Object
Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document
Representation ID: 19032
Received: 28/04/2010
Respondent: Mr Peter Lewin
1. No logical reason as to why these sites were chosen and insufficient time spent in assessing the suitability of each site.
2. No logical reason (other than the reduction in allocation to Rayleigh) as to why the allocation to Hullbridge has been increased.
3. Size, density and types of housing are inappropriate.
4. Increased road traffic congestion.
5. Irreplaceable loss of Green Belt land.
6. Flooding: Concreting on countryside will raise the level of the water-table.
7. Unsuitable roads: many are single lane/unmade and un-adopted roads, without drainage.
8. Impact on services including Doctors Surgery.
9. Lack of cycle paths and pathways.
1. No logical reason as to why these sites were chosen and insufficient time spent in assessing the suitability of each site.
2. No logical reason (other than the reduction in allocation to Rayleigh) as to why the allocation to Hullbridge has been increased.
3. Size, density and types of housing are inappropriate.
4. Increased road traffic congestion.
5. Irreplaceable loss of Green Belt land.
6. Flooding: Concreting on countryside will raise the level of the water-table.
7. Unsuitable roads: many are single lane/unmade and un-adopted roads, without drainage.
8. Impact on services including Doctors Surgery.
9. Lack of cycle paths and pathways.