Planning - Summary of all comments - Amazon Web Services
Planning - Summary of all comments - Amazon Web Services
Planning - Summary of all comments - Amazon Web Services
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
225 Mr P Court<br />
It is considered that land should be released from the green belt. The most appropriate location for this comprises land <strong>of</strong>f<br />
Thorpe Road, Hawkwell (see attached plan). This site was promoted through the last Local Plan Inquiry: although on that<br />
occasion the Inspector felt that there was no need to take land from the green belt, he was quite conducive to the arguments<br />
put forward by the promoters <strong>of</strong> the land. Times are now different: there is a need to look longer term and make adequate<br />
provision for forecast and potential needs. This site is well-contained, and close to a good range <strong>of</strong> existing services. It<br />
could reasonably be released from the green belt without prejudicing the over<strong>all</strong> objectives <strong>of</strong> that particular strategic tool.<br />
Furthermore, and in a district such as Rochford, peripheral land releases are considered far more appropriate than the<br />
development <strong>of</strong> a new town.<br />
Definitely no to a new town! Why release green belt when there are already so many eyesores that could be knocked down<br />
226 Mrs A Hill<br />
and the land re-used more usefully.<br />
We think Rochford is about saturated! We are very concerned and saddened that with <strong>all</strong> the new housing there has been<br />
no recreational facilities for young people. There is very little open space for children to go to near their homes. If more<br />
land is released it is vital that recreational and other support provisions are planned in. Where can young people go to meet<br />
227 Mr & Mrs Haskew with friends?<br />
No land should be released from the green belt. We should take responsibility for future generations and ensure that future<br />
228 Ms A Henderson generations have parks, woods and cuontry areas to enjoy and land for growing food.<br />
It would be a disappointment to see more green belt disappear. The current areas are over developed. A new 'town' would<br />
229 Mr J Robinson<br />
be the only answer but this creates other issues as noted later.<br />
230 V G Crick Land should not be released from Green Belt. No further developments. No new town to even be considered.<br />
Definitely no extra housing around the above mentioned areas as the roads are already congested enough and could not<br />
handle much more traffic. Without a bypass road, the only area left to develop that can be fed <strong>of</strong>f <strong>of</strong> a main road would be<br />
south <strong>of</strong> the River Roach. There most definitely should not be a gypsy/traveller site in the area as they only ever bring<br />
231 Mr & Mrs Walker trouble. Ask my friend who lives near the Crays Hill site what it's like.<br />
If green belt land must be used (as I expect it will) I would prefer to see sm<strong>all</strong>er intergrated development (perhaps where<br />
some buildings already exist), rather than the idea <strong>of</strong> a whole 'new town'. I think we do need to continue some development<br />
232 Mrs A Robinson around our existing towns/villages but with green landscaping and ? ?? for parks and green spaces.<br />
There should be no release from green belt, instead the council should look at <strong>of</strong>fice sites that are under used. If pushed it<br />
should look towards the Southend borders. The government has got this wrong! Housing should be developed in less well<br />
233 Mr G Congram <strong>of</strong>f areas. There are enough people here to support the businesses loc<strong>all</strong>y and in London.<br />
Before any more housing development the infrastructure must be sorted out ie adequate schools and hospitals, but above<br />
<strong>all</strong> a new road system that can funnel traffic efficiently out <strong>of</strong> the existing bottle necks. In this time <strong>of</strong> concern about the<br />
environment a major cause <strong>of</strong> pollution is the static queues <strong>of</strong> traffic pumping carbon monoxide into the atmosphere,<br />
another consideration should be the water supplies, can further building cope with the increased demand for water in this<br />
234 Mr J T Dorrell<br />
drought area?<br />
Housing land should only be <strong>all</strong>owed in green belt away from strategic gaps between settlements. Good quality affordable<br />
235 L W Lewis<br />
housing should be priority in these areas. I do not believe a new town would be manageable in this district.<br />
236 Mr & Mrs Beattie<br />
The green belt concept is still valid and must be maintained to stop Rochford/Rayleigh joining together to become a<br />
sprawling suburb <strong>of</strong> Southend. If a new town route is taken that new town should be in its own green belt with own shops,<br />
stores, etc. It should not be 'attached' to Rayleigh/Rochford, - South Woodham Ferrers is a good example to follow.
Change language