Planning - Summary of all comments - Amazon Web Services

070 P Robertson
Rayleigh and the surrounding area has a far too high population density currently and Rayleigh centre is a constant traffic
jam. We have had constant problems with sewage system locally so these services would not cope. We need to retain
Green Belt land. The south east essex is far too densly populated at the moment. Any increase would be a very bad thing.
New Town. To release the current small amounts of Green Belt would have an adverse effect on local environment and the
071 P Williams
quality of life the districts people.
It is presumeed that you are trying to implement government policy to increase housing stock nationwide. The town of
Rayleigh is over-developed. It lacks facilities, there is no land to build essential needs, eg doctor's surgery/Audley Mills has
one-third of needed spaces, a local church needs land where are the theatre/cinema/swimming pool. Do not lack of school
072 Mr & Mrs S J Painter places existing.
Green belt should not be released. It should be protected. Rayleigh should be kept as a district town and not merge into
073 Mr S Learmouth Southend/Wickford.
074 Mr & Mrs Raddon Leave Green belt alone. Once gone, gone forever. We need our open spaces, woods and park lands. No new towns.
Generations ago we had politicians with real vision, who set up Green Belts around our Towns and Cities to enable
residents to breathe fresh air and prevent our Towns from all becoming joined to each other! I am appalled that you aare
even thinking of building on Green Belt land. If only Green belt land is left, your only option is to build up, replacing houses
with blocks of flats! I recently read that 60% of U.K. population live in the south-east noew, which I feel is too high already.
As a 61 year old, unfortunate enough to be born in Rayleigh I have witnessed the accelerating decline in quality of life due
to increasnig overcrowding, only family ties prevent me moving to a less crowded part of the country. Gypsy sites should
075 Mr K A Cooke
be sited only beside trunk roads or railway line where the settled community would not wish to live.
Any land released should be close to existing developments to avoid spoiling our limited countryside further. Any greenbelt
land that is to be released for any kind of developemnt should not of been done without full consultation with the residents
076 Ms G Lunn
most local to the land as it is human nature to suggest building away from one's own locality.
Green Belt land should not be released. If land is to be released for building, let them do it in London, The Midlands, The
North in existing urban areas, many deprived. You should not develop in and around Rochford, Ashingdon, Hockley,
077 Cllr Glen Dryhurst Hawkwell, Rayleigh. Only allow finning in existing gaps and spare plots. There should be no new towns, anywhere.
078 David & Jeanne No! No! No! Why do we need options?
I don't think any green belt should be released. That is what is the beauty of this area. There are already too many
pressures on doctors, hospitals and schools to continue developing the comendations mentioned; nor should Rayleigh and
079 Mrs S Clark
Wickford become any closer together.
No land should be released from the green belt. There is precious little natural envrionment in the region as it is without
destroying that which already exists. There should be no more development in this area. We do not have the necessary
infrastructure to support it. Roads are already clogged, there are insufficient GP surgeries and NHS dentists are non-
080 Mr C Hathaway existant.
Rawreth/Rayleigh. Rochford station roundabout is almost impossible due to green belt in Ashingdon having been used
081 T S Papworth
already.
There should be no new land in this area for development. The council should look to unused plots around the borough.
082 Mr J Adkin
Use compulsory purchase orders if necessary.
Feel that the existing towns will struggle to provide 90% of the housing development. Some support from green belt may be
084 Miss M Andrews required.