Support Our Objection on the New Local Plan Issues & Options







This is a response to the expensively produced document of approximately 800 pages which outlines proposals for the development of Rochford District post 2025.

I wish to state that I consider the prospect of building a possible unconstrained additional 7500 dwellings is UNSUSTAINABLE in every way imaginable. My reasons are summarised briefly below.
There will be an expansion on these issues further in this document.


Traffic / Roads / public transport trains & bus capacity


Health provision / hospitals / doctors / care provision

Schools / Education


Air Quality

Greenbelt protection

Housing demand
There is a need for housing to meet the natural growth in our district. The percentages of house building requirements do not match the current objective need. The actual objective is to provide for London overspill because of the mass influx of people that have arrived in our capital city in the past ten years. To suggest otherwise is to be disingenuous.

The natural growth of the district can be met by RDC actively seeking out brownfield sites for development, small infill developments, use of degraded greenfield, the return of the use of flats over shops, in order to keep our towns and villages alive and active, and finally the conversion of properties into larger units. All these measures will prevent the proposed maximum attack on our greenbelt and valuable farmland.

I will cite the following examples of fairly recent developments:-

Gunn Close London Road (One bungalow morphed into 14 four bed houses)
Eon site London Road (one industrial site became 101 homes)
London Road / Station Approach (small scrubland site developed into numerous apartments). Lakeside Downhall Road (back land development of multiple apartments).

I could continue to discuss developments throughout this particular small part of Rayleigh that are NOT included in the figures, to meet some central Government target, that should serve to meet the generic need for the area without mass building projects. Add to this the regular conversion of bungalows into 4/5 bed houses and the proposals to create cul-de-sacs from single dwelling plots, the capacity to house our increasing population could be met. The figures for generic growth in our district do not support by the kind of mass development envisaged.

It is claimed that developers, having secured planning permission, have been using a loop hole in the ‘affordable housing’ requirement by subsequently claiming the projects don’t might the 20% profit threshold required. Thus very few houses are being build that are affordable for local people.

The maps of the areas to be suggested for development show a huge number to be built in the town of Rayleigh. It identifies enough land to build a minimum of 6000 suggested for Downhall and Rawreth Ward in the west of the district. This is in addition to the 700 not yet built as a result of the 2010 Local Plan (SER1) in the same location.

Traffic and Road network
This western part of the district is unfortunate to suffer an almost daily gridlock on our roads.
London Road, Rawreth Lane and Watery Lane are the arteries that feed most of the villages and small towns to the east. They are all regularly at a standstill. 7500 extra dwellings will result in at least 15,000 more vehicles.

The increase in traffic on our roads will be UNSUSTAINABLE if this plan is implemented.

Promises of the ‘jam tomorrow’ of roundabouts and traffic improvements have no prospect of delivery due to the piecemeal nature of the developments already approved.

There have been suggestions from other objectors that a substantial upgraded road be developed towards the east of the district. Taking a route whereby Watery Lane / Lower Road are fed by vehicles, directly via the A130, bypassing Rayleigh. We cannot support this idea because it will serve to open up much of our remaining greenbelt to further development to the detriment of the villages further east in our district. We cannot agree to make the situation worse for our neighbouring villages.

70,000 vehicles pass through the A127 Fairglen Interchange daily, serving Rochford, Southend, South Benfleet and beyond, making it the busiest junction in South East Essex. To increase the volume of vehicles by 15,000, in this area alone, is not sustainable.

Essex County Council have a serious shortfall in funding. It will result in no major improvements in the road network for the foreseeable future in this district. Refer to addendum 1 showing ECC Summary of infrastructure project costs and funding gaps.(2016-2036)

Public Transport
There is limited opportunity to increase the train capacity on the Greater Anglia line at peak times because of the terminus at Liverpool Street is currently at its’ peak capacity. Trains are overcrowded now so how can they accommodate more passengers.

Bus transport is somewhat irregular and completely unavailable in many parts of the district.

Cycle. The distances and the terrain preclude the use of cycles except for those who are super fit.

