Q56d. Are there areas that require protecting from development?

SAVE MILL HALL

I want the area around Mill Hall to be kept. It has been essential for the infections against the present virus, and the only building in Rayleigh for wedding parties, theatre, exhibitions etc.

COL07 COL20

I do object to the site COL07 and COL20 being used for yet more housing. It is after all a conservation area and therefore remain so. Rayleigh is so congested with traffic nowadays that more houses will make it even worse and spoil our town.

There must be a limit on the number of houses a town can take - we are getting close to overload!

CFS059

We have been living in Eastwood since 1999 and back onto the proposed build area. We feel that building on this site would destroy all the natural habitat. We have seen many stoats, badgers, foxes and weasels.

Also, we are concerned about the extra traffic on our narrow roads. Gravel Road is already used as a rat-run. We have seen many near-miss accidents, especially during the school run.

20 HOUSES COULD SEE 40 EXTRA CARS, PLUS POLLUTION ON OUR ROADS.

THIS IS WHY WE STRONGLY OBJECT TO THE PROPOSAL.

[Please see individual representations to questions]

Ref:- COL07 & COL20

I though this was a conservation area, not for housing. Also, trees are an important part for climate change. The Council seems to want to destroy and take away all amenities.

My local residents will not bother to communicate with the Council because you don't listen.

I was always a Conservative, not anymore, even our local MP has not bothered to reply.

Or is it all to do with receiving more income, and not worry about the residents of Rayleigh.

COL07 COL20

Mill Hall would be missed by local community. I go to a keep fit class, Bazaars, comedy nights and salsa dancing. I have also hired a room for private function. My dad attends OAP club. Where will all this be held???
We need Mill Hall.

I strongly object to site COL07 & COL20 being redeveloped for residential use. These are valuable, community sites in the heart of the town and within the designated 'conservation area' and the loss of the green areas around them would be severely detrimental to the environment and aesthetic of the area. Totally unnecessary and against the wishes of the majority of Rayleigh residents.

Please leave the Mill hall, car park and green alone. Manage the Mill Hall better to encourage more groups to use it. It is totally fit for purpose and demolition is costly and unnecessary. Also, the Civic Suite and gardens. Rochford District Council has a duty to preserve and enhance our town under Section 71 of the Planning Act 1990. They also have a duty under Section 40 of Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 1986 to conserve and encourage biodiversity. Concreting over our very few garden areas is in direct contradiction of this Act.

Spatial Options Consultations - some objections to promoted development Site CFS059

We have recently noted the promoted development of 20 houses on this 0.58 hectare site at the south-east end of Sandhill Road and wish to make several points against allowing such a development to proceed.

1. The existing site access (which is the only genuinely conceivable access for this development) is rated using the scoring system on the Site assessment Proforma as 3. This seems fairly neutral but we are both of the opinion that this is a serious underestimate of the negative impact such a development would have on Sandhill Road. The cul de sac section of Sandhill Road, which would give access to any development, is private, narrow (especially at its south-east end adjacent to the site) and poorly lit. Sandhill Road and the Rochford district section of Eastwood Rise have no pavements so that vehicles and pedestrians share the carriageway. Emergency vehicles, dust carts, delivery lorries etc., frequently have difficulty reaching the far end of Sandhill road and further development would aggravate this problem.

2. The junction of this part of Sandhill Road with Eastwood Rise, which features an unusable mini roundabout, is already difficult for all and dangerous for some because of the narrowness of Sandhill Road and poor sight lines at the junction. This is especially true for pedestrians given their lack of separation from vehicles.

3. The building of the development would cause high levels of lorry traffic and we have strong doubts as to whether the standard of road metalling in this private road is high enough to prevent serious damage.

4. We see that the distance to the strategic road network (presumably at the junction of Eastwood Rise and Rayleigh Road in the Southend-on-Sea Unitary Authority area) is rated at 5 (best). This is obviously correct in a basic geographical sense - half a mile at most, but attention must be focussed on the already very congested nature of this junction. The south end of Eastwood Rise, in particular, is used for delivery vehicle and shoppers' parking and the parking of vehicles in the bay in the Rayleigh direction of Rayleigh Road obscures a clear view in a manner which is frequently dangerous. Heavy construction traffic turning into Eastwood Rise at this junction would be extremely dangerous as would the increased traffic from twenty houses after completion of the promoted development.

