Object
Rochford Core Strategy Development Plan Document - Schedule of Changes
Representation ID: 26511
Received: 30/11/2010
Respondent: Mr Bernherd Thorne
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
As I have been unable to comment online, I did try, but there was a web page error. I also found (or did not find) the comment form hard to locate. I did not locate it, hence this letter.
As I have not left myself sufficient time to correlate all facts, I would in the meantime wish to point out that I find the revised Core Strategy no improvement over the previous one.
As you say, I am a person who has previously submitted comments on the future development of the district.
The new Core Strategy does not account for previous objections, particularly in respect of Hullbridge. I see that 590 houses are still envisaged, a sum that is far too excessive for this village.
I think that the revised figures of 3800 at 190 per year even over the extended time period are not taking into account, the fact that the area does not have the infrastructure, even basic infrastructure to support these totals.
I am extremely disappointed that Hullbridge has to account for the percentage shown of the total.
I am of the modest opinion that the Core Strategy needs further adjustment.
One only has to drive through Rochford or Rayleigh, not just at rush hour to see the traffic problems already in place.
Folly Lane in Hockley is now the rat run to end all rat runs.
Lower Road Hullbridge is also now a main artery to the A130 with traffic using Watery Lane as a rat run for Chelmsford.
I do not believe in all honesty that the planned future developments have taken into consideration even the basic alterations needed to roads (do we need to look at the improvements to Southend Vic Circus and Cuckoo Corner?
Southend Hospital cannot cope with the present influx and who wants to go to Basildon?
To end my diatribe, please do not propose an only just watered down Core Strategy as it is now, past the coalition.
I would certainly not vote for it as present.
As I have been unable to comment online, I did try, but there was a web page error. I also found (or did not find) the comment form hard to locate. I did not locate it, hence this letter.
As I have not left myself sufficient time to correlate all facts, I would in the meantime wish to point out that I find the revised Core Strategy no improvement over the previous one.
As you say, I am a person who has previously submitted comments on the future development of the district.
The new Core Strategy does not account for previous objections, particularly in respect of Hullbridge. I see that 590 houses are still envisaged, a sum that is far too excessive for this village.
I think that the revised figures of 3800 at 190 per year even over the extended time period are not taking into account, the fact that the area does not have the infrastructure, even basic infrastructure to support these totals.
I am extremely disappointed that Hullbridge has to account for the percentage shown of the total.
I am of the modest opinion that the Core Strategy needs further adjustment.
One only has to drive through Rochford or Rayleigh, not just at rush hour to see the traffic problems already in place.
Folly Lane in Hockley is now the rat run to end all rat runs.
Lower Road Hullbridge is also now a main artery to the A130 with traffic using Watery Lane as a rat run for Chelmsford.
I do not believe in all honesty that the planned future developments have taken into consideration even the basic alterations needed to roads (do we need to look at the improvements to Southend Vic Circus and Cuckoo Corner?
Southend Hospital cannot cope with the present influx and who wants to go to Basildon?
To end my diatribe, please do not propose an only just watered down Core Strategy as it is now, past the coalition.
I would certainly not vote for it as present.