Core Strategy Preferred Options (Revised October 2008)

Cllr Hudson I am testing you!

Re: Rochford Core Strategy

On behalf of Rawreth Parish Council I write with reference to the preparation and agreement of the Rochford Core Strategy and express extreme disappointment at the lack of integrity by the members of the Local Development Framework Sub Committee and Rochford District Council Officers regarding the allocation figures for housing in the District.

Throughout all the previous and present paperwork Rawreth has not appeared and, therefore, should be included in Tier 4 - All other settlements. We are not part of Rayleigh and should not be considered so. We are a separate Parish and intend to remain so.

At various stages of the consultation process, and at West Area Committee meetings the direct question has been asked on many occasions, what is meant by "Rayleigh West", was this a reference to Rawreth? An answer to this question was often avoided, but on the 24th of June 2007 after releasing a list of sites that landowners and developers had suggested could be used for development the District Council stated that "so far no housing is suggested for Rawreth" and at a meeting of the West Area Committee on the 4th of September 2007, when pressed, Mr Shaun Scrutton eventually stated that "the Council's original proposal was for extensions to be made to existing urban settlements and, there are NO actual urban settlements in Rawreth" therefore the area referred to was not Rawreth. He clearly stated that "no substantial housing development was planned for Rawreth". Council would now like to know why months later the truth has been revealed and the reference to "Rayleigh West", does in fact mean Rawreth. This area is still being referred to as Rayleigh but now identified as North of London Road. This is NOT Rayleigh, but Rawreth.

Rawreth is the gateway to the District of Rochford and this allocation of 650 houses has been put forward for an area of the highest quality farmland, coupled with a further 200 houses on an area of land currently used as an industrial site, no confirmation or indeed indication has been made as to where the current industrial site will move to, but again it is highly probable that it will be within the Parish of Rawreth south of the London Road, therefore. in addition to the unjust housing proposals more land will be lost to a new industrial site, the location of which has never been discussed with residents, the Parish Council or the businesses who are directly affected and who rely on the units, location and facilities. There is nothing beneficial to the Parish by building a development of this magnitude, nothing of any quality would be added to the Parish and nothing of any benefit would be added for the residents, however this development would take away the character of the Parish, and valuable farmland and greenbelt would be lost. The Parish currently has an electoral role of 793, with a total of 373 dwellings, how can an extra quota of houses, 228% higher than those already in the Parish be justifiable, how can building on the open greenbelt be justifiable? This is not considered to be development of Rawreth; it is a vast unwanted expansion.

The Parish of Rawreth simply does not have the infrastructure to cope with any more development. Rawreth and the western side of Rayleigh has already seen vast expansion in recent years which has placed a huge strain on the existing roads, schools, doctors and amenities, Rawreth Lane is regularly at a standstill, yet this would provide one of the main routes into both the proposed developments.

Rawreth Parish Council strongly oppose development of this magnitude in the Parish, and state that any development should be proportionate with the number of existing properties, a figure in the region of 10%, equating to 40 new houses would be a fairer figure for consideration and on this basis the Council strongly urge the committee to reconsider the allocations that they have set for Rawreth, "Rayleigh West", and the sites they have chosen.

The Members of Rawreth Parish Council and the residents of the Parish look forward to receiving direct answers to the questions raised in this letter.

Re: Rochford Core Strategy

On behalf of Rawreth Parish Council I write with reference to the preparation and agreement of the Rochford Core Strategy and express extreme disappointment at the lack of integrity by the members of the Local Development Framework Sub Committee and Rochford District Council Officers regarding the allocation figures for housing in the District.

Throughout all the previous and present paperwork Rawreth has not appeared and, therefore, should be included in Tier 4 - All other settlements. We are not part of Rayleigh and should not be considered so. We are a separate Parish and intend to remain so.

At various stages of the consultation process, and at West Area Committee meetings the direct question has been asked on many occasions, what is meant by "Rayleigh West", was this a reference to Rawreth? An answer to this question was often avoided, but on the 24th of June 2007 after releasing a list of sites that landowners and developers had suggested could be used for development the District Council stated that "so far no housing is suggested for Rawreth" and at a meeting of the West Area Committee on the 4th of September 2007, when pressed, Mr Shaun Scrutton eventually stated that "the Council's original proposal was for extensions to be made to existing urban settlements and, there are NO actual urban settlements in Rawreth" therefore the area referred to was not Rawreth. He clearly stated that "no substantial housing development was planned for Rawreth". Council would now like to know why months later the truth has been revealed and the reference to "Rayleigh West", does in fact mean Rawreth. This area is still being referred to as Rayleigh but now identified as North of London Road. This is NOT Rayleigh, but Rawreth.

