Planning - Summary of all comments - Amazon Web Services

More documents

Recommendations

Info

238 Gill Tilson I feel the water shortage as it is now needs to be addressed with priority and all new developments put on hold until we can afford to supply new developments with water, without creating even more water shortages in the coming years, as I will be the first to complain, as the shortage is being created mostly by the expansion of new housing and industrial buildings, and not due to lack of rain fall which we are lead into believing. How can the councils continue to let new build continue which will create even more demand on the already failing water supplys. The reservoirs have remained unchanged for years, but the drain on these supplies continue to grow ten fold, million times more than the lack of rain. Surely the council must see that if we now have a water supply problem with the current amount of buildings, that building more will only esculate the problem, unless of course they are not going to give new builds access to water? Which is the only way we can continue to build. Although this survey has been sent out to all the areas, from personal experience the views of local people are rarely taken 239 Ms S Martin into account when planning decisions are made. Government targets usually take precidence over local needs. Expand the roadside recycling - include ALL roads, plus collect more eg plastic, garden waste (for free) and encourage all to use. Help explain to residents how important it is to protect and save our environment and how each of use can help. Save water, recycle, compost etc. We note many of our neighbours don't recycle, why? Target those that don't and help them understand. We ought to encourage the 'house for life' - if people like their surroundings it helps, but size is important too. Provide space/flexibility to allow sensible extensions. We feel 'green belt' must be kept, but relax the rules a bit re extensions. We rent an allotment, which really made us appreciate home grown fruit/veg. Could small scale allotments be 240 Mr & Mrs Beattie provided in new developments? or even existing estates? We write firstly to commend the Rochford District Council's excellend planning article published in the centre spread of the Autumn 2006 edition of 'Rochford District Matters'. This article clearly explains the issues which need to be addressed to provide all future additional facilities for the district up to 2021 and possibly beyond. The overall requirement being around 3,600 new homes, with an affordable percentage, and all the facilities and infrastructure such as schools, health centres, libraries, shops, new roads, public transport, office/commerce parks, light industry, general industry, cemeteries and an improved airport to provide sustainability. Our greater family have lived and worked in the Rochford District for over a century so we can say we are reasonably familiar with the District. Although we are in agreement in principle with the Council's favoured viewpoint to share future new development among the three main towns of Rayleigh, Hockley and 241 Mr & Mrs Harper-Ward Ashingdon/Rochford to take 90% and the second tier of smaller towns, Hullbridge, Canewdon and Wakering to take 10%, 242 Mr D Batchelor The council is elected to work for the people but are ? By useless governments. 243 Adrean Lansdowne 244 Mr P Raiswell 245 M J Burpitt All new housing must have off road parking with capacity befitting of the number of adults likely to be accommodated. It should also have solar panels fitted with the developer and purchaser sharing the cost of the installation. This consultation document is very useful for those living in the district to be able to express their views on certain issues that will affect the future development of the area. Many issues will be worthy of a vote. When local elections are next held why not ask the voters to also express their views on key future planning issues by including a questionnaire when casting their vote. Sport England has published guidance for Local Authorities on how to incorporate sport and recreation into LDF - Core Strategy documents. This guidance is contained within the Sport England website and can be accessed as follows www.sportengland.org then searching on 'core strategy' As I made clear in the first section, I am seeking, along with other plot owners on the Rayleigh Park Estate, to build homes on plots 143 to 167 and 179 to 199 (aprox) using The John R Bishop Partnership as our agents.
246 Miss M Saward 248 Mr A Presslee 249 Mr I Hill 251 Mr B Guyett - Chairman Since the new Cherry Orchard bypass has been built the area of 'Stroud Green' Hall Road has become too busy and it will get worse if you continue to build in this area. Building in Shoebury will also encuorage a lot more traffic trying to get off. You need to build more inland rather than coastal. I am very pleased to see the country park has been built and feel that we need to continue this around the area of Rochford. The development of Toomeys (Cherry Orchard Way) will encourage too much traffic especially if a petrol garage is allowed. Tesco's is only a short drive away, so why do we need this. God forbid what happens if the airport is allowed to expand and think of the polution to the area and the country park let alone air traffic noise. I am embarrased when friends come to stay as the area is so busy and has changed so much. I used to be really proud to live in an historic town of Rochford (especially because of its history). Please do not spoil it (Preserve it). We support the option to focus the majority of new developments in and around the top tier of settlements, including Rochford/Ashingdon and that the majority of new development will be focused on the most sustainable sites around these settlements (4.6.7). It is acknowledged that brownfield land should be identified to meet RSS14 housing requirements. However, in practice it will also be necessary to release green belt land for developments, where it is most sustainable and where its development would not undermine the objectives of the green belt. The eastern side of Rochford/Ashingdon represents just such a location. A suitable extension to the settlement will utilise an area of the green belt that makes a limited contribution to those factors which would normally determine such a designation. The enclosed extract from the Inspector's report into the Replacement Local Plan highlights the sustainability and other factors that support development in this location. We acknowledge that the core strategy stage of the LDF process does not seek site specific allocations. To ensure a consistent approach with adjoining Councils, the Core Strategy should identify how various cross boundary accessibility issues, including proposed new road links, which are essential to the implementation of various regeneration objectives, will be addressed. More specifically, the Southend-on-Sea Core Strategy identifies a 'proposed new road link' which will be required to traverse land toward the south eastern part of the District of Rochford in order to achieve regeneration objectives in the Shoeburyness area. The 'Issues and Options Paper' makes no reference as to how the Council will seek to either address the proposed link road or implications for the Green Belt boundary potentially arising during the plan period as a result of the improved road infrastructure. Therefore, in order to ensure that the Core Strategy provides a comprehensive spatial and strategic framework for the District, it is requested that the Council's approach to transport and accessibility, including cross boundary issues, is embodied within the document. We are writing to express our concern at the wording of some questions in this questionnaire, which are not open handed. In particular, questions 1 (housing) and 3 (jobs) imply that release of more land is necessary, when existing reports do not support this. For example, the Housing Provision Report Para 2.14 says "These figures show clearly that, taking into account a very conservative level of housing provoision from the urban capacity study gifures, the structure plan housing provision ffigure of 3050 units will be satisficed. There is no requirement for sites to be released from the Green Belt in the period 1996-2011." Likewise the Urban Capacity Study reaches the same conclusions. Therefore there is not need to release Green Belt land in the medium term. The target required is 4,600 homes but the Housing Report shows that 4,017 are available, leaving a shortfall of less than 600. Fulfillment of this figure is entirely achievable over a 15 year period by infill. The Inspectors' Report makes similar statements re land for jobs. If this is to be a true public consultation exercise,
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: 222 R Luck 225 Mr P Court 227 Mr &
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?