Rawreth Parish Council

Rawreth Parish Council's response to the RDC Allocation Document

Representation Letters, on all the consultation stages of the Core Strategy,  in date order from Rawreth Parish Council 

 

 

 

Rochford District Council

Planning Services & Transportation Services

Council Offices

South Street

Rochford

Essex

SS4 1BW                              

 

Public Consultation                                                               22nd January 2013

 

Dear Sirs,

 

 

Allocations Submission Document

 

On behalf of Rawreth Parish Council I confirm that this letter is a formal response and representation of the Councils views with regards to the Allocations submission Document.

This Council believes the LDF Core Strategy, Allocations Submission Document is unsound on two counts. The two counts are detailed below, together with supporting facts and examples.  In addition there appears to be no acknowledgement of previous consultations and publication of responses was delayed 12 months after publication of preferred Site Allocations, Policy GB1.

 

Count 1.  Preference and proposed use of Green Belt land over land previously used or brown field sites:   Policy ED4 Core Strategy Preferred Options Future Employment Options.    GB1 Core Strategy Preferred Options.       ENV3 Core Strategy Preferred Options Flood Risk.        PPS25 Development & Flood Risk)

Within the Development Management DPD - Preferred Options Document 3.1 clearly states under  PPG2,  the most important aspect of the Green Belt is its openness.  In addition, PPG2 also states within  the five purposes of not including land within the Green Belt  :

 

            To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas

            To prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another

            To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment

Our first example of unsoundness is the proposed Housing at " Land North of London Road, West of Rayleigh (Rawreth)" vs land previously put forward in the "Call for Sites" at:  Hambro Nurseries Rawreth,  Former nursery land at Weir Farm, Rayleigh and the Site of Garden Centre and former nurseries in Eastwood Road.

 

Our second example is the proposed housing in " Hullbridge, Malyons Farm (Rawreth)"  vs the at land at NSEC Lower Road Hockley" which was also put forward in the "Call for Sites".  All the Sites given in our examples were put forward in the "Call for Sites" and all this land is previously used or brown field land which would provide hundreds of sustainable houses with good access to present infrastructure  all falling within PPG2.  However they have all been rejected by Rochford District Council as not acceptable.

 

Our third example is the relocation of Rawreth Industrial Site to a Greenbelt site on the A129 next to Swallows Aquatic Centre vs brown field land at Michelins Farm, adjacent to the A127, put forward in the "Call forSites".

 

Our fourth example is the erosion of Green Belt and the coalescence of two conurbations, Wickford/Shotgate and Rayleigh, entirely contrary to Green Belt Policy GB1 and H1.  If smaller, more appropriate brownfield sites were used, as put forward in the "Call for Sites", this erosion and coalescence would not take place.

 

This Council believes this document to be UNSOUND as due consideration has not been given to more appropriate sites that clearly fall within PPG2.

 

Count 2. This Council believes there is an absence of an overall effective Transport Risk Assessment and Traffic Impact Statement which would clearly show the effects of present and future housing on traffic flow on the existing inadequate road network. (Policy T1 & T2)

 

At the Public Examination in 2010,conducted by the Government Planning Inspector, both this Council and the public were assured that adequate infrastructure would be looked at when the Essex County Council Local Transport Plan was reviewed in 2011. In 2012 ECC explained that " the current Essex Local Transport Plan was developed in line with Department for Transport Guidance and which provides the framework within which transport programmes can be developed."

 

In the Development Management DPD, Preferred Policy Options Document  Rochford District Council's Vision states " The Highway Authority will look at solutions to congestion issues across the District to ensure the highway infrastructure becomes "fit for purpose".  Without the  risk assessments, congestion issues have not been addressed and the necessary documentation therefore, is not in the Evidence Base which makes the document unsound.

 

 

In Minutes of Rochford District  Council 27/11/2012 officers advised that "the Highways Authority was looking strategically at the cumulative effect of traffic impact through the Local Transport Plan" and, in addition, " the emerging community infrastructure levy should facilitate strategic highways improvements" yet,  there is still no Traffic Impact Assessment of the District within the Evidence Base. DM28

As a Council we know  from day to day  that the overall highways infrastructure within the District cannot cope with present traffic flow and, therefore, believe that without major infrastructure improvements the situation will become intolerable. 

RDC stated in its Public Consultation that to be "SOUND" the plan should be prepared based on a strategy which seeks to meet objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements consistent with sustainable development.

 

ECC stated in December 2012 "every strategic development proposal is accompanied by a transport assessment agreed with the Highway Authority which will consider the impact of proposed development on the highway network to ensure a comprehensive approach accounting for present traffic conditions and future traffic growth".

 

Right from the beginning of the Local Development Framework, all the documents within and including the Rochford Core Strategy state clearly "in order for development to be sustainable it must meet the needs of the present and future in terms of highways and traffic impact" and quotes "Improvements must be made to East/West routes"."RDC must ensure there are adequate highway infrastructure improvements to serve new developments and to mitigate their impact".

 

We believe that this Allocations Submission Document is not "SOUND" on the two Counts as detailed.

 

One, that the Highway Authority has not objectively assessed the developments and infrastructure requirements taking account of present traffic and future traffic growth.  Evidence Base is essential for the "SOUNDNESS" of this document and a Traffic Impact Statement has not been provided  within this Base.

 

Two, the preference and proposed use of Green Belt land over land previously used or brown field sites is contrary to GB1 and, therefore, renders the document UNSOUND.

 

Yours faithfully

 

Mrs Hayley Bloomfield

On behalf of Rawreth Parish Council

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

 

Rochford District Council

Planning Services & Transportation Services

Council Offices

South Street

Rochford

Essex

SS4 1BW                              

 

Public Consultation                                                                        9th  July 2011

 

Dear Sirs,

 

Sustainability Appraisal of Core Strategy Submission Document

 

On behalf of Rawreth Parish Council I confirm that this letter is a formal response and representation of the Councils views with regards to the Sustainability Appraisal of the Core Strategy Submission Document (SA).

In a previous submission the Council objected to the final draft of Rochford District Councils Core Strategy and considered the same to be unsound.

Any development of the eastern Rochford District will have an impact upon the Parish of Rawreth, this is  in addition to the impact that the planned development of western Rayleigh will have.  With the A1245, A130, A127,  Rawreth Lane and London Road (A129) all being the major roads dealing with the traffic flow of vehicles to and from eastern part of the District any development should not proceed until a full, thorough and detailed infrastructure study has been undertaken. The roads to the west of the District are already  gridlocked with current traffic volumes. To increase housing development will only put further strain on the already congested road system and yet no report or study has yet been produced to look at the implications of the planned housing.

In addition the results of  the DPD consultation on site allocations which took place in March 2010 have not been made public. Over 2000 replies where made to the consultation yet they have not been analysed or publicly produced.  If these results have not been made public then the process has not been transparent and is therefore illegal and UNSOUND.

Having read and studied the SA  the Council’s views are unchanged and more evidence contained within the SA confirms the Councils findings that the Core Strategy is unsound and that there are  inconsistencies contained throughout the whole document and process.

