Please note: You only need to register / login if you wish to make representations.

You can view the full details of a representation by clicking either on the Representation ID in the top right of the summary box or on the More Details... link at the bottom.

Representations on Rochford District Core Strategy Regulation 26 Draft - 4.6.10 General Development Locations Preferred Option

Representation ID: 786

COMMENT Essex County Council (Mr J Hammond )

Summary:

Para 4.6.10 Significant additional schools capacity will be needed as set out below. In addition, Early Years and Childcare facilities will need to be provided in each case. Financial and land contributions from developers will be needed to deliver this infrastructure. The allocation of 300 more units than proposed to Hockley and 300 less to Rayleigh would provide a better fit in terms of maximising the use of current schools' capacity. Rochford/Ashingdon:- 1,000 UnitsThe capacity of Doggetts Primary can potentially be expanded to meet the needs of up to 1,000 new homes. If the sites are poorly located for this school, a new single form entry primary school would be needed (site area required 1.1 hectares). At secondary, King Edmund is already accommodating significantly more pupils than is recommended by the DfES for their site area. The school is forecast to remain oversubscribed. To expand, the school will need to obtain additional land. Land to the north and east of the school is open. The school has access difficulties with significant vehicle / pedestrian conflict and congestion at the start and end of the day. Incorporation of land to the north into the school site would allow the school to expand to serve new housing while at the same time providing improved access via Brat's Lane. The plan should allocate a minimum of 2.7 hectares of land for this purpose based on 1,000 new homes. RDC will need to consult with the School as to the precise piece of land needed. Hockley/Hawkwell: - 400 UnitsDemand for both primary and secondary places in the area is forecast to fall, which should allow this number of new dwellings to be accommodated without the need for significant additional capacity. Rayleigh: - 1,800 UnitsThis quantum of new development is likely to require an additional two forms of entry to be added to permanent capacity across the town at both primary and secondary levels. Half of this requirement at primary level can be met by expanding existing schools. The allocation of a single housing site of around 700 units would be needed to deliver a new single form entry primary school (1.1 hectares) to make up the anticipated shortfall. Limited expansion of Fitzwimarc and/or Sweyne Park can probably be achieved with careful planning/ negotiation with the schools. Smaller settlements: - 500 UnitsThe allocation of units to smaller settlements could help sustain rural primary schools within the District but would impose long term school transport costs upon the County Council that should be mitigated through developer contributions. Specific locations will require careful consideration.

More details about Rep ID: 786

Representation ID: 718

OBJECT Mrs Anne Wood

Summary:

I wish to submit my OBJECTION to Rochford District Council Core Strategy regulation 26, section FOUR option 4.6.10

comment

We have neither the room nor the amenities for the proposed 1800 houses in Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 718

Representation ID: 716

SUPPORT F Wall Esq represented by Whirledge & Nott (Ms K Jennings)

Summary:

We are supportive of the allocation of housing in the Rochford and Ashingdon area. It is considered that there is a wide scope for housing allocation to the North East of Ashingdon residential boundary

More details about Rep ID: 716

Representation ID: 708

SUPPORT Mr J Needs & Aston Unit Trust represented by Sellwood Planning (Mr R M Sellwood)

Summary:

The distribution of housing is supported. Rayleigh is the logical location for the largest share of the housing provision due to its pre-eminent range of facilities, services and public transport.

More details about Rep ID: 708

Representation ID: 707

OBJECT Mr J Needs & Aston Unit Trust represented by Sellwood Planning (Mr R M Sellwood)

Summary:

It is insufficient in a Preferred Options document for the Council to state that it will set out a policy for a settlement hierarchy based on services and sustainability and a policy on phasing without detailing the content of these policies. This will mean that the first opportunity to coment on the policies will be when the Core Strategy is submitted to the Secretary of State.

More details about Rep ID: 707

Representation ID: 700

COMMENT Persimmon Homes (Essex) (P Gibbs) represented by RPS Planning and Development (Ms H Phillips)

Summary:

Paragraph 4.6.10
We note the Council's preferred option of allocating the majority of the development in the major settlements of Rayleigh, Hockley/Hawkwell and Rochford/Ashingdon but believe the split should be amended. A greater share of development should be allocated to Hockley/Hawkwell, because there are opportunities on the eastern edge of the settlement (e.g. land at Greensward Lane as shown on the attached plan) for a sustainable urban extension without prejudicing green belt or environmental policy principles.

More details about Rep ID: 700

Representation ID: 698

COMMENT Persimmon Homes (Essex) (P Gibbs) represented by RPS Planning and Development (Ms H Phillips)

Summary:

Paragraph 4.6.10 of the draft core strategy, however, proposes a policy that would allocate the total residual requirement after completions, of 3700, to the various tiers of settlements proposed but without indicating how much of this will be on previously developed land and how much on greenfield land.

This whole approach needs to be re-worked and refined to explain:
* exactly how the Council has arrived at its figures;
* what assessments have been made of whether existing commitments are actually developable;
* precisely how the Council's strategies and policies for housing delivery, including proposed locations for new housing, will meet the government's policy requirements; and in particular
* to demonstrate how the Council will manage the process to ensure that a continuous 5-year supply of deliverable sites i.e. housing land that is available, suitable and achievable, is maintained over the 15 years from adoption of the core strategy.

At present it is not possible to say that the Council's approach is sound, therefore this whole issue will need to be properly addressed in the submission document, with up to date supporting evidence documents.

What is clear, however, is that the scale of additional housing required is likely to be such that large greenfield urban extensions will inevitably be required and the policy framework for these, including locations, consideration of the timing of implementation and broad phasing, should be provided in the submission core strategy.

More details about Rep ID: 698

Representation ID: 666

OBJECT Trinity College represented by Bidwells (Ms S Madsen)

Summary:

The Preferred Option as set out is a statement of intent. It does not address the real issues of how the District will accommodate housing growth, other than setting out a percentage within certain locations. There is no robust evidence base provided to justify the percentages or the housing numbers set out. Both should be based on an Urban Capacity Study and Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment. There is little explanation as to why other options have been discounted particularly given the lack of sustainability appraisal for this document and there is no indication of how these percentages are to be taken forward. The Core Strategy should not leave the question of the general allocation of the level of housing to settlements open on the grounds that this can only be done once housing sites have been identified in a Site Allocation DPD. Strategic Core Strategy Documents should be sufficiently detailed to enable proper identification of the options or even progression of planning applications for strategic sites to be progressed in advance of the Site Specific Allocations Document. Neither the Key Diagram nor the text or policies achieve this objective. The Council have embarked on an exercise of identifying sites but this information has not been used to properly inform options for delivering growth for the Core Strategy. The Strategy should be driving the allocation of sites not the other way around. In this way, where it is clear that there are certain sites, key to the delivery of the overall Strategy, then it is entirely appropriate for such sites to be mentioned in the Core Strategy.Land north of AshingdonIt is noted that the settlements listed for expansion include 1,000 for Rochford and Ashingdon. It is considered that land at Rectory Farm, identified as Site 50 in the Sites Put Forward for Consideration in the Preparation of the Allocations Document, should form part of the consideration of options.The land is adjacent to established housing in certain areas. Overall, the developed northern edge of the settlement appears rather fragmented where, in places, there is no distinct line between the built up area and the countryside beyond.Although currently beyond the built up area of Ashingdon, taken with other land in the vicinity, there is an opportunity for an urban extension as a means of meeting housing requirements. The implementation of appropriate structural landscaping and open space uses will provide an appropriate urban extension with possibilities for enhancing the urban edge as part of a necessary review of the Green Belt designation in this location.This land is considered to be within a sustainable location close to bus routes to and from Rochford and beyond; three junior/infants schools and with 2.5km of Rochford town centre with its range of shops and leisure opportunities as well as the railway stations at Rochford and Hockley. There is potential for open space/recreational land to be provided to improve the open space in Rochford District. The release of the areas south of Ashingdon Road and east of Fambridge Road for development has the advantage of being well related to the existing form and character of development. Opportunities exist on the northern most parcels, beyond Rectory Farm to provide structural landscaping and open space to contribute to the Council's requirements, improve the built up edge of the settlement, and enhance the landscape and Green Belt.The proposed urban extension could provide elements of the following:§ Residential - 33 hectares§ Strategic Open Space - 19.5 hectares§ Employment/mixed uses/communities facilities - 5 hectaresA residential allocation could accommodate up to 1,000 dwellings including the provision of affordable housing to meet local needs. The intention would be to create a new neighbourhood with associated community facilities, including new primary school, if necessary, to meet the needs of the development. Mixed commercial employment uses would be desirable to provide a balanced neighbourhood with strategic open space and structural landscaping to serve the needs and amenities of the wider community.

More details about Rep ID: 666

Representation ID: 644

SUPPORT Mr G Marshall

Summary:

Section 4.6
I support the council's preferred options. No doubt, this part of the core strategy will attract the greatest number of objectors, principally from residents who do not want to see more development in their neighbourhoods. However, the council must take a broader view in order to manage the allocation of land in response to the requirements of the East of England Plan. The three tier priority system to sustainable development is entirely logical and is clearly based upon zones that have better access to public transport/rail services, the highway network, areas of employment and which benefit from the highest levels of community services.

More details about Rep ID: 644

Representation ID: 629

COMMENT Home Builders Federation (Mr P Cronk)

Summary:

4.6.10

The strategy is neither underpinned by a Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment, or a Strategic Housing Market Assessment. It is also unclear as to the implications of making no housing allocations in a number of settlements.

The Council will need to ensure that suitable housing provision is made to meet a range of different housing needs (including for family housing), this will require a variety of different types of sites in different localities. Given that the housing requirement is based upon a minimum figure, the Council should place its efforts on ensuring that this is achieved. It should not seek to overly control and manage housing delivery where there are not direct infrastructure issues or problems that first need resolving.

More details about Rep ID: 629

Representation ID: 619

SUPPORT Pond Chase Nurseries Ltd (Mr T Cripps) represented by Boyer Planning Ltd (Mr R Ricks)

Summary:

The identification of the three principal settlements as being the location for the larger portion of the housing requirement is supported.

There is clear logic in making such provision since these comprise the largest urban settlements within the District and where additional residential development would be consistent with sustainable development principles.

More details about Rep ID: 619

Representation ID: 617

OBJECT Pond Chase Nurseries Ltd (Mr T Cripps) represented by Boyer Planning Ltd (Mr R Ricks)

Summary:

The Core Strategy has identified a distribution of dwellings between the principal settlements.

The manner and the reasons for the particular distribution are noted but the final distribution should await the conclusions of the Urban Capacity Study. It remains important that there is a reasonable balance of new housing distribution across the three principal settlements to include urban capacity sites and the release of land from the Green Belt.

Accordingly, this objection is maintained pending publication of the updated Urban Capacity Study.

More details about Rep ID: 617

Representation ID: 616

COMMENT Rayleigh Town Council (Mrs K Cumberland)

Summary:

Following the Full Council meeting which took place last night, 30th July 2007, the Town Council would like to make the following statement:-

'Whilst appreciating that it is a Government driven policy on the number of houses to be built in our area, Rayleigh Town councillors are very concerned, along with a large number of residents, about the projected number of units to be built in the town's area.

The infrastructure, as it is currently, would need to be looked at and improved, as a matter of urgency, before any new homes are built. At present:-

* The roads in and out of Rayleigh are grid-locked for most of the day, regardless of the route taken to the town centre and, at school times, they can only be viewed as dangerous.

* Car parking is far from adequate. Midweek we lose one of our few town centre car parks for 24 hours in order to accommodate the market. There is very little out-of-town car parking, thus resulting in residential roads becoming increasingly clogged, and the associated dangers near schools.

* There is no parking at the clinic in Eastwood Road. This clinic is used by many elderly and disabled residents, who are advised to leave their cars at Websters Way car park, and walk!

* There is virtually no bus route through Rawreth Lane.

* Rayleigh is already very short of play spaces/football pitches for the number of residents, and have very few 'green' spaces that can be expanded into.

* Doctors and Dentists surgeries are full

* Schools are full

The current infrastructure, as it stands, will be unable to support the projected number of 1,800 new homes.'

More details about Rep ID: 616

Representation ID: 615

OBJECT Mrs S Claydon

Summary:

I would like to register my object to the proposed building of an additional 1800 more homes in Rayleigh. In recent years Rayleigh has already had a huge increase in new homes as well as flats, and there really is no room for additional homes, especially if they are to be built on the little remaining green belt land that we have.

Reading through Core Strategy Preferred Options Regulation 26 Draft it clearly states that the council is well aware that the road system in and around Rayleigh is not suitable for the current population let alone an increase in the population. With an additional 1800 more homes there will be around an additional 5400 vehicles in the region putting increasing pressure on the current road structure as well increasing the pollution in the area. With the higher rate of traffic also comes to danger problem. There is already a short fall in the number of jobs available to the current population this will only increase and we will have more of the population commuting to work and schools again increasing the traffic flow during both rush hours and school runs.

There are at present only two secondary schools in this region and no further plans or a site to place a new school, therefore the two current schools will either be overcrowded or we will have more children commuting out of the area to schools, again more cars on the road and additional pressure on the public travel system.

It appears that the main planning site for these 1800 homes will be along the A130 a main road leading onto the busy A127 at Rawreth, this is already a busy road only recently improved by the building of the new A130. This is one of the main roads exiting from the Rayleigh. There will be a huge increase in traffic on this road which in turn will cause traffic hold ups on other roads, also with more cars joining this road there is an increased danger to drivers and pedestrians.

