Planning - Summary of all comments - Amazon Web Services

117 W R H Beehag
Not around Rochford which is over busy with traffic and will be worse when the new town centre development is brought into
use. Canewdon could benefit by enlargement if services and facilities were improved to match. Definitely not within 2
miles of the Airport.
We have lost too much green belt and both I and my husband feel there is too much development in and around the
118 Mrs I Sandell
Rochford area.
Some Green Belt land should be released and the homes spread around the country villages of the district - not Rochford,
Hockley/Hawkwell and Rayleigh - wherever they are built a new transport plan needs to ? By-passing the 4 towns above -
119 Mr C Gabell
the Rochford by-pass from South Woodham to Southend should be built.
120 Mr B Poole No new town. Green belt release - local infill only and then only if absolutely necessary.
No, I think land should not be released from the green belt. No the council should not continue to develop around
Rochford/Ashingdon/Hockley/Hawkwell and Rayleigh. Rayleigh has seen significant new houses/lats being built over the
last few years, none of which are affordable to the young professionals in the area who are unable to get into the housing
121 Mrs S J Attfield market.
122 F E Wells Only if traffic problems solved first.
No Green Belt should be given to developers. Houses been not live in for 2 years. Should be compulsory size to live in
123 Mr K Walcer
again.
124 Mrs Slater No more in Essex. Suffolk there is vast amounts of open space.
Build new small villages, not too close to existing towns/villages. There are plenty of fields which are uninspiring to the eye
and have no real ecological value. Build sympathetically to the surroundings and peoples needs. No monotone housing
125 Mr D Brown & Mrs J Kirk estates.
I) Preferably away from original flood plain sites, in view of rising sea levels. The suggested areas could all sustain a
certain amount of new development but only if the transport infrastructure is improved. Ii) Rawreth Lane are could be a site
126 Mr J Jefferies
of interest, but not for a "new town". Some green belt land will obviously have to be used.
As more homes are compulsory, they should be encouraged wherever and whenever possible. The Green Belt concept is
very dated now and its spirit should be kept at the planning forefront, it should be relaxed enough to allow modern
development for homes, jobs and infrastructure. Imagination should be used in design and building, for example, use of
flood-threatened coasts and esturies for developemnt by building on stilts and foundations that allow occupation at upper
levels. South-east Essex has an abundance of these areas. High-rise living and working should not be the preserve of
cities. Siting on coastlines would make buildings desirable and far removed from 1960's council blocks. The green belt
restrictions operated by Rochcford Council will obviously have to go. At present, they are only giving rise to the commonly
held belief of corporate hospitality surrounding buildg that is going on while petty , out-dated restrictions are put upon small
127 Mr G Ware
scale individual development. Small/medium building spread over existing developed areas (where wanted) is a much
Green belt land should be released where it already has a house on it and ajoins or is close to the existing brown land area.
The divide between Hockley and Rayleigh is so small this could be developed without losing any real aminity. Farm land
128 Mr H Snell
should be released as a last resort.
No to any intrusion into green belt land …. Redevelopment of brownfield sites should be pursued and only brownfield sites.
This crisis is as a result of five decades of mass mismanaged immigration, irresponsible life styles and misguided
ecconomic policies. Central Government is elected to hanle these issues, not pass the buck to local authorities to
129 Mr A Clarke
undertake inapproriate development in already overcrowded areas to solve their problems.