Planning - Summary of all comments - Amazon Web Services

More documents

Recommendations

Info

276 Mr M Barrell Protection and Enhancement of Special Landscapes, Habitats and Species- We would fully support the protection of the undeveloped coastline, for both biodiversity and flood risk management reasons. Due to the persence of the international nature conservation designations within the district, advice should be sought from Natural England on the possible requirement for the core strategy to be subject to an Appropriate Assessment to consider possible impacts from development on these sites. As you are no doubt aware, we are preparing a Crouch and Roach Estuary Flood Management Strategy, currently due to be launched in the summer of 2007. This has considered options for flood risk management across the estuaries for the next 50 years, and will identify areas where, for examplt existing flood defences are to be maintained and where managed realignment should or could occur. The core strategy must clearly have regard to this document. Considering the proposed 'probable' options, we would clearly support the protection of designated sites and BAP species and habitats. It should be recognized that these features could be impacted by development directly or indirect 277 Ms S A Elkington Please continue. 278 Mr P Marshall Local fishing pond should be protected, recreation grounds, better promotion of existing sites. 279 S J Heeney Where is the Upper Roach Valley? 280 Mrs M A Tyrell It is most important to keep and protect our existing recreational areas. At present the Council have got things right and in my opinion Rochford Council is better than most. I do not want to see any more evidence of 'urbanising the countryside'. Please leave natural areas to be natural. Hockley Woods was more 285 Mrs B E Dale enjoyable when it was not as 'regimented' as it is today - don't spoil our natural areas by 'tarting them up too much'. 286 Mr L F Knight No not while developers can make it so councils parish, districts and counties. 287 Mr R Forster Protect the green belt from development. 288 Mr & Mrs C Cummins Countryside at the end of Rayleigh Avenue and Tudor Road which abutts the Country Park should be protected On the whole yes. Extending Cherry Orchard Park is a good idea. Every development, housing or industrial, needs a 289 Mrs J Warner 'green lung'. Protect and develop recreational opportunities especially open spaces, in all localities. 290 Ms E Davis Not sure, but protection is important. The Upper Roach Valley seems the obvious place to develop recreational/tourist opportunities, but transport to and from 292 Mr & Mrs Goring these areas should perhaps be on the water, not building new roads but utilizing the natural route. Yes, please, please, protect Hockley woods. It is being vandalised in the name of husbandry. Once there were paths, now 298 Mr & Mrs Hewitt they are virtually roadways. All parks and areas such as the mill and its adjoining land must be protected. School playing fields mut be kept for the development of children's sport and social activities. Green Belt protection provides habitat for our limited wildlfe and gives families views of nature on their doorstops. We must not create a concrete jungle. The balance is fine but we need to look 299 Mr & Mrs Tuson after our green space, we can't afford to waste this precious resource. 300 Mrs Upson Cannot answer about the Upper Roach Valley
301 Ms K Kelly 4.3 Protection and enhancement of the Upper Roach Valley. The RSPB believes green spaces are vital for communities and would support the protection and enhancement of the Upper Roach Valley for biodiversity and informal recreation. Council options - The RSPB would support a policy providing protection and enhancement of the area and increased countryside recreation opportunities. These opportunities should be appropriate to the site in providing sympathetic access. The RSPB supports the extension of country park allocations. 