Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document

Rayleigh Town Sports and Social Club

Attachment 1 to the representation form on the Allocations DPD

These comments are attached to the form submitted by Rayleigh Town Sports and Social Club in relation to options NLR3 and NLR5.

The club objects to the allocation of housing North of London Road Rayleigh under options NLR3 and NLR5 as it appears to cover the area occupied by Rayleigh Town Sports and Social Club and without specific words to the contrary appears to wipe out the club. Club members and residents of the area have signed a petition supporting the club's objections and this is attached. This submission deals with NLR3 and NLR5 from the point of view of the club. The club's representation is supported by a petition signed by 347 people. The petition would have been much larger but for the fact that the club only found out about these proposals by word of mouth one week ago. It is disappointing that the council did not write to the club, which has over 500 members and a turnover of £125k per annum, to advise it of these plans. The final paragraph of the petition also contains wider objections to options NLR1, NLR2, NLR3, NLR4, and NLR5 and a separate representation form is submitted in respect of the objections in the final paragraph.

The objections are:

1. The petition and attachment 2 explain why and how The Rayleigh Town Sports & Social Club has become an important social amenity in the London Road area. It is used more extensively than the Pope John Paul Hall and Grange Community Centre and like them the entire club site should be included in the list of Community facilities safeguarded from development under option CF1 on page 133 of the Allocations DPD.

2. There appears to be a lack of awareness amongst planners about the exact nature of the Club and the significant benefits which it provides to the local community in terms of sport and social cohesion. These are in part referred to in the Petition and attachment 2. The club feels that removal of this site would be at odds with the social objectives referred to in the Council's Core Development Strategy. Our club performs an important function in affording social and sporting outlets to young people. Such facilities are widely recognised as important positive factors affecting the health and behaviour of young people, and the removal of the club would have a negative impact on young people in the area. Your attention is drawn to the statement in the petition that the club supports sports coaching in the local schools. It is, in short, part of the social fabric of the local community.

3. The current provision of sport and recreational facilities for the existing population of Rayleigh does not meet Sport England's criteria. There is no logic in removing a significant sport and recreational area when there will be a significant accompanying increase in the local population. The attachments emphasis the high quality of the pitches and building on them would be wanton disregard of the efforts the community has put in to developing and maintaining the site at no cost to the council.

4. Any offer to relocate the club to an alternative site would be rigorously contested because the club serves both sport and social members and the two sections of the club are interdependent in terms of the finance needed to run the club in its present form. It is unlikely that social members would follow the club to a different location which would mean it would not be a viable going concern in a different location. On a sporting level it is important that recreational facilities should be as close as possible to a town centre and local housing to provide easy access to facilities. Moving our site would be counter to that aim.

5. Apart from raising the simple question - why not build houses on any alternative site to be offered - we would expect any relocated cricket and football pitches to be of the same quality ( particularly in terms of drainage) and changing room and clubhouse facilities to be commensurate with those possessed now. This would involve the council in a huge outlay which could be avoided simply by keeping the club in its current location.

6. The club has been advised by Sport England to make objections to the plans, thus suggesting that wider society has concerns that the removal of the club's facilities would be socially undesirable.


Petition

We the undersigned support Rayleigh Town Sports and Social Club (RTSSC) in its objections to options NLR3 and NLR5 that allocate dwellings to land presently occupied by the club, as part of the residential allocations in the Local Development Framework. These plans would wipe out a club that has occupied its current site since 1972 as a lessee of Rochford District Council.

RTTSC is a members club that has developed into the biggest and most valuable social and recreational facility in the west of Rayleigh, thanks to the efforts and financial contributions of the members over the years. The site houses a clubhouse, changing rooms and sports pitches for 8 adult football teams, the Rayleigh Boys mini soccer teams and Rayleigh Fairview Cricket Club, which runs 4 adult and 3 junior teams. Rayleigh Boys and Rayleigh Fairview Cricket Club undertake coaching in the local schools. The pitches are of the best quality to be found in Rayleigh and are maintained entirely by the members at no cost to the council. The site was originally a potato field, and the clubhouse and pitches were constructed entirely by the members with no funding from the council.

