Planning - Summary of all comments - Amazon Web Services

More documents

Recommendations

Info

287 Mr R Forster 289 Mrs J Warner 290 Ms E Davis 291 Maydo Pitt 293 Wai-Kit Cheung 294 Ms K Fletcher The government targets set for Rochford is way too high. This whole area is becoming congested and not as nice a place to live as years ago other parts of the country would benefit from better housing and jobs the government should be looking at that. The infrastructure in this area can't cope. More people means more cars and this area has enough transport problems. Webster Way area, Rochford, Hockley the list goes on with congestion. People sitting in traffic jams causes more pollution. The major distraction, to the detriment of the whole area, is rubbish, litter and graffiti and vandalism! Deal with these issues as top priority otherwise people will not want to live, work, play or visit the area. If this is in our best interest and non profit making, go ahead we suspect this will be the outcome anyway - if there are any dangers, loopholes or snags - they don't appear in the proposals. My bathroom needs a makeover as I cannot use the bath, it has been an ongoing request for a walk in shower. Being able to comment gives us hope but it's on a beleive it when we see it basis. The Government Office's Role Our role in DPD preparation is to help ensure that submitted documents are sound in relation to the tests set out in paragraph 4.24 of Planning Policy Statement 12 (PPS12): Local Development Frameworks. During the early production stages, our focus is to seek to identify any serious omissions and obvious errors in relation to the tests, rather than provide a full and detailed assessment of the consultation material, much of which may still need to be formulated, refined and tested through ongoing engagement with the local community and stakeholders and through the sustainability appraisal process. This letter reflects our role at this stage and sets out some general information relating to the early stages of DPD production. We also provide some comments on aspects of the consultation material's content. We will take a more detailed look at the proposed DPD's content at the preferred options stage, and would be grateful if you could send us 4 copies of the material then, as required by PPS12, paragraph 4.13. In the meantime, if the authority I write on behalf of my client, Fairview New Homes Limited. Fariview New Homes Limited is a leading house builder that specialises in the provision of new housnig on previously developed land to provide accommodation at the more affordable end of the market. They are therefore very familiar with the issues arising out of the redevelopment of previously developed land and the costs that can often be involved. They are also a major provider of affordable housing and therefore it is hoped that their views will be appropriately taken on board during the progression of the LDF. Spatial Portrait Para 1.11 We note the reference to expansion of Southend Airport. Our understanding of current proposals is that this will not adversely affect the grade I listed chuch close to the runway. Vision for the district We welcome the inclusion of heritage in the aims in para 2.2 and the reference to enhancement of sites in the 5 year vision. We hope that the analysis that you have carried out of the historic environment will also assist in bringing forward high quality new development reflecting the district's underlying distinctiveness. Core Strategy issues Para 4.4.9 It would be helpful here to refer to the Historic Landscape Characterisation work carried out by Essex County Council. 4.5 Housing numbers options. We suggest that the 'probable options' box should refer to the re-use of buildings as well as land. 4.9 Good Design and Design Statements. The Urban Place Supplement, while a helpful initiative, needs to be fine tuned in terms of the distinctive character of individual districts. This is particularly the case in relation to the small settlements and market towns 295 Mr A Dodgson With the increasing development pressure and competition for suitable building land and property, I am simply writing to ask that you please allocate sites for worship within the formulation of the Local Development Framework. 298 Mr & Mrs Hewitt There is already too much traffic for our roads. All new building should be stopped. We would like to see an expansion of the recycling collections; maybe collecting plastic and card. You might try looking at Southend's scheme which has recently been expanded. We think this is a good way to involve residents and we hope we 299 Mr & Mrs Tuson will see some feedback on people's comments.
300 Mrs Upson I have answered this to the best of my ability. Note housing. I was nine years old from 9 of us living in one room since I was born 2 adults 7 children. Council house then in Dagenham then the war, those who married on a list and had to wait till a lot of London was cleared then ? for 10 years, I wonder why they have not come back to help the housing problem ? to Rayleigh so I consider I do know what it is like for people on those lists for housing are told (no room at the Inn, my husband was told that, 4 years ? ? service when he came home again from abroad 1945. Is it just pep talk. 2.2 Principle aims The RSPB is pleased to see that Rochford District Council ('the Council') wishes to improve the diversity and quality of the environment. In order to ensure this target is met, we recommend that the Council consider all planning applications against their ability to avoid or minimise adverse environmental impacts, reduce energy and water consumption and deliver biodiversity gains. 2.5 & 2.17 Green spaces The RSPB recommends that the Council assess proposals against their ability to provide an environment accessible to all, incorporating multifunctional green spaces delivering wide benefits for both people and wildlife. The RSPB believes that green spaces are vital not only for wildlife but for the communitities around them. Green spaces provide opportunities for recreation and education as well as contributing to pollution reduction and flood risk management. The Council should be seeking to incorporate existing green spaces and 301 Ms K Kelly features into developments wherever possible, and continually seeking new opportunities for multifunctional green space 302 Mr B Short Ensure that travellers etc are removed from illegal sites quickly. I expect the council to fight central government on the issue of 4,600 new homes in this area. Hockley/Hawkwell do not wish to become suburbs of Southend and the increased traffic from new development and the rise in air travel expected 303 Mr K Hatfield from Southend Airport is intollerable. Don't you think the community has suffered enough from over development! Rochford needs to be a little more sophisticated like Leigh with good shops and cafes. Rochford is getting very down market and the yobs are winning. I certainly don't walk in Rochford in the evening you need to do more to brighten, enliven 304 Mr A Rutter the town before it's too late. Totally against any type of Southend relief road in Rochford area. If Southend need one then there is enough space in their local area to contain this idea. Encourage more local transport schemes or subsidise current bus companies etc. Hockley is in need of an area or club for youngsters and needs an "upmarket" type of bar/restaurant. Do you really want to see all 307 Mr J Snow our free monies going out of the Council area ...... ie Southend. Council tax cannot keep going up at current rates without pension increases to match or it will become unpayable and more of us will have little option but to default. Prison threats are no good if the money isn't there! This needs to be borne in 308 The Occupier mind in costs of plans. By all methods and means possible the Rochford area needs to maintain its very pleasant rural aspect for its appreciating 309 Mr J Smith resident community. 310 Chris Teeder 311 Mrs P A Watson Jones I think it is about time the local council listened to the residents they are supposed to be serving. There seems to be too many controversial developments in this area being allowed to go ahead with relative ease. Many of these plans are totally unthought through, unnecessary and only seem to serve the purpose of making certain people vast sums of money. Rather than benefit the local area's ecology and residents. Time and time again I am seeing vast chunks of green land disappear forever to provide us with another cramped housing estate or another industrial estate. Please think about what you are doing before it is all gone and Hockley becomes another district of London, with nose to tail traffic and thick polluted air. There are plenty of empty premises which can be taken for new job opportunities and businesses. Why create yet another estate which uses up more precious land.
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: 272 Mr A Patton 273 Mr J Wilson 274
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?