Object
Development Management Submission Document
Representation ID: 32708
Received: 13/07/2013
Respondent: Ms G Yeadell
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Paragraph 3.2
Whilst under Objectives, Rochford council propose limited extensions to settlements to prevent coalescence of same and at Paragrpahs 3.2 to prevent settlements merging, there is contradiction - under Landscape Character council propose at para 3.9-3.10, Figure 3, 3 landscape character areas: farmland, coastal and South Essex Coastal Towns - completely involved Rayleigh and Rochford (plus slight extensions) with Hockley, Hawkwell, Ashingdon - effectively creating a conurbation, abolishing any green belt involved. So called SECT is denoted "least sensitive to change", mixed, but unified by overall dominance of urban development, with frequent views of an urban skyline", marked by masts, pylons and a "decline in countryside management". At paras. 3.23, 25, 30, Policy DM10, virtually all development is to go in SECT. (Clearly the Hockley Area Action Plan proposals are intended to make central Hockley a huge national shopping centre to serve such conurbation.)
This negates pious proposals to avoid impact of new development on character of an area set out in Housing chapter at paras 2.7-8 and promotion of Parish Plans etc to guide developers at para 2.10, all of which can be regarded with due scepticism in view of creeping urbanisation apparently sought.
Paragraph Objectives 2, para 3.2, 3.9-3.10, Policy DM10, Figure 3
Whilst under Objectives, Rochford council propose limited extensions to settlements to prevent coalescence of same and at Paragrpahs 3.2 to prevent settlements merging, there is contradiction - under Landscape Character council propose at para 3.9-3.10, Figure 3, 3 landscape character areas: farmland, coastal and South Essex Coastal Towns - completely involved Rayleigh and Rochford (plus slight extensions) with Hockley, Hawkwell, Ashingdon - effectively creating a conurbation, abolishing any green belt involved. So called SECT is denoted "least sensitive to change", mixed, but unified by overall dominance of urban development, with frequent views of an urban skyline", marked by masts, pylons and a "decline in countryside management". At paras. 3.23, 25, 30, Policy DM10, virtually all development is to go in SECT. (Clearly the Hockley Area Action Plan proposals are intended to make central Hockley a huge national shopping centre to serve such conurbation.)
This negates pious proposals to avoid impact of new development on character of an area set out in Housing chapter at paras 2.7-8 and promotion of Parish Plans etc to guide developers at para 2.10, all of which can be regarded with due scepticism in view of creeping urbanisation apparently sought.