The clubhouse is a social venue for the sports teams and local residents who participate in quizzes, ballroom dancing, bingo and concerts there. It is used for family events such as birthdays and wedding receptions. The removal of the club will severely deplete the community facilities available to residents in the area.

We propose that the Rayleigh Town Sports and Social Club site be added to the list of community facilities that will be safeguarded from development under option CF1 on page 133 of the Allocations DPD.

We also object to all the options, NLR1, NLR2, NLR3, NLR4 and NLR5 on the grounds that Rayleigh is already severely overdeveloped in comparison with the rest of Rochford District and the existing infrastructure of transport, education and health facilities which are already over loaded will not be able to cope with the additional housing. We feel that this housing and the proposed housing on the Rawreth Industrial Estate should be allocated elsewhere in the district in order to balance the over-development of Rayleigh in recent years.

Rayleigh Town Sports and Social Club

Attachment 1 to the representation form on the Allocations DPD

These comments are attached to the form submitted by Rayleigh Town Sports and Social Club in relation to options NLR3 and NLR5.

The club objects to the allocation of housing North of London Road Rayleigh under options NLR3 and NLR5 as it appears to cover the area occupied by Rayleigh Town Sports and Social Club and without specific words to the contrary appears to wipe out the club. Club members and residents of the area have signed a petition supporting the club's objections and this is attached. This submission deals with NLR3 and NLR5 from the point of view of the club. The club's representation is supported by a petition signed by 347 people. The petition would have been much larger but for the fact that the club only found out about these proposals by word of mouth one week ago. It is disappointing that the council did not write to the club, which has over 500 members and a turnover of £125k per annum, to advise it of these plans. The final paragraph of the petition also contains wider objections to options NLR1, NLR2, NLR3, NLR4, and NLR5 and a separate representation form is submitted in respect of the objections in the final paragraph.

The objections are:

1. The petition and attachment 2 explain why and how The Rayleigh Town Sports & Social Club has become an important social amenity in the London Road area. It is used more extensively than the Pope John Paul Hall and Grange Community Centre and like them the entire club site should be included in the list of Community facilities safeguarded from development under option CF1 on page 133 of the Allocations DPD.

2. There appears to be a lack of awareness amongst planners about the exact nature of the Club and the significant benefits which it provides to the local community in terms of sport and social cohesion. These are in part referred to in the Petition and attachment 2. The club feels that removal of this site would be at odds with the social objectives referred to in the Council's Core Development Strategy. Our club performs an important function in affording social and sporting outlets to young people. Such facilities are widely recognised as important positive factors affecting the health and behaviour of young people, and the removal of the club would have a negative impact on young people in the area. Your attention is drawn to the statement in the petition that the club supports sports coaching in the local schools. It is, in short, part of the social fabric of the local community.

3. The current provision of sport and recreational facilities for the existing population of Rayleigh does not meet Sport England's criteria. There is no logic in removing a significant sport and recreational area when there will be a significant accompanying increase in the local population. The attachments emphasis the high quality of the pitches and building on them would be wanton disregard of the efforts the community has put in to developing and maintaining the site at no cost to the council.

4. Any offer to relocate the club to an alternative site would be rigorously contested because the club serves both sport and social members and the two sections of the club are interdependent in terms of the finance needed to run the club in its present form. It is unlikely that social members would follow the club to a different location which would mean it would not be a viable going concern in a different location. On a sporting level it is important that recreational facilities should be as close as possible to a town centre and local housing to provide easy access to facilities. Moving our site would be counter to that aim.

5. Apart from raising the simple question - why not build houses on any alternative site to be offered - we would expect any relocated cricket and football pitches to be of the same quality ( particularly in terms of drainage) and changing room and clubhouse facilities to be commensurate with those possessed now. This would involve the council in a huge outlay which could be avoided simply by keeping the club in its current location.