Due to the distances covered it is impractical to expect residents to walk or most of their daily requirements. For instance, the elderly and families will not be able to walk from Hullbridge to Rayleigh and carry necessary groceries, a distance of 3 miles plus. It is simply not practical and to suggest otherwise is a ridiculous fantasy.

Families use cars. That is a fact of life for almost every activity i.e. shopping, travel to work/school (many youngsters have to be ferried to and from school due to the distances involved) and for the opportunity to even use the somewhat remote leisure facilities.

Where are the measures to tackle the flood risk to many of our riverside communities? Extreme weather is becoming a norm and the building of huge estates with piecemeal flood alleviation measures is unsustainable. Evidence is readily available to the RDC that clearly identifies pinch points in the flood defences of this area.

Air Quality
Rayleigh town centre, as acknowledged in the report, has a dismal record on AIR POLLUTION. Being at consistently illegal levels of nitrogen dioxide. This is damaging our children’s health and well being and with a possible link to dementia. Increasing the traffic will exacerbate this problem.

Health Provision
Residents have difficulties accessing their doctors in a timely manner. It is routine at the moment for the local surgeries to offer appointments three weeks after they are requested.

Our three hospital Southend , Basildon, and Broomfield have all issued notices that they are on ‘black alert’ over the past year. Indicating they have NO BEDS available. There is no provision made in the proposals to increasing the capacity in our health service to meet the increased demand.

The gap in funding for adult social care is not addressed in this proposed plan.

Refer ECC Summary of Infrastructure project costs and funding gaps (2016-2036).

Evidence is available that Rayleigh Primary Schools are over-subscribed. Rayleigh Primary and Glebe School state they have no capacity at present. Some parents are face with travelling across the district to different schools to educate their children.
As discussed in a Guardian newspaper article developers have managed to wriggle out of providing a planned schools, after securing their planning permission, by persuading authorities that the development would be made ‘unviable’.

I cite the situation on the Hall Road Development where a school was promised and now is not to be provided. Also the planning for the site North of London Road was recently given the go ahead by the District Councillors and the school was left as a ‘pending’ provision with no firm promise of it being built. The education of our children should not be left to a chance that a developer MIGHT provide the facilities.

Refer ECC Summary of Infrastructure project costs and funding gaps (2016-2036).

There is no possibility of delivering the number of dwellings proposed without the destruction of vast swathes of our remaining greenbelt which is against the policies contained in the National Planning Policy Framework. NPPF. Our Prime Minister and Minister for Housing has stated repeatedly ‘there should be no building on greenbelt until every other opportunity has been explored’.

To Summarise.

Due to the evident unsustainable nature of the present Issues and Options document I would make a request to consider the following :-

I propose a compete rethink of the document and would ask the Members of Rochford District Council and Members of Parliament representing constituencies in South East Essex namely:-

Mark Francois MP

Rebecca Harris MP

Sir David Amess MP

Stephen Metcalfe MP

John Barron MP

James Dudderidge MP

To call for a scheme to build a new Garden City on the Dengie Peninsular with a road and rail bridge over the River Crouch linking Southend to the north of the county. Links could be provided to provide further development in future. This would help to preserve the semi-rural nature of South East Essex and prevent the total URBANISATION of our part of Essex. They could call on the new proposed Infrastructure Policy, announced recently by the the Government, to help fund the roads and bridge.

Members of Parliament representing constituencies along the Cambridge to Oxford corridor and those serving Kent constituencies have secured such funding for Garden Cities with all the necessary infrastructure, roads, hospital, schools etc. This is in order to protect their residents. I call on all our local Members of Parliament to step up and try to protect our people in the same manner. A copy of this objection will be distributed to the Parliamentary members named for their attention.


Linda Kendall

IMPORTANT INFORMATION – Please provide your house number or house name when completing the form

Issues & Options

This petition is now closed.

End date: Mar 07, 2018

Signatures collected: 946

946 signatures


  1. Sue Culling says:

    Totally agree with all Linda Kendall’s comments above.

  2. Helen says:

    I was flooded in 2013. It’s been an enormous fight to get different agencies to clean out storm drains/ culverts from bushes and trees which could potentially block the waters flowing through. Also it’s been a joke about what type of grill to install….my faith in sanctuary housing and council doing what they can to prevent it happening again has deteriorated…. I pay my council tax for what..???