Rawreth is the gateway to the District of Rochford and this allocation of 650 houses has been put forward for an area of the highest quality farmland, coupled with a further 200 houses on an area of land currently used as an industrial site, no confirmation or indeed indication has been made as to where the current industrial site will move to, but again it is highly probable that it will be within the Parish of Rawreth south of the London Road, therefore. in addition to the unjust housing proposals more land will be lost to a new industrial site, the location of which has never been discussed with residents, the Parish Council or the businesses who are directly affected and who rely on the units, location and facilities. There is nothing beneficial to the Parish by building a development of this magnitude, nothing of any quality would be added to the Parish and nothing of any benefit would be added for the residents, however this development would take away the character of the Parish, and valuable farmland and greenbelt would be lost. The Parish currently has an electoral role of 793, with a total of 373 dwellings, how can an extra quota of houses, 228% higher than those already in the Parish be justifiable, how can building on the open greenbelt be justifiable? This is not considered to be development of Rawreth; it is a vast unwanted expansion.

The Parish of Rawreth simply does not have the infrastructure to cope with any more development. Rawreth and the western side of Rayleigh has already seen vast expansion in recent years which has placed a huge strain on the existing roads, schools, doctors and amenities, Rawreth Lane is regularly at a standstill, yet this would provide one of the main routes into both the proposed developments.

Rawreth Parish Council strongly oppose development of this magnitude in the Parish, and state that any development should be proportionate with the number of existing properties, a figure in the region of 10%, equating to 40 new houses would be a fairer figure for consideration and on this basis the Council strongly urge the committee to reconsider the allocations that they have set for Rawreth, "Rayleigh West", and the sites they have chosen.

The Members of Rawreth Parish Council and the residents of the Parish look forward to receiving direct answers to the questions raised in this letter.

LDF - Core Strategy - Preferred Options.

On behalf of Rawreth Parish Council I confirm that this letter is a formal response of Objection to the Core Strategy Preferred Options with particular reference to the allocation of 1050 houses to be sited within the Parish of Rawreth - 650 initially "North of London Road", with a further 200 on the Rawreth Industrial Estate and 200 more at the edge of Hullbridge.

We believe that no development should take place until local infrastructure is in place and the roads are able to take the increased traffic that would result.

1. We believe that Rawreth should be included in Tier 4 - all other settlements, where additional development is considered unsustainable. Rawreth presently has 373 dwellings and to put in developments of 1050 houses which equates to a 228% increase is totally unjustifiable, unsustainable and would completely destroy the
character of Rawreth.

2 The huge development of 650 houses "North of London Road" Rawreth is totally
unacceptable. This land is good quality agricultural land which is protected by the
Green Belt -GB1 - fulfils all purposes under PPG2 and should be retained as such.
Once used for development this land can never be returned to agricultural use, and if
you continue to erode into our Green Belt and farmland it will be lost forever.


3. This particular area is part of the "Gateway to Rochford " and is the "strategic buffer"
between Rayleigh and Wickford. Reference is made in the document to "avoiding coalescence" of villages/towns - a development of this size immediately erodes this buffer, starts coalescence and destroys the rural character of Rawreth.


4. The document clearly states that "Brownfield" sites would be considered before Green Belt land is used. This is not the case with the land ""North of London Road" and there are several sites within the area in the "Call for Sites" document that should be looked at first, these sites as we understand have not even been visited by the Local Development Framework Sub Committee and do not form part of the preferred options. These sites need to be visited, considered and the views of all the residents considered before any development areas become "site specific". A complete consideration has to be given to all the sites put forward in the "call for sites" and not just those that appear an easy option for development.

5. The roads and infrastructure in the Rawreth area are completely full to capacity. The A127, A1245, A129 London Road, Rawreth Lane and Watery Lane just cannot take any more traffic and this proposed development will increase traffic to a completely unsustainable level. On three occasions in the last month alone, incidents within and on the outskirts of this area have brought traffic to a standstill for hours along London Road, Rawreth Lane, Watery Lane/Beeches Road and the Hullbridge Road. It took some residents 1 ¼ hours to proceed along Rawreth Lane and into Hullbridge - a distance of 1 ½ miles.