The SA report details how alternatives were considered throughout the production of the plan and sets out the reasons for selecting or rejecting those alternatives.  When reading through the document it is evident that these documented considerations where not implemented in the final version of the Core Strategy

The SA document as a whole appears flawed and we  as a Council list below what we believe are the most obvious inconsistencies and how relevant they are  to our Parish and the District as a whole. 

Table 2.1 page 4 Strategic Option 1

The options regarding the Green Belt are shown and it is stated that option  A,  the relaxation of the greenbelt  and B, strategic gaps, preventing coalescence in areas where the greenbelt performs only a token purpose where not taken forward.  If this is the case and the greenbelt policy has not been relaxed how is it that over 80% of the proposed sites in the Core Strategy are to be built  on greenbelt land?  In addition employment development has also been allocated on greenbelt land as detailed in Point 4, table 4.1 where it states that the allocation of current greenbelt land to the west of Rayleigh was recommended by the Employment Land Study and supported by the SA. This demonstrates that although a decision not to take options A and B forward was made,  the decision has been ignored in the final CS document and therefore a  contradiction in the SA is very evident, a decision not to relax the greenbelt policy was made but a decision to use greenbelt for employment land was agreed at the same time?.

Table 2.1 page 6 Strategic Option 7

The options regarding accommodation for Gypsies and Travellers are shown and it is stated that option B will have a greater amount of positive effects than option A over the same period of time, option B is stated as the accommodation needs for Gypsy and Travellers will be met by identifying an existing residential area for a site and formally specifying it in the Allocation DPD.  Option A states  that no Gypsy or Traveller site to be identified in the greenbelt.   All the proposed Gypsy and Traveller sites identified and proposed in the CS  within Rawreth and western Rayleigh are all within the greenbelt so, again, it demonstrates that although a decision  was made stating that option B was the preferred option the decision has been ignored in the final CS document.

Table 2.1 page 6 Strategic Option 8

The options for rural exceptions are shown, option B which was the chosen option states for windfall sites, 30% of all units will be required to be affordable. On rural exception  sites all units will be required to remain affordable in perpetuity. Council believe that in the call for sites,  sites that could be considered as rural exceptions were put forward but dismissed. This again demonstrates that the preferred option chosen has not been implemented in the final CS document.

 Table  2.1 page 8 Strategic Option 15

The options regarding compulsory purchase were considered, it is stated that Option C was taken forward, which would ensure that employment, residential, recreational and environmental enhancements for the district can be brought forward using compulsory purchase powers.  If this is the agreed option why were sites dismissed during the call for sites process because of the uncertainty of ownership, these sites could have been considered and if necessary compulsory purchase could have taken place. Again this demonstrates that although a decision to take an option forward was made,  the decision has been ignored in the final CS document.

 

Table 2.1 page 8 Strategic Option 16

The options regarding community leisure and tourism facilities were considered and it was agreed that options A and elements of D would be taken forward, A being to protect the greenbelt without providing any further guidance leaving it up to central government in its review of planning policy Guidance Note 2 and D being to provide a policy dealing with community, leisure and tourism proposals which will provide clarity for developments particularly in the greenbelt.  Having proposed these two options which would  protect the greenbelt the final CS document  allows for over 80% of the proposed sites to be built on greenbelt land?  This demonstrates that although a decision to agree options A and D was made,  the decision has been ignored in the final CS document.

 

3. Further appraisal of alternative: general housing development locations. Page 9.

Point 3.2 states that following the Forest Heath ruling it was decided to further develop the appraisal, considering the more detailed locations for development within individual top and second tier settlements, it also states that following DPD discussion and consultation it has enabled  further consideration of the realistic locations for development as it incorporates the findings of the call for sites process and the SHLAA.  Council believe that so many factors of the call for sites and the DPD discussion have remained unpublicised it is difficult to be certain these have been incorporated and considered. This concern is highlighted given the facts detailed above that show complete disregard throughout the CS for the policies agreed through the appraisal document.

Point 3.3 states that detailed appraisals for housing locations were undertaken for each of the top and second tier settlements, it further states that in addition Rawreth has been assessed as a location, as a response to the CS consultation had suggested ti could be considered as an alternative to other Rayleigh locations.   Firstly Council would ask what evidence has been provided to support the statement that detailed appraisals of housings locations were undertaken.  We are aware that the vehicle transporting the appropriate members stopped at a gateway to Hambro Nursery on their viewing of “Call for Sites” tour for only a few moments.

We have in our possession a copy of a letter to Rochford District Council and full Illustrative Development Proposals for both Hambro Nursery and adjacent Clovelly Works site dated 23rd February 2010, these proposals are for a development to include affordable housing, lower cost small units and family housing plus provision for employment opportunity to be included in the RDC Site Allocation DPD, all of which are identified as essential in the CS. These proposals have been dismissed by RDC.

It should be noted that any development here would not cause any significant or detrimental effect to drainage in the whole area as water would drain directly into the River Crouch and not the existing drainage. Nor would it have a more prominent appearance as is the case for the “North of London Road” site, as stated in Location 7, Landscape and Townscape.

Council believe that not all sites put forward as viable options for development were considered adequately and as no detailed appraisals have been publicised it is again difficult to be certain how detailed they were. In addition point 3 page 10 and 11 sets out the reasons for selecting or rejection locations.

Council considered the facts that are written for Location 7 West Rayleigh land to the north of London Road and noted firstly, that the majority of the land to the North of London Road is within the Parish of Rawreth and not West Rayleigh as has always been stated in the CS. Secondly the proposed employment areas are also within the Parish of Rawreth.  In addition although the site location to the North of London Road may well result in less air pollution and congestion in Rayleigh Town Centre the roads serving the site, the A1245, Rawreth Lane and London Road (A129) are already congested and carry the bulk of traffic to the east of the district. The number of houses proposed for the site to the North of London Road will only increase traffic flow on these  major routes but as no infrastructure or traffic flow surveys have been undertaken as part of the CS document these factors will not have been considered or incorporated into the final draft.

In contrast point 3.3 states that Location 12 Rawreth Village is detached from Rayleigh and relates well to Basildon and Chelmsford. Firstly Rawreth relates more to Rayleigh than Basildon or Chelmsford and has regular bus services to Rayleigh Town. In addition Rawreth has no real Village centre which was a leading factor for the Parish Council supporting the proposals to develop to the east and west of the A1245 incorporating Hambro Nurseries. The Parish Council agreed that a new village centre could be created which would lead to cohesion of the Parish and the potential for small shops and facilities.  The development of land to the north of London Road in the opinion of the Council will only lead to Rawreth being more isolated as Rayleigh will grow and Rawreth will lose its identity.  Again all the material facts were presented to Rochford District Council but it is felt that the necessary consideration was not given to the sites,  and that is shown in the reasons given for selecting and rejecting the sites.

 

Appendix 1 of the SA, detailed appraisal matrices (housing development locations) abbreviates the appraisals undertaken and their findings and score. Council have considered these in detail and consider the summing up to be incorrect and incomplete which renders the findings and the SA unsound.