  3. Andrew Terry says:

    We need a proper road structure to take this amount of houses in the Rawreth lane area.We know that is not going to happen, Wattery lane needs to be used as a large bypass road to dirvert the traffic away from already busy Rawreth lane. Will the developers pay for this, DONT THINK SO.

  4. Josie & Ken ambrose says:

    What happens about the brook at the back of us and access will be passing through our road by the look of it.

  5. Anthony Rowe says:

    Absolutely ridiculous to even consider adding more chaos to an already over populated town

  6. Donna Thresher says:

    To continue to build in this manner is detrimental to health and this is seen in the news as the main carrots may incur congestion charges. By building on green belt and reducing the valuable trees means the air quality will. Only get worse. There are other ways to deal with the housing crisis although in fairness most people in the UK don’t actually believe that the govt is combating it by building massive developments such as the local plan currently has.

  7. Gordon Toal says:

    There is absolutely a need to build houses but as the Government plan for housing advises councils to identify brownfield sites first and foremost, this is what Rochford District Council should be doing throughout the borough but it is imperative that proper infrastructure is planned and implemented before any build goes ahead

  8. Derek jones says:

    We are full up

  9. jackson says:

    Totally agree with the contents of this petition

  10. Georgina Foley says:

    The infrastructure in and around Rayleigh would not be able to cope with further housing and the obvious increase in vehicles. The government seem hell bent on closing GP and walk in surgeries and other vital services. Enough is enough!

  11. Peter Haworth says:

    Enough is Enough our roads are choked and gridlocked.We cannot allow more houses to be built in Rayleigh.
    Our schools,surgeries and dentists cannot cope now with the population in Rayleigh to allow more dwellings to be built is madness

  12. Beth Milton says:

    Rayleigh is full with an already failing infrastructure that cannot cope with the daily demands it incurs! We already have levels of air pollution that far exceed EU safety laws and the obscene risk of floods increases every year as our green areas disappear. You cannot build any more houses in this area. Surly with what areas that you have been given permission for and with what’s been built in the recent years you have abused Rayleigh enough!

    Leave Rayleigh alone!!

  13. Anthony Handfield says:

    Traffic congestion around the town centre doesn’t get a mention but should because there are frequently queues on Crown Hill, High Road to and from the Weir amongst others. When the transport assessment was carried out for West Rayleigh site recently it stopped short of Crown Hill and the High Street and despite my detailed objection, didn’t even feature in the report to committee! Everyone who lives here will know that building more houses in Rayleigh will only result in more traffic in the town centre so why wasn’t it evaluated? You guess. I think we all have.
    Also, the town centre car parks are frequently full nowadays so the traders aren’t going to be happy if there’s not additional parking (and hence additional traffic in the town centre)
    Traffic and transport does not get the detailed examination it should. A fact which infuriates me.
    Additional housing will mean even more pressure on doctors and local hospitals and we all know how stressed they are already.

  14. Peter Billings says:

    The roads cannot cope at the moment, these houses will destroy Rayleigh, we have no local police force, not enough schools and pollution is already too high

  15. D Green says:

    Agree totally with this petition. Spend some money on Infrastructure before even thinking of adding more more houses. Houses have at least two cars and many up to four. Multiply that by the number of houses proposed it results in at least 12,000 cars added to the roads which are already jam packed with cars.

  16. Sarah Withington says:

    Rayleigh is full, . Schools oversubscribed, GP’s overstretched, roads are unable to cope with the amount of traffic unless you want to travel in the middle of the night. Air pollution levels exceed safety levels which put the population at risk and even more demand on our NHS services. Permission has already been given for a substantial amount of houses so why do we need even more. It’s time to leave Rayleigh alone.

  17. Colin says:

    We went to a meeting a couple of weeks ago in Rayleigh on this subject , the guy was convinced that all the occupants in these houses would travel to the station by bus so won’t affect traffic levels, the proposed Fairglen ‘improvements’ are a joke , whoever came up with that plan should be put in a room with a colouring book and crayons and told to try again. Oh , and one of the guys from Rockford planning dept who attended lives in Hackney! You couldn’t make it up

  18. David & Lynn Fairbank says:

    Rayleigh is already at its maximum capacity, we simply do not have the infrastructure for any further development. I have been a resident of Rayleigh for 36 years and have contemplated moving away because I am so fed up with queuing up in traffic to get in and out. Don’t start me on the pollution this traffic causes.

