Q56d. Are there areas that require protecting from development?

As a resident of Nelson Rd and in addition to the following objection (below). It is of concern that:

• An extensive survey (lasting for some 4 days) has been undertaken in the field to the rear of 39 Nelson Rd (area CFS053).
• It seems inappropriate that such in depth analysis should take place prior to a decision on the future of this land is made.
• It is worrying that this work may be an indication that any objections would be disregarded.


Please provide reassurance that the consultation is a free and open process and no decisions have been made prior to its close on the 5th Sep 2021

I am writing to tell you of our disbelief and anger at you new spatial options plans that affect the area we reside in.
We live in Albert road in Rayleigh SS6 8HN And currently at the end of our cul de sac there is a horse field, and behind our home is an open field ( farmland) , if I am reading your plan correctly it looks like you want to develop both of these green belt areas that currently make the road such a well sort after place to live, and I am assuming this would no doubt mean Albert Road would eventually become a thoroughfare and no longer a cul de sac.
This is unacceptable not only to the residents of Albert road but to the neighbourhood in general. Personally we are looking at our properties becoming less desirable therefore losing value, and more traffic. We will lose our green belt, places where we walk and take our dogs , not to mention public transport coming through the area.
We need these open green spaces, they have been a lifeline for many during these recent lockdowns and certainly helped people with mental health issues.
The people of Rayleigh are NOT screaming out for more more homes to be built, they are screaming out for its heritage to be upheld and looked after. Consider maybe the new businesses that want to open in our high street for example, keep the rates lower for these private businesses and not allow bigger chains to monopolise the area.
Albert road is a quiet safe well maintained street in Rayleigh and in my opinion Rochford council should be proud of it not want to plough through it and destroy it’s very core.
If we wanted housing estate after housing estate we could all move to Basildon, is that the final vision Rochford council are trying to achieve??
There will be MANY objections to this futuristic vision you seen to have.
And I for one will be at the forefront rallying the neighbourhood.

As residents of Rayleigh we are appalled to discover that it is apparently proposed to build houses on more green belt land in Rayleigh. We were also unhappy that at this time to see the house building in green belt land in the north of our town. We understand that it is under consideration to build on fields off Bull Lane/Albert Road/ Blower Close.
SURELY NOT…this is not a reasonable idea. At times traffic is gridlocked, Bull Lane is a ‘ratrun’ being used by motorists to avoid Rayleigh High Street. Most homes has at least 2 cars which would make the situation worse.
At times we have found in difficult to get a doctors appointment and a population increase would make matters worse.
I urge councillors responsible to reject this proposal.

Considering all of the doctors and schools in the area of Rayleigh are full to overflowing - adding all of the houses proposed is not sustainable if the current infrastructure is not upgraded.

I OBJECT unless:
A. A new Primary AND secondary school is built in the area to accommodate the hundreds of children that will be joining the area (adding to those joining the area on the Hullbridge estate) B. At least 1 new doctors surgery is built to accommodate residents as it is increasingly hard to get an appointment with doctors at the moment without all of these extra residents C. Suitable parking is provided with each property ie. space for at LEAST 2 cars per household as that is a minimum required for families at the moment D. Suitable green space is kept for local wildlife/mental health of residents/exercise E. Potentially a new road into Rayleigh from the A1245 or Beeches Road/Chelmsford Road to accommodate the new traffic that will be entering the area considering the build up of traffic currently.

Why are these documents not in plain English? We consider ourselves reasonably intelligent but unfortunately have not had a university degree in gobbledygook.

Going by the maps ,our understanding is that large areas of Rayleigh and Rawreth will be concreted over with little or no infrastructure improvements.

Over the past few years traffic has increased to the extent where if there is an incident on the A127 or A13 ,Rayleigh becomes gridlocked.

Where will the new schools, health centres and public transport routes be sited.?

Who are these people who make these planning decisions and are they local to Rayleigh?

We are totally against any increase in further development of these areas.

In response to proposals for 329 new houses in the green belt of Wellington Road, Napier Road and Bull Lane Farm Road.

I would like to register my NO vote.

I’ve just seen a post from Cllr James Newport regarding the high amount of planned building in Rayleigh. Rayleigh is already gridlocked at the best of times and the little open space we currently have is now fast disappearing, Rayleigh is now a building site and becoming an unpleasant place to live.

We would like to, having parents living on The Chase, complain and object about the above development taking place.

The local area is already far too busy on the roads, significant developments taking place, very few green areas are still unbuilt as well as it already being impossible to get appointments at the oversubscribed doctors surgeries.

This can’t be approved and will ruin the area.

Cfs027,cfs098,cfs086,cfs029,cfs053
No to these proposed planning due to inadequate infrastructure and passed flooding in the local area.

CF5053, CF5098, CF5027, CF5086 CF5029

I am putting in a my objection to the above proposed planning on the following points:-
Firstly the air quality in Rayleigh with the traffic, the volume of traffic is appalling.
It takes appox.30 minutes to get out of Rayleigh on a week day for a 10 minute drive.
When there is an accident on the 127 near Rayleigh , the whole town comes to a stand still.
The proposed site regarding Napier Road is not suitable, the road is narrow and coming out
into Nelson Road with the traffic speeds, an accident is just waiting to happen.

This land is classified as Green Belt land there are trees all along the side of Napier Road,
helping the carbon footprint.

