Don’t Touch Those Green Fields! – The Lib Dem Stance

It’s difficult to summarise all the ideas that the District Council has for Rawreth / West Rayleigh on one map – when there are 5 possible sites for 550 houses, several sites that could be used as employment land to replace the Rawreth Industrial Estate, and 2 possible sites for travellers.

But we’ve had a go:

darmap1k

The Liberal Democrat councillors are taking the view that the green fields between Rawreth Lane, London Road and the old A130 should be left alone completely. NO housing, NO employment land , NO traveller sites.

We Say:

Using the Rawreth Industrial Estate for housing is probably OK if the businesses there are treated properly.

The green fields between London Road and Rawreth Lane should be left alone. NO houses, NO employment land, NO traveller sites there!

The previously used land on the A1245 is a better choice for housing (see the top of the map).

A good place for a new industrial site is at the junction of the A1245 and the A127 (bottom left corner of the map).

For the travellers, there are some very small sites spread across the district that could be used instead.

About the author, admin

  • Its a good effort Chris. Anyone who sees what the council want to do to Rawreth and west Rayleigh can see what a shambles this would make. It is as if they threw a dice and ….. I say no to any of these plans. For a change lets be sensible but I cannot see RDC or their Planning department being sensible or sensitive!!!

  • Chris is the reason they want to put the housing near Rayleigh due to the land being potentially more attractive to developers? presumably Rayleigh house prices are higher than the locations you have suggested? If each house costs more to buy, then the land can be sold for a higher price in the first place? I would imagine Rawreth Lane was identifed long ago as a place for future housing development, in 10-15 years time it will be unrecognisable from what we see today, where we now see fields, there will be houses. Much like the people living in Rawreth have experienced long before, Downhall Park Way, Laburnham Way and Coppice Gate came into existence.

    Perhaps we should suggest they put football pitches there instead?? starting to look like a much better option than 550 new homes plus sites for travellers!! The whole thing is a complete joke Rayleigh Boys are looking for a home for 500 children to play football, not just any children but their families must number in simple maths in the thousands as local rate payers. But we have stuggled to get permission for use an almost unused piece of land, which we will look after, at no extra cost to the taxpayer! for the benefit of the local community. But the council it appears instead of helping the civilised and dare I say it rate paying community, want to help a load of anti-social, free loading travellers!!! – It’s beyond a farce

    To be honest I would rather new homes then traveller sites!! by quite some distance. There obviously not too bright though our beloved council, as one way to decrease the price of a house and land is to put a load of travellers next to it!

  • Kris, I absolutely agree with you. It would be far more beneficial to turn the land into something for the whole community. You are right if RDC get their way there will be no greenbelt land, only housing developments. We should be getting the youngsters into a more positive frame of mind. Cricket, football and other sports would give them something to do and why not put a swimming pool on the site as well. Lets give the youngsters something positive to do instead of making silly comments like the young people should be joining the “Boys Brigade, Cadets or Scouts”, not that I have anything against those associations but many youngsters are not interested in joining these types of clubs.

  • Hi I am ten years old and I play for Rayleigh Boys. I think we need more space to play football because it helps us with team skills and keeping fit.I don’t want more houses and more traffic. My football coaches are great and we should give them more space to help us train better and become better footballers.
    There are some nice football pitches round the corner from where I live and we still are not allowed to use them.

    I also enjoy cubs.

  • Jack, you are the sort of person that needs to tell this council what you want and need in this town. Please get your friends to put comments on this website so the council have no excuse to not help you.

  • Jack, you may know, we as a club are trying to secure some spare land at the Chichester, which has been refused due to 4 residents who live near the site, hopefully your message will help support the re-application which is being heard 22nd April, as not only you and your team mates, but all the club members need somewhere to play and frankly deserve it. Well done Jack for speaking up for the children of this town. So you know I manage the Under 12A team so a pat on the back from the club as well.