  19. robbie says:

    you only need to look at traffic to see Rayleigh is already over loaded

  20. Dawn Willis says:

    The future loss of our greenbelt land around our town to build yet more houses and causeing massive traffic conggestion just does not make any sense at all. Have these planning people undertaken a proper traffic survey ? ( not one that wa carried out a Sunday) try getting in and out of Rayleigh from 7 am every morning and getting home after 4 – the traffic is at a standstill and we already know what the air pollution stats already are!!! Our school are already at bursting point as are our doctors surgery. All of this has been said about 10,000 times now but I have yet to see any answer or reply addressing this basic concerns. I’ve lived in Rayleigh for 13 years a love it here but I am seriously going to look about moving away as I can’t see this situation is ever going to addressed. There have been other options put forward which would accommodate the requirements but why are these not being considered.

  21. Lara says:

    Agree with all noted.

  22. geoff maddin says:

    Stop voting Conservative.
    Job done.

  23. Barbara Oliver-Mayho says:

    Infrastructure, I repeat infrastructure, must be addressed and sorted properly before anymore develolment of land that is being proposed is allowed to go ahead. To just keep building without any thought to the amount of cars that would arrive in the area and the pollution involved, must be addressed. Sooner rather than later, when it is known already we have extreme pollution in and around most parts of the Rochford, Castle Point and .southend areas. Counsellors must be bold in their forward planning and thinking, for the future of the citizens of this area.

  24. Michelle says:

    Completely agree well done Linda

  25. Ron says:

    Totally agree, enough is enough.

  26. Belle says:

    The roads are a nightmare at rush hours now, the roads are certainly not able to take the added strain – look at the potholes !! Without consideration given to priorities ie. Doctors, schools, police, hospitals, ambulance, fire service this plan is farcical.

  27. RG says:

    Our roads a cannot cope and we need to protect our green belt land.

  28. Carol alder says:

    Agree with Linda. Rayleigh can not cope now. No more houses please

  29. Derrick Baker says:

    I fully endorse all the comments made above.
    If I could just add one additional issue, generated by the council itself.
    The town centre congestion and pollution made much worse when they decided to revamp the main routes and crossing in the town centre some years back.
    Many residents objected to the scheme and gave a number of viable alternatives. It’s hardly rocket science, anyone visiting the town and monitoring the congestion for 30 minutes could instantly recognise why everything grinds to a halt.
    If they do manage to push through any of these major developments, make sure RDC are not involved in the infrastructure!

  30. K.McDermott says:

    I understand the need for more housing but these proposals are poorly thought out from an infrastructure point of view. Downhall Road, which is used by many schoolchildren is already overcrowed with vehicles, manyof which totally disregard speed limits etc. Exiting onto London Road is often gridlocked!Quarts can’t go into pint pots.

  31. Christine Cole says:

    Not forgetting Kingsgate in Hockley Rd the Barrett development where 22 flats were built on a plot that only had 1 dwelling. I do understand the need for homes to be built but these have to be affordable.We need infrastructure, more schools, doctors’ surgeries, better roads. It should be the criteria that the developers pay for all these things before being given permission to build.

  32. Glynis Haworth says:

    I sometimes wonder what planet these councillors live on if they think that Rayleigh can take this amount of development without serious problems. Our town centre would come to a standstill with the amount of traffic this will create, not the mention the emission from traffic, we are already breaking the EU rules and regulations concerning this. As for the travellers site no proper consideration has been given to the impact on the residents lives (and there will be a considerable amount in more ways than one). This council is really not fit for purpose when it comes to making decisions about developing Rayleigh sensibly. The whole plan is very suspect to who will actually profit, not the residents thats for sure.

    • David Barnes says:

      Unfortunately, most of the members of the Planning Committee will be ‘well looked after’ (and I would imagine so will the MPs) by the developers that these plans will sail through regardless of any amount of petitioning. You have to remember you are not dealing with honest people when it comes to councillors and developers.

