Q56c. Are there areas in Rayleigh that development should generally be presumed appropriate?

Object

Representation ID: 37526

Received: 30/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Jeffery Bowen

As previously stated Rayleigh is in my view already over populated and the existing facilities cannot cope. Yet more large scale housing would make the current problems significantly worse.

Object

Representation ID: 37537

Received: 30/07/2021

Respondent: Mrs Karen Phillips

There are no appropriate areas for housing, the town is already saturated with flats.

Comment

Representation ID: 37548

Received: 31/07/2021

Respondent: Mr Mike Wilkinson

No - There should be no more development in Rayleigh whatsoever. There are other parts of the district which can be developed to satisfy the need for land supply for housing.

Comment

Representation ID: 37582

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Mr stephen green

you should not be selective with pockets of farm land or open spaces if you allow CFS171, 170 and 164 to proceed you should also allow all land between those sites to be permitted developments

Comment

Representation ID: 37614

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Mrs June Murgatroyd

All green belt should be protected for our future generations to enjoy the countryside

Comment

Representation ID: 37617

Received: 03/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Tim Jones

For access into existing road infrastructure and the ability to develop an area with easy access to the A127 and train station CFS121 seems appropriate

Object

Representation ID: 37660

Received: 04/08/2021

Respondent: Miss Nicola Wheeler

No, there are already flats and houses popping up all over the place and in most instantises were there was one property at least 4 or more are being put on the same piece of land so I don't think we need any more development in Rayleigh unless you are going to provide more green and open spaces

Object

Representation ID: 37677

Received: 05/08/2021

Respondent: Mrs Shirley Page

The lack of infrastructure and services means that no areas are appropriate for development.

Object

Representation ID: 37725

Received: 07/08/2021

Respondent: Mr simon werrett

in relation to CFS134, 37 and 59. The local infrastructure and roads would not support the building of further housing. There is a single track road and the increase in traffic would ruin the road surface, reduce the living standards of residents. The road is also used by pedestrians to access the woods/fields at the bottom - there is currently no pavements so increased traffic would increase risk of accidents. the 20 speed limit is not enforced by RDC and increased traffic would need constantan enforcement - can RDC provide that?

Comment

Representation ID: 37728

Received: 07/08/2021

Respondent: Ms Laura Campbell

Only those areas that are brown sites & derelict industrial areas should be considered. Green spaces & green belt should be sacrosanct for the welfare of both the wildlife & the population.

Comment

Representation ID: 37733

Received: 07/08/2021

Respondent: Wellington Road Action Group

I think Rayleigh has had enough development and does not need anymore.

Object

Representation ID: 37742

Received: 07/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Mark Lewis

Not on gren open spaces
Where will you be moving the tip to?

Comment

Representation ID: 37802

Received: 09/08/2021

Respondent: Mrs Jane Bragg

Areas to west of rayleigh by Wolsley Park development, where pooling of Wickford development can be used to meet growth target to release infrastructure funding. Areas in Great Wakering, Canewdon. Hullbridge need developing as this will alleviate pressure on Rayleigh to meet the housing requirement. Rayleigh already too densely populated.

Comment

Representation ID: 37882

Received: 12/08/2021

Respondent: Mr robert tape

If anywhere then Brown Field sites

Comment

Representation ID: 37942

Received: 15/08/2021

Respondent: Mrs Suzanne Hill

The only areas that would be considered for re development are areas that have already got old buildings on that have previously had dwellings or factories . Please leave what is left of our open spaces.

Object

Representation ID: 38054

Received: 22/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Stuart Jones

No, as stated before I think Rayleigh is busy enough as it is! Why can't the government choose to build a new town in a completely different area.

Comment

Representation ID: 38084

Received: 23/08/2021

Respondent: Hamlin Estates

Agent: mr charles robinson

Land to the south of Eastwood Road represents an opportunity to accommodate much needed residential and elderly persons development with minimal impact upon the form and function of the greenbelt. Development has already extended up to the A127 to the west - which represents a natural and strong boundary. Site CFS044, particularly the northern part of that site, would represent a natural extension to existing built form at South View Close with no significant impact upon the form and function of the greenbelt.

Object

Representation ID: 38143

Received: 25/08/2021

Respondent: Mrs

There are no areas left in Rayleigh that are appropriate for development. The town is already suffering from over-development, especially over the recent years. Existing residents are already struggling to access the town's services. Traffic levels are unacceptably high with the consequent adverse impact on movement in and out of the area and on air quality and public health.

Object

Representation ID: 38223

Received: 26/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Nicholas Kynicos

I generally object to the proposals for all sites. Within the primary and secondary schools as well as the road infrastructure there is simply not the capacity to absorb the level of development being proposed. There also isn't the capacity within the local health care systems to cope (surgeries and hospitals). The proposals are simply not realistic or sustainable.

Object

Representation ID: 38272

Received: 30/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Duncan Robertson

I don’t think there are any areas in Rayleigh that are appropriate for large housing developments, the infrastructure won’t be able to cope with the added influx of people and cars, it can’t now. Do any of these proposed developments include additional doctors surgeries,schools and social services ( I very much doubt it )
Have any of you tried to get a doctors appointment in Rayleigh ! !

Support

Representation ID: 38332

Received: 31/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Neil Gordon

Perhaps area CFS121, as this is away from current blocks of housing and adjacent to a good road, the A127.

Support

Representation ID: 38337

Received: 01/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Stephen Bertram

Ref Numbers
Cfs027 Cfs098 Cfs086 csf029 cfs053
We strongly object to this proposed development. Rayleigh is already grid locked with traffic on the surrounding roads in this area. This is our precious green belt land, other ways should be found to achieve the plan. Particularly to the west of rayliegh where there is more access to the main road and rail network.

Object

Representation ID: 38366

Received: 01/09/2021

Respondent: Mr C Thackeray

NO

Object

Representation ID: 38373

Received: 01/09/2021

Respondent: Mr chris ward

Rayleigh is a small town & by building more houses will only mean more people, more cars, more children in schools, and we don't have schools being built, or more GP's, also the volume of traffic. regarding CFSO53 Wellington Road, you can wait up to 3 to 4 minutes to get into Hockley road now, you plan to build over 300 homes on this site that is a minimum of 600 cars if half of them come through wellington road, the waiting time to travel will extend and also the pollution

Comment

Representation ID: 38424

Received: 02/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Vilma Wilson

None that have a historic or community interest such as COL 7 and 20

Object

Representation ID: 38452

Received: 03/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Andrew Mallett

Loss of green belt land, further encroachment on ancient woodland, loss of public amenity, increase in traffic leading to further traffic issues on Hockley Road, loss of air quality, encroachment on possible regional park (all farmland currently existing between Hockley Woods, Grove Woods and Rayleigh should be included in Upper Roach Valley regional park to prevent urban sprawl joining Rayleigh and Hockley to Eastwood.

Support

Representation ID: 38455

Received: 03/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Andrew Mallett

Sites along London Road and Rawreth Lane. Less effect on traffic in Rayleigh and Hockley. Easier access to A127/A130.

Comment

Representation ID: 38489

Received: 04/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Frances Briant

Land east of Hooley Drive, Rayleigh is all Plot Land and useless for anything other than for building.

Comment

Representation ID: 38508

Received: 05/09/2021

Respondent: Mr David Livermore

The proposed development to the North of Great Wheatley Road (CFS077) with access from Poyntens, as well as into Great Wheatley Road itself, is preposterous. The added weight of traffic would destroy this end of Rayleigh and add to the already desperately poor air quality. In particular, this would mean the destruction of woodland immediately backing on to the properties of Great Wheatley and the associated devastation to natural habitats for wildlife. This must be rejected and will be vehemently opposed.

Comment

Representation ID: 38515

Received: 05/09/2021

Respondent: Mr P Davey

No- the issue is not with which land should be developed on, but is more a case of the effects of construction and consequences of more people living/driving around Rayleigh. Until local infrastructure is improved, no area nearby is suitable.