4.4 Protection and enhancement of special landscapes, habitats and species. We are pleased to see recognition of the important landscapes, habitats and species within the District. We support the protection, extension and enhancement of these sites. We are pleased to see that the Council recognises the importance of environmental infrastructure along the coast and we encourage them to ensure its protection and enhancement. We are also pleased to see that the Council is committed to seeking 'throughout the coast and other special landscapes, high standards of development, including the location, siting, design and materials used' (para 4.4.7). W 302 Mr B Short Yes to Upper Roach Valley. Yes to balance. Hockley woods and the surrounding area should be protected. Gusted Hall and surrounding area should also be protected. 303 Mr K Hatfield Same for Clements Hall. 304 Mr A Rutter We must keep what we have but some farmland could be used Stambridge Canewdon way. 305 E L Strangleman Yes. 306 Mr E C Cook See comments under 9 All green areas should be protected from development and more should be made of the undoubted potential that this area has for recreation, be it parks, nature sites or even developing the waterside areas that are currently in my opinion a 307 Mr J Snow disgrace. 308 The Occupier Regret so far inadequate knowledge of the area. 309 Mr J Smith Priority for protection is the green belt. Rochford area is already intensively developed. I like to see all the Green Belt areas being protected from development. It is important that all of our footpaths and 310 Chris Teeder woodlands are maintained, I feel that the Council are doing too much development and not enough protection. No I do not think the council has the balance correct, as you have lifted a part of green belt for large housing and left the other half as green belt, all should be lifted in that area, and only affordable houses for young people should be built on that 314 Mrs C Quennell land. Too much development, too much short term decision making is the tall mark of the Council. Protect the Green belt, 315 R A Stone protect the environment and defend school playing fields. The lower end of Ironwell Lane should be a bridle/cycleway and not accessible to motore vehicles. The Upper Roach Valley 316 Ms S Copeman should be further developed as a recreational area. While it is worthwhile to protect important areas, considering beauty and special wildlife habitat etc, I don't agree with a 317 Mr D Harris policy of nil development of any kind simply because the subject site happens to be classified as 'green belt' 318 Ms W Hatton We can never get developed land back for countryside - be careful. 319 Mr M Lang No there is over development in all areas the upper Roach Valley should be left alone as green belt land or a country park. Countryside recreation is a good idea but the Cherry Orchard Park does not have enough parking for anyone other than 320 J Feather Southend residents to use. If you wish people to use these areas they have to get there. Balance is right. Maintain places like Hockley Woods but green belt has to be used for housing. Nothing special about area 321 R J Feather to be protected. 323 Mr T Beebee All ancient woodland to be protected. The Cherry Orchard Country Park to be extended to Hockley Woods.
Page 1 and 2:
ROCHFORD DISTRICT LOCAL DEVELOPMENT
Page 3 and 4:
Rep No Contact Name General comment
Page 5 and 6:
024 Mr P Williams 025 Mrs P Clifton
Page 7 and 8:
050 Mrs J Samuels 051 Mrs D Langdon
Page 9 and 10:
069 Mrs B Buckland 070 P Robertson
Page 11 and 12:
091 Ms P Bailey 092 Mrs M Hills 095
Page 13 and 14:
121 Mrs S J Attfield 122 F E Wells
Page 15 and 16:
144 Mr C Bambury 145 Mr A Lysons 14
Page 17 and 18:
159 Mr & Mrs J Collins I do not hav
Page 19 and 20:
177 Mr J East 178 Mr D Livermore 17
Page 21 and 22:
198 Mr J Clamp 200 Mr T O'Shea 201
Page 23 and 24:
222 R Luck 225 Mr P Court 227 Mr &
Page 25 and 26:
246 Miss M Saward 248 Mr A Presslee
Page 27 and 28:
259 Mr M B Rogers 260 Mr & Mrs Will
Page 29 and 30:
272 Mr A Patton 273 Mr J Wilson 274
Page 31 and 32:
300 Mrs Upson I have answered this
Page 33 and 34:
322 Ms J Hitchcock 323 Mr T Beebee
Page 35 and 36:
338 Mr & Mrs Saunders We have been
