2.33

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.

Essex County Council
Rochford Town Centre Area Action Plan Issues and Options


1. General Comments

Although the current document is a Issues and Options Report (rather than the Area Action Plan itself) it should be mentioned that, where appropriate, further guidance will be provided in the further stages of the Area Action Plan that will guide the form and character of developments in more detail. This guidance should include schematic layouts and perspectives, in the form of Design Briefs where appropriate. It would be an important element in achieving an acceptable form of development and helping to ensure that the aims of the Area Action Plan are achieved. This particularly applies to some of the more central sites, redevelopment of which would have the potential to have a considerable impact on the character of the town as a whole. The importance of a thorough site context analysis should be stressed as a prelude to production of any site brief.

The document acknowledges (paragraph 2.15) that the Conservation Area Appraisal and accompanying management plan set out measures to preserve and enhance the character or appearance of the area. The key elements of these documents will need to be reflected in any solutions brought forward for Rochford Town Centre. The Area Action Plan provides an ideal opportunity to do this. Specifically, these initiatives could include the rationalisation of signage, the reduction in street clutter, upgrading of surface materials etc.

The Issues and Options document concentrates on specific sites but the importance of Conservation Area-wide initiatives that would result in an upgrading of the area should not ignored. The Conservation Area can be enhanced through the encouragement of incremental, small-scale improvements throughout the whole Conservation Area. Also, tree planting and landscaping improvements in car parks should be specifically encouraged as identified in the Management Plan.

In terms of presentation, the Issues and Options document would have benefited from a composite plan showing the locations of the potential opportunity sites (A-K). This would have enabled easier and better appreciation of how the sites relate to each other and to the overall town structure. Also a plan with road names shown would be useful. It is hoped that these omissions can be remedied during the further stages in preparation of the Area Action Plan.

2. The Site Options

The following comment applies to the individual site options,

SITE A - redevelopment of this site should be informed by a carefully thought out design brief, with the height and scale of new building reflecting the other buildings in the square. Any development option for Site A will need to consider the potential for extensive urban archaeological deposits surviving within the area of the Market Place, and the impacts the development will have upon this resource.

SITE B - restriction of vehicular use in the square will not automatically create a pedestrian space. It could become merely empty unless some attraction or facility makes pedestrians want to use the square. The routing of buses through West Street should be carefully considered because buses have caused damage to listed and other buildings and create traffic congestion. The full or part pedestrianisation of the Market Square would need to consider the potential for extensive urban archaeological deposits surviving within the area and the impacts development will have upon this resource.

SITE C - any redevelopment should consider retention of the Indian restaurant and florist. Any development option for the site would need to consider the potential for peripheral urban and industrial archaeological deposits surviving on the fringe of post-medieval Rochford and the potential impacts the development will have upon this resource.

SITE D - redevelopment of the site would fill the gap in the street scene and enhance the appearance of the town. The size and appearance of any buildings are important in Conservation Area terms, but their use is a lesser issue. Any development option for the site will need to consider the potential for urban archaeological deposits surviving within the historic core of Rochford and the impacts the development will have upon this resource.

SITE E The car dealer's is pretty much an historic building and should remain. Any development option for Site E will need to consider the potential for peripheral urban and industrial archaeological deposits surviving on the fringe of post-medieval Rochford and the potential impacts the development will have upon this resource.

SITE F - development could help create a stronger, continuous frontage on Bradley Way. Any development option for the site will need to consider the potential for archaeological deposits surviving on the fringe of post-medieval Rochford and the potential impacts development will have upon this resource.

Sites G & H - Any development option for these two sites will need to consider the potential for peripheral urban archaeological deposits surviving outside the present built area of Rochford and the potential impacts development will have upon this resource.

Site J - Any development option for the site will need to consider the potential for peripheral archaeological deposits surviving outside the historic core of Rochford and the potential impacts development will have upon this resource.

3. Historic Environment matters

Whilst the Issues and Options document mentions the historic environment, this principally relates to the built environment with no reference to the significant archaeological deposits surviving as below grounds deposits. The further stages in production of the Action Area Plan should include reference to these important deposits as they form an essential part of the history of Rochford town and help provide a sense of place to the settlement.

To ensure that the historic environment is appropriately considered within the Action Area Plan the following changes to the existing text are recommended: (changes in Bold)

Paragraph 1.7 - Thirdly, Rochford Town Centre is a designated Conservation Area (Policy BC1 of the Rochford District Replacement Local Plan) and has a strong historic character and a number of cultural and heritage assets that are important to preserve or manage. Thus any development that takes place will need to be extremely carefully managed.

Paragraph 1.9 - The focus for the AAP is the defined town centre boundary as illustrated on the current Local Plan Proposals Map. The historic heart of Rochford Town Centre is the Market Square.........

Paragraph 1.10 - The town centre includes a high number listed buildings, sites of significant archaeological potential and it has a high intrinsic value.

