the high streets. We need to have a balance of outlets that keep the area viable as you would lose the vibrancy you are hoping to achieve.
Q50. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to deliver improved
retail and leisure services in the District? [Please state
reasoning]
Unfortunately, there has been a tendency to switch from commercial outlets to residential, where smaller retail areas have been sold off and housing development has been allowed. In a new development there would be scope to add a small, medium or large retail precinct, depending on the development size. Retail parks, leisure areas and outlets are proving in many cases, the preferred option for consumers, normally as a result of having everything in one place, free on-site parking and maximum choice. We feel that some of the sites, whilst not suitable for large housing developments, may be suitable for something of this type. It would create much needed employment, opportunity and tourism for the
area.
Q51. With reference to the options above, or your own
options, how do you feel we can best address our
transport and connectivity needs through the plan?
[Please state reasoning]
The council needs to follow the rule “No development before infrastructure”. Houses are being built without adequate road, pedestrian and cycle networks in place. New developments should be planned with cycle paths and walkways that link up with existing paths. The existing paths need updating and attention
Q52. Are there areas where improvements to transport
connections are needed? What could be done to help
improve connectivity in these areas?
More work needs to be done on the A127 and The Carpenters Arms roundabout. The feeder lanes
proposed some years ago to link the Fairglen interchange with The Rayleigh Weir in both directions is
now essential as this is a bottleneck. Hockley needs another access. Connecting the cycle ways into a
cycle network as part of the plan.
Q53. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to deliver new
transport connections, such as link roads or rapid
transit? What routes and modes should these take?
[Walking, cycling, rail, bus, road etc.]
As the preferred strategy option is 3b, this could create opportunities for improved links to Southend. You should also consider more and smaller buses to link the towns and villages. Designated cycling paths that are separated from existing roads and pavements, but adjacent to our road networks would help improve traffic flow. Ensure the cycle network links with public transport as part of a
complete review of sustainable transport.
Q54. Do you feel that the plan should identify rural
exception sites? If so, where should these be located
and what forms of housing or employment do you feel
need to be provided? [Please note you may wish to
comment on the use of specific areas of land in the
next section]
This may be a suitable option for a retirement village that could be restricted to single storey dwellings only, and could include community facilities such as convenient store, community centre and so on.
Q55. Are there any other ways that you feel the plan should be planning for the needs of rural communities?
[Please stare reasoning]
Better public transport and sustainable transport links.
Q56.
a. Do you agree with our vision for Rayleigh? Is there
anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]
The plan is adequate so far is it goes, but you have more work to do. You must plan for a reduced volume of traffic and air pollution. More attention is needed to initiatives that design-out crime and fear of crime, and this needs to be functional, sustainable and viable. The Draft Vision Statement ignores the over-development, the lack of infrastructure and facilities we already suffer. Indeed, Rochford District Council’s stated aim within their Asset Strategy and the plans of other Public Service providers is to reduce facilities in the Town further. This is at the same time as demand is growing from a sharply increasing population. This is particularly relevant for the growing elderly population. This will make the next 25 years very challenging.
1/ Cycling infrastructure and other sustainable transport methods should be prioritised over a carcentric highway use. We regret we do not because it is unrealistic, our response must be to inject a note of realism looking forward based on RDCs policies and past action. This goes to the heart of the new Local Plan.
We regret a realistic Vision Statement based on the current trajectory of further development recommended in the Draft Local Plan will be rather more dystopian. We could see a Rayleigh chocked by traffic. Although pollution should decrease with electric vehicles the advent of driverless vehicles, both domestic and commercial, servicing an ever-expanding population could result in gridlock. Pollution will increase from fossil burning home heating systems in many of the new homes. Failure to support public transport will inevitably maroon older residents in their homes far from those few
facilities and shops that remain in our town centre.
Public services offered by police and council (most likely giant unitary council catering for half million people based far away in an urban area), will seem very distant to most people. Most of the green open spaces not in public ownership, also some that are publicly owned, will be built on and have disappeared by 2050. Many public facilities and local public service providers will be taken away and sold off to property developers. The town centres will cease to be the shopping and social areas we know today as a result of Council plans and changing shopping habits. Rayleigh retail business will have closed and online and out of town retail parks will prosper with their free parking facilities. In the same way that London boroughs developed through the decades and centuries, the traditional housing we know today, with private gardens will be replaced by blocks of flats with large vehicle parking areas with recharge points.
2/ Another vision could be forged with the right policies in an enlightened Local Plan. RDC could opt for a garden village settlement away from all the Districts Towns and villages. Rayleigh like other towns that have suffered from overdevelopment in recent decades and should be protect from large scale private development during the forthcoming Plan Period. Only development or local needs should be permitted. Local facilities like Mill Hall would be saved and car parking retained and made
cheaper to assist local town centre business to survive what will be a challenging period. Secondary
shopping facilities in Rayleigh would be supported and encouraged with public finance where required. Public transport would be supported and encouragement, especially when given for children to reach school without parents’ vehicles. Renovation and refurbishment of historic buildings with modern green energy would be promoted over demolition and intensification. Public services would be encouraged to return/expand to Rayleigh, in existing buildings like Council Offices, Police Station and Library etc. The town centre should be the heart of our community not just something you drive
through to reach somewhere else. This could be our vision and our aim for the future.
b. With reference to Figure 44 and your preferred
Strategy Option, do you think any of the promoted
sites should be made available for any of the following
uses? How could that improve the completeness of
Rayleigh?
Balancing access against increased congestion will be the issue for a lot of the sites in Rayleigh. If you keep adding small developments to the boundaries of the town, it will overcrowd existing houses and add to urban sprawl.
i. Rayleigh has taken the brunt of development without significant infrastructural improvement.
ii. Commercial [offices, industrial, retail, other]
Commercial development should be supported in town centres, secondary shopping facilities and on approved industrial estates (the latter should not become retail / entertainment locations and residential development should not encroach on them to avoid conflict). Community Improvement Districts should be established
iii. Community infrastructure [open space, education, healthcare, allotments, other]
Community infrastructure should be preserved and extended. Access to town centres and secondary
shopping by bicycle and foot should be made easier and safer.
c. Are there areas in Rayleigh that development should
generally be presumed appropriate? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
No. Large scale residential development in Rayleigh should be resisted in the new Local Plan. So called
windfall development should be incorporated in the overall development targets thereby reducing
large scale development.
d. Are there areas that require protecting from
development? Why these areas? [Please state
reasoning]
Conservation areas and green belt and sites subject to the exclusion criteria on the call for sites should be protected. Proposed sites within Rayleigh and on the Western side should not be considered for development. Only an infrastructure plan would provide evidence that the chosen sites are sustainable in the long term, and greenbelt and environmental policies should be adhered to in relation to open spaces on the edge or within the town.
e. Do you agree that the local green spaces shown on
Figure 44 hold local significance? Are there any other
open spaces that hold particular local significance?
All green spaces, no matter how small, hold some significance, especially to those who use them for
recreation. They are of particular community value and should not be developed. They must be seen as the vital green area not the next place along the line to be built on. It is reasonable for RDC to encourage the development of a garden village away from existing communities to accommodate the Governments home building targets
Q57.
d. Are there areas that require protecting from
development? Why these areas? [Please state
reasoning]
Hockley Wood
Q58.
a. Do you agree with our vision for Hockley and
Hawkwell? Is there anything you feel is missing?
[Please state reasoning]
Yes. Insofar as it relates to Rayleigh.
Q58.
d. Are there areas that require protecting from
development? Why these areas? [Please state
reasoning]
As Hockley Woods is the largest remaining wild woodland in the country you should be doing
EVERYTHING you can to save it from development, either adjacent to or close by. You should also actively be adding to it by planting more trees to future proof its existence and status. You must protect any thoroughfares that access Hockley Wood.
Q60.
a. Do you agree with our vision for Hullbridge? Is there
anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]
Yes. Insofar as it relates to Rayleigh.
d. Are there areas that require protecting from
development? Why these areas? [Please state
reasoning]
Anything too close to the river due to flood risk.
e. Do you agree that the local green spaces shown on
Figure 48 hold local significance? Are there any other
open spaces that hold particular local significance?
[Please state reasoning]
All green spaces, no matter how small, hold some significance, especially to those who use them for
recreation. They are of particular community value and should not be developed. They must be seen as the vital green area not the next place along the line to be built on. It is reasonable for RDC to encourage the development of a garden village away from existing communities to accommodate the
Governments home building targets
Q63.
a. Do you agree with our vision for Rawreth? Is there
anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]
Yes. Insofar as it relates to Rayleigh.
c. Are there areas in Rawreth that development should
generally be presumed appropriate? Why these
areas? [Please state reasoning]
d. Are there areas that require protecting from
development? Why these areas? [Please state
reasoning]
Protection needs to be given to development that change the dynamics of the village and those areas that border Wickford. There needs to be a significant amount of green belt land left to separate the two areas to prevent urban sprawl. Rawreth Lane gets heavily congested at peak times, and with Wolsey Park still not complete this is likely to increase. If there is an accident or breakdown on the road network, it has a huge knock on through Rayleigh and the surrounding areas and Watery Lane isn’t a reliable back up for when there are issue. Therefore, further development on the boundary or
otherwise could be detrimental to not only local residents but the wider District too. RDC should be supporting farmers wherever possible to continue to grow their crops in the district and protect suitable farm land in the area. We do not want to lose the local producers

