Planning - Summary of all comments - Amazon Web Services

More documents

Recommendations

Info

143 J E Burfield Build! Build! How about infrastructure. It seems all council build regardless of whether the roads can cope. Have you even bothered to drive around Rayleigh, Hullbridge and Hockley any time of day. 144 Mr C Bambury I would encourage the Council to adopt a policy that sought to locate development where access to day to day facilities and services is readily available by public transport, walking and cycling thereby reducing the need to travel, particularly by car. West of Rayleigh Weir, it's no good going east of Rayleigh because there isn't enough space for houses, business and 145 Mr A Lysons roads, every thing has to come out East to West. The population is almost static, why do we need new towns? 146 A C Barton Preferably nowhere, enough is enough, we have our share. New town with infrastructure - maybe Land should not be released from the green belt. Green belt should mean green belt! Increases in housing has already had a detrimental effect on water supplies and our sewers are overflowing when we have storms, not to mention traffic 147 Mr I Randall conjestion. No the council should not consider any new development until a proper road and services have been provided. Perhaps those who make the planning decission are on a different planet to those who have to endure the missery and pollution caused by the incessant traffic on the road from Rayleigh to Southend, or the conjestion experienced by travellers plus 148 L F Wallace traffic noise. 149 Cunningham Leave the Green Belt alone. Traffic is heavy enough now. No more development in or around the above towns. 150 Ms N Saunders Land should never be released from green belt - green belt land must be left as green. I think a new town would be better than squeezing flats and houses into tiny spaces. Another option - leave Essex alone and build new houses further North! The green belt has been lost to such an extent. Housing has been built from Rayleigh to Southend border. Small patches 151 Mr R Roles remain, which if building housing continues will also disappear. Enough is enough. Leave the green belt alone. 152 Mr S Crowther Continue to develop in and around settlements in the Rayleigh/Rochford area. A definite no to the building of a new town. If possible no more land should be released from the Green Belt areas. Brown field sites should be used (this should not include gardens being sold off). Development around Rochford/Ashingdon/Hockley/Hawkwell should be kept to a minimum, 153 Mrs S Bradshaw as so much development has taken place over the last 20 years. Rochford is becoming very conjested - there is enough housing in the area. More use needs to be made of derilict/empty 155 Ms A Boulter buildings eg West Street. Rochford simply does not have space for 4,600 new homes. This figure has been foisted on the district by central Government who do not appear to have a clue. Rayleigh in particular is suffering over-development. Will we one day see one long urban sprawl from Rochford right over to Wickford? Worse still, will the whole area become a borough of Southend City? A new town is not ideal either. A new Village(s) are the way forward - if they have in full range of local 156 J W Collins amenities and infrastructure. We appear to have already met the housing requirement for Rayleigh Town in the "new town" adjoining Rawreth Lane (west Rayleigh) further building nearer to town centre is futile - as roads are already jammed and "rat runs" also at peak times are 158 Mr & Mrs White at capacity. Land should NOT be released from green belt we will soon have none left! If necessary to develop in towns already existing, although I do not agree with this either. We do not have the infrastructure or transport to cope. These should come first before any more housing. Because we will soon find out to our cost if we do not and it will then be too late. The 159 Mr & Mrs J Collins other option is not to build more hosuing in the South East but the North where there is more free land available.
160 Ms S Barnes No green belt should be released. Housing should be put to existing building area such as Rochford Hospital and Park School. Small areas attached (Green Belt) or within established communities should still be released which in some cases, with 161 Mr S J Benee carefull design can enhance the area. 162 Mr & Mrs Livens No further development should be considered until vastly improved road and rail links are established. Before all these new houses are built much thought and discussion needs to be done. Main issues need to be addressed in order of priority. In my opinion roads must come near the top because this corner of Essex is slowly coming to a standstill. The Lower Road/Ashingdon Road between Hullbridge and Rochford barely moves with the traffic now - especially morning and evening rush hour. It only takes the slightest accident and the whole system comes to a complete halt. Also Watery Lane is becoming a very dangerous rat run that needs to be addressed before any more houses are built thus causing increasing congestion/pollution and damage. Of course any new roads will also cause more objections etc, but ultimately 163 Mr S T Cardwell this may be a necessary evil. Before releasing any open green belt land why not infill existing plots on green belt sites in all areas. (Example Eastwood 164 Mr I King Rise area has already been used). Why am I bothering to reply? We have no land to spare for God's sake, STOP building in this area. A;ready the roads are 165 Mr G Searles at grid-lock. How much proof do you need? 166 G W Fleming Where would a new town be built? Where is enough land in the area to even consider this. 167 Mrs J Marshall Where is there enough land for a whole new town? Perish the thought. Quite built up enough here. We should not release green belt land, we are already over-developed, every time a house or bungalow is demolished either two or more houses or a block of flats seems to be built there. The infrastructure is not in place to support any more 168 Ms L Young people. It may be necessary to build one fairly large new village/development, but we feel every village in the district should have a proportion of the government inposed housing. Stambridge, Canewdon, Paglesham, Sutton etc need an injection of homes and people to keep them viable. Improved public transport would be needed and also a few shops and/or small businesses could be included. Areas in Hullbridge have room for some development with a little space available in Rayleigh. We 169 Mr & Mrs Garlick would consider that Rochford and Hockley have probably had as much development as they can take. We do not consider that there should be a new town as much as possible should be built on brownfield land and where expansion is required Rayleigh is an obvious choice - Rochford and Ashingdon have been overdeveloped in the last 10 170 Mr & Mrs Gibson years. As little as possible of the green belt should be sacrificed. We should not let central government bully Rochford Council into releasing green belt. This can be justified by ensuring all present empty properties or sites are refurbished or developed only. Definitely no NEW TOWN as this will entirely alter the 171 Ms K Meiklejohn areas nature and place pressure on transport links presently under developed by central government. By returning this form we do not accept the premis that Rochford District should find room for 4600 new homes without the roads to support it. Green belt should be protected with vigor generally. There may be a case for development where green belt is sandwidged between development ie between Seaview and Goldsworthy Drive, Great Wakering quality of life 173 Mr & Mrs Cripps must come before dictates of Government. Rochford and Southend appear at saturation point and further development I think releasing the small pockets of green belt around Ashingdon/Rochford etc is a BAD idea. Residents would be opposed to losing these green areas and the roads are already over conjested (especially the Ashingdon Road) a new town would seem a better proposition but a new road would be needed into Southend and the A127 would have to be widened. 174 Mr P Clark The traffic in our area is diabolical! Especially in the morning rush hour.
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 and 36: 338 Mr & Mrs Saunders We have been
Page 37 and 38: 357 Ms V O'Malley Perhaps the gover
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: 130 Mrs S Martin 131 Mel Bennett 13
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?