  • Kris, I am aware how poorly Rayleigh Boys have been treated by RDC in the past. But if you have been told that one of Rayleigh Boy’s previous applications was refused just because of 4 residents, then you are being poorly advised. The application was refused by officers for the following reasons: Only one reason related to residents.
    1 Notwithstanding that, prima facie, the proposed use of the land for outdoor sport falls within a category of development generally considered appropriate within the Metropolitan Green Belt, in this case, the scale of the use and the likely level of car parking being required to serve the use is considered to affect the openness of the Metropolitan Green Belt.
    2 The proposal would give rise to an undesirable intensification of the use of an existing sub – standard access. Slowing and turning of vehicles at this point would give rise to conditions of danger and obstruction to other road users to the detriment of highway safety. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policy 1.1. (Safety ) Appendix G: Development Control Policies and Processes, Essex Local Transport Plan 2006 2011.
    3 As far as can be determined from the submitted plans the applicant does not appear to be able to provide the required traffic visibility splays. The lack of such visibility would result in an unacceptable degree of hazard to all road users to the detriment of highway safety. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policy 1.1 (Safety) of Appendix G: of the Local Transport Plan 2006/2011.
    4 The proposed development would lead to an increase in unnecessary traffic movements to and from the site in direct conflict with the aims and objectives of Policy 4 (sustainability) and Policy P3.1 (accessibility) Appendix G: Development Control Policies and Processes, Essex Local Transport Plan 2006/2011.
    5 The location, lack of footways and limited access to public transport would mean that virtually all journeys generated by the proposal would be by private vehicles. The proposal is not considered sustainable due to the reliance on the use of private car which is in direct conflict with the aims and objectives of Policy 4 (Sustainability) and Policy P3.1 (accessibility) Appendix G : Development Control Policies and Processes, Essex Local Transport Plan 2006/2011.
    6 The proposed intensification in the use of the site for football, taking into account the number of spectators, players and cars likely involved, is considered likely to result in a level of noise and activities detrimental to the amenities of nearby residents.

  • Chris, come on, we all know number 6 is the real reason and the 5 previous points are rather convenient excuses. The site is a huge area and really the number of games that would be played there would not generate the noise levels that are feared. We are speaking of one day, a Sunday. Besides, Chris if you have ever ventuted over to where the pitches were situated, the noise levels generated by the A130 would drown out the sound of two childrens football teams. We are not talking about having rock concerts every Sunday, just rate payers children, engaging in healthy, character building, socially developing, recreational fun.

    My message to those residents would be to keep an eye on RDC’s ideas to establish Traveller sites in around Rawreth, so in the long-run children playing football one day a week might not be such a bad outcome. Ridiculous isn’t it? it could actually be easier to establish a travellers site than find a place for children to play football!!

  • Kris, let’s wait and see what County Highways say this time.

    I don’t want to say much more myself, in case I appear to ‘fetter my discretion’

    But a question for you -just how would RBYFC ensure or guarantee that it was only one day a week, a Sunday?

  • Kris
    That is the whole point .Sunday is supposed to be a time to relax with your family there is no way those residents can enjoy the peace of the countryside with up to ELEVEN matches at the same time, incidentally there are at least 11 residence affected directly plus the noise from the excisting three pitches travels to the bedloes area .The first five points are not smokescreens but are in fact very valid planning reasons for careful thought .Rawreth has already got several other playing fields which entail much traffic generation .Rawreth Recreation ground itself seems underused as there are large areas on the rear two fields which no longer have pitches but seem to be turning in to a park and dog walking area, this was not the origional purpose of the extention years ago .This was for extra pitches,but due to the poor drainage the council decided otherwise ,the underinvestment in proper drainage ,changing facilities and car parking at that site has resulted in worthy clubs as yourselves having to look elsewhere ,I can sympathise with you but I believe this to be the wrong solution .It is due to the councils wrong decisions in the past which have caused this impass .

  • A Matthews, thanks for confirming that the residents issue is the driving factor. 11 residences, with a say high average per household of 5 people, 55 people? We are speaking of a solution for 500 people! A Matthews, please bare in mind the season starts in September and finishes in Spring time (weather permitting). Games are generally played when the weather is hardly suitable for a nice family stroll and a picnic, i.e. in the winter. I’m staggered that the noise of a football match would travel that far?

    Truth be told I think if there was space in the heart of Rayleigh then obviously that would be great, I dont suppose you are aware that Rayleigh is under the Sport England recommended amount of playing field space per head of population by quite some distance. Its not even close.