Rayleigh does not have adequate facilities for the current population, we have no cinema or swimming pool despite both of these being popular ideas to most of Rayleigh. There are no real facilities for the young and already there are certain parts of Rayleigh which are a problem with young teenagers hanging around drinking at night and being a general nuisance. This problem will only get worse and should the rumoured merger of our Police station take place we will have even less of a Police force to tackle these problems. Once again I strongly disagree with this proposal especially if more of our green belt land is to used.

More details about Rep ID: 615

Representation ID: 614

OBJECT Mr G L Bird

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 614

Representation ID: 613

OBJECT Mr K Clark

Summary:

I do not believe the development of up to a further 1800 homes for Rayleigh is appropriate. The development of houses over the last 10 years is way above that of surrounding areas and I do not believe these plans can be sustainable. The 'Asda' supermarket was bad enough, but 1800 homes, you must be joking!

More details about Rep ID: 613

Representation ID: 612

OBJECT Mr & Mrs Panton

Summary:

I totally object for more housing in Rayleigh and Rawreth. I strongly feel that we do not have the infrastructure such as schools, medical facilities and sewage facilities which at the moment is overstretched. At the moment we have tankers going to and fro to the sewage works in Beeches Road which is very unpleasant. More houses more sewage. Thousands of passengers every day packed into trains to go to London to work. Again not satisfactory, more trains, more and an efficient bus service. The housing should be distributed more fairly. Will ruin the countryside more rubbish, fed up of seeing plastic bags draped over bushes ie supermarket rubbish. More housing means more services for everything.

More details about Rep ID: 612

Representation ID: 611

OBJECT Mrs M Neale

Summary:

Rayleigh & Rawreth have already received most of the large scale new housing. There have already been 6 housing developments in Rawreth Lane alone in very recent times.

More details about Rep ID: 611

Representation ID: 610

OBJECT J Neale

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 610

Representation ID: 609

OBJECT Mr Stephen Tellis

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 609

Representation ID: 608

OBJECT Mr C Dudley

Summary:

I write in connection with the above that I understand is under consideration and wish to protest in the strongest terms to any such developments.

As far as I understand it, the proposal is to build a further 1800 houses in the Rayleigh area that simply can not cope with the existing traffic congestion; with local services apparently at breaking point given the population influx seen over recent years a development of this scale must, on the grounds of pure common sense, be resisted as the infrastructure simply can not cope.

I am not sure if proposed sites for the new developemnts have been considered but anyone who lives in Rayleigh knows that the area is heavily congested, no only at peak times and to site further sizeable housing developments in the locality beggers belief.

As an example, traffic regularly queues the length of Rawreth Lane, from just after the junction with the A1245 to the mini roundabout at the bottom of Hambro Hill. This level of congestion occurs daily and is not a singular event. Whilst I acknowledge this is peak travel time, how can a proposal to add a substantial number of additional traffic movements in the vicinity be seriously considered, particularly when recognising those further flows generated by the new Park School housing estate and the traffic movements from the new Asda store which has yet to be built is not in even in evidence. Scenes of congestion are frequently replicated across Rayleigh and the once attractive place to reside is being eroded by continual development and growth in traffic volumes.

I recognise that this must seem like a 'not in my back garden' view but it is clear that the infrastructure can not cope with existing demands let alone any further increases. To reiterate, I and many others in the area are completely against any such developments and I wish to have such protests raised at the highest level in the hope that such proposals will be permanently declined or at least significantly scaled back.

Thank you for taking the time again to read my views.

More details about Rep ID: 608

Representation ID: 602

SUPPORT Rochford Chamber of Trade (Mr H Squier)

Summary:

4.6.10 We agree with the Council's Preferred Option in respect of larger sites being able to deliver greater infrastructure improvements.

As regards Housing Allocations by area, we neither agree nor disagree without studying site availability across the District

More details about Rep ID: 602

Representation ID: 596

SUPPORT Essex Chambers of Commerce (Mr D Horsley)

Summary:

4.6.10 We agree with the Council's Preferred Option in respect of larger sites being able to deliver greater infrastructure improvements.

As regards Housing Allocations by area, we neither agree nor disagree without studying site availability across the District.

More details about Rep ID: 596

Representation ID: 591

OBJECT Mrs V R Shurben

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 591

Representation ID: 590

OBJECT C J Shurben

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 590

Representation ID: 583

SUPPORT Martin Dawn Plc (Mr G King) represented by Savills (Ms M Power)

Summary:

Martin Dawn supports the Council's identification of the priority and hierarchy of Rochford and Rayleigh. It is clear that the established settlements will be able to respond to sustainable development criteria where there are existing public transport services and social and community facilities.

More details about Rep ID: 583

Representation ID: 579

OBJECT H Whitwell

Summary:

I have lived in Rayleigh for 28 years and am fed up with constant in fill and other building which is not supported by additional facilities - local shops rather than out of town stores and no thought resulting in progress to the increased traffic.

We lived in Hullbridge before moving here and each 'traffic scheme' has simply moved the congestion around so that each road has had a turn! Crown Hill being favoured at the moment.

More details about Rep ID: 579

Representation ID: 577

OBJECT Mrs H Springham

Summary:

The 900 houses already built - The majority of these are in Rayleigh. These should be taken into accuont when sharing the additional houses in the area.

Rayleigh is already overdeveloped. As quoted in the RDC Planning Policy - re Rawreth - 'any new dwellings would have a detrimental effect on the visual appearance of the Green Belt and the existing open character'.

I strongly object to the plan of 1800 being built in the Rayleigh area. It is far too many.

I understand the 'East of England Plan' is not yet policy therefore all this extra housing may not be needed!

Rayleigh cannot cope with this much extra housing ie roads, schools, doctors, etc, etc, etc.

I hope at the next Council meeting the local councilors will represent their residents rather than their party policy!

More details about Rep ID: 577

Representation ID: 575

OBJECT S J Springham

Summary:

I wish to object to the proposal to site 1800 housing units in Rayleigh/Rawreth for the following reasons:

1. Rayleigh and Rawreth are already suffering more than the rest of the district from overdevelopment - a large proportion of the 900 houses already built are located in Rayleigh.
2. Rayleigh and Rawreth have already received most of the large scale new housing in the last 20 years.
3. It is not possible to put 1800 extra houses in Rayleigh in a sustainable way.
4. More amenities must be provided prior to any large scale development being undertaken.
5. Development should be split evenly across the entire district.
6. The East of England plan is not yet policy and only when and if it is in place does a decision require to be made.
7. As quoted in the RDC Planning Policy - re Rawreth - "Any new dwellings would have a detrimental effect on the visual appearance of the Green Belt and the existing open character of such settlements".

More details about Rep ID: 575

Representation ID: 574

OBJECT Mrs J B Watts

Summary:

Rayleigh and Rawreth are already suffering more than the rest of the district from overdevelopment.
Rayleigh and Rawreth have already received most of the large scale new housing in the last 20 years.
We don't think there's space to put 1800 extra houses in Rayleigh in a sustainable way.
We need more amenities before we have more houses.
This time development should be shared out more fairly across the district.

More details about Rep ID: 574

Representation ID: 573

OBJECT Mr L G Watts

Summary:

I object for the same reasons as those given by the Lib democrats.

More details about Rep ID: 573

Representation ID: 572

OBJECT Mr/Mrs Walter

Summary:

Object

More details about Rep ID: 572

Representation ID: 571

OBJECT Mrs Lynda Cornell

Summary:

Why should this area of Essex - Rayleigh in particular - be burdened with more large scale housing development when it has already topped that league with growth over the past 20 years. The infrastructure barely copes now and I don't believe further large scale housing development is viable or fair. Even Park School was demolished - surely that should have been retained if there was any chance of further growth in the area. We weren't even given decent facilities - a pathetic sports centre, not even a swimming pool. When you fly over the area you realise just how unfairly the developments are spread over Essex. Couldn't some of the villages be expanded. Rayleigh has grown enormously in less than 100 years - it has reached saturation - isn't it time for 21st century progress - and let some other areas share the benefits of growth/expansion.

More details about Rep ID: 571

Representation ID: 570

OBJECT Mrs J Eyres

Summary:

We have already got too many houses in Rayleigh without any new infrastructure/amenities going into the area. Our roads cannot cope. Why are we down to have so many more houses than other areas.

More details about Rep ID: 570

Representation ID: 569

OBJECT E T Vane

Summary:

Having seen provisional planning of location for Rawreth and Rayleigh, it is my opinion that no thought of this area. This area has no road or sewer to take this increase of houses. Have you taken in order that water shortage will be a great burden in this area. Transport would be increased by approx 3,000 plus cars, we will need more schools, doctors surgery.

More details about Rep ID: 569

Representation ID: 568

OBJECT Mrs V Alfred

Summary:

Rayleigh/Rawreth has already had more new houses than it can reasonably support, and no additional amenities ie, schools, doctors, etc are being provided.

More details about Rep ID: 568

Representation ID: 567

OBJECT Mr & Mrs Taylor

Summary:

1) More amenities are needed before more houses are built.
2) Rayleigh and Rawreth are already suffering from overdevelopment.
3) There is not enough space to erect 1800 houses in Rayleigh in a sustainable way.
4) Development should be shared more fairly across the whole district.

More details about Rep ID: 567

Representation ID: 566

OBJECT Mrs S Melvin

Summary:

Rawreth, Rayleigh already have too many new houses, roads are congested, schools full. The new Asda in Rawreth Lane will add to the rush hour traffic jams.

More details about Rep ID: 566

Representation ID: 564

OBJECT C Robinson & S Clifton

Summary:

The number of additional homes and people will place a great strain on the district. The current infrastructure is very weak and additional homes and people will make this worse. It is felt that there have been adequate extra homes built in the district over the last few years and the current greenfields areas should remain.

More details about Rep ID: 564

Representation ID: 563

OBJECT Mr & Mrs G Edwards

Summary:

Green Belt being eroded away. Overdevelopment will result in more traffic congestion.

More details about Rep ID: 563

Representation ID: 562

OBJECT Mrs M Oatham

Summary:

The objection is to the distribution of the new housing. 1800 extra houses would place an intoleable burden on the infrastructure and services in the Rayleigh area.

The schools are oversubscribed - with children forced to be educated outside the area
The sewage/drainage/water supply systems are already stretched to their limits.
With current traffic numbers, Rayleigh, Hockley and Rawreth are currently gridlocked at peak periods and increased traffic flow is inevitable with the new Asda - let alone all the extra vehicles 1800 houses would generate.
More health provision - Doctors, clinics etc would be needed.
More public transport would be required and extra parking spaces at Rayleigh station to cope with additional commuters.
Western Rayleigh's green space has seen enough development and needs protecting for current residents and future generations.
A solution would be to develop the outlying areas which have the open space to accommodate new building and also the room to develop the infrastructure and services.
These areas will then benefit from the development of the airport and Fossetts Farm.

More details about Rep ID: 562

Representation ID: 561

OBJECT Mrs S Vickery

Summary:

I am objecting to section four Option 4.6.10 because I do not believe there is space to put 1800 houses in the Rayleigh area. Rayleigh has already had a huge amount of development in the last few years, and the local infrastrucutre struggles to cope, too many cars, james, pollution and noise. Where are these proposed new houses going to go? Are we to lose even more green open space and see more garden grabbing developments. I hope not as I think these proposals will ruin Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 561

Representation ID: 560

OBJECT Mr & Mrs Gladding

Summary:

Referring to Focus June 2007, we were very alarmed at the prospect of another 1800 housing units being earmarked for Rayleigh/Rawreth. It is unfair as we have certainly taken the brunt of housing development already, including a fairly large Asda on the old Park School site. The facilities are just not there for this staggering new figure ie schools, surgeries and various other amenities. There is also the question of the extra traffic and congestion this would create. It is just not on.

There should also be a balance of development and green areas otherwise where is the rainfall going to go it much of Rayleigh is concreted over. There is also the loss of habitats for birds and wildlife, which is most important otherwise we will soon see this disappear altogether as well. The proposal should be carefully reconsidered and should be shared out more equally with the other areas listed in the Focus before it is too late and this detrimental development changes Rayleigh/Rawreth forever.

More details about Rep ID: 560

Representation ID: 559

OBJECT Mr D Aldridge

Summary:

I object to the allocation of 1800 housing units to Rayleigh.

I wish to see all the productive farmland on both sides of Rawreth Lane retained in cultivation thereby providing a food source area to the local population. These farmlands are also capable of contributing to the supply of basic materials for the production of biofuels considered necessary to combat global warming. These farmland areas already contribute to the need for strategic buffer zones.

I wish to see all the open spaces and recreational facilities in the areas of Rawreth Lane and Hullbridge Road retained.

I am opposed to the large developments proposed for the Rochford District as a whole.

Rochford's open areas contribute to a carbon sink for the upwind London conurbation, which is destined to increase with the construction of the Thames Gateway project. This project alone will increase road traffic and carbon production.

We are led to believe that the lands in the East are under threat from rising sea levels and areas will be allowed to flood.

The Rochford District Council, supported by our Members of Parliament, should return to the negotiating table with the new government.

More details about Rep ID: 559

Representation ID: 541

COMMENT Seaside Limited (Mr A Watson) represented by DO NOT USE THIS ACCOUNT - Iceni Projects Limited (Mr I Anderson)

Summary:

Para 4.6.10

Seaside disagree with the housing allocation figures set out in this section of the Core Strategy. Specifically by focussing 1000 units around Rochford/Ashingdon and 1800 units at Rayleigh, sustainable growth will not be achieved. This approach to development will overload the existing settlements, which are of insufficient scale and will not provide the additional benefits in terms of infrastructure improvements that the Seaside Phase 1 development can deliver.

