Core Strategy Preferred Options (Revised October 2008)
Search representations
Results for Countryside Properties (Southern) Ltd search
New searchSupport
Core Strategy Preferred Options (Revised October 2008)
ED4 Future Employment Allocations - Preferred Options
Representation ID: 4371
Received: 17/12/2008
Respondent: Countryside Properties (Southern) Ltd
Support (in part)
We support the principle of a new employment allocation west of Rayleigh. As stated elsewhere, west Rayleigh has the most direct and least congested link to the principal roads serving the district (A130 and A127) and the immediate road network has capacity to accommodate further vehicular traffic. Land west of Rayleigh would therefore clearly be an attractive location for commercial/ business operators.
Re The Future Development of Rochford District: the Core Strategy Preferred Options Consultation
Within this letter I set out the representations of Countryside Properties (Special Projects) Ltd to the recently published Core Strategy Preferred Options.
We have also submitted comments directly via the online system and these are repeated here.
As you are aware, we are promoting land to the west of Rayleigh (north of London Road and south of Rawreth Lane). The area of land under option is identified in our "call for sites" submission, made on 14 August 2008. In our comments on the Core Strategy (set out in this letter), in some cases we refer you to our "call for sites" submission.
Before setting out our comments, it should be noted that the full Sustainability Appraisal/Strategic Environmental Assessment to accompany the Core Strategy does not appear to be published, only the Non Technical Summar. Without this, we cannot be sure whether the decisions on growth etc within the Core Strategy bring forward the most sustainable options.
Furthermore, there appears to be no transport related evidence base to inform the Core Strategy. In an area where traffic congestion and accessibility issues, again it is hard to know whether the correct/appropriate decisions have been reached in terms of identifying growth locations/strategies. We think that a transport/highway network assessment is a key piece of work which must be developed to inform the Core Strategy growth decisions.
We of course support the allocation of land west of Rayleigh (north of London Road) for residential development within the Core Strategy Preferred Options. Although it is not clear from the key diagram exactly where this development will take place (see comments attached), and therefore whether it falls totally or partially within land under option, it is clear to us that land west of Rayleigh is the most appropriate and sustainable location for housing growth in Rayleigh. I would refer you again to our "call for sites" submission which identifies the benefits of allocating land west of Rayleigh for development as opposed to other urban edge/green belt sites around Rayleigh which have been considered by the Council (see comparative analysis, appendix 3, and the Scott Wilson report).
It is appreciated that Rawreth Parish Council and some Rawreth Lane residents are not supportive of such an allocation, but this does not detract from the fact that the area is the most accessible and sustainable option for growth in Rayleigh, and in terms of accessibility for vehicles, probably the most accessible within the whole of the district. West of Rayleigh benefits from being in very close proximity to the two principal roads serviing the district (A130 and A127). The existing highway network has adequate capacity to serve a development of the size identified in the Core Strategy (no new roads required to the site).
Without repeating too much of what has already been stated in our previous "call of sites" submission, it is clear that there are few on-site constraints to development:
- The land is used for arable purposes, of Grade 3 classification (all agricultural land around Rayleigh is Grade 3).
- There are no ecologically significant designations or sites of interest and the site is not of any historic or significant landscape value. There are no landscape or ecology policy designations that prohibit development.
- There is a flood zone within the land but any development planning can take into account this constraint.
- There are some pylons running through the land, but we have confirmation that these can be relocated if required.
- Due to the limited nature of constraints on site, the adequate highway capacity on roads linking the site to the strategic highway network, land under option can be brought forward at an early opportunity (there are no significant delivery constraints).
- Whilst in the Green Belt, the land is less sensitive in terms of coalescence, as the gap between Rayleigh and Wickford is the largest gap between settlements around Rayleigh (other gaps between Rayleigh and other settlements are far more sensitive in terms of shorter gaps and landscape or ecology value).
- Any impact upon nearby residents will be carefully considered in any master planning of the development site.
We argue in our comments below that land west of Rayleigh (north of London Road) could accommodate more than the 650 units identified. I also argue that the land north of London Road could accommodate the employment opportunity currently identified for south of London Road, and could therefore form part of a comprehensively planned mixed use development scheme.
Our comments on those relevant policies (preferred options) and alternative options are set out on the attached pages. Please do not hesitate to contact me on the number given above if you have any queries regarding our representations.
