Planning - Summary of all comments - Amazon Web Services

More documents

Recommendations

Info

188 Mr A Mackay 190 Mr G J Tinsey 193 Ms S Swift 194 Mr C Hutchinson 195 Mr B M Gilbert 196 Mr A E Hodges 197 P McAllister Hello, I'm a human being - I live in this area please treat me as though I have some intelligence, do not tell me 'central government has set Rochford the requirement to construct 4,600 homes by 2021' without telling me why? Why my area requires 4600 homes, or about 9000 cars 12,000 people. How the hell do these numbers improve my life in this area, or those of my friends or families? Rochford Council is elected by us suckers to represent us not to represent central government! In that respect I think it's about time the council showed some balls and told central government that Essex - especially our corner of Essex - is FULL. The core strategy is based on sustainable views. I would add the following; Any warehousing and distribution centres must be rail connected. Public transport should be more integrated, and better bus services are required. Some of the county councils 'sustainable' transport policies need to be in progress, such as lorry route/restrictions, a change from road only, to rail and water for freight and other new ideas. A new railway station/interface at Southend Airport could also have a basic cross-dock platform for a multi-modal company to support employment, poss - parcel company using air, rail and road! Do we use our rivers for commercial use? All housing/industrial areas should have direct pedestrian, cycle routes, but stops/routes and good links to railway stations. The side roads and pavement are in a bad state of repair. Since moving here over 5 years ago I have noticed the drop in standards of these and also the weeds on pavements and in gutters and alleyways especially. Some are nearly impassable. There has also been a great increase in cars and motorbike in the Bull Lane/Derwent Avenue area. This seems to be people using it as a rat run to the Hockley Road and on to Rawreth Road, due to the new build estates there but no road planning for the increase in traffic eg 2 cars per house at least. The High Street in Rayleigh is also suffering with empty shops, and those opening are haridressers and nail bars. A fresh fish shop and greengrocers would be useful! This would mean we could get all our shopping in Rayleigh, hense bringing income to the town. How about a farmers market on a Saturday in the car park opposite Holy Trinity? Ref 8 (2) Water storage tanks - sewerage charges usage from tanks for use in toilets can easily be metered, therefore water companies could not reasonably oppose this - overflow from tanks once full can be treated in the same manner that roof guttering is routed by underground drains/soakaways. I believe this is done on the continent - so why not here? Ref 1 - Another possible area for a new town might be Canewdon? I think that too much emphasis is being put on "building affordable homes" in the South of England. We are already overcrowded. The whole infrastructure is under a great stress. Travel? A127-A13-M25-A12 - the railways Liverpool Street and Fenchurch Street lines, overcrowded. People leaving earlier and earlier to travel to this place of employment each and every day. One major hold-up and the whole of Essex shuts down. Water? I do not need to tell you what a problem that will produce. Travel up to the Midlands or further North and see the capacity for commercial and housing growth. New towns and industrial sites space a plenty. If Rochford sits back and lets itself be pushed into more housing etc we shall be standing on each others shoulders before long. The unemployment situation is far worse up North than here! Is Rochford Council assuming wealth will come out of more housing etc? Weeds growing in gutters and unswept streets does not give a very favourable impression of the area to either visitors or prospective residents. More effort required on re-cycling. My comments are a bit vague as I don't know the area that well, as we have only been here a short time. The reason we did come here is that Rayleigh is a very pretty town, semi rural with friendly people, and sometimes over development spoils all that and good people move out. We were very taken when we went into Rochford village so pretty , please don't lose that either.
198 Mr J Clamp 200 Mr T O'Shea 201 Mr M Thomas Building for an ageing population is important but not at the expense of low cost housing. Whatever the development it should be around an infrastructure planned before development and just not as an afterthought. Road congestion on existing roads will not go away in the short term without better planning. I do actually think you are doing a very good job under a lot of pressure put on you by Government. I am sure you realise that whatever you decide thousands of people have to live in it. Unfortunately because of the intolerable pressure put on them in todays age any help you can give them in better roads and services and open spaces will be appreciated. Not too happy with car park in Websters Way, total waste of money, front brick wall is a hazard as you leave the car park - difficult to see traffic approaching from right. Also 'Rayleigh' sign post in walkway just erected - I know I'm in Rayleigh! What ever happened to government and EU regulation to cycle lanes. I was amazed to find it has not included Hall Road Cock Inn roundabout to Hockley and beyond. Was this only to apply to affluent areas and new developments. 203 M T Conaty Could the community police officers and local police get out of the care and walk some of the roads of the main highways. More prosecution of the people who are blighting the area with graffiffi. Better street cleaning. More litter bins. 204 Mr R Gould Please stop building! Infrastructure - if you work on a main road in this local connurbation you will know that it only takes one accident to cause a snarl-up that brings the whole area to a standstill. Before any consideration of encouraging more building, tourism and leisure activities in the area, we need to get the area ready to cope with it all. An accident on one of our main roads should not condemn us all to take two and a half hours to go three miles home at the end of a working day. Incinerator - nobody wants one on their patch, but if we keep on building we will soon have to bear the burning of rubbish at ground level on someones doorstep. It might be better to bite the bullet now and start planning for a proper incineration system that produces electricity from the waste it burns. I am incensed at the way some local authorities are willing to allow waste to be shipped around the world for someone else to deal with. I trust that our council will be rigorous in ensuring this does not 206 Mrs G Harper happen and that bales of unwanted clothing are not sent to poorer countries to be sold in markets there. Local small textile Government allocated a housing quota for District of 4600 by 2021, 900 already built. Planners and Councillors want 90%of this in Hockley/Hawkwell/Rayleigh/Ashingdon/Rochford, 10% to go in rural conservation villages, eg Hullbridge, Paglesham etc, excluding Foulness. But vested interests will oppose much more housing in 'ancient' Rochford and Rayleigh and half of Hawkwell is greenbelt. Once can see consequences for the remainder; as "bigger sites" eg Park School etc are now scarce, will be "infilling" and "brownfield" development - Mr Scrutton described latter as eg 1 house and garden to be "regenerated" with 2 or more dwellings. One already sees piecemeal building of monsters intentionally designed out of scale with neighbouring houses, with the object of snapping them up at bargain prices once so blighted by such planning permission - a backdoor version of compulsory purchase - so more of the same can be built on the remainder. S E Essex is too small for a "new town" which would also need massive new road construction. Map of Rochfrod is a mass of green - your much 207 Ms G Yeadell prized 9 10ths greenbelt, with 3 "urban" centres roughly corresponding to the above - tiny in comparison. You will have to re At what point will planning authorities realise that this area doesn't have unlimited resources and roads etc. It seems that Essex (in the South East) is increasingly the dumping ground for "affordable housing" that seems so trendy at the moment. I have yet to find any member of the public that is pro more housing, can you explain why our elected government and 208 I Gyres councils continue to press more and more on use. I thought they represented the peoples views?
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: 177 Mr J East 178 Mr D Livermore 17
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 and 118:
261 S A Skinner 262 Ms L Parish I w
Page 119 and 120:
301 Ms K Kelly 4.3 Protection and e
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?