AMENITIES

With all this building in Rayleigh there is no consideration to the amenities, thousands of extra people, with the proposed size of the hall at the site of the Mill Hall only suitable for a playschool.
On Saturdays you can not get parked in Rayleigh now.
Then there is all the other problems , doctors, dentist and schools.
The only bus that goes down Bull Lane is the no. 20, and that is quite away to walk with shopping
to the proposed sites.

I hope in your decision you will consider the above points.

REF CFS027 / CFS098 / CFS086 / CFS029 / CFS053

NOOOOOOOOOO

I am voting no to housing being built in this area!!!

I would like to register my concerns with the proposed developments planned at the below locations,

Land between Wellington road, bull lane and Napier road.

The roads around these locations have already suffered from flooding recently and with less green space to help drain excess rain water this will only get worse.

As a Rayleigh resident we severely struggle to get health care appointments with the current population and this will only get worse with the proposed increase of housing.

The roads in these locations are severely run down and have several pot holes and are only going to get worse again with increased use due to more housing.

It will have a negative impact on popular walking routes which current residents enjoy and will destroy the nature that habitats the areas.

Schools are already over subscribed and with no new schools proposed how will this be remedied.

Traffic in Rayleigh is usually gridlocked currently with more housing brings more cars resulting in more pollution and more traffic.

By getting rid of these green spaces you are eroding the appeal of Rayleigh and not thinking about current residents that have lived here and enjoy living here because of the wonderful balance that currently exists but is disappearing with the number of substantial developments already constructed/in construction.

CFS027, CFS098, CFS086, CFS053, CFS029

I am writing to voice my concern at Rochford Council’s proposal to build on green belt land and in particular in the above locations.

It is now widely recognised that green space is good for mental well-being as well as for the environment. A small amount of manufactured green space cannot replace the beauty and environmental value of naturally evolved green belt, woodland and open fields.

Rayleigh has already grown from a small market town to a busy and quite densely populated sprawl. It’s virtually impossible to get a doctor’s appointment and traffic congestion is creating pollution levels that will only become more unacceptable if, as the council proposes, population levels continue to grow exponentially.

In response to the council’s request for comment on the proposals, my answer is NO! We do not want more housing, more traffic, more social and infrastructure problems and nor do we want to lose our much loved and well used green belt.

Special Options Plan CFS053,CFS086,CFS098,CFS029,CFS027

I am writing to object about the proposed development of the above sites.
This Green Belt land has been used for the enjoyment of the local community for many years. It is what makes this corner of Rayleigh such a valuable asset to the town for all to be enjoyed. In particular residents enjoy walking through the field behind Nelson Road and this was even more apparent during the Pandemic. The local community can experience the space, countryside and nature giving some sanctuary from the situation we find ourselves in.To propose to cover the area in housing would totally remove and ruin this natural environment which the community is currently able to experience. It is what helps make Rayleigh the popular town which it is.
The field between Wellington Road and Nelson Road (CFS053) is mostly on a hill. For the residents living along Nelson Road, due to the difference in height, this will mean their properties will be completely overlooked and will cause a total lack of privacy which has been enjoyed for many years. How can the visual amenity of the area be so disregarded? The nature of this hill already causes flooding issues as does similar situations in Albert Road and Blower Close. To cover the area in housing and concrete would be removing land which helps soak up this excess water.
Nelson Road is already used as a cut-through by vehicles from the Hockley Road with cars often speeding dangerously. To then add hundreds of more cars to this scenario from new homes would cause major highway safety issues. Due to the location of Fairview Park, there are many children and dog walkers who use the lane from Albert Road, up to Napier Road and then across Nelson Road through to the park entrance which lays opposite between 62 and 64 Nelson Road. More cars would cause a definite safety issue. That is without taking into consideration the excess traffic and pollution which is already an issue in the area. Traffic along the Hockley Road is a big problem with often extremely long delays and that is before the impact is felt from the new housing at Bullwood Hall. It is also a problem for emergency services to travel around the area at busy times of the day.
Access is also a concern. Wellington Road is presently a small, quiet turning and is certainly not fit to have hundreds of extra vehicles using it. Napier Road not only is a private road but is extremely narrow and I believe a recent planning application was refused due to access issues.
Our doctors and schools are already over-subscribed with local children not guaranteed a place at their local school (a fact I know from personal experience) and it is already virtually impossible to get a doctor’s appointment.
If more housing is a necessity, surely the best option would be to create a new area on land that is presently more rural and have less impact on the existing communities. Infrastructure can be built to sustain a new community rather than totally ruining what Rayleigh already enjoys and represents. Please protect Rayleigh for our future generations.

Site Assessment proforma ref CFS059

Sandhill road cannot cope with the development of 20 houses.Each house on average 2 cars per house=40 cars.The road is so narrow it will not take this amount of traffic.We are experiencing problems with traffic at the moment. With at least another 40 cars our road will not cope. This development cannot go ahead.

Ref nos. CFS027 CFS098 CFS086 CFS029 CFS053
Please record our opinion as NO.

I am writing to object in the strongest possible terms to a Change of Use of Rayleigh's Conservation Areas to Residential Use.

One area of contention, but amongst others, is The Mill Hall: a well used site by so many different groups, which brings people into the town, who will then use local shops, etc. The parking areas there are usually full, where will people be able to park, especially those with limited mobility, if there are no spaces at that end of town? Maybe they will decide to go elsewhere....