More details about Rep ID: 541

Representation ID: 531

OBJECT Mrs J E Jones

Summary:

Hawkwell is a pleasant area but Hockley Road is dreadfully congested during an extended rush hour and now even weekends. Lorry deliveries to the shopping area in Hockley make the situation even worse. It is important not to spoil Hawkwell village which at present is a pleasant please to live. A large influx of houses would cause many problems. There are not enough good transport links locally. The A127 is already overused and cannot take more traffic. There is virtually no local industry so residents need to use the existing roads to get to work. Doctors surgeries and local hospitals would be overstretched even more than they are now. Compulsory purchase of green belt land would cost us our remaining open spaces. Hawkwell village does not have room for a large settlement of new houses.

More details about Rep ID: 531

Representation ID: 526

OBJECT Mr & Mrs Drage

Summary:

We object to the number of new houses planned to be built in Rayleigh and feel that the houses should be more evenly distributed throughout the Rochford District. Rayleigh has already seen massive houses building off Rawreth Lane, while the Open Space was allocated to Cherry Orchard Jubilee Country Park, which, we understand will be developed even further. Hockley has the woods, Rayleigh will soon be a mass of concrete adjoining Wickford.

More houses will mean greater pressure on roads, schools and G.P. services, and Rayleigh will lose green belt land.

More details about Rep ID: 526

Representation ID: 525

OBJECT Mrs S Staniland

Summary:

In view of the number of houses and an Asda store that are being built along Rawreth Lane, the traffic is already horrendous and more houses will make it too busy. The road system cannot cope at the moment and these houses are not needed in Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 525

Representation ID: 520

OBJECT Mr D Scarrott

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 520

Representation ID: 519

OBJECT J Scarrott

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 519

Representation ID: 518

OBJECT Mr C Hill

Summary:

Over development in Rayleigh

More details about Rep ID: 518

Representation ID: 517

OBJECT Mr and Mrs Hill

Summary:

Over development in Rayleigh

More details about Rep ID: 517

Representation ID: 516

OBJECT Miss Claydon

Summary:

I would like to register my object to the proposed building of an additional 1800 more homes in Rayleigh. In recent years Rayleigh has already had a huge increase in new homes as well as flats, and there really is no room for additional homes, especially if they are to be built on the little remaining green belt land that we have.

Reading through Core Strategy Preferred Options Regulation 26 Draft it clearly states that the council is well aware that the road system in and around Rayleigh is not suitable for the current population let alone an increase in the population. With an additional 1800 more homes there will be around an additional 5400 vehicles in the region putting increasing pressure on the current road structure as well increasing the pollution in the area. With the higher rate of traffic also comes to danger problem. There is already a short fall in the number of jobs available to the current population this will only increase and we will have more of the population commuting to work and schools again increasing the traffic flow during both rush hours and school runs.

There are at present only two secondary schools in this region and no further plans or a site to place a new school, therefore the two current schools will either be overcrowded or we will have more children commuting out of the area to schools, again more cars on the road and additional pressure on the public travel system.

It appears that the main planning site for these 1800 homes will be along the A130 a main road leading onto the busy A127 at Rawreth, this is already a busy road only recently improved by the building of the new A130. This is one of the main roads exiting from the Rayleigh. There will be a huge increase in traffic on this road which in turn will cause traffic hold ups on other roads, also with more cars joining this road there is an increased danger to drivers and pedestrians.

Rayleigh does not have adequate facilities for the current population, we have no cinema or swimming pool despite both of these being popular ideas to most of Rayleigh. There are no real facilities for the young and already there are certain parts of Rayleigh which are a problem with young teenagers hanging around drinking at night and being a general nuisance. This problem will only get worse and should the rumoured merger of our Police station take place we will have even less of a Police force to tackle these problems. Once again I strongly disagree with this proposal especially if more of our green belt land is to used.

More details about Rep ID: 516

Representation ID: 515

OBJECT Mrs Deborah Claydon

Summary:

I would like to register my object to the proposed building of an additional 1800 more homes in Rayleigh. In recent years Rayleigh has already had a huge increase in new homes as well as flats, and there really is no room for additional homes, especially if they are to be built on the little remaining green belt land that we have.

Reading through Core Strategy Preferred Options Regulation 26 Draft it clearly states that the council is well aware that the road system in and around Rayleigh is not suitable for the current population let alone an increase in the population. With an additional 1800 more homes there will be around an additional 5400 vehicles in the region putting increasing pressure on the current road structure as well increasing the pollution in the area. With the higher rate of traffic also comes to danger problem. There is already a short fall in the number of jobs available to the current population this will only increase and we will have more of the population commuting to work and schools again increasing the traffic flow during both rush hours and school runs.

There are at present only two secondary schools in this region and no further plans or a site to place a new school, therefore the two current schools will either be overcrowded or we will have more children commuting out of the area to schools, again more cars on the road and additional pressure on the public travel system.

It appears that the main planning site for these 1800 homes will be along the A130 a main road leading onto the busy A127 at Rawreth, this is already a busy road only recently improved by the building of the new A130. This is one of the main roads exiting from the Rayleigh. There will be a huge increase in traffic on this road which in turn will cause traffic hold ups on other roads, also with more cars joining this road there is an increased danger to drivers and pedestrians.

Rayleigh does not have adequate facilities for the current population, we have no cinema or swimming pool despite both of these being popular ideas to most of Rayleigh. There are no real facilities for the young and already there are certain parts of Rayleigh which are a problem with young teenagers hanging around drinking at night and being a general nuisance. This problem will only get worse and should the rumoured merger of our Police station take place we will have even less of a Police force to tackle these problems. Once again I strongly disagree with this proposal especially if more of our green belt land is to used.

More details about Rep ID: 515

Representation ID: 514

OBJECT Mr M Billett

Summary:

The allocation of 1800 units for Rayleigh will almost certainly all have to be built in the Rawreth Lane area, which will be disastrous.

Nearly al the developments to date have been in Rawreth and the really shocking high density housing crams units so close together the potential is for these huge developments to form future sub-standard environment.

Even as the current developments reach completion of the effect on services is becoming serious. Road traffic queues for Rawreth can be followed from Weir Hill through to the stop/start queues at the Hambro Hill/Down Hall Road junction.

Water pressures are lower, especially in early morning, and the calorific value for gas is sometimes unequal to adequately boil water in large saucepans.

If the 4.6.10 option goes ahead the housing unit congestion and it's effect on services will become unmanageable by the District Council.

More details about Rep ID: 514

Representation ID: 513

OBJECT Ms T M Cook

Summary:

The roads especially Downhall Road are congested now. At Hambro end of Downhall Road it is not easy crossing the road. When crossing you have to be quick, because you can find a car speeding around the corner coming up behind you.

More details about Rep ID: 513

Representation ID: 512

OBJECT Mr A Farrow

Summary:

Considering the number of houses that already have been built, 1800 is a massive number. Is Rochford turning into Southend? Has the old charm of 9/10ths of green belt (or whatever it was) long gone. In my area (Rayleigh - Rawreth Lane) we have seen much building, however, the infrastructure hasn't really been improved. You try crossing some of the roads in the morning as a pedestrian. Either the cars are going fast or there is a constant stream, making it difficult for those of use that aren't in motor vehicles. The traffic has certainly increased in the last 20 years I've been here.

So why are we seeing the exhibition only once - apart from new date requested by liberal democrats? In fact both dates are not much use to me. 1800 homes = 3500 people - 1000/1700 children where are the schools to take this number? Also doctors, shops etc.

More details about Rep ID: 512

Representation ID: 511

OBJECT Mr & Mrs E W Lushey

Summary:

Rawreth Lane is full from end to end in rush hours and we don't yet know how Asda will affect the road in the near future. The drains have always been a problem, even when Park School was built and after! We still have a school and leisure centre and 2 factory sites.

More details about Rep ID: 511

Representation ID: 510

OBJECT Mr B Clifton

Summary:

I have lived in Rayleigh since 1977 and in this time I have witnessed a dramatic increase in housing development to the stage where Rayleigh is now well overdeveloped. Common sense must prevail and not allow Rayleigh to become another overdeveloped Town, surely in the past 40 years we have seen this happen to som many places.

I understand the need for new homes and have my own children requiring places to live, but please lets create new places and allow them to become the new Rayleigh and not destroy the existing Town.

Now is the time to say NO to more development and hope we have not left it too late to repair the damage already in place.

It takes a long time to get and preserve what we have got right. The wrong decisions now can destroy this in a very short time.

More details about Rep ID: 510

Representation ID: 509

OBJECT G L Stanton

Summary:

I am objecting to the proposed number of houses (1800) to be built in Rayleigh. The amenities need improving in our area to cope with any increase in population - as I feel they are over stretched at present, especially Police, Ambulance and Fire Service.

More details about Rep ID: 509

Representation ID: 508

OBJECT Mr S Wren

Summary:

Object

More details about Rep ID: 508

Representation ID: 507

OBJECT Ms M J Kinnear

Summary:

I have lived in Rayleigh for a number of years now and during that time have seen a lot of development in the Rayleigh area and really don't think the roads, drains etc can stand much more - the thought of 1800 extra houses in this area is quite horrifying and can only lead to grid lock in a number of areas here. We need a fairer share out if building more must be done!

More details about Rep ID: 507

Representation ID: 506

OBJECT Mrs Humphreys

Summary:

I object very strongly to the number of houses being allocated yet again to Rayleigh. While I appreciate that houses have to be built, I believe that there should be a fair distribution made in the number of houses allocated to each town. How can it be fair that Rayleigh and Rawreth must take 1800, while Rochford only 1000 and Hockley just 400! Has the Council forgotten that most of the houses built from 2001-2006 were built in Rayleigh (along the Rawreth Lane) which is fast becoming as noisy with traffic (and pollution) as the M25!

More details about Rep ID: 506

Representation ID: 505

OBJECT Mr & Mrs Mapleson

Summary:

Anyone who knows or lives in Rayleigh is aware that the town centre is grid locked during peak times. Rayleigh is a main through route for traffic from/to Southend, Hadleigh, Hockley and Wickford with no real possibility of diverting these vehicles away from the town. The two senior schools are at full capacity and the commuter rail link to London is overflowing with standing room only at times.... and yet the clowns who run this country want to add even more houses to this area.

There has been significant development over the past few years with no improvement to facilities and infrastructure.

More details about Rep ID: 505

Representation ID: 504

OBJECT Mr/Mrs Morgan

Summary:

We feel that Rayleigh has had more than their fair share of housing in the last few years. We have not got the proper roads and the traffic will be worse than ever. Exmouth Drive was a quiet road but is now a rat run for all traffic, so they miss Hullbridge Road. As we have a primary school at the end of the road, this is totally unacceptable! More houses will mean more traffic going to and from Rayleigh Station! These houses should be shared out across the district in a fairer way.

More details about Rep ID: 504

Representation ID: 503

OBJECT Mrs P R Searle

Summary:

We have lived in Rayleigh for 38 years and never have we seen such a lot of building in such a small area. Furthermore, if you have ever tried to travel down Rawreth Lane at any time there is always a lot of traffic on the roads. We go over to South Woodham Ferrers about four times a week to look after our grandchildren and no matter what time of day the road is always busy. With more houses going up in addition to those already there it will get very much worse. Added to that, what about schools, doctors, dentists etc, are we going to see more of these, you cannot get an appointment now at doctors/dentists and the schools probably cannot take any more pupils.

We think the Council should re-think the whole idea of putting that many new houses in such a crowded area as we do not have the necessary infrastructure.

More details about Rep ID: 503

Representation ID: 502

OBJECT J Taylor

Summary:

The amenities in Rayleigh could not cope with another 1800 homes. 1800 homes would mean at least another 1800 cars on Rayleigh's already congested roads.

More details about Rep ID: 502

Representation ID: 501

OBJECT Mr R Debman

Summary:

I agree with views that our Liberal Councillors have already indicated to the Rochford District Council. Stand up to central Government and say 'NO'.

More details about Rep ID: 501

Representation ID: 500

OBJECT Mrs J Bell

Summary:

I object to further development in the Rayleigh/Rawreth area. The last few years have seen large estates of new houses off Rawreth Lane - our countryside is disappearing and roads are now clogged at rush hour times - Park School demolished - surely another will soon be needed and more land taken.

More details about Rep ID: 500

Representation ID: 499

OBJECT Mrs P Weidner

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 499

Representation ID: 498

OBJECT Mr P Thrower

Summary:

It is our belief that Rayleigh and Rawreth are suffering more than the rest of the district through over development. At present the infrastructure does not even cater for the current population, ie roads, doctors etc. The roads in and around Rayleigh Town are frequently congested. Infact we avoid going into Rayleigh Town on Saturdays due to the traffic chaos. An extra 1800 houses would only increase this problem and in my opinion destroy the town as we know it.

More details about Rep ID: 498

Representation ID: 496

OBJECT Mrs Bailey

Summary:

Object

More details about Rep ID: 496

Representation ID: 495

OBJECT Mr A A Brown

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 495

Representation ID: 493

OBJECT Mr & Mrs Lester

Summary:

We are totally in agreement with the beliefs stated in the correspondence submitted by your lib dem councillors. There has already been too much development in the Rayleigh area and unless a stop is made, there will be no green areas left around the town and it will be completely joined with Basildon and Wickford. The traffic situation in Rawreth Lane is now difficult and four times a day it is impossible to get out from Manns Way and Caversham Park Avenue into Rawreth Lane and difficult to get back into Caversham Park Avenue from Rawreth Lane. The prospect of the increased traffic flow from the proposed Asda store is daunting, enough. Any further development in this area alone does not bear contemplation; the schools are already overcrowded and the amenities eg dentists and doctors are stretched enough.

