2.17

Whilst I am in support of improving the car parks in Rochford town i would like to see residents parking permits introduced outside my house (64 East Street).
These four cottages do not have off street parkinging and it is increasingly difficult to park anywhere near our homes. I frequently can not find any where close to my house to park ( Roche Way is full with adult education parked cars and Stanbridge Road has a dangerous bend so you have to park by Malting Villas.

I refer to your Rochford Town Centre AAP, dated September 2009.

I am writing on behalf of the Council and Councillors of Ashingdon Parish Council. We discussed many details of your AAP and here I write a summary of the comments which they have asked me to submit as I feel necessary.

I will follow the chapter and section numbers as in the AAP.

2.2 Market Square is useful as a quick short duration car park. If it is pedestrianised, then some parking must be left available nearby free of charge for short periods.

If it is pedestrianised, we believe that the Market Square will be enhanced by replacing the ugly asphalt surface with cobblestones like thousands of streets and squares in hundreds of towns and villages in the UK.
We have no objection to a war memorial in the square.
We have no objection to a café / bar in the square.
There is no need for crossings in a small, narrow street like West Street.
We agree with the return of shopping in the town.
We agree with removing all car parking charges to get people into town.
We agree with removing the ugly east side Spar building.
We believe that the weekly market must remain in the square.
We believe the "whispering court" proceedings could be revived.

2.13 We agree with removing the ugly east side Spar building and replacing
it with a traditional building more like the one demolished in the 60s.

2.17 We agree with most of these points. But, we disagree with restricting on-street car parking. We believe parking should be de-restricted.

2.21 We agree that any improvements to the Railway Station, car park and approach to the station are a good idea.

2.24 You note that vehicles "tend to speed through the centre along East and North Streets". Our suggestion is to de-restrict parking in many parts of Rochford and this would result in slowing down traffic.

2.29 North Street has many fewer parking spaces since resent changes and additional yellow lines.
We do not see the point of "Disabled" parking bays. Disabled drivers are supposed to be able to park anywhere on single yellow lines - i.e. right in front of where they have to visit. Painted disabled bays will always be at random and fixed locations and some distance away from where a disabled driver or passenger needs to get out.

2.31 and Figure 5 We are disappointed that a century of pedestrian access was lost when the hospital was redeveloped. There were at least two north-south routes and two east-west routes closed off and lost. Some of the routes would still be available if re-opened. Pedestrian traffic is beneficial to a community and more eyes and ears make security better.

Re-opened routes in the Rochford Hospital site could include :
Pollards Close to Rochford Primary School.
Pollards Close to Union Lane
Saint Luke's Place to Union Lane
South of Somerfield (Coop) to Union Lane
North of Somerfield (Coop) to Rochford Primary School

2.33 Cycling is not improved by the yellow line parking restrictions. Faster cars in roads with yellow lines speeds traffic and endangers cyclists. Road centre islands, bollards and corner pinch-point build-outs endanger cyclists. They use cyclists passing through the narrows as part of the "traffic calming". Cycling safety is further spoilt by the loss of routes through the hospital site.

2.36 Rochford Station looks untidy and could be improved. One way to make it less scruffy, would be by converting unused accommodation in the station building at ground level and upstairs into retail, residential and commercial office use. Continuous use of the empty rooms, offices and sheds would improve the site and give it some life.

2.39 We have no objection to more bus shelters. We believe them to be a good asset. We have installed several bus shelters in our Parish.

3.7, Site A We agree with removing the ugly east side Spar building and replacing it with a traditional building more like the one demolished in the 60s. Perhaps with three (or four) floors like other buildings in Rochford would make the site economically viable. A design which is traditional or the same, similar or harks back to the original demolished building would benefit Rochford. We must commend you on the Rumbelows site houses.

3.9, Site B We have no objection to removing parking in Market Square and its pedestrianisation providing free parking is made available nearby.
We agree to café or restaurant use with outdoor seating in Summer.

We believe that if Market Square is pedestrianised, the asphalt surface which has a relatively short life should be replaced with cobblestones like thousands of locations in the UK. Cobblestone surfaces are very durable and long lasting.