One vital question I do need to put to you is about air quality. I do remember that Rayleigh town centre had high levels of pollutants due to traffic a few years ago. Has this now been resolved? I think rather not. Do you have current figures on air quality? What are the projected levels expected to rise to when thousands more cars are using our local roads? Have you driven through Rayleigh yourselves recently? Even on a "normal" day it is slow moving. Have you noticed the gridlock conditions that arise when there need to be roadworks, or following a breakdown or accident? Even if that is at the Weir or further afield? Cleaner, all-electric vehicles are a long way off yet I fear.

I appreciate that whilst green open spaces are pleasant - I would say vital - for the residents and visitors alike, they don't necessarily bring in revenue do they? It's just a field or open space, doing nothing, it would appear. Housing does of course, but at what other costs to our lives?

I urge you to please reconsider your plans and ideas for our beautiful town of Rayleigh, to keep it that way for us and future generations to enjoy.

I live at XX Sandhill Road, Leigh-on-Sea, SS9 5BY. I have reviewed the Spatial Options document and interactive plan, following receipt of your flyer regarding the new Local Plan. I would like to put forward an objection as follows.

I note from the Spatial Options interactive map that the field at the end of Sandhill Road is being considered as promoted development land. I do not consider this viable for a number of reasons:
1. Firstly, Sandhill Road is a single-width road, not suitable or safe for the increased traffic which would come with erection of 20 new houses. There would inevitably be issues with parking, which would make it unsafe for emergency vehicles and refuse collection vans to pass down the road;
2. Sandhill Road and its surround are currently very quiet areas, home to lots of widelife and providing amenity areas for the community. Development would disrupt the current landscape, bringing more noise pollution and traffic;
3. There is insufficient parking in the area. If 20 new houses are erected, and each homeowner has 2 cars each, that means 40 new cars that will be fighting for parking on the development, and inevitable spilling out into Sandhill Road. This is likely to cause all manner of disputes (some potentially legal), since Sandhill Road is currently unadopted. Each current homeowner owns up to the middle of the road pursuant to the principle of ad medium filum, and if cars end up parking on paved areas fronting existing properties, this will effectively amount to trespass.
I should be grateful if you would acknowledge safe receipt of this objection and confirm that it has been passed to the relevant department(s).

I would like to log my objection to any ideas you have for developing the Land at the end of Sandhill Road, Eastwood. As you would be aware, Sandhill Road is not an adopted highway it is a private road and is far too narrow to accommodate an additional potential of 40 cars (say 2 per household) if the proposed 20 new houses were ever to be built. We do not have any pavements or safe footway here and therefore more traffic would be extremely dangerous for residents, pets and children who often play outside in the private road. I presume that the highways department would have to adopt the road and bring all pavements and street furniture up to current regulation, to conform with health and safety etc before any development could be considered. To accommodate the aforementioned footpaths and street furniture etc, the council would have to negotiate and purchase land from current residents, whom I know would be extremely reluctant to part with any land.

We also live alongside an abundance of wildlife including badgers, muntjac deer and bats which we all embrace and enjoy, any development will have a detrimental impact on their habitat.

I note that you have taken into consideration the flood risk, you may or may not be aware that the surface water in the area and some of the sewage is controlled by mini pumping stations, which often sound alarms and go faulty after a period of rain. Therefore, extra homes would put more strain on an already struggling system. There is a very popular private fishing lake in the nearby vicinity, which will no doubt be adversely affected by more housing and hard landscaping.

The traffic in adjacent Eastwood Rise, which also has no pavements, has increased dramatically in recent years with the promotion of Cherry Orchard Park and become quite dangerous. Therefore, any further development in this area would only have a detrimental effect on an already unsuitable road.

I hope you take my comments seriously when considering using this land as a feasible development site for additional housing.

Housing development Bull Lane/Blower Close

I have been informed about the prospect of future plans for a housing development in the fields at the end of Albert Road and behind Blower Close.

I am shocked that the council could even give this a single thought. I am a resident of Blower Close who went through the terrible floods of 2013. Attended the council meetings and it was stated on record that Blower Close should never have been built and now you are planning more!!!!

We have constant concerns when we have heavy rain now as our drains don’t seem to cope.

Also, TRAFFIC!!! You can’t get in and out of Rayleigh now. It’s just one constant traffic jam, the health implications, nearly impossible to get a doctors appointment.

There can be no reasonable argument to even contemplate building in this area.

CFS053, CFS086, CFS027

Therefore with reference to the 'Spatial Options Consultation' can you please note my following objections:

Access
• All existing significant developments within the Rochford area (on green belt land) have immediate access to major road infrastructure.
• Examples include Eastbury Park (B1013 - Hall Rd), High Elm Park (Lower Rd) and Wolsey Park (Rawreth Ln)
• The options CFS053, CFS086, and CKS027 would require access via quite residential roads.
• This would have a severe impact on both the environment, well being of residents and traffic management.

Environmental
• The use of green belt land erodes the rural nature of the Rayleigh conurbation.
• The proposed development CFS053 would require the removal of a well used public footpath between Wellington Rd and Albert Rd (via Napier Road).
• This would be to the detriment of the local community for the provision of health and wellbeing.

Wildlife
• Option CFS053 is frequently visited by Badgers, Foxes and occasionally Deer.
• The destruction of this habitat would be to the detriment of these creatures.

Watercourse
• The land to the rear of Nelson Road is separated from CFS053 by the beginnings of the River Roach. Any building on this land would impact this watercourse.

