Q56d. Are there areas that require protecting from development?

Ref CFSO27, CFSO98, CFSO86 CFSO29 CFSO53
Please do not allow this to go ahead.

Ref CFSO27, CFSO98, CFSO86 CFSO29 CFSO53
Please do not allow this building work to go ahead. This is greenbelt land and should remain so.

1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Rochford District Council is seeking feedback from interested parties on its identified ‘Options’ in the
New Local Plan: Spatial Options document.
1.2 Lee Evans Planning have been instructed to make representations on behalf of Ms Suzanne Redwood,
Mr Roger Lambourne and Mr Colin Humphries.
1.3 Section 2 sets out relevant extant Planning Policy considerations.
1.4 Section 3 reviews and comments on the Spatial Options document, including providing responses to
Questions outlined in the Consultation.

2. CURRENT POLICY POSITION
National Planning Policy Framework
2.1 The National Planning Policy Framework sets out the meaning and role of sustainable development and how planning can help to achieve it. At a very high level, the objective of sustainable development can be summarised as meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
2.2 A rising population and longer life expectancy requires growth and an increase in the volume and
choice of housing. The NPPF identifies the need to complement this growth with high standards of
design and to protect our built, natural and historic environments. The NPPF also highlights the
fundamental role that sustainable development plays in the plan-making and decision making process.
So that sustainable development is pursued in a positive way, at the heart of the Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development
2.3 The NPPF serves to provide a framework around which the community and the councils can produce
the local and neighbourhood plans, which reflect the needs and priorities of the community.
The National Planning Policy Framework must be taken into account in preparing the development plan, and is a material consideration in planning decisions.
2.5 Paragraph 8 of the NPPF reiterates the role of the planning system and the contribution it must make to realising sustainable development. Sustainable development has three dimensions to it; economic,
social and environmental.
• an economic objective – to help build a strong, responsive and competitive economy, by ensuring that sufficient land of the right types is available in the right places and at the right time to support growth, innovation and improved productivity; and by identifying and
coordinating the provision of infrastructure;
• a social objective – to support strong, vibrant and healthy communities, by ensuring that a sufficient number and range of homes can be provided to meet the needs of present and future generations; and by fostering well-designed, beautiful and safe places, with accessible services and open spaces that reflect current and future needs and support communities’ health, social and cultural well-being; and
• an environmental objective – to protect and enhance our natural, built and historic environment; including making effective use of land, improving biodiversity, using natural resources prudently, minimising waste and pollution, and mitigating and adapting to climate
change, including moving to a low carbon economy.
2.6 The NPPF considers in further detail the need to protect and improve the quality of the built, natural and historic environment. One aspect of this aim is to widen the choice of quality homes. This can be achieved through the plan-making process, as discussed in paragraph 11.
Plans and decisions should apply a presumption in favour of sustainable development. For plan-making this means that:
a) all plans should promote a sustainable pattern of development that seeks to: meet the development
needs of their area; align growth and infrastructure; improve the environment; mitigate climate change (including by making effective use of land in urban areas) and adapt to its effects;
b) strategic policies should, as a minimum, provide for objectively assessed needs for housing and other uses, as well as any needs that cannot be met within neighbouring areas, unless:
i. the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a strong reason for restricting the overall scale, type or distribution of development in the plan area; or
ii. any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when
assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole.
2.7 Paragraph 60 notes the need to boost the supply of homes through land allocation. To support the Government’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes, it is important that a sufficient amount and variety of land can come forward where it is needed, that the needs of groups with specific housing requirements are addressed and that land with permission is developed without unnecessary delay.
2.8 Paragraph 61 outlines the approach to determining housing need. The New Local Plan; Spatial Options
document is unclear on the degree to which the duty to cooperate has been explored with neighbouring areas, suggesting that at present the assumption should be made that all identified housing need must be delivered within the district.
To determine the minimum number of homes needed, strategic policies should be informed by a local housing need assessment, conducted using the standard method in national planning guidance – unless exceptional circumstances justify an alternative approach which also reflects current and future demographic trends and market signals. In addition to the local housing need figure, any needs that cannot be met within neighbouring areas should also be taken into account in establishing the amount of housing to be planned for.
2.9 Each year the local planning authority will identify their supply of specific deliverable sites to provide the next five years of housing with an additional 5% buffer. This will allow for both choice and competition in the market. Developable sites that can accommodate for years 6-10 of the plan period and beyond will also be identified.
2.10 A 10% buffer should be provided “where the local planning authority wishes to demonstrate a five year
supply of deliverable sites through an annual position statement or recently adopted plan, to account for any fluctuations in the market during that year”.
2.11 A 20% buffer should be provided “where there has been significant under delivery of housing over the
previous three years, to improve the prospect of achieving the planned supply”. The NPPG elaborates
by stating that “A 20% buffer will apply to a local planning authority’s five-year land supply if housing delivery falls below 85%”.
2.12 If a five year supply of deliverable housing cannot be demonstrated policies relating to the supply of housing should not be considered to be up-to-date. All housing applications should be considered on the basis of a presumption in favour of sustainable development as has been discussed above. The most recent Authority Monitoring Report (draft 2019-2020), suggests that there exists a district housing need of 1,800 homes over a five year period (equating to 360 homes per year) and that the Council could at that time illustrate a 6.32 year housing land supply at a 5% buffer level, and 5.53 year supply at the 20% buffer, albeit it is noted that this was only draft and requires updating for the 2020-2021 period. The current supply is unknown but the Spatial Options document notes that the need for 360 homes per