 

Page A1-11  Location 7 Land to the north of London Road (Rayleigh)

1. Balanced Communities states that the quantum of development that can be delivered in this location provides sufficient economies of scale to fund/develop facilities required by the community. These facilities are stated as including a primary school, public open space and other community facilities.  Within walking distance of the proposed site is the Parish School of St Nicholas. The school has planning permission to double in size allowing it to take in the region of another 100 pupils, in addition other schools in the surrounding area have places available, therefore the need for a new primary school has not been established and an evidence base has not been provided. UNSOUND.   In addition west Rayleigh and Rawreth are very fortunate to have a number of open spaces available to them, Sweyne Park, Rawreth Playing Fields, Rawreth Community Garden and the Grange open space,  all are within walking distance of the site to the north of London Road so again there is not evidence to support the need for a further open space.  Council are of the opinion that the facilities that could be delivered from the economies of scale for this proposed development are not needed and should not have been considered as a contributory factor in choosing this site as a preferred option. 

11. Land and Soil.  Land to the north of London Road is stated in the SA as being grade 3 agricultural land.  Council suggest that the land is grade 3A agricultural land and as such  under PPS7 comes under the same classification as grade 1 and 2  in that it should be protected.

 

Page A1-11 Location 12 Rawreth Village

1. Balanced communities states that development of the scale envisaged for the west of Rayleigh would have an adverse effect through overwhelming existing small village community. This is the very reason that Rawreth Parish Council opposed the site to the north of London Road and put forward alternative ideas to enhance the Parish of Rawreth with  centralised sites.  The commentary given in the appendix completely supports what Rawreth Parish Council have been saying and gives good reason not to develop in such vast numbers yet the proposed site on land to the north of London Road west Rayleigh is still the preferred option.  This is a clear contradiction and shows that the evidence base of the SA has not been implemented in the CS and , therefore, UNSOUND.

2. Economy and Employment states that there is minimal employment within the village and that development would promote economic opportunities for the village,  it then goes on to state that those opportunities would overwhelm existing facilities. This is yet another total contradiction, it states there is minimal employment and development would promote opportunities,  yet it  then states that existing facilities would be overwhelmed. Rawreth Parish Council confirm there are little if no existing facilities so in short there is nothing that could be overwhelmed, this again shows complete lack of intelligence gathering and again shows that the SA and in turn the CS are flawed and unsound.

 

5. Accessibility states that the location performs poorly on accessibility due to the small size of the settlement and lack of access to shops and services and development at this location would be heavily car dependant.  Again the Parish Council feel that the relevant appraisal was not carried out.  Rawreth currently has two bus services and development would bring more services as the demand for services increased.  Battlesbridge station is also within easy access of all the sites proposed in Rawreth however the use of Battlesbridge station with its newly extended service has not featured in any of the CS documents.  Any development within the village of Rawreth would favour Battlesbridge as a mainline station into Liverpool street, this would decrease the need for passengers to travel to Rayleigh thus decreasing road congestion and overcrowding on the trains.  This once again demonstrates a complete lack of substance to the SA as information gathering has not been thorough enough.

8. Landscape and townscape states that effect on the landscape/townscape is likely to be more significant as housing development of any significant size would overwhelm the existing settlement and development would need to take place in the open greenbelt,  counter to the development strategy.  Firstly the Parish of Rawreth would welcome the integration of development in the village. Development could be used to develop a central point in the village which would create community cohesion, therefore having a positive effect on the area.  In addition the development would not be on open greenbelt land, the land proposed for development is under glass and concrete and has been previously used and classified as brown field,  therefore the grade 3 agricultural land labelling is out of date and again supports the claim the Parish Council is making that the SA is not sound and the information contained within is incorrect.  Once again contradictions occur throughout the SA, for location 12 the use of greenbelt land is counter to the development strategy, yet for location 7 which is Grade 3A agricultural land no reference is made to the same strategy. Any greenbelt land within location 12 was identified in developers plans and shown as retained for open space and green spaces.

10. Water and drainage : Land in location 7 drains through Rawreth brook with its continual potential flooding problems in existing settlements in Church Road and Battlesbridge .Location12 drains north direct into the River Crouch below Battlesbridge avoiding the above location 7 problems .This again was not assessed in the SA .

 

11. Land and Soil states that the location is within Grade 3 agricultural land. As stated above the land proposed for development is under glass and concrete and as it has been previously developed  and classified as brown field,  therefore the grade 3 agricultural land labelling is out of date and again supports the claim that the Parish Council is making that the SA is UNSOUND and the information contained within is incorrect. Any greenbelt land within location 12 was identified in developers plans and shown as retained for open space and green spaces.

In summing up, there are so many inaccuracies in the SA and so many contradictions,  the document could not possibly be classed as a sound basis for the sustainability of the Core Strategy document itself, and rendering the whole process unsound and unacceptable.

 

Yours faithfully

Mrs Hayley Bloomfield on behalf of

Rawreth Parish Council

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Ms Laura Graham

C/O Lissa Higby

Programme Officer

Rochford District Council

South Street

Rochford

Essex SS4 1BW                                                                 18th April 2011

 

 

Dear Ms Graham 

 

“Planning For Growth” new Government Policy

 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on “Planning for Growth” and other budget announcements.

 

Rawreth Parish Council have previously stated that they consider the Rochford District Council Core Strategy to be unsound and having read the documents made available to them for comment,  standby that statement and now consider the Core Strategy even more unsound in light of the requirements of “Planning For Growth” .  The Rochford District Council Core Strategy was not designed in consideration of the special direction now given by the Government and equally was not produced with the new policy in mind.

 

Rawreth Parish Council believe that Rochford District Council have not done enough work on the locations within the Core Strategy therefore under the new ordered presumption to say “yes” to development Rochford District Council will not have the benefit of full planning applications as a backstop therefore rendering the Core Strategy  even more flawed.

 

In addition Rochford District Council have not in the opinion of Rawreth Parish Council sufficiently considered the overall infrastructure and sustainability across the district sufficiently.  Rawreth Parish Council still do not believe a comprehensive assessment on highway impact in terms of all the proposed developments has taken place, in particular the cumulative effect that  all the developments will have on the present highways. This is of grave concern as new proposals will allow local authorities to reconsider at developers request existing 106 agreements that currently render schemes unviable and where possible modify those obligations to allow developments to proceed.  If comprehensive assessments have not already taken place how can these new polices be implemented without a devastating affect on the district.

Further more Rawreth Parish Council believe that Rochford District Council will not have considered within the Core Strategy the call for neighbouring authorities to work together to ensure that needs and opportunities that extend beyond or cannot be met within their own boundaries are identified and accommodated in a sustainable way.  If neighbouring districts have an influence on adjoining districts then full consideration of infrastructure across other districts in addition to Rochford  should have been taken into account, in the opinion of Rawreth Parish Council the Core Strategy is unsound as Rochford District Council have  failed to sufficiently consider the overall infrastructure and sustainability across neighbouring districts.   

