Q56d. Are there areas that require protecting from development?
Support
New Local Plan: Spatial Options Document 2021
Representation ID: 44127
Received: 16/09/2021
Respondent: Mrs Rosalind Osborne
I wish to object to site COL07 (Mill Hall, car park and green) and COL20 (Civic Suite and gardens) being included in the Local Plan as a future residential development site.
Rochford Council has a duty to preserve and enhance the Rayleigh Conservation Area. Both sites are surrounded by listed buildings and should not be developed for housing.
The carbon footprint of demolishing existing buildings will increase the carbon footprint of the whole district. Please do not destroy - INVEST in the present buildings.
The high street needs the car parking area for customers to help the town thrive - if you take that away for private parking for housing - you will kill the town!
I have been a resident of Rayleigh for 38 years and am totally disgusted and against this proposal.
I wish to object to site COL07 (Mill Hall, car park and green) and COL20 (Civic Suite and gardens) being included in the Local Plan as a future residential development site.
Rochford Council has a duty to preserve and enhance the Rayleigh Conservation Area. Both sites are surrounded by listed buildings and should not be developed for housing.
The carbon footprint of demolishing existing buildings will increase the carbon footprint of the whole district. Please do not destroy - INVEST in the present buildings.
The high street needs the car parking area for customers to help the town thrive - if you take that away for private parking for housing - you will kill the town!
I have been a resident of Rayleigh for 38 years and am totally disgusted and against this proposal.
Support
New Local Plan: Spatial Options Document 2021
Representation ID: 44180
Received: 08/09/2021
Respondent: Jeanette Wade
There is no way Rayleigh can cope with anymore housing. Whichever way you go into Rayleigh there are queues. You can't get a doctors appointment. The A1245 has water laying dangerously on it after rain.
If we must have more houses in this overcrowded area I support option 3b.
There is no way Rayleigh can cope with anymore housing. Whichever way you go into Rayleigh there are queues. You can't get a doctors appointment. The A1245 has water laying dangerously on it after rain.
If we must have more houses in this overcrowded area I support option 3b.
Support
New Local Plan: Spatial Options Document 2021
Representation ID: 44184
Received: 08/09/2021
Respondent: Jeanette Wade
The Mill Hall needs to be kept. It is well used and the only hall in the area. Flats around the Mill itself would ruin this heritage site.
The Mill Hall needs to be kept. It is well used and the only hall in the area. Flats around the Mill itself would ruin this heritage site.
Support
New Local Plan: Spatial Options Document 2021
Representation ID: 44217
Received: 08/09/2021
Respondent: Mr Paul Claydon
I am writing to register my objection to the RDC Local Plan to build between 7200 to 10,800 new homes in the Rochford district and principally in Rayleigh where the majority of new homes will be built. My general objection is to the damage to the local environment and nature with said construction on green belt land which has been allowed to have become over grown with trees and vegetation allowing wild life to thrive. For RDC to state in their draft vision for Rochford in 2050 that Rochford will be a "green and pleasant place" is nothing short of insulting to the local residents with the proposals put forward. Rayleigh in particular cannot take on the scale of new homes being proposed and I urge Rochford District Council to rethink their current plans and instead support the Liberal Democrat alternative proposal to build a new garden village close to Fossetts Way near Southend.
My general objections to this consultation are as follows:
1. You will be destroying green belt, farming land and nature habitats; I refer specifically to your site references CFS053; CFS098 and CFS029
2. You will be destroying nature habitats in site reference CFS086, specifically badger sets, bat colonies, fox dens, squirrels and general bird and insect life.
3. The roads in Rayleigh in particular become very congested in weekday morning and early evening rush hours especially when there is the school run. In addition the roads become almost grid locked when there is a vehicle breakdown, accident or road works due to necessary emergency repair of utility services (which we have frequently). So, with the potential of 7200 new homes which will provide at a conservative estimate of over 14,000 new cars to the district I would like to know how the current road network can handle this increased volume of traffic?
4. The current utilities are creaking at the sides with the current volume of homes, specifically;
a. Electricity - we in Nelson road experience on average around 4 power cuts per year, most recently on 15th August. How will the building of 7200 new homes help this situation?
b. Water and Sewerage - Essex Water and Anglia water are frequent visitors to Nelson Road (as recent as week commencing 23rd August) to repair their overstretched infrastructure. In particular they have attended Hamilton Mews on I would estimate at least 4 times within the past 12 months. Additionally, we had the problem in Bull Lane with water supply issues which must have been worked on for the best part of a year causing yet more traffic disruption. Clearly there is a major problem with the water and sewerage supplies in the Rayleigh area, so how can building this vast amount of new homes improve the situation with the current overstretched water and sewerage infrastructure?
5. Doctors surgeries within Rayleigh are over run now, particularly with Audley Mills which has an "open book" policy and for the older population it is becoming increasingly difficult and stressful to book an appointment. The 7200 new homes, the majority being in Rayleigh, will increase the population by an estimated 2.4 people per home, this will increase to 17,280 new people. You will need to build a new surgery the size of Audley Mills to cater for the increased volume but the amount of qualified GP's in the UK is reducing so how would the NHS find the staff?
My specific objections to the following sites are as follows:
CFS086 (Land between Rivendell and Brookside, Napier Road). This development directly effects my family as from what I can understand you are considering building 11 homes at the bottom half of my garden.
a. We moved to this house in 2002 at not an inconsiderable cost and then my neighbour at No. XX had a garden that run adjacent to mine. I was aware that he owned the spare land in Napier road but at no time was there any discussion or consultation that when he sold his house to Mr and Mrs XXXX approximately 12 years ago, he was going to keep the bottom half of his garden for a housing development. I would have course objected to any such proposal as it is a direct violation of our privacy in our own garden.
b. The space has become extremely over grown over the past 10 years and is now effectively a small forest which has become a home for a vast amount of wild life which have access into my garden. These include Badgers, Foxes, Bats and we've even had a monk jack deer in our garden all which come from Mr XXXX land. I am aware that Bats and Badgers are a protected species and I will be informing the Bat Conservation trust to invite them at the bottom of our garden to watch them take flight at dusk.
c. Access in Napier Road. A planning request was turned down approximately three years ago due in part to limited access in and out of Napier Road, nothing has changed in terms of access as the road is extremely narrow and will allow only one vehicle width where this space of land is. with the large amount of construction vehicles, building deliveries, builder's vehicles etc., the road would effectively be blocked denying access to and from Nelson Road to the "Brookside" property and the house further east by the stables.
d. If it is true that RDC are planning on building 11 homes in this small plot of land they can only be classed as "affordable homes" which is totally out of context with Nelson Road which is regarded as one of the best roads in Rayleigh for quality homes.
e. Noise pollution and loss of privacy will be a major issue for me and my neighbours with the construction of the new homes and the resulting loss of privacy following the construction of the homes.
CFS053 (Land South of 38 & 39 Wellington Road), CFS098 (Land North of Napier Road) and CFS029 (Land at Turrett farm, Napier Road)
a. This land id green belt and should not be built on.
b. The land in CFS053 and CFS098 is at a fairly steep gradient towards the gardens in Nelson Road. Certainly during the winter period we can experience heavy rainfall which causes water to cascade down the fields towards the gardens. I am concerned that with the building of a "concrete jungle" this will only heighten the problem as the rain will not have the opportunity of soaking into the sodden ground and not only will it be a problem for the outbuildings many of us have at the bottom of our respective gardens it will also be a major problem for the new homes built at the bottom of the slope.
c. As mentioned above, we are privileged to experience much nature in this area due to the surrounding fields. The removal of these fields will only do damage to the nature conservation in this area with the loss of habitats for badgers, foxes, deer, bird wild life, insects etc.
I am writing to register my objection to the RDC Local Plan to build between 7200 to 10,800 new homes in the Rochford district and principally in Rayleigh where the majority of new homes will be built. My general objection is to the damage to the local environment and nature with said construction on green belt land which has been allowed to have become over grown with trees and vegetation allowing wild life to thrive. For RDC to state in their draft vision for Rochford in 2050 that Rochford will be a "green and pleasant place" is nothing short of insulting to the local residents with the proposals put forward. Rayleigh in particular cannot take on the scale of new homes being proposed and I urge Rochford District Council to rethink their current plans and instead support the Liberal Democrat alternative proposal to build a new garden village close to Fossetts Way near Southend.
My general objections to this consultation are as follows:
1. You will be destroying green belt, farming land and nature habitats; I refer specifically to your site references CFS053; CFS098 and CFS029
2. You will be destroying nature habitats in site reference CFS086, specifically badger sets, bat colonies, fox dens, squirrels and general bird and insect life.
3. The roads in Rayleigh in particular become very congested in weekday morning and early evening rush hours especially when there is the school run. In addition the roads become almost grid locked when there is a vehicle breakdown, accident or road works due to necessary emergency repair of utility services (which we have frequently). So, with the potential of 7200 new homes which will provide at a conservative estimate of over 14,000 new cars to the district I would like to know how the current road network can handle this increased volume of traffic?
4. The current utilities are creaking at the sides with the current volume of homes, specifically;
a. Electricity - we in Nelson road experience on average around 4 power cuts per year, most recently on 15th August. How will the building of 7200 new homes help this situation?
b. Water and Sewerage - Essex Water and Anglia water are frequent visitors to Nelson Road (as recent as week commencing 23rd August) to repair their overstretched infrastructure. In particular they have attended Hamilton Mews on I would estimate at least 4 times within the past 12 months. Additionally, we had the problem in Bull Lane with water supply issues which must have been worked on for the best part of a year causing yet more traffic disruption. Clearly there is a major problem with the water and sewerage supplies in the Rayleigh area, so how can building this vast amount of new homes improve the situation with the current overstretched water and sewerage infrastructure?
5. Doctors surgeries within Rayleigh are over run now, particularly with Audley Mills which has an "open book" policy and for the older population it is becoming increasingly difficult and stressful to book an appointment. The 7200 new homes, the majority being in Rayleigh, will increase the population by an estimated 2.4 people per home, this will increase to 17,280 new people. You will need to build a new surgery the size of Audley Mills to cater for the increased volume but the amount of qualified GP's in the UK is reducing so how would the NHS find the staff?
My specific objections to the following sites are as follows:
CFS086 (Land between Rivendell and Brookside, Napier Road). This development directly effects my family as from what I can understand you are considering building 11 homes at the bottom half of my garden.
a. We moved to this house in 2002 at not an inconsiderable cost and then my neighbour at No. XX had a garden that run adjacent to mine. I was aware that he owned the spare land in Napier road but at no time was there any discussion or consultation that when he sold his house to Mr and Mrs XXXX approximately 12 years ago, he was going to keep the bottom half of his garden for a housing development. I would have course objected to any such proposal as it is a direct violation of our privacy in our own garden.
b. The space has become extremely over grown over the past 10 years and is now effectively a small forest which has become a home for a vast amount of wild life which have access into my garden. These include Badgers, Foxes, Bats and we've even had a monk jack deer in our garden all which come from Mr XXXX land. I am aware that Bats and Badgers are a protected species and I will be informing the Bat Conservation trust to invite them at the bottom of our garden to watch them take flight at dusk.
c. Access in Napier Road. A planning request was turned down approximately three years ago due in part to limited access in and out of Napier Road, nothing has changed in terms of access as the road is extremely narrow and will allow only one vehicle width where this space of land is. with the large amount of construction vehicles, building deliveries, builder's vehicles etc., the road would effectively be blocked denying access to and from Nelson Road to the "Brookside" property and the house further east by the stables.
d. If it is true that RDC are planning on building 11 homes in this small plot of land they can only be classed as "affordable homes" which is totally out of context with Nelson Road which is regarded as one of the best roads in Rayleigh for quality homes.
e. Noise pollution and loss of privacy will be a major issue for me and my neighbours with the construction of the new homes and the resulting loss of privacy following the construction of the homes.
CFS053 (Land South of 38 & 39 Wellington Road), CFS098 (Land North of Napier Road) and CFS029 (Land at Turrett farm, Napier Road)
a. This land id green belt and should not be built on.
b. The land in CFS053 and CFS098 is at a fairly steep gradient towards the gardens in Nelson Road. Certainly during the winter period we can experience heavy rainfall which causes water to cascade down the fields towards the gardens. I am concerned that with the building of a "concrete jungle" this will only heighten the problem as the rain will not have the opportunity of soaking into the sodden ground and not only will it be a problem for the outbuildings many of us have at the bottom of our respective gardens it will also be a major problem for the new homes built at the bottom of the slope.
c. As mentioned above, we are privileged to experience much nature in this area due to the surrounding fields. The removal of these fields will only do damage to the nature conservation in this area with the loss of habitats for badgers, foxes, deer, bird wild life, insects etc.
Support
New Local Plan: Spatial Options Document 2021
Representation ID: 44293
Received: 13/09/2021
Respondent: Mr and Mrs D & I Ford
Number of people: 2
CFS027, CFS029, CFS053, CFS098, CFS086
My comments refer to all five of the above proposed/promoted sites. My first comment should cover it all -
1. FLOOD!
In August 2013, that whole area (our home included) was flooded. This was not the first time this area had suffered flooding. I note from your grading criteria that 'critical drainage risk' is assessed as a 2. The flooding in this area is always from surface water, and is an ongoing and constant threat.
After the flood of 2013 we attended council meetings to discuss the issue. A very interesting comment was made, that houses should never have been built in Blower Close in the first place. We are at the bottom of a 'bowl', where all surface water, and water flooding from streams where the culvert has been allowed to become overgrown and blocked has contributed to the flooding issue.
My husband is in constant communication with Cllr Dave Sperring, who in turn has to badger the EA to once again clean the ditches/culvert. Cllr Sperring also visited our close after our flood and witnessed first hand the devastating effect it had.
2. LACK OF INFRASTRUCTURE
The access to these proposed sites is currently unmade tracks and single track minor roads. If these roads were to be upgraded to roads able to service new houses, it would quickly become a rat run to cut out having to travel through Rayleigh Town Centre, which is a nightmare at the best of times. The surrounding roads all suffer from double parking, making it impossible with the added traffic, and a danger for the emergency services. There only has to be a problem on the A127, the Weir, A130, and the whole of Rayleigh becomes gridlocked.
Our local schools are full and our doctors are completely overrun. Having to wait two weeks for a telephone appointment currently will only become longer and unacceptable. There is also no good links to bus services.
3. GREEN BELT AND OPEN SPACES
All of these proposed sites are either backing onto or in very close proximity to green belt (green belt harm - assessed as 1). Since lockdown, open spaces have become so important to people for exercise, health and mental health.
We are fortunate to have the Upper Roach Valley bordering where we live, providing a buffer between Rayleigh and Hockley. It is the lung of this area. Protected trees and ancient woodland form part of the Roach Valley (assessed as a 2).
In summary, the distance to strategic road network is poor (2), access to bus services is very poor (1). The damage to green belt (1), agricultural land (1), protected trees (2) is unacceptable. The increased rise of flooding due to poor drainage in this area and a record of flooding due to surface water, in my opinion, makes the sites I have commented on unviable (critical drainage risk 2).
I have attached some newspaper reports to remind those involved in making these decisions, the effect flooding has.
[see attached document for cuttings. Annotation on first cutting as follows:]
Blower Close - Rayleigh, August 2013 - flooded from fields (where housing is proposed) in two directions. Floodig to the other side of our close has occurred at least 3 times from the field behind (where houses are planned). A flood protection ditch was built behind 9-14 Blower Close. We have to keep a constant watch and review of the culvert in the nearby field which is often completely blocked - a major focus in our flooding too.
CFS027, CFS029, CFS053, CFS098, CFS086
My comments refer to all five of the above proposed/promoted sites. My first comment should cover it all -
1. FLOOD!
In August 2013, that whole area (our home included) was flooded. This was not the first time this area had suffered flooding. I note from your grading criteria that 'critical drainage risk' is assessed as a 2. The flooding in this area is always from surface water, and is an ongoing and constant threat.
After the flood of 2013 we attended council meetings to discuss the issue. A very interesting comment was made, that houses should never have been built in Blower Close in the first place. We are at the bottom of a 'bowl', where all surface water, and water flooding from streams where the culvert has been allowed to become overgrown and blocked has contributed to the flooding issue.
My husband is in constant communication with Cllr Dave Sperring, who in turn has to badger the EA to once again clean the ditches/culvert. Cllr Sperring also visited our close after our flood and witnessed first hand the devastating effect it had.
2. LACK OF INFRASTRUCTURE
The access to these proposed sites is currently unmade tracks and single track minor roads. If these roads were to be upgraded to roads able to service new houses, it would quickly become a rat run to cut out having to travel through Rayleigh Town Centre, which is a nightmare at the best of times. The surrounding roads all suffer from double parking, making it impossible with the added traffic, and a danger for the emergency services. There only has to be a problem on the A127, the Weir, A130, and the whole of Rayleigh becomes gridlocked.
Our local schools are full and our doctors are completely overrun. Having to wait two weeks for a telephone appointment currently will only become longer and unacceptable. There is also no good links to bus services.
3. GREEN BELT AND OPEN SPACES
All of these proposed sites are either backing onto or in very close proximity to green belt (green belt harm - assessed as 1). Since lockdown, open spaces have become so important to people for exercise, health and mental health.
We are fortunate to have the Upper Roach Valley bordering where we live, providing a buffer between Rayleigh and Hockley. It is the lung of this area. Protected trees and ancient woodland form part of the Roach Valley (assessed as a 2).
In summary, the distance to strategic road network is poor (2), access to bus services is very poor (1). The damage to green belt (1), agricultural land (1), protected trees (2) is unacceptable. The increased rise of flooding due to poor drainage in this area and a record of flooding due to surface water, in my opinion, makes the sites I have commented on unviable (critical drainage risk 2).
I have attached some newspaper reports to remind those involved in making these decisions, the effect flooding has.
[see attached document for cuttings. Annotation on first cutting as follows:]
Blower Close - Rayleigh, August 2013 - flooded from fields (where housing is proposed) in two directions. Floodig to the other side of our close has occurred at least 3 times from the field behind (where houses are planned). A flood protection ditch was built behind 9-14 Blower Close. We have to keep a constant watch and review of the culvert in the nearby field which is often completely blocked - a major focus in our flooding too.
Support
New Local Plan: Spatial Options Document 2021
Representation ID: 44308
Received: 13/09/2021
Respondent: Mr Stephen Skinner
I am also concerned that residential development would lead to the loss of at least part of the attractive garden area to the rear of the Barringtons building, including the likely loss of protected trees. This area currently complements the open space area of King George's Playing Field, and brings it closer towards the High Street - a finger of open space going right into the centre of town. Residential development of the site would greatly diminish, if not totally destroy, the green corridor, to the detriment of the town.
I am growing increasingly concerned at how Rochford District Council is concentrating its consultations more and more online. It seems that anyone unable to access information online, or respond online, is becoming regarded as an afterthought in the consultation process.
This marginalising of a section of the population without access to a computer, or without computer skills, is gradually edging them out of the [ENDS].
Remove the Civic Suite function as a central part of the local government presence in Rayleigh.
I am also concerned that residential development would lead to the loss of at least part of the attractive garden area to the rear of the Barringtons building, including the likely loss of protected trees. This area currently complements the open space area of King George's Playing Field, and brings it closer towards the High Street - a finger of open space going right into the centre of town. Residential development of the site would greatly diminish, if not totally destroy, the green corridor, to the detriment of the town.
Comment
New Local Plan: Spatial Options Document 2021
Representation ID: 44324
Received: 20/09/2021
Respondent: Homeregal House Residents
Number of people: 39
COL07
I am representing Homeregal House residents. There are 39 residents in the building. We object to COL07 (Mill Hall, car park and garden) as there will be a very big impact on the area. The traffic in the area will increase.
Our car park will have people parking in it due to the lack of parking.
The site proposed will block the view of many flats.
Demolishing the existing building will impact on the environment. Many trees and green areas will be lost and harm wildlife. Also people use the green everyday, it is a very social area.
The road structure they propose will cause problems with the ambulance bay as it will be 2 way. Ambulances can be on site for 4 hours in some cases.
COL07
I am representing Homeregal House residents. There are 39 residents in the building. We object to COL07 (Mill Hall, car park and garden) as there will be a very big impact on the area. The traffic in the area will increase.
Our car park will have people parking in it due to the lack of parking.
The site proposed will block the view of many flats.
Demolishing the existing building will impact on the environment. Many trees and green areas will be lost and harm wildlife. Also people use the green everyday, it is a very social area.
The road structure they propose will cause problems with the ambulance bay as it will be 2 way. Ambulances can be on site for 4 hours in some cases.