Planning - Summary of all comments - Amazon Web Services

312 Mr D Foyle
313 Mr B Sellwood
314 Mrs C Quennell
316 Ms S Copeman
317 Mr D Harris
318 Ms W Hatton
319 Mr M Lang
321 R J Feather
I accept that new housing is a necessity but am totally against land being made available for gypsy and traveller sites. A
lesson should be learnt from Crays Hill that if you make ANY land available it will be totally abused, the area will become
run down, schooling will suffer and so will house prices. We are the people paying the rates and taxes within the area and
should have the right to say NO! I do not think any further development should be made to the prison in the area. I think it
disgraceful that the nature of the prison at Bullwood Hall has been changed without any consideration to the residents who
live close by and it is not LOCAL people who are detained there.
Green Belt Probable Option : Given the likely level of the housing provision in Rochford District to 2021, the Housing
Chapter of the draft DPD accepts that some greenfield development will be required. Given the particular characteristics of
Rochford, greenfield releases will also be Green Belt releases. In this context, it is considered that the ‘probable Green Belt
option’ (p14) is misleading in that it gives no indication that whilst overall Green Belt policy will be maintained, some Green
Belt land will be released through the Allocations DPD to meet housing needs to 2021. A more accurate form of words
would be to add a new sentence after the first sentence stating “Some land adjacent to the main settlements will need to be
released from the Green Belt to meet housing needs to 2021”. General Development Locations Probable Option (p26) :
The probable option of concentrating 90% of all new housing at the three main settlements is supported as being the
sustainable option which accords with regional and national planning policy.
Something needs to be done now, for cheaper housing for the young, not in 10 years time. Whether now or in 10 years
nothing will change, only get worse so lets get on with it, and release some of this in-between land, and give the young
something to stay in Southend for.
Clearly define Green Belt areas in a positive way so that people can plan accordingly rather than sit on plots of land 'hoping'
for housing development.
We are hoteliers, trapped in a 'green belt' situation our 34 letting rooms are not consistent with the current trend by 'lodge'
operators to build hotels of 60 letting rooms, (thereby diluting fixed overhead costs across more letting units, and thus
reducing the operating cost per unit). This allows lodges to sell their rooms at very competitive rates. Market conditions
demand that we must compete with the lodges and therefore we have had to reduce our letting prices or lose custom. As a
result of this pressure on letting prices our profitability has been squeezed dramatically. If our hotel is to survive for the long
term, we need to compete with other hotels/lodges on a level playing field and this means that, in todays market, we should
expand to 60 letting rooms. Our green belt setting is a serious obstacle to our expansion prospects which will eventually kill
the viability of our hotel.
No one wants their backyard developed. Remember we all get older. If there are no nice landscaped easy to keep
retirement properties. The older people will not leave there nice family homes so new families can move in to up keep
these homes before they are only fit for demolition. Where are all the petrol stations going there are more cars and less
stations.
To encourage people to come here (private and businesses) more should be done maintaining roads, path etc, street
cleaning better. Make a better appearance over all.
I hope councillors and officers will have similar views as a result of this consultation. The farcial situation regarding Asda
planning application shows a complete lack of understanding and knowledge of residents wishes - this must not happed -
perhaps the officers need to change, as we vote for the councillors.