Rochford District Core Strategy Regulation 26 Draft

Some explanation of how easy access to the A127 and A130 can be achieved would be more informative. Is it envisaged that this will only involve the improvement of existing links to the old A130 (eg A129, Rawreth Lane)? or is it the intention that new link roads directly to the A127 and/or the new A130, or the old A130, will be build? If new roads are envisaged, would this involve large scale residential development in the green belt to fund the new road(s)? I would find such development totally unacceptable. It seems to me that the council should concentrate on improving the rail service to London/Southend, which is used by a very considerable number of Rayleigh residents, rather than being obsessive about the road network (improvement of which will only increase the use of private cars, to the detriment of the environment).

Some explanation of how easy access to the A127 and A130 can be achieved would be more informative. Is it envisaged that this will only involve the improvement of existing links to the old A130 (eg A129, Rawreth Lane)? or is it the intention that new link roads directly to the A127 and/or the new A130, or the old A130, will be build? If new roads are envisaged, would this involve large scale residential development in the green belt to fund the new road(s)? I would find such development totally unacceptable. It seems to me that the council should concentrate on improving the rail service to London/Southend, which is used by a very considerable number of Rayleigh residents, rather than being obsessive about the road network (improvement of which will only increase the use of private cars, to the detriment of the environment).

Whilst I fully support the concept of the buffers, it is difficult to see how Rawreth will be prevented from coalescing with Rayleigh, given the position and limited width of the proposed buffer to the west of Rayleigh, and the fact that much of Rawreth (eg, the old plotland trendyhays estate - Trenders Avenue, etc) lays off of Rawreth Lane, which is not covered by the proposed buffer to protect this part of Rawreth, the edge of the buffer should be extended much nearer to the existing built edge of west Rayleigh. The Green belt land on either side of the A129 will also be excessively vulnerable to development unless the edge of the proposed buffer is extended closer to the existing built edge of Rayleigh. The relaxation of the Green belt for renewable energy proposals and for green tourism is dangerous, unless the council makes clear what unacceptable, (for instance, a waste incinerator for domestic/commercial refuse which produced electricity as a by-product could be classed as "renewable energy", but RDC successfully objected to a proposed incinerator site near Rayleigh a few years ago on the grounds that it was in the Green belt - the last thing we want is for the Green belt to be relaxed, and an incinerator to sneak in by the back door!) Why should green tourism require a relaxation of the green belt anyway? There may be merit in the alternative of relying on schemes to justify their very special circumstances, unless the council can be clear about exactly what development would justify a relaxation. It regretably seems clear some Green belt will be lost to new residential development, but the council should limit this by allocating the minimum possible amount of green belt land for housing.

I strongly support this

The reliance on accommodating all of the residential development required to 2021 by allocating land for large developments is unacceptable as it is likely to result in excessive release of green belt land for development, especially with regard to Rayleigh's green belt. At least a percentage of the housing allocation should come from windfall development and intensification, though it is reasonable for the council to seek to limit the over intensification of small sites. Some sensible compromise needs to be arrived at, or there is likely to be an over provision of new housing (just as there was in past years), through the excessive release of green belt land, while the occasional windfall site is inevitably going to become available, and some intensification is bound to occur. It is bad enough having development targets imposed from outside, without the council bending over backwards to create a situation where some over provision of new housing is certain to occur.

The allocation of 1800 new homes to Rayleigh is excessive. West Rayleigh, in particular, has had to shoulder the lion's share of new development over the past twenty years, with the consequence that local roads, such as Downhall Road have become excessively congested with traffic. It is time that other parts of the district, particularly settlements to the east, took a greater share of new development, and gave Rayleigh a break from continual rapid expansion. The mortar is hardly dry on the new monstrosities built on the old Park School site - and now we are expected to take another massive batch of housing, what an insult!

I would support the alternative policies of: Greater dispersal, making more use of settlements to the east of the district, and greater dispersal to minor settlements.

I strongly support this. In rural locations/green belt edge sites there should be a strong emphasis on use of native trees/shrubs for landscaping rather than horticultural varieties. Where trees are retained because of tree preservation orders on development sites, every effort shoukd be made to ensure buildings are sited well away from the trees. There have been numberous instances in the Rochford District where buildings have been allowed very close to protected trees. This inevitably leads to pressure in subsequent years for the trees either to be felled (due to subsidence insurance claims, etc), or severely pruned (due to branches overhanging gardens, etc). Thought should be given to how large a protected tree will grow in future years and a wide enough space left between the tree and any new buildings to allow for the tree's development without interfering with the buildings. This will lead to some loss of housing density but a better development will inevitably be achieved.

I strongly object to the council using compulsory purchase powers to assemble, or aid the assembly of private housing schemes. In my view it is not an appropriate use of compulsory purchase powers.

The buffer to the West of Rayleigh should be wider, so that it comes much closer to the built western edge of the town, thus more effectively preventing coalescence between Rayleigh and Rawreth along Rawreth Lane.