 

Rawreth Parish Council have always believed that an objective assessment in planning terms of reasonable alternatives to the locations put forward in the Core Strategy has not been undertaken.   In particular 550 of the proposed houses allocation for the Parish of Rawreth will be built on Greenbelt, high grade agricultural land.  Given the contents of the “Planning For Growth” policy this further renders the Core Strategy unsound as there should be “localised choice about the use of previously developed land whilst retaining existing controls on greenbelt land”.   In all the submissions but forward by Rawreth Parish Council, alternative smaller brownfield sites have been suggested and put forward with the agreement of the land owners and neighbours,  this coincides with the “Planning For Growth” policy as it is stated that Neighbourhood Development Orders will become effective giving neighbourhoods the opportunity to put forward plans for development and shape development, however Rochford District Council has not given due consideration to these alternative sites, preferring to use Greenbelt land to enable mass development. Again this renders the Core Strategy unsound.  

 

 The “Planning For Growth” policy has raised several issues which are significant and new material considerations in the planning system which have not been addressed in the Rochford District Council Core Strategy and therefore renders it unsound.

 Yours sincerely

 

Mrs Hayley Bloomfield

Clerk to  Rawreth Parish Council

 

 

 --------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

Miss Laura Graham B Sc MA MRTPI                                                 

Planning Inspector

C/O Programme Officer

RDC                                                                          28th June 2010

 Dear Miss Graham,

 We have read the additional information provided by Rochford District Council at your request.  You invited comments from Respondents who attended the Public Enquiry hearing on this additional information by 17.00 hrs on 28 June 2010 and this letter, sent by email to your Programme Officer at RDC complies with that request.

 We are concerned about the lack of a comprehensive assessment in highway impact terms of ALL the proposed developments on the entire highway network and specifically in the "North of London Road" area.  This additional information , specific to Transportation, does not provide the necessary evidence.

 We are also very concerned about some the actual Locations put forward in the Core Strategy and there is no actual evidence in the Audit Trail that the Council has undertaken a detailed, objective assessment of reasonable alternatives put forward.  Particularly that in the centre of Rawreth Village which we proposed.

 Prior to the identification of actual Locations to the public, the Council should have carried out an assessment of reasonable, alternative Locations in detailed planning terms in full, open public view thus allowing full Consultation.

 In our view the Soundness of the CS could have been compromised and, as these are substantive objections to the CS, it should, therefore, not be recommended for adoption following the Public Enquiry as it is UNSOUND.

 There also appears to be a lack of openness in that some meetings of Officers and Members of the LDF Committee on the Allocations of Sites were held during 2009 but not notified to the public - thus barring the public from information of detailed planning reasons for promotion or rejection of sites.

 This lack of Consultation also is UNSOUND and should be taken into consideration when recommending or rejecting the CS.

 We believe that a full and detailed Housing Needs Assessment should be carried out Parish by Parish by RDC in order to identify the correct quantity of Housing, including Affordable Housing needed and, therefore, a decision on the CS should be delayed until such is available.

 Yours sincerely,

 

Mrs Hayley Bloomfield

Clerk to Rawreth Parish Council

 

  

 --------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 Rochford District Council

Planning Services & Transportation Services

Council Offices

South Street

Rochford

Essex

SS4 1BW                             

 

Public Consultation Allocations DPD                                       28th April 2010

 

Dear Sirs,

 

On behalf of Rawreth Parish Council I confirm that this six page letter is a formal response of objection to the Allocations DPD, Discussion and Consultation Document on the following counts:

The overall proposals shown in the ADPD for the Parish of Rawreth amount to overdevelopment within a semi rural Parish with disproportionate allocations in comparison to the remainder of the District and are totally unacceptable and unsustainable under PPG2 and the Council object most strongly to the document as drafted and the proposals therein.

 

Within the ADPD the Parish of Rawreth has site specific allocations shown for housing, industry and gypsy and traveller sites, whilst other Towns and Parishes within the District appear in the document but are confined to one area of site allocations be it housing, industry or gypsy and traveller sites and on much smaller scales. Overall under the ADPD the Parish of Rawreth stands to take the biggest allocation of houses in one phase, with its overall allocation being only 50 less than that of  West Rochford.

 

Rawreth Parish Council has never been opposed to development within the Parish,  however they have always expressed that appropriate amounts of additional housing should be built on smaller, existing and brownfield sites within the greenbelt thus enhancing the lives of new and existing residents instead of eroding our green buffers and starting the coalescence of Rayleigh and Wickford.

Rochford District Council have chosen to totally ignore the alternative proposals put forward by Rawreth Parish Council in the “Call for Sites” document all of which would use previous brownfield sites within the green belt, enhance the centre of Rawreth and avoid the use of so much farmland GB1.  Building approximately 200 houses within Rawreth village, with a possibility of more at a later date, would alleviate the need for such a large scale development of 550 houses all in one place. Drainage, traffic and access would all be much enhanced and under our proposal any development would have less impact on the lives of residents within the Parish and neighbouring areas. These proposals however have in the opinion of the Council never been considered or taken seriously.

 

The area surrounding the Parish of Rawreth is seen as "The Gateway to Rochford" yet under the ADPD  the proposals for the land north of London Road  NLR1 to NLR5 will  take away beautiful, productive, open farmland and turn it into a mix of housing and industry. To build  550 houses on the North/South Eastern area of this land, to legalise and possibly double the Gypsy and Traveller Site on the North Western edge GT1 and to add  an Industrial Site on the South Western Corner, which was supposed to be the Green Buffer within NLR1, is absolutely unacceptable and unsustainable under PPG2.  To consider placing ANY of these proposals on this area of high quality farmland will absolutely destroy the openness and character of this entire part of Rawreth for ever. In addition the existing roads, A1245, A129, Rawreth Lane and Beeches Road/Watery Lane are already full to capacity and frequently  at a standstill, to add more traffic as a result of these proposals is completely unacceptable.

 

On Thursday the 25th of March 2010 Rawreth Parish Council undertook a 12 hour constant traffic survey in both Rawreth Lane and Beeches Road.   In Rawreth Lane during the hours of 7am and 7pm  7,179 vehicles were recorded travelling in an Easterly direction and 7,217 in a Westerly direction, this is  a road that does not even have a B classification.   In Beeches Road during the hours of 7am to 7pm 2,848 vehicles were recorded travelling in an Easterly direction and 2,022 were recorded travelling in a Westerly,  this is a very small, winding rural lane. 

 

The full details of these surveys are attached.

 

In addition to the above comments the Parish Councils observations, objections and proposals on specific options are as follows:

 

Land North of London Road.  Large scale development here will have massive impact on all local roads- A1245, A129, Rawreth Lane and Beeches Road/Watery Lane. The development will impact highly on drainage and surface water run-off which will cause even more flooding to parts of the Parish which are already classified as being within Flood Zone 3, Watery Lane in particular has been closed twice already this year in February,  with motorists needing to be rescued by the Fire Service using boats.

 

In March this year Cllr Hudson said quite categorically in a local newspaper that all the traffic generating from the proposed sites North of London Road would gain access to and from the A129 and, therefore,  would have no effect whatsoever upon Rawreth Lane, this statement is completely contra to the proposals detailed under  NLR1, NLR4 and NLR5 where access is quite clearly gained from Rawreth Lane.

NLR1, NLR4 and NLR5, would have massive impact on the traffic in Rawreth Lane and are completely unsustainable and impracticable.

 

NLR2, NLR3 would have better access in and out of the area as long as correct and adequate roads are put in.

