Planning - Summary of all comments - Amazon Web Services

More documents

Recommendations

Info

175 Mr H J Rowland I believe in 1) Maintain the Green Belt. Once built on, it can never be reclaimed. 2) Use every possible means for/to in-fill. Especially in conjunction with "clean" commercial units. 3) Affordable housing is a red herring - it leads to a lower quality of building. 4) Close Southend Airport and build on it. Land should be released only in areas where there is quick access to major roads eg A127 to aleviate traffic through villages, which is already at breaking point. The area cannot sustain a new town without coming to a standstill on roads (try getting from Ashingdon into Rochford during rush hours/school time). There is also insufficient amenities eg schools, 176 Mr R Abbott doctors, dentists etc. Land around Purdeys Industrial Estate - this is near to those who would work there, near to railwya/airport, near to River Roach for leisure. Land between Eastwood Road and A127 (Rayleigh to Leigh). A new town could be a good answer with 177 Mr J East quality planning. No housing on high ground where the skyline which is of trees or open fields would be affected. It should not. No. No. Stop now. The overcrowding in our towns is causing friction and an inner city atmosphere. This continuous building has resulted in the basic infrastructure of this area being stretched to breaking point. The roads are a nightmare, teenage gangs are out of control in Rayleigh and Hockley the police cannot cope and we don't even have 178 Mr D Livermore enough water! Stop now; please! 179 Mrs F M Wilson No land should be released from Greenbelt. This should remain protected - at all costs. Land should not be released from the green belt, brownfield sites should be used. I remember reading that if housing had been developed in the 19th century at the same density it is now, London would occupy the whole area inside the M25! The current towns should be developed rather than a new town. Any improvements in facilities then can be shared by all. Any 180 Mr R Swain new housing should be located close to where the jobs are, so people can walk or cycle easily. Why not look into empty houses and flats where people have died and put them in order, making 1 house into 2 flats and the gardens divided down the middle, with an outside staircase for the upper flat to gain entrance to the garden, we really 181 Mrs M R Hutchings don't want another town, and if that the only way build affordable housing. There is a lot of land around these areas. It is wrong to keep developing around the above named areas, a new town is not 182 Mrs V Wisbey necessary. Let these places breathe. Clear some of the old unused land, also some of Foulness. 183 Tomassi No new housing. No green belt land should be released. Building should and must be restricted to previously developed sites which could be utilised to greater advantage. Ie derelict sites, underused commercial sites and those areas which are unsuitable for any 184 Mr T L Ellis other purpose apart from infilling and then only where water and sewage facilities can be provided. Consideration should be given to further develop recently extended ie Great Wakering and Canewdon. Green belt land should not be released unless in exceptional circumstances, but never in the Roach Valley - the area of land separating 185 Mr J K Mills Rochford District from Southend. 186 Mr & Mrs J Halliday The area is already congested. No new houses should be built on the Green belt I really do not think land should be released from green belt. The point of green belt is to ensure that wildlife in all its forms has some where protected to live. Our areas are developed enough - its important that we have smaller towns as well as 187 Mrs K Jesty large towns. Land should be allocated from the South East preferably where there are shortage of housing. Land should never be released from Green Belt. If this fully continues my grandchild will need to read a history book to find out what the 'countryside' was. Development must be focused more on regenerating old existing buildings and or sites. West Street Rochford is a sad and obvious example and now after years of neglect still lies dying in the shadow of 188 Mr A Mackay Rochford's second square. What other options? Might I suggest that when the glass is full you turn off the tap!
189 Mr G Gooding 190 Mr G J Tinsey 191 Janice & Alex Brining 192 Ms B Mean 193 Ms S Swift 194 Mr C Hutchinson 195 Mr B M Gilbert 196 Mr A E Hodges 197 P McAllister 198 Mr J Clamp 199 Mr & Mrs Crockford 200 Mr T O'Shea Allocating land for a new town may be the best option as resources for the existing towns have become increasingly strained. Allocating land from the green belt, should come after the search for all possible brown-field sites is taken. I would keep development close to the environs. A new town is not a good idea. Other options are to purchase residential/commercial property without current use. Against new out of town developments - leads to social exclusion and lack of facilities. Mainly develop existing towns but crucial to provide adequately for roads/transport/schools/GP/dentists/policing/parking if when new roads built, incorporate dedicated and wide enough bide lanes, can existing roads be widened for bike lanes? There is land in Wakering Road which is ideal for housing development especially as it is near to many facilities and between other houses. I can only speak of Rayleigh but there is not the road instrastrucute since the estates have been built on the Rawreth Road, Rayleigh High Street, Websters Way, down to the Weir is gridlocked during rush hours, Saturday's and Sundays, and at various times eg school run times. Any more building would bring the whole area to a standstill. Schools will not cope, as will other services eg doctors, dentists etc. No further land should be released from the green belt! The infrastructure can not cope with further development - at certain times of the day, it can take an hour to get to the A127! If a new town is to be built, suitable roads should be built, away from the proliferation of houses already built in this area - perhaps the Fambridge area could be a suitable spot with access also over the river! (see 9) No to a "new town". Build along the existing A127 corridor after making it wider. What quality of living in Rochford District if it finishes up looking like and extension of London City. This labour governement wants to concrete over the whole of S.E England by all accounts. Any new land released for housing should not be in the flood plain areas. If a Southend-East bypass road is gong to pass through Rochford district, the siting of a new town should be reasonably adjacent to such a route so as to provide good access to such a road. There is a need to avoid additional traffic flow via main road Hockley. I don't think land should be released from the green belt as there has been so much development already especially in Rayleigh. It is going from a really pretty town to being overcrowded. No to a new town. Allocation of green belt in and around these areas does not seem to fit with questions 6 & 7. Better use of unused brown field sites which could then provide an answer to question 2. We think no more housing should be made in any of these areas this corner is too populated as it is. No new town is feasible in this corner of the country. Every sane person knows that our area of Essex has reached near saturation with our roads, schools, hospitals at near breaking point. Road rage and stress are now very apparent because of this. However, it will still happen but it is imperative that the necessary services are laid down first ie good feed roads, extra hospitals, doctors, main sewerage (not new pipes into old system), water pressure, bus services (particularly if we are to be penalised for driving our cars). I think Rochford have controlled the situation extremely well so far against the pressures put on them by government. They have allowed infill within the area which has not caused too bad an effect. However, we are running out of large back gardens of old houses. So we look to Green Belt/Farm land to build on? Wickford and Rayleigh will soon be joined. What seperates Rayleigh from Southend - Wyevales the nursery. If houses and new towns have to be built here let it be done with space and good planning. Our current estates lack gardens, road and parking spaces - they will become slums in 30/40 years
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 and 50: 130 Mrs S Martin 131 Mel Bennett 13
Page 51: 160 Ms S Barnes No green belt shoul
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?