More details about Rep ID: 493

Representation ID: 492

OBJECT Mr & Mrs Kaye

Summary:

In relation to the proposal for 1800 houses in Rayleigh I feel there is unsufficient infrastructure to accommodate this amount of housing. It is evident that the majority of these houses will go in the Rawreth Lane area, which has already been the subject of large development. Alay with the proposed Asda supermarket Rawreth Lane will be over used and severely congested. At present there is a little bit of green land left in this area lets keep it!

1800 houses must equate to nearly 3000 more cars trying to exit in either Rayleigh or Rawreth.

More details about Rep ID: 492

Representation ID: 491

OBJECT Mrs L Davison

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 491

Representation ID: 490

OBJECT Mrs S Hardy

Summary:

We have had too many houses built in Rayleigh over the years. I have lived here for 43 years. The town is now congested constantly there are not enough facilities for people already living here ie Dentists.

Crime has increased with the increase in population. We should concentrate on using small vacant plots ie opposite cemetary and not taking away more of our countryside. Also I am fed up with them building estates of high priced housing for people outside the area to move to and commute to London. We need housing for our own youngsters who work locally and don't get paid the over inflated salaries of London. Estates of 2/3 bed properties at realistic prices. Also the majority of new building in the area has been in Rayleigh, any further should be more equally shared out taking into account building in the last 5 years.

More details about Rep ID: 490

Representation ID: 487

OBJECT Mr D A Harris

Summary:

I object to the proposed locations and split of houses.

Rayleigh town centre cannot cope with the current traffic flows at peak hours. I have lived close to the town centre for 25 years on what has become a "rat run" since the traffic flow in the town centre was changed about 5-6 years ago. I oppose any development which increases the traffic flow in this area which probably includes your suggestion of 1800 in Rayleigh and 400 in Hockley/Hawkwell as well as some of the 1000 in Rochford/Ashingdon.

I would suggest that if Rochford District must find land for 4600 houses that consideration be given to develop parts of the district which already have good road access and underused public transport and acres of arable land with probably low wildlife value. (Currently every arable farmer has about 8% as set aside so Britain can only use 92% of its arable land for growing crops so we can afford to lose some of our arable land.)

I suggest that Rochford District Council gives consideration to locating new housing on arable land in the higher parts of Battlesbridge (which has good access to the A130 and an under-used railway station) and Great Stambridge.

I must stress that I am not supporting or promoting the idea that these places should have housing development but that Rochford Council ought to consider it.

More details about Rep ID: 487

Representation ID: 486

OBJECT A Hydes

Summary:

The building of 1800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 486

Representation ID: 485

OBJECT Mr & Mrs J Sugrue

Summary:

Rayleigh has become very over crowded with housing and increased traffic.

This is the main reason for our objection of further housing in this area.

There are no facilities after the existing housing recently built in Rawreth Lane. Schools are bursting at the seams - G.P. Surgeries are overstretched.

More details about Rep ID: 485

Representation ID: 484

OBJECT Mr & Mrs R Elton

Summary:

With all the new developments in and around Rawreth the infrastructure to our roads is just not adequate to cope.

More details about Rep ID: 484

Representation ID: 483

OBJECT Mr & Mrs Lang

Summary:

Rawreth Lane has seen most of the new housing development over the past 20 years. The result has been increased traffic and 2 new sets of traffic lights along Rawreth Lane. There are a lack of facilities - churches, meeting places, doctors/dentists, halls, places in schools, local shops, bus service. There is no local community on the new estates because there are only houses.

If 1800 new houses are to be built in Rayleigh where will they go? There is no space. Will they therefore have to spread further along Rawreth Lane? This will entail using up more fields. Before any more houses are built the needs of the existing people living in the area need to be considered and met. New houses should not be built without community provision - proper thought and money spent to provide these side by side with new developments.

A new Asda and sports centre do not cover the needs of a community - do not think this is enough. New housing developments should be shared out more fairly across the district - not by putting half of it in Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 483

Representation ID: 482

OBJECT Miss M P Hughes

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 482

Representation ID: 481

OBJECT Ms R Eyres

Summary:

I have known Rayleigh for over 65 years and have seen many changes - the worst of these has been the gross overbuilding. Rayleigh is notorious for this and for the dreaded pylons. In places like Billericay, Rayleigh has become a matter of amusement for these reasons.

The proposal to put another 1800 dwellings in this area is ridiculous. We have not got the infrastructure and hardly any room to put them in place even if the local government agrees.

We cannot (and many residents of this area say they will not) accept this gross distribution. The smaller settlements should be reconsidered.

I strongly object to this proposal (1800).

More details about Rep ID: 481

Representation ID: 480

OBJECT D C J Eyres

Summary:

Too many houses, too many people, not enough room. We in Rayleigh, especially this Grange area have had enough building. We need more open space, not lett. Some of our "allocation" should be redistributed to the smaller settlements, with due consideration for their facilities. 1800 dwellings are too many for Rayleigh, the Rochford/Hockley/Hawkwell areas must take a fairer share!

More details about Rep ID: 480

Representation ID: 472

OBJECT Mr & Mrs Johnson

Summary:

My husband and I strongly object to the proposition to build 400 houses to the East of Clements Hall.

Our main concern is traffic ie - 400 houses equals approximately 500-600 more vehicles on our roads especially at peak times, furthermore our roads are not adequately built to take this extra traffic.

Please I hope the committee will give this serious thoughts.

More details about Rep ID: 472

Representation ID: 471

OBJECT Mr J Leech

Summary:

Firstly it seems that previous protests about overdeveloping in Rayleigh have been ignored even when planning permission is withdrawn, big money businesses such as Asda simply appeal re-apply and always got there way. This is extremely frustrating to residents in Rayleigh as we feel our views are being ignored by those that represent us. Having lived here for 15 years, I have witnessed "extensive" housing development all around me. Hundreds upon hundreds of homes have been built here, on nursery land, on school playing fields and now you plan another 1800 homes! This is madness. The area is now fully developed, the roads cannot cope and once Asda has opened the roads here will be a nightmare for residents.

I ask that you seriously reconsider your figures, especially as the other alternative areas are far less developed.

More details about Rep ID: 471

Representation ID: 470

OBJECT Mrs C A Gibbon

Summary:

In the Rawreth area we have had large amounts of development in the last few years and the promised amenities on the Park School site turned into Asda Supermarket despite local opposition. The last thing we need in this area is another supermarket. What happened to the health centre and the swimming pool that were talked of.

It seems to me that looking at the local papers there are many houses for sale and also more to the point, many to let, which suggests that the housing market is saturated and that a lot of the smaller homes meant for first time buyers are being bought to let by people who do not need them. Who are we building homes for?

More details about Rep ID: 470

Representation ID: 469

OBJECT Mrs D W Skinner

Summary:

I wish to object to the building of the additional housing envisaged for the Rayleigh area. The surrounding green areas will be totally obliterated leaving Rayleigh a sprawling urban mass of housing. I was born in Rayleigh and the road infrastructure has not been altered at all since then when traffic was very little. Nowadays there is difficulty in crossing roads, especially Downhall Road, and several times I have missed buses because traffic will not let one cross, sometimes it takes minutes to achieve this, and with the extra building and the volume of cars which will inevitably increase, things will only be worse.

Also facilities such as doctors and dentists, police etc to take the extra quantity of residents will have to be provided.

I most strongly object to the building proposals.

More details about Rep ID: 469

Representation ID: 468

OBJECT Mr Adkins

Summary:

I object to the building of 1800 houses in an area which is already under great strain from lack of infrastructure eg. roads, transport, doctors, dentists and schools. Rayleigh particularly West Rayleigh has had its fair share of new development. These new homes are not for locals but for people relocating to an area with no opportunity of local employment. Therefore, the roads and transport systems will be under further pressure. Local roads cannot be improved to ease the severe congestion that we experience in the Downhall area and access to Rayleigh Town.

More details about Rep ID: 468

Representation ID: 467

OBJECT Mrs B A Holt

Summary:

Having closed Rawreth Primary School, and pulled down Park Secondary School, where are the children to be educated? 1800 more houses would mean probably 1,500 more children! Also, how many new houses have already been built in Rayleigh in the last 10 years?

More details about Rep ID: 467

Representation ID: 464

OBJECT Mr R G Cross

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 464

Representation ID: 462

OBJECT Mrs J Portch

Summary:

I am objecting to this plan on the grounds there is too much development this side of Rayleigh, and we are losing the green and open feel of this area, and it all increases the volume of traffic and pollution. Also there are not enough doctors, dentists, school places to cope with the extra population.

More details about Rep ID: 462

Representation ID: 461

OBJECT J Richards

Summary:

In our district of Rayleigh and indeed in Rayleigh we have seen far too much development in the last 10 years with greenfield sites, schools, commercial premises and even back garden being developed at an alarming rate. We fear for the future where land is being developed without the proper drainage and other services being put in to sustain it. Only this week we have seen horrendous scenes of flooding on a national scale and this is becoming a regular occurence. Rayleigh has been singled out for development and cannot possibly sustain a further 1800 houses without a breakdown in drainage and other services. We feel that development should be distributed more evenly across the district.

More details about Rep ID: 461

Representation ID: 460

OBJECT Mr S Herbert

Summary:

The infrastructure cannot cope with more new houses.

More details about Rep ID: 460

Representation ID: 459

OBJECT Mr T Geraghty

Summary:

It may appear ironic to object when my property was new only 12 years ago however, the attraction at that time was the fact we were on the edge of rural landscape yet close to local amenities. This landscape has eroded at increasing pace since then the loss of a garden nursery to housing. Park School to a huge estate with a sports centre and now Asda and small estates it seems, wherever a piece of land becomes available. None of the properties appear to be within the band for first time buyers, effectively canceling out that arguement. It is my view that Rayleigh/Rawerth have already reached saturation point for over development and is losing a lot of its character and charm. There is no space for a further 1800 homes without eating away into greater chunks of supposedly green belt or agricultrual land. The area needs more amenities for the development that have already taken place. The scale of development in Rayleigh/Rawreth is clearly higher than the rest of the district now yet, the councils preferred options seek to continue that trend. The councils proposals demonstrate at best, a lack of foresight into the effect development is having on the area and at worst, a complete disregard for it.

More details about Rep ID: 459

Representation ID: 458

OBJECT Mr P Griffiths

Summary:

It is not right that Rayleigh should have the majority of new housing. Rayleigh is already over developed and does not have the infrastructure to take further new housing.

More details about Rep ID: 458

Representation ID: 457

OBJECT Mr Michael Hollis

Summary:

It is not right that Rayleigh should have the majority of new housing. Rayleigh is already over developed and does not have the infrastructure to take further new housing.

More details about Rep ID: 457

Representation ID: 456

OBJECT Mrs C Dawson

Summary:

This is pure over development, smaller settlements Hullbridge, Hockley and Hawkwell have just as much if not more open space for more development why must Rayleigh account for another 1800 it is unacceptable.

More details about Rep ID: 456

Representation ID: 455

OBJECT Mr J Negus

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 455

Representation ID: 454

OBJECT Mr M R Wilson

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 454

Representation ID: 453

OBJECT Mr & Mrs J French

Summary:

Rawreth Lane is now getting congested with local traffic, also for onward vehicles to Hockley and Hullbridge. No more housing in Rawreth area. Supermarket Asda will also increase the traffic.

More details about Rep ID: 453

Representation ID: 452

OBJECT Mr & Mrs J M Wilson

Summary:

We believe that 1800 new homes in the Rayleigh area is unsustainable. The character of the town will also be detrimentally effected. In particular schools, roads, doctors/dentists.

More details about Rep ID: 452

Representation ID: 447

OBJECT Essex Bridleways Association (Mrs J Feather)

Summary:

Object

More details about Rep ID: 447

Representation ID: 446

OBJECT Mrs Feather

Summary:

The recent development off Rawreth Lane was a step too far and the infrastructure does not support that or any further building of housing units. There is far more space to the east of the council district.

More details about Rep ID: 446

Representation ID: 445

OBJECT Mrs G Bannister

Summary:

Before we moved into our bungalow in July 2006 we went down to the council offices in Rochford about any new buildings, and we were told that it is Green Belt infront and behind so there would be NO new buildings, so on that we brought the bungalow. Now we hear that you want to build 400 houses there.

The roads round here will not take any more cars, High Road coming in to Hockley (where we moved from) is one continuous queue, any more houses and the place (village) will be at a stand still. We have lived in Hockley for 43 years and have seen it grow.

The schools are full, also doctors, dentist. Both of us and I am sure all round here oppose any new buildings.

More details about Rep ID: 445

Representation ID: 444

COMMENT Mr Keith Grant

Summary:

I have lived in Rayleigh/Rawreth for 7 years and have found I have to leave earlier and earlier for work to cope with the increased traffic. It is all very well building more new houses, but the existing infrastructure can not cope. As in town centre parking, shops, roads, water supply sewage, where does it stop. Don't we all need some green around where we live!

More details about Rep ID: 444

Representation ID: 443

SUPPORT Rayleigh Civic Society (Mr K S Gee)

Summary:

We have two major concerns:

The addition of 1800 housing units will presumably be a mixture of flats and houses. The encroachment of the Green Belt to accommodate these units must be resisted, we accept some relaxation might be necessary, but Brown field sites must be exploited to the full to minimise erosion of the Green Belt.

The figure of 1800 units means an increase of 4000+ population. We wish to express our great concern that there only vague references in the core strategy to the infrastructure. This increase in population means enlargement of the sewage system, the road system, public transport, schools, and health.