 

SWH1 States that "sustainable urban drainage systems MUST be implemented" - this is an absolute minimum as the whole area is only just above sea level and subject to possible large scale flooding.  Areas within the Parish are already within Flood Zone 3.

 

All schemes for the Parish of Hullbridge would result in a  huge increase in traffic using either Rawreth Lane or Beeches Road/Watery Lane which are both already full to capacity.  Watery Lane is a very narrow, winding lane which is frequently  closed due to 3 foot deep flooding and any attempt to "straighten " it must also be subject to consideration of the resident Water Vole population which nest within the watercourses and ditches in this area, this is a protected species .  No scheme at all should include housing along any part of Watery Lane as in SWH2 and SWH4.

 

GT1 - The only gypsy and traveller site pinpointed for real consideration is in the Parish of Rawreth , alongside the very busy A1245 dual carriageway.  Essex Highways have already objected to this site on the grounds of safe access.  It is within 100metres of traffic lights at the junction with Rawreth Lane, with traffic accelerating at this point.  To allow access at this point is extremely dangerous.

 

GT2 - Is even more dangerous as, to double the size of this site to accommodate ALL the pitch requirements for the whole district, would result in even more traffic accessing the site within the area of this busy junction.

 

GT3, 4 & 5 - could all accommodate some of the pitches and, all have good access to surrounding roads.

 

GT6 - would have good access and would be able to accommodate all pitches required.

 

GT7 – Has very restricted access, is an unmade road/track with no mains services. Use of this site would lead to increase in traffic in Rawreth Lane.

 

In addition to the ADPD gypsy and traveller proposals Rawreth Parish Council put forward a proposal within the “Call for Site” document that land to the North of the A127 and East of the A1245 directly opposite GT6 in a Easterly direction would be very suitable as a Gypsy and Traveller site, this proposal in the opinion of the Council should be reconsidered, the site has the capacity to support the full allocation of required pitches  has access to all routes and allows the Traveller community to remain in one area continuing their own community cohesion.

 

E13, E14, E15 & E16  would all be able to accommodate the relocation of Rawreth Industrial Estate and could fit in fairly well with the already established businesses, Wheatleys Garden Centre, Swallows Fish Centre and the Cafe.  They would all provide good access to A1245, A129 and A127, but would initially increase the traffic on the immediate A129 area.

 

E17 Is most strongly objected to.  This is the "green buffer", the land that Rochford District Council have indicated in all the Land to the North of London Road Proposals  would be put to green "park" use to establish a barrier to stop houses etc., being built right up to the A1245.

 

In additional ADPD Industrial Site proposals the Parish Council put forward a proposal within the “Call for Site” document that land to the North of the A127 and West of the A1245 shown in the ADPD document as GT6 would be very suitable as an industrial site  if properly designed with security, the site would also adjoin proposed industrial sites within the Basildon District.  The site provides excellent road and transport links with its close proximity to all the major  routes, the A127, A130 and A13 and adjoining the main Southend to London Liverpool Street railway line.  The site is currently under enforcement action for inappropriate use therefore to develop this further as an industrial site would  ensure the correct use of what is already semi industrial land thus ensuring the environmental improvement of the site as a whole.  This proposal in the opinion of the Council should be reconsidered,

Community Facilities - Education:

Rawreth Parish Council do not agree with allocating land on North of London Road for a new Primary School.  This would have a very serious detrimental effect on St Nicholas Primary School, located within less than a mile of this proposal EDU11.  St Nicholas has capacity and planning to double the size of the present school but is unable to do this, as all other local Primary Schools have spare capacity and a new school with its enormous incumbent costs is, therefore, not necessary in this location.  Education predictions have indicated that there will be spare capacity within the area in the next few years which could result in one of the local schools having to close.

 

In addition to the ADPD the Council have considered the Development Management DPD  Regulations document  and comment as follows.

 

The National Policy on Green Belt PPG2 states "The most important aspect of the Green Belt is its openness".  PPG2 states that the purpose of including land with the GB are as follows:

 

To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas.

To prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another.

To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.

To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns.

To assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.

 

The Land North of London Road in its current use complies with all of these points and MUST therefore be retained and preserved as it stands.

 

The Parish Council looks forward to receiving your acknowledgement of this submission by return.

 

Yours faithfully

Mrs Hayley Bloomfield

Clerk to Rawreth Parish Council

 

2 Attachments being the traffic surveys referred to herein.

Rawreth Parish Council,  Core Strategy - Traffic Survey  25th March 2010.

 

Location Beeches Road, held between the hours of 7am and 7pm.

 

 

                           WESTBOUND                                                           EASTBOUND

 

7-9 AM                  732                                                                             333

 

9-11 AM                250                                                                             322

 

11-12 PM              130                                                                             147

 

12- 1 PM                131                                                                            140

 

1-2   PM                 128                                                                            150

 

2-3   PM                 118                                                                            195

 

3-4   PM                 120                                                                             247

 

4-5   PM                 131                                                                             384

 

5-6  PM                 171                                                                              595

 

6-7  PM                 111                                                                              335

 

                            2022                                                                       2848                              

 

The odd statistic from the figures show eastbound traffic is running at about 220 vehicles per hour whilst westbound is averaging at only about 170 vehicles per hour . This may be because of the congestion on Rawreth lane encourages more cars going east .

There were considerable numbers of overweight vehicles mainly large transit type with double wheels or long wheelbase.

  

Rawreth Parish Council,  Core Strategy - Traffic Survey  25th March 2010.

 

Location Rawreth Lane, Recreation car park, held between the hours of 7am and 7pm.

 

Easterly                                                                                    Westerly

 

7 - 8am     -   460                                                          7 - 8 am    -  800

 

8 - 9          -   565                                                        8 - 9           -  910

 

9 - 10        -   515                                                       9 - 10         -  605

 

10 - 11      -   457                                                      10 - 11       -  496

 

11 - 12      -   518                                                       11 - 12       -  520

 

12 - 1        -   460                                                       12 - 1          -  515

 

1 - 2          -   550                                                       1 - 2          -  495

 

2 - 3          -   607                                                        2 - 3         -  526 

3-4                740                                                       3 - 4         -  555

 4 - 5          -   821                                                     4 - 5         -  594

 5 - 6          -   801                                                   5 - 6         -  665

 6 - 7pm     -  685                                                     6 - 7pm   -  536

 Total            7179                                                                                              7217    

 

 -------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

Rochford District Council

Planning Services & Transportation Services

Council Offices

South Street

Rochford

Essex

SS4 1BW                              

 

Public Consultation - Planning Inspectorate                     25th October 2009

 

Dear Sirs,

 

LDF - Preferred Options - Rayleigh conurbation.

On behalf of Rawreth Parish Council I confirm that this letter is a formal response of objection to the final draft of Rochford District Councils Core Strategy Preferred Options document.

Firstly, at no time has the Parish of Rawreth been included or mentioned in any “Tier” on page 33 of the document, the criteria for allocation of houses - within the Core Strategy.  If it had been included it should have been in Tier 4 and this is, therefore, UNSOUND.