Q66. Do you agree that our rural communities do not
require individual vision statements? Are there
communities that you feel should have their own
vision? [Please state reasoning]
At this time – yes, but we feel they should have some consideration in the future, in order to protect
them. It would be for the communities to decide their vision statements and we would be happy to
support them.
Q67. Do you agree with our vision for our rural
communities? Is there anything you feel is missing?
[Please state reasoning]
Yes.
Q68. Are there other courses of action the Council could
take to improve the completeness of our rural
communities?
Listen to the residents to see where they would like to go next. See if they require anything specific; travel links, facilities, affordable housing and so on. Empower Parish and Town Councils to take
relevant local actions

References CFSO27, CFSO29, CFSO53, CFSO86, and CFSO98
We strongly object to yet another set of houses being built in Rayleigh under the above proposals

This is another 329 houses on top of the current developments behind M&S, near Asda, Hullbridge, near Swallows Aquatics, across from the little cemetery near Edward Francis School (shocking eyesore of set of cheap built houses) and the bottom of Hambro Hill with more development by knocking down the Church next to Mark One Hire and the new proposals for Rayleigh Mill.

Then there is temporary aborted plans for a Gypsy area next to Rayleigh Downs Road that tried to slip under the radar.

This latest proposal is on land that serves a purpose for wildlife (where are the Wildlife reports required under the Wildlife Act), housing of people's horses which they depend on which encourages exercise and well being. The land also is a lovely place to walk as a family or by yourself to get away from the daily grind of Rayleigh becoming a concrete jungle that now floods more times than it should as there is no grasslands to soak up the excess.

We can see nothing viable in your plans for improving the infrastructure to support all this. Equally by contradiction, Rayleigh needs to reduce the pollution levels which you reported pre COVID as being excessive in the town centre. Based on just one new dwelling having one car that's nearly 1000 extra vehicles on the road. Which also means continued parking on the actual walkways which blights Rayleigh and therefore causes issues to disabled people, prams and those who just want to walk without having to step into the road to do so.

Add to that potential for additional buses to get the additional commuters and the pollution levels and traffic jams will increase. Which then affects those with severe respiratory issues.

How will the council balance these increases in their Climate Change, Open Spaces and Bio Diversity plans when it is, effectively, digging it all up?

Rayleigh had 3 Senior Schools, now has two and they are at capacity. Is another school going to be built?

Where is the plan to find more GP surgeries to support even more housing?

None of these developments are or will be 'affordable' to the young that live here so they will move elsewhere rendering less income for Rayleigh.

The plans state wanting to improve the high streets. We now have no clothes shops and more food, drink and hairdressing establishments and nowhere for young people. The rates for shops does not encourage new business as they are too high. Adding more vehicles trying to get into Rayleigh does not add to footfall adding to Rayleigh's coffers if there is nowhere to park! So people will continue to use out of town facilities.

The proposed development for Rayleigh Mill is another debate but to touch slightly on it, by reducing the parking to add more flats, where are people going to park for shopping or attending a wedding or indeed the flats themselves as people have more than one car.

Growth in not needed in terms of more housing. Investment in Rayleigh to be more affordable in terms of existing housing/empty premises/rates/infrastructure and keep it green is what is needed if Rayleigh is to flourish. Incentives for people to improve their own dwellings.

It is not yet more unaffordable, cheaply built housing which only lines the pockets of private developers and drain our resources and deplete our wildlife.

Don't just listen to your residents, hear them. Please

Houses in the Bull Lane Area Rayleigh
I would like to object to this development. If we carry on the way its going Rayleigh will be almost as big as London. With the houses down bottom of London Road, and the ones in Hullbridge as I believe total about 1,300 and the proposed 300 in Bull Lane area, Rayleigh will be swamped with people and traffic. So I say "No" more.

