Object
Rochford Core Strategy Development Plan Document - Schedule of Changes
Representation ID: 26594
Received: 29/11/2010
Respondent: Mr and Mrs Johnson
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Thank you for your letter dated 18 October 2010 about the proposed changes. I have visited your web site and looked at the Strategy and the Amendments and feel it is all too general to make detailed comments.
However, here are some general comments about some of the proposed changes in land use:-
1) I fail to understand the logic of marking an area to the West of Rayleigh with three symbols to indicate (a) Industrial land to be redeveloped for housing, (b) Green Belt land to be developed for Industrial use and (c) Green belt land to be developed for housing. Why not just allow change of use of the Industrial land for any commercial use and allocate some Green belt land for housing, clearing industrial buildings and removing contamination from their sites ready for new housing is likely to be very expensive.
2) It seems to me that to change the status of farmland that is in active use for farming purposes, (ie producing food for people or animals) to allow any development is wrong, when there are numerous areas of land classified as 'green belt' that were partly developed before the first Town & Country Planning Act was passed and therefore acquired 'existing use' rights. I think the boundary between the 'green belt' and 'developed' land should be straightened out and infilling with new Houses permitted.
3) Finally, I feel that farm land in active production as mentioned above and Parks and other 'green' areas used for leisure, should be the last areas taken for development.
Thank you for your letter dated 18 October 2010 about the proposed changes. I have visited your web site and looked at the Strategy and the Amendments and feel it is all too general to make detailed comments.
However, here are some general comments about some of the proposed changes in land use:-
1) I fail to understand the logic of marking an area to the West of Rayleigh with three symbols to indicate (a) Industrial land to be redeveloped for housing, (b) Green Belt land to be developed for Industrial use and (c) Green belt land to be developed for housing. Why not just allow change of use of the Industrial land for any commercial use and allocate some Green belt land for housing, clearing industrial buildings and removing contamination from their sites ready for new housing is likely to be very expensive.
2) It seems to me that to change the status of farmland that is in active use for farming purposes, (ie producing food for people or animals) to allow any development is wrong, when there are numerous areas of land classified as 'green belt' that were partly developed before the first Town & Country Planning Act was passed and therefore acquired 'existing use' rights. I think the boundary between the 'green belt' and 'developed' land should be straightened out and infilling with new Houses permitted.
3) Finally, I feel that farm land in active production as mentioned above and Parks and other 'green' areas used for leisure, should be the last areas taken for development.