The Parish Council believes that to develop  550 houses in one place within  area no: 144, land to the north of London Road and then to add a further 220 to the Rawreth Industrial Estate area  will totally destroy the character and  rural outlook of Rawreth and surrounding areas. It will destroy the residents’ “strong sense of identity within their own settlement” and is, therefore, UNSOUND.

The huge development of 550 houses is totally unacceptable.   The land north of London Road is good quality agricultural land which is protected by the Green Belt –GB1 - fulfils all purposes under PPG2 and should be retained as such. Once used for development this land can never be returned to agricultural use, and if you continue to erode into our Green Belt and farmland it will be lost forever.

 

The Parish Council believe a proportion of the houses required to be built in our area should compliment and enhance Rawreth, cause as little extra congestion to our already heavily overcrowded roads as possible and provide a pleasant environment for those people wishing to move to the area. This particular area is part of the “Gateway to Rochford” and is the “strategic buffer” between Rayleigh and Wickford.   Reference is made in the Core Strategy document to “avoiding coalescence” of villages/towns, however a development of this size immediately erodes the buffer between Rayleigh, Rawreth and Wickford, starts coalescence, destroys the rural character of Rawreth and, therefore, is UNSOUND.

 

The Core Strategy Document details Rochford District Councils priorities and objectives and details how the role of the Core Strategy features in achieving these.  In support of the Parish Councils observations and alternative proposals they comment as follows.

Page 5 “Fostering greater community cohesion”

 Development of land between Rawreth Lane and north of London Road will not give any community cohesion at all, it will simply be an extension to the west of Rayleigh giving residents no real sense of belonging, they will live within the Parish of Rawreth, yet they will be considered as living in Rayleigh as has been proved with other developments along Rawreth Lane such as Laburnum Way.

Page 12 “Priority 5 Essex roads are safer less congested and everyone has access to essential services”

 

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

 

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

 

Beeches Road/Watery Lane is also shown in the document as a new cyclist route. Surely this is a conflict of interest, a road widening/straightening proposal coupled with a cycle route.

Page 33 “Tier Settlements”

 Nowhere in the Core Strategy Document is Rawreth Parish actually mentioned, it features in the “all other settlements tier 4” and is referred to as “land north of London Road Rayleigh” or “West Rayleigh” yet, the housing allocation of 550 dwellings between 2015 and 2021 and the 220 planned for the Rawreth Industrial Estate is the largest that any area is taking. Rawreth Parish currently has 380 dwellings and an electorate of 812, yet the proposed housing figures are set to increase the overall number of dwellings in the Parish by 203%.

Pages 34 to 36 “The efficient use of land for housing” and “Extensions to residential envelopes and phasing”

The Core Strategy Document states that “the Council recognises the importance of making best use of brownfield land” and “whilst the Council acknowledge that the housing requirement stipulated in the East of England Plan is a minimum, it must also be mindful of the need to maintain Green Belt as far as possible” yet the proposed 550 houses on the land north of London Road will all be built on Green Belt land of high agricultural value.  The document states that “the Council will direct development to the most sustainable locations on the edge of settlements having regard to:”

“The potential to avoid areas of constraint (such as areas at risk of flooding, sites of ecological importance”

“The historical, agricultural and ecological value of land”

“The potential to create a defensible Green Belt Boundary and

“The avoidance of coalescence with neighbouring settlements”

Yet these key factors all seem to have been ignored when choosing the site to the north of London Road and, therefore, the proposal is UNSOUND. The Parish of Rawreth has a history of flooding, the land in Rawreth Lane will drain into the already overloaded brook system and the Services in the area would be unable to cope with this increase in housing – drains and sewers are already working to capacity.  Heavy rain earlier in the year resulted in flooding in Watery Lane and the Rawreth Brook system has been very close to flooding twice already this year. During a meeting between the Parish Council and the Environment Agency  we were advised that this situation will worsen with increased housing.

 

Page 42 “Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation”

This section details the need for an allocation of 15 pitches by 2011, it also states that they “will examine the potential of current unauthorised sites to meet this need” and that “sites will be allocated in the west of the District” The west of the District is in fact Rawreth, but yet again the Parish name has not been detailed. The Parish already has an unauthorised site which is the subject of an enforcement case and although well kept is on the brow of a hill on a main highway with restricted access which Essex County Council have already raised concerns about, this is not a site that should be considered as part of the requirement due to its location, but also, why is the allocation of all 15 pitches being detailed to one area?

 

Page 43 to 44 “Appendix 1”

 

 Details of all the infrastructure to accompany residential development is listed, yet there are no detailed costs, have these been done?  And are these achievable?  Large numbers of housing in one area, as stated in the infrastructure requirements, will necessitate a new primary school. County figures suggest that there will be surplus places in Rayleigh schools even with new housing. Obviously these will be in the wrong parts of the town so increasing the risk that an existing school could close .It makes sense to spread the development in smaller sites around the town, avoiding closure and preventing unnecessary provision of a new school.

 

Page 57 “Strategies, Activities and Actions – The Green Belt”

The document states that “The Council will continue to support the principals of restricting development in the Green Belt, as set out in PPG2 and will preserve the character and openness of the Green Belt” it further states that “a small proportion of the District’s Green Belt will have to have its designation reviewed to allow development”  The entire development of 550 houses planned for land north of London Road is all on Green Belt land as is the land at Hullbridge, how does this  equate to a “small proportion”?

The Councils own Policy GB1- Green Belt Protection states “The Council will allocate the minimum amount of Green Belt land necessary to meet the District’s housing and employment needs” and that they will “direct development away from the Green Belt as far as is practicable and will prioritise the protection of the Green Belt land based on how well the land helps achieve the purposes of the Green Belt”. 

 This area of land confirms all 5 purposes of the national PPG2 – Green Belt:-

            It prevents the unrestricted sprawl of western Rayleigh

            It provides a barrier to prevent the ultimate merging of Rayleigh, Rawreth and       Wickford

            It assists in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment

            It preserves the setting and special character of historic towns

Assists in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land

Rawreth Parish Council have observed that there are a number of sites that were put forward in the “Call for Sites” that are pre-used brownfield land in the Green Belt land,  and as such  would prove beneficial and in their opinion should have been considered for development.  Their non-inclusion as “brownfield” sites makes the current proposals UNSOUND:

Site No; 73 Hambro Nursery a site of approximately 3.93 hectares, coupled with the adjacent site Clovelly, would provide between 200 and 250 houses in an area of approximately 4.85 hectares this area would have good access directly from the A1245 and if expanded north westward to include land up to and around the Village Hall, approximately another 2.08 hectares could produce between 50 and 80 further houses. This area could be accessed either from the slip road (Chelmsford Road) to the south of the Nevendon Garage or from Church Road.

Both of these sites would remove the need for extra traffic along the A129 and Rawreth Lane which are both already operating well over maximum capacity. This development would require a footbridge for pedestrians, cyclists and horses over the A1245.

Rawreth Parish Council believe these proposals would be sensible infill of these areas and would be on “Brownfield” sites where current businesses are not particularly progressive and would not result in the loss of many jobs.  Our figures are quite conservative and we believe that if these sites were chosen a much reduced number of houses would need to be built “North of London Road” on Green Belt land.