6. The club has been advised by Sport England to make objections to the plans, thus suggesting that wider society has concerns that the removal of the club's facilities would be socially undesirable.


Petition

We the undersigned support Rayleigh Town Sports and Social Club (RTSSC) in its objections to options NLR3 and NLR5 that allocate dwellings to land presently occupied by the club, as part of the residential allocations in the Local Development Framework. These plans would wipe out a club that has occupied its current site since 1972 as a lessee of Rochford District Council.

RTTSC is a members club that has developed into the biggest and most valuable social and recreational facility in the west of Rayleigh, thanks to the efforts and financial contributions of the members over the years. The site houses a clubhouse, changing rooms and sports pitches for 8 adult football teams, the Rayleigh Boys mini soccer teams and Rayleigh Fairview Cricket Club, which runs 4 adult and 3 junior teams. Rayleigh Boys and Rayleigh Fairview Cricket Club undertake coaching in the local schools. The pitches are of the best quality to be found in Rayleigh and are maintained entirely by the members at no cost to the council. The site was originally a potato field, and the clubhouse and pitches were constructed entirely by the members with no funding from the council.

The clubhouse is a social venue for the sports teams and local residents who participate in quizzes, ballroom dancing, bingo and concerts there. It is used for family events such as birthdays and wedding receptions. The removal of the club will severely deplete the community facilities available to residents in the area.

We propose that the Rayleigh Town Sports and Social Club site be added to the list of community facilities that will be safeguarded from development under option CF1 on page 133 of the Allocations DPD.

We also object to all the options, NLR1, NLR2, NLR3, NLR4 and NLR5 on the grounds that Rayleigh is already severely overdeveloped in comparison with the rest of Rochford District and the existing infrastructure of transport, education and health facilities which are already over loaded will not be able to cope with the additional housing. We feel that this housing and the proposed housing on the Rawreth Industrial Estate should be allocated elsewhere in the district in order to balance the over-development of Rayleigh in recent years.

Rayleigh Town Sports and Social Club

Attachment 1 to the representation form on the Allocations DPD

These comments are attached to the form submitted by Rayleigh Town Sports and Social Club in relation to options NLR3 and NLR5.

The club objects to the allocation of housing North of London Road Rayleigh under options NLR3 and NLR5 as it appears to cover the area occupied by Rayleigh Town Sports and Social Club and without specific words to the contrary appears to wipe out the club. Club members and residents of the area have signed a petition supporting the club's objections and this is attached. This submission deals with NLR3 and NLR5 from the point of view of the club. The club's representation is supported by a petition signed by 347 people. The petition would have been much larger but for the fact that the club only found out about these proposals by word of mouth one week ago. It is disappointing that the council did not write to the club, which has over 500 members and a turnover of £125k per annum, to advise it of these plans. The final paragraph of the petition also contains wider objections to options NLR1, NLR2, NLR3, NLR4, and NLR5 and a separate representation form is submitted in respect of the objections in the final paragraph.

The objections are:

1. The petition and attachment 2 explain why and how The Rayleigh Town Sports & Social Club has become an important social amenity in the London Road area. It is used more extensively than the Pope John Paul Hall and Grange Community Centre and like them the entire club site should be included in the list of Community facilities safeguarded from development under option CF1 on page 133 of the Allocations DPD.

2. There appears to be a lack of awareness amongst planners about the exact nature of the Club and the significant benefits which it provides to the local community in terms of sport and social cohesion. These are in part referred to in the Petition and attachment 2. The club feels that removal of this site would be at odds with the social objectives referred to in the Council's Core Development Strategy. Our club performs an important function in affording social and sporting outlets to young people. Such facilities are widely recognised as important positive factors affecting the health and behaviour of young people, and the removal of the club would have a negative impact on young people in the area. Your attention is drawn to the statement in the petition that the club supports sports coaching in the local schools. It is, in short, part of the social fabric of the local community.