  33. Brian Ady says:

    I agree with all the above comments; especially regarding the already overloaded road structure. The Town is gridlocked for much of the day with consequent hgigh levels of pollution.

  34. RP says:

    Agree with all these comments.
    Rayleigh is at breaking point and so are it’s residents!
    Enough is enough!

  35. Nichola Williams says:

    I agree with all the comments made above roads need to be invested in as it is most of them
    Now need resurfacing. As soon as you close one everything’s grinds to a holy
    Please do not ruin our town with thousands of houses

  36. Rob says:

    Overbuilding without the proper infrastructure in place is madness, our roads are inadequate, drainage won’t be able to cope , etc, etc.
    Our air quality is at risk, for every new house built their will be at least two more cars on our congested roads

  37. Linda Todd says:

    The people who draw up these plans obviously do not come from this area or have to put up with the constant traffic hold ups driving through Rayleigh. If they did maybe they would think twice before putting these plans forward or maybe they don’t care as they would not have to put up with it. Rayleigh is a small town with narrowish roads which cannot take anymore traffic. Rayleigh is full.

  38. geoff says:

    This all goes back to 1974 when Rayleigh Council was forceably merged into a poorer Rochford Council to pay for its unmade pot hole roads. Ever since, Rochford looks to the district of Rayleigh as a rateable cash cow, and piles as much development as possible into the area for income. I had cause to deal with Rochford Planning Dept on the developments in our street. The experience was that I though I had moved to Brazil. Keep pounding away at this,to get developement moved to East of Rochford,and on Foulness Island.

  39. Janet Warner says:

    Insufficient infrastructure for even more development. We are frequently gridlocked at the Sweyne/Grange Area now. Heaven help us when the first 500 are built! Even our MP opposed the plans on these grounds. Think again RDC. Why can’t such important decisions be decided by the people & Councillors of Rayleigh?

  40. A Richardson says:

    Cannot believe this is even up for consideration bearing in mind the daily chaos that is traffic congestion in Rayleigh. Regardless anytime of day there is constant traffic but rush hour is beyond a joke now taking 3-4 times longer to get to destinations. Enough is enough people are now moving out of our town due to the traffic issues we all have to face on a daily basis and lots are choosing to shop elsewhere to avoid the town which is really sad as our shops aren’t getting the support they require to stay open! Also flooding is a major concern many areas have been impacted in a number of occasions and the Authorities have been useless at resolving this major issue. Absolutely out the question to subject further misery by causing an even higher risk of flooding to many households. I strongly object to more houses being built in what has already become a ratrun!! You owe it to the existing community to protect them from future builds.

  41. Derek says:

    Its not just Rayleigh fom Rochford in an radius of 10 miles the amount of development without any additional infastructure is maddness .Even out in the ‘sticks’ we have seen 2 houses become 7 3 acres gat permision for 40 something and the neighbouring house seems to be set up for 12 ish

  42. Ernest smith says:

    My wife and I have lived in Rayleigh for some 40 years, during that time we have seen the growth which has given homes to a lot of people, conversely it has taken away an awful lot of greenbelt (or vital farming land from this region,There has been little or no improvement in the structure of services to any great degree, the roads into and out are abysmal and overcrowded at all times of day, there are some roads without potholes(they have been re-surfaced recently, but sadly a lot more still need to be dealt with. There is hardly a footpath which is suitable for pedestrians to walk safely on Drains that need cleansing, Schools – with only extensions or new build classrooms, nothing new for an increase in population. Poor water pressure, drainage failure,Yet in the town centre of Rayleigh there is not longer a balance of shops, mainly hairdressers, nail parlors,night clubs, food outlets by the dozen, no coordinated balance of shops.I could go on and on – – –

  43. Teresa says:

    Rayleigh is absolutely crammed already with no infrastructure to support any new developments. The roads are always gridlocked and the schools at maximum capacity . It takes sometimes more than one week to see a GP for a routine appointment. Someone has to see sense !