Phase 2 – With regard to the houses that are proposed for the Northeast corner of Rawreth/Hullbridge, the Parish Council are concerned that any development would cause  considerable extra congestion to the immediate roads.  We understand that the thoughts are to “straighten” and improve parts of Watery Lane and Beeches Road to provide access to and through Battlesbridge - a conservation area.  Recent experience of deep flooding in Watery Lane with the road closed for several days on 3 occasions in the early part of 2009 proves that this proposal is completely unsustainable.  The local drainage systems simply cannot take the amount of run-off experienced now and with further development this would increase the problem.

If this development is to go ahead, the Parish Council believe that a relief road should be built, from the end of Watery Lane, skirting to the west of the Rayleigh Park Estate, crossing Rawreth Lane at a mini-roundabout and entering a vastly improved A129 at approximately Lower Barn Farm.  This would take any necessary traffic in and out of the area efficiently.

The Parish Council further believe that the Michelins Farm site No: 49 would be an ideal site for the Rawreth Industrial Estate.  This would adjoin proposed industrial sites within the Basildon District and would provide excellent road and transport links.  Rawreth Parish Council also proposed that the land opposite Michelins Farm could be used to re-site the illegal Gypsy/Traveller site that is currently situated on the busy A1245. The land opposite Michelins Farm would not only be a much safer site for  Gypsy/Traveller pitches, but the correct use of the land  would also ensure the environmental improvement of the site as a whole.  

All of the above proposals were submitted to Rochford District Council, but they were not taken into consideration in the final draft resulting in the predominant use of Green Belt land for development, bounded by already congested roads and, therefore, the proposals are UNSOUND.

Yours faithfully

Mrs Hayley Bloomfield

Clerk to Rawreth Parish Council

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rochford District Council

Council Offices

South Street

Rochford

Essex                                                                                 16th December 2008

 

 

Dear Sirs,

 

LDF – Core Strategy – Preferred Options.

 

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

 

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

 

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

character of Rawreth.

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

a very dangerous junction.

 

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

 

7.         We believe that the appropriate amount of additional housing should be built on smaller existing sites thus enhancing the lives and environment of existing residents.

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Yours faithfully

 

 

Mrs Hayley Bloomfield

Clerk to Rawreth Parish Council

 

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Local Development Framework Sub Committee

Councillors’

K H Hudson

C I Black

T E Goodwin

K J Gordon

J M Pullen

Mrs C A Weston                                                                            10th October 2008

 

 

Dear Committee Members

 

Re: Rochford Core Strategy

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

  

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

Mrs Hayley Bloomfield

Clerk to Rawreth Parish Council

 

 

 

 

Information, copies of letters from Rochford District Council,  responses to Rochford District Council, news and updates regarding the Core Strategy and LDF

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Hello all,
 
As you all know under the Rochford Core Strategy, and recently issued Allocations Document  Rawreth stands to get the real the lions share of everything,  housing, travellers, industrial, basically everything everyone else doesn't want.
 
Under the Allocations DPD Rochford DC are proposing to legalise the present traveller site in our village on the A1245 as shown as  GT1 in the document  and are looking to possibly double it under the  GT2 plan in the document,  this will mean that Rawreth will be taking all the necessary allocation of required pitches for the District, that's 15 more than we already have which equals another  30  caravans in total plus everything else that comes with it, cars, lorries, horses, etc,
 
Yesterday evening the Parish Council found out that  almost ALL the replies received by RDC so far agree with  the whole allocation for travellers coming to Rawreth, nobody else wants the allocations, so of course everyone is agreeing with the proposal.  -
 
SO NOW IT IS UP TO YOU,  YOUR FAMIILY AND YOUR  NEIGHBOURS, to send in your objections or we as a Parish will have to put up with the consequences.   This goes for all the other proposals as well,  the the 550 Houses in Rawreth Lane shown as NLR1 - 5 in the Allocations Document  and the resiting of the Industrial Site, possibly on the land also North of London Road, immediately at the roundabout at Carpenters Arms.
 
 
YOU ONLY  HAVE TWO DAYS LEFT TO REPLY, SO MAKE THAT TWO DAYS COUNT, AFTER THAT IT WILL BE TOO LATE, REPLY NOW OTHERWISE YOU MAY BE LEFT WISHING YOU HAD.
 
 

And you can send your comments and objections to the district council website at http://rochford.jdi-consult.net/ldf/
or email the council at planning.policy@rochford.gov.uk (include your name and address) or by post to Rochford District Council, Council Offices, South Street, Rochford, Essex SS4 1BW,  better still don't send your reply fax it to 01702 545737

 

 

 

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

September 2009 Please find below a copy of the latest letter sent by Rochford District Council regarding the Core Strategy.  This is the last chance to have your say, so make your views known by following the steps detailed.

 

 

Date: 21st September 2009

Dear Sir/Madam,

Core Strategy Pre-Submission Consultation – Regulation 27 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2008

As someone who has previously submitted comments on the future development of the District, or has asked to be kept up-to-date with opportunities to have a say on future planning policies, I am writing to advise you that we are now seeking your views on the submission version of Rochford District Council’s Core Strategy.

The Core Strategy is the main, overarching document of the Rochford District Local Development Framework – a collection of documents that will determine how the District develops in the future. It will set out the overall strategy for the District until 2021 and, where appropriate, beyond.

This version of the Core Strategy has been developed through a number of key stages, each of which has been subject to public consultation and community participation.  The last round of consultation was in late 2008 on the Core Strategy Preferred Options from which the submission version has been developed. Previous versions of the Core Strategy can be viewed online at http://www.rochford.gov.uk/.

The Core Strategy Submission document sets out our strategic approach for tackling the challenges the District faces and for realising the District’s opportunities. We now invite you to comment on these. The formal pre-submission consultation period will run from 21 September until 5pm on 2 November 2009.

The results of the public consultation will be considered by the Planning Inspectorate to aid them in determining whether or not the document is sound and legally compliant.  As such, the Council advise that those that wish to comment during this consultation period focus their response on the issues of soundness and legal compliance.

Representations that are submitted to the Council that do not relate to soundness or legal compliance will still be passed on to the Planning Inspectorate but they are unlikely to be as effective. 

Respondents will have the opportunity to explain in detail why they think this is the case and what changes they think should be made to make the document sound / legally compliant.

The quickest and easiest way to submit comments on the soundness and legal compliance of the submission version of the Core Strategy is via our online system at this link:

http://rochford.jdi-consult.net/ldf/.

Comments may be submitted by clicking on the pen symbol next to the subject heading or policy on which you wish to comment. Before you submit comments for the first time you will need to register on the system. This is a simple process requiring a valid email address.  If you are already registered on Rochford District’s Council’s online consultation system you can use the same login and do not need to re-register.

We recommend that you also visit http://www.rochford.gov.uk/ to view the document, access background information and, if required, obtain help on using the online consultation system.

We recognise that not everyone has access to the Internet and that it is important that no one is excluded from participating. If you wish to submit your views but are unable to do so online, please contact the Planning Policy team on 01702 318191.