We support the preferred options relating to housing but question why 1800 units have been allocated to Rayleigh which has already had over 600 units built in the Rawreth area over the past 5+ years.

More details about Rep ID: 443

Representation ID: 441

OBJECT Ms C Rochard

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 441

Representation ID: 440

OBJECT Ms J Clark

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh. Have the developers tried driving through Rochford District Council area @ 4.30-6.30pm?

More details about Rep ID: 440

Representation ID: 439

OBJECT Ms J Sheppard

Summary:

We feel West Rayleigh in particular is too heavily developed already. We need better infrastructure to support what is here already. A promised community centre was never built, but more houses! Enough is enough. Spread the numbers out more evenly. After we have the much needed doctors, dentists, school placements, jobs etc. Soon we will become a faceless suburb of London, we need to fight our corner (perhaps move the demographic a couple of 100 miles north!)

More details about Rep ID: 439

Representation ID: 438

OBJECT Mrs J Robertson

Summary:

Traffic really heavy now. Also sewers can't cope, raw sewage seeped into 170 front garden and further down 172 waterboard said due to new housing over road sewers can't cope.

More details about Rep ID: 438

Representation ID: 437

OBJECT Mr & Mrs M L Barton

Summary:

Firstly Rayleigh High Street, London Road, Downhall Road and Rawreth Lane cannot take anymore traffic, its unbelieveable between 8.00am and 9.15am every morning. Also where are you going to build the new schools, doctors, shops and even if needed a new hospital for all the traffic accidents. The teenagers at the moment have nothing to do in the evening what happens when more appear, also its not only Rayleigh but also the people of Hullbridge will be affected, as they also use the amenities in Rayleigh. Have they been notified of this planning. Also we moved here four years ago as we were hemmed in, now it is following us! so do we move again?

More details about Rep ID: 437

Representation ID: 436

OBJECT Mr P Kerslake

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh. The amount of building on land off Rawreth Lane over recent years has been quite extensive, turning what was a lane into a main road as far as traffic is concerned. The new leisure centre has not helped and the prospect of what the traffic will be like when the new super stores (Asda) starts trading is appaling. Also no more community facilities have been provided. To exit one's drive in the rush hours is almost impossible without a long wait. Even Asda amit their store will mean hundreds (I understand 900) more vehicle on our road around rush hour. I think it is time the Rawreth Lane area had a rest from more houses.

More details about Rep ID: 436

Representation ID: 435

OBJECT Mr & Mrs B Chambers

Summary:

Eventually there will be no green open space left. We recently moved here over a year ago, because of the over development on Canvey Island; so we think enough is enough.

More details about Rep ID: 435

Representation ID: 434

COMMENT Mrs P McAllister

Summary:

Some time ago I filled in a form that was in the Rochford Matters. I feel that Rayleigh should not have to take 1800 new homes other area's should take on more of this burden. Schools, GP's, roads will be put under terrible pressure. Green belt wil be lost, after all that is why people came here in the first place, (green areas not concrete jungles). I know what its like to have compulsory purchase served on you. Local people go and never come back. As for employment a lot of people from this area travel up to London, so I don't know how that issue will be settled. Teenagers do not have any facilities now! Travellers seem to bring the area down, and as far as I know, no politician has chosen to live near one of their sites. There are thousands migrating to other places because of so much change occuring in this country.

More details about Rep ID: 434

Representation ID: 433

OBJECT Mrs V A Piddock

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 433

Representation ID: 432

OBJECT Mr T F Hadlow

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 432

Representation ID: 431

OBJECT Mrs J Skinner

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 431

Representation ID: 430

OBJECT Ms P A Kelsey

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 430

Representation ID: 429

OBJECT Ms G Bushell

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 429

Representation ID: 428

OBJECT P Hilton

Summary:

The proposal to allocate 1800 housing units to Rayleigh and the increase to the Rochford and surrounding district will lead to indescribable chaos to the Rayleigh area. It will mean an increase in excess of 3500 cars to the already overcrowded roads around Rayleigh. For anyone who has tried to get through Rayleigh Town Centre at peak times it must be blindingly obvious that to pour in a large increase on traffic would lead to chaos and gridlock. The infrastructure of this town and its surroundings cannot cope now and to increase this housing without drastically improving the roads is nothing short of total incompetance. First things first. Improve roads, car parking and civic amenities.

More details about Rep ID: 428

Representation ID: 427

OBJECT Mr & Mrs Davy

Summary:

As residents of the local area, we are concerned that overdevelopment of Rayleigh and in particular the Downhall/Rawreth area will cause a significant strain on the amenities and infrastructure currently in place.

The impact of such a high amount of new housing will, in our opinion, affect;

Roads which currently already experience delays during rush hour, adverse weather and road works.
Amenities such as doctors which already are so busy people queue (when ill!) for appointments from 7.30am.
Public transport where trains are already so crowded during rush hour that seats are less than guaranteed. It is unacceptable that our public transport system should expect people to stand for 40-45 minutes.
Schools, in the recent past 2 high schools have been combined but with the new housing it is possible that the provision for senior school places will not be sufficient. It seems that such decisions may have been shortsighted considering the current expansion in building.

More details about Rep ID: 427

Representation ID: 426

OBJECT Mrs Y May

Summary:

I object as I believe the roads can't cope with the amount of traffic we have already. Where in (Rayleigh and Rawreth) can they build these houses without taking more green belt land? If new homes have to be built I hope they will be affordable for first time buyers not big mansions for only the few

More details about Rep ID: 426

Representation ID: 423

OBJECT Mr and Mrs Davison

Summary:

What is the point of having the expense of County Councils and Town Councils etc if Government Policy is going to be forced upon us anyway? What about infrastructure and the extra pressure on this that these extra houses will cause, especially on roads, sewers, health care, schools etc. Loss of Green Belt is unacceptable. There should instead be tax incentives (as this is driven by central government, tax incentives should come from central government also) to encourage the full use of all brown sites as a top priority before any other land is used.

Any new land used must be more fairly spread over the whole of the Rochford District - Rayleigh is already to densely populated!

In general, the pubilc needs more detail to comment properly on this very important matter. Questionnaire should have been more widely distributed - supermarkets, Echo and free local papers, all newsagents etc etc.

More details about Rep ID: 423

Representation ID: 422

OBJECT Ms N Myers

Summary:

There is not enough space to support any further development in Rayleigh in a sustainable way. Please provide other amenities BEFORE even considering further development. Development should be evenly spread across the district. I moved to Rayleigh because it offered a good environment with fields and open spaces but cramming more people in will spoil the feel of the area and increase traffic which will be bad enough when Asda's open its doors not far from where I live. Perhaps you should consider putting a speed camera in on Rawreth Lane so residents can get out of the turning in the mornings.

More details about Rep ID: 422

Representation ID: 421

OBJECT Mrs J Bakewell

Summary:

Please, please do not ruin our beautiful town with more housing. We have neither the room or infrastructure to support the proposals for 1800 homes. Would this mean green belt land taken away? In 20 years time will Rayleigh be merged with Wickford?

More details about Rep ID: 421

Representation ID: 420

OBJECT Mrs V Carey

Summary:

Object

More details about Rep ID: 420

Representation ID: 419

OBJECT Mr S Adlington

Summary:

I strongly object to this outrageous planning. The infrastructure and facilities are currently over utilised, the roads are overflowing, the Dr's surgeries always have queues not to mention the overcrowding on the buses and trains in and out of Rayleigh. Our green land is being taken left, right and center and this is having an adverse effect on wildlife, birds in particular. Rarking is already impossible at weekends and the services such as Police, Fire and Ambulance services are stretched to the limit. I accept that some housing is inevitable but not at such a huge scale. Please reduce by at least 75%

More details about Rep ID: 419

Representation ID: 418

OBJECT Mr & Mrs Solomon

Summary:

The Rayleigh and Rawreth areas were once a rural district to be enjoyed, but they have since become an urban district that is already overdeveloped. Too many houses are crammed into too small an area. Take for example the houses crammed into what once was a single plot on the Hullbridge Road between Ferndale Road and Mortimor Road. What an eyesore for the residents of these roads and what problems the new tenants will encounter gaining access and parking on this plot. These areas do not have the infrastructure to support it.

Roads - These are already congested at busy times, more housing in this area will only add to it.
Schools - The Rawreth School has not been relocated and Park has been pulled down and the schools left will not be enough for the future generation of children that more housing will create.

Doing away with our natural areas will leave children with no room to develop naturally. Do we really want to create problem areas as other regions have experienced in the past?

More details about Rep ID: 418

Representation ID: 417

OBJECT Ms L Smart

Summary:

To build all additional 1800 houses in Rayleigh will put a strain on the existing, already limited, infrastructure. Thw two senior schools we have are bursting at the seams - and Park has been demolished - so we have two senior schools to service the Rayleigh and Hullbridge communities. I believe doctors lists are ful to bursting. With the selling off of Rochford Hospital we have just one hospital to service a steadily increasing population. If Rayleigh is to become all urban sprawl, like Basildon, where are the recreational activities, not only for children but also for adults? What about a cinema? A bowling alley? A good sized swimming pool? We are very fortunate to have the christian run Warehouse Centre, but for children in north Rayleigh this is not easily accessible. We need a similar centre in the Rawreth area of Rayleigh - maybe, with some financial support, the churches could oblige and man a centre of this nature. With all increasing number of houses the only additional facilities on offer in the town seem to be a steadily increasing number of eating places and pubs. Consequently alcoholism - binge drinking is becoming a problem amongst adults and youth alike, causing dysfunctional family situations at best and marital break-ups at worst. Also where are the lower priced started homes? Why, locally, are we seeing 7 bedroomed houses being built when our young people cannot manage the first step of the property ladder? Seems to me Rayleigh is the dumping ground for the "allocation of housing units" - much to the detriment of the quality of life for local residents.

More details about Rep ID: 417

Representation ID: 416

OBJECT Mr M Barnes

Summary:

1800 New homes = 2700 more cars
1800 New homes = 3500 people
1800 New homes = No more new schools
1800 New homes = No new doctors

And the people who pass this policy do not live in the Rawreth area.

More details about Rep ID: 416

Representation ID: 415

OBJECT Mr B Smart

Summary:

Rayleigh has seen more than its fair share of development in the last 10 years. 1800 new houses is a totally unfair distribution and will also require new schools, new roads, doctors etc. Already Rawreth Lane is an exceptionally busy road and again development will only add to this congestion.

More details about Rep ID: 415

Representation ID: 413

OBJECT Mr K Henley

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 413

Representation ID: 412

OBJECT Mr L Ford

Summary:

There is already too much development in this area. Perhaps ASDA regarded further housing a foregone conclusion.

More details about Rep ID: 412

Representation ID: 411

OBJECT Mr M Davies

Summary:

What we need BEFORE any houses is a proper plan for all the new raods and associated facilities, schools, shops, doctors, utilities. Show me these plans first and then the housing. What we need is a proper and fully co-ordinated approach to cover ALL aspects.

More details about Rep ID: 411

Representation ID: 410

OBJECT Mr M Suckling

Summary:

We all objected to the increase in traffic with the last major development on Rawreth Lane, and as normal it fell on deaf ears. Once again this development will be pushed through no matter what opposition to it comes forward. As we were told before the road can't take the extra sewage and water etc how can it then be ok to add another 800 or so houses, incase you do not realise there are other roads in the district and its about time they now got their share. I take it the Councilor who has had his farm land given permission to change to brown belt for houses (many others do not get a single garage or extension) will want to stay living on the estate which will be built as it will be such a lovely place to live. Who thinks he will take his money and run. A long family history just sold for pure greed.

More details about Rep ID: 410

Representation ID: 409

OBJECT M King

Summary:

Distribution of new houses unfair, half in Rayleigh alone! Where will you put them anyway? Congestion, people and traffic has already increased, we need more improved amenities, infrastructure to cope with new homes and more people.

More details about Rep ID: 409

Representation ID: 408

OBJECT Mrs V Worship

Summary:

I am strongly against anymore houses being built in the Rawreth/Rayleigh district as I feel the area has had more than its fair share of new houses being built. I was strongly against having an Asda being built. When I moved to Rawreth 5 years ago, Rawreth Lane was a busy road and now the Park School has been redeveloped its getting busier and busier, then when the Asda has been built there will be even more traffic. The last thing Rawreth Lane needs is more houses eating into the so called 'Green Belt'.

Please, please do not use the lovely green fields down Rawreth Lane for more houses.

More details about Rep ID: 408

Representation ID: 407

OBJECT Mr D G Crocket

Summary:

Rayleigh and Rawreth have already suffered more than elsewhere in the district from too much development. There is insufficient space for 1800 extra houses. The amenities are stretched and need improvement before any new development is considered.

More details about Rep ID: 407

Representation ID: 406

OBJECT Mrs P Crocket

Summary:

The split of housing in this area is unfair, as we have had massive housing devlopment on the Rawreth Lane area, in the last couple of years. Roads into Rayleigh Town Centre are already grid locked at weekends.

More details about Rep ID: 406

Representation ID: 405

OBJECT Miss S E Oliver

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 405

Representation ID: 404

OBJECT Irene Coe

Summary:

Object

More details about Rep ID: 404

Representation ID: 403

OBJECT Mrs E Broad

Summary:

Object

More details about Rep ID: 403

Representation ID: 402

OBJECT Mr Derek Coe

Summary:

Rayleigh needs no further development. Infrastructure will not sustain additional loading. Green Belt land must not be depleted.

More details about Rep ID: 402

Representation ID: 401

OBJECT P M Wood

Summary:

We have more than enough houses in this area, the road is choked with traffic in the morning and again in the afternoons and when Asda opens it will get even worse becuase the traffic will then be evenings as well. Enough is enough.

More details about Rep ID: 401

Representation ID: 400

OBJECT Mrs S Smith

Summary:

Insufficient school places, roads already congested, basically insufficient infrastructure.

More details about Rep ID: 400

Representation ID: 399

OBJECT Mr & Mrs Flicker

Summary:

There is already too much building in the Rayleigh area, let other areas take their share, we are also losing amenities or promises broken, ADSA instead of a swimming pool, the people of the area have not gained anything from it, who has.

More details about Rep ID: 399

Representation ID: 398

OBJECT Mr & Mrs Coombs

Summary:

Our house faces Trenders Avenue on Rawreth Lane, we are experiencing already a significant increase in traffic, noise and pollution and also severe vibration from heavy vehicles which causes our house to literally shake on its foundation. We regularly have a queue of traffic outside our home from the roundabout at the top of Rawreth Lane (Hambro Hill). The existing infrastructure cannot cope with further development of the area. Due to the various narrow points in Rawreth Lane we have witnessed many near accidents.

There is already a shortage of civic amenities in Rayleigh/Rawreth area, an increase in population will only add to these problems. We realise Government Policy is dictating these issues but strongly object to majority of homes to be placed in the Rawreth area and would favour more even distribution through out the whole district.

More details about Rep ID: 398

Representation ID: 397

OBJECT Ms L Hockett

Summary:

I was under the impression that David Cameron was promoting in his campaign - 'Power to the people' well, I would suggest the people of Rayleigh do just what the Conservative Leader is suggesting, and let it be known that enough is enough. We have had more than our fair share of housing built in Rayleigh/Rawreth plus another supermarket thrust upon us in the name of ASDA. Whatever next, a casino. We have to go some way to protect the aesthetic nature of our town. Plus, of course, if this development is proposed for Rawreth Lane then the traffic problems for Rawreth Lane, A130 will be horrendous, not to mention losing valuable green belt land. So no, enough is enough, the people of Rayleigh should stand up and be counted - POWER TO THE PEOPLE - NO MORE HOUSES.

More details about Rep ID: 397

Representation ID: 396

OBJECT Mr K Allen

Summary:

I would like to object to the plan to build a further 1800 homes in Rayleigh and would make the following comments;

If you have ever tried to drive in or out of Rayleigh during the wekkends or rush hour periods you will know that the existing roads are already overcrowded and extremely congested.

There is already significant development which is out of character with the area, the latest trend of knocking down houses and replacing them with flats is typcial of the over intensive development of the area.

The leisure centre (minus the swimming pool!) There have been no major improvements in amenities to go with all the development. As a comuter I see the station used as a meeting place for children with nowhere else to go, more homes will only increase those types of problems.

Having lived in the town for 10 years and originally having moved here because of its semi rural character I have watched with disappointment the increasingly intensive housing developments appear. Further development of the scale proposed will leave the area looking and feeling like a new town, given that surrounding areas seem to have been left relatively untouched I fail to see why Rayleigh should continue to bear the brunt of new housing in the area.

More details about Rep ID: 396

Representation ID: 394

OBJECT Mr Barnes

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 394

Representation ID: 393

OBJECT Mr & Mrs Willsher

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 393

Representation ID: 392

OBJECT Mr M Street

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 392

Representation ID: 391

OBJECT Rawreth Parish Council (Mrs H Bloomfield)

Summary:

Rayleigh and Rawreth are already suffering from over development. More amenities are needed before more development. The development should be shared out more fairly across the district.

More details about Rep ID: 391

Representation ID: 390

OBJECT Mr & Mrs Plummer

Summary:

I object to any development taking place we are not going to breed all of a sudden who are these houses for. In the past Basildon and Rochford have got it wrong. In 2000 risk assesment came out for flooding the A130 was built without risk assessment why? As water goes into the river, not all water is discharged into lagoons as we were told. Perhaps Rochford and Basildon Council can get together to calculate all water discharged into rivers before building and have risk assessments done as it I understand law and law to protect other people regarding there actions. I also believe that all Councils should carry out what the people who live there want and not what they want and NO GYPSY SITES to dump rubbish.

More details about Rep ID: 390

Representation ID: 389

OBJECT Mr/ Mrs Patterson

Summary:

I am a mother of 3 children all late teens, early twenties who would love to be able to buy a house in Rayleigh where they have lived all their lives but we all agree that Rayleigh and mainly Rawreth Lane side has had so much development as it can take. You closed Park School and now the two remaining schools are full as are the schools for 5-11 year olds. People living in the new developments already down Rawreth Lane only have one bus an hour so must use cars, at a time when we are being asked to cut down. Trying to get into town from this side of Rayleigh can now take 2 or 3 times more than it did a couple of years ago. Rawreth Lane itself is so busy in the rush hour that many people including me now go down the back roads which in turn puts the children going to Downhall County Primary school at risk. The time has come to say "NO" to anymore large scale housing in Rayleigh. The rest of the district must take more of the housing. For Rayleigh to take such a large amount is both unfair and unsustainable. We need better amenities before any extra houses.

More details about Rep ID: 389

Representation ID: 388

OBJECT Mr K Budden

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh

More details about Rep ID: 388

Representation ID: 387

OBJECT C R Menlove

Summary:

There are already more than enough new homes in the Rayleigh and Rawreth area. The roads would not be able to take the additional traffic. There are not enough amenities for addition homes in the Rayleigh and Rawreth area.

More details about Rep ID: 387

Representation ID: 386

OBJECT Mrs Tracey

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh

More details about Rep ID: 386

Representation ID: 385

OBJECT Mr & Mrs R J Allen

Summary:

Rayleigh itself cannot support 1800 more new homes, and the Rawreth Lane side has ALREADY been over developed. It seems that until every inch is covered by houses it wont stop. The people of Downhall and Rawreth have voted via the local elections against this over development but I feel very strongly that the local peoples opinion counts for nothing. We lost Park School site to housing and ASDA, the otherside of Rayleigh gained a country park - where are the children, especially seniors going to go, our schools are already full. Traffic in Rawreth Lane/Hullbridge Road area is a nightmare. We have a gym but why no swimming pool? We have no community centre either. And the subject of affordable housing for essential worker's, what a joke! Flats that my policeman son and two nephews cannot afford. These flatsfor essential workers have been sold to people who are not even moving in before renting them out to anyone. How does this work?

Jobs - Imperial Park Industrial Estate - you have forced Coultard Welding out because the people in the flats on the Reed Nursery Site complained about the noise. Nash Tackel will be next because of the smell. How many more will go! Mind you you could always put up more houses or flats . We on this side of Rayleigh are being overdeveloped by new build. Our families are being priced out of the area and any green space lost. I believe even the utility companies have said that they would not be able to cope with all these properties. WE HAVE HAD ENOUGH!

More details about Rep ID: 385

Representation ID: 384

OBJECT B & J Craddock

Summary:

Roads and services in the Rayleigh area are already overloaded. 1800 extra houses would cause serious problems.

More details about Rep ID: 384

Representation ID: 382

OBJECT Mr G Dudden

Summary:

As a resident of Rayleigh (Rawreth) for 10 years I find it preposterous that the Council is considering building a further 1800 dwellings in this town. The development on this estate and the nearby Park School site, plus ASDA, has and will continue to add to a very conjested Rawreth Lane. Why can't Barling, Battlesbridge and Canewdon share some of this housing burden. Finally, with all the venues available, I found it incredible that you used the Rayleigh Mill to outline these housing plans where only 10-15 people could 'comfortably' occupy the main area at the same time.

More details about Rep ID: 382

Representation ID: 381

OBJECT Mr I Cole

Summary:

Since we moved into the Rayleigh area two years ago there has been continued housing development along Rawreth Lane. I consider Rayleigh has more than made its contribution to the housing problem in this corner of Essex. Enough is enough.

More details about Rep ID: 381

Representation ID: 380

OBJECT Mrs C Jones

Summary:

I strongly object to yet more houses in the Rayleigh/Rawreth area - surely these could be built elsewhere. Schools and roads in Rayleigh can't cope as it is. Is this yet another decision made quietly behind doors by people who do not live in the area! This should be stopped before Rayleigh is ruined and money spent elsewhere like the police! The fact the councils exhibition was due to shown on a quiet Sunday afternoon - does not instill any confidence in the Councils dealings in this matter. Has any mention of this been put in the local papers? How many people in Rayleigh/Rawreth are aware of this situation or will we be informed as the building work begins? If money is to be spent in Rayleigh, don't build more houses, waste money on a car park for just an extra 6 spaces! Invest money in the local police force, as recent events in Rayleigh show that more police are needed on a regular basis. A Health Centre is needed in the Rawreth area - yet something supposed to have been agreed has not materialised, and ASDA and Rochford District Council Sports Centre has! It appears Rochford District Council has a different agenda to the people of Rayleigh/Rawreth. Although we are the people who live here. Are we to believe that at the end of the day it comes down to money pure and simple, disregarding people and their feelings.

More details about Rep ID: 380

Representation ID: 379

OBJECT D & A M Makey

Summary:

Object

More details about Rep ID: 379

Representation ID: 361

OBJECT Mr B Coker & H.R Philpot & Sons (Barleylands) Ltd represented by Bidwells (Mr J McLarty)

Summary:

The Preferred Option as set out is a statement of intent. It does not address the real issues of how the District will accommodate housing growth, other than setting out a percentage within certain locations. There is no robust evidence base provided to justify the percentages or the housing numbers set out. Both should be based on an Urban Capacity Study and Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment. There is little explanation as to why other options have been discounted particularly given the lack of sustainability appraisal for this document and there is no indication of how these percentages are to be taken forward. The Core Strategy should not leave the question of the general allocation of the level of housing to settlements open on the grounds that this can only be done once housing sites have been identified in a Site Allocation DPD. Strategic Core Strategy Documents should be sufficiently detailed to enable proper identification of the options or even progression of planning applications for strategic sites to be progressed in advance of the Site Specific Allocations Document. Neither the Key Diagram nor the text or policies achieve this objective. The Council have embarked on an exercise of identifying sites but this information has not been used to properly inform options for delivering growth for the Core Strategy. The Strategy should be driving the allocation of sites not the other way around. In this way, where it is clear that there are certain sites, key to the delivery of the overall Strategy, then it is entirely appropriate for such sites to be mentioned in the Core Strategy.

Land at Shotgate FarmThe proposed settlement hierarchy fails to take into account options and opportunities of providing for sustainable growth as settlements adjoining the District boundary. The extent to which there is any cross boundary consultation on such options is unknown. However there are clear opportunities to meet housing requirements and sustainability objectives by an urban extension at Shotgate Farm on the eastern fringe of Wickford town confined to the east by the new A130 trunk road identified as Site III in the List of Sites put forward for consideration in the preparations on the Allocations Development Plan Document. The site adjoins the built up area of Wickford and amounts to a sustainable urban extension. It is considered that the implementation of an appropriate landscaping scheme in conjunction with the use of the existing topography will provide an appropriate urban extension within the landscape.

The site is considered to be within a highly sustainable location adjoining an area which has seen in recent years considerable residential and associated development. The proposal could be based upon recently implemented infrastructure, in particular the new road at Shotgate roundabout. Furthermore, strategic landscaping has been introduced to the south of the site with potential for further open space at the centre of the site to complement the open space in Basildon District.

The proposed urban extension provides opportunities for the following:

Residential - 7 hectares (in the region of appropriately 300 dwellings)
Strategic Open Space - 4.3 hectares to provide important visual space abutting an existing hard urban edge
Employment - 3 hectares

It is suggested that Rochford and Basildon District Council consider an approach to co-ordinated working to enable this key strategic site to help provide a supply of land for development and help ensure housing targets are met.

More details about Rep ID: 361

Representation ID: 348

OBJECT H R Philpot & Sons (Barleylands) Ltd represented by Bidwells (Mr J McLarty)

Summary:

The Preferred Option as set out is a statement of intent. It does not address the real issues of how the District will accommodate housing growth, other than setting out a percentage within certain locations. There is no robust evidence base provided to justify the percentages or the housing numbers set out. Both should be based on an Urban Capacity Study and Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment. There is little explanation as to why other options have been discounted particularly given the lack of sustainability appraisal for this document and there is no indication of how these percentages are to be taken forward. The Core Strategy should not leave the question of the general allocation of the level of housing to settlements open on the grounds that this can only be done once housing sites have been identified in a Site Allocation DPD. Strategic Core Strategy Documents should be sufficiently detailed to enable proper identification of the options or even progression of planning applications for strategic sites to be progressed in advance of the Site Specific Allocations Document. Neither the Key Diagram nor the text or policies achieve this objective. The Council have embarked on an exercise of identifying sites but this information has not been used to properly inform options for delivering growth for the Core Strategy. The Strategy should be driving the allocation of sites not the other way around. In this way, where it is clear that there are certain sites, key to the delivery of the overall Strategy, then it is entirely appropriate for such sites to be mentioned in the Core Strategy.Land West of HullbridgeIn relation to Para. 4.6.8 and Hullbridge in particular consideration should be given to an extension of the western end of the settlement identified as Site 15 in the sites put forward for consideration in the preparation of the Allocations Development Plan Document. 2.8 hectares of developable land can be made available to provide an appropriate extension to Hullbridge. The site is located with good links to a settlement that needs reinforcing with local facilities. There is an opportunity, as part of its release from the Green Belt to assist with local housing need and much needed rural affordable homes within the District of Rochford. The proposed settlement expansion could provide elements of:- Residential land
Strategic open space
Potential site for local facilities Site for rural affordable homes

More details about Rep ID: 348

Representation ID: 338

SUPPORT Indigo Planning (Mr Chris Key)

Summary:

Our submission is in support of the preferred option for new housing allocations as set out in this paragraph and in paragraph 4.6.15. However the preferred options paper does not provide for planning for future retail provision across the district. The Core Strategy should include provision for future retail growth and priority should be given to those settlements which have been allocated for future expansion, for example Hockley.