  44. Aidan says:

    All this stupidity..It is chaos now driving in Rayleigh…let alone building more houses.Its all the back handers given out.Only building more houses because of the massive immigration problem we have.Theres 10 million more people in the country since 2014.Makes me sick..i will stop there

  45. Duncan Holland says:

    Completely agree with everything said. I already have to time my journeys back from my office in West Hanningfield to avoid the worst of the traffic. Once you’ve taken your life in your own hands trying to get across Rettendon Turnpike, you then have to wait and see how bad Rawreth Lane is. I’ve regularly missed putting my kids to bed whilst I sit in traffic. How many new roads are being built to cope with all of the extra traffic? None. The levels of traffic pollution is a real concern. All very well it being acknowledged and talking about it, but ultimately we’re just on a trajectory for the situation to get progressively and significantly worse.

    And the stretch on other services and ameneties is real, and just gets ignored. Just seems to be a ‘head in the sand’ approach, in the hope I think that people will get so disenchanted that they’ll give up and stop complaining.

    The suggestion of building a ‘new town’ is a radical one, but would take the strain off the towns and villages in the district which are already drowning from over capacity. It would give the opportunity for suitable infrastructure to be put in place to cope. It’s been done before, why not here.

  46. david ponton says:

    Once again out the window goes common sense. If you build just 500 homes you would get approximately 15oo people and probably two
    cars per household. New neighbours of ours had great difficulty getting their three children into local schools and the children
    had to split up .The infrastructure just isn’t in place for this amount of building work.

  47. GILL says:

    This is a fiasco. I’m getting sick of this going round and round in circles when none of the issues are being addressed – is it a case of keep going until the council get their own way or they wear the residents down. If amenities are going to be reduced maybe I should pay a smaller portion of my council tax.

  48. Kevin Cole says:

    We have zero infrastructure to cope with the amount of trafic on the roads around Rayleigh now let alone when the new estates are constructed, when are the council going to understand that we are at capacity now. I’m sure along the line somewhere somebody’s pocket is being filled.

  49. Laurence says:

    Although I basically agree with Linda’s comments, we all know there is a basic house shortage for first time buyers. So why don’t we build two bedroomed houses for the people that need these homes at affordable prices rather than 4 or 5 half a million pound houses that can only compound the problems ? Then there is the urgent need for these people who will need facilities. And I think everyone is aware of the grid lock on the roads trying to get through Rayleigh in the morning and from 5pm.
    This is also a very dangerous road to cross. We are still waiting for a zebra crossing on London Road which was promised by the developers of the new estate on the old E.On site at a consultation meeting with local residents.

  50. Bob Franklin says:

    I agree with so many of the comments expressed above. Having lived in Rayleigh for a relatively short time of 18 years I have witnessed the enormous demands made on the existing infrastructure of the town. It is quite clear to me that any further house building would result in chaos for all our present residents. We must oppose this ill thought out and unworkable plan in the strongest manner.

    • Ross says:

      I am afraid that you seem to miss the point. Building two bedroom houses is the same as building half a million pound houses. More houses – more congestion, strain on services etc. The area cannot take further expansion without the associated corresponding expansion of infrastructure and services. Unfortunately, you cannot build more houses to the detriment of the existing community.

  51. Marion says:

    Why can’t brown field sites be redeveloped instead of precious farm land, there are plenty of these sites, dotted around, where old factories have been abandoned or demolished. Where will our food be grown when these new houses have been built?

  52. Ian wilson says:

    I agree the roads cannot take the extra- we could consider brownfield alternatives if we really need more houses. Getting doctors appointment is difficult enough now it’s going to be stupid when this all gets done

  53. KAREN M says:

    Rayleigh is almost at a standstill as it is…more residents will only at to this. There simply isn’t the Infrastructure to cope with this proposal.

  54. Lisa says:

    The doctors are full! Schools are full! The infrastructure can not cope with any more traffic! Before any plans are approved and passed for development maybe the ‘big chiefs’ should spend some time in the local residents shoes! Let them try for a few weeks to get a doctors appointment or find a placement in their chosen school for their child or children. Also let them sit in the endless amounts of traffic, especially in rush hour or if there are road works locally!!