Object
Core Strategy Preferred Options (Revised October 2008)
ED4 Future Employment Allocations - Preferred Options
Representation ID: 4372
Received: 17/12/2008
Respondent: Countryside Properties (Southern) Ltd
Object (in part)
However, we consider that the future employment allocation be north of London Road, not south of London Road. We can put forward several reasons for this:
• Countryside Properties has extensive experience in providing mixed use developments, including schemes that provide both residential units and employment allocations. Bearing in mind the extent of land under option, north of London Road, we could provide a business or employment park on this land without detriment to the residential amenities of the occupiers of any new residential development, providing a comprehensive sustainable mixed use development through careful masterplanning.
• If the employment allocation is to provide for a minimum of 2ha for business/ industrial park (as recommended in the employment land study), plus land for some of those users (to be relocated) on the Rawreth Industrial Estate (which is approximately 10ha), then probably a minimum of 10 to 12ha of land would be required. We are not sure that this size of site could be found south of London Road without affecting/requiring land occupied by existing buildings e.g. Swallows Aquatics, and/or bringing development close to the Little Wheatleys Road or the Little Wheatleys estate. We consider that 10/12 ha of land could be accommodated north of London Road, without encroaching into the flood zone or affecting any existing properties.
• Our experience shows us that for a location to be attractive, a high quality masterplanned business park of sufficient size must be available to provide the quality of environment that many businesses are now looking for. 10/12 hectares would probably be a minimum, especially if the site is to accommodate and support an Enterprise Centre (see comments on Policy ED5). A 10 ha site could equate to 400,000 square foot of floorspace. We suggest that such a site should accommodate a variety of uses and size of units. This would enable those smaller/start up business who start on the site to have the ability to grow and still remain on the site, utilizing the enterprise centre, small start up units or urban hives (typically providing 2,000 - 5,000 square foot) then moving up to medium sized sheds or hybrid/ bespoke buildings. Urban Hives can be adapted to provide office or industrial space.
• As part of our "call for sites" submission we stated that a "hopper" or "shuttle" bus service could be provided to serve the site and nearby communities and link the area to the town centre and rail station (transport and service hubs). The benefit of a larger site allocation (mixed use residential/employment and other uses) will be more likely support such a service and help make it more sustainable.
Re The Future Development of Rochford District: the Core Strategy Preferred Options Consultation
Within this letter I set out the representations of Countryside Properties (Special Projects) Ltd to the recently published Core Strategy Preferred Options.
We have also submitted comments directly via the online system and these are repeated here.
As you are aware, we are promoting land to the west of Rayleigh (north of London Road and south of Rawreth Lane). The area of land under option is identified in our "call for sites" submission, made on 14 August 2008. In our comments on the Core Strategy (set out in this letter), in some cases we refer you to our "call for sites" submission.
Before setting out our comments, it should be noted that the full Sustainability Appraisal/Strategic Environmental Assessment to accompany the Core Strategy does not appear to be published, only the Non Technical Summar. Without this, we cannot be sure whether the decisions on growth etc within the Core Strategy bring forward the most sustainable options.
Furthermore, there appears to be no transport related evidence base to inform the Core Strategy. In an area where traffic congestion and accessibility issues, again it is hard to know whether the correct/appropriate decisions have been reached in terms of identifying growth locations/strategies. We think that a transport/highway network assessment is a key piece of work which must be developed to inform the Core Strategy growth decisions.
We of course support the allocation of land west of Rayleigh (north of London Road) for residential development within the Core Strategy Preferred Options. Although it is not clear from the key diagram exactly where this development will take place (see comments attached), and therefore whether it falls totally or partially within land under option, it is clear to us that land west of Rayleigh is the most appropriate and sustainable location for housing growth in Rayleigh. I would refer you again to our "call for sites" submission which identifies the benefits of allocating land west of Rayleigh for development as opposed to other urban edge/green belt sites around Rayleigh which have been considered by the Council (see comparative analysis, appendix 3, and the Scott Wilson report).
It is appreciated that Rawreth Parish Council and some Rawreth Lane residents are not supportive of such an allocation, but this does not detract from the fact that the area is the most accessible and sustainable option for growth in Rayleigh, and in terms of accessibility for vehicles, probably the most accessible within the whole of the district. West of Rayleigh benefits from being in very close proximity to the two principal roads serviing the district (A130 and A127). The existing highway network has adequate capacity to serve a development of the size identified in the Core Strategy (no new roads required to the site).