5. Traffic flows on the Rayleigh/Eastwood Road are already very high especially at the Progress Road junction, Jones's Corner and Rochford Corner. Increased congestion and accident risk on what is probably the main link between Rayleigh and Rochford would be unavoidable given the practical impossibility of improving this road.

6. A route along Gravel road, Wren Avenue, Green lane and Western Approaches is already being used as an alternative by drivers between Rayleigh and Southend and Rochford to avoid congestion on the Rayleigh Road. Gardens on Gravel Road are quite small and there is a lot of on-street parking so that traffic flow can be single lane over quite long distances. Heavier traffic on this road, which passes very close to two primary schools, would make it even more dangerous than it is now.

7. We also note that your assessment of the impact of this promoted development on Greenbelt land, landscape etc., is toward the worst end of your scale. This is already an overdeveloped area close to Edwards Hall park and Cherry Orchard Jubilee Park. We feel that housing development, and this also applies to some other promoted areas on your map, close to these valuable amenities would be to the great detriment of the whole area and detract from the beneficial and much valued aspects of these parks.

8. We understand that new housing is required, although at a national level there must be alternatives to cramming so much of it into the home counties. However our preference is for small number of larger developments (like that adjacent to Hall Road, Rochford) as with these the necessary road infrastructure and amenities such as schools, doctors' surgeries etc., can be provided. This, surely has to be preferable to a number of small 'fill in' estates like that being promoted for Sandhill Road.

As a resident of Great Wheatley Road, I object to zoning for development of CFS077 particularly and CFS121 and CSF087 because:-

1/ AIR QUALITY and carbon monoxide levels in our part of Rayleigh is already much worse than other areas.

2/ WILDLIFE THREAT to hunting grounds in the zones green belt of existing badgers, bats, owls and deer living in protected trees/ hedgerows. This should be considered for Wildlife Protection Status not destroyed.

3/ PHYSICAL & MENTAL HEALTH of existing residents (some with asthma) who have invested in this historic and traditional/ tranquil neighbourhood should not be disregarded.

4/ INFRASTRUCTURE is at maximum capacity this side of Rayleigh regarding traffic congestion. Cycling and walking is already dangerous on narrow and uneven pavements and roads invariably obstructed by parked vehicles.

Thank you for considering my objection.

Under this “spatial Options Consultation”

I wish to object to any zone changes to allow building development of the Green-Belt high quality arable farmland to the North of Great Wheatly Road. (CFS077 Address: Land to the north of Great Wheatley Road, Rayleigh) which has been promoted for development.
In the Green Belt Study of 2020 this Parcel of land has been given a “Strong” assessment under “Assist in Safeguarding the Countryside from Encroachment”
This is one of the few remaining pieces of higher-ground green belt in Rayleigh that is clear of development. In previous proposals it has been recognised that it would be inappropriate to develop this area. The West of Rayleigh is already a low-air-quality zone. Development of this area would exacerbate the problem while removing the crops that give this part of Rayleigh its lungs. The zone also includes some areas of woodland that is home to wildlife, with trees listed for preservation. Development of this parcel of land would block natural animal corridors.

Under the “High Level Heritage Assessment for Rochford District” the area was classified as “Moderate Adverse” – Potentially impacting the setting of the three designated buildings at Great Wheatley Farm.

Development of this area would also detract from the existing character.

Please help protect the character of our town by avoiding any re-designation of CFS077

I live at number [redacted] Spring Gardens, Rayleigh, SS6 7DQ and would like to comment upon the plan. I understand that I am a few hours late and apologise for this; I had wanted to provide my comments but got stuck in traffic for most of the afternoon in both the Southend and Rayleigh area. I hope you will accept my comments.

The plot that I wish to comment upon in particular is CFS077, Land to the north of Great Wheatley Road, Rayleigh. Number 47 Spring Gardens is situated on the corner of Spring Gardens and Poyntens which would be the access road for the plot.