Paper copies of the document can be viewed at the following locations:

·         Rochford Council Offices, South Street, Rochford, SS4 1BW

·         Rayleigh Civic Suite, 2 Hockley Road, Rayleigh, SS6 8EB

·         Great Wakering Library, 16 High Street, Great Wakering, SS3 0EQ

·         Hockley Library, Southend Road, Hockley, SS5 4PZ

·         Hullbridge Library, Ferry Road, Hullbridge, SS5 6ET

·         Rayleigh Library, 132/134 High Street, Rayleigh, SS6 7BX

·         Rochford Library, Roche Close, Rochford SS4 1PS

We are not sending out multiple full paper copies of the consultation due to environmental considerations, the unnecessary paper production, the costs involved and Government encouragement to use electronic communications where possible.

Comments will be available to view on the online system as they are submitted, although please note that there may be a time delay between submission and appearance online. Final results of the consultation will be available to view on our website at http://www.rochford.gov.uk/ and in paper format on request.

Following the end of the consultation period the Council intends to submit the Core Strategy, all supporting documents and any representations received to the Secretary of State. The consultation period will last until 5pm on 2 November 2009. Please ensure any comments that you have on the document are received before this time.

If you have any questions on any of the above please contact the Planning Policy team on 01702 318191.

Yours sincerely,

Shaun Scrutton

Head of Planning and Transportation

 

 

 The Local Development Framework and the proposals for new houses in the Parish

 

The Local Development Framework Sub Committee met on the 1st of July to discuss the final draft of the Core Strategy, the meeting took place on the same evening as the Parish Council’s monthly meeting, however Cllr Lyn Hopkins went along as our representative and listened to all that was said. In short the final draft was agreed by the Sub Committee and will now go to a full Council of RDC on the 9th of September 2009. The final draft shows that across the District Rawreth still has the highest number of proposed dwellings, and although the proposed number for the land north of London Road has been reduced by 100, the total number planned still stands at 550. In addition 220 are still planned for the area which is currently the Rawreth Industrial Estate, this figure having risen by 20 since the last draft document.

 

Rawreth Parish Council still stands by the original representations it made, these include,

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

character of Rawreth.

 

2.    The huge development of 650 houses “North of London Road” Rawreth is

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

 

3.   This particular area is part of the “Gateway to Rochford ” and is the

“strategic buffer” between Rayleigh and Wickford. Reference is made in the document   to    “avoiding coalescence” of villages/towns - a development of this size immediately erodes this buffer, starts coalescence and destroys the rural character of Rawreth.

 

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

 

5.                  The roads and infrastructure in the Rawreth area are completely full to capacity.  The A127, A1245, A129 London Road, Rawreth Lane and Watery Lane just cannot take any more traffic and this proposed development will increase traffic to a completely unsustainable level. On three occasions in the last month alone, incidents within and on the outskirts of this area have brought traffic to a standstill for hours along London Road, Rawreth Lane, Watery Lane/Beeches Road and the Hullbridge Road.  It took some residents 1 ¼ hours to proceed along Rawreth Lane and into Hullbridge – a distance of 1 ½ miles. The proposed development at the western edge of Hullbridge, which is, in fact, largely in Rawreth would also greatly increase the traffic problems in the area.  We understand there would be a proposal to “widen/straighten” Watery Lane/Beeches Road, with a roundabout at the junction with the Hullbridge Road.  This is an extremely dangerous junction even at the present time and would become increasingly so.  There is also the question of where the traffic would go when it reaches Battlesbridge at the Western end, it cannot possibly cross the Bridge as this is “restricted” and in a Conservation Area, therefore, it would have to turn left and proceed to the A1245 – a very dangerous junction.

 

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

 

 

7.      We believe that the appropriate amount of additional housing should be built on smaller existing sites thus enhancing the lives and environment of existing residents. We believe RDC should consider the use of smaller sites that have been put forward, particularly in the Rawreth area and that the large development proposed “North of London Road” should be refused. We are at present in the process of developing our Community Garden in the centre of Rawreth Village with the help of a Community Initiatives Fund and believe that a reasonably sized development of houses in that area could be of benefit to our village.  It may be that any development of this nature could include a village shop which would be of enormous value to local residents. Large numbers of housing in one area, as stated in the infrastructure requirements, will necessitate a new primary school. County figures suggest that there will be surplus places in Rayleigh schools even with new housing. Obviously these will be in the wrong parts of the town so increasing the risk that an existing school could close .It makes sense to spread the development in smaller sites around the town, avoiding closure and preventing unnecessary provision of a new school.

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

 

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

At the meeting of Rochford District Council on the 9th of September members will vote on whether or not to accept the document as it stands, if this is the case, and it is very likely it will be,  the draft document will then be open to public consultation, the difference with the consultation this time is that the responses and representations made from the public go directly to a planning inspectorate.

Ordinarily Rawreth Parish Council does not meet during the month of August, this being the summer recess, however given the contents of the draft Core Strategy and given the major effect this will have on the Parish it has been decided to call an extra meeting of the Parish Council on Wednesday the 5th of August 2009. The meeting will take place at 7.30pm in the Village Hall, Church Road Rawreth. The purpose of the meeting will be to discuss the housing proposals made by Rochford District Council, and discuss how you the residents can still have your say, and how you go about making a personal representation.

Please try your hardest to come along to the meeting, and please spread the word, the impact of the proposed housing will affect a wider area, not just Rawreth and we therefore welcome anyone from outside the Parish to the meeting.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  

Please see below a copy of the consultation response sent by Rawreth Parish Council.

(this is also shown at the top of the page in date order)

 

 

 

Rochford District Council

Council Offices

South Street

Rochford

Essex                                                                                             16th December 2008

 

 

Dear Sirs,

 

LDF – Core Strategy – Preferred Options.

 

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

 

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

 

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

character of Rawreth.

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

a very dangerous junction.

 

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

 

7.         We believe that the appropriate amount of additional housing should be built on smaller existing sites thus enhancing the lives and environment of existing residents.

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Yours faithfully

 

 

Mrs Hayley Bloomfield

Clerk to Rawreth Parish Council

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 HAVE YOUR SAY 

 

 Where Do Landowners And Developers Want To Build?


In Jan 2007, Rochford District Council put out a 'call for sites' to get info from landowners and developers about land that might be used for development. None of these sites are approved, but to find out more information click on 

http://www.rochford.gov.uk/PDF/planning_sites_west_district.pdf

what you will see is a map of all the

proposed sites in the District, pay attention to the sites proposed within the Parish and in particular the area numbered 144, this is the area of land referred to in the letter below, and is the area of land to the South of Rawreth Lane, and the North of London Road where an allocation of 650 houses has been put forward. 

 

 

As residents of Rawreth, Rayleigh and the Rochford District you will have a chance to have your say when the Core Strategy comes out to the public for consultation in November  for dates and venues please keep watching this website.  

 

 

 Below is a copy of the letter sent by Rawreth Parish Council to every member of the Local Development Framework  Sub Committee. 

 

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

  

Local Development Framework Sub Committee

Councillors’

K H Hudson

C I Black

T E Goodwin

K J Gordon

J M Pullen

Mrs C A Weston                                                                                  10th October 2008

 

 

Dear Committee Members

 

Re: Rochford Core Strategy

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

  

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

Mrs Hayley Bloomfield

Clerk to Rawreth Parish Council