  55. Peter reed says:

    I agree with the above comments. Raleigh is a lovely place but it’s character will be ruined by such an influx of people to a small town. Totally agree with the infrastructure issues also.

  56. Kay carter says:

    We do not have the space or the infarstructure i n place . Schools are full doctors are full ,dentists are full. Abd cant move on the roads.If ab accident happens on the 127 you try getti g out of Hullbridge or Rayleigh.

  57. Andy says:

    Peoples quality of life are suffering with our councils attitude to planning , air quality pollution is going to impact everyone, the road system cannot cope , over crowded class rooms, over crowded doctors surgeries.
    It’s time to use common sense and stop these mass developments.

  58. Chris says:

    I agree with everything said above

  59. David Bennett says:

    Interesting read. One area I’m unsure of is the building of a ‘Garden City’ on the Dengie Peninsula? I’m new to this area so correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the Peninsular just a vast swade of low lying salt marsh? I’m guessing there was a good reason why It’s so sparsely populated, with almost no infrastructure built on it.. Beautiful to look at but an abysmal place to build anything on, especially with large scale floodings on the increase. You’ve essentially addressed these exact problems in a paragraph above titled ‘Flooding’.

  60. Dianne Axe says:

    I agree with all the comments listed.

  61. Emma Giso says:

    Hall Road development of over 700 hundred houses in Rochford was agreed on the basis a school and surgery was build. The developer sold part of the land to another housing development so they did not have to fulfill their promise. This new proposal has stated that a school and surgery will be build to meet the needs of the community. How do we know this will actually happen? The same thing could happen again. I have lost all faith in my local MP’s and will make this clear in the next local elections!

    • K McDermott says:

      Sadly, local MP’s have too large majorities to need to take any notice of their constituents. How have plans like this not been challenged by Mark Francois? Equally, why has he not intervened over the state of the way Abelio Greater Anglia runs the Southend Victoria line through Rayleigh which is a joke.

  62. wendy s Bevins says:

    there must be other areas suitable for these house

  63. Roy Frampton says:

    Common sense should tell the councilors who are voting these measures through that the inferstructure of the area is completely full and any further developments will choke the whole area into a gridlocked mess without even considering all of the other environmental issues. They have all the details of these issues at their disposal so why??? or is it that they are and have been ‘influenced’ by sweeteners offered to them by representatives of the companies who are set to gain profit and further influence!! It seems to me that although the council is elected they will not stand up to the pressures involved and are therefore incompetent to represent the residents of the Rayleigh and Rochford area.

  64. Paula harvey says:

    I leave for work at 5.30am to get 25 miles away to work. This is because traffic is so bad by 7am from rayleigh I can’t get into work before I start at 8.45! The roads in and around rayleigh cannot cope with anymore houses!

  65. Val says:

    New homes seems to be the “it” word of the moment, listening to our politicians it will cure all of our housing problems, I agree we need more homes, but we need the infrastructure as well, new schools, hospitals, dentists, doctors surgeries, after school care for children whose parents have to work, trains, buses, the upkeep of roads in order to deal with the additional influx of cars – building new homes will not solve our problems on there own, without all of the above.

  66. Joyce Culling says:

    I couldn’t agree more with Linda’s comments.

  67. m.j.h says:

    I totally agree with all the above comments.

  68. J Smith says:

    I agree with all the objections mentioned above. West Rayleigh can take no more development without significant upgrades to infrastructure.

    Memo to Rochford District Council:
    Stop looking at this as 6000 more homes paying council tax.
    Use the opportunity of some LIMITED development to INSIST on the building of much needed facilities such as a health centre, swimming pool, extra school capacity and road infrastructure upgrades with NO repeat NO get out clause – and ensure there would be a punitive penalty for reneging on anything other than what is finally agreed as part of the planning permission.

  69. Peter Prosser says:

    As a resident of Rayleigh for 55 years,I have seen a steady deterioration of a pleasant town.Any new development should require upfront infrastructure plans agreed with the planning authorities and subject to proper consultation with all residents affected.
    To avoid developers from reneging on “promises” to build schools/roads etc,a legally binding sum of money ( to cover the costs of agreed infrastructure) should be deposited with the council. This would prevent developers from selling off part of development and any declaration of bankruptcy.