year over the course of the Plan (20 years), equating to 7,200 homes total, remains. This figure does not include for assisting other districts in the duty to cooperate or any 5/20% buffer, so could well be higher. Notwithstanding this, there is a clear need to increase the allocation of housing land in the new Local Plan to illustrate the potential for 7,200 homes to be delivered.
2.13 Paragraph 73 highlights the opportunity for larger scale development and the benefits of this approach
in achieving the necessary supply of housing. It is possible that new settlements or extensions to
existing settlements can provide a route to sustainable development.
The supply of large numbers of new homes can often be best achieved through planning for larger scale development, such as new settlements or significant extensions to existing villages and towns, provided they are well located and designed, and supported by the necessary infrastructure and facilities (including a genuine choice of transport modes).
2.14 Paragraph 23 notes that Local Plans should plan positively for development by allocating sites for
development and identify land where development would be inappropriate due to its environmental or historic significance.
Broad locations for development should be indicated on a key diagram, and landuse designations and allocations identified on a policies map. Strategic policies should provide a clear strategy for bringing sufficient land forward, and at a sufficient rate, to address objectively assessed needs over the plan period, in line with the presumption in favour of sustainable development. This should include planning or and allocating sufficient sites to deliver the strategic priorities of the area
2.15 Paragraph 138 of the NPPF refers to the purposes of the Green Belt;
Green Belt serves five purposes:
a) to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;
b) to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another;
c) to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;
d) to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and
e) to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.
2.16 Local Plans will be examined by an independent inspector before they are adopted. To be considered
ready for adoption they will need to be shown to be ‘sound’, as per paragraph 35 of the NPPF;
Local plans and spatial development strategies are examined to assess whether they have been
prepared in accordance with legal and procedural requirements, and whether they are sound. Plans are
‘sound’ if they are:
a) Positively prepared – providing a strategy which, as a minimum, seeks to meet the area’s objectively assessed needs; and is informed by agreements with other authorities, so that unmet need from neighbouring areas is accommodated where it is practical to do so and is consistent with achieving sustainable development;
b) Justified – an appropriate strategy, taking into account the reasonable alternatives, and based on proportionate evidence;
c) Effective – deliverable over the plan period, and based on effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic matters that have been dealt with rather than deferred, as evidenced by the statement of common ground; and d) Consistent with national policy – enabling the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in this Framework and other statements of national planning policy, where relevant. Rochford District Core Strategy and the Allocations Plan
2.17 The key strategic documents in the local development plan are the adopted Core Strategy 2011 and the Allocations Plan 2014. These are both dated documents and would be considered out of date where
the content conflicts with NPPF policy. Nonetheless, they provide a useful basis against which to subsequently consider the options in the New Local Plan consultation.
2.18 The following exerts are of interest;
District
2.41 “Failure to provide affordable housing that meets the needs of the District’s residents may lead to
continued out-migration, to the detriment of the vitality of local communities.” (p31)
Rayleigh
“The largest settlement is Rayleigh which, in 2001, was home to 30,196 people (38% of the District’s
residents at that time).” (p28)
Housing Development
2.39 “As well as directing housing growth to areas of need/demand, and away from unsustainable
locations subject to constraints, the Council must consider the relationship of housing growth to areas
of employment growth.” (p30)
Vision – Medium/Long Term “A range of high-quality, sustainable new dwellings that meet the needs
of local people of all social groups are in place and integrated into communities. The vast majority of
the District’s Green Belt remains undeveloped. New infrastructure has accompanied new residential
development, meeting the need of local communities.” (p41)
Policy H1 – the efficient use of land for housing
“The remaining housing requirement that cannot be delivered through the redevelopment of appropriate previously developed land will be met through extensions to the residential envelopes of existing settlements as outlined in Policy H2.” (p45)
The Green Belt
Housing Objective “Prioritise the redevelopment of appropriate brownfield sites for housing, to minimise the release of Green Belt land for development” (p41).
“In order to fulfil the requirements of the East of England Plan and to meet the housing need of the District, the Council is required to allocate additional land for residential development, including land, which is currently allocated as Green Belt, due to the limited supply” (p45).
“it must be also mindful of the need to maintain Green Belt as far as possible.” (p46)
2.19 The extant Core Strategy outlines a strong protection of the Green Belt, as per national policy. However, this was predicated on an old housing need and supply, which is now out of line with current demand
and what can be achieved through existing permissions, allocations, brownfield sites and windfall forecasts. Rayleigh is considered a focal settlement and one that has both a sizeable population already and the infrastructure to service those residents.
2.20 Notwithstanding the above, the Council recognised the need to review the designation of the Green Belt in the face of the relatively low housing need at the time the Core Strategy was drafted. It states;
The Council will continue to support the principles of restricting development in the Green Belt, as set out in PPG2, and will preserve the character and openness of the Green Belt. However, a small proportion of the District’s Green Belt will have to have its designation reviewed to allow the development of additional housing and business premises, taking account of the very limited
opportunities to accommodate further development within existing settlements.
2.21 This position regarding housing need and lack of land supply (before moving onto Green Belt land), will
be felt more acutely during the drafting of this new Local Plan.

3. NEW LOCAL PLAN: SPATIAL OPTIONS QUESTIONS
3.1 It is noted that in its introductory section the Spatial Options document considers the need to “coordinate the delivery of much needed housing”. It also states that;

“Rochford should consider every opportunity to meet its own housing needs within its own authority
area, with a focus on genuinely affordable housing that meets genuinely local needs”
3.2 Given the extent of Green Belt in this part of South East Essex, it is considered likely that as in Rochford,
surrounding districts will find it difficult to deliver their full quota of required housing land supply within
existing settlements and on brownfield land, i.e. there will be a need to use Green Belt. To this end it is
submitted that they will be unable to offer assistance to Rochford in providing surplus land to accommodate housing delivery. We support the Spatial Options document in the above assertion.
3.3 This will necessitate a review of Green Belt designation to a greater extent than that previously carried out with the adopted Core Strategy. As noted above, Green Belt serves 5 purposes; “to check the
unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas, to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another, to
assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment, to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns and to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.” It is submitted that where these matters are less acutely felt, and in those areas of lesser
landscape quality, new housing land allocations could be proposed within the currently designated Green Belt, to assist with achieving the necessary housing land supply. The Core Strategy acknowledges this approach;
The term ‘Green Belt’ refers to a planning designation and is not necessarily a description of quality of
the land. Land designated as Green Belt can include, primarily for historical reasons, developed land and
brownfield sites. As such, whilst it is considered that all land currently designated as Green Belt helps achieve the five green belt purposes as set out in the NPPF to at least a degree, some green belt land is less worthy of continued protection.
3.4 This is acknowledged in the New Local Plan: Spatial Options document, which considers 4no. spatial
options for delivery of necessary development and infrastructure. All but Option 1 would necessitate
the use of Green Belt.
Question 5. Do you agree with the settlement hierarchy presented? If not, what changes do you think
are required?
3.6 We support the settlement hierarchy presented. This focuses development at the most appropriate
settlements in the order of their ability to support new development. Rayleigh benefits from a strong existing resident mass and thus has a viability for growth and expansion of businesses and communities. We would submit that the majority of new development, and residential site allocations, should be around Rayleigh.
Question 6. Which of the identified strategy options do you consider should be taken forward in the Plan?
3.7 We support Strategy Option 2 and in particular Option 2a. This option provides a balanced response to the housing need of 7,200 – 10,800 dwellings (delivering between 8,700 to 10,700 dwellings), the necessary mass to support a good level of new infrastructure and facilities, and the need to minimise as much as possible the release of Green Belt for development.
3.8 Option 1 would not deliver the required housing land necessary to respond to the identified housing
need over the course of the Plan, and as discussed, it is considered unlikely that other surrounding districts would be able to assist with additional land. Option 3 would necessitate a significant release of Green Belt and would have a significant impact on the character of the surrounding Green Belt due to the size of a new villages/towns. As with to Option 3, Option 4 would require a sizeable release of Green Belt and significant impact on surrounding land around any new villages/towns.
3.9 Figure 23 of the Spatial Options document provides a Sustainability Appraisal of the various Options and this illustrates the balance that Option 2 provides, albeit it is noted that Option 4 scores best.
However, due to its mix of strategies for the delivery of development we would note a concern that it would pose significant complexities in implementing. In order to achieve the development required the full mix of strategies would be required, and if one were to fail or be delayed (as is a real risk with new villages/towns), a shortfall in housing or employment space could result, putting the Council’s position at risk.
Question 56a. Do you agree with our vision for Rayleigh? Is there anything you feel is missing?
3.10 We support the vision for Rayleigh. It is and should remain the only Tier 1 settlement given its existing
population mass, infrastructure/facilities provision and ability to accommodate significant growth relative to other settlements. The growth and expansion of Rayleigh with urban extensions would generate a sizeable portion of the housing quota required to respond to the identified housing need. Through the development of the majority of those sites submitted for consideration around the edges of Rayleigh, this focal settlement could alleviate pressures on more rural settings and larger swathes of
Green Belt throughout the rest of the district.
Questions 56b, 56c, 56d and 56e.
3.11 It is submitted that land at Call for Sites references CFS044 and CFS256 would offer an opportunity to
contribute to identified housing need delivery in a Green Belt location that could maintain the five purposes of Green Belt and in a location that has reduced landscape quality but is also well screened from surrounding areas. The attached initial Scoping Landscape Statement and Transport Planning Technical Note support that proposal.
3.12 The Council have carried out an initial assessment of these sites, as below.

[SEE DOCUMENT FOR IMAGE]

3.13 Whilst the appraisals above highlight the impact upon Green Belt, as discussed it is submitted that most
virgin sites put forward will impact upon that designation. It is considered that a sequential assessment
of the districts Green Belt would be appropriate in this regard and could highlight those sites that would
have a lesser visual impact and still maintain the purposes of Green Belt as best possible. The above
sites are expected to respond positively in both regards. The accompanying Scoping Landscape Statement concludes thus;
The landscape is subdivided into paddocks and is not of the highest visual quality, but the structure is strong and there are valued elements within it. The site is well contained by woodland and hedgerows, which should be used to inform design work for any forthcoming development proposal. Development of the site would take place within the current Green Belt designation / boundary, but the impact of development upon the openness of the Green Belt would be limited, due to the site's location adjacent to the existing urban area, its location within an enclave of landscape defined by the urban area and the A127, and the fact that the site's character is already enclosed, offering few publicly
accessible viewpoints.
Development of the site would not bring about coalescence of settlement, due to the strong landscape
barrier represented by the A127 itself, and the extensive Pound Wood Nature Reserve to the south of it,
separating the site from Daws Heath. Should the site be brought forward for development, design work should be informed by a full understanding of local landscape and visual character. The enclosed and compartmentalised character of the site should be retained and used as a constraint for design.
3.14 The Sustainability Appraisal also scores the sites low on ‘Existing site access’. However, the
accompanying Transport Planning Technical Note identifies 3no. possible accesses to the site, two of
which would be new accesses. It comments thus;
A number of options have been identified as having good potential for providing vehicle access to the site to unlock its development potential and deliver between 200 and 300 residential dwellings as part of the new Rochford Local Plan.
Providing a sustainable transport link from the site to the north is considered important to unlock the full sustainable development potential of the site as there are a number of local facilities and services on this section of A1015 Eastwood Road including bus stops.
3.15 It is submitted that in other key criteria the sites score well in the Sustainability Appraisal and in
combination would provide a high scoring option as a residential/housing allocation (including market
and affordable).
3.16 It is submitted that generally the area of these sites is well suited to accommodating a moderate
amount of new development. It is well enclosed by existing built form with the edge of Rayleigh to the
immediate north and the A127 to the immediate south. As such it would not lead to an interruption of
open land and countryside to the detriment of the landscape and quality of Green Belt. Furthermore,
this area scores well in terms of its Walking Completeness Score, in particular the two sites identified,
which are adjacent to land scoring of 8-10.
3.17 In combination with other similarly sized sites in this location to the south east of Rayleigh, a good level
of housing land supply could be achieved across numerous parcels (each able to provide in the region
100 to 400 dwellings). This would not necessitate significant new infrastructure but rather upgrades to
existing. Furthermore, the delivery of this volume of dwellings across several parcels would allow for
the retention of important green spaces and structural planting in between, which could serve to
maintain the green character of this urban/rural fringe and complement the Green Belt beyond.
3.18 We Support the allocation of Open Space and Local Wildlife Sites to the east of Rayleigh. It is
submitted that development on or adjacent to these protected sites could negatively impact upon
them, through increased light/air/noise pollution and walker/visitors (in the case of the wildlife sites).
There is an added logic in retaining these sites as open space and wildlife sites (for their intrinsic value)
as they could double as Green Belt.

I object to the proposed planning under references - CFS027, CFS098, CFS086, CFS029 & CFS053

CFS059 - SANDHILL ROAD
I am writing in response to the possible development of the field at the end of Sandhill Road.. ie, 20 new houses on this small piece of land. This is and will be to the detriment of this road. The infrastructure of this road is totally unable to handle all the large plant that will have to use it for building works. This will be a very dangerous situation and I’m in no don’t an accident waiting to happen.
There are many reasons against this project:- 1. Only one access in & out.
2. Road too narrow especially at the field end.
3. Road won’t cope with increased traffic meaning more maintenance.
4. Increased traffic in Eastwood Rise, Gravel Road, Rayleigh Road and all surrounding roads which are already congested as well as major parking problems…
5. There is an abundance of wildlife in this field that will become displaced , such as: Badgers, Foxes, Muntjac deer & Bats.. I thought the new idea was to encourage wildlife not decimate.
6. It is a quiet road where children can play safely but will become a dangerous rat run.
7. It will devalue existing homes in this road and in surrounding area.
8. If you build here this is obviously going to give you the option to spill into other fields & greenbelt..of which I’m sure you are already aware, and so are we!
This is not a viable option and I strongly OBJECT to the inclusion of this field In your new Spacial Options Document.

CFS027 CFS098 CFS086 CFS029 CFS053

I write to oppose the plans for this/these developments in our area
Enough is enough stop destroying our greenbelt and wildlife habitats

Our infrastructure is already at breaking point there is no parking and way too much traffic and pollution and queues at local stations

I oppose any further development in my area

Ref;
CFS027
CFS098
CFS086
CFS029
CFS053
NO

REFNO CFS027 CFS098 CFSO86 CFS029 CFS053
Re above REF NO'S - I OBJECT STRONGLY TO THE ABOVE PLANS RAYLEIGH IS ALREADY BECOMING A CONCRETE JUNGLE INSUFFICIENT SCHOOLS DOCTORS AND ROAD PLANNING -RAYLEIGH IS ONE CONTINUAL TRAFFIC JAM , LEAVE OUR GREEN BELT LAND ALONE FOR THE WILDLIFE AND US HUMANS!!!!

I am emailing to say I don’t agree with your plans to build on green belt

I am saying NO to the following:


CFS027
CFS098
CFS086
CFS029
CFS053

As a local resident I often walk dogs with friends on these areas.

Green belt is in place for a reason. We need open spaces for well-being

329 houses in Wellington Road, Napier Road and Bull Lane Farm Road Rayleigh. Ref CFS027, 098,086,029 and053.
I object to this proposed housing.

There will be no corresponding infrastructure or public services.

In Rayleigh the roads are wholly congested, there is difficulty in getting a Doctor's appointment or getting a child into a school. The local hospitals cannot cater for the huge population with a five milion waiting list.

The local council carry out the central government diktat in relation to the number of houses required. You decide merely where they go. You have an interest in the number of houses built as you receive additional council tax for each house over a period of six years, which financially supports the council.

Migration Watch UK states that new homes are 80% immigration fuelled and with a million or more immigrants every three or four years that is not hard to understand. One cannot blame the immigrants for coming here for a better life, one can blame the idiotic political classes for allowing 300,000 net immigrants a year with no corresponding infrastructure or public services.

Soon, the political classes will have their wish to concrete over England, particularly the South East, destroying farm land and the rural idyll with giant housing estates.

NO. Ref cfs027. cfs098 cfs086 cfs029. cfs053

Emailing to say NO to the projected houses ar Wellington, Napier and Bull Lane Farm roads. Enough is enough. When will this shambles of a council listen to its residents? We don't have the roads, schools, doctors etc for this continued concrete jungle.

Ref
cfs027, 098, 086, 029, 053

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

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

I am emailing to vote against the 329 houses to be positioned on Greenbelt land down Bull Lane. There simply is not enough green space in the area as it is, so to ruin this yet again for wildlife, and people, would be distasteful. Secondly, the traffic, caused by too many houses and people, is getting considerably worse daily, there is too few a doctors, parking, and roads to cope with the current amount of residents, let alone with building more housing on beautiful natural fields. I have lived here for over 20 years now and I have watched the roads get progressively worse, the green spaces decline rapidly, as well as Rayleigh become an over populated town.

Please do not build anymore houses, flats in Rayleigh, please do not build on our remaing fields & green spaces ie Wellington Road Napier Road, end of Bull Lane Farm Road, Hockley Woods, please dont build flats at the Rayleigh Mill site & also Websters Way/Bull Lane corner, enough is enough, If you want to go anywhere now involving go through Rayleigh you have yo leave up to an hour earlier its ridiculous... the constant grid lock, I've lived in Rayleigh since I was 8 years old & will be 70 this year & now thinking of moving possibly out of Essex not just Rayleigh, please no more house building!!!

RE: PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF LAND AT SANDHILL ROAD, EASTWOOD - SITE REFERENCE CFS059

On behalf of my family I wish to express our strongest possible objections to this proposal.

Some time ago we were informed by your then planning development officer, that this land was specified as GREEN BELT.

Even the extensive house building programme announced by the government, laid heavy emphasis on the availability of Brown Field sites, which must always be prioritised.

Quite apart from the breach in the Green Belt principal that this proposal would involve, the whole character of the area would be seriously and irreversibly, altered.

Additionally I strongly suggest that the local infrasture in terms of roads, schools and the like would be severely impacted.


We cannot, of course know how access to the proposed development would be planned but we must stress that access via the land adjacent to TUDOR CLOSE and TUDOR MEWS, would potentially result in serious parking issues, and more importantly risk injury to a child.

Back in 2004 a planning application for this land, was rejected by the Planning Inspector.

I can do no better than echo his words, that based on the fact that the site is within the Metropolitan Green Belt, development in the area proposed "does no accord with the provisions of the local development plan”.

According to the letter I have from Rochford District Council, "planning permission will not be given save in exceptional circumstances for ………. purposes other than agriculture, and recreation, cemeteries or similar uses which are open in character. Any development which is permitted shall be of a scale, design and siting, such that the appearance of the countryside is not impaired.

Furthermore this site is part of the Green Belt urban fringe boundary and as such is particularly sensitive to “making adjoining land vulnerable to development pressures."

And note that the decision back then was based on the construction of a single property, not the 20 that are now being proposed here!

SPATIAL OPTIONS CONSULTATION - NEW LOCAL PLAN
REF: CFS027, CFS098, CFS086, CFS029, CFS053
AND OTHER PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SITES AROUND RAYLEIGH

Looking at the proposed development sites for Rayleigh, it is not difficult to conclude that we are quickly becoming engulfed as a borough within Greater London where Rayleigh’s identity will be erased. Rayleigh is a ‘Market Town’ and has an immense amount of history to preserve and protect.

Sunderland is one such place where surrounding villages have lost their identity with village backing onto village without any green space to separate identities. I have experienced the effect of suffocation this creates, which definitely has an effect on one’s mental health. Rayleigh and Hullbridge are within metres of realising this scenario!

The impact that the proposed plan will have on the area is immense – trying to cross Rayleigh by car from the Rayleigh/Hockley boundary to The Weir takes at least half an hour on a good day, where a journey to Duxford only takes an hour! The amount of traffic on our roads has increased twofold bringing with it an increase in pollution, which has already been reported as dangerously high at times in Rayleigh Town. Our health is at risk. Even trying to sit in your garden these days brings with it a ‘hum’ of constant traffic along the Hockley Road and trying to cross the Hockley Road on foot is like taking a risk with your life.

The effect that building to this scale will have on the A13 and A127 is incomprehensible. The A127 from 3pm onwards is already just a car park and the added traffic on the A13, although improvements are being made for Tilbury Docks traffic, will undoubtedly resemble the A127, especially with an unprecedented building plan around Linford and the proposed building of a New Thames Tunnel crossing. We are at crisis point without adding to this crisis.

Where is all the added traffic to go? We have no added infrastructure at all in Rayleigh. The most recent development in progress along Rawreth Lane was promised to include a new school and doctor’s surgery, but, yet again, developers appear to have pulled back on this promise and the Council fails to make sure such facilities are put in place. How are we, the public, to believe that these further proposed developments will cater for an increase in such essential needs? Without them our schools, doctors, and hospital (already at breaking point) will no longer be able to provide a decent level of service, if any. No wonder house sales have increased in the area with residents moving out.

The public’s mental health is seriously under attack. During Covid lockdowns it was literally a breath of fresh air to be able to walk in open spaces, especially where proposed sites between Wellington Road and Bull Lane are concerned, taking in the land behind Nelson Road, Albert Road and off the top of Bull Lane. As a community we need our open spaces for our sanity and to thrive. Nelson Road is already fast becoming a rat run and, as mention before, Hockley Road is becoming chocked with traffic. A new development on these sites will be extremely detrimental with a threat of losing Hockley Woods (another historic area connected to Henry VIII) to further development.

Rayleigh is a dumping ground for large estates of houses with even our children not being able to afford to live in the area. ‘Affordable homes’ are ‘not affordable’. It doesn’t help with people from the London area moving out of London to the suburbs adding to house price increases. My three children have had to leave the district, my youngest only being able to afford property from Manchester northwards! This also affects family dynamics, not only with children having to move to the other side of the country, but having to live at home into their thirties. Instead of all the massive executive homes being built, what is wrong with terraced houses to help our young buy at truly affordable prices and get on the housing ladder? It should also allow more land to be used more economically providing a greater number of homes. I’m not saying halt building entirely, but small pockets of building will be more acceptable than these such vast proposals.

Even if ‘locals’ wanted to buy, it appears London councils are buying up property in the area because it is cheaper than housing their residents in London, i.e. Hall Road development. What a blot on the landscape Hall Road is with houses packed in like slum buildings of old (on top of each other) and the height of properties being so overbearing. It appears this is what Rayleigh is to expect too by looking at the Rawreth Lane development and all that may follow.

There are very little facilities for the adolescent members of our community to engage in enjoyment, even when my children were young there was a huge lack of something for them to do and nothing appears to be available with the Council wanting to demolish the only community hall we have at Bellingham Lane. As a result of losing community spaces no doubt Rayleigh will be looking at an increase in crime (adding to a presently overstretched police force) and the influx of residents from London boroughs may well add to an increase in the already budding gang culture in the South East. These points have to be considered.

I strongly oppose to demolishing Rayleigh Mill Community Hall. To engulf the area in flats is unthinkable what with taking away visible access to The Mount and surrounding it in yet more concrete. Regal House will be so close to the proposed flats and reducing car parking spaces is also unbelievable. It isn’t easy to park in Rayleigh at the best of times and there is no park and ride scheme. I am aghast at a new community hall plan being so small, especially with the amount of increased housing that is being proposed in Rayleigh. It will no way be ‘fit for purpose’. As a resident, my family and I have/ utilise The Mill Hall on many occasions. Our community ‘needs’ this coming together space.

Surely sacrificing an area of green belt away from existing towns to provide a ‘New Town/Garden Village’ would be a better proposition to ease the impact that such a New Local Plan for the Rochford District would create. Fossetts Way requires serious consideration to ease the burden on Rayleigh.

Rayleigh is being suffocated and living within it is becoming suffocating too – it will no longer be the town it was. We have too much development already and to build at this level will kill Rayleigh’s energy and spirit.

For the above reasons, I am opposing such large schemes of development in and immediately surrounding Rayleigh.

The new local plan is as close to a disaster to the existing local community without an earthquake event.
It is not a new plan but simply a plan that continues the mistakes that have been made over the past decade.
Too many houses;
Green belt and Environmental impact noted and ignored;
Insufficient transport and infrastructure plans;
No acknowledgement that schools, doctors and social support providers lack behind or never turn up;
no protection of the identity of Rayleigh;
This plan will cripple the local economy and environment and finally join Rayleigh into part of the London conurbation that the green belt and responsible planners were supposed to avoid.

Reference number;
CFS098
CFS027
CFS086
CFS029
CFS053

I am emailing in regards to proposed planning on green belt. Particularly the end of Bull Lane where I am a resident. I have contacted the council and police with concerns regarding the turning on Bull Lane that leads to The Chase. I have been a resident on Bull Lane and there has been 3 serious accident on that corner as people speed down Bull Lane/The Chase or park on the corner causing an obstruction.
Adding more housing down Bull Lane will mean more cars on the road. What about schools? Rayleigh schools are already over subscribed. What about Doctor surgeries? It’s already a nightmare trying to get an appointment now in Rayleigh. The infrastructure of Rayleigh can’t handle more congestion of cars.
I strongly say NO to more housing in Rayleigh, particularly down Bull Lane.

Residents objection to proposal for housing
The plot involved has site reference CFS059 and address Land at Sandhill Road, Eastwood.
On behalf of my family I wish to express our strongest possible objections to this proposal.
Some time ago we were informed by your then planning development officer, that this land was specified as GREEN BELT.
Even the extensive house building programme announced by the government, laid heavy emphasis on the availability of Brown Field sites, which must always be prioritised.
Quite apart from the breach in the Green Belt principal that this proposal would involve, the whole character of the area would be seriously and irreversibly, altered.
Additionally I strongly suggest that the local infrasture in terms of roads, schools and the like would be severely impacted particularly as even now if the a127 has a problem Gravel Road is already used as a shortcut by many diverting drivers from the Rayleigh Road looking for an alternative route.
Also it is a fact that there are many Badger sets in the proposed area which may I remind you are a protected species.
We cannot, of course know how access to the proposed development would be planned but we must stress that access via the land adjacent to TUDOR CLOSE and TUDOR MEWS, would potentially result in serious parking issues, and more importantly risk injury to a child.
Back in 2004 a planning application for this land, was rejected by the Planning Inspector.
I can do no better than echo his words, that based on the fact that the site is within the Metropolitan Green Belt, development in the area proposed "does no accord with the provisions of the local development plan”.
According to the letter I have from Rochford District Council, "planning permission will not be given save in exceptional circumstances for ………. purposes other than agriculture, and recreation, cemeteries or similar uses which are open in character. Any development which is permitted shall be of a scale, design and siting, such that the appearance of the countryside is not impaired.
Furthermore this site is part of the Green Belt urban fringe boundary and as such is particularly sensitive to “making adjoining land vulnerable to development pressures."
And note that the decision back then was based on the construction of a single property, not the 20 that are now being proposed here!

I live in Wellington Road, Rayleigh and wish to object to the proposed development of land between Wellington Road and Bull lane.

I feel this development would have a strong negative impact on the green belt which includes increased traffic congestion, strain the infrastructure which is already over subscribed eg Schools and Doctors and reduce the habitat for the wildlife.

I live in Wellington Road, Rayleigh and wish to object to the proposed development of land between Wellington Road and Bull lane.


I feel this development would have a strong negative impact on the green belt which includes increased traffic congestion, strain the infrastructure which is already over subscribed eg Schools and Doctors and reduce the habitat for the wildlife.

Development of land in Rayleigh and surrounding areas
Please please stop building on our beautiful countryside. We don’t have the infrastructure to cope with it. The main roads A127, A13 and A12 are horrendous to travel on now let alone when all these new developments are built. Trying to get an appointment with a dentist or GP is nigh on impossible and has been getting worse the more that new houses have been built.
Rayleigh and it’s surrounding areas are gradually going to become just another suburb of London. Stop allowing us to lose our identity as a market town with nearby rivers and woods and beautiful countryside. The new developments all boast about the ease of travel on our main roads and the surrounding countryside. The more they build the less countryside there will be and with the present climate change, more flooding.
Why are you allowing this to happen? You are supposed to represent the people of Rochford and Rayleigh but you aren’t.

Objection to planning behind Nelson road Rayleigh Essex
I am writing to inform you of my objections to the propose development of land between Wellington road and Bull lane in Rayleigh Essex.
There are many reasons why my family object to this proposed housing development on this land.
The first reason is because the development will have a negative effect on the character and appearance of Rayleigh which is currently a popular and thriving place to live because it has such beautiful green spaces and farmland.
The second reason for the objection to this development is due to traffic and parking pressures that it will cause in Rayleigh town. The main roads in Rayleigh are already regularly gridlocked . The building of the new houses behind Nelson Road in Rayleigh and between Wellington road and Bull Lane will only increase this problem and add increasing pressure on traffic generation and car parking within Rayleigh.
The infrastructure of Rayleigh is already overstretched and unable to cope with the increasing population of the town. Further developments such as the above will only increase the problems.
Thirdly, I object because of the destruction the development will cause to the wildlife that can be found in these areas. The land between Wellington road and Bull lane in Rayleigh Essex provide the habitats for a number of protected species in the UK including dormice, bats, owls , badgers and slow worms.
I hope that you listen to the huge majority of Rayleigh residents and do not build on this land.

SITE REFERENCE CFS059
I object to the consideration of this particular area of land being included within your development plan. This area is unsuitable for many reasons, least of which it is serviced by a private single lane unadopted road.

Re Site reference CFS059
With regards to the outline possible planning proposal reference CFS059.

I wish to lodge an objection against this proposal as I live at XX Eastwood Rise SS9 5BU and it would appear from the plans that the access to this site would be along Sandhill Road.

This would result in additional traffic entering Eastwood Rise from Sandhill road and in reverse additional traffic turning into Sandhill road from Eastwood Rise. Living on the corner of this junction, I on a day by day basis see near misses between cars coming from both roads and this will increase the possible number of near misses.

We reverse off our drive to re-enter Eastwood Rise , and due to the road layout we are unable to see vehicles coming out of Sandhill road and the increased traffic flow will add to this problem.

Also due to the regular parking of vehicles along Sandhill Road opposite to our house and front garden , the first 20/25mts of Sandhill Road from Eastwood Rise is basically a single track road and the increase in traffic flow will at least be inconvenient to us and Sandhill Road residents , at worse be dangerous.

At present the refuse collection vehicles reverse down Sandhill Road and where Sandhill reduces to single track size at its ends this would block the road for traffic to the extra houses that may be built

With this possible additional vehicle traffic , this will add to the already big problem for traffic trying to leave Eastwood Rise to turn into the Rayleigh Road

This additional traffic will also cause an increase in noise nuisance to us within our garden area, along with Sandhill road becoming a through road instead of a cul-de-sac bringing on the dangers to children as there are no pavements along Sandhill on either side. The lack of pavements continues into Eastwood Rise towards Rayleigh Road for over 50mts this already on a day by day basis is a problem/danger for pedestrians moving along Eastwood Rise.

CFS027,CFS098,CFS086,CFS029 and CFS053
Dear sirs,as a resident of Chase End,Rayleigh,I am extremely concerned about the proposed developments and wondered if there was any timescale for this process?
We have a lovely view overlooking farmland and would be quite distressed if there were any developments in front of our property.

I strongly oppose to the intended development to the rear of Nelson Road.

I already find Rayleigh a difficult place to drive through daily. There is already huge housing developments being built which has an impact on the infrastructure in Rayleigh. We moved here last year with the chosen location, we liked the view of the overlooking fields, but to find there may be a housing development being built is deplorable, this destroys the beautiful countryside.

References: CFS027, CFS029, CFS053, CFS086 & CFS098

Areas: Rayleigh - Wellington Rd, Napier Rd, Farm land at the end of Bull lane
Flooding
The area around Victoria park has a history of flooding with significant issues for the homes in Blower close a particular problem.
Works have already been under taken to try to manage water run off but the changes proposed would certainly make the situation worse with loss of areas that can absorb and slow the passage of storm water. The storm drainage is already over capacity in this area and any new developments would have a negative impact on existing flood potential.

Green belt
The maximising of brownfield land should be prioritised before any Green Belt land is released for development. This area is a mature part of Rayleigh which has already been developed many years ago. The green spaces and farm land are part of the key characteristics of this location and new developments would irreversibly damage this.


Biodiversity
The fields shown in the map marked as prospective sites have a huge amount of local wildlife. Wild flower meadows in the summer for insects and bees and areas of hawthorn and bramble that provide homes for a host of native species. The proposal would damage this and remove habitat.

Over development
The areas earmarked would create potential conflict with the identity and character of existing mature housing that could be damaged by unmanaged development.


Infrastructure
An infrastructure-first approach to planning is required as there are existing issues with infrastructure capacity including in relation to roads, public transport, schools and healthcare facilitator in the Rayleigh area.


The identified sites would put pressure on the access roads. Both Bull lane and the Hockley Rd were not designed for the level of traffic currently seen. Bull lane in particular is constantly in a state of running repairs as it gets used as a cut through and more houses will only exacerbate this.


Albert Rd in particular, should not be considered as an access road as it is already congested with parked residents cars and is effectively a single narrow road with passage for only cars in single file.


I urge RDC to think again and look for brownfield locations or areas on the fringes of existing towns with better access to major roads. The pursuit of infilling and erosion of green belt to hit poorly conceived national housing targets, at all cost, must stop. The damage to our future Rayleigh is irreversible once land use has been changed and housing built on our green spaces.