Page 37 and 38:
357 Ms V O'Malley Perhaps the gover
Page 39 and 40:
1. HOUSING Where should land be rel
Page 41 and 42:
014 D Hanrahan I do not agree furth
Page 43 and 44:
040 Mr D Huskisson The Ashingdon Ro
Page 45 and 46:
070 P Robertson Rayleigh and the su
Page 47 and 48:
102 Mr T Newton Firstly why are you
Page 49 and 50:
130 Mrs S Martin 131 Mel Bennett 13
Page 51 and 52:
160 Ms S Barnes No green belt shoul
Page 53 and 54:
189 Mr G Gooding 190 Mr G J Tinsey
Page 55 and 56:
215 Mr T R Thompson 216 Mr & Mrs D
Page 57 and 58:
237 Mr Sanders We should not be rel
Page 59 and 60:
263 Mr P Kneen 264 Mr K Coleman 265
Page 61 and 62:
286 Mr L F Knight No more housing w
Page 63 and 64:
319 Mr M Lang Not down in this corn
Page 65 and 66:
355 Mr K Vingoe 356 Mr & Mrs D Dobb
Page 67 and 68: 2. AFFORDABLE HOUSING Have we got t
Page 69 and 70: Mr R Huckett & Ms C Mobbs Affordabl
Page 71 and 72: 065 Mr T Bennett Affordable (truly
Page 73 and 74: 104 B Aspinall In my opinion the cu
Page 75 and 76: 145 Mr A Lysons There is no wy I ca
Page 77 and 78: 180 Mr R Swain Local jobs are usual
Page 79 and 80: 213 Mr M Wheeler 215 Mr T R Thompso
Page 81 and 82: 251 Mr B Guyett - Chairman We agree
Page 83 and 84: 287 Mr R Forster Cannot comment as
Page 85 and 86: 327 Mrs C Taylor 329 Mrs M J Snowdo
Page 87 and 88: 3. JOBS Where can we find land for
Page 89 and 90: 021 Mr P Jermyn There is enough spa
Page 91 and 92: 063 Mr B A Stammers Broardband mean
Page 93 and 94: 113 Mr & Mrs Rowland Apprentaships
Page 95 and 96: 158 Mr & Mrs White 159 Mr & Mrs J C
Page 97 and 98: 193 Ms S Swift Should be on sites v
Page 99 and 100: 236 Mr & Mrs Beattie Transport link
Page 101 and 102: 274 Mr S Mckinnon Employment where
Page 103 and 104: 321 R J Feather How will the jobs b
Page 105 and 106: 4. PROTECTION Are there any other a
Page 107 and 108: 026 Mr A Lantaff As stated earlier
Page 109 and 110: 073 Mr S Learmouth I believe strong
Page 111 and 112: 136 Mrs G E Chase Protect our areas
Page 113 and 114: 178 Mr D Livermore Protect all of t
Page 115 and 116: 228 Ms A Henderson I think the coun
Page 117: 261 S A Skinner 262 Ms L Parish I w
Page 121 and 122: 354 Mrs Smith This side of the rive
Page 123 and 124: Rep No Contact Name Character Comme
Page 125 and 126: 052 Mr & Mrs D Lench Too many expen
Page 127 and 128: 106 Ms P Melito Rochford should alw
Page 129 and 130: 166 G W Fleming All aeras must be m
Page 131 and 132: 204 Mr R Gould As before 205 Mrs Wh
Page 133 and 134: 251 Mr B Guyett - Chairman No, you
Page 135 and 136: 301 Ms K Kelly 4.9 Good design and
Page 137 and 138: 359 Mr New The district is short of
Page 139 and 140: Rep No Contact Name Energy & Water
Page 141 and 142: 046 Mr & Mrs J Cripps See 1.0 - why
Page 143 and 144: 093 Mrs M J Owoo I think you are do
Page 145 and 146: 140 Mrs J Davies If you are referin
Page 147 and 148: 181 Mrs M R Hutchings What do you m
Page 149 and 150: 224 Mr K S Gee Water - there are se
Page 151 and 152: 263 Mr P Kneen Whilst Swan Hill ack
Page 153 and 154: 307 Mr J Snow Extra development mea
Page 155 and 156: 7. LEISURE, TOURISM & COMMUNITY FAC
Page 157 and 158: 027 Mr B Fuller Leisure facilities
Page 159 and 160: 069 Mrs B Buckland 070 P Robertson
Page 161 and 162: 112 A J Smythe Green Burial sites -
Page 163 and 164: 156 J W Collins Rochford does not n
Page 165 and 166: 190 Mr G J Tinsey New facilities sh
Page 167 and 168: 235 L W Lewis There are not enough
Page 169 and 170:
268 Mr S Crussell We don't really h
Page 171 and 172:
317 Mr D Harris Having attended a '
Page 173 and 174:
359 Mr New I do not see this as a t
Page 175 and 176:
Rep No Contact Name CPO and Plannin
Page 177 and 178:
057 Mrs J Williams Developers shoul
Page 179 and 180:
102 Mr T Newton Compulsory purchase
Page 181 and 182:
158 Mr & Mrs White Some compulsory
Page 183 and 184:
196 Mr A E Hodges The voluntary app
Page 185 and 186:
246 Miss M Saward No this is not fa
Page 187 and 188:
306 Mr E C Cook See comments under
Page 189 and 190:
362 Ms M Power Circular 1/97 provid
show all

Planning - Summary of all comments - Amazon Web Services

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?