Planning - Summary of all comments - Amazon Web Services

More documents

Recommendations

Info

201 Mr M Thomas 202 K Cardnell 203 M T Conaty 204 Mr R Gould 205 Mrs Whitham No Hockley and Hawkwell have developed enough and no further new development on green or brown belt should take place. The water, gas, electricity, highways, schools and medical services can not cope with any further expansion. It only just manages now. Hullbridge garden estate. Conservatories should not be regarded as extensions, they should have the same status as in other boroughs. Green belt land should not be released for any type of building. Government/local authority parish councils keep on berating tax payers to recycle and save water/gas/electricity. The police local authorities parish council provide gas guzzling vehicles 4x4 for the mayor etc. Local authorities/Government should concentrate on doing what local people require ie more police on the beat, more savings in waste in local authority offices etc. No - no! A complete halt on all building in Rochford needs to happen. The infrastructure cannot cope with anymore housing. No more housing down Rawreth Lane. The road will not take anymore traffic. England was a green and pleasant land. It has been made an eyesore. No to a new town. 206 Mrs G Harper I am not in favour of a new town. We have some of those in the area and they are hard places to draw into a sense of community. The placement of new homes needs to be carefully decided in relation to the current and imminent improvements in infrastructure. Short term planning in the past has left this are with some problems to still be overcome and we need to do all possible to avoid more of these expensive blunders. 4.5.2-4.5.3 In spite of above, the quota will not include "windfall sites" - 1 dwelling replaced by several as above, so these would be additional to the 3000+ required. One can foresee much of existing Hockley/Ashingdon/Hawkwell disappearing, except for the much prized new monsters. Councillors "..believed that intensification of existing "urban" areas has not greatly improved character or the environment". So they proposed bigger sites in "urban" areas, rather than several small ones. Presumably as alternative to piecemeal backdoor version of forcing neighbours out cited in 4.6 above, we can look forward to whole blocks of homes compulsorily purchased and sold back to back to a developer for comprehensive redevelopment as per Etheldore Avenue. Is this why we pay council tax? This is in striking contradiction with Statement CA1 of SPD6 - Design Guildelines for Conservation Areas: "..mass of new building should not dominate or conflict with 207 Ms G Yeadell adjoining properties. The height of new buildings should be in keeping with the existing character of the area. No more houses! There is far too much congestion already. If they have to be built, put them where the infrastructure can 208 I Gyres cope (ie not South East Essex). 210 Mrs M A King I think no more land should be released for any kind of building. There are area's around Rochford, such as the brickworks site including land opposite which is open land. Also probably should Roots Hall become available housing and industry could be a possibility. These probably are large pockets of land in locations you refer about to accommodate both residential and some industry. I strongly object to your reference for a new 211 Mr B W Williams town. Roads and services would blight land. 2. Green belt must be left untouched. The council should continue to develop around Rochford, Ashingdon, Hockley and Hawkwell as these aren't as populated and built up as Rayleigh. I think the view of allocating a town some land is unrealistic as Rochford District is rather crowded 212 Master J Richards and it is unlikely that a large strip of land will be available. There is plenty of suitable land available within the 'plotlands' estates scattered throughout the district. Many of these plotlands have clearly defined areas within which in-fill development should be allowed. Many of the available plots are 213 Mr M Wheeler derelict and add nothing to the green belt poilcy.
215 Mr T R Thompson 216 Mr & Mrs D Strong 217 F H Wall Esq 218 T Wiggins Esq 219 Mr J Amey 220 Mrs S Clarke 221 Mr G Hoy 222 R Luck 223 C Morris 224 Mr K S Gee There is far too much traffic now and I feel there are inadequate schools, services and public servants such as police, hospital workers to cope with any new housing around Rochford at all. We agree with the council that development should be concentrated on the three main settlements within the District. We further believe that there is scope for development to the south of Rochford town. Whilst this is not an allocations consultation we bring to your attention the site detailed on the attached plan as evidence that there are areas immediately adjacent to urban centres which can be succesfully re-developed to integrate with existing service provision. We do not believe that there is scope for a new town development within the district. We strongly believe that land should be released from the greenbelt to accommodate development. We agree that land should be released on the boundaries of the three main settlements as set out in the draft document. We further feel there is scope for release from the greenbelt on the north east boundary of Ashingdon (see attacted plan). The east side of Ashingdon has the most potential for growth and ability to intergrate with the existing service provision particularly if the land to the west of the settlement will form a strategic gap seperating it from Hawkwell. We do not consider a new town an option within the district. We would prefer a release of greenbelt rather than increased crowding in the urban centres. The extension of the green belt boundary to a more defensible position squaring off uneven areas would be the best way forward. We strongly believe that land should be released from the greenbelt to accommodate development furthermore residential development should be allocated to minor settlements to enable support of existing services and possible regeneration of village centres. We believe that 10% of the housing allocation for minor settlements is not sufficient to allow growth to existing villages. We would prefer a release of greenbelt rather than increased crowding in the urban centres. The extension of the green belt boundary to a more defensible position squaring off uneven areas would be the best way forward. We believe the following land at Great Wakering offers potential for a sustainable expansion of the village. Green belt should remain green belt and none of it should be used for development. Otherwise what's the point of having green belt in the first place? Our current road network struggles to cope with current volumes so I strongly believe only brownfield sites should be used for development. Land should be released from the green belt, but infill only, preferably. No land should be released for a new town if possible. There is a piece of land in The Chase in Ashingdon for which I attach a plan which would be ideal since there is the infrastructure to accommodate building starter or retirement homes. There is already too much building work. No land should be released from green belt areas. Schools, roads, police and other services should be in place before new housing. This has obviously not been a consideration recently! I strongly feel green belt land should be preserved at all costs. Whereever are you going to fund enough land to create a new town. The idea is laughable! No no no its not as simple as that all the necessary facilities must come also doctors - dentists - schools, shopping car-parks and 'big roads'. Do not want Rochford to become a concrete jungle it is already too crowded and populated. No land should be released from Green Belt in the Rayleigh area, over 600 houses have already been builtin the Rawreth part of Rayleigh.
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 and 52: 160 Ms S Barnes No green belt shoul
Page 53: 189 Mr G Gooding 190 Mr G J Tinsey
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?