Planning - Summary of all comments - Amazon Web Services

More documents

Recommendations

Info

346 Mrs F E Stone I am in receipt of a circular from Lyn Hopkins (Rawreth Parish Councillor) written to make local residents aware of the Governments directive telling Rochford District Council to build another 3000 houses within the District. The circular gives advice on the three options at present being considered by RDC and recommends that residents submit the option they would prefer. Although I am not in favour of any further large scale housing development, especially in Rawreth and Rayleigh, because the infrastructure is already saturated. My only choice is to spread them fairly thruoghout the district. Please record my views under this category. 347 Mr C Rooke Is it significant that you have not included a section on transport. I believe this will be one of the biggest issues in years to come. Is public transport up to the need of an ageing population? How do people drive ? Is an area that is becoming clogged up. Where do people park when they go to London to work by the train? What other provision can be made. RDC should be working to maintain the post office service. We have a number of smaller communities which will take a severe knock if post offices close. Thank you very much for not informing us about the survey which closes at Christmas. I realise the best way not to get opposition is not to let the public know about it and then claim no one objected to it. As a resident of Rawreth I think due to the vast increase in new housing which the roads cannot cope with already it is totally unfair to add another 3000 houses to this area alone. It is only fair that the new housing should be spread fairly over the district as to prevent our area being blocked at peak times every day. No one area should be targeted with such an increase which will only cause problems 348 M Suckling with schools etc being full. 349 Ms C Paine This area is very special. Please keep it that way. We have lived in Rawreth for the last 22 years, we have seen many changes in that time. We are very concerned about the news that 3,000 houses are to be built in Rawreth. This is not very fair, we have had Park School site built on already, you 351 Mr Clelland want to put more houses in this area. The fairest option is to spread them around the district. Please do not take affence of my remarks - its just suggestions. I was thinking that making up of the land could use clay 353 Mr R J Saward and soil from development sites in the Rochford area to save filling up tips. 354 Mrs Smith 355 Mr K Vingoe 356 Mr & Mrs D Dobbin With massive profits to be made by developers and the council in regard to council tax, more involvement by the local residents in decision making as to whether a new development is in their interest, should be observed by the council and planning office. All developments should be looked at in the long term, how will this work and look in 30/50/50 years time. Pressure for an east-west byepass for the relief of Southend continues to put pressure on the greenbelt and its viability in future years. Similarly proposals for development on our boundaries with Southend and Chelmsford/Battlesbridge, threaten increasing pressure on our infrastructure. This is a precis of the Council's response to the consultation document which did raise concern over the inclusion of some items, namely issues such as the provision of incinerators. Public expression in recent years has been clearly and unambiguously opposed. The County Council, the relevant waste disposal authority, have declared that no new incinerators would be envisaged within the county. Therefore it is difficult to see why such an item should be included in the document. That said, the Parish Council through its newsletter and provision if necessary for public meetings, would support the widest and most meaningful consultation. Every effort should be made to prevent infill between Southend and Rochford areas. Noises in the press give the impression that a predatory Southend is hell-bent on eroding the buffer between the two areas and imposing development that is incompatible with the historic character of the Rochford District. Should it ever be built, the suggested road to the East of Southend will have significant effect on Rochford including an almost intolerable pressure to include ribbon development along its length and significant infill across the Green Belt it encloses.
357 Ms V O'Malley Perhaps the government should site all the new homes they want in Wales or Scotland, there's plenty of land there! Rochford and surrounding historical villages are still unspoiled. Please do not turn them into urban sprawl like Rainham, for example. Please plan a new town at Rawreth. Children could even go to school in Colchester or Chelmsford instead of 358 Mr & Mrs England being bussed into Westcliff like those from Billericay and Maldon. There is a need for more general community activity to get people mixing and away from the television. Organised District 359 Mr New tours in the summer is a possibility. Regarding transport - clearly people have got to get out of their cars and onto buses and trains. Air travel is not a proven environmentally friendly alternative. More pedestrian and cycle routes are required but to suggest 'roadway stations' is nonsense. The Southend airport station will use up Rochford Station anyway and if by 'passenger interchanges' you mean 360 Mr A J Eisenhauer better co-ordinated travel options into and out of the District it's about time! Whilst I accept that the period for representations has ended, my recent experience appearing at a Core Strategy public examination may be of relevance to the form of the next state of the Core Strategy. At this recent public examination, the Inspectors were very keen to have a clear audit trail of a settlement heirarchy which would then inform the Site Allocations DPD. In particular, they were concerned that the Core Strategy should defferentiate between settlements on the basis of their sustainable credentials. In the case of Rochford District, this would suggest that the current approach of allocating 90% of all new housing development to the three main settlements may not be sufficiently precise. A more 'sound' and robust approach would be to prioritise Rayleigh, Rochford/Ashingdon and Hockley/Hawkwell on the basis of their sustainable credentials (ie. range of facilities, services, shops, public transport and population). If such a prioritisation wsa undertaken, the resulting sustainable sequence would be 1. Rayleigh. 2. Rochford/Ashingdon. 3. Hockley/Hawkwell. The Site 361 Mr R M Sellwood Allocations DPD would then seek to locate a greater share of new housing allocations at Rayleigh then the other two main se Council discussed the consultation regarding the alternative opportunities arising out of the Governments Regional Spatial Strategy requirements to build a further 4600 homes (or net some 3500) in the district. Rawreth residents have already indicated both in the questionnaire that preceded the Parish Plan and the plan itself that it would not welcome any further development in the area except for lost cost/affordable housing. Like Canewdon, any large scale development would destroy the character of the community. The Residents of Rawreth love the Village for its peace and tranquillity, its friendliness and truly rural character. They hope to keep it that way. If District choose to ignore the contents of the Parish Plan it makes mockery of the Parish Plan Process. Council are apposed to any small community having large housing development against their expressed wishes and believe the best option to be adding housing in proportion to the existing 363 Mr S Croucher development. It is their understanding that there are no proposals to improve the existing infrastructure and without this it is Like other residents in the Rochford District Council area I have received a copy of Rochford District Matters inviting me to respond to your consultation about the council's new local development framework core strategy. Please accept this letter as my formal response to this initiative. As you know, I remain opposed in principle to the present Government's whole approach of national and regional housing targets, which involves unelected regional bodies imposing arbitrary housing targets on local authorities such as Rochford, irrespective of the ability of the authority to accommodate the number of dwellings proposed. We have a number of difficult infrastructure issues as it is, such as pressure on our transport network, our medical facilities and a shortage of secondary school places. Therefore, I do not believe that we can adequately accommodate the additional 4600 houses which Rochford has been allocated out to 2021 without further significant 364 Mr M Francois infrastructure investment, which at present does not appear to be forthcoming. If anything the proposed reduction in NHS 365 Mrs H J Springham The extra homes should be spread fairly all around the district. They should not be put all in one place.
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 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: 338 Mr & Mrs Saunders We have been
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?