CFSO27 CFS098 CFS086 CFS029 CFSO53

No! I object to the buildings at the end of bull lane

Proposal for new housing development Nelson Road/Wellington Road area.
No more development of houses in this area. We currently have Bullwood Hall, Rawreth Lane, London Road and of course the development on theRayleigh Hullbridge border.
Rayleigh is fast becoming very over developed. It’s hard enough at the moment to get a doctors appointment or a hospital appointment, without the hundreds of new people coming into the system. Going from A to B in the local area by road is also very trying.
Are we going to have more schools, more doctors surgeries and more importantly a new hospital? . Lots of people I speak to some born and bred in Rayleigh no longer particularly like living in Rayleigh anymore.

Dear Sir / Madam,

Please find below my comments regarding the Spatial Options Consultation for your analysis.

Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter.

Kind Regards,
Jane

Q1. Are there any other technical evidence studies that you feel the Council needs to prepare to inform its new Local Plan, other than those listed in this section?
I could not confirm what were the studies you conducted in order to determine the young people’s needs for leisure activities other than sports. In addition, could you please make available the studies conducted.
Q2. Do you agree with our draft vision for Rochford District?
In a matter of principle, yes, I agree, but there should be a greater highlight to creating new jobs through the establishment of business incubators and support to traditional and new outdoor markets to support local farmers.
Q3. Do you agree that we should develop a range of separate visions for each of our settlements to help guide decision-making?
I don’t agree with the separate visions as it will divert the resources from a global vision for Rochford District in terms of number of houses and the respective infrastructure. As such I think it would be detrimental to have a narrower vision which can overlook the effects that the increase of population in one area will have on the remaining parts of the district.
Q4. Do you agree with the strategic priorities and objectives we have identified?
As principles, yes, but I have several objections in the way they are supposedly achieved.
Strategy Options
Q5. Do you agree with the settlement hierarchy presented?
Yes.
Q6. Which of the identified strategy options do you consider should be taken forward in the Plan?
It is my understanding that Option 4 would be preferable, but the more the building is concentrated into one area, the less green belt would have to be released. I will detail my concerns in Q17.
Q7. Are there any reasonable alternatives to these options that should be considered instead?
Please refer to Q6 and Q17.
Spatial Themes
Q8. Are there any key spatial themes that you feel we have missed or that require greater emphasis?
Yes, I was not able to verify what would be the dedicated areas for the construction / improvement of roads and other public transport infrastructure. In addition, I could not confirm where will the new waste management facilities (dumps or recycling centres) will be placed, the way the options are presented it does not allow the public to have a detailed understanding of it.
Q9. Do you agree we should take a sequential approach to flood risk and coastal change in our plan, locating development away from areas at risk of flooding and coastal change wherever possible? How can we best protect current and future communities from flood risk and coastal change?
Yes. No infrastructure or housing development should be authorised to be built in high floor risk areas or coastal change areas. As the plan is omits what would be the estimated costs in terms of the additional infrastructure that would be required for building in these areas, it doesn’t allow for a risk/benefit analysis of allowing to build in risk areas versus costs that would have to be paid in rates by the general public.
Q10. Do you agree that the Coastal Protection Belt and Upper Roach Valley should be protected from development that would be harmful to their landscape character? Are there other areas that you feel should be protected for their special landscape character?
Yes. In addition, Hockley Woods, Rayleigh Mount and Grove Woods should also be preserved from development.
Q11. Do you agree we should require development to source a percentage of their energy from low-carbon and renewable sources? Are there other opportunities in the District to supply low-carbon or renewable energy?
I agree, provided that the energy production equipment produces a relevant amount of energy.
There are plenty of opportunities to establish micro-production with community funding. I am not an expert, but please refer to the work done in Manchester in this regard http://www.gmcr.org.uk/ .
Q12. Do you agree we should require new development to achieve energy efficiency standards higher than building regulations? What level should these be set at?
I agree that energy efficiency should be an important consideration in any development, and they should be above the bear minimum, but I lack the technical knowledge to comment any further.
Q13. How do you feel the plan can help to support the local generation of low-carbon and renewable energy? Are there locations where you feel energy generation should be supported?
The Council should encourage companies, charities and individuals to come up with projects and provide administrative and financial support whenever needed to help them see it through.
Considering the availability of surface water and rain in the UK but the lack of natural elevations in the Essex region, consideration should be given to hydro-electric micro-production facilities.
In addition, solar and wind energy should also be encouraged wherever possible.
Q14. Do you consider that the plan should include a place-making charter that informs relevant policies? Should the same principles apply everywhere in the District, or should different principles apply to different areas?
Yes. The principle should be applied by areas.
Q15. Are the principles set out in the draft place-making charter the right ones? Are there other principles that should be included?
Yes, 1) there is no point regarding public transport (bike lanes and walk paths alone are nowhere near the needs of the community) and 2) there is no point regarding the minimization of the impact that new roads will have in the fabric of the places they will go through.

Q16a. Do you consider that new design guides, codes or masterplans should be created alongside the new Local Plan?
I do not understand the question, this seems to be a specialist subject I cannot provide input on.
Q16b. If yes, do you think it is more appropriate to have a single design guide/code for the whole District, or to have design guides/codes/masterplans for individual settlements or growth areas?
I do not understand the question, this seems to be a specialist subject I cannot provide input on.
Q16c. What do you think should be included in design guides/codes/masterplans at the scale you are suggesting?
I do not understand the question, this seems to be a specialist subject I cannot provide input on.
Housing for All
Q17. With reference to the options listed above, or your own options, how do you feel we can best plan to meet our need for different types, sizes and tenures of housing?
I do not believe that in an area where young people have very few cheap options to buy a house, the option to primarily develop detached or semi-detached housing (80% of the planned houses) would be adequate as the house prices will still be too high, even with the affordable option.
In order to achieve the same number of houses in a significantly smaller development site, the option to increase the number of terraced houses and flats to 50% of the new builds would decrease the overall cost of providing these new houses, regardless of the affordable housing conditions.
In terms of the number of bedrooms, I agree with it, only the distribution between the house size seems too focused in large and expensive properties with a negligible discount that will not suffice to cover the current or future housing needs. A 20% discount on a £700,000 detached house for a family who can only afford a £250,000 terrace house is not an acceptable trade-off.
Q18. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there areas or sites in Rochford that you feel require a specific approach to housing types, size and tenure? What is required to meet housing needs in these areas?
In the specific case of Rayleigh where I reside, there is a significant shortage of terraced houses and flats which are by design cheaper than the other options, so in order to meet the new housing needs, development should focus on these rather than creating huge new areas of detached and semi-detached houses that will not meet current housing needs.
Q19. Are there any other forms of housing that you feel we should be planning for? How can we best plan to meet the need for that form of housing?
I could not confirm in the plan what areas are being specifically allocated to house rough sleepers and other people in homeless situations.
Q20. With reference to the options listed, or your own options, what do you think is the most appropriate way of meeting our permanent Gypsy and Traveller accommodation needs?
Provided that they are willing to pay for their own accommodation and this does not implicate any increase on the council rates, I do not have any specific input in the solution.
Q21. With reference to the options listed, or your own options, what do you think is the most appropriate way of meeting our temporary Gypsy and Traveller accommodation needs?
Provided that they are willing to pay for their own accommodation and this does not implicate any increase on the council rates, I do not have any specific input in the solution.
Q22. What do you consider would need to be included in a criteria-based policy for assessing potential locations for new Gypsy and Traveller sites?
Provide that they pay for the land they spend their time on and the facilities and amenities provided by the council and this does not implicate any increase on the council rates through the clear-up of their sites, I do not have any specific input in the solution, although I would think that they would be better placed outside urban areas without sacrificing any green belt area.
Employment and Jobs
Q23. With reference to the options listed above, or your own options, how do you feel we can best ensure that we meet our employment and skills needs through the plan?
I could not verify if the council is planning or willing to assist new businesses by providing any reduction in business rates for the first years. Considering the crisis that high-street local businesses are facing to establish themselves and thrive, this would be an incredible tool to employ. I am also not aware of any mention to the creation of new business hubs for creative industries, farmers markets and technology start-ups outside of the airport site. When considering the local importance of informal business sites, such as Battlesbridge Antiques Market, the creation of small business hubs would be extremely effective.
Q24. With reference to Figure 30, do you consider the current employment site allocations to provide enough space to meet the District’s employment needs through to 2040? Should we seek to formally protect any informal employment sites for commercial uses, including those in the Green Belt?
As a principle yes, but this has to have a case-by-case analysis of the impacts, namely in terms of polluting employment sites and the needs for infrastructure.
Q25. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to deliver new employment facilities or improvements to existing employment facilities?
When establishing the new sites for development, there is an opportunity to require the property developer to establish a commercial presence proportional to the size of the site in order to create basic shopping amenities or go further if the site so justifies in order to attract more retail. For that purpose, the planning must include loading bays in order not to disturb residents and to supply the shops.
Q26. Are there any particular types of employment site or business accommodation that you consider Rochford District is lacking, or would benefit from?
Considering that the two main villages in Rochford District are traditionally market towns, it is strange that there aren’t any plans to incentivise more street market initiatives, both seasonal and farmers markets.
Q27. Are there other measures we can take through the plan to lay the foundations for long-term economic growth, e.g. skills or connectivity?
I think more public transport to formal and informal employment sites would greatly stimulate the growth or those sites.
Q28. With reference to the options listed above, or your own options, how do you feel we can best manage the Airport’s adaptations and growth through the planning system?
The current road infrastructure is already insufficient to move the traffic from the businesses and people going to and from the area adjacent to the airport. In order to increase the ability of the airport to be a major employment site, the roads must be able to allow the circulation of the increased traffic. It is already clear that the construction of an alternative to the A127 or the increase to a dual carriage capacity of an existing road is essential.
Biodiversity
Q29. Do you agree that the plan should designate and protect areas of land of locally important wildlife value as a local wildlife site, having regard to the Local Wildlife Sites review? Are there any other sites that you feel are worthy of protection?
Yes, it should include the whole of Hockley Woods.
Q30. Do you agree that the plan should designate and protect areas of land of locally important geological value as a local geological site, having regard to the Local Wildlife Sites review? Are there any other sites that you feel are worthy of protection? [Please state reasoning]
I am not aware of it, but this seems to be a specialist subject I cannot provide input on.
Q31. Do you consider net gains for biodiversity are best delivered on-site or off-site? Are there specific locations or projects where net gain projects could be delivered?
I am not aware of it, but this seems to be a specialist subject I cannot provide input on.
Green and Blue Infrastructure
Q32. With reference to the options above, or your own options, how do you feel we can best deliver a quality green and blue infrastructure network through the plan?
I am not aware of it, but this seems to be a specialist subject I cannot provide input on.
Q33. With reference to the options above, or your own options, how do you feel we can best deliver a quality green and blue infrastructure network through the plan?
I am not aware of it, but this seems to be a specialist subject I cannot provide input on.
Q34. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to help deliver new strategic green and blue infrastructure?
I am not aware of it, but this seems to be a specialist subject I cannot provide input on.
Community Infrastructure
Q35. With reference to the options above, or your own options, how can we address the need for sufficient and accessible community infrastructure through the plan?
I could not verify where the schools are going to be built and what is going to be increased in terms of the public transport infrastructure.
Q36. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to deliver new or improved community infrastructure?
Depends on the number of houses built and where they are built. I agree that there has to be an increase, but this seems to be a specialist subject I cannot provide input on.
Q37. Are there areas in the District that you feel have particularly severe capacity or access issues relating to community infrastructure, including schools, healthcare facilities or community facilities? How can we best address these?
There is an absolute absence of any facilities for young teenagers that don’t involve organised sports or are not paid.
Regarding the schools and healthcare, the current infrastructure is stretched, and doctors are already struggling to keep up with their appointments as it is and this is a nationwide problem. With new houses being built, this should be addressed before the problem gets even worse, but this is a specialist subject I cannot provide further input on.
Open Spaces and Recreation
Q38. With reference to the options above, or your own options, how do you feel we can best meet our open space and sport facility needs through the plan?
I am not aware of it, but this seems to be a specialist subject I cannot provide input on.
Q39. Are the potential locations for 3G pitch investment the right ones? Are there other locations that we should be considering?
I am not aware of it, but this seems to be a specialist subject I cannot provide input on.
Q40. Are the listed potential hub sites and key centres the right ones? Are there other locations that we should be considering?
I am not aware of it, but this seems to be a specialist subject I cannot provide input on.
Q41. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to help deliver improvements to open space or sport facility accessibility or provision?
I am not aware of it, but this seems to be a specialist subject I cannot provide input on.
Q42. Are there particular open spaces that we should be protecting or improving?
I am not aware of it, but this seems to be a specialist subject I cannot provide input on.
Heritage
Q43. With reference to the options listed in this section, or your own options, how do you feel we can best address heritage issues through the plan?
I am not aware of it, but this seems to be a specialist subject I cannot provide input on.
Q44. Are there areas of the District we should be considering for conservation area status beyond those listed in this section?
I am not aware of it, but this seems to be a specialist subject I cannot provide input on.
Q45. Are there any buildings, spaces or structures that should be protected for their historic, cultural or architectural significance? Should these be considered for inclusion on the Local List of non-designated assets?
I am not aware of it, but this seems to be a specialist subject I cannot provide input on.
Town Centres and Retail
Q46. With reference to the options listed above, or your own options, how do you think we can best plan for vibrant town centres in Rochford, Rayleigh and Hockley? How can we also ensure our village and neighbourhood centres remain vibrant? [Please state
Ensure that new types of retail and other businesses are encouraged to establish themselves in the town centres, namely through the reduction or exemption of council rates to give them a chance to survive the initial period. Other than restaurants and beauty services, no new businesses have opened in Rayleigh High Street. This reduces the overall margin of the existing businesses, the attractiveness to the installation of new businesses and the ability to attract visitors to shop in Rayleigh.
Q47. Do you agree with the local centre hierarchy set out in Figure 36? If not, what changes would you make? [Please state reasoning]
I don’t have an issue with the hierarchy per se, but there should be some protection to the local centres and local parades to ensure that they don’t disappear.
Q48. With reference to Figures 38, 39 and 40, do you agree with existing town centre boundaries and extent of primary and secondary shopping frontages in Rayleigh, Rochford and Hockley? If not, what changes would you make? [Please state reasoning]
Yes.
Q49. Should we continue to restrict appropriate uses within town centres, including primary and secondary shopping frontages within those centres? If yes, what uses should be restricted? [Please state reasoning]
Yes. In the town centres the primary use must be commercial as the unchecked conversion to housing developments would create many problems with noise complaints and others where they didn’t exist before.
Q50. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to deliver improved retail and leisure services in the District? [Please state reasoning]
Yes, as I mentioned before, considering the market town pasts of Rayleigh and Rochford, it would greatly benefit local businesses to incentivise street market initiatives as it would not only provide a greater variety of goods to residents, but it would also provide local businesses the foot traffic.
Transport and Connectivity
Q51. With reference to the options above, or your own options, how do you feel we can best address our transport and connectivity needs through the plan?
The plan has to have appropriate measures in place to secure those roads and railways are built ahead of the conclusion of the developments and not after they are concluded, as it is common sense that once the houses are built, any compulsory purchase of space to build infrastructure will be more expensive.
From what I could understand, any plans to increase the transportation network are left to chance or delegated to other entities.
The increase of the housing without transport will further exacerbate the problems that the road infrastructure is currently facing and there are no plans whatsoever to increase public transportation to places which are already lacking, such as Hullbridge which is almost entirely dependent on Rayleigh’s infrastructure.
It is strange that the Beaulieu Estates managed to have a new train line and the people of Rochford District can’t either get appropriate roads, let alone more train connections. I cannot understand how Chelmsford is able to plan these developments to have transport connectivity and Rochford cannot plan a road.
Q52. Are there areas where improvements to transport connections are needed?
Yes, the A127 needs increasing and there is a lack of an alternative route to this road going into Rochford and Southend.
Q53. With reference to your preferred Strategy Option, are there opportunities for growth to deliver new transport connections, such as link roads or rapid transit? What routes and modes should these take? [walking, cycling, rail, bus, road etc.]
Yes. All of the above, the increase in the demographics and the expected establishment of new businesses should account for an increase primarily focused on roads, rail and buses that serves as an alternative to the current routes that are massively overrun.
Green Belt and Rural Issues
Q54. Do you feel that the plan should identify rural exception sites? If so, where should these be located and what forms of housing or employment do you feel need to be provided?
I am not aware of it, but this seems to be a specialist subject I cannot provide input on.
Q55. Are there any other ways that you feel the plan should be planning for the needs of rural communities?
I am not aware of it, but this seems to be a specialist subject I cannot provide input on.
Planning for Complete Communities
Q56a. Do you agree with our vision for Rayleigh? Is there anything you feel is missing?
No. I cannot see this translated in the detailed plan.
Q56b. With reference to Figure 44 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the land edged blue should be made available for any of the following uses?
I cannot understand the allocation between commercial and housing properties as well as infrastructure, as there are nowhere near enough roads or overpasses in the image provided.
Q56c. Are there areas in Rayleigh that development should generally be presumed appropriate?
No, unless infrastructure is put in place. A simple example is the development in Daws Heath Road, where all these plots are meant to be made available for development, but the end of the road, approaching the A127, is not able to take two cars at the time.
Q56d. Are there areas that require protecting from development?
New developments in the Town Centre that either reduce green areas or affect the Mill Hall and any development that reduces the area of Hockley woods.
Q56e. Do you agree that the local green spaces shown on Figure 44 hold local significance? Are there any other open spaces that hold particular local significance?
The legend to Figure 44 does not allow for enough detail to understand the changes to the green spaces and the purpose of them.

Q57a. Do you agree with our vision for Rochford and Ashingdon?
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q57b. With reference to Figure 45 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the land edged blue should be made available for any of the following uses?
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q57c. Are there areas in Rochford and Ashingdon that development should generally be presumed appropriate?
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q57d. Are there areas that require protecting from development?
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q57e. Do you agree that the local green spaces shown on Figure 45 hold local significance?
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q58a. Do you agree with our vision for Hockley and Hawkwell?
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q58b. With reference to Figure 46 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the land edged blue should be made available for any of the following uses?
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q58c. Are there areas in Hockley and Hawkwell that development should generally be presumed appropriate?
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q58d. Are there areas that require protecting from development?
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q57e. Do you agree that the local green spaces shown on Figure 46 hold local significance? Are there any other open spaces that hold particular local significance?
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q59a. Do you agree with our vision for the Wakerings and Barling? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q59b. With reference to Figure 47 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the land edged blue should be made available for any of the following uses?
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q59c. Are there areas in the Wakerings and Barling that development should generally be presumed appropriate? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q59d. Are there areas that require protecting from development? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q59e. Do you agree that the local green spaces shown on Figure 47 hold local significance? Are there any other open spaces that hold particular local significance? [Please state reasoning]
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q60a. Do you agree with our vision for Hullbridge?
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q60b. With reference to Figure 48 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the land edged blue should be made available for any of the following uses?
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q59c. Are there areas in Hullbridge that development should generally be presumed appropriate?
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q59d. Are there areas that require protecting from development?
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q59e. Do you agree that the local green spaces shown on Figure 48 hold local significance?
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q60a. Do you agree with our vision for Canewdon? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q61b. With reference to Figure 49 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the land edged blue should be made available for any of the following uses? How could that improve the completeness of Canewdon?
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q61c. Are there areas in Canewdon that development should generally be presumed appropriate? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q61d. Are there areas that require protecting from development? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q61e. Do you agree that the local green spaces shown on Figure 49 hold local significance? Are there any other open spaces that hold particular local significance? [Please state reasoning]
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q62a. Do you agree with our vision for Great Stambridge? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q62b. With reference to Figure 50 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the land edged blue should be made available for any of the following uses? How could that improve the completeness of Great Stambridge?
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q62c. Are there areas in Great Stambridge that development should generally be presumed appropriate? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q62d. Are there areas in Great Stambridge that development should generally be presumed appropriate? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q62e. Do you agree that the local green spaces shown on Figure 50 hold local significance? Are there any other open spaces that hold particular local significance? [Please state reasoning]
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q63a. Do you agree with our vision for Rawreth? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q63b. With reference to Figure 51 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the land edged blue should be made available for any of the following uses?
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q63c. Are there areas in Rawreth that development should generally be presumed appropriate? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q63d. Are there areas that require protecting from development? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q63e. Do you agree that the local green spaces shown on Figure 51 hold local significance? Are there any other open spaces that hold particular local significance? [Please state reasoning]
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q64a. Do you agree with our vision for Paglesham? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q64b. With reference to Figure 52 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the land edged blue should be made available for any of the following uses?
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q64c. Are there areas in Paglesham that development should generally be presumed appropriate? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q64d. Are there areas that require protecting from development? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q64e. Are there areas that require protecting from development? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q65a. Do you agree with our vision for Sutton and Stonebridge? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q65b. With reference to Figure 53 and your preferred Strategy Option, do you think any of the land edged blue should be made available for any of the following uses?
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q65c. Are there areas in Sutton and Stonebridge that development should generally be presumed appropriate? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q65d. Are there areas that require protecting from development? Why these areas? [Please state reasoning]
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q65e. Do you agree that the local green spaces shown on Figure 53 hold local significance? Are there any other open spaces that hold particular local significance? [Please state reasoning]
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q66. Do you agree that our rural communities do not require individual vision statements? Are there communities that you feel should have their own vision? [Please state reasoning]
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q67. Do you agree with our vision for our rural communities? Is there anything you feel is missing? [Please state reasoning]
I cannot provide meaningful input.
Q68. Are there other courses of action the Council could take to improve the completeness of our rural communities?
I cannot provide meaningful input.

We are writing to express our objection to the Spatial Options Plan which involves the development of land between Wellington Road and Bull Lane, taking in all the land behind Nelson Road, Albert Road and off the top of Bull Lane.
The Green Belt land at the rear of our property is a haven for bird and wildlife and development there would be detrimental to us and neighbouring properties. Indeed, the peaceful location was very much a deciding factor in purchasing the property. The water channel, which runs along the rear of the properties in Nelson Road, is an important factor. Foxes, badgers, pheasants and bird life will be affected greatly. The public right of way should also be taken into account. We often notice walkers and walking clubs as well as people riding horses enjoying the land.
A development of this size would have a severe impact on the general atmosphere, character and amenity of the town. The roads in Rayleigh town are already congested and increased traffic would severely impact on every-day life. Traffic getting out of Wellington Road and Albert Road will cause issues. Other services including schools, doctors etc are already stretched and, again, this would have an adverse impact on residents.
In our opinion, Rayleigh has managed to retain its interest and small town character. This development will change the town beyond recognition, and we must ask that the Council reconsider the current proposals.

I have received your proposal for my area namely , CFSO27, CFS098, CFS086,
CFS029, and CFS053.
For these areas to be removed from their current GREENBELT protection.

I know that the need for extra housing is an important consideration and I hope that the required numbers can be realised from areas other than these. Everyone wants to keep the Beauty of the countryside.
Unfortunately with new housing comes the need for NEW SCHOOLS, NEW NHS facilities and of course NEW CARS, Which I’m aware do not come under your control, but hope that you have some influence with ESSEX c.c

May I suggest a duel carriageway new road connecting Hullbridge via Lower Road with Hockley and Southchurch via Sutton Road. This would be a great help for all of us…….

I have been made aware of the possible interest in developing houses on the green field down sandhill road Ss95by (reference CFS059) and felt I should leave my personal comment on this. I strongly OBJECT to this due to the disaster it would cause for the residents of the road and neighbouring roads:
1- increased noise pollution.
2- loss of nature for the abundance of wildlife we have.
3- Increased traffic of which our small road would not cope with due to only being a single-width road. Each house could have a minimum of 2 cars which is 40 new cars (likely more), Also, where will these cars park as I highly doubt they will have adequate parking and therefor will spill out on the road causing all manner of disruption and disputes.
4- Our road is a quiet safe road which has resident children playing on it daily! This would no longer be possible due to the increased traffic.
5- This will likely devalue our properties (especially if there is affordable housing).
6- This will cause more traffic problems for the neighbouring roads such as sandhill road on the opposite side, Rayleigh avenue, Eastwood rise and gravel road, as a few examples, which are already used as rat runs and can’t cope with traffic as it is.
I hope my OBJECTION will be logged.

Proposed Housing Development behind Nelson Road/Albert Road
I have viewed the consultation document and am appalled that yet another green field site is going to be lost and another 300+ homes built. Despite all the council’s positive comment’s on infrastructure and affordable housing the reality is Rayleigh has now reached saturation point. Schools, Surgeries , Dentists, Childcare facilities, social/council services are at breaking point directly as a result of the huge housing expansion experienced over recent years without due consideration to its residents.

The roads in and around around Rayleigh are unable to cope with the volume of traffic, again directly due to the housing expansion. Most times of the day there are traffic jams throughout the area but the council keeps proposing yet more housing ! I am totally against this particular proposal and in particular yet more large scale developments in the area. There has to be a limit to what this area can absorb and I firmly believe Rayleigh has already reached that stage. I see very little improvement in what is becoming a “scruffy” town which it is becoming a far less appealing town to live for all the reasons above. I don’t believe Rochford Council listens to its residents and will go ahead with the proposals anyway !

Having had the opportunity to explore the maps as you have provided I wish to express my concern as to the potential impact it would have on the area in which I have lived for 26 years.

I believe Rayleigh has accepted more than its fair share of development in recent times with large estates already going up to the West of the town. We are now being asked to start accepting such developments to the East in what is already a developed and congested area. On many occasions the town centre is gridlocked (in fact leaving Betjeman Close two weeks ago in the morning it took me an hour to get to the Rayleigh Weir). The roads cannot take much more without substantial investment in improvements and indeed the local infrastructure is already creaking. No details of how this estates may be accessed is shown and I have no doubt major alterations would have to be made to local roads which are too narrow for the traffic flows that may be expected.

Trying to get doctors appointments is almost an impossible task and the schools are full to bursting.

I recognise that housing is important but it cannot be right that they are spoiling areas to the detriment of peoples lives in the area. Also the developments do not have affordable housing as is always mooted as being part of the development with properties regularly over the half million pounds mark and greater. What chance for local young people?

So my views and that of my family is a resounding NO to your plans but I am sceptical about how much notice will be taken.

Ref CFSO27, CFSO98, CFSO86 CFSO29 CFSO53
No we do not want these houses built in greenbelt land. Please stop this from happening.