You can download a document here (12Mb) which has details on all the sites that the District Council has rejected. Some of them have been rejected for good reason. for example no. 19. Lords Golf Club. –
But sometimes the reasons seem odd. For example – no. 29 , which is land by the A127 just to the west of Rayleigh Weir.
Site Reference: Call for Sites Allocations 29
Site Name: Land at Great Wheatley adjoining Western Road
Site Location: Rayleigh
1. Site Site Area (Ha): 4.45 Ha Physical Description of Site:
The site is located to the south west of Rayleigh, and is bounded to the north
east and south by residential development. The site consists of a number of
grassland fields with hedgerows and trees along the boundaries. The site is
slightly sloping.
Current Use: Grassland Fields
100 ? 150 dwellings
It’s a pity to lose any green fields, whether in Rawreth, Hullbridge or Western Road. And the traffic congestion is already really bad. But the concluding reasons given for not including this site are:
This site is not situated in a proposed strategic location for housing as set out
in the emerging Core Strategy, as it would not contribute towards the
balanced approach to housing distribution advocated in the emerging Core
Strategy and there is a need to avoid the coalescence of Rayleigh with
Southend.
This is to the west of Rayleigh Weir – do these fields protect against coalescence with Southend….
I’d disagree with the idea that example 19 is rejected for good reason, but I’ll argue that point later. On the rejection document it includes the table to say things like probability of flooding, proximity to Green Belt, Listed Building present etc but the selcted sites don’t contain the same info (unless I’m missing something). Admin, do you know why or how we may be able to get the same info. It seems without the same type of info it’s hard to see why the council have chosen some other sites over their preferred options.
Thanks
I’ve since realised all the invididual plots were mentioned in one of the documents. I’ve edited this down to include all the Hullbridge sites and posted it here in case anyone is interested? I’m not sure why site 171 at the Chicester Hotel is classed as Hullbridge though? I’ll be looking thorugh this in a bit more detail later and may comment back on this, particularly since the selected sites seem to ignore the flooding issue identified on some sites and don’t make any mention of the listed buildings at Malyons Farm.
http://www.sarlls.co.uk/hullbridge%20rejections.pdf
We also must now consider the following:
Food Security
http://www.soilassociation.org/Whyorganic/Climatefriendlyfoodandfarming/Foodsecurity/tabid/345/Default.aspx
and
Soil Carbon
http://www.soilassociation.org/Whyorganic/Climatefriendlyfoodandfarming/Soilcarbon/tabid/574/Default.aspx
And the subject of food security should be on all three parties’ agendas, but I bet they won’t!
Carole
It is something we touched on in our objections to West Rayleigh .I as a farmer have sympathy with the organic ways ,and indeed where practical use some of the principles .There is a need not to hide our heads in the sand but to use proven scientific advances in conjunction with traditional methods to increase our production as the worlds population is likely to double within some of our lifetimes .So the message must be to build on brownfield sites and non productive land not land”West of Rayleigh”.
I am having trouble downloading this document. Has it been removed?