1.0 Summary
1.1 These representations have been prepared on behalf of Crest Nicholson in support of Land at Lubards Lodge Farm, Rayleigh (hereafter referred to as the “Site”) for consideration in the Rochford District Council (“RDC”) Spatial Options Local Plan (“the emerging Plan”) consultation of September 2021. Appendix 1 contains a Site Location Plan which shows the extent of the
boundaries of the Site.
1.2 The site comprises approximately 42.4 hectares of greenfield land with the potential to deliver a proportion of Rochford District Council’s local housing need. The Vision Statement in Appendix 2 of these representations contains an indicative masterplan layout which has been led by an assessment of the constraints and opportunities.
1.3 Green Belt release is recognised as necessary within the emerging Plan, where it is acknowledged that there is an insufficient supply of brownfield sites within the District to meet the full identified housing need. As an unencumbered greenfield, Green Belt site, Lubards Lodge Farm represents a sustainable and logical extension of Rayleigh and an excellent opportunity for residential development in the most sustainable settlement in the district according to the Council’s proposed settlement hierarchy.
1.4 Crest Nicholson is an award-winning national housebuilder with the means, experience and proven
track record to deliver sustainable development in partnership with RDC, so the residential
development of the Site would be ensured if it is allocated in the emerging Local Plan.
1.5 We support the identification of Rayleigh as the single Tier 1 settlement at the top of the proposed
hierarchy.
1.6 We note that the Council correctly identifies that the minimum number of homes it should be planning for over a 20-year period is the 7,200 homes arrived at using the standard method. This is the minimum number of homes that needs to be planned for and it is clear that neighbouring Southend Borough Council will need support from Rochford District Council to deliver its housing need.
1.7 We support Spatial Options 2 and 4 insofar as they are relevant to the growth of Rayleigh and development of suitable available deliverable sites in sustainable locations that would enhance the completeness of Rayleigh, such as the Land at Lubards Lodge Farm.
1.8 We consider that Lubards Lodge Farm should be allocated for housing, with supporting community
infrastructure. The accompanying Vision Statement confirms that there are no overriding technical constraints to development, specifically in respect of landscape, highways, drainage, ecology and utilities. The Vision Statement demonstrates how a masterplan could deliver a balanced new community in the region of 500 new homes in this sustainable location, together with a new home for Rayleigh Boys and Girls FC, a new Country Park, integrated water management systems and
enhanced pedestrian and cycle links to the existing surrounding area.
1.9 We look forward to working with RDC, relevant stakeholders and the local community to help deliver our vision for Land at Lubards Lodge Farm.

2.0 Responses to the Spatial Options Questionnaire
Hierarchy of Settlements
Question 5 – Do you agree with the Settlement Hierarchy presented?
If not, what changes do you think are required?
1.1 Yes, we agree with the Settlement Hierarchy. It suitably recognises the availability of services and connections within each of the settlements and appropriately categorises them into tiers based on how the towns and villages perform in relation to both sustainability and employment.
1.2 Rayleigh is identified as the Tier 1 settlement and we consider this is entirely appropriate in light of its significantly larger population than any other settlement in the district, and that it contains by far the widest range of local and regional services. It would therefore be appropriate for a large proportion of the District’s growth to be directed to Rayleigh.

Spatial Strategy Options
Question 6 – Which of the identified strategy options do you consider should be taken forward in the Plan?
2.1 As a general comment, we note that the Council correctly identifies that the minimum number of homes it should be planning for over a 20-year period is the 7,200 homes arrived at using the
standard method. However, this is the minimum number of homes that needs to be planned for and the Council will need to carefully consider whether a higher housing requirement isnecessary to support economic growth, infrastructure improvements or address the needs arising
from neighbouring authorities.
2.2 In particular it will be important for the Council to work closely with Southend Borough Council (SBC) which has a minimum housing requirement of 1,180 new homes per annum using the standard method. As the Council will be aware, SBC set out in its latest consultation that even with Green Belt release, it is only able to deliver around 20,000 new homes to meet its total
requirement over the plan period of 23,620 homes. It is clear that SBC will need support from Rochford and other neighbouring boroughs to meet its housing needs in full. Rochford District Council should therefore plan for a level of housing growth that meets both their own needs as
well as the unmet needs of SBC.
Strategy Option 1 – Urban Intensification – we do not support this option.
2.3 In light of our comments above, this option must be ruled out as it fails to meet the needs of Rochford district, let alone neighbouring areas.
2.4 This option alone would not provide the necessary quantum of land to meet the identified housing need. This strategy requires the least use of greenfield land and, by definition, would involve no further release of land from the Metropolitan Green Belt. We recognise that focusing purely on brownfield and under-utilised land provides opportunities for infill development, however this does not allow for the necessary larger scale development options, would fail to deliver new
infrastructure, and is not a sufficient option to provide the unit numbers and infrastructure Rochford requires.
Strategy Option 2 - Urban Extensions – we support option 2 insofar as it is relevant to the larger scale urban extensions proposed in Rayleigh.
2.5 Option two is split into two sections. Section 2a focuses urban extensions in main towns. Option 2b looks to deliver a hybrid approach whereby the larger urban extensions would be focused on the main towns including Rayleigh, whilst some of the residual urban extension growth would be dispersed to other lower order settlements based on the hierarchy.
2.6 Option 2 provides significantly better opportunities to deliver the housing and infrastructure targets than Option 1. Option 2a ensures development is focused in sustainable locations where transport connections are established and sustainable to support the development, including Rayleigh. New urban extensions focussed on the main towns in Option 2a gives the opportunity to provide additional services and facilities and provide improvements to existing infrastructure to support the new development in addition to the existing communities.
2.7 Insofar as this option is relevant to Rayleigh, we support the proposals in Option 2a to direct growth to suitable deliverable sites in and on the edge of Rayleigh.
2.8 Insofar as it is relevant to Lubards Lodge Farm, we would be supportive of Option 2b provided that large scale growth is not directed towards the lower order settlements at the expense of the most sustainable and deliverable sites in Rayleigh, including Lubards Lodge Farm.
Strategy Option 3 - Concentrated Growth – we do not support this option.
2.9 A strategy option that seeks to deliver the whole local plan requirement for housing in a concentrated development (or concentrated developments) runs the very serious risk of being undeliverable. Too often local plans focus allocations on a small number of large strategic sites that inevitably come forward later in the plan period, or worse, fail at Examination. Whilst such
sites can be an important part of housing supply, their allocation should not be to the detriment of deliverable large scale (but not strategic scale) sites, such as the Site at Lubards Lodge Farm.
2.10 A clear example of the risks of concentrated growth is the North Essex Authorities, where three new Garden Communities were proposed to deliver a proportion of housing across three local authorities later into the Plan period. In 2020, following the Examination, the Inspector concluded that two of the three garden communities were not viable and therefore not deliverable, leaving
the authorities without 37,500 planned new homes for the Plan period and beyond.
2.11 Another current local example of this is in Maldon, whose Local Plan (adopted in 2017) places a substantive reliance on the large-scale Garden Suburbs. The latest 5-year housing land supply statement confirms that the supply of housing arising from these allocations is falling below the previously anticipated trajectories. This means that the Council cannot currently demonstrate a 5-year supply of housing 2.12 We therefore consider that this option runs the very serious risk of non-delivery and is unlikely to be capable of being found sound at Examination.
Strategy Option 4 – Balanced Combination – We support this option insofar as it relates to the allocation of suitable available greenfield sites on the edge of Rayleigh.
2.13 Option 4 provides a balanced approach, allocating a variety of sites both in terms of size and location which would have far greater potential to deliver a wide mix of housing types and style whilst also ensuring homes come forward consistently across the whole Plan period.
2.14 This Option also provides good opportunities for sustainable growth within Rayleigh with an appropriate scale of development based on the settlement hierarchy. This option is not restrictive on the location or scale of development.
2.15 Based on the response set out above we are supportive of Options 2 or 4 insofar as they direct
proportionate levels of growth to the higher order settlements in the hierarchy, including Rayleigh.
Our support for either of these two options is conditional on the proposed allocation of the Site at Lubards Lodge Farm, which is suitable, deliverable and sustainably located.