1. (a) The first point I raise relates to the traffic, parked cars and narrow road access in this area. I attach photos showing 2 cars trying to drive in opposite directions just a few weeks ago, taken when I was out walking. This was actually a good day for parked cars when there weren’t that many around. The burgundy Fiesta in the picture had to reverse all the way back up the road to allow the other through. When there are many cars parked and also many cars trying to drive up and down the road (such as a school morning) this creates havoc. On some days it is almost impossible to leave my home in the car in any event, without adding (a) a construction site where articulated lorries will be driving up and down and needing access via Poyntens and then (b) a housing estate with potentially 263 houses where the majority of people will have at least 2 cars meaning an additional 526 cars to get in and out of Poyntens.

(b) This is also extremely dangerous as emergency vehicles would not stand a chance of being able to access anyone down our road in an emergency, potentially costing lives.

(c) Again very recently, there have been works being carried out at the top end of Spring Gardens where our part of the road meets the other part of Spring Gardens leading onto Love Lane. The road was closed but many cars chose to drive on the pavement to get through quicker. Works like this would create chaos with articulated lorries and the eventual additional 526 cars having to go down Love Lane instead and then up via Highmead.

(d) Further on the same point, when other works were carried out in the same place, the road was not shut but was so narrow that every car had to drive on the pavement to get round the corner. This would make a complete mess of the road and pavement if lorries are doing this.

(e) The pot holes in this area are terrible as it is and further works vehicles would render the road virtually undriveable given months of work and then the additional cars.

2. The second point I wish to address is in relation to wildlife. I attach photos of buzzards flying above our house and a woodpecker in our garden. We regularly have several slow worms and gold finches in our garden too and can provide photos if you’d like. Destroying their habitat to make room for houses will mean losing much of our wildlife in this area and is not something to be condoned.

3. There is then the general issue of lack of schools , doctors etc for a further 263 households of, likely, 4 people. It is virtually impossible to make an appointment at Audley Mills surgery which is where most people would register. To see a doctor one must walk up to the surgery at 6.30am to queue for opening at 7am when you can hope to get lucky and make an appointment. This leaves the poor unfortunate people with a sick child at home who are unable to get out to make the appointment with the worst chance of being able to secure that appointment. An already farcical situation would be made much worse unless more facilities are built immediately to cope with the influx of people.

4. A final point to make is the regular flooding of Poyntens. I do not know whether this is due to poor drainage or burst water mains (such as this week on Spring Gardens) but the prospect of flooding, works vehicles for the construction site, works vehicles to fix the flooding issue and a good deal of extra people and cars on a school morning is ridiculous.

I received a leaflet through our door from the Liberal Democrats on the issue of a garden village. I do not know a great deal about their plan but, on the face of it, this seems that it should be a consideration.

I could elaborate on all of these points but I am aware that I am already late in submitting my points and sincerely hope you will accept them.

[re all sites, but in particularly CFS098, 053 & 027]

I object in the strongest terms to ALL the proposals in your spatial plan.

There is insufficient infrastructure in existence to support the huge increase in housing that you suggest, even the housing that been built over the last few years, e.g. Hall Road area, which apparently included schooling, medical and shopping but was allowed to be built without any of them due to builders being allowed to get around not being made to include them. There was no improvement to road access either.

Our roads are already congested with grid lock often being achieved in and around our town centres. The condition of our road reflects their overusage.

Our doctors' surgeries and local hospitals are already over loaded, it is hugely difficult to get an appointment and our schools appear to be full.

There was a statement made in the past by Rochford council there you intended to keep a green buffer between Rochford's towns, now you appear to plan to build on green belt, regardless of what you designate it, and even on some of Hockley woods, again to the detriment of everyone's environment. ]]You seem intent on blindly following the government demands, which are now under review, and have no interest in improving the area to the benefit of your current residents without adding additional housing. Rochford council seems to have a mercenary and blinkered approach to residents, in spite of actually putting out this plan for public opinion.

With specific interest to myself and references CFS098, CFS053 and CFS027 you have wrongly designated this land as non-flooding which wrong. I live in Nelson Road and believe the source of the Prittle Brook to be between the ends of the gardens and the fields there. We back onto the field and we have slow worms in our gardens and any building works in those fields could damage their protected environment.

It is a shame that you have made the information available on line difficult to read, negotiate and understand even for those who are computer literate.

With respect to the plans for the Mill Hall, the actual construction of the building originally contravened the laws regarding ancient monuments and unless you actually knocked it all down to restore the site to what it was originally, prior to any building, then any new building would cause further damage to that ancient site.

[re all sites, but in particularly CFS098, 053 & 027]

I object in the strongest terms to ALL the proposals in your spatial plan.

There is insufficient infrastructure in existence to support the huge increase in housing that you suggest, even the housing that been built over the last few years, e.g. Hall Road area, which apparently included schooling, medical and shopping but was allowed to be built without any of them due to builders being allowed to get around not being made to include them. There was no improvement to road access either.

Our roads are already congested with grid lock often being achieved in and around our town centres. The condition of our road reflects their overusage.

Our doctors' surgeries and local hospitals are already over loaded, it is hugely difficult to get an appointment and our schools appear to be full.

There was a statement made in the past by Rochford council there you intended to keep a green buffer between Rochford's towns, now you appear to plan to build on green belt, regardless of what you designate it, and even on some of Hockley woods, again to the detriment of everyone's environment. ]]You seem intent on blindly following the government demands, which are now under review, and have no interest in improving the area to the benefit of your current residents without adding additional housing. Rochford council seems to have a mercenary and blinkered approach to residents, in spite of actually putting out this plan for public opinion.

With specific interest to myself and references CFS098, CFS053 and CFS027 you have wrongly designated this land as non-flooding which wrong. I live in Nelson Road and believe the source of the Prittle Brook to be between the ends of the gardens and the fields there. We back onto the field and we have slow worms in our gardens and any building works in those fields could damage their protected environment.

It is a shame that you have made the information available on line difficult to read, negotiate and understand even for those who are computer literate.

With respect to the plans for the Mill Hall, the actual construction of the building originally contravened the laws regarding ancient monuments and unless you actually knocked it all down to restore the site to what it was originally, prior to any building, then any new building would cause further damage to that ancient site.

Draft Local Plan

I would like to make some observations about the above for consideration.

1. Judging by the map showing proposed sites for development, Rayleigh appears to be ringed on all sides, more building making it into a very large town which cannot cope with what is already happening, let along any more. The people of Rayleigh have strong ties with other towns and cities, including London, but we have no wish to become part of an area as large as a city, or to be joined to these other towns. As I'm sure they'll feel the same.

2. Before any further development is even considered the infrastructure must be looked at carefully. Any traffic or road survey must also be carried out at 'busy times' to reflect the enormity of the traffic problem already existing in the Rayleigh area.

3. This map shows far more development than was agreed in the previous plans. In Local Development Framework - Allocations DPD Reg.25, it was stated that there would be 'public park land providing a buffer between the built environment and A1245'. Proposed sites (CFS146 and CFS147) show proposals right up to the A1245, which if joined to the existing development would most likely add at least another 1000 dwelling to an already over populated and under infra-structured area.

4. With the number and size of the sites shown as Rayleigh and Rawreth proposed sites map, it is difficult to see how the natural and historic environment can be 'conserved or enhanced'.

5. Rayleigh is already a town that at times is gridlocked, it is often used as an extra road to Southend when the A127 is blocked by frequent hold ups, (Sunday 19th September is a one) adding more development will just increase the frequency of this happening.

6. Building dwellings in the middle of the town and reducing the facilities is not the answer to the need for housing. In fact how many of the recent proposal would be of a price to attract first or young buyers? Some of this land is very close to listed buildings and a scheduled ancient monument which would undoubtedly suffer if surrounded by dwellings. How long would it be before the residents became upset by noise from these facilities and then they are closed down? These are part of the heritage of Rayleigh and should be preserved along with the Mill Hall.

7. Having large conurbations of housing on the edge of any town does not mean that the business (money) will be brought into the town centre, in fact money will most likely go to large shopping malls and the town centre will die, as has been witnessed in a number of towns in the midlands. Does the local authority really wish the towns of this country to resemble the towns of the USA? We need to preserve our heritage.

8. I believe there is a place for a separate development, such as a garden village which could be built with its own infrastructure.

I do not think it is sensible to live in the past but it is important to look after this country and preserve its character, which after all also attracts visitors and brings in revenue.

I hope you will take these observations into consideration when making any decisions.

Proposed housing developments

This land indicated in COL7, COL20 is council owned, this indicates it is owned by the people of Rayleigh as it is obvious by the objections the people of Rayleigh do not want this land developed. The Mill and surrounding area is historic and must be preserved as such. Rayleigh is already over-developed and struggling to cope with the new developments underway.

The option of a garden village (3a and 3b) would be somewhat better although no development at all would be ideal.

Conservative councillors barely scraped in at the last election. Unless they listen to the people of Rayleigh they will not survive the next one.

COL7 & COL20 are two sites being made residential, surely Rayleigh has had enough development in the few square miles around it, couldn't the housing I know the Gov wants be on outskirts, possibly as a new village development, with its own infrastructure i.e. doctors, schools etc.

Mill Hall is a great venue for learning and leisure, and so nice to have a cafe for social use on site. Rayleigh seems to be traffic locked most of the time. We are encouraged to walk, but where without fumes, unless you drive to venue which defeats purpose. Please don't turn my lovely Rayleigh into a concrete nightmare with a real parking problem and no green spaces.

Site Ref COL7 (Mill Hall Arts & Events Centre - Capacity 25 dwellings)

I object to this site being included in the new Local Plan for residential development, for the following reasons:

1. Redevelopment would be likely to have an adverse visual impact on the scheduled monument Rayleigh Mount, largely due to the loss of existing tree/shrub screening to the rear of Mill Hall. It may also have adverse security implications for Rayleigh Mount if Mill Hall is demolished and the terraced area at its rear becomes more publicly accessible.
2. Redevelopment would be likely to have an adverse visual impact on the grade 11 listed building Rayleigh Windmill, hemming it in with buildings, and reducing the open aspect that it currently enjoys.
3. Likely loss of public car park spaces would have an adverse commercial / amenity impact on Rayleigh High Street.
4.Likely loss of existing trees on the site, including mature specimen trees, would have an adverse impact on the attractiveness of the street scene, and would be incompatible with the conservation area status of the site.
5. The demolition of Mill Hall would be very detrimental to the leisure/entertainment potential for the people of Rayleigh (and surrounding nearby areas in the Rochford District). Consideration should be given instead to greater community involvement in the management of Mill Hall.

- I found the consultation extremely complicated and confusing.

- The development of land adjoining the Civic Suite (4 storey flats) will hugely impact me, especially as the foundations of my Victorian cottage are not as substantial as more modern properties and my garden will be overlooked 24/7. N.B. this is a CONSERVATION AREA.

- Development of the Civic Suite site COL20 will cause substantial harm to a heritage asset.

- I believe there will be a huge impact on local doctor's surgeries - it is already extremely difficult to get an appointment at Audley Mills Surgery.

- Rayleigh used to be a popular and desirable place to live - now we are one huge traffic jam. More development will only add to this problem.

- The limited consultation with residents is discriminatory to those who are not 'on-line'. I find it very difficult to get information and ask that RDC engage with those of us who do not have emails.

- I LOVE living in Rayleigh but fear for its future if these plans come to fruition.

Transport, Homes, Infrastructure, Bio-diversity

1. Rayleigh is already an over-developed area. More housing being built in Hall Road and Rawreth lane sites.
2. No infrastructure considerations - utilities, medical resources, roads, open spaces etc.
3. AIR POLLUTION. Air quality is already very poor in our area -queuing traffic - Crown Hill, Daws Heath Road and Castle Road (fir re-cycling centre) etc. More traffic will increase congestion and air pollution even worse.
4. Housing. Garden village, option 3a and 3b supported. Away from existing suburban sprawl. Co-operation with Southend in option 3a and 3b areas would be good for Rochford District and relieve extra pressure on Rayleigh.
5. Environment. Protection of wildlife habitats are being destroyed by over-development. Plant more trees for improved air quality and wildlife.
6. Well designed open spaces / parks for all ages.
7. Housing - use of brownfield sites; re-purpose empty houses / flats unoccupied for more than 2 years.
8. Town centre (Rayleigh). Encourage more independent retailers by offering fair, not exorbitant rents from greedy landlords.

COL07 COL20

I object to site COL7 (Mill Hall, car park and green) and also site COL20 Civic Suite with landscape gardens to the rear being included in the local plan as a future residential development site.

We need to preserve the green areas and trees on both sides. This is a conservation area, with mature trees and open spaces owned by the public. This would make is unacceptable for use as a residential area.

The loss of public car parking within COL7, COL20 would be detrimental to our town centre in Rayleigh.

I also object to the loss of a major community centre at Mill Hall, it brought people in from other areas and visitors who spent money in the town and could enjoy the beautiful windmill and church. Also the area is of great historic value and should be preserved.

COL7 & COL20

The Mill Hall is so important to so many people young and old, myself included. I used the hall three times a week for 14 years, it is where people make friends. We don't need to demolish the Mill, it would be bad for the environment, loss of parking space, trees and wildlife.

DO NOT DEMOLISH MILL HALL

Four years ago I lost my dear husband due to a brain haemorrhage, and as you can imagine the devastation and total despair me and my family were experiencing.
I was introduced to the Monday and Tuesday clubs held at the Mill Hall, my salvation!
These two clubs combined had an average of over 200 people plus, men and women, some disabled.
So please, please give some more thought before you carry out your intentions, which I consider was ill thought out, to demolish the Mill Hall.

No! to destroying Mill Hall. We need it as a meeting place for the public to use. The trees are well-established and should not be removed, As the nearest housing to the Mill Hall, we at Homeregal have had NO notification about the Mill Hall and proposed plans. It is a conservation area built with public money. The Mill is part of Rayleigh history and should not be hidden with buildings. There are water wells underneath the green. More traffic would be a danger to Homeregal residents. Ambulances etc need space. There is plenty of land for houses, schools, doctors surgeries etc on the outskirts of Rayleigh. The town is congested enough already. The public should be consulted about plans. Rayleigh residents say NO. Don't forget, where are meetings etc to meet without a public hall?

Mill Hall COL07 and Civic Suite COL20

These sites are in a conservation area. You cannot change that definition just because you want to sell the land. Nor should you change the status to achieve housing targets when other more suitable land is available within Rochford - albeit near to where Rochford councillors live.

You are not considering biodiversity (you are obliged to do so under S.40 of the Natural Environment Act 2006).

Under the listed buildings and planning legislation laws you are obliged to preserve the listed buildings and the scheduled ancient monument affected by your proposals.

Car parking in Rayleigh is at a premium. Prior to Covid these car parks were often full. They will be again in the future - reducing car parking will significantly affect local business.

Again, I see nothing here but the blatant 'not in my back yard' that I have seen promulgated by Rochford councillors ever since I moved to Rayleigh 40 years ago. This must end!

Finally, by demolishing existing buildings you are increasing, considerably and unnecessarily, your carbon footprint.

Mill Hall COL07 and Civic Suite COL20

Since I moved to Rayleigh in 1978 a considerable amount of new houses have been built; both as estates and in-fills. The bungalow is an endangered species in Rayleigh! Hockley, Hullbridge and Hawkwell have also been markedly developed as extra housing.

No new westward routed roads have been built and the current main roads (A13 and A127) are worn out and much congested. Rayleigh is used as a through route, and these proposals are designed to remove the last civic amenities that the town possesses and turn an ancient market town into a non-community.

If the Mill Hall is under-used (ignoring Covid) it is due to a lack of proactive management and council support, Proper advertising would help! This also applies to the Windmill - surely a landmark worth showcasing for the many not obscuring for the enjoyment of a few flat dwellers.

As for the Civic Suite - it is a lovely building - perhaps the Town Museum could use it. Or is that the next thing to go!?

CFS053

As a resident of Nelson Road for 17 years we are deeply concerned as are many others in this area regarding the Council's promotion green belt and buffer zone land to the rear of our bungalow. The drainage system has failed tp prevent flooding on a few occasions here, and as our rear garden is only about 30 feet in depth with some sort of culvert behind our back fence which never gets cleared of weeds we dread to think what will happen when bad rain occurs. There is also concern regarding traffic access to an already congested area.

On top of this it will obviously affect our prices when trying to sell our property which we bought for the views which will be completely lost.

We consider there are so many other areas in Rayleigh which would not impact on peoples homes.

1. Is this amount of Development proven to be required for local population bearing in mind the amount of housing that Basildon and Southend and Castle Point councils are also being asked to provide?

2. There needs to be a co-ordinated approach to development with adjoining councils so that additional infrastructure can be planned alongside any additional development proven to be required. The A127 needs to be upgraded and an additional bypass road to serve the east end of Southend/Shoebury / Wakering constructed.

3. Following conversations with council planning representative in Rayleigh High Street and assuming that it is proven the capacity is required I would favour larger development taking place to the west of Rayleigh so as to access additional funding for infrastructure. I.e., improved rail capacity, roads, doctors etc.

The reason for this is any further development east of Rayleigh is likely to create even more traffic problems within Rayleigh and due to being smaller developments no additional money would be available for infrastructure. Perhaps we could see some tougher restrictions on developers regarding contributions to infrastructure.

4. No further development within Rayleigh and the town centre including the Mill Hall and Civic Suite site because as quoted by the leader of the council Cheryl Roe "Rayleigh is already gridlocked more often than not" (article in local paper the Echo).

Also, if this amount of development is planned and the Mill Hall needs to be demolished due to it being economically unviable and unable to meet the councils green target then a new facility of at least equivalent size should be built on the site. The Mill Hall was built 50 years ago and Rayleigh has seen a massive increase in population over those years so logic dictates that we should have a larger than existing facility.

5. I would like to see the Council oppose the figures dictated by the Government and ideally no additional development until all infrastructure has been updated.

All of the recent development is having a massive impact on our quality of life in Rayleigh by means of overcrowding, excess traffic limiting our ability to move around and air quality.

REF CFS027, 098, 086, 029 and 053

This is a letter of objection to the proposed development/building of 329 houses in Wellington Road, Napier Road, Bull Lane, Farm Road, Rayleigh.

The primary objection is lack of infrastructure and public services which would be needed for such a significant development. The areas are already poorly served with roads which are constantly congested and overloaded.

In addition there are not enough school places, doctors surgeries, hospital capacity in Rayleigh now, so adding 329 houses and probably over 500 cars to this situation will make things much worse.

Also the loss of green space and land for country walks is very detrimental to the mental health of all residents.

Proposed development on land at Sandhill Road, Eastwood. Site Ref. CFS059

I wish to object to the proposed development at the end of Sandhill Road, Eastwood, SS9 5BY, for the following reasons;

1. Access to the site through narrowed Sandhill Road (east side). Sandhill Road was upgraded and adopted by Essex County Highway in 2011. The road on the East side of Eastwood Rise (where the proposed development is sited) was significantly narrowed during this upgrade. Half the length of the road is only 1 vehicle width wide and has caused lots of problems since the upgrade. There is no way that two vehicles can pass. Delivery vans and refuse lorries have to either drive in and reverse all the way back to the junction or reverse in and drive back. This can only get worse with all the increased traffic using the road. Before the road was upgraded all the residents had to agree to pay for the construction of the frontage of each property (taken from the width of the unmade road). This money was to be paid from the sale of the properties as and when they are sold. many of the houses have changed hands since 2011. The frontages now belong to the properties so there is no possibility of the road being widened again. It is only a matter of time before an emergency vehicle is needed by one of the properties and their access is blocked by visiting parked cars or delivery vehicles. This could prove to be fatal if the access to the new houses are blocked.

2. Environmental effects of the development.
The land in question is home to some mature trees. These are needed to help clean the air, for the benefit of all RDC residents. Badgers can be seen in the field and local area. Badgers are protected by law and can't be killed or moved.

Because of the affect of the pandemic and the speeding up of climate change. I don't think there should be any developments in the RDC area. You should take stock of all the empty shops and business premises and turn those into homes, as they have done in Southend.

I wish to object in the strongest possible terms to the proposed development of Mill Hall and Civic Suite, COL07 and COL20 respectively. I think the council has a responsibility to uphold and maintain our conservation area and not use the sites for housing development. I draw your attention to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 legislation, Achieving Sustainable Development. The Mill Hall remains fit for purpose. Should these plans proceed it will bring into question my continued voting for the Conservative Party!