Planning - Summary of all comments - Amazon Web Services

More documents

Recommendations

Info

308 The Occupier How can we think of a further quantity of housing without providing an answer to the grid locking of Rayleigh, at certain times it can already take over half an hour from High Street to the A127. If we need new houses, we need new roads and infrastructures to cope. Without further roads and shops, huoses will make life miserable for all, creating hostility and aggression. With all the building of homes in London Road and Rawreth Lane there is a desperate need for a supermarket in that area. You cannot be so naive as to think that people living there will shop in the High Street! If they do, where will they park in an already overcrowded parking lot? No more green belt should be released and certainly we do not need a new town another defacement of the green 309 Mr J Smith landscape. Land should not be released from the Green Belt. We should not be continuing to develop around this area. It is already over developed and the council should be asking the Government to look elsewhere in the country. I think we have more than enough new towns in this area too. This part of Essex seems to be getting destroyed by developers who are only concentrating on making money more than being realistic about how the roads and infrastructure can take it and impact on 310 Chris Teeder environment. Land should be released at Rayleigh end of Bull Lane, it is close to shopping centre and schools '60 homes' can be built here. Not so keen on new towns, which take a lot of green belt away. Many new flats already created and on increase from 311 Mrs P A Watson Jones property which were originally business use ie garages. I think the Green Belt should remain GREEN and housing should be restircted. I do not think the smaller towns/villages should be over developed as this will spoil their character. If an increase in housing is necessary then it should try to be developed within the land available within the area but not by building large estates. Rayleigh is increasingly getting bigger and with it there is an increase in problems such as crime and traffic congestion and it will soon lose its appeal if large scale housing is implemented. I do not think a new town is a good idea either - taking Basildon as an example it is not exactly an 'up and coming area' and one of the reasons for this is because they built large estates of cheap housing which seem to come hand in hand with social problems. Let areas where it is possible to implement extra housing without spoiling the character of the place take it on board and not try to over develop the small towns and villages in the area. If there is not 312 Mr D Foyle enough land to implement the increase in housing expected then we should turn around and say NO! There must be plenty 313 Mr B Sellwood Housing Probable Option (p25) : This option is supported. There should be more infill to housing while in-between there is green belt land. Top end of Rayleigh Avenue, where large houses are built, inbetween, is small pieces of green belt land these could be used for affordable housing, pieces of green belt land in Disraeli Road off Rayleigh Avenue could be built on with affordable houses through to Grove Road. Smaller 314 Mrs C Quennell houses should be built and get young people on the property market. Green belt land should not be released. No new town is necessary, all effort should focus on the Thames Gateway. There has already been too much development without the corresponding infrastructure. There has been too much development 315 R A Stone of the flood plain. Use existing infrastructure in and around Hawkwell eg Ironwell Lane Nursery, Glebelands Nursery and Widows Nursery (Ivanhoe) therefore not spoiling the countryside end of Ironwell Lane but using existing main drainage and gas supply or a 316 Ms S Copeman similar location with these facilities accessible. 317 Mr D Harris I think it is best to allow the existing towns to grow. Brown belt land should be used there seem to be old industrial sites (eye sores) like the one next to the new housing down Rawreth Road that need clearing and starting again (housing would be a good option and the industrial units could easily be 318 Ms W Hatton relocated to all these areas with for let signs.
319 Mr M Lang Not down in this corner of Essex. We should be saying no more room down here, roads won't cope, new jobs and housing should go up North to encourage growth up there rather than leading to a North/South divide. 320 J Feather Not a new town. Fill-in around the whole district, not just Rayleigh 321 R J Feather Definitely not a new town. Fill in the gaps across the entire district. No housing to be built on green belt. No new development south of the railway line. Any new housing should be 323 Mr T Beebee sustainable and energy efficient. I have lived in this area since 1949 and personnaly don't think the towns and villages you mention shouldb e further developed. They are losing their identity, their green spaces and traffic problems are occuring. Hockley has been overdeveloped, leaving it with congested roads and Rochford is being squashed with new building and losing its old character. Hawkwell has always been proud of being a "bungalow" village with its farmland and green spaces, but since the expansion of Cherry Orchard Lane, more and more lorries are being channeled through Hawkwell. There is already frustration at the Nursery corner mini roundabout where all the traffic converges causing long tail backs. Please save the green belt around these villages and stop further development. I think people would be more sympathetic to the building of a new town or village as long as it isn't allowed to encroach on existing neighbourhoods. Let there be space between any new developments and the existing inhabitants. I think a lot of the trouble with new building is the fact that they are forced 324 Mrs Doward on to local residents without any thought for how the influx of people will affect them with regard to the extra noise, traffic and In my opinion no further development should be allowed in the RDC area. Current infrastructure will not sustain such development and if it is forced by local and central government, current users of local infrastructure will suffer to a great extent. I live in Hullbridge and unless I leave for work early my journey is compromised by traffic congestion. Delays will 325 Mr D Elwell also be incurred for emergency service vehicles if roads become more congested. Land should not be released from green belt! I thought the whole concept of designating land as green belt was to protect it from development. Efforts should be directed at challenging the central government's requirement. Any development 326 Owner/Occupier should be on brownfield sites, measures should be considered to help reduce the number of empty houses. Certainly not - we have the green belt protect ourselves from over crowding, lack of green belt and we would all be living in towns. I moved into the Hockley/Ashingdon area from Rayleigh, which is just a concrete jungle now - so spoilt. No more development in the Rochford and surrounding areas, the roads can't cope, schools are on their maximum capacity, doctors, have to wait days for appointment - general lack of infrastructure don't make it any worse - the Thamesgate way is bad all 327 Mrs C Taylor round. Go build in the MP's back yard - we are leaving here now! I am against any further erosion of the green belt, this area could be liable to extensive flooding and concreting over further land could have disasteruos results. I think the areas mentioned above have already been developed too much for comfort 329 Mrs M J Snowdon over the past few years. Small number of larger housing developments combined with existing infilling. Need for improved infrastructure - especially roads/public transport. Leave true 'Green Belt' land as it is. Use areas of piecemean 'plotlands' and develop to current standards. Need to 'maintain barriers' between areas. Develop mini-towns on redundant farmbuildings. Consider social 330 P Mansbridge needs of these developments especially young people. I would propose a new town type development. I think Hockley/Hawkwell/Rayleigh have become too enlarged and urbanised without much road access improvement. Suggest looking at South Fambridge, Wallasea Island, Foulness or what about Maplin (which was a very popular choice for Londons 3rd airport a few years ago I recall). Must build decent 331 Mr A C Cooper road links - STOP fighting the car - it's here to stay at least for next few decades!
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 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: 286 Mr L F Knight No more housing w
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?