The proposed development at the western edge of Hullbridge, which is, in fact, largely in Rawreth would also greatly increase the traffic problems in the area. We understand there would be a proposal to "widen/straighten" Watery Lane/Beeches Road, with a roundabout at the junction with the Hullbridge Road. This is an extremely dangerous junction even at the present time and would become increasingly so. There is also the question of where the traffic would go when it reaches Battlesbridge at the Western end, it cannot possibly cross the Bridge as this is "restricted" and in a Conservation Area, therefore, it would have to turn left and proceed to the A1245 -
a very dangerous junction.

6. The Services in the area would be unable to cope with this increase in housing - drains and sewers are already working to capacity. Recent heavy rain resulted in flooding in Watery Lane and the Rawreth Brook system has been very close to flooding twice already this year. During a meeting between the Parish Council and the Environment Agency we were advised that this situation will worsen with increased housing.

7. We believe that the appropriate amount of additional housing should be built on smaller existing sites thus enhancing the lives and environment of existing residents.
We believe RDC should consider the use of smaller sites that have been put forward, particularly in the Rawreth area and that the large development proposed "North of London Road" should be refused. We are at present in the process of developing our Community Garden in the centre of Rawreth Village with the help of a Community Initiatives Fund and believe that a reasonably sized development of houses in that area could be of benefit to our village. It may be that any development of this nature could include a village shop which would be of enormous value to local residents.

8. Large numbers of housing in one area, as stated in the infrastructure requirements, will necessitate a new primary school. County figures suggest that there will be surplus places in Rayleigh schools even with new housing. Obviously these will be in the wrong parts of the town so increasing the risk that an existing school could close .It makes sense to spread the development in smaller sites around the town, avoiding closure and preventing unnecessary provision of a new school.

9. Relocation of Rawreth Industrial site to a vague area south of the London Road near
Carpenters Arms would take further green belt, admittedly of moderate attraction, from the Parish. It is therefore suggested that an area bounded by the A127, A130, A1245 and the railway to the north gives the chance to provide high quality well designed industrial site with potential to use alternative forms of transport in the future.

10. Further use could be made of the land opposite Michelin farm. This land has been despoiled in recent years and landowners could and should be made to forfeit the full value of their land by way of compulsory purchase powers for use as a travellers site to provide some of the required pitches necessary for the Rochford District and to remove the illegal site on the A1245 at Bedloes Corner.

On behalf of Rawreth Parish Council I look forward to receiving an acknowledgement of this letter.

LDF - Core Strategy - Preferred Options.

On behalf of Rawreth Parish Council I confirm that this letter is a formal response of Objection to the Core Strategy Preferred Options with particular reference to the allocation of 1050 houses to be sited within the Parish of Rawreth - 650 initially "North of London Road", with a further 200 on the Rawreth Industrial Estate and 200 more at the edge of Hullbridge.

We believe that no development should take place until local infrastructure is in place and the roads are able to take the increased traffic that would result.

1. We believe that Rawreth should be included in Tier 4 - all other settlements, where additional development is considered unsustainable. Rawreth presently has 373 dwellings and to put in developments of 1050 houses which equates to a 228% increase is totally unjustifiable, unsustainable and would completely destroy the
character of Rawreth.

2 The huge development of 650 houses "North of London Road" Rawreth is totally
unacceptable. This land is good quality agricultural land which is protected by the
Green Belt -GB1 - fulfils all purposes under PPG2 and should be retained as such.
Once used for development this land can never be returned to agricultural use, and if
you continue to erode into our Green Belt and farmland it will be lost forever.


3. This particular area is part of the "Gateway to Rochford " and is the "strategic buffer"
between Rayleigh and Wickford. Reference is made in the document to "avoiding coalescence" of villages/towns - a development of this size immediately erodes this buffer, starts coalescence and destroys the rural character of Rawreth.


4. The document clearly states that "Brownfield" sites would be considered before Green Belt land is used. This is not the case with the land ""North of London Road" and there are several sites within the area in the "Call for Sites" document that should be looked at first, these sites as we understand have not even been visited by the Local Development Framework Sub Committee and do not form part of the preferred options. These sites need to be visited, considered and the views of all the residents considered before any development areas become "site specific". A complete consideration has to be given to all the sites put forward in the "call for sites" and not just those that appear an easy option for development.