We believe the bus route should remain through West Street.

3.10, Site C We are not against improvements to the existing garage site. But, we would be against the loss of businesses and jobs if it is closed.

We are against the removal of Haynes florists and the restaurant next door because they are attractive old buildings which should be kept.

3.13, Site D We have no objection to your proposed improvements to Site D. But, we would expect RDC to make provision for new accommodation for the charity and businesses located there.

3.14, Site E We strongly object to the removal and redevelopment of this site because it is an attractive and (late 19th century) historic Dutch barn building style, typical of old motor and tractor works in rural towns.

3.15, Site F We have no objection to proposals for this Bradley Way site.

3.16 - 3.18, Sites G & H We have no objection to improvements in those sites. But, we do not wish to see the loss of parking in that area, especially if parking is lost elsewhere, such as in Market Square.

3.19, Site J We have no objection to the proposals for Site J.

But, we believe that this area should be opened up for pedestrian access and passing through the hospital site. If a multi-story car park were built for public (and hospital staff) use, there would be little point if it were difficult for the public to gain access to their cars, except through one long circuitous route. Thus the re-opening of pedestrian routes is vital.

3.20, Site K We have no objection to your proposals for these parking sites.

3.28 We have no objection to North Street being made two way.

We object to installing traffic signals at the North Street / South Street junction. A mini-roundabout or "give way" or "stop" would work very well. One of the best ways of slowing traffic is by allowing roadside parking. Yellow lines simply clear the road and make traffic speeds much higher.

3.31 We have no objection to on-street parking along Bradley Way. We believe it would be beneficial and would make traffic slower and safer.

We believe Rochford DC should have a clean sweep plan of removing yellow lines throughout most of the town and District and remove islands and pinch-points. "Traffic calming" does not calm traffic, it infuriates drivers. Also, it cause bottlenecks, it creates hazards, it puts people into the path of oncoming traffic. It causes people to increase speed to get through a pinch-point before the chap coming the other way. It causes delayed drivers to speed to make up lost time. It causes drivers annoyed by the delay to speed to show their annoyance. Yellow lines and pinch-points have more adverse affects than benefits.

We object to installing traffic signals at the West Street / Bradley Way junction. There have been no problems with traffic passing through that area. The mini-roundabout works perfectly well. Rochford is one of those small towns which has no traffic lights, never has had them and does not need them.

3.32 West street, North Street, East Street and Back Lane are narrow and short, they should remain open to traffic, but could benefit from a 20mph speed limit.

3.33 We object to traffic signals at the West Street / Hall Road junction. The mini-roundabout works perfectly well. The terrible queues before Cherry Orchard Way opened have long gone, so signals which might have served a purpose in the past are now not necessary.

3.36 We believe that buses should continue to pass through Market Square because the only way they pass the town centre and pass close to the railway station is by leaving the town via West Street. Or, if they go via Bradley Way, or do not pass the station, they will stop 350m from where they are needed.

MORE OBSERVATIONS AND COMMENTS :
We are amazed that the new road beside the Golden Lion to the Library (is it Roche Close?) has had yellow lines put along both sides. In spite of the lorries passing, there could still be parking, certainly on one side, probably on both sides. That side road could be 20mph and if cobbled, it would slow the traffic.

The practice of putting yellow lines around corners extending 15m or more is pointless and a waste of parking space. Clear roads with too many yellow lines speed up traffic. If yellow lines are needed at corners 3m to 5m is more than enough

North Street has been made to look a mess by the considerable changes to road architecture, kerbside changes, build-outs and excessive yellow lines.

A pointless road alignment change about 10 to 15 years ago was in Ashingdon Road where it turns into Dalys Road. It was made narrower, the east side was built out, and they painted 2 lanes, i.e. "straight on" and "left turn", where there were none before. But, the narrowed road was made too narrow for two lanes. That junction should be re-widened for two lanes, while leaving the island.

I hope that I have explained it all clearly on our behalf and I thank you in advance.

You may reply to me, but I suggest that you should also address all replies to our Ashingdon Parish Clerk - John Dyke.

If you wish, I could submit this letter as a Word document file by email.