Planning - Summary of all comments - Amazon Web Services

024 Mr P Williams
025 Mrs P Clifton
028 Mr J Lickfold
030 Mr H May
031 A R Wetton
033 Mr R Balchin
035 Mr B Deal
036 Mrs P Slade
037 Mr A Bawden
Alternatively - We live with avoidable congestion we end up building an air ambulance landing pad at the Lower
Road/Ashingdon Road junction - it visits that frequently. We have many more broken mirrors and tempers in Watery Lane.
We have delayed emergency service response time along Ashingdon Road. We do not enjoy beauty sports at Stambridge
and Battlesbridge to their full. We have the eyesore of Purdey's scrap and tipper wagons. We all get more irate and
unhappy. The route from the Anne Bolyn to Battlesbridge is the key to the areas future health and prosperity.
We visited Yorkshire where there are towns as big as Rayleigh and old like Rayleigh. Shopfronts were in the style of years
ago but insides were still modern. I would like this to be the case in Rayleigh.
Graffiti brings an area down. People caught causing damage to the social living of the community should be made to
correct the damage, with their parents standing the cost. As there are no deterents at the moment to stop this, and it has
got completely out of hand. Especially the beach huts at Thorpe Bay.
I do not think that the Rochford area is suited for large scale development. There is always room for improvement in
anything, but, overall, I think that the area is well run, but we really cannot expect to develop without good roads and these
are long overdue.
It is important that a core strategy should not be ? Too quickly, a review of ? Should be made public so that feed back can
be considered before moving forward and making communities. Alternatively representatives for local areas should be
invited to the Core Strategy group so that contributions could be made during the review process. It is imperative that the
majority of people in this area ? ? to the core strategy. This will only be achieved if there is a full understanding of what is
being proposed. This document is a good start.
By adding property into already cramped town centres and ? Can cause extreme congestion. Putting further blocks of flats
into Rayleigh means further car allocation stretching car parking facilities. In place of new property it's essential that ? Is in
place and traffic flow is maintained not only for residents but for commercial business. There comes a time when BIG BIG
trailers are kept out of Town Centres and placed out a distribution centre, as in French cities (eg Rawreth Lane).
I am concerned about the destruction of Rochford as it was. I am not talking about as it was in the last century, I am talking
about now, perhaps it is already too late. For the past three hundred years if you looked from rear window of my cottage
you could see the Church of St. Andrews and the Hall but now there is just the rear of another block of flats. We must all
move forward and I know that times change but why not try to be remembered as those that preserved Rochford as
I have concerns over the talks regarding the introduction of weighing household rubbish. This can only pave the way for
discarded rubbish on our streets, which will in turn once again cost local authorities huge amounts of cash to clear up. We
pay to have our rubbish collected, it should never be an issue of weight. Please look ahead to all the problems this would
inevitably cause. As a last note, I am proud and happy to live in Rayleigh and love the High Street.
I don't understand why gypsy sites are required or why they should be paid for out of our taxes, these people work for cash
and don't pay any taxes, crime follows them around and we don't want them on our door step, why does the trespass law not
seem to apply to them, I see them cut fences and set up on farmers fields, set up on industrial sites etc, I have reported
these situations to local police, but nothing happens, the gypsys/travellers just move on when they are good and ready! Do
laws only apply to tax payers with fixed abodes?