3. The current provision of sport and recreational facilities for the existing population of Rayleigh does not meet Sport England's criteria. There is no logic in removing a significant sport and recreational area when there will be a significant accompanying increase in the local population. The attachments emphasis the high quality of the pitches and building on them would be wanton disregard of the efforts the community has put in to developing and maintaining the site at no cost to the council.

4. Any offer to relocate the club to an alternative site would be rigorously contested because the club serves both sport and social members and the two sections of the club are interdependent in terms of the finance needed to run the club in its present form. It is unlikely that social members would follow the club to a different location which would mean it would not be a viable going concern in a different location. On a sporting level it is important that recreational facilities should be as close as possible to a town centre and local housing to provide easy access to facilities. Moving our site would be counter to that aim.

5. Apart from raising the simple question - why not build houses on any alternative site to be offered - we would expect any relocated cricket and football pitches to be of the same quality ( particularly in terms of drainage) and changing room and clubhouse facilities to be commensurate with those possessed now. This would involve the council in a huge outlay which could be avoided simply by keeping the club in its current location.

6. The club has been advised by Sport England to make objections to the plans, thus suggesting that wider society has concerns that the removal of the club's facilities would be socially undesirable.


Petition

We the undersigned support Rayleigh Town Sports and Social Club (RTSSC) in its objections to options NLR3 and NLR5 that allocate dwellings to land presently occupied by the club, as part of the residential allocations in the Local Development Framework. These plans would wipe out a club that has occupied its current site since 1972 as a lessee of Rochford District Council.

RTTSC is a members club that has developed into the biggest and most valuable social and recreational facility in the west of Rayleigh, thanks to the efforts and financial contributions of the members over the years. The site houses a clubhouse, changing rooms and sports pitches for 8 adult football teams, the Rayleigh Boys mini soccer teams and Rayleigh Fairview Cricket Club, which runs 4 adult and 3 junior teams. Rayleigh Boys and Rayleigh Fairview Cricket Club undertake coaching in the local schools. The pitches are of the best quality to be found in Rayleigh and are maintained entirely by the members at no cost to the council. The site was originally a potato field, and the clubhouse and pitches were constructed entirely by the members with no funding from the council.

The clubhouse is a social venue for the sports teams and local residents who participate in quizzes, ballroom dancing, bingo and concerts there. It is used for family events such as birthdays and wedding receptions. The removal of the club will severely deplete the community facilities available to residents in the area.

We propose that the Rayleigh Town Sports and Social Club site be added to the list of community facilities that will be safeguarded from development under option CF1 on page 133 of the Allocations DPD.

We also object to all the options, NLR1, NLR2, NLR3, NLR4 and NLR5 on the grounds that Rayleigh is already severely overdeveloped in comparison with the rest of Rochford District and the existing infrastructure of transport, education and health facilities which are already over loaded will not be able to cope with the additional housing. We feel that this housing and the proposed housing on the Rawreth Industrial Estate should be allocated elsewhere in the district in order to balance the over-development of Rayleigh in recent years.

Rayleigh Town Sports and Social Club

Attachment 1 to the representation form on the Allocations DPD

These comments are attached to the form submitted by Rayleigh Town Sports and Social Club in relation to options NLR3 and NLR5.

The club objects to the allocation of housing North of London Road Rayleigh under options NLR3 and NLR5 as it appears to cover the area occupied by Rayleigh Town Sports and Social Club and without specific words to the contrary appears to wipe out the club. Club members and residents of the area have signed a petition supporting the club's objections and this is attached. This submission deals with NLR3 and NLR5 from the point of view of the club. The club's representation is supported by a petition signed by 347 people. The petition would have been much larger but for the fact that the club only found out about these proposals by word of mouth one week ago. It is disappointing that the council did not write to the club, which has over 500 members and a turnover of £125k per annum, to advise it of these plans. The final paragraph of the petition also contains wider objections to options NLR1, NLR2, NLR3, NLR4, and NLR5 and a separate representation form is submitted in respect of the objections in the final paragraph.

The objections are:

1. The petition and attachment 2 explain why and how The Rayleigh Town Sports & Social Club has become an important social amenity in the London Road area. It is used more extensively than the Pope John Paul Hall and Grange Community Centre and like them the entire club site should be included in the list of Community facilities safeguarded from development under option CF1 on page 133 of the Allocations DPD.

2. There appears to be a lack of awareness amongst planners about the exact nature of the Club and the significant benefits which it provides to the local community in terms of sport and social cohesion. These are in part referred to in the Petition and attachment 2. The club feels that removal of this site would be at odds with the social objectives referred to in the Council's Core Development Strategy. Our club performs an important function in affording social and sporting outlets to young people. Such facilities are widely recognised as important positive factors affecting the health and behaviour of young people, and the removal of the club would have a negative impact on young people in the area. Your attention is drawn to the statement in the petition that the club supports sports coaching in the local schools. It is, in short, part of the social fabric of the local community.

3. The current provision of sport and recreational facilities for the existing population of Rayleigh does not meet Sport England's criteria. There is no logic in removing a significant sport and recreational area when there will be a significant accompanying increase in the local population. The attachments emphasis the high quality of the pitches and building on them would be wanton disregard of the efforts the community has put in to developing and maintaining the site at no cost to the council.

4. Any offer to relocate the club to an alternative site would be rigorously contested because the club serves both sport and social members and the two sections of the club are interdependent in terms of the finance needed to run the club in its present form. It is unlikely that social members would follow the club to a different location which would mean it would not be a viable going concern in a different location. On a sporting level it is important that recreational facilities should be as close as possible to a town centre and local housing to provide easy access to facilities. Moving our site would be counter to that aim.

5. Apart from raising the simple question - why not build houses on any alternative site to be offered - we would expect any relocated cricket and football pitches to be of the same quality ( particularly in terms of drainage) and changing room and clubhouse facilities to be commensurate with those possessed now. This would involve the council in a huge outlay which could be avoided simply by keeping the club in its current location.

6. The club has been advised by Sport England to make objections to the plans, thus suggesting that wider society has concerns that the removal of the club's facilities would be socially undesirable.


Petition

We the undersigned support Rayleigh Town Sports and Social Club (RTSSC) in its objections to options NLR3 and NLR5 that allocate dwellings to land presently occupied by the club, as part of the residential allocations in the Local Development Framework. These plans would wipe out a club that has occupied its current site since 1972 as a lessee of Rochford District Council.

RTTSC is a members club that has developed into the biggest and most valuable social and recreational facility in the west of Rayleigh, thanks to the efforts and financial contributions of the members over the years. The site houses a clubhouse, changing rooms and sports pitches for 8 adult football teams, the Rayleigh Boys mini soccer teams and Rayleigh Fairview Cricket Club, which runs 4 adult and 3 junior teams. Rayleigh Boys and Rayleigh Fairview Cricket Club undertake coaching in the local schools. The pitches are of the best quality to be found in Rayleigh and are maintained entirely by the members at no cost to the council. The site was originally a potato field, and the clubhouse and pitches were constructed entirely by the members with no funding from the council.

The clubhouse is a social venue for the sports teams and local residents who participate in quizzes, ballroom dancing, bingo and concerts there. It is used for family events such as birthdays and wedding receptions. The removal of the club will severely deplete the community facilities available to residents in the area.

We propose that the Rayleigh Town Sports and Social Club site be added to the list of community facilities that will be safeguarded from development under option CF1 on page 133 of the Allocations DPD.

We also object to all the options, NLR1, NLR2, NLR3, NLR4 and NLR5 on the grounds that Rayleigh is already severely overdeveloped in comparison with the rest of Rochford District and the existing infrastructure of transport, education and health facilities which are already over loaded will not be able to cope with the additional housing. We feel that this housing and the proposed housing on the Rawreth Industrial Estate should be allocated elsewhere in the district in order to balance the over-development of Rayleigh in recent years.

Objection to North of London Road, Rayleigh 550 dwellings. See paper copy.