Planning for Complete Communities
Question 56a – Do you agree with our vision for Rayleigh?
2.16 Yes, we agree with RDC’s vision for Rayleigh. We note that the Vision Statement says that Rayleigh should be a “thriving town with a wide range of shops and services”, vibrant town centre, functional and reliable transport system with all residents living within walking distance of a local green space. It should provide for a diverse range of housing and job opportunities
meeting the needs of all in the community, whilst retaining its strong historic and cultural character.”
2.17 The best way of ensuring this vision is realised is by allocating significant land for residential development on the edge of Rayleigh. Land at Lubards Lodge Farm is capable of providing development of a scale to support the vitality of the town centre, the local bus routes, providing for diverse range of housing and retaining the town’s strong historic and cultural character.
2.18 Significant new housing growth in Rayleigh, through the allocation of greenfield land, is the only way of ensuring this.

Question 56b - With reference to Figure 44 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the promoted sites should be made available for any of the following uses? How could that improve the completeness of Rayleigh?
i. Housing [market, affordable, specialist, traveller, other]
ii. Commercial [offices, industrial, retail, other]
iii. Community infrastructure [open space, education, healthcare, allotments, other]
iv. Other
2.19 Yes, we consider that the Lubards Lodge Farm site, which forms a part of site CFS164 (excluding the brownfield land in CFS164 which falls outside of the control of Crest Nicholson and is not associated with these representations), should be allocated for housing, with supporting community infrastructure including a Country Park and a new outdoor sports area. The
release of this site from the Green Belt would accord with the settlement hierarchy, and Spatial Options 2 and 4. It is suitable, available and deliverable within the Plan period. Crest Nicholson has the means, experience and track record to deliver the development.
2.20 To deliver the necessary level of housing growth identified for the Plan period it will be necessary for RDC to focus its attention on the allocation of a large-scale greenfield site(s) on the edge of the higher order settlements in the district, including the single Tier 1 settlement – Rayleigh. The Site is one of only a small number of large-scale sites on the edge of Rayleigh and, because it is unconstrained and accessible, in light of RDC’s housing need and that Rayleigh is the only Tier 1
settlement, it therefore naturally means that the Site should be allocated for housing development through the Local Plan. The extract from Figure 44 below exemplifies this.
2.21 The proposed development onsite is market led residential housing, with supporting community
infrastructure including a new country park and onsite high-quality playing pitch provision for outdoor sport. As the Land at Lubards Lodge Farm is a greenfield site, it can accommodate a policy compliant quota of affordable housing and a package of proportionate infrastructure
provision only a greenfield site of this size within the sole control of a major national housebuilder could deliver. This is extremely important if RDC wants to realise its planning policy objectives by delivering healthy balanced communities with a range of supporting infrastructure, access to local employment opportunities, provision of public open space, biodiversity net gain and an enhanced new home for Rayleigh FC back in Rayleigh, where the Club belongs. This is unlikely to be possible on smaller scale allocations because they would be unable to deliver transformational infrastructure. It would be undeliverable on strategic scale allocations because the extent of funding required to deliver the necessary infrastructure would be likely to have significant impacts
on the ability to deliver on other planning policy objectives, such as affordable housing provision.
2.22 Taking account of the above, there are few comparable alternative suitable sites in Rayleigh that
are capable of delivering what is proposed by Crest Nicholson at Lubards Lodge Farm. For ease of reference an extract from Figure 44 of the consultation document showing the range of sites put forward for development around the edge of Rayleigh is shown below.
[see attached document for map]
Above: Extract from Figure 44 of the consultation document showing the promoted sites around Rayleigh in blue.
Land at Lubards Lodge Farm is available and deliverable
2.23 Lubards Lodge Farm is in single ownership and is wholly within the control of Crest Nicholson. Crest Nicholson’s due diligence to date suggests that there are no reasons why development of the site could not be delivered. This is further demonstrated under the technical sub-headings as set out in the accompanying Vision Statement.
2.24 Crest Nicholson has been building new homes for over 50 years and is firmly established as a leading developer with a reputation for creating vibrant sustainable new communities. Crest Nicholson’s contribution to the built environment has been recognised with a strong of awards, including The Queen’s Award for Enterprise in Sustainable Development. This award is testament to Crest’s continued emphasis on producing high quality developments that champion the very best principles in sustainability. More recent awards include winning Sustainable Housebuilder of the Year at the Housebuilder Awards 2016, and Large Housebuilder of the Year in 2015.
2.25 The Site is therefore available and deliverable.
Land at Lubards Lodge Farm is suitable
2.26 The Site is a suitable location for development, is free from constraints and is unencumbered in all respects. This is demonstrated in the accompanying Vision Statement prepared in support of these representations. To supplement this assertion, we have extracted the Appraisal for the wider CFS164 site from the Site Appraisal paper in RDC’s evidence base – see below.
[see attached document for table]
Above: extract from RDC’s Site Appraisal paper for CFS164 Lubards Lodge Farm
2.28 Against the assessment criteria in the Site Appraisal paper, site CFS164 scores comparatively well against other Rayleigh sites. It is noted as being developable (subject to policy) and deliverable for housing and/or commercial development. We agree with this assessment, as there are no overriding constraints to development. Similarly, the site is attributed high scores (4 or 5 out of 5, i.e. well performing) against most of the assessment criteria, including flood risk (the site is within Flood Zone 1) air quality, various forms of utility infrastructure, access to transport options and facilities. This all corroborates with the evidence contained within our accompanying Vision Statement for the development of the Site.
2.29 The Appraisal attributes scores of 1 out of 5 (i.e. worst performing) against the Green Belt and Agricultural Land Quality measurements. In respect of Green Belt harm, we must draw to RDC’s attention two matters in particular that must be noted in order for these “issues” to be properly viewed in context:
● It is inevitable that the development of any greenfield Green Belt site would cause harm to the Green Belt. Any harm to the Green Belt arising from development needs to be balanced against RDC’s need for new homes, which cannot be delivered wholly on brownfield land in
the district because there are not enough previously developed sites.
In accordance with NPPF guidance and established case law1, where exceptional circumstances for the release of Green Belt land are justified, it is necessary to consider,
amongst other factors:
− Whether the Plan could achieve sustainable development without the use of Green Belt land,
− Whether the nature and extent of Green Belt harm would be minimised through the site selection process by selecting sites that contribute the least to Green Belt purposes, and
− The extent to which consequent impacts on the purposes of the Green Belt may be ameliorated or reduced to the lowest reasonably practicable extent, through the redefinition of the Green Belt boundary via physical features that are likely to be permanent, and through scheme design. The extent of harm to the Green Belt, by reference to the Appraisal paper’s score for the Site, is therefore not in itself a reason to discount it from consideration.
● The Appraisal for the CFS164 site considers the Site in its entirety. It should however be noted that the Green Belt Review Stage 2 assessment for CFS164 splits the site into two distinct assessment parcels, identifying that the south-eastern part of the assessment parcel has a lower Green Belt sensitivity. An extract from the site assessment is shown below.
[see document for image]
Above: Green Belt Review Stage 2 assessment – CFS164 is split and assessed as two parcels
Against the south-eastern half of the assessment area for CFS164, the Green Belt review identifies that “release of the land in the southern and south eastern Moderate-High corner of the assessment area up to and including the developed site 163 is significantly more contained by urbanising development. Consequently its release would have a more limited impact on adjacent Green Belt land. Whilst it would lead to the breaching of a strong
boundary along Rawreth Lane, development has already taken place to the north of this road to the west and east of the parcel.”
It is demonstrated that a blanket assessment of the site in its entirety does not accurately reflect the way in which the impact of development could be ameliorated by a reduced development coverage. Added to this, NPPF paragraph 143f) states that when defining Green Belt boundaries, plans should “define boundaries clearly, using physical features that are readily recognisable and likely to be permanent”. We consider that any residual harm to the Green Belt can be addressed through masterplanning and landscape mitigation. Crest
Nicholson has the means, experience and track record to ensure this. Indeed, the southeastern parcel within CFS164 broadly corresponds with the masterplan proposals we have put forward within our accompanying Vision Statement. This can be refined as necessary in
due course, should RDC consider it necessary to do so.
2.30 Taking account of the above, it is considered that harm to the Green Belt caused by the development of the Site can be appropriately mitigated. We look forward to working with RDC to ensure that effects can be minimised in this respect.
2.31 The Site Appraisal identifies a high degree of harm under the Agricultural Land Quality criteria. However, as with the Green Belt matter, the Paper identifies at paragraph 70 that the nature of the District has “a relatively scarce supply of brownfield land” which means that if the district’s identified housing need is to be met in full, greenfield land would need to be released. It is
therefore inevitable that some “best and most versatile” agricultural land would need to be lost if RDC wishes to achieve wider sustainability objectives, in accordance with the Strategic Objectives and the draft Vision for Rayleigh. We consider that there are therefore sustainability factors that would outweigh the loss of BMV land.
2.32 Taking account of the above, we consider that the Site is entirely suitable for development. Land at Lubards Lodge Farm would enhance the completeness of Rayleigh
2.33 The NPPF states at paragraph 142 that when drawing up Green Belt boundaries, the need to
promote sustainable patterns of development should be taken into account. At paragraph 105 the NPPF states that “the planning system should actively manage patterns of growth in support of [sustainable transport] objectives. Significant development should be focused on locations which are or can be made sustainable, through limiting the need to travel and offering a genuine
choice of transport modes”.
2.34 The supporting text to the Draft Vision statement for Rayleigh says that “as can be seen from the
completeness mapping, Rayleigh benefits from a good standard of walking access to most dayto-day services. The areas of Rayleigh with the best walking access to services are around its town centre, with other strong areas to the west along London Road. Overall, even those parts of Rayleigh outside of the walking catchment of services benefit from good levels of access overall,
particularly along the spines of Rawreth Lane, Hockley Road and Eastwood Road” [Bidwells emphasis]. This is shown on the Completeness map for Rayleigh, an extract from which is shown below
[see document for image]
Above: extract from the consultation document’s Completeness map of Rayleigh
2.35 Lubards Lodge Farm is well located to enable sustainable transport choices and is within a 10-
minute walk of the following local facilities:
● Asda supermarket;
● Down Hall Primary School;
● St Nicholas C of E Primary School;
● Sweyne Park Playground;
● Employment uses at Lubards Farm to the north; and
● Rayleigh Leisure Centre.
2.36 Land at Lubards Lodge Farm is comparatively closer and more accessible to Rayleigh town centre than other large-scale sites on the edge of town and therefore offers better opportunities to make use of sustainable forms of travel. It offers the opportunity to strengthen the existing bus route along Hullbridge Road, together with potential to enhance existing non-frequent public
transport along Rawreth Lane thereby bringing enhancing the sustainability and accessibility to
residents of the existing community, as well as future residents.
2.37 Completeness benefits would not only be limited to walking and public transport options. The provision of cycle routes in Rayleigh is currently limited, however, several proposed routes are identified in the Rochford District Cycling Action Plan (published by Essex County Council in 2017) but which do not yet appear to have been taken forward. These include Proposed National
Cycle Route 135 passing the Site along Hullbridge Road and Rawreth Lane, and an extension of an existing route along Priory Chase to Rayleigh Rail Station via St Nicholas Church of England School and The Sweyne Park School (proposed route IDs 24 and 23). These are shown on the Cycling Acton Plan map extract below
[see document for image]
Above: extract from the Rochford Cycling Action Plan
2.38 Cycle routes would be provided within the development, and there is the potential to connect to
these proposed routes and contribute to improvement works to facilitate a safe route to local schools and the rail station. Provision of connections from the Site into the existing and future planned cycling infrastructure offers further potential to enhance the completeness of Rayleigh.
A new home for Rayleigh Boys and Girls FC
2.39 Rayleigh Boys and Girls Football Club has been running since 1976 and is regarded by the Essex Football Association as the largest youth football club in Essex with more than 65 teams, 12 of which are Girls teams. It is the aim of the Club to promote a safe Environment for Children of all ages to learn, develop and enjoy playing football. Despite the Club’s key role in the community, with player registrations increasing year on year, it has been very difficult for the Club to secure match-day (grass) and training (all-weather) pitches locally due to the lack of available land and funding.
2.40 The Club relies on the dedication of volunteers to organise the rental of pitches, many of which have limited facilities and require long journeys outside of Rayleigh for the children, for example the Chichester Ground in Rawreth which is only accessible by car. To-date the Club does not benefit from any form of building or clubhouse to manage operations from and allow teams and their families to interact before/after matches.
2.41 The proposals for a sustainable neighbourhood at Lubards Farm provide a unique opportunity to accommodate new training and match day pitches, and a permanent new facility in Rayleigh that the Club can finally call home. Not only would there be significant benefits for the Club’s 800+ players and families, but the facility could also be available during weekday school hours for the wider Rayleigh community (including local schools) who currently do not benefit from an allweather pitch, despite being the largest town in the District. Crest Nicholson specialises in delivering community-led, high quality new homes and is proud to be working with the Club to inform the proposals from the outset.
Lubards Lodge Farm would deliver green and blue infrastructure
2.42 There is an opportunity to incorporate managed green infrastructure to the north of the site in the
form of a Country Park, to enhance the already strong natural defensible Green Belt boundary and to ensure the maintenance of the gap between the settlements of Rayleigh and Hullbridge, to help prevent coalescence in accordance with Green Belt policy. It would also ensure that opportunities to enhance the beneficial use of the Green Belt, as redrawn, could be maximised.
2.43 As the Site is currently private land it does not benefit from the same potential that its allocation for
residential development would bring in this regard.
2.44 Within the rationale provided by the South Essex Green and Blue Infrastructure Study, the Country Park established in the north of site would become a multifunctional greenspace with areas of high value habitats as well as recreational areas. The park would include a range of circular walks and dogs-off lead areas as well as public rights of ways connections to adjacent greenspace. The Country Park would integrate SuDS and swales within habitat links to create well-connected
wetlands. There are opportunities to maximise connectivity with adjacent habitats. Enhanced habitat connectivity will be created through strengthened linkages and ‘stepping-stone’ areas across the site; for example, grassland, hedges and other linear features, and water features. The proposals will maximise connectivity for species such as bats with the adjacent golf course and priority habitats to southeast (woodlands) and west.
Land at Lubards Lodge Farm benefits from recently delivered highways improvements
2.45 A new 3-arm compact roundabout has been built in the location of the former mini roundabout between Rawreth Lane and Hullbridge Road, directly adjacent to the south-eastern corner of the Site, where there is the opportunity for the Site’s vehicular access to be taken from.
2.46 Financial contributions towards the cost of improvement works were secured by Essex County
Council to build the roundabout to relieve congestion at the local bottle neck. Work was commenced in January 2021 and was completed in the summer of 2021.

Plans for Rayleigh
I have read your recently published document and find it hard to believe that further, large new house building is proposed for the area. The area has a huge amount of building taking place at present and, in my opinion, simply does not have the infrastructure to cope with this current growth let alone further new homes at a later stage.
Any resident of Rayleigh (I have lived here for almost 8 years) will tell you that traffic in the area is appalling and will get much worse once the new developments have been completed. Traffic into Rayleigh from the Carpenters Arms roundabout is at a standstill most rush hours even before the new development there is finished. Traffic heading from Rayleigh to Hockley is similar. Surely the council is aware of the overloaded roads so I am staggered further building development is being considered.
I strongly suggest any thought of further development is shelved now.

CFS027, CFS098,CFS086,CFS029,CFS053
I object to any further developments in my area,there are already too many houses in Rayleigh and the surrounding area.
We do not have the infrastructure to cope with more people and more vehicles.

CFS053 and CFS098
I wish to comment on the possible development of CFS053 and CFS098 located at the end of Wellington Road Rayleigh

1 I am concerned that any development will have an impact on local Biodiversity and local habitats for wildlife. I have seen badger latrines in this site, so badgers

are obviously living nearby.

2. This land is currently used for agricultural purposes so this development would result in a loss of agricultural land

3. Drainage is a factor in this area and localised flooding has also occurred at times. Developing this site would impact further on this problem and surely needs

resolving before development can take place. Building on a field is not going to improve the drainage in this area.

4. There would be significant impact on local infrastructures, particularly healthcare services and schools. The schools in this area are popular and successful

and therefore over-subscribed already.

5. Currently this site is a cul-de-sac with 39 homes. Additional homes would mean additional cars, which would certainly impact on the air quality in this area.

6. Accessing and exiting Wellington Road onto the Hockley Road is already very difficult at certain times. Additional cars would only add to this problem.

7. This development would impact on the landscape in this locality, which is currently Green Belt with access via a Bridleway across a field. Building homes

here would spoil this landscape.

8. If this development linked up with other sites which you have identified (CFS086; CFS029) our road would become a short-cut through to Eastwood Road.

This would again change the character of this area and impact on air quality and produce increased noise pollution.

9. Rayleigh has experienced major developments recently. Expansion moves on at an alarming pace. While I recognise the need for homes I would suggest that

further loss of Green Belt is not a price worth paying. Please consider carefully

I strongly oppose the development of the farmland at the back of Nelson Road and the fields between Wellington Road and Bull Lane. Specifically I am talking about the proposed sites CFS053, CFS098, CFS029 and CFS027. I have lived in Wellington Road all my life and one of the big attractions of this road is that it is a cul-de-sac. The development proposed for the fields and farmland will ruin this road. I've no doubt that the plan will be to extend Wellington Road so that it joins up with Napier Road and Albert Road and ultimately Bull Lane. This will turn Wellington Road from a quiet cul-de-sac to a major thoroughfare to cut through from the Hockley Road to Eastwood. That is not even to mention the loss of the farmland and fields at the end of Wellington Road which is a major attraction of living here. There is a public footpath that runs through the farm at the bottom of Wellington Road and many people like to walk down there including me.
Then there is the traffic. The Hockley Road running between Rayleigh and Hockley is already very busy. There is endless building around this area. Big developments in London Road, Rayleigh; Rawreth Lane, Rayleigh; Lower Road, Hullbridge; Hall Road, Rochford. Thousands of new homes already being built in the area with the same roads and the same little town centres as when they were basically villages.
In summary I think this is terrible. Not just the proposed development at the end of Wellington Road but all of it. Why do we need to have more development in London and the Home Counties? The area is becoming more and more overcrowded. There is far more room in northern parts of the country and Scotland.

Re: Spatial Options consultation – Eastwood Nursey’s, Eastwood Road, Rayleigh Essex. CFS127

I refer to your spatial options consultation document in which the Local Planning Authority are seeking views that will form the basis of the Local Plan going forward to 2040.

I would be grateful if your office would kindly note that this practice acts on behalf of Mr Barrie Stone, the landowner of the above site.

The purpose of this letter is to assist the Local Planning Authority with its consultation process and provide additional information which may assist officers of the council when reviewing individual sites which are most appropriate for residential development. There does appear to be a number of errors within the site assessment already conducted by the Local Planning Authority. This letter along with the additional reports that have been undertaken will provide some assistance.

Firstly, my clients fully endorse the Local Planning Authority’s interim policies with regard to sites that are identified as brownfield, part brownfield, and contaminated land should be brought forward for development first. This of course follows government guidelines and recent appeal decisions that have been issued by the Planning Inspectorate.

In the case of the above site, this has a long history of various mixed uses on the site including commercial, retail, light industrial, residential and sui generis uses. Many of the uses operate under a lawful use category having been in operation prior to the 1st of July 1948. Crucially, there is a statutory grant of planning permission here, in acted by virtue of the 1947 Planning Act.

In essence, the fallback position on this site is that the total site area can be used as a scrap yard without the consent of the Local Planning Authority. Please note as per 1985 caselaw, an abandonment use cannot occur with a statutory grant of planning permission.

In addition, there is substantial built form on the site, along with large areas of concrete hardstand; therefore the site complies with the National Planning Policy Guidance, annex one in terms of previously developed land.

Although the site is currently identified within the Rochford District Local Plan as Green Belt, it must be a matter of common ground that the site does not meet the objectives of the Green Belt which are as follows:

Green Belt serves 5 purposes:

(a) to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;
(b) to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another;
(c) to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;
(d) to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and
(e) to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.

In view of the site not meeting any of the above Green Belt criteria, the Local Planning Authority are encouraged to remove this site from the Green Belt.

With regard to other areas that have been highlighted within the initial assessment, my clients have already conducted extensive survey work which have included highways, ecology, flood, and strategic drainage, all of which have concluded there are no issues of concern, and these have been confirmed by statutory consultees.

In terms of sustainability, the site is highly sustainable being on a major bus route and within a five-minute walk of a major food store, A primary school is a 15-minute walk and secondary education is within easy access. In addition, Rayleigh town is also within easy reach either by bus or by walking. The site is also well served by open space and parks are within a 5-minute walk.

Development delivery has been mapped out by my clients with a delivery partner and end user already on board. Therefore, delivery of this much needed housing could be delivered within two years.

Ref.# CFS027, CFS098, CFS086, CFS029, CFS053.
Please note that my wife and I strongly object to the above proposals to build 329 houses, access in and out of Rayleigh is very poor at the best of times, the effect of the existing developments has not fully impacted on the town yet and it can only make matters worse.

Objection to Spatial Option CFS 053
I wish to object to the above Option, the land south of Wellington Road. My objections are;-

Infrastructure: The schools in this area are already full, the following figures were published by
Essex Live and came from Essex Council for the year 2019-2020.

Rayleigh Primary School Applicants 200 Places Offered 56
Edward Francis Primary 222 59
Hockley Primary 176 60

It is also difficult to get a doctors appointment locally and this also applies to dentists.
Traffic: Rayleigh is already heavily congested with traffic, especially from the Hockley Road
to and from Rayleigh high street. The car parks are affected by this and the air quality in Rayleigh
is not good, pollution is a concern.

Wildlife: We have slow worms living at the far end of our garden, they have been there for
several years. Slow worms are a protected species under the amendment in 1988 of the Wildlife
& Countryside Act l981, part of Section 9(1) and all of Section 9(5) apply to the slow worms listing on Schedule 5 of the Act. Slow worms are protected against killing, injuring and sale under UK legislation.
Undoubtedly slow worms are living in the field too adjoining our rear garden. Badgers have also been seen in the field.

Drainage: Another problem is drainage and we have suffered flooding which the Council should be well aware of. More housing will make this worse.

references CFS027, CFS098, CFS086, CFS029 & CFS053
Dear Sir/Madam,

in respect of the possibility of building 329 houses behind Wellington Road, Napier Road and Bull Lane Farm Road Rayleigh can you please take into consideration the following facts.

• this 'estate' would have vehicles exiting into Rayleigh via Wellington Road, Victoria Road, Helena Road, Bull Lane and the Chase. All of these are residential streets and would not be able to take the extra capacity safely.
• Helena Road is already a rat run. If you were to build these houses then for safety reason you would probably have to put double yellow lines along Helena Road. This would force those residents to park within Alexandra Road, which is narrow and does not have the capacity.
• Where would the children in this estate go to school?
• Where would the residents of this estate register with GPs?
• If this application was approved how long before the rest of those farms that border Hockley Woods and Cherry Orchard park be converted to housing?
• If the farmers are desperate to get rid of these fields then just extend Hockley woods and help tackle global warming by planting several thousand trees. I'm pretty sure that the local residence would be happy to contribute towards that.
as you can tell my answer to this housing option is a resounding NO.

Proposed building in Rochford Hawkwell and Rayleigh
Dear Planning

We are so unhappy with the proposed large scale housing developments.
Having lived in Hockley for over 35 years we have certain seen it grow. But enough is enough, the area can not take anymore traffic.

Let’s keep our wonderful town and villages as they are.

[CFS027, CFS098, CFS086, CFS029, CFS053]

I am writing to strongly oppose the developments proposed by Rochford District Council (reference numbers above)

Firstly, I would like to comment on the completely unsuitable, archaic and alienating online 'comment' system you have created that is supposedly 'straightforward'. You claim it is the 'quick[est] and [most] efficient method for submitting comments'. I have never encountered such an inefficient online form (there are over 100 questions!! What part of that is quick and efficient?!!), and think it poses a huge barrier to those who are perhaps less computer literate or to be honest, anyone who has ever used an online portal for anything - ever. This is hugely problematic, as the details of a project that will affect so many, will be reviewed by only the very few who have hours to navigate your suggested ‘streamlined’ portal. Not inclusive or accessible at all.

Secondly, and perhaps my most pressing reason for objection is the complete 'tone deaf' attitude Rochford Council appear to have for the environment and climate change. The weighting given to climate related issues in this proposal is not aligned anywhere near to what is expected as we experience a global climate crisis. Housing currently accounts for around 15% of the UKs green house has emissions. Building more homes will only exacerbate this. This doesn’t account for any of the devastating impacts incurred through the loss of biodiversity and natural habitats, increased land, water and air pollution - and no these issues aren’t mitigated by ‘carefully mapping’ areas not to build on, or by creating new ‘wildlife spaces’ in the development plans. The issues are ‘mitigated’ by not developing at all.

More developments in Rayleigh/Rochdord will also result in more cars on the road. This will in turn result in greater levels of congestion, noise pollution and increase the level of carbon emissions entering the atmosphere. I’m not entirely sure how this project aligns with the governments net zero ambitions or the global aims of keeping global heating below 1.5 degrees…

The extreme proposal will see Rayleigh transformed to a traffic ridden, polluted and over crowded town, where current infrastructure simply will not support this vast expansion into green spaces!

Strongly oppose this proposal and hope it does not go ahead.

I am very saddened and distressed to see you are considering developing the land for housing to the rear of Nelson Road, the horses field at the top of Albert Road and on the land at the top of Bull Lane. Apart from losing the green space which is fast becoming a scarcity in the Rayleigh area, this will also cause considerably more traffic and add a further strain to the local infrastructure. Our local roads are already so busy and in such a poor state of repair, further building and more traffic would only increase the pressure on the local community.
I have lived in Rayleigh for most of my life and see a decline to what was a very nice area to live, with more & more housing springing up everywhere without any regard to the area as a whole. There is also concern that we have had floods to the top end of Bull Lane & Albert Road, the potential of which I suspect, may increase in risk if the fields are concreted over. We also had a major water main burst from the new water main in the top end Bull Lane field causing chaos. I can only hope that you will reconsider this building frenzy and allow the area to have a little green space left before Rayleigh is completely ruined.

I strongly object to the proposed Mill Hall development. It is an area of beauty, so peaceful and should be left alone. How can the council even think it is a good idea to squeeze housing in such an area of importance. Let alone destroy the wonderful amenity of the Hall. Don’t you realise in years to come how the community will look back and despise you. Strong words I know. Also the small piece of land by the civic suite. It is so lovely there and there are some lovely old trees. Surely they have preservation orders? Rayleigh is a lovely town and don’t ruin it like the planners did in the sixties with the ugly police station, the row of offices opposite the library, the ugly Tile Shop on the corner of Love Lane. How on earth did planners think those buildings were attractive? So please, think carefully and don’t destroy Rayleigh any further.

Our hearts sank when we received notice of a possible building development across the road from our new house. We moved to the end of Bull Lane at the end of June, then learnt of the possibility of houses being built there at the start of August.

As a family, we have wanted to move to the countryside for a long time. When we found the house at the end of Bull Lane, it was in a perfect position- right by fields and also within easy walking distance of a nice town, which we thought was important with young children.

We have always lived on a cul de sac, and having only farm traffic go past was an easy compromise to make. We would be devastated to suddenly have more traffic going right past our house. Coming from a busy town, we paid a premium to be right by the fields. For this to be taken away from us would produce a huge amount of stress.

Furthermore, we believe it is not right to build on green belt land. If it continues, we as a country will end up with no green space which would be extremely detrimental to our environment. As a family, we are doing as much as we can to help the environment, including for example using reusable nappies. Those in power need to take some responsibility for keeping our green space green.

There are already a huge amount of new houses going up around Rayleigh, including developments on Rawreth Lane, and at the top of Hambro Hill. These are both less than ten minutes from our house. We really don't think it is necessary to put up more houses so close to these developments. It will not only harm the green belt, but will also produce more traffic. Rayleigh town centre is already too busy.

More new families moving to new houses also means schools will be more stretched than they are already, and doctors will have even longer waiting lists. We do not think Rayleigh has enough resources to support the families of the houses that are already going up, let alone any more.

Thank you in advance for your concern.

I am not sure if this is the best way to communicate our feedback to the above but having spoken to one of your colleagues in Rayleigh, who was very helpful I would like to submit comments to the plans. We are particularly interested in the plans for Lubbards Farm and the surrounding areas.

Our address is XX Mortimer Road, Rayleigh, SS6 9NX Email address is this on the message.
Phone number is xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx should you wish to contact us and also to receive your feedback at the appropriate time in the consultation process.

Whilst we cannot object to long term plans in principle we would like to make it clear that we are concerned at the potential volume of housing that could be built around this area.

Reasons for concern to increased housing and potential business facilities in the area include:

Lack of local stores
Lack of local doctor and other medical/pharmacy capacity Lack of leisure facilities Lack of emergency services locally Lack of environment waste sites (Rayleigh is already a nightmare)

Increased traffic without adequate parking facilities, specifically Rawreth Lane, Downhall Road, Hambro Hill and Hullbridge Road. They don’t cope well with the current traffic let alone another increase in volume of potentially 2 cars per house.Will plans for 2 car parking spaces per house be included in any plans proposed? Additionally it is almost impossible to, when walking, cross the road, even more so now the new roundabout is being completed albeit we don’t know if additional zebra crossings will be put in place.

And most importantly speeding cars and large trucks. This is already a big problem for a number of reasons:
Cyclists cannot safely ride on the existing roads so what will be built into the plan for safe cycling.
Will there be sensible bus stops so as not to delay the traffic or bus lanes.
It is very uncomfortable when walking along the road so what will be built into the plan to allow for safe walking. Additionally in relation to this, when the weather is bad (raining), the roads often have standing water, which when we walk past can soak us. This is unacceptable now especially when walking to the station for work.
Lastly to stop the speeding traffic will average speed cameras be put in place and be operational.

So in s=ummary, overall we we=ould prefer not to see another 900+ houses built on Lubbards farm but appreciate, if it is going to happen we can’t stop it, however what must be put in pace are arrangements to cope with the points above.

SITE ASSESSMENT PROFORMA: CFS001
In relation to the ‘spatial options consultation’, I would like to request you go back to government to politely tell them where they can place their housing targets!
Not sure if you have heard about the IPCC report but WE ARE IN A CLIMATE EMERGENCY, humanity would be grateful if you would start taking action towards that instead, as it is a much bigger priority than a new local plan!
We may need our greenbelt and agricultural land to grow crops if food supplies become affected, it is madness to consider covering them in concrete! Our roads are constantly gridlocked through infrastructure neglect and surely must be at dangerous pollution levels already. Not to mention the fact that a lot of the district is expected to be under water by 2050!
In light of the above, here are my reasons for objecting to this site:

Critical Drainage Risk
2
Green Belt Harm
2
Impact on Protected Trees
2
Impact on Agricultural Land
2

Proposed development rear Nelson Road
I wish to protest against the proposed development in the Nelson Road area. There have been so many housing estates built in the Rayleigh area already and now these green fields could be lost as well. Each house would have at least two cars and our roads are so busy, when the school holidays are over there is often half a mile of stationary cars queuing to get as far as the high street, all the side roads are busy too.
It is almost impossible to get a doctor’s appointment these days without them having to take on yet more patients. Rayleigh is being ruined and these houses should be built elsewhere, please reconsider.

Assuming emails will be accepted and previous near impossible navigation if the whole document is not required then I provide the following comments; observations and objections on the spatial options using CFS064 as an example and objecting to.that and development of Bull Lane; Napier Road and Wellington Road as well.

1) the whole process is flawed. Even at the "tail" of the pandemic some residents are unable or unwilling to contribute because of issues in attending events and/or lack of internet access preventing them viewing the proposals.

2) the central Government building requirements are based upon ideas originally drawn up by John Prescott in a Labour government. They do not take account of fundamental changes in working environment brought about by factors such as technology; COVID; and the demise of the High St. This may well see more town and city space particularly in London becoming available for accommodation. I am aware of a number of London companies "hotdesking" workers and essentially having only 50% attending on any one day. Couple this with the ability to store and use data electronically it is clear lots of office space will become available and the knock on effect may be other city shops close as there are less people using them. This relieves pressure on surrounding areas for building of more homes

3) the local plans take little account of the need to maintain open spaces. As seen in the Pandemic these were crucial for wellbeing. Plans involving building on Hockley Woods and fields around Betts Wood are not credible.

4) plans to build on areas around Bull Lane Nelson; Napier; and Wellington Roads put in jeopardy RDC's pledge to maintain gaps between the various towns and villages in the area. Here in particular the Hockley and Rayleigh buffer is already eroded by Bullwood Hall developments and new properties added to Turret Farm ( were these approved)

5) proposals to release agricultural land. Anyone who walked around the area in the pandemic will be well aware many of these plots are apparently used for growing food. Given current supply problems and the growing need to feed people this element seems to be fundamentally flawed.

6) it is clear from your own Q&A councils are out of their depth. Several correspondents have already raised the issue of the lack of infrastructure and the response has been GP surgeries; schools etc only need to be provided for large developments (approx 1000 houses). Clearly house builders know how to play the game and avoid such commitments (and provision of sufficient affordable housing).

7) in relation to several of the points above why all the councils (predominantly tory) in the Thames Gateway do not group together to lobby Tory central government for more power to determine their plans and to reach a better outcome for developments than seeing inner London borough's rent or buy large swathes of housing stock.

8) as with 3 above will Southend Airport remain open? Believe this is leased by RDC to Southend BC but, given the lack of passenger flights and income; one wonders if it will last. Is lease income being maintained? Is airport being subsidised? Would make ideal building plot

9)There is also a need to maintain historic and scientific areas as well as minimising impact on wildlife using green belt impacts all these

10) the roads are gridlocked at peak times and delivery times. Especially B1013. This is already the busiest B road in the county and adding any development in the vicinity is going to make this worse. Impacting health and particularly that of children in schools along the route RDC will be aware of the Coroner's findings in respect of the death of Ella Kissi-Debrah where air pollution was given as the cause. Perhaps RDC can confirm they have addressed all current air pollution problems and fully and correctly assessed all risks of this nature were further developments to take place