5. The roads and infrastructure in the Rawreth area are completely full to capacity. The A127, A1245, A129 London Road, Rawreth Lane and Watery Lane just cannot take any more traffic and this proposed development will increase traffic to a completely unsustainable level. On three occasions in the last month alone, incidents within and on the outskirts of this area have brought traffic to a standstill for hours along London Road, Rawreth Lane, Watery Lane/Beeches Road and the Hullbridge Road. It took some residents 1 ¼ hours to proceed along Rawreth Lane and into Hullbridge - a distance of 1 ½ miles.

The proposed development at the western edge of Hullbridge, which is, in fact, largely in Rawreth would also greatly increase the traffic problems in the area. We understand there would be a proposal to "widen/straighten" Watery Lane/Beeches Road, with a roundabout at the junction with the Hullbridge Road. This is an extremely dangerous junction even at the present time and would become increasingly so. There is also the question of where the traffic would go when it reaches Battlesbridge at the Western end, it cannot possibly cross the Bridge as this is "restricted" and in a Conservation Area, therefore, it would have to turn left and proceed to the A1245 -
a very dangerous junction.

6. The Services in the area would be unable to cope with this increase in housing - drains and sewers are already working to capacity. Recent heavy rain resulted in flooding in Watery Lane and the Rawreth Brook system has been very close to flooding twice already this year. During a meeting between the Parish Council and the Environment Agency we were advised that this situation will worsen with increased housing.

7. We believe that the appropriate amount of additional housing should be built on smaller existing sites thus enhancing the lives and environment of existing residents.
We believe RDC should consider the use of smaller sites that have been put forward, particularly in the Rawreth area and that the large development proposed "North of London Road" should be refused. We are at present in the process of developing our Community Garden in the centre of Rawreth Village with the help of a Community Initiatives Fund and believe that a reasonably sized development of houses in that area could be of benefit to our village. It may be that any development of this nature could include a village shop which would be of enormous value to local residents.

8. Large numbers of housing in one area, as stated in the infrastructure requirements, will necessitate a new primary school. County figures suggest that there will be surplus places in Rayleigh schools even with new housing. Obviously these will be in the wrong parts of the town so increasing the risk that an existing school could close .It makes sense to spread the development in smaller sites around the town, avoiding closure and preventing unnecessary provision of a new school.

9. Relocation of Rawreth Industrial site to a vague area south of the London Road near
Carpenters Arms would take further green belt, admittedly of moderate attraction, from the Parish. It is therefore suggested that an area bounded by the A127, A130, A1245 and the railway to the north gives the chance to provide high quality well designed industrial site with potential to use alternative forms of transport in the future.

10. Further use could be made of the land opposite Michelin farm. This land has been despoiled in recent years and landowners could and should be made to forfeit the full value of their land by way of compulsory purchase powers for use as a travellers site to provide some of the required pitches necessary for the Rochford District and to remove the illegal site on the A1245 at Bedloes Corner.

On behalf of Rawreth Parish Council I look forward to receiving an acknowledgement of this letter.

LDF - Core Strategy - Preferred Options.

On behalf of Rawreth Parish Council I confirm that this letter is a formal response of Objection to the Core Strategy Preferred Options with particular reference to the allocation of 1050 houses to be sited within the Parish of Rawreth - 650 initially "North of London Road", with a further 200 on the Rawreth Industrial Estate and 200 more at the edge of Hullbridge.

We believe that no development should take place until local infrastructure is in place and the roads are able to take the increased traffic that would result.

1. We believe that Rawreth should be included in Tier 4 - all other settlements, where additional development is considered unsustainable. Rawreth presently has 373 dwellings and to put in developments of 1050 houses which equates to a 228% increase is totally unjustifiable, unsustainable and would completely destroy the
character of Rawreth.

2 The huge development of 650 houses "North of London Road" Rawreth is totally
unacceptable. This land is good quality agricultural land which is protected by the
Green Belt -GB1 - fulfils all purposes under PPG2 and should be retained as such.
Once used for development this land can never be returned to agricultural use, and if
you continue to erode into our Green Belt and farmland it will be lost forever.


3. This particular area is part of the "Gateway to Rochford " and is the "strategic buffer"
between Rayleigh and Wickford. Reference is made in the document to "avoiding coalescence" of villages/towns - a development of this size immediately erodes this buffer, starts coalescence and destroys the rural character of Rawreth.


4. The document clearly states that "Brownfield" sites would be considered before Green Belt land is used. This is not the case with the land ""North of London Road" and there are several sites within the area in the "Call for Sites" document that should be looked at first, these sites as we understand have not even been visited by the Local Development Framework Sub Committee and do not form part of the preferred options. These sites need to be visited, considered and the views of all the residents considered before any development areas become "site specific". A complete consideration has to be given to all the sites put forward in the "call for sites" and not just those that appear an easy option for development.

