Planning - Summary of all comments - Amazon Web Services

085 C G Tabar Green belt land should be released next to existing towns, develoments. No new town or development in countryside.
No land should be released from the green belt, there will be none left it we keep building on it. No land should be allocated
for a new town, they are very 'brickie' cold unfriendly places. No more building needed in the area. Less people being
086 Mr M Gorman
allowed into the country would mean less housing needed. Why do Essex need to build more?
Near railway/transport links. Battlesbridge. No new town unless clear infrastructure plan (transport/amenities). Similarly no
087 Mr I Walker
new build where infrastructure is overloaded.
We do not have much green belt land around Rayleigh. Spring Gardens playing fields are locked up - are open and used a
few hours a week - this space is underused and not available. Lets spread housing out, in Rayleigh 'garage space' is being
088 Miss S Thackeray converted into housing!
Before you think about development, please put roads in to take extra traffic and stop road congestion which we have now
089 J Weddell
and consider 40 ton vehicles using horse and cart roads.
090 Mr B Everett Land should not be released from Green Belt. Seek brown field sites for building houses.
No Green belt land should be released. Councils should only develop on land that has previously been developed. No new
091 Ms P Bailey
town look for industrial units that are no longer being used - brickfields Shoebury, lower lambricks etc.
Land should not be released from green belt, unnecessarily. No to a new town. Yes to small developments. There is a lot
of land in the area around the Airport - is this all green belt. There are a lot of open spaces between Rochford and
092 Mrs M Hills
Wickford. Small well planned estates could be built without harming the general countryside feel of the area.
093 Mrs M J Owoo Yes developing in those is a good idea
I consider that there are already enough houses (and cars particularly) in the areas and no more land should be released
whatsoever from the Green Belt. These new houses mean more cars and increasing traffic congestion, which is already
094 F A Browne
increasing.
095 Mr J Britton Should land be released from green belt - NO continue to develop NO see comments allocating land NO see comments
Infill. Yes. No new town. Real problem building flats on brownfield sites. Parking supplied is inadequate. Planning
096 Mr W Roberts
deptartments must insist that developers provide enough parking even at the expense of some of their profits.
No further development of Green Belt in Rochford. As Rayleigh is fairly well built up and has good links to London, it would
097 Mr & Mrs Newman seem better to make that the town and Rochford the village.
A new town? Where is the water coming from, sewage disposal? Schools, hospitals, road, rail improvements, work places?
098 Mrs N London
No more large scale development should be allowed in an already overcrowded, south east corner of England.
We have lost enough of our green belt already. Only develop sites abandonded by businesses or where houses are no
longer viable and are demolished. We do not need a new town, this is supposed to be a rural area. This was the reason a
lot of people moved here to be out of the large towns. Water is already short here and so are services such as schools and
099 Mr & Mrs R G Headley medical facilities. We cannot put any more pressure on these things.
No where! Green Belt is green belt for a reason! If the people of Rochford District wanted to live in a concrete environment
they would re-locate to city. Look to re-developing existing urbanised areas rather than destroying the last areas of
100 Mr R Scates
countryside we have. I notice plenty of abandoned industrial areas around the country.
101 Mrs S Parsons No land should be released from Green Belt for any reason. We need our lungs.