  70. John Wright says:

    I have lived in Rayleigh for over 40 years and I have yet to see any council take much notice of the local residents. I have always thought we give way to London too much. They encroach on our land and we kiss their feet and don’t say a peep.Essex countryside more like Essex concrete
    If it was not for councillor Skinner putting foreword my idea of creating a Wheatley forest for the community there would have been houses from the station to the spur.Building only creates work for a few for a short time .and makes a fortune for those that don’t need it. At the end of the day ,we are left paying the price for the mess they created

    • David Bennett says:

      With all the proposed sites listed in the new plan it seems we’re moving ever closer to seeing Southend, Rochford, Ashingdon, Hockley and Rayleigh merging into one vast swade of urban sprawl. Crying shame.

  71. Ben Miller says:

    I agree with practically everyone’s sentiments here.

    We’re full up. There’s no more room at the inn.

    Rayleigh, Hockley, Ashingdon, Rochford, Southend and beyond. The roads are full, the hospitals are full, the doctors surgeries are full, getting anywhere these days is a long, drawn-out affair.

    Go build these news houses in some other part of the country. Oh no, hang on, you can’t do that can you? Because that would require having to invest in a completely new infrastructure. Why not just shoe-horn several thousand more houses into an area that’s bursting at the seams instead….

  72. Sarah Maul says:

    My concern is infrastructure. Everything comes to a halt and is gridlocked trying to move around town. The commuters who head to London in the morning (myself included) are already on overcrowded trains. These are running at full capacity so please don’t say it’s the networks issue to resolve, they won’t listen. Yes we all agree there is a need for housing but there really needs to be more consideration and more input from existing residents. Decisions are made by those who don’t live here and feel the full effects. Please listen!

  73. Daniel says:

    Let’s stop this ludicrousy.

  74. Jamie Lord says:

    I agree with all of the above.

  75. Alan Ball says:

    Sadly all the above are conveniently summed up by the current Westminster incumbents as “nimbyism”. Not one of them is ever going to get off their backsides and carry out a proper assessment of the feasibility of their housing demands on this area, or any other. I am at a loss to see how we overcome this stone-wall attitude from government. Does it need a residents revolt? Maybe, as all else seems to go right over their heads. Nevertheless we all thank Linda for her tireless efforts and of course she should have our continued support.

  76. anne hedges says:

    Rayleigh is full to bursting now.. Cannot get anywhere without constantly sitting in traffic. Enough!

  77. Anne Payne says:

    It seems as if this area of Essex is a prime target to ‘build’ ‘build’ ‘build’ without sufficient sense of any type of good sense for it’s existing residents. It seems that any green land (whether or not it is owned by Tory councillors!) is up for grabs. Our infrastructure just cannot handle it any more. For god’s sake give our roads and countryside a break please.

  78. Anne Payne says:

    I find it very difficult to ascertain why this part of Essex is targeted so much. I have do lived in this district for over 40 years, and the expanse of the housing numbers is astronomical. It seems that every piece of land, whether it is conservative owned or not is up for grabs. Viable for schools, surgeries or infrastructure is totally ignored. I really feel for our children and grandchildren in the future. Sorry but it’s so true.

  79. Rosemary says:

    I presume that this has been mentioned before but there have been many “density” experiments using colonies of rats. When rats have reasonable room, they live peaceably. When more are added to a confined area, they fight amongst themselves and anarchy develops.
    The Southend/Rochford/ Rayleigh areas are bounded by two rivers (Thames and Crouch) and on the third side by the sea. For rats, read people!

    I have known and lived in Rayleigh for over 75 years and I shall not live to see the, not too slight a word, DEVASTATION that these plans will cause. It is not for my sake but the sake of my children and subsequent generations that I beg someone with power and decency to see the truth and


  80. Karen Ellwood says:

    I totally agree that the infrastructure within this area cannot take anymore houses. Hospitals are overfull and traffic jams regular. I just do not know why you think we can take more houses / people

  81. A R Barrows says:

    I am very annoyed – I received this AFTER the cut off date, and I am sure that there must be others who would have supported this but did not get the chance.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

%d bloggers like this: