Planning - Summary of all comments - Amazon Web Services

More documents

Recommendations

Info

332 Mr & Mrs Jones Green belt should not be sacrosanct and under no circumstances touched, brown field sites utilised, poor quality ie along noisy rail or road links for shops and industry to aid accessibility to transport systems and homes on land with pleasant environments. 333 Mr & Mrs Hopkins Larger housing sites will completely destroy the character of this area. It will end up joining one town/village to another thus swallowing up the essential gaps that exist at the moment. We believe these houses should be fairly spread throughout the district with added/improved schools, health facilities and shops to benefit the outlying villages as well as the larger 3 areas. We don't have a great deal of green belt left so I don't think green belt should be an option at all. Our narrow position is between the Thames on one side and the Crouch on the other. Our main roads west are very congested and there doesn't seem to be any space for a bypass around Rayleigh. We live in the lowest rainfall area in Britain, so why is there a need for so many more houses in this particular area? Is it for the residents of this area or for others coming outside this area? Doctors and dentists are full and I expect schools are having a problem too. If you are considering agricultural areas, which I assume is greenbelt for development, what about the farmers? Do they get a say. Probably a new town would have all the roads, schools, doctors, shops, factories, sewerage, etc incorporated and it would probably be better for an area further north with its own road structure that doesn't come near the A13 and A127 this end of the country but joins much further up. 334 Mrs Amey Infilling seems a better option for this area. I am very much in agreement that new houses should have rainwater storage Consider existing use, effect on landscape and environment plus lack of access to be considered before any green belt land is released for housing. Lower Road Hockley might well be used for development. It must be ? That in Rochford there is little land that appears to be of immediate use ? max. we havent had much of any brownfield or similar sites expand 347 Mr C Rooke existing development. Every effort should be made to preserve green belt. Much of the area is over developed and infrastructure is strained. We are in danger of becoming an urban sprawl. Concentrate on small developments that can be absorbed without detriment to 349 Ms C Paine the area. 350 Mr A James I believe Green Belt land should never be built on, as this was the reason it was thought up in the first place. 352 Cllr Joyce Smith Should not release land from Green Belt - it is still needed as a buffer zone. South side of Windermere Avenue Hullbridge should be released from green belt for development for housing. It would improve the conditions we have put up with, dust in the summer, mud and dirty water in winter making this road dangerous, there has been 3 or 4 major accidents in the passed 2-3 years caused by speeding off the unmade roade onto the Main 353 Mr R J Saward Road. 354 Mrs Smith By 2021 a new sensible government would have been in place making ANOTHER 4600 homes unnecessary with so many people emigrating out of the UK, where are all these people who 'need' a home coming from? The London/Southend corridor is over prescribed now, but a great deal of green open space is around Brentwood area and with Oldchurch and Harold Wood Hospitals closing the vacant area would accommodate much more than 4600 new homes.
355 Mr K Vingoe 356 Mr & Mrs D Dobbin 357 Ms V O'Malley 358 Mr & Mrs England 359 Mr New 360 Mr A J Eisenhauer 362 Ms M Power 365 Mrs H J Springham 366 Mr S J Springham 1. Housing Policy - The Parish Council continues to see protection of the Green Belt as essential to the conservation of the district's character. 2. Infilling - Some infilling will inevitably occur, but like the present provision of extensions and alterations is increasing the pressure on both the physical and social infrastructure. 3. New community - As the protection of the Green Belt is essential, it maybe that the provision of a new community of whatever size, is the only way to ensure the necessary infrastructural improvement. To protect against coalescence of new communities along their borders and to ensure that new developments are built to the environmental standards required for future protection of our environment. Wherever such proposal maybe made it will inevitably receive resistance, but the value of this option can only be made after a 'well informed' debate throughout the district. As our house backs onto Green Belt we value the visual and aesthetic benefits of agricultural and undeveloped land, but recognise there is likely to be pressure to infill on the outskirts of town. This should be resisted as much as possible, making use of areas already completely surrounded by development; this is where infrastructure already exists. A new town will change for the worse the character of the area unless it is isolated from existing towns. River frontages may be more suitable for high-quality, high-value housing. We don't have the infrastructure for more homes. The roads around Rochford etc are overcrowded now. We supposedly have a water shortage, where will more water come from. No more development around Rochford, Ashingdon, Hockley or Hawkwell it will end up one whole sprawl. Use land either side of Rawreth Lane to develop new town of Rawreth. Roads - new A130, old A130, proximity of A127 A12 and railways already in place. This land is not very scenic already. 4000 new homes, about 16,000 people, about the size of Rayleigh. Infilling is the easy option but puts a strain on already stretched services and congestion particularly noticed in Rayleigh. Looking ahead a new town is probably the best answer. The Green Belt land in the district must be protected and preserved at all cost. Brown field sites should always be used first whether they are small or large scale sites. Of course the development must only be approved where appropriate infrastructure can cope or be provided without damaging the Green Belt or character of the area. In accordance with sustainable development principles (PPS1, PPG3, PPS12 and PPG13) Rochford District Council should continue to locate new housing development within and adjacent to the key settlements of Rochford, Ashingdon, Hockley and Rayleigh on the principle that these settlements contain existing support and community facilities to serve the existing and new residents. However, it is recognised that due to much of the district being protected by Green Belt, countryside and special landscape designations that RDC will not be able to accommodate RSS housing numbers all on previously developed land. In these circumstances Green Belt land will therefore need to be carefully reviewed in order to suquentially assess the most sustainable locations for new housing land. It is considered not 'sound' to seek to rely on 90% of the housing units to be accommodated on previously developed land within the top tier settlements. It is considered that in order for the RDC LDF policies to be considered 'soound' that it should ensure enough land is allocated to accommodate all Improvement in infrastructure is important in this area regarless of where these extra houses are built. Green belt should not be released for housing. These extra homes should be built fairly throughout the District, not in one area. Green belt land should not be released. Existing land should be developed to its maximum potential to release green belt land would have too great an impact on the character of the district. Any extra housing should be distributed evenly across the area.
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 and 62: 286 Mr L F Knight No more housing w
Page 63: 319 Mr M Lang Not down in this corn
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?