5. The roads and infrastructure in the Rawreth area are completely full to capacity. The A127, A1245, A129 London Road, Rawreth Lane and Watery Lane just cannot take any more traffic and this proposed development will increase traffic to a completely unsustainable level. On three occasions in the last month alone, incidents within and on the outskirts of this area have brought traffic to a standstill for hours along London Road, Rawreth Lane, Watery Lane/Beeches Road and the Hullbridge Road. It took some residents 1 ¼ hours to proceed along Rawreth Lane and into Hullbridge - a distance of 1 ½ miles.

The proposed development at the western edge of Hullbridge, which is, in fact, largely in Rawreth would also greatly increase the traffic problems in the area. We understand there would be a proposal to "widen/straighten" Watery Lane/Beeches Road, with a roundabout at the junction with the Hullbridge Road. This is an extremely dangerous junction even at the present time and would become increasingly so. There is also the question of where the traffic would go when it reaches Battlesbridge at the Western end, it cannot possibly cross the Bridge as this is "restricted" and in a Conservation Area, therefore, it would have to turn left and proceed to the A1245 -
a very dangerous junction.

6. The Services in the area would be unable to cope with this increase in housing - drains and sewers are already working to capacity. Recent heavy rain resulted in flooding in Watery Lane and the Rawreth Brook system has been very close to flooding twice already this year. During a meeting between the Parish Council and the Environment Agency we were advised that this situation will worsen with increased housing.

7. We believe that the appropriate amount of additional housing should be built on smaller existing sites thus enhancing the lives and environment of existing residents.
We believe RDC should consider the use of smaller sites that have been put forward, particularly in the Rawreth area and that the large development proposed "North of London Road" should be refused. We are at present in the process of developing our Community Garden in the centre of Rawreth Village with the help of a Community Initiatives Fund and believe that a reasonably sized development of houses in that area could be of benefit to our village. It may be that any development of this nature could include a village shop which would be of enormous value to local residents.

8. Large numbers of housing in one area, as stated in the infrastructure requirements, will necessitate a new primary school. County figures suggest that there will be surplus places in Rayleigh schools even with new housing. Obviously these will be in the wrong parts of the town so increasing the risk that an existing school could close .It makes sense to spread the development in smaller sites around the town, avoiding closure and preventing unnecessary provision of a new school.

9. Relocation of Rawreth Industrial site to a vague area south of the London Road near
Carpenters Arms would take further green belt, admittedly of moderate attraction, from the Parish. It is therefore suggested that an area bounded by the A127, A130, A1245 and the railway to the north gives the chance to provide high quality well designed industrial site with potential to use alternative forms of transport in the future.

10. Further use could be made of the land opposite Michelin farm. This land has been despoiled in recent years and landowners could and should be made to forfeit the full value of their land by way of compulsory purchase powers for use as a travellers site to provide some of the required pitches necessary for the Rochford District and to remove the illegal site on the A1245 at Bedloes Corner.

On behalf of Rawreth Parish Council I look forward to receiving an acknowledgement of this letter.

LDF - Core Strategy - Preferred Options.

On behalf of Rawreth Parish Council I confirm that this letter is a formal response of Objection to the Core Strategy Preferred Options with particular reference to the allocation of 1050 houses to be sited within the Parish of Rawreth - 650 initially "North of London Road", with a further 200 on the Rawreth Industrial Estate and 200 more at the edge of Hullbridge.

We believe that no development should take place until local infrastructure is in place and the roads are able to take the increased traffic that would result.

1. We believe that Rawreth should be included in Tier 4 - all other settlements, where additional development is considered unsustainable. Rawreth presently has 373 dwellings and to put in developments of 1050 houses which equates to a 228% increase is totally unjustifiable, unsustainable and would completely destroy the
character of Rawreth.

2 The huge development of 650 houses "North of London Road" Rawreth is totally
unacceptable. This land is good quality agricultural land which is protected by the
Green Belt -GB1 - fulfils all purposes under PPG2 and should be retained as such.
Once used for development this land can never be returned to agricultural use, and if
you continue to erode into our Green Belt and farmland it will be lost forever.


3. This particular area is part of the "Gateway to Rochford " and is the "strategic buffer"
between Rayleigh and Wickford. Reference is made in the document to "avoiding coalescence" of villages/towns - a development of this size immediately erodes this buffer, starts coalescence and destroys the rural character of Rawreth.


4. The document clearly states that "Brownfield" sites would be considered before Green Belt land is used. This is not the case with the land ""North of London Road" and there are several sites within the area in the "Call for Sites" document that should be looked at first, these sites as we understand have not even been visited by the Local Development Framework Sub Committee and do not form part of the preferred options. These sites need to be visited, considered and the views of all the residents considered before any development areas become "site specific". A complete consideration has to be given to all the sites put forward in the "call for sites" and not just those that appear an easy option for development.

5. The roads and infrastructure in the Rawreth area are completely full to capacity. The A127, A1245, A129 London Road, Rawreth Lane and Watery Lane just cannot take any more traffic and this proposed development will increase traffic to a completely unsustainable level. On three occasions in the last month alone, incidents within and on the outskirts of this area have brought traffic to a standstill for hours along London Road, Rawreth Lane, Watery Lane/Beeches Road and the Hullbridge Road. It took some residents 1 ¼ hours to proceed along Rawreth Lane and into Hullbridge - a distance of 1 ½ miles.

The proposed development at the western edge of Hullbridge, which is, in fact, largely in Rawreth would also greatly increase the traffic problems in the area. We understand there would be a proposal to "widen/straighten" Watery Lane/Beeches Road, with a roundabout at the junction with the Hullbridge Road. This is an extremely dangerous junction even at the present time and would become increasingly so. There is also the question of where the traffic would go when it reaches Battlesbridge at the Western end, it cannot possibly cross the Bridge as this is "restricted" and in a Conservation Area, therefore, it would have to turn left and proceed to the A1245 -
a very dangerous junction.

6. The Services in the area would be unable to cope with this increase in housing - drains and sewers are already working to capacity. Recent heavy rain resulted in flooding in Watery Lane and the Rawreth Brook system has been very close to flooding twice already this year. During a meeting between the Parish Council and the Environment Agency we were advised that this situation will worsen with increased housing.

7. We believe that the appropriate amount of additional housing should be built on smaller existing sites thus enhancing the lives and environment of existing residents.
We believe RDC should consider the use of smaller sites that have been put forward, particularly in the Rawreth area and that the large development proposed "North of London Road" should be refused. We are at present in the process of developing our Community Garden in the centre of Rawreth Village with the help of a Community Initiatives Fund and believe that a reasonably sized development of houses in that area could be of benefit to our village. It may be that any development of this nature could include a village shop which would be of enormous value to local residents.

8. Large numbers of housing in one area, as stated in the infrastructure requirements, will necessitate a new primary school. County figures suggest that there will be surplus places in Rayleigh schools even with new housing. Obviously these will be in the wrong parts of the town so increasing the risk that an existing school could close .It makes sense to spread the development in smaller sites around the town, avoiding closure and preventing unnecessary provision of a new school.

9. Relocation of Rawreth Industrial site to a vague area south of the London Road near
Carpenters Arms would take further green belt, admittedly of moderate attraction, from the Parish. It is therefore suggested that an area bounded by the A127, A130, A1245 and the railway to the north gives the chance to provide high quality well designed industrial site with potential to use alternative forms of transport in the future.

10. Further use could be made of the land opposite Michelin farm. This land has been despoiled in recent years and landowners could and should be made to forfeit the full value of their land by way of compulsory purchase powers for use as a travellers site to provide some of the required pitches necessary for the Rochford District and to remove the illegal site on the A1245 at Bedloes Corner.

On behalf of Rawreth Parish Council I look forward to receiving an acknowledgement of this letter.

LDF - Core Strategy - Preferred Options.

On behalf of Rawreth Parish Council I confirm that this letter is a formal response of Objection to the Core Strategy Preferred Options with particular reference to the allocation of 1050 houses to be sited within the Parish of Rawreth - 650 initially "North of London Road", with a further 200 on the Rawreth Industrial Estate and 200 more at the edge of Hullbridge.

We believe that no development should take place until local infrastructure is in place and the roads are able to take the increased traffic that would result.

1. We believe that Rawreth should be included in Tier 4 - all other settlements, where additional development is considered unsustainable. Rawreth presently has 373 dwellings and to put in developments of 1050 houses which equates to a 228% increase is totally unjustifiable, unsustainable and would completely destroy the
character of Rawreth.

2 The huge development of 650 houses "North of London Road" Rawreth is totally
unacceptable. This land is good quality agricultural land which is protected by the
Green Belt -GB1 - fulfils all purposes under PPG2 and should be retained as such.
Once used for development this land can never be returned to agricultural use, and if
you continue to erode into our Green Belt and farmland it will be lost forever.


3. This particular area is part of the "Gateway to Rochford " and is the "strategic buffer"
between Rayleigh and Wickford. Reference is made in the document to "avoiding coalescence" of villages/towns - a development of this size immediately erodes this buffer, starts coalescence and destroys the rural character of Rawreth.


4. The document clearly states that "Brownfield" sites would be considered before Green Belt land is used. This is not the case with the land ""North of London Road" and there are several sites within the area in the "Call for Sites" document that should be looked at first, these sites as we understand have not even been visited by the Local Development Framework Sub Committee and do not form part of the preferred options. These sites need to be visited, considered and the views of all the residents considered before any development areas become "site specific". A complete consideration has to be given to all the sites put forward in the "call for sites" and not just those that appear an easy option for development.

5. The roads and infrastructure in the Rawreth area are completely full to capacity. The A127, A1245, A129 London Road, Rawreth Lane and Watery Lane just cannot take any more traffic and this proposed development will increase traffic to a completely unsustainable level. On three occasions in the last month alone, incidents within and on the outskirts of this area have brought traffic to a standstill for hours along London Road, Rawreth Lane, Watery Lane/Beeches Road and the Hullbridge Road. It took some residents 1 ¼ hours to proceed along Rawreth Lane and into Hullbridge - a distance of 1 ½ miles.

The proposed development at the western edge of Hullbridge, which is, in fact, largely in Rawreth would also greatly increase the traffic problems in the area. We understand there would be a proposal to "widen/straighten" Watery Lane/Beeches Road, with a roundabout at the junction with the Hullbridge Road. This is an extremely dangerous junction even at the present time and would become increasingly so. There is also the question of where the traffic would go when it reaches Battlesbridge at the Western end, it cannot possibly cross the Bridge as this is "restricted" and in a Conservation Area, therefore, it would have to turn left and proceed to the A1245 -
a very dangerous junction.

6. The Services in the area would be unable to cope with this increase in housing - drains and sewers are already working to capacity. Recent heavy rain resulted in flooding in Watery Lane and the Rawreth Brook system has been very close to flooding twice already this year. During a meeting between the Parish Council and the Environment Agency we were advised that this situation will worsen with increased housing.

7. We believe that the appropriate amount of additional housing should be built on smaller existing sites thus enhancing the lives and environment of existing residents.
We believe RDC should consider the use of smaller sites that have been put forward, particularly in the Rawreth area and that the large development proposed "North of London Road" should be refused. We are at present in the process of developing our Community Garden in the centre of Rawreth Village with the help of a Community Initiatives Fund and believe that a reasonably sized development of houses in that area could be of benefit to our village. It may be that any development of this nature could include a village shop which would be of enormous value to local residents.

8. Large numbers of housing in one area, as stated in the infrastructure requirements, will necessitate a new primary school. County figures suggest that there will be surplus places in Rayleigh schools even with new housing. Obviously these will be in the wrong parts of the town so increasing the risk that an existing school could close .It makes sense to spread the development in smaller sites around the town, avoiding closure and preventing unnecessary provision of a new school.

9. Relocation of Rawreth Industrial site to a vague area south of the London Road near
Carpenters Arms would take further green belt, admittedly of moderate attraction, from the Parish. It is therefore suggested that an area bounded by the A127, A130, A1245 and the railway to the north gives the chance to provide high quality well designed industrial site with potential to use alternative forms of transport in the future.

10. Further use could be made of the land opposite Michelin farm. This land has been despoiled in recent years and landowners could and should be made to forfeit the full value of their land by way of compulsory purchase powers for use as a travellers site to provide some of the required pitches necessary for the Rochford District and to remove the illegal site on the A1245 at Bedloes Corner.

On behalf of Rawreth Parish Council I look forward to receiving an acknowledgement of this letter.

LDF - Core Strategy - Preferred Options.

On behalf of Rawreth Parish Council I confirm that this letter is a formal response of Objection to the Core Strategy Preferred Options with particular reference to the allocation of 1050 houses to be sited within the Parish of Rawreth - 650 initially "North of London Road", with a further 200 on the Rawreth Industrial Estate and 200 more at the edge of Hullbridge.

We believe that no development should take place until local infrastructure is in place and the roads are able to take the increased traffic that would result.

1. We believe that Rawreth should be included in Tier 4 - all other settlements, where additional development is considered unsustainable. Rawreth presently has 373 dwellings and to put in developments of 1050 houses which equates to a 228% increase is totally unjustifiable, unsustainable and would completely destroy the
character of Rawreth.

2 The huge development of 650 houses "North of London Road" Rawreth is totally
unacceptable. This land is good quality agricultural land which is protected by the
Green Belt -GB1 - fulfils all purposes under PPG2 and should be retained as such.
Once used for development this land can never be returned to agricultural use, and if
you continue to erode into our Green Belt and farmland it will be lost forever.


3. This particular area is part of the "Gateway to Rochford " and is the "strategic buffer"
between Rayleigh and Wickford. Reference is made in the document to "avoiding coalescence" of villages/towns - a development of this size immediately erodes this buffer, starts coalescence and destroys the rural character of Rawreth.


4. The document clearly states that "Brownfield" sites would be considered before Green Belt land is used. This is not the case with the land ""North of London Road" and there are several sites within the area in the "Call for Sites" document that should be looked at first, these sites as we understand have not even been visited by the Local Development Framework Sub Committee and do not form part of the preferred options. These sites need to be visited, considered and the views of all the residents considered before any development areas become "site specific". A complete consideration has to be given to all the sites put forward in the "call for sites" and not just those that appear an easy option for development.

5. The roads and infrastructure in the Rawreth area are completely full to capacity. The A127, A1245, A129 London Road, Rawreth Lane and Watery Lane just cannot take any more traffic and this proposed development will increase traffic to a completely unsustainable level. On three occasions in the last month alone, incidents within and on the outskirts of this area have brought traffic to a standstill for hours along London Road, Rawreth Lane, Watery Lane/Beeches Road and the Hullbridge Road. It took some residents 1 ¼ hours to proceed along Rawreth Lane and into Hullbridge - a distance of 1 ½ miles.

The proposed development at the western edge of Hullbridge, which is, in fact, largely in Rawreth would also greatly increase the traffic problems in the area. We understand there would be a proposal to "widen/straighten" Watery Lane/Beeches Road, with a roundabout at the junction with the Hullbridge Road. This is an extremely dangerous junction even at the present time and would become increasingly so. There is also the question of where the traffic would go when it reaches Battlesbridge at the Western end, it cannot possibly cross the Bridge as this is "restricted" and in a Conservation Area, therefore, it would have to turn left and proceed to the A1245 -
a very dangerous junction.

6. The Services in the area would be unable to cope with this increase in housing - drains and sewers are already working to capacity. Recent heavy rain resulted in flooding in Watery Lane and the Rawreth Brook system has been very close to flooding twice already this year. During a meeting between the Parish Council and the Environment Agency we were advised that this situation will worsen with increased housing.

7. We believe that the appropriate amount of additional housing should be built on smaller existing sites thus enhancing the lives and environment of existing residents.
We believe RDC should consider the use of smaller sites that have been put forward, particularly in the Rawreth area and that the large development proposed "North of London Road" should be refused. We are at present in the process of developing our Community Garden in the centre of Rawreth Village with the help of a Community Initiatives Fund and believe that a reasonably sized development of houses in that area could be of benefit to our village. It may be that any development of this nature could include a village shop which would be of enormous value to local residents.

8. Large numbers of housing in one area, as stated in the infrastructure requirements, will necessitate a new primary school. County figures suggest that there will be surplus places in Rayleigh schools even with new housing. Obviously these will be in the wrong parts of the town so increasing the risk that an existing school could close .It makes sense to spread the development in smaller sites around the town, avoiding closure and preventing unnecessary provision of a new school.

9. Relocation of Rawreth Industrial site to a vague area south of the London Road near
Carpenters Arms would take further green belt, admittedly of moderate attraction, from the Parish. It is therefore suggested that an area bounded by the A127, A130, A1245 and the railway to the north gives the chance to provide high quality well designed industrial site with potential to use alternative forms of transport in the future.

10. Further use could be made of the land opposite Michelin farm. This land has been despoiled in recent years and landowners could and should be made to forfeit the full value of their land by way of compulsory purchase powers for use as a travellers site to provide some of the required pitches necessary for the Rochford District and to remove the illegal site on the A1245 at Bedloes Corner.

On behalf of Rawreth Parish Council I look forward to receiving an acknowledgement of this letter.