Planning - Summary of all comments - Amazon Web Services

322 Ms J Hitchcock
323 Mr T Beebee
325 Mr D Elwell
326 Owner/Occupier
327 Mrs C Taylor
328 Mr A Stones
I have read the Rochford District Council Local Inquiry Statement - and I was pleased to read the Council's intention to
review the inner green belt boundary with reference to housing land supply. I understand that one review has already been
taken. There is so much that seems to be involved and of course each applicant thinks they should be considered and that
suitability of site is in their favour. It is mentioned that this site is part of a strategic 'gap' between, Hockley/Hawkwell and
Rochford/Ashingdon, but it is surrounded by houses, both sides, at back and in front and has properties between 'it' and the
green fields. One four bedroomed house could be considered one step up on the ladder, from a first time affordable
property. Just one and a quarter miles from the station it is in easy access for anyone, commuter or otherwise, to walk (as
promoted by the Government) for travel or for both school and shops. There is a bus stop in front of the land and it is
surrounded by houses. Development on this site would be sustainable. I was very interested to learn of the Governments
Rayleigh as you say in 4.6.3 is not capable of further expansion, infilling and redevelopment. 4.6.6 again this is a false
assumption. Rayleigh cannot accept new developments. RETHINK YOUR PREMISE. Rayleigh cannot cope with existing
levels of population and traffic. Where do the council get their ideas from in the first place. They cannot live in Rayleigh or
are they being helped with their preferences by the developers. Your definition of green belt should not be compromised.
All developments should be sustainable. Use planning gains to make the developers provide houses that are from
renewable energy and provide the same area of new parkland to match area of housing they develop.
I consider that not withstanding the intimidation of central government on local authorities no development of the scale
proposed is sustainable in an area which already suffers from road infrastructure problems etc. District councils should fight
such intimidation from central government. I doubt that my comments will be taken seriously as on previous occasions I
have not received help from your authority on other issues. Bearing in mind the above comments what is the value in a
public consultation where a pre conceived mandate does not allow RDC residents to object to the basic objective.
Local development framework - core strategy? How about using plain simple English?! Public transport is very poor and
could be improved immensely. Need more frequent services, especially late at night and on Sundays, buses rarely run to
time and information at bus stops is normally absent.
Planning applications should be put onto the website - even though I don't have access to one - many people do and may
encourage people to be pro-active and just to keep people informed. A better cycle network and bridlepath network along
our side our rivers and sea walls thus creating access to all not just walkers. A park and ride scheme from Rochford Airport
into Southend or Southend rail station - reasonably priced. Council to promote our P.R.O.W - a great free way to enjoy our
lovely countryside. Encourage more people to use Rochford market on Tuesdays. Print a leaflet about all the pubs in
Rochford and churches giving a brief history and some short stories about the people who used them.
We would argue that Canewdon is a good location for a modest allocation of residential land. It is four miles from Rochford
and seven miles from Southend, to both of which it is linked by a regular bus service. The village has a number of local
services:- two shops, two pubs, a primary school, village hall and parish church. Some extra population within their
catchment would underpin the viability of these services. The village does, however, have a sensitive landscape setting,
with Green Belt on one side and the Coastal Protection Area on the other. Any release of land for housing would have to
ensure that the compactness of the village and the relationship to its landscape setting was not compromised. The site
comprises the curtilages of Three Acres and Birch Lodge, two detached dwellings with outbuildings on large plots fronting
Anchor Lane. In total it comprises about 1 ha. with a road frontage to Anchor Lane of approximately 80m and a return of
frontage to Church Road of about 120m. A substantial equestrian building formerly occupied the central part of the site, but