Without repeating too much of what has already been stated in our previous "call of sites" submission, it is clear that there are few on-site constraints to development:
- The land is used for arable purposes, of Grade 3 classification (all agricultural land around Rayleigh is Grade 3).
- There are no ecologically significant designations or sites of interest and the site is not of any historic or significant landscape value. There are no landscape or ecology policy designations that prohibit development.
- There is a flood zone within the land but any development planning can take into account this constraint.
- There are some pylons running through the land, but we have confirmation that these can be relocated if required.
- Due to the limited nature of constraints on site, the adequate highway capacity on roads linking the site to the strategic highway network, land under option can be brought forward at an early opportunity (there are no significant delivery constraints).
- Whilst in the Green Belt, the land is less sensitive in terms of coalescence, as the gap between Rayleigh and Wickford is the largest gap between settlements around Rayleigh (other gaps between Rayleigh and other settlements are far more sensitive in terms of shorter gaps and landscape or ecology value).
- Any impact upon nearby residents will be carefully considered in any master planning of the development site.
We argue in our comments below that land west of Rayleigh (north of London Road) could accommodate more than the 650 units identified. I also argue that the land north of London Road could accommodate the employment opportunity currently identified for south of London Road, and could therefore form part of a comprehensively planned mixed use development scheme.
Our comments on those relevant policies (preferred options) and alternative options are set out on the attached pages. Please do not hesitate to contact me on the number given above if you have any queries regarding our representations.
Comment
Core Strategy Preferred Options (Revised October 2008)
ED4 Future Employment Allocations - Preferred Options
Representation ID: 4373
Received: 17/12/2008
Respondent: Countryside Properties (Southern) Ltd
The policy (or supporting text) does not identify the floorspace provision sought for this employment allocation, and we believe some indication should be given.
Re The Future Development of Rochford District: the Core Strategy Preferred Options Consultation
Within this letter I set out the representations of Countryside Properties (Special Projects) Ltd to the recently published Core Strategy Preferred Options.
We have also submitted comments directly via the online system and these are repeated here.
As you are aware, we are promoting land to the west of Rayleigh (north of London Road and south of Rawreth Lane). The area of land under option is identified in our "call for sites" submission, made on 14 August 2008. In our comments on the Core Strategy (set out in this letter), in some cases we refer you to our "call for sites" submission.
Before setting out our comments, it should be noted that the full Sustainability Appraisal/Strategic Environmental Assessment to accompany the Core Strategy does not appear to be published, only the Non Technical Summar. Without this, we cannot be sure whether the decisions on growth etc within the Core Strategy bring forward the most sustainable options.
Furthermore, there appears to be no transport related evidence base to inform the Core Strategy. In an area where traffic congestion and accessibility issues, again it is hard to know whether the correct/appropriate decisions have been reached in terms of identifying growth locations/strategies. We think that a transport/highway network assessment is a key piece of work which must be developed to inform the Core Strategy growth decisions.
We of course support the allocation of land west of Rayleigh (north of London Road) for residential development within the Core Strategy Preferred Options. Although it is not clear from the key diagram exactly where this development will take place (see comments attached), and therefore whether it falls totally or partially within land under option, it is clear to us that land west of Rayleigh is the most appropriate and sustainable location for housing growth in Rayleigh. I would refer you again to our "call for sites" submission which identifies the benefits of allocating land west of Rayleigh for development as opposed to other urban edge/green belt sites around Rayleigh which have been considered by the Council (see comparative analysis, appendix 3, and the Scott Wilson report).
It is appreciated that Rawreth Parish Council and some Rawreth Lane residents are not supportive of such an allocation, but this does not detract from the fact that the area is the most accessible and sustainable option for growth in Rayleigh, and in terms of accessibility for vehicles, probably the most accessible within the whole of the district. West of Rayleigh benefits from being in very close proximity to the two principal roads serviing the district (A130 and A127). The existing highway network has adequate capacity to serve a development of the size identified in the Core Strategy (no new roads required to the site).
Without repeating too much of what has already been stated in our previous "call of sites" submission, it is clear that there are few on-site constraints to development:
- The land is used for arable purposes, of Grade 3 classification (all agricultural land around Rayleigh is Grade 3).
- There are no ecologically significant designations or sites of interest and the site is not of any historic or significant landscape value. There are no landscape or ecology policy designations that prohibit development.
- There is a flood zone within the land but any development planning can take into account this constraint.
- There are some pylons running through the land, but we have confirmation that these can be relocated if required.
- Due to the limited nature of constraints on site, the adequate highway capacity on roads linking the site to the strategic highway network, land under option can be brought forward at an early opportunity (there are no significant delivery constraints).
- Whilst in the Green Belt, the land is less sensitive in terms of coalescence, as the gap between Rayleigh and Wickford is the largest gap between settlements around Rayleigh (other gaps between Rayleigh and other settlements are far more sensitive in terms of shorter gaps and landscape or ecology value).
- Any impact upon nearby residents will be carefully considered in any master planning of the development site.
We argue in our comments below that land west of Rayleigh (north of London Road) could accommodate more than the 650 units identified. I also argue that the land north of London Road could accommodate the employment opportunity currently identified for south of London Road, and could therefore form part of a comprehensively planned mixed use development scheme.
Our comments on those relevant policies (preferred options) and alternative options are set out on the attached pages. Please do not hesitate to contact me on the number given above if you have any queries regarding our representations.
Object
Core Strategy Preferred Options (Revised October 2008)
ED4 - Alternative Options
Representation ID: 4374
Received: 17/12/2008
Respondent: Countryside Properties (Southern) Ltd
We argue that an employment allocation north of London Road could be provided which is no closer to existing residential areas than any allocation south of London Road. We set out the benefits of a site north of London Road in our comments regarding Policy ED4.
Re The Future Development of Rochford District: the Core Strategy Preferred Options Consultation
Within this letter I set out the representations of Countryside Properties (Special Projects) Ltd to the recently published Core Strategy Preferred Options.
We have also submitted comments directly via the online system and these are repeated here.
As you are aware, we are promoting land to the west of Rayleigh (north of London Road and south of Rawreth Lane). The area of land under option is identified in our "call for sites" submission, made on 14 August 2008. In our comments on the Core Strategy (set out in this letter), in some cases we refer you to our "call for sites" submission.
Before setting out our comments, it should be noted that the full Sustainability Appraisal/Strategic Environmental Assessment to accompany the Core Strategy does not appear to be published, only the Non Technical Summar. Without this, we cannot be sure whether the decisions on growth etc within the Core Strategy bring forward the most sustainable options.
Furthermore, there appears to be no transport related evidence base to inform the Core Strategy. In an area where traffic congestion and accessibility issues, again it is hard to know whether the correct/appropriate decisions have been reached in terms of identifying growth locations/strategies. We think that a transport/highway network assessment is a key piece of work which must be developed to inform the Core Strategy growth decisions.
We of course support the allocation of land west of Rayleigh (north of London Road) for residential development within the Core Strategy Preferred Options. Although it is not clear from the key diagram exactly where this development will take place (see comments attached), and therefore whether it falls totally or partially within land under option, it is clear to us that land west of Rayleigh is the most appropriate and sustainable location for housing growth in Rayleigh. I would refer you again to our "call for sites" submission which identifies the benefits of allocating land west of Rayleigh for development as opposed to other urban edge/green belt sites around Rayleigh which have been considered by the Council (see comparative analysis, appendix 3, and the Scott Wilson report).
It is appreciated that Rawreth Parish Council and some Rawreth Lane residents are not supportive of such an allocation, but this does not detract from the fact that the area is the most accessible and sustainable option for growth in Rayleigh, and in terms of accessibility for vehicles, probably the most accessible within the whole of the district. West of Rayleigh benefits from being in very close proximity to the two principal roads serviing the district (A130 and A127). The existing highway network has adequate capacity to serve a development of the size identified in the Core Strategy (no new roads required to the site).
Without repeating too much of what has already been stated in our previous "call of sites" submission, it is clear that there are few on-site constraints to development:
- The land is used for arable purposes, of Grade 3 classification (all agricultural land around Rayleigh is Grade 3).
- There are no ecologically significant designations or sites of interest and the site is not of any historic or significant landscape value. There are no landscape or ecology policy designations that prohibit development.
- There is a flood zone within the land but any development planning can take into account this constraint.
- There are some pylons running through the land, but we have confirmation that these can be relocated if required.
- Due to the limited nature of constraints on site, the adequate highway capacity on roads linking the site to the strategic highway network, land under option can be brought forward at an early opportunity (there are no significant delivery constraints).
- Whilst in the Green Belt, the land is less sensitive in terms of coalescence, as the gap between Rayleigh and Wickford is the largest gap between settlements around Rayleigh (other gaps between Rayleigh and other settlements are far more sensitive in terms of shorter gaps and landscape or ecology value).
- Any impact upon nearby residents will be carefully considered in any master planning of the development site.
We argue in our comments below that land west of Rayleigh (north of London Road) could accommodate more than the 650 units identified. I also argue that the land north of London Road could accommodate the employment opportunity currently identified for south of London Road, and could therefore form part of a comprehensively planned mixed use development scheme.
Our comments on those relevant policies (preferred options) and alternative options are set out on the attached pages. Please do not hesitate to contact me on the number given above if you have any queries regarding our representations.
Support
Core Strategy Preferred Options (Revised October 2008)
ED5 - Eco-Enterprise Centre - Preferred Option
Representation ID: 4375
Received: 17/12/2008
Respondent: Countryside Properties (Southern) Ltd
We support the proposal to develop an eco-enterprise centre or business incubation centre. However, the deliverability of an eco-enterprise centre will be a key issue. If it is the council's intention that the private sector part or fully funds such a facility, it would need considerable "enabling" development i.e. sufficient revenue generated from other development to gain any support or help fund its provision.
Countryside Properties therefore may be able to help with the provision of such a facility in west Rayleigh but only if it forms part of a business park of adequate size and comprehensive mixed use development. Funding and provision will have to be carefully considered against other development costs and infrastructure requirements.
Re The Future Development of Rochford District: the Core Strategy Preferred Options Consultation
Within this letter I set out the representations of Countryside Properties (Special Projects) Ltd to the recently published Core Strategy Preferred Options.
We have also submitted comments directly via the online system and these are repeated here.
As you are aware, we are promoting land to the west of Rayleigh (north of London Road and south of Rawreth Lane). The area of land under option is identified in our "call for sites" submission, made on 14 August 2008. In our comments on the Core Strategy (set out in this letter), in some cases we refer you to our "call for sites" submission.
Before setting out our comments, it should be noted that the full Sustainability Appraisal/Strategic Environmental Assessment to accompany the Core Strategy does not appear to be published, only the Non Technical Summar. Without this, we cannot be sure whether the decisions on growth etc within the Core Strategy bring forward the most sustainable options.
Furthermore, there appears to be no transport related evidence base to inform the Core Strategy. In an area where traffic congestion and accessibility issues, again it is hard to know whether the correct/appropriate decisions have been reached in terms of identifying growth locations/strategies. We think that a transport/highway network assessment is a key piece of work which must be developed to inform the Core Strategy growth decisions.
We of course support the allocation of land west of Rayleigh (north of London Road) for residential development within the Core Strategy Preferred Options. Although it is not clear from the key diagram exactly where this development will take place (see comments attached), and therefore whether it falls totally or partially within land under option, it is clear to us that land west of Rayleigh is the most appropriate and sustainable location for housing growth in Rayleigh. I would refer you again to our "call for sites" submission which identifies the benefits of allocating land west of Rayleigh for development as opposed to other urban edge/green belt sites around Rayleigh which have been considered by the Council (see comparative analysis, appendix 3, and the Scott Wilson report).
It is appreciated that Rawreth Parish Council and some Rawreth Lane residents are not supportive of such an allocation, but this does not detract from the fact that the area is the most accessible and sustainable option for growth in Rayleigh, and in terms of accessibility for vehicles, probably the most accessible within the whole of the district. West of Rayleigh benefits from being in very close proximity to the two principal roads serviing the district (A130 and A127). The existing highway network has adequate capacity to serve a development of the size identified in the Core Strategy (no new roads required to the site).
Without repeating too much of what has already been stated in our previous "call of sites" submission, it is clear that there are few on-site constraints to development:
- The land is used for arable purposes, of Grade 3 classification (all agricultural land around Rayleigh is Grade 3).
- There are no ecologically significant designations or sites of interest and the site is not of any historic or significant landscape value. There are no landscape or ecology policy designations that prohibit development.
- There is a flood zone within the land but any development planning can take into account this constraint.
- There are some pylons running through the land, but we have confirmation that these can be relocated if required.
- Due to the limited nature of constraints on site, the adequate highway capacity on roads linking the site to the strategic highway network, land under option can be brought forward at an early opportunity (there are no significant delivery constraints).
- Whilst in the Green Belt, the land is less sensitive in terms of coalescence, as the gap between Rayleigh and Wickford is the largest gap between settlements around Rayleigh (other gaps between Rayleigh and other settlements are far more sensitive in terms of shorter gaps and landscape or ecology value).
- Any impact upon nearby residents will be carefully considered in any master planning of the development site.
We argue in our comments below that land west of Rayleigh (north of London Road) could accommodate more than the 650 units identified. I also argue that the land north of London Road could accommodate the employment opportunity currently identified for south of London Road, and could therefore form part of a comprehensively planned mixed use development scheme.
Our comments on those relevant policies (preferred options) and alternative options are set out on the attached pages. Please do not hesitate to contact me on the number given above if you have any queries regarding our representations.
Comment
Core Strategy Preferred Options (Revised October 2008)
ENV8 Code for Sustainable Homes - Preferred Option
Representation ID: 4376
Received: 17/12/2008
Respondent: Countryside Properties (Southern) Ltd
Additional wording should be added to the policy which states "or as is applicable, in accordance with national building regulations at the time."
Re The Future Development of Rochford District: the Core Strategy Preferred Options Consultation
Within this letter I set out the representations of Countryside Properties (Special Projects) Ltd to the recently published Core Strategy Preferred Options.
We have also submitted comments directly via the online system and these are repeated here.
As you are aware, we are promoting land to the west of Rayleigh (north of London Road and south of Rawreth Lane). The area of land under option is identified in our "call for sites" submission, made on 14 August 2008. In our comments on the Core Strategy (set out in this letter), in some cases we refer you to our "call for sites" submission.
Before setting out our comments, it should be noted that the full Sustainability Appraisal/Strategic Environmental Assessment to accompany the Core Strategy does not appear to be published, only the Non Technical Summar. Without this, we cannot be sure whether the decisions on growth etc within the Core Strategy bring forward the most sustainable options.
Furthermore, there appears to be no transport related evidence base to inform the Core Strategy. In an area where traffic congestion and accessibility issues, again it is hard to know whether the correct/appropriate decisions have been reached in terms of identifying growth locations/strategies. We think that a transport/highway network assessment is a key piece of work which must be developed to inform the Core Strategy growth decisions.
We of course support the allocation of land west of Rayleigh (north of London Road) for residential development within the Core Strategy Preferred Options. Although it is not clear from the key diagram exactly where this development will take place (see comments attached), and therefore whether it falls totally or partially within land under option, it is clear to us that land west of Rayleigh is the most appropriate and sustainable location for housing growth in Rayleigh. I would refer you again to our "call for sites" submission which identifies the benefits of allocating land west of Rayleigh for development as opposed to other urban edge/green belt sites around Rayleigh which have been considered by the Council (see comparative analysis, appendix 3, and the Scott Wilson report).
It is appreciated that Rawreth Parish Council and some Rawreth Lane residents are not supportive of such an allocation, but this does not detract from the fact that the area is the most accessible and sustainable option for growth in Rayleigh, and in terms of accessibility for vehicles, probably the most accessible within the whole of the district. West of Rayleigh benefits from being in very close proximity to the two principal roads serviing the district (A130 and A127). The existing highway network has adequate capacity to serve a development of the size identified in the Core Strategy (no new roads required to the site).
Without repeating too much of what has already been stated in our previous "call of sites" submission, it is clear that there are few on-site constraints to development:
- The land is used for arable purposes, of Grade 3 classification (all agricultural land around Rayleigh is Grade 3).
- There are no ecologically significant designations or sites of interest and the site is not of any historic or significant landscape value. There are no landscape or ecology policy designations that prohibit development.
- There is a flood zone within the land but any development planning can take into account this constraint.
- There are some pylons running through the land, but we have confirmation that these can be relocated if required.
- Due to the limited nature of constraints on site, the adequate highway capacity on roads linking the site to the strategic highway network, land under option can be brought forward at an early opportunity (there are no significant delivery constraints).
- Whilst in the Green Belt, the land is less sensitive in terms of coalescence, as the gap between Rayleigh and Wickford is the largest gap between settlements around Rayleigh (other gaps between Rayleigh and other settlements are far more sensitive in terms of shorter gaps and landscape or ecology value).
- Any impact upon nearby residents will be carefully considered in any master planning of the development site.
We argue in our comments below that land west of Rayleigh (north of London Road) could accommodate more than the 650 units identified. I also argue that the land north of London Road could accommodate the employment opportunity currently identified for south of London Road, and could therefore form part of a comprehensively planned mixed use development scheme.
Our comments on those relevant policies (preferred options) and alternative options are set out on the attached pages. Please do not hesitate to contact me on the number given above if you have any queries regarding our representations.