More details about Rep ID: 338

Representation ID: 323

OBJECT Mrs Carol Wakeling

Summary:

1800 additional houses in Rayleigh is an unacceptably heavy burden for the town, with an obviously detrimental effect on amenities and infrastructure.

Rayleigh has already received considerably large amounts of new housing which need and deserve extra amenities to be provided before more houses are built.

Is it certain that Rayleigh has the space for these additional houses to be built in a sustainable way?

Future development should be shared out more fairly across the whole of Rochford District.

More details about Rep ID: 323

Representation ID: 322

COMMENT Mr Anthony Handfield

Summary:

Many areas such as Rayleigh do not have the infrastructure which can cope with the additional homes in the planned areas; roads, hospitals, dentists, town centre car parks, energy supply, waste and many more facets simply cannot cope. A few additional new facilities does not offset the total impact.
I recommend enlargement of Hullbridge instead of the spread of development shown in the Draft Core Strategy but would prefer to see no development at all.

More details about Rep ID: 322

Representation ID: 320

OBJECT Mr & Mrs P Stanley

Summary:

The plan does not recognise the impact of a huge amount of traffic movements, lack of amenities and infrastructure unable to cope.

More details about Rep ID: 320

Representation ID: 316

OBJECT Mr & Mrs E S Malelu

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 316

Representation ID: 315

OBJECT Mr & Mrs A G Wicks

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh. We moved from London 2001 to get away from overcrowding too much parking.

More details about Rep ID: 315

Representation ID: 314

OBJECT Mr P Ramsey

Summary:

I object to the proposed number of new homes in Rayleigh in the development plans of section 4.6.10. I would suggest that Rayleigh is already suffering more in comparison with the rest of the district in over development. It has clearly received most of the large scale housing in the district in recent years already, eg all the development along Rawreth Lane. The council clearly needs to rethink the split for new housing in the District. Rayleigh cannot sustain half of the new total proposed, 1800 new homes. Please reconsider this proposeal. Thank you.

More details about Rep ID: 314

Representation ID: 313

OBJECT Mr & Mrs Hawkins

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 313

Representation ID: 312

OBJECT S McBride

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 312

Representation ID: 311

OBJECT Mrs J M Allen

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 311

Representation ID: 310

OBJECT M J Chapman

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 310

Representation ID: 309

OBJECT E D Gulson

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 309

Representation ID: 308

OBJECT P McGeechan

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 308

Representation ID: 307

OBJECT Mrs M Hand

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 307

Representation ID: 306

OBJECT Mrs A V Cole

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 306

Representation ID: 305

OBJECT Mr Silam

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 305

Representation ID: 304

OBJECT Mr/Mrs Carter

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 304

Representation ID: 303

OBJECT Mr & Mrs T J Parrett

Summary:

We would like to strongly object to the plans for more houses in the Rayleigh/Rawreth area for the following reasons.
i) We have suffered greatly with increased traffic in Rawreth Lane since the housing was erected on the old Park School site. More housing in this area will only increase our misery and that of our neighbours - to try and get to the mini-roundabout into Hambro Hill from the traffic lights at Downhall Park Way between 4.45pm and 6pm can take up to 20 minutes now - not good if you are in an emergency situation.

ii) No additional amenities have yet been provided ie doctors, dentists, play areas for the increased population - only money making private businesses, ASDA, Leisure Centre etc, which will be the beginning of the end for our local parade of shops.

More details about Rep ID: 303

Representation ID: 302

OBJECT Mrs A Lawes

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 302

Representation ID: 301

OBJECT F K G Dennis

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 301

Representation ID: 299

OBJECT Mr Terence Dann

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put further intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of yet more Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh, whose character is fast disappearing in urban sprawl..

More details about Rep ID: 299

Representation ID: 298

OBJECT Cllr Chris Black

Summary:

Rayleigh has received most of the new housing in the District in the past 20 years, and is still lacking in the amenities required to catch up with what has already been built.

1800 extra homes is an unfair and unacceptable burden for the town to take.

It is not even certain that there is enough available land within the boundaries of Rayleigh even to accomodate 1800 houses. What's more the town needs some of the green patches around the edges as sites for the amenities, sports pitches etc that are already required.

More details about Rep ID: 298

Representation ID: 289

COMMENT Mr Robin Hebburn

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh. By definition Rayleigh already has the biggest size and already carries the biggest burden.

More details about Rep ID: 289

Representation ID: 279

COMMENT Mr Colin Wood

Summary:

The proposed major increase housing in Rayleigh will have a seriously distorting impact on the whole character and balance of the town.
The number of new houses will have the effect of overloading the infastructure and amenities. It will, also create a serious bottleneck for traffic flow along the A127 as the major increase in population will join the A127 at virtually the same junctions.
My judgement would be to distribute the required housing evenly across the area and use this as an opportunity to address the currently perceived shortcomings in infastructure and benefit the area as a whole.

More details about Rep ID: 279

Representation ID: 277

OBJECT Mrs Lyn Hopkins

Summary:

The building of a extra 1800 houses in and around the Rawreth area would be highly detrimental to the visual appearance of the Green Belt and open character of such settlements and totally against Rochford District Planning Policies Nos: R1 - R10.

More details about Rep ID: 277

Representation ID: 276

OBJECT Mr Clive Hopkins

Summary:

To build 1800 houses in rayleigh means almost certainly building them in Rawreth as it is the only area left with enough land. This in itself will ruin the rural life style of this community The prefered strategy is to attach large numbers of houses to the already built up areas because there is more chance of developing good infrastructures.
Rawreth lane, the A129 and the A127 cannot handle any increase in traffic so this devolopment of inferstructure could mean constructing a new major road through Rawreth which would complete the distruction of this rural community.

More details about Rep ID: 276

Representation ID: 267

OBJECT Mrs Lyn Hopkins

Summary:

The houses that have to be built should be fairly distributed over the whole of the district, not placed in large concentrations in one place, thus destroying the character of our village.
The roads, particularly Rawreth Lane cannot possibly absorb the huge amount of extra traffic such houses would generate.
Highways have already stated that, with the enormous amount of extra traffic that will be generated with the opening of the Asda site, Rawreth Lane will be filled to capacity.

More details about Rep ID: 267

Representation ID: 263

SUPPORT Chelmsford Diocese Board of Finance represented by Strutt & Parker (Mrs Nicola Bickerstaff)

Summary:

4.6.10 - Agree that development should focus on top tier settlements including Hawkwell and that a proportion of the housing numbers should be allocated here. Agree that top tier proposed settlements are better located to the highway network and represent sustainable locations for development. A site which has been put forward at a previous LDF consultation stage, located on the outskirts of Hawkwell is considered to be a suitable site for accommodating additional housing. The site is located along Ironwell Lane and has housing to the east, west and north beyond Ironwell Lane.

More details about Rep ID: 263

Representation ID: 262

COMMENT Miss Liz Dack represented by Strutt & Parker (Mrs Nicola Bickerstaff)

Summary:

4.6.10 - agree that development should focus on top tier settlements including Rochford and that a significant proportion of the housing numbers should be allocated here. Agree that Top Tier proposed settlements are better located to the highway network and represent sustainable locations for development.

More details about Rep ID: 262

Representation ID: 240

COMMENT Mrs Gill Plackett

Summary:

It is very difficult to comment on the number of houses for each area and I fully realise what a difficult job the council has.
I havn't got enough knowledge of available land in each area and its suitability.

More details about Rep ID: 240

Representation ID: 234

OBJECT Mr J Cripps

Summary:

The Government policy of densely populating the South East of England in general is fundamentally flawed - your local area proposals are part of this:-

1. The local transport infrastructure is already at full stretch, in particular the roads which are already overloaded.
2. Support services (doctors, dentists, hospitals) are already problematic due to shear volume - hence falling standards/rising costs.
3. The basic infrastructure (utilities) by their nature would need to increase capacity which means wholesale street works, adding to traffic/parking/pedestrian issues.

I have recently been working in the area of my upbringing (East London) and was struck by the pressures that people live under, brought about by living cheek by jowel:-

Nowhere to park
Traffic dirt and grime
Dangerous driving behaviour
Street litter
Confrontational behaviour
Stress/Stress/Stress
I moved out of London 35 years ago to escape!

More details about Rep ID: 234

Representation ID: 233

OBJECT Miss C Cook

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

1800 new houses in Rayleigh is ridiculous. The High Road is like a motor way now. 3600 new residents without their little darlings. It is almost impossible to see a doctor now. They close at 7.30 pm Fri - 7.30 am Mon. If you have a relative dying over the weekend, they send a policeman. There is only one grocery shop and I don't think they can put anymore computers in the library.

More details about Rep ID: 233

Representation ID: 232

OBJECT Mr & Mrs Kemp

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 232

Representation ID: 231

OBJECT Mr & Mrs Headland

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 231

Representation ID: 230

OBJECT L D Edwards

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 230

Representation ID: 229

OBJECT Mrs Newman

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 229

Representation ID: 228

OBJECT N Byrne

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 228

Representation ID: 227

OBJECT Mrs J Rambaran

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 227

Representation ID: 226

OBJECT P Cockrell

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 226

Representation ID: 225

OBJECT Mr J Green

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 225

Representation ID: 224

OBJECT Mrs Cheryl Gibson

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 224

Representation ID: 223

OBJECT Ms A Peacock

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 223

Representation ID: 220

COMMENT Mrs P Weidner

Summary:

I live in Lubbards Close and to get out of it is horrendous. Rawreth Lane must be the busiest road in Essex. During weekdays it can take a good 10 minutes to get out, because the traffic roars away from the corner at about 40 miles an hour, the noise and traffic is horrendous. There are no slow signs, no speed limit, it is so dangerous, its got worse since they built the estate further down and I hear they are going to build more further down the road this is appalling. This might be good for the local shops, but after talking to the Council they came and took trees out to make the pavement wider because it was dangerous only 3ft wide. But what did they do, park on the piece of ground that had been dug up and drive onto the road across the new pavement. The council did put some large water containers on the earth but some one has even moved one of them, sorry to be such a moaner but I don't want to move but Rawreth Lane is awful so please no more houses.

More details about Rep ID: 220

Representation ID: 214

OBJECT Mr Peter Culligan

Summary:

The increase in traffic generally in Rayleigh indicates an inability to cope with more. At present I will rarely go into Rayleigh town centre as there is always queing traffic. I Rawreth Lane increased traffic,changing speed limits and more traffic lights are casuing problems. It can now take five minutes to turn from my road onto Rawreth Lane and at peak times I can be sitting in traffic leading up to Hambro Hill. I do not believe we can sustain more traffic. A new housing estate, leisure complex and ASDA are already taking their toll and impacting on our lives.

More details about Rep ID: 214

Representation ID: 211

OBJECT R J Armstrong

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 211

Representation ID: 209

OBJECT Mr J Crawley

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 209

Representation ID: 208

OBJECT Mr & Ms Manthorp

Summary:

Rayleigh, and particularly the Rawreth Lane area have taken the brunt of the new housing development. There are long waiting lists at nearly all local nurseries, and there are only two secondary schools in the immediate vicinity. The roads are gridlocked at school and peak times, and the train station is packed at all peak times. These factors should be taken into consideration when planning new developments. We have young children (4 + 2) and all activities seem to be over subscribed, any more families moving to the area and the problem will get worse and worse. Don't spoil a lovely town that is on the brink of over development already, with any more housing before the amenities situation improves.

More details about Rep ID: 208

Representation ID: 207

OBJECT Mr & Mrs La-Thangue

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 207

Representation ID: 206

OBJECT Ms L Wing

Summary:

I object to more housing in Rawreth/Rayleigh area. The roads are becoming gridlocked. The open spaces are being built on. The area cannot sustain more development.

More details about Rep ID: 206

Representation ID: 205

OBJECT Mr O Lemmey

Summary:

Rayleigh is already congested with traffic, any more buildings would only increase this. It is getting like a concrete jungle lets keep our open spaces.

More details about Rep ID: 205

Representation ID: 204

COMMENT Mrs E Gillam

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

Where can these properties be built either side of Eastwood Road, when the area is already full?

More details about Rep ID: 204

Representation ID: 196

OBJECT Ms C Merrick

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 196

Representation ID: 195

OBJECT Mr & Mrs Pawsey

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 195

Representation ID: 194

OBJECT S Ahmed

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 194

Representation ID: 193

OBJECT Mrs Grove

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 193

Representation ID: 192

OBJECT J Tinworth

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 192

Representation ID: 188

OBJECT D B Staddon

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 188

Representation ID: 187

OBJECT Mr A Duval

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 187

Representation ID: 186

OBJECT Mr R Gardner

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 186

Representation ID: 185

OBJECT Mr J H Bessell

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 185

Representation ID: 184

OBJECT A Harris

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 184

Representation ID: 183

OBJECT Mrs J Andrews

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 183

Representation ID: 182

OBJECT P J Price

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 182

Representation ID: 181

OBJECT Mr & Mrs Salmon

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 181

Representation ID: 180

OBJECT Mrs J Coshever

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 180

Representation ID: 179

OBJECT Mr Chris Bell

Summary:

Objections is for the following reasons.
1) Already seen significant new builds in area without a corresponding increase in services/infrastructure (Doctors/Dentists/Schools etc)
2)Where will these 1800 'housing units' be located. Rawreth seems likely (already seen the brunt of the new builds)
3)Unequal quantity of housing units compared to other districts
4)Rayleigh already suffering from overdevelopment (Downhall Park, Park school)

More details about Rep ID: 179

Representation ID: 178

OBJECT Miss Tiffany Roberts

Summary:

Strong Objection

More details about Rep ID: 178

Representation ID: 177

OBJECT Mr Lawrence Leader

Summary:

1.Rayleigh is already suffering from overdevelopment(more than the rest of the district)
2.More amenities before new houses.
3.Split seems unfairly aimed at Rayleigh. 4.Rayleigh and Rawreth have already had large scale new housing over recent years.