    We are all going to have to get used to the fact that Rayleigh’s borders are expanding, housing is increasing and as a natural consequence there are more residents, more children who want to play sport who need space to play that sport.

    Chris, with regard to the Sunday usage, that is ultimately part of the planning application which I dont want to contradict with any comment here. All I will say is our teams participate in Southend Sunday Junior football leagues so I dont need to tell you on which day the large majority of the games are played.

  • There is land on the other side of the A130 owned by the same landowner ,which ticks all the boxes much better access etc .No residents issues, oh … I forgot the landowner lives there .That will never do ,will it?

  • I’ve just been reading your latest Focus leaflet and must say I’m a bit disappointed to learn that RDC are considering building even more houses in the Rawreth area. Why is it that this area seems to be targeted time and time again – probably greedy developers/council officials seeing all that lovely green land and open fields and £ signs!!! Rawreth Lane is already heavily used by traffic so how will this be controlled if more houses are built, bringing more people and even more cars to the road. I’m sure they will get their own way but please, please don’t build on the open fields after Makro’s. Maybe they could build some houses behind Makro’s, using the current road that leads to Makro’s and then behind it – meeting up with part of Rawreth Industrial estate, obviously not at the expense of any businesses there.

    As for travellers sites….I strongly oppose that as, not meaning to sound critical or label them, this will lower the tone of Rayleigh : possibly affect house prices and could cause problems in the area by way of burglary/theft or just general noise nuisance.

    As Jack said above, why not use the proposed areas earmarked for travellers sites for more football pitches – something for the local community.

    What am I paying my ever increasing council tax rates for – there are no local authority activities – only Rayleigh Leisure Centre and I pay monthly membership for that!

    If we’re not careful,this part of Rayleigh will end up being built up like a major town like Basildon instead of the rural country feel it still has.

  • Jack, many thanks for your comments, and please write some more if you feel like it.

    I am really unhappy that those sports pitches near you aren’t available yet.

    Someone at the council allowed the housebuilders Wimpey to use the land to store their materials wehn they were building the houses. Councillors weren’t even told about this until it was too late.

    As a result, the pitches have taken much longer than expected – they should be available next autumn.

    I’m also unhappy because I think the more of the land near you should have been used for sports pitches, and less for building. But I lost the vote on that.

  • I am not sure whether you have done this, but I have been on the Office for National Statistics web site and downloaded some very interesting statistics from the 2001 Census and further more they also have available some further figure 2004-2008.
    You may want to look for Rawreth.
    The web address is http://neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadHome.do;jessionid=ac1f930d30d8f70d9e500ab046909b41f9e3bb60665c?m=0&s=1271281253765&enc=1&nsjs=true&nsck=true&nssvg=false&nswid=1280

    Here you enter a post code in your area and bingo ! lots of very interesting info about Density of population, age groups, No and types of houses, areas of employment, you get the gist.
    I took a quick look and found there are two wards for Rawreth:- Downhall and Rawreth and Grange and Rawreth.

    Something else you may be interested in that I found whilst going through docuements on RDC website and that is under the Sustainability Appraisal/ Strategic Enviromental Assessment made by Enfusion on behalf od RDB dd Nov 2008 under the SA Framework.
    Objective 4 Economy and Employment the council had as one of its decision aiding questions “Will it support the proposed enhancement of facilities of London Southend Airport” This was removed on the instruction of English Heritage or Natural England. What I find interesting is that Shaun was denying any plans about the airport being part of the LDF, yet here it is. They obviously had it in the back of their minds. It so happens that LSA goes completely against many of the SA Objectives. I found this document very useful and I will be making my responses about Hullbridge based around this structure and their statements.
    I shall be using some of these in my response to the LDF.

  • Gary, as one of the ‘bells and whistles’ on onlinefocus, you see near the top of the page we have a ‘theme-switcher’ which allows you choose a different layout.

    Mostly the changes are cosmetic, but if you select the ‘ invetsigator’ version you’ll find a link to the ONS and some other stuff such as crime mapper.

  • {"email":"Email address invalid","url":"Website address invalid","required":"Required field missing"}
    >