Q56d. Are there areas that require protecting from development?

Having reviewed (briefly) the proposals within the Local Plan, I consider that the only viable option to achieve a major expansion of housing stock is to create a new ‘village’ in the east of the Rochford district. This could be served by new road (and possibly light-rail) infrastructure with all relevant services and amenities provided locally.

To further develop the already congested areas within the Rayleigh area would be an unmitigated disaster. Many of the roads already become grid-locked at times with excess traffic, much of which is simply passing through the town, and these volumes would be significantly reduced by a new northern approach road to the new ‘village’ encompassing access to Hockley, Hawkwell, Hullbridge, Ashingdon, Rochford etc. along its route.

To remove the scant protection of the existing Green Belt across multiple areas of the town would be pure community vandalism and destroy the lifestyle of thousands of existing residents. In particular, the area closest to my property (reference CFS087) cannot surely be sensibly proposed for housing as there is no reasonable access from there to any of the main roads without swamping the existing estates, creating a road safety nightmare and further gridlock.

I sincerely hope that good sense will prevail and a completely new environment can be created to satisfy the housing needs as set out.

Plans for housing development behind Nelson Road
This development will have a great impact on our green belt . I have lived in Nelson road for 21 years, and it is a pleasure to sit in the garden and hear the birds sing and see the wildlife, we also often see the horse riders go by, pleasure to see. It will also increase the amount of traffic that will go by in Nelson road. Hoping you will take notice of residents feelings.

Promoted Site CFS053
Having looked at your interactive map regarding the above proposed plans for over 300 new homes, I feel there are a few issues that should be seriously considered if there is any local council regard to the well being of their constituents.

The damage to the local wildlife will be enormous as will the impact on the general environment. The increased flow of traffic will surely impact the clean air levels and roads, which are in a pretty poor state already and are likely to get worse - barely a road in Rayleigh is not blighted by potholes!

In these times when the world is trying to save the planet, and the worlds leaders meet to discuss global warming, Rayleigh and surrounding areas seem intent on building on every spare piece of green space.

I appreciate that more housing is needed but without the infrastructure ie schools, GP Surgeries etc I wonder if Rayleigh is best placed to accommodate such levels of construction.

Please find below our objections to the proposed developments in the Rochford local plan given the level of already occurring development and primarily based on the following three criteria:

• Ecological
• Green Belt
• Rayleigh infrastructure and road network
Ecological
With the current ecological position of the world It would be madness to further develop the agricultural and green belt land in the area, for example the three fields lying alongside Nelson Road, Bull Lane, Napier Road and Albert Road, which are near to where we live in Rayleigh; however looking at the wider map this also goes for the land in the Sutton and Shopland Road area adjacent the Southend boundary, this is also of interest us because we have property we let out in the Prittlewell area.

I am fully aware of the current ecological position of the world, which is being ably highlighted by professional people like Chris Packham, Monty Don and the recent Honeybee and pollinators awareness campaign on Radio 2. This is by no means exhaustive and is also being flagged-up by many others in similar positions.

It’s totally against the needs of nature to develop more farm and meadow land as we are constantly being told by the like of the above people that the world dearly needs this environment.

With the recent problems, a sustainable supply of home-grown food is becoming ever more important so to lose farmland will only make this situation worse.

Green Belt
In the 1930’s it was deemed necessary to create green belt land in order to stop urban sprawl, and this came into action in the mid-1950’s. The further erosion of this belt will go against the original plan as set out in the 1930’s.

It’s a case of where will it end, with the gradual erosion of one field or meadow now, and then another next time, and another etc., etc., and eventually the green belt will have been completely eroded and urban sprawl will have occurred i.e., Between Rayleigh and Hockley, and also between Rochford and Shopland and the neighbouring Prittlewell area of Southend. Sadly, the development of green belt, farm and meadowland is seen as a cheap and easy option for the developers.

Rayleigh infrastructure and road network
The Rayleigh infrastructure is already overloaded with grid lock in the town plus the schools are at capacity and oversubscribed, as are doctor surgeries and such like. We are already overpopulated in this area of the Southeast and adding to it is just sheer madness. This is without the impact of the completion from the current developments occurring in the area, so adding to those will simply push it over the edge so to speak!

Summary
To sum up its complete and utter madness to develop the area as laid out in the plan. I fully understand this is a directive from central government, but the time has come for the local people and council to say to central government “NO MORE” and do what is right for both the local area and the world! Despite all the rhetoric the priority here is building houses and not protecting the environment. I would like to think my Grandchildren will be able to play and walk in the neighbouring fields and meadows as I did as child.

Response to Spatial Options Consultation 2021
Q.56 (d) Ref areas: CFS027 (Land north of Bull Lane, Rayleigh) CFS029 (land at Turrett Farm, Napier Road, Rayleigh)

I strongly oppose any proposed housing plans to areas CFS029 & CFS027 for the following reasons;

Primarily, any development on these sites will present a critical water drainage risk. There have been severe flooding issues in this area in the past as a significant amount of water flows down from the elevated farmer's fields situated behind the proposed development zones. Local residents are already required to personally maintain a drainage ditch running alongside CFS027 and this agricultural field acts as a natural water saturation area. If this area were to be developed upon, surface run off water will exacerbate existing water drainage issues and will likely lead to further flooding.
Secondly, if the proposed development in CFS029 were to go ahead, the road extension towards the top of Albert Road and would create a number of 'rat runs' for road traffic coming down Hockley Road, looking to circumvent Rayleigh Town. The road layout in Albert Road is not designed to act as a thoroughfare, with parked cars on both sides of the road this will lead to congestion and I also believe would prove to be dangerous for children and families nearby.
A further key point for consideration is the Green Belt Harm and the damaging effect this will have on the local habitat. These areas act as a crucial buffer for local wildlife between Rayleigh and Hockley woods and provide an effective 'air lung' in this locality, promoting improved air quality.
Finally, with reference to the significant housing development already underway in Rayleigh, I do not believe the necessary infrastructure is being put in place to support the increased traffic, schooling and healthcare requirements for residents.

CFS098/086/053/029 & 027
With reference to the above, I would like to give you my thoughts on the possible development of housing on green belt in Rayleigh and Hockley Woods.
My first reaction to this proposal was shock, followed by horror, and deep sadness that this should even be considered. I have lived in Rayleigh for 35 years. The same house in fact. Brought up our two children with my husband. We’d always thought how lucky we are to live in a town and yet in semi-rural surroundings. Over the last 5-10 years we have seen continued numbers of houses being built and now possibly on green belt land. Please no!!! There is no more infrastructure. Long before COVID was upon us, it has been very difficult to get a doctors appointment, parking spaces and no doubt difficult for children to obtain places in the surrounding schools. Not to mention the extra workload on our local NHS should there be even more people inhabiting the Rayleigh area. The increased loss of our urban natural areas is of great concern to me and many people I know. We use our local open fields and woods regularly and feel our sanctuary and many others would be affected as would the wildlife and natural habitat. This why I object to these planning proposals.

Urban extension in Rayleigh - local plan 2021

As a resident in Daws Heath Rayleigh SS6 7QJ the impact of traffic at the recycling centre in Rayleigh is already at breaking point, blocking local roads and private drives, have you considered the negative impact this will have for these residents if 10,800 new homes are built in the district?
The site is not fit for purpose already, let alone with a further possible 10,800 cars using the site
This can no longer be swept under the carpet a positive solution must be found before Rayleigh is gridlocked permanently.

Development of Rayleigh
I writing to express my views on the future development of Rayleigh and surrounding areas.
I have lived and worked locally for many years and during this time Rayleigh has changed beyond recognition .
I grew up at the Rawreth end of Rayleigh surrounded by green fields and open spaces . Most of this land is now developed or being developed . However there is no infrastructure to support this . A ten minute journey in peak times can now take forty minutes , there are insufficient doctors, dentists and schools to look after everyone . Some of the new builds are built on flood plains which will cause problems at the bottom end of Rayleigh.
I now live at the other side of Rayleigh and note that all the green spaces remaining near me are earmarked for further development. There is no infrastructure this side either .
We loved Rayleigh as a traditional market town but the amenities such as The Mill Hall , woodlands , open spaces are being taken away . Our borders have merged with Eastwood , Hockley, Hullbridge and Wickford . We are in danger of becoming a concrete jungle . There are other areas that could be developed a little further afield but cramming a new estate onto farm land or the plot of an old established house is not the way we wish to see Rayleigh and surrounding areas developed .
Please register that my husband and I are very much against the future plans .

Plans for the proposed new housing in the Hullbridge Rayleigh and Rochford areas.
We are horrified to hear of all the new housing designated for this area. As receivers of in excess of 500 new houses currently being built in Hullbridge and having to suffer the consequences of this building scheme we are horrified to hear of the further number being designated not only for us but also the outrageous quantity for our neighbouring towns.

Our infrastructure cannot take this!

Roads ,which are under stress at the normal time but in the frequent event of road works ,any repair works and improvements? The area comes to a standstill.

Hospital and health care which is under pressure and Covid has added to is going to take at least 5 years plus to get under control.

Our green spaces are disappearing fast farms and spaces for our horses to be stabled going.

Leisure facilities for our children and older residents and families are going fast.

The environment and habitats for wildlife is under serious threat. It seems our priorities are for ourselves only and we do not know how the disappearance of species will affect lives in the future

This is the turning point for our planet do not pay lip service to our problems we are the ones who will be judged in the future. You are supposed to be OUR representatives and OUR VOICES

To try and halt the destruction of our planet.

It seems we are trying to make things better with the pollution on things we have. or things we do but you are not considering the impact that all these house s which are

Adding at least 2 new cars and at least doubling the number of people to all of the above . It fills me with dread for mine and other families as to how their lives will be in years to come.

Education in this are is stretched and I wonder how it will cope with the extra children joining the system. New schools will have to be built with the extra cars as the parents take them to school.

| AM SURE I COULD LIST MANY MORE THOUGHTS AND OBJECTIONS BUT AT THE MOMENT IAM TOO UPSET AT THE THOUGHT OF SUCH FEW VOICES ARE SPEAKING FOR SO MANY OF US .(AS WINSTON CHURCHILL WOULD HAVE SAID)

Mill Hall and Surrounding Site Developments Rayleigh
I am emailing to express my opposition to the current plans for demolition of The Mill Hall and building of flats on the current site.

As a theatre actress I am appalled by the lack of regard for creative arts in our area. The plans for the new community centre are quite frankly laughable and completely insufficient for a town and population the size of Rayleigh.

Rayleigh needs a venue to bring the community together. If run properly it would bring so much to our local economy and high street: Comedy Nights, Scratch Nights, Open Mic, Wrestling Matches, Pantomime, Flower Shows, Music Concerts including Rayleigh Brass. These all draw big audiences which then spend money in the shops and restaurants of our struggling high street. It is shortsighted to not see this. No one is denying that the mill hall needs renovation and investment- the council have willingly allowed it to fall into disrepair.

Further on from this, to build flats a stones throw (literally) from Rayleigh Mill is just disgusting. It is Rayleigh’s defining symbol and to be overshadowed by flats is such a horrible thought. Removing further parking spaces in Rayleigh to facilitate this development and that of the civic centre is also just ludicrous in a rapidly growing town.
Our town cannot take any more housing. We do not have the infrastructure to support it.

Please stop these plans now.

Objections to COL7 Mill Hall site
I understand that through this Email, I can officially register my objects to the potential changes to the Mill House site published within the Spatial Options Documentation.

I very strongly object to the option that the current Mill Hall building is to be demolished and replaced with a smaller community hall and the erection of flats on the site.

I have been involved in residents ‘Save the Mill Hall’ activity and I am really disappointed that this proposal is still a possibility.

I have made my concerns know in writing to local councillors and our MP, but it seems that the RDC are still trying to force this plan through.

I have two comments on the local plan:

1. Options 2a and 2b. The proposed development in and around Rayleigh is far in excess of what the town can cope with. The roads and infrastructure are already incapable of dealing with the existing demands. Any new major building will overwhelm the area. Demand for new housing should be allocated to the east of the council area, and Options 3a and 3b give a much better solution close to Fossets Way, away from existing towns.

2. Page 28 Col 7. The Mill Hall is an essential facility for a town the size of Rayleigh. The proposal to demolish it and release the land for building flats is opposed. This will destroy the appearance of the conservation area and is to the detriment of Rayleigh Town centre. The proposed smaller replacement for the Mill Hall is totally inadequate for the type of function that Rayleigh residents want to take place.

I wish to register my objections regarding sites on the spatial options plan.
I strongly object to the Mill Hall site code number COL7, and also COL20 - Rayleigh Civic Suite they are both Conservation Areas in the heart of Rayleigh and it's shameful that the Council would even consider building here. How dare anyone choose to rip the heart out of a community. These are valuable historic sites, that belong to us all, they are not for the use of property developers wishing to destroy our heritage. Rayleigh has had enough over the past few years and still you wish to destroy it even more.
We have no infrastructure, the High Street and Websters Way are are almost permanently jammed with traffic, all of which is causing environmental damage, that's without the damage caused to peoples lives by incessant building in area's not capable of sustaining it.
This cannot be allowed to go through. Enough is enough.

I wish to register objections to your proposals for the Mill Hall site (Col 7) on the basis that the proposed development results in both a shocking degradation of a historical conservation area and also results in the loss of unique cultural facilities.

Who on earth came up with such a plan in the name of the residents of Rayleigh ?

Spatial Options - objection to proposed sites in order CFS053,CFS086,CFS098,CFS029
• The impact on the integrity of the designated wildlife area adjacent to Napier road through : - CFS086 , CFS098
1. Site development through increased heavy vehicle traffic.
2. Site development use of environmental damaging materials
3. Site post development - traffic pollution , household waste , increased general litter
4. Site post development - household cats and dogs
5. Site post development - increased use of human impact by area being nearest green space for use or as a cut through.
• The area on the Spatial Options Map below the designated wildlife area to the Bridle Path is not maintained and shares the same characteristics as the designated wildlife area , and therefore would require significant investment to survey and develop into a recreational space.
• Any development of above said area would also be met with objections on an environmental loss basis.
• Removes the natural border between Rayleigh and Hockley leading to the merging of both towns along the Hockley Road - CFS053 , CFS086
Infrastructure
• Roads access - Napier Road onto Nelson Road currently single track and widening limited by current housing and designated wildlife area - CFS086 , CFS098
• Road access - Wellington Road leading onto Hockley Road - already sensitive to delays - increased traffic use onto Hockley Road increasing accident risk due to Wellington Road exit onto a hill - CFS053
• Road access onto Albert Close leading onto the Bull Lane - already a congested area with parked cars , loss of current horse paddock to create road access CF5029

Social
• Multi year development with further local disruptions in addition to those we having already been living with.
• My conservative estimate 300+ houses , 800 new residents would create increased pressures on already oversubscribed Primary Schools namely Edward Francis and Grovewood
• My conservative estimate 300+ houses , 800 new residents would create increased pressures on already oversubscribed Senior School namely Fitzwimarc
• The full effect of the Bullwood Hall and Hockley Road developments are still to be felt on Schools as their developments are multi year and ongoing.
• Conservative estimate of 800 new residents would increase pressure on the few local facilities , Fairview Park for instance which already has increased usage and unfortunately already suffers from increasing numbers of incidents of anti social behaviour.
• Increased traffic congestion with my conservative estimate of 500 vehicles in the local area leading to increased pollution , and traffic incident risk in the schools vicinity.

I look forwards to future communications on the next stages of the consultation , and that the decision making process is fully transparent for good governance.

I would like to comment on the potential to build at the bottom of Wellington Road, Rayleigh.

First though I would like to comment on the over complex nature of the consultation: I am 100% sure that requiring someone to answer the number of questions you have included in your consultation process will persuade a large proportion of people not to bother. Not only because the questions ask for opinions on matters the person might not care about but the length of the process also acts as a deterrent to completion. These reasons are in fact why I have chosen to email rather than complete the online forms. I might also mention that artranging the face to face consultations during the working day is also divisive! In case your response is that people can email like I have, the option to email is at the end of the extremely long web page, just to give an idea how long it is I have copied it below - see if you can be bothered to read it all and get to the bottom! I don't know if it is true but it really looks like you are trying to limit the number of people who respond, or it is simply a very poor consultation portal.

Secondly I would like your response to a statement and a couple of questions. I am sure that almost all the people who respond to your consultation will be objecting to the change in their environment, as I am. The change in the view from the house, traffic on the street, impact on infrastructure (schools, doctors, dentists, opticians, clubs etc.) are all negative; there is no positive for residents.
1. Why is there not an alternative solution of building a new conurbation away from existing residential buildings? This alternative solution would be funded privately and so have no costs for local residents or the council.
2. If all the responses to your plan are negative what will you do? I ask because the purpose of consultation should be to be cognisant of the views of those who respond and changing plans to better fit their views (after all we are the public that the council serves - not the other way around); and if you intend to go ahead anyway it seems that the process is pointless.

Finally to Wellington Road and the land at the end of the road. The road would become an access road and is not wide enough to manage 2 way traffic. If you include the number of houses suggested at the bottom of the road it will become a cut through like Nelson Road and be congested. I know then the council will look for solutions like limited parking; which in turn will mean that all the houses in the street will have problems parking vehicles and particularly when they have visitors. I will add that changing our dead end road to a cut-through will impact on every resident adversely - we have a safe and excellent community which will be decimated by the intrusion of constant traffic, please don't do that to us.

Objection CFS027 CFS098 CFS086 CFS029 CFS053
I wish to object to the building of new houses on fields ref CFS027 CFS098 CFS086 CFS029 CFS053.

Rayleigh cannot cope with any more houses. There is too much traffic, many people struggle to get a doctors and dentist appointment and the schools have a lack of spaces.

Building on fields is ruining the environment and more houses and cars means more pollution in this area. The wildlife need this area too.

Feedback on Spatial Options ref CFS 027, 029, 053, 086, 098
We disagree strongly with the potential plans for Rayleigh housing developments, in particular those listed above, namely:

CFS 027, 029, 053, 086, 098.

We say ‘No More Development’.

The main reason is the impact on the road traffic situation which, as you know, is already in a dreadful state. Rayleigh is often in a gridlock situation with motorists either queuing in traffic jams or increasingly finding and using ‘Rat Runs’ like our road – Victoria Road, to the detriment of local residents, not least their families’ safety.
We have looked at your ‘Spatial Options’ and are confused by a couple of things on the ‘Site Assessment Proformas’:
- Why is there no category for the impact on the traffic situation?
- What does Level 2 mean on the ‘Potential Plan Strategy Option’?

I was very alarmed to read the notice of possibly over 300 houses being built in Rayleigh.

Ref numbers CFSO27, 98, 86 & 53.

When people are being advised to get out and exercise in the great outdoors why does the Council even considering building on our green open spaces.

This land has a P.R.O.W on it which is used by lots of people walking, riding & biking. These are all activities to help wellbeing of body & mind which is so very good for us.

These fields are away from houses & roads which is the ideal place to relax. Who wants to use a concrete path through a housing estate.

These fields are used for agriculture to grow crops. When we have food on our doorstep why build on it & bring grain etc from other places in the country clocking up lots of road miles.

I know that homes have to be built but surely not on fields that are such a haven for wildlife & recreation

I hope you will consider all these factors before making your decision.

Opposition to spatial options plans
I am emailing to express my strong opposition to the proposals to build yet more housing in Rayleigh and Rochford district more widely. I am very concerned for the following reasons.

1. The severe impact on the road network. Rayleigh suffers from bad traffic with the existing housing and there are currently just under 1000 more homes already being built in Rayleigh West. The road infrastructure is incredibly vulnerable to any disruption caused by for example utility repairs. A road closure or installation of temporary traffic lights brings the entire town to a standstill resulting in children not getting to school on time, carers not getting to their vulnerable clients and emergency services struggling to respond, not to mention the lost hours for businesses and individuals. The entire A127 corridor has grown so rapidly in the past 15 years that it has reached saturation point. I personally have regularly experienced days where it is impossible to get anywhere in a timely manner. This has an impact on my mental health and physical health as it erodes any leisure time I might otherwise have. I hear that businesses have declined basing themselves in this region due to the unreliable journey times. I fear that if the local authorities don’t sound the alarms at full volume to central government and refuse to meet the targets for housing that this region will end up a deprived, undesirable place to live where people and businesses are unable to function successfully due to the complete inability of the current road infrastructure to cope with the immense demands all this housing puts on it. If people can’t travel they can’t access work, essential services or businesses. There are already days when a 20 mile journey takes over 2 hours, it should take 35 minutes.

Rayleigh suffers particularly badly as a town from severe traffic problems, there aren’t any strategic roads in or out.

No more housing in this area without a billion pound road building project to overcome all the problems identified above.

Rayleigh west is not accessible by public transport and is too far for most people to walk to the town centre and station, this means lots more journeys by car.

2. I’m opposed to the plans for more housing in Rayleigh because the town lacks essential services, school places, doctor surgeries, NHS dentists etc. We don’t have a public swimming pool or a cinema. This part of the country suffers from the longest hospital waiting times anywhere. No more housing without all the key services.

3. I believe we are in a climate emergency and this government is committed to the environment and green policies. How does building on green belt land in Rochford match up with this rhetoric. I’m opposed to building on green field sites as these are habitat for wildlife and essential sponges to absorb water, key in these climate change times. Once green land is lost it is lost forever. More housing means more boilers, more pollution, how can we meet our climate change emission goals by building all these houses. Green space is essential to good mental health and clean air. Things that Rayleigh is sadly losing.

Thanks for your consideration of the above points.

I wish to make the following comments.

Rayleigh has had a disproportionate amount of development already. This has resulted in increased traffic congestion and high levels of air pollution in Rayleigh. Option 2A and 2B exacerbate these problems.

I accept Rochford Council has to meet Government targets so would favour Option 3A and 3B , a new garden village close to Fossets Way.It would deliver the housing without worsening existing traffic congestion and air pollution caused by overdevelopment of Rayleigh.

I am opposed to the demolition of the Mill Hall to build flats and a smaller hall. Flats are not in keeping with the area. Also Rayleigh has already absorbed a lot of housing development with very little spent on amenities. The Mill Hall is an important asset and prior to it becoming a vaccination centre and Covid it was used for exercise classes, craft fairs, weddings, parties, Rayleigh Operatic and Dramatic Society productions, concerts and more. A smaller hall would not be suitable. In the light of all the new housing currently being built in Rayleigh there is likely to be an even greater need for the Mill Hall.

I strongly object to any more building in this area (Hockley, Hawkwell, Ashingdon, Rochford, Hullbridge, Rayleigh).
In the UK there are over 600,000 (six hundred thousand) empty unused buildings. Why do councils not concentrate on bringing some of these buildings back into use.
My objections are probably the same as everyone else. Schools, doctors, hospital, wildlife, open spaces (small areas of green don’t count), large supermarket, roads, infrastructure, congestion etc.
Over 99% of meadows have been lost since the end of WW2. How can the council even consider building on land off of Greensward Lane (and other sites) some of the last remaining meadows around. A breathing space for people and animals.
Rochford mustn’t become like Westcliff, Leigh etc where there is no countryside.

CFS053 Land South of 38 and 39 Wellington Road, Rayleigh
CFS098 Land North of Napier Road, Rayleigh
CFS027 Land North of Bull Lane, Rayleigh
CFS086 Land between Rivendell & Brookside, Napier Road, Rayleigh
CFS029 Land at Turrett Farm, Napier Road, Rayleigh
This is green belt land and considering there has been so much development of this type of land in and around the Rayleigh district this would cause further damage to the countryside. The area in question is the home to lots of wildlife, including birds, insects, foxes, badgers and hedgehogs and the removal of this greenbelt land would leave these animals with no habitat to live or feed.
I understand that a previous planning application was declined on this area of land by Rochford District Council back in 1988 (reference ROC/177/88) and also on another small plot nearby, down Napier Road in 2016 (application no: 16/00375/OUT). Both of which were refused on similar grounds that the land was greenbelt and also due to insufficient visibility, insufficient infrastructure in the surrounding area and having a detrimental effect to wildlife and local amenities. In addition, sewage embargo and it would be contrary to the existing character of the area. This has not changed so the latest planning application should be rejected on similar grounds.
The land behind Nelson Road is used by the local farmer to grow crops, so development on this land would also have detrimental impact on the farming community in the area.
People in this area need green spaces to walk and look out onto as this has been proven to assist people's mental health, removing these green spaces could impact not only those who live in the properties overlooking this land, but also those who take regular walks across the land, which is particularly popular with dog walkers.
Access to the area of land would be via residential roads, which are not designed for heavy duty construction vehicles and are already very busy especially during peak times of day with traffic and parked cars. In recent years, just small developments within the area e.g. house extensions have caused major disruption to the roads. Some of these roads are used for access to the local schools so are busy with children and this additional traffic could be extremely dangerous to them.
Rayleigh is already a very congested town with long queues entering and leaving the town along all major routes. Adding additional housing will only make this issue worse, especially as there is already a large development being constructed in London Road and at both ends of Rawreth Lane, all of which will create traffic generation in itself.
Developing on this proposed area of land would adversely affect the character and appearance of the area to the detriment of visual amenity should the housing development be built on green belt and farm land which forms part of the wider open countryside which is largely undeveloped. This development would be both detrimental to people and wildlife and cause additional strain on already outstretched amenities.
This countryside (green belt land) should remain undeveloped to also act as a buffer between the separate communities of Rayleigh and Hockley.

I’m writing in reference to the planning application submitted for a potential housing development on land between Wellington Road and Bull Lane, which includes land behind Nelson Road, Albert Road and off the top of Bull Lane.
References:
CFS053 Land South of 38 and 39 Wellington Road, Rayleigh
CFS098 Land North of Napier Road, Rayleigh
CFS027 Land North of Bull Lane, Rayleigh
CFS086 Land between Rivendell & Brookside, Napier Road, Rayleigh
CFS029 Land at Turrett Farm, Napier Road, Rayleigh
It is my understanding that a planning application was previously submitted back in 1988 (reference ROC/177/88) in respect of the same area of land and this was refused due to excessive development of metropolitan green belt, insufficient visibility, sewage embargo, detriment to wildlife and local amenities and was contrary to existing character of the area.
In addition to this, I believe a planning application was also submitted for a small plot of land in Napier Road, which is a similar location to the land in question, and this application was also refused for similar reasons back in 2016 (application no: 16/00375/OUT).
There seems to be no reason that the refusal of the above-mentioned planning applications has altered and should therefore remain the reason to reject the most recent application. If anything, the detriment is stronger now due to the development of other existing green belt already in the area. Unless there is evidence to show that this detriment to wildlife and local amenities has altered.
All access to these plots of land would be via small residential streets, which already struggle with congestion from the day-to-day traffic, domestic deliveries and parked cars, let alone construction vehicles, workforce and tradesmen’s traffic and additional cars once the properties have been built.
The current road network has not been updated in this area for many years and struggles to cope with the already excessive traffic.

CSF 164
CFS 148
CFS 147
CFS 146
CFS 121

I Would like to strongly object to the proposed above site development reference plans listed above.

I have lived in Rayleigh 15 years and in that time the number of new houses that have been, and are still being built is ridiculous and must be way above the national average and the town cannot cope.
The traffic must have doubled in this time, and the infrastructure is way insufficient.
Also the proposed redevelopment around mill Hall, including possible demolition, which my wife and many others use regularly is a joke.
I would like to know how many of the councillors sitting in Rochford actually live in or close to Rayleigh? Probably hardly any..
Enough is enough..please leave the town alone.

I would like to voice my opinion on the new plans to build housing within Rochford Council specifically Rayleigh.
At the current time if you tried to drive through Rayleigh are certain times of the day such as three 5:30 8 o’clock in the morning it is impossible to not hit traffic there is so much traffic and so many cars up both sides of the hill by the train station and coming Back ontothe A127. As it is proposed to change some of our greenbelt but also just create new housing in Rayleigh even if this is 100 houses that means roughly around 150 to 200 cars on the street around Rayleigh the infrastructure will not be able to take this and it’ll become a tough place to live.
We don’t want our town taken over by flats housing and traffic we want to be able to enjoy our town as residents. I opposed to the decision within the next five years of building any new housing on top of the rawreth Estate already coming in.

I wish to object to the proposed housing developments reference CFS164, CFS148, CFS147, CFS146 & CFS121 on the grounds of pollution, over crowding, lack of infrastructure which the council will provide, traffic and the general well being of the community. There has been significant developments in Rayleigh recently and traffic and pollution have increased dramatically over the past 10 years however the council have provided no new services. Indeed the council are taking away a vital service of the Mill Arts & Events Centre to build a further development!

I understand that people want to move to this town however by building more and more houses the council are destroying the character and we are turning into London urban sprawl. I urge you to reconsider and please do not ruin this lovely town and cause flooding due to lack of green belt, further pollution our children breath in and over crowd of the schools.

I wish to give my views as a resident of many years - and hopefully many to come.

Rochford, and particularly Rayleigh where I live, is already overcrowded for the infrastructure - that is a fact.

The roads in and out of Rayleigh are already over capacity. When just one of the main routes in/ out of Rayleigh is disturbed, by for example roadworks, the whole town becomes gridlocked. This adds massively to air pollution, which is surely one the major issues that must be taken into account now and in the future.

Doctors are overwhelmed and, not just because of the Pandemic. The large Audley Mills practice for example has a queue (including many 70 year olds) early in the morning each day, trying to get an appointment.

Schools cannot cope with the places needed for pupils.

Option1 - No.
Will happen anyway to certain extent, but just adds to existing issues regarding gridlock on roads, lack of Doctors etc.
Option 2 - No.
Lazy option and same infrastructure issues as Option 1. Fact - Rayleigh cannot currently cope with traffic and doctors are overwhelmed. Plus, road congestion adds to pollution.
Option 3 - Yes.
Best option. Be bold and put all infrastructure in place so everyone benefits. Garden Village type development would surely be supported by Government.
Option 4 - No.
Take opportunity to do it right for current and future residents i.e. option 3

I wish to strongly object to the demolition and inclusion of Mill Hall Rayleigh, Essex site COL7 and the building of flats and houses in close proximity and adjacent to our 200 year old Grade 2 listed windmill which is also in a conservation area. This is used for weddings as indeed mine was. Future use will be compromised with the outdoor photos blighted with these new builds and loss of parking. Who is going to get married there?
I also object to Rayleigh Civic Site being lost locally especially as there are such beautiful rooms. You profess to be keen on reducing our carbon footprint yet seem intent on not only building significant numbers of flats and houses where the likely hood of truly affordable homes for our residents is highly unlikely. You are looking to demolish existing buildings with the wastage of raw materials. Priority should be given to ensure all empty homes are fully utilised first. Materials and land are finite. It seems to me Essex as a whole is taking more then their fare share amongst 27 counties in England.

Following delivery of a leaflet produced by the Liberal Democrats on Rochford C.C detailing your outline plan showing the areas which could be released for future development in our area. Quite frankly I was appalled to see the extent of what is planned for this area. We moved to Rayleigh twenty five years ago as it was unique in the area as having the look and feel of an old 'Ancient Market Town' as described by the town sign, but, in recent years, it has gone downhill dramatically. It has started to look scruffy with the added help of graffiti artists around the town. The traffic is becoming horrendous, with constant queues entering the town from all directions. We are not 'Nimbies' and we can accept the need for some sustainable housing developments but this is totally out of keeping with the area. Ten thousand dwellings in this area could potentially bring at best an extra 20,000 people plus associated vehicles, to an already congested area. How will it ever cope?

Also, whatever happened to the Tory promise of maintaining and protecting the Green Belt in this area? This amount of development will effectively remove Green Belt land from around our town stretching from the east - Southend/Eastwood up to Rawreth and Wickford to the west and north of the town plus to the Southend Arterial to the south of the town. What's next "London Borough of Rochford"?

Cynically perhaps, but I'm sure this consultation is just a public relations exercise (as was the west of Rayleigh Development scheme) and it's a 'Done Deal', but the Council should think on about the consequences of such actions before following the instructions from your masters in Westminster of perpetuating mass urbanisation and destroying what's left of our town and the environment. We are Tory voters, as are many people we know, and the only way we can probably fight this proposal is through the Ballot Box in future elections.