More details about Rep ID: 177

Representation ID: 176

OBJECT Mrs Sally Robarts

Summary:

Too many houses for the town , not enough infrastructure/amenities.
Development should be shared out equaly across the disctrict.
Rawreth/Rayleigh has been overdeveloped , leave our green open spaces alone.

More details about Rep ID: 176

Representation ID: 174

OBJECT Mr Alan Stone

Summary:

Rayleigh / Rawreth Lane saturated with new housing.

Infrastucture crippled by traffic problems.

Unfair to existing residents.

Canewdon & Gt. Wakering escape development.

Re-think strategy to provide new housing units in the eastern end of RDC area.

Consider such places as Star Lane Brickworks (Large Brown field site)to take some or all of the new development proposed from Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 174

Representation ID: 172

COMMENT Mr Andrew Holt

Summary:

Given that the total number of homes to be provided is, essentially, non-negotiable, and that it appears from comment 144 that road improvements are unlikely to be forthcoming, it does not appear possible to find the 1.5-2 sq km needed in any other way. MoD land - even if it could be released - would be a transport nightmare and the only other large block is the airport. 1 sq km can be relatively easily found between Rayleigh's existing boundary and the "old A130". It isn't a great choice, but the alternatives are worse.

More details about Rep ID: 172

Representation ID: 171

OBJECT Mr Chris Rixon

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 171

Representation ID: 168

OBJECT Mrs Jean Rowlinson

Summary:

Rayleigh & Rawreth are already more overdeveloped than the rest of the district because they have received most of the large scale new housing over the last 20 years.
Our infrastructure is not equipped to sustain an extra 1800 housing even if you could find the space.
Please consider sharing the developement of these houses more fairly throughout the district.

More details about Rep ID: 168

Representation ID: 167

OBJECT Mr Peter Rowlinson

Summary:

Rayleigh is already overdeveloped. Increases of housing in the Downhall area in recent years have caused havoc to the traffic flow. Rayleigh town centre congestion with it's current one way street system is unbelieveable. Amenities need to be in place before any more development.

More details about Rep ID: 167

Representation ID: 166

OBJECT Dr Deanne Hooper

Summary:

OBJECT - should be fairly distributed throughout district (not majority in rayleigh) and only once infrastructure and resources are proven to be in place and will cope with the extra housing

More details about Rep ID: 166

Representation ID: 165

OBJECT Mr Russell Hoy

Summary:

I would like to register my objection to the proposed general development location plan with regards to 1800 new houses to be built in the Rayleigh/Rawreth area. This area has been heavily developed over the past few years and I believe that more housing would be detrimental to the area. I therefore strongly object to this proposal.

More details about Rep ID: 165

Representation ID: 164

OBJECT Miss Tina Collins

Summary:

I would like to register my objection to the proposed general development location plan with regards to 1800 new houses to be built in the Rayleigh/Rawreth area. This area has been heavily developed over the past few years and I believe that more housing would be detrimental to the area. I therefore strongly object to this proposal.

More details about Rep ID: 164

Representation ID: 163

OBJECT Mr Steven Tautz

Summary:

Insufficient road network and general infrastrucutre at present. Already too much development in Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 163

Representation ID: 162

OBJECT Mrs Gillian Tautz

Summary:

Too much development already (nobody even wanted Asda)with too little infrastructure.

More details about Rep ID: 162

Representation ID: 157

OBJECT Mr G Rowland

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh

More details about Rep ID: 157

Representation ID: 156

OBJECT Mrs J Nutter

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh

More details about Rep ID: 156

Representation ID: 155

OBJECT Mr N Read

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh

More details about Rep ID: 155

Representation ID: 154

OBJECT Mr A White

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh

More details about Rep ID: 154

Representation ID: 153

OBJECT Mr M Johnson

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh

More details about Rep ID: 153

Representation ID: 152

OBJECT Mr R Brond

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh

More details about Rep ID: 152

Representation ID: 151

OBJECT Mrs A Newman

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh

More details about Rep ID: 151

Representation ID: 150

OBJECT Mr P D Gale

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh

More details about Rep ID: 150

Representation ID: 149

OBJECT J A Cook

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh

More details about Rep ID: 149

Representation ID: 148

OBJECT Mrs P A Linsley

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh

More details about Rep ID: 148

Representation ID: 147

OBJECT Mrs M Coster

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh

More details about Rep ID: 147

Representation ID: 145

OBJECT Mrs D Sharp

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh

More details about Rep ID: 145

Representation ID: 143

OBJECT Mr Mark Bailey represented by Mr Mark Bailey

Summary:

there has been too much development in this area especially Rawreth lane area . we could not cope with 1800 new houses.

More details about Rep ID: 143

Representation ID: 142

OBJECT Mrs Karen Bailey

Summary:

There has been too much development in rayleigh. Especially Rawreth Lane area .We were promised a community centre , doctors surgery neither of which has happened . The facilities on the old Park school site will not provide adequate public community buildings , not enough school places in the future we have no new dentist. The extra housing has created extra traffic, it almost impossible to exit my roads at certain times of day. Rayleigh High Street has lengthy queues . These factors should be taken into account and 1800 new houses in Rayleigh should not go ahead.

More details about Rep ID: 142

Representation ID: 139

OBJECT W D Ham

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 139

Representation ID: 136

OBJECT Mr R Perry

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 136

Representation ID: 135

OBJECT Mr and Mrs Burke

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 135

Representation ID: 134

OBJECT Mr C B Morling

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 134

Representation ID: 133

OBJECT Mrs S Howey

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 133

Representation ID: 132

OBJECT J C Gibson

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 132

Representation ID: 131

OBJECT Mr & Mrs T G Dunn

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 131

Representation ID: 130

OBJECT Ms S Howard

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 130

Representation ID: 129

OBJECT Mrs Warr

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 129

Representation ID: 128

OBJECT Mrs L M Newton

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 128

Representation ID: 127

OBJECT Mrs A Barrett

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 127

Representation ID: 126

OBJECT Mr /Mrs Channon

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 126

Representation ID: 125

OBJECT Mrs Pottle

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 125

Representation ID: 124

OBJECT Les Jarvis

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 124

Representation ID: 123

OBJECT Mr & Mrs Quill

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 123

Representation ID: 122

OBJECT S V Tarling

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 122

Representation ID: 121

OBJECT Mrs R Slowe

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 121

Representation ID: 112

OBJECT Mr M Evers

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 112

Representation ID: 111

OBJECT C Dodson

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 111

Representation ID: 110

OBJECT Ms C Hughes

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 110

Representation ID: 109

OBJECT P Berry

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 109

Representation ID: 108

OBJECT H Nelson

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 108

Representation ID: 107

OBJECT K Crocombe

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 107

Representation ID: 106

OBJECT Mrs B Chapman

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 106

Representation ID: 105

OBJECT Mr B Woodger

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 105

Representation ID: 104

OBJECT Mr Beeson

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 104

Representation ID: 103

OBJECT Ms J Dance

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 103

Representation ID: 102

OBJECT R Thomas

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 102

Representation ID: 101

OBJECT Miss S J Bunner

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 101

Representation ID: 100

OBJECT Ms E Priest

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 100

Representation ID: 99

OBJECT Mrs V Newman

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 99

Representation ID: 98

OBJECT Mr & Mrs Welton

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 98

Representation ID: 97

OBJECT Ms Z Wagstaff

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 97

Representation ID: 87

OBJECT Mrs M Soper

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 87

Representation ID: 86

OBJECT Mr P Redman

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 86

Representation ID: 85

OBJECT P Mears

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 85

Representation ID: 84

OBJECT Mr C P Avery

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 84

Representation ID: 83

OBJECT Mr P S Morris

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 83

Representation ID: 82

OBJECT Ms S Rubio

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 82

Representation ID: 81

OBJECT S Wright

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 81

Representation ID: 80

OBJECT Mr/ Mrs Greenburge

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 80

Representation ID: 79

OBJECT Mrs L Anastasi

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 79

Representation ID: 78

OBJECT Mr & Mrs L Henderson

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 78

Representation ID: 77

OBJECT Mr & Mrs Maddock

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 77

Representation ID: 76

OBJECT Mrs Victoria Rees

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 76

Representation ID: 75

OBJECT Ms H Marsh

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 75

Representation ID: 74

OBJECT Mr Allen

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 74

Representation ID: 73

OBJECT Ms H Smith

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 73

Representation ID: 72

OBJECT Mrs P Freshwater

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 72

Representation ID: 71

OBJECT Mr & Mrs Herdort

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 71

Representation ID: 70

OBJECT Mr J Izatt

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 70

Representation ID: 69

OBJECT Ms G Oliff

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 69

Representation ID: 68

OBJECT Mr & Mrs B Thornton

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 68

Representation ID: 67

OBJECT R H & J M Wilkinson

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 67

Representation ID: 65

OBJECT K William

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 65

Representation ID: 64

OBJECT Mrs Alison Mayor

Summary:

Traffic congestion in Rayleigh has reached such a level that the propsect of 1800 more homes and the ensuing increase in vehicles on the roads will bring the town to a complete standstill.

There should be a greater dispersal of dwellings throughout the region.

More details about Rep ID: 64

Representation ID: 61

OBJECT Mr G Curling

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 61

Representation ID: 60

OBJECT Mrs P W Taylor

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 60

Representation ID: 59

OBJECT Mr & Mrs Hurley

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 59

Representation ID: 58

OBJECT Miss A E Ross

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 58

Representation ID: 57

OBJECT Mrs G Coley

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 57

Representation ID: 56

OBJECT A Goldstein

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 56

Representation ID: 55

OBJECT Ms C Chambers

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 55

Representation ID: 54

OBJECT Mr M Stones

Summary:

The building of 1,800 additional homes in Rayleigh is utterly unacceptable. It would put intolerable pressure on our local roads, schools and G.P. services. It would also mean a devastating loss of Green Belt land. Future residential development should be spread more evenly over the whole of the Rochford District, so that a smaller, fairer burden falls on Rayleigh.

More details about Rep ID: 54

Representation ID: 51

OBJECT Mr Paul Hunt

Summary:

The figure of 4600 houses is too high.
The EERA are unelected and should not be allowed to "force" this number on us.
Does the 1800 figure for Rayleigh incude the 901 built 2001-2006?
Rayleigh's road infrastructure including the links to the A127/A130 must be improved. The town one way system is at a standstill most of the day how will this be addressed with the extra people?
The Core strategy document is ambiguous in my opinion with too many "where possibles" and gives the council scope to breach what they are tabling going forward.

More details about Rep ID: 51

Representation ID: 49

OBJECT Mr Ian Jordan

Summary:

Allocating 1800 houses to be built in Rayleigh is far too many. With the proposed buffer zones, the only area to build would be in West Rayleigh. This area has already had the majority of new housing in the last ten years and the roads are at peak capacity, with long queues along Rawreth Lane and A129 London Road every day already.

More details about Rep ID: 49

Representation ID: 43

COMMENT Mr Donald Babbage

Summary:

My concern is increased traffic flow in London Rd & Down Hall Rd Rayleigh. This junction is already dangerous and should have a roundabout(not a mini) or traffic lights - despite police objections !. Increased traffic on these roads which will come from the new developments will turn this junction into a death trap - do something before it happens

More details about Rep ID: 43

Representation ID: 24

OBJECT The National Trust Rayleigh Mount Local Committee (Mr S A Skinner)

Summary:

The allocation of 1800 new homes to Rayleigh is excessive. West Rayleigh, in particular has had to shoulder the lion's share. It's time other parts of the district, particularly settlements to the east took a greater share. I would support the alternative policies of greater dispersal, making more use of settlements to the east of the district, and greater dispersal to minor settlements.

More details about Rep ID: 24

Representation ID: 22

OBJECT Mr Alan Wetton

Summary:

Rayleigh according to your figures has the highest population in the district therefore it does not make sense to put the majority of houses (1800) in that particular area. The station does not have sufficient parking for commuters, trafic congestion at peak times in the centre of Rayleigh is unecceptable. Rayleigh is at its peak and is just sustainable. To develop and take green field locations around the perimetier will make the situation worse. The urbanisation of Rayleigh has brought crime and vandalism to the community, this will only increase.

More details about Rep ID: 22

Representation ID: 13

COMMENT Mr K Sanders

Summary:

Housing Units
Hockley / Hawkwell 400

Hockley/Hawkwell is already overcrowded and does not require any further housing stock. Additionally the current population lacks enough basic facilities (i.e. doctors) and encouraging further numbers to move into the area will be unacceptable. Also the current road infrastructure cannot cope with new housing and it is undesirable to build any new roads.

More details about Rep ID: 13

Representation ID: 11

COMMENT Mr Christos Fantides

Summary:

I would like to comment that I feel to split 500 dwellings between the smaller communities such as Great Wakering is rather excessive and should be reduced to ensure that areas like Great Wakering remain as a village

More details about Rep ID: 11

Having trouble using the system? Visit our help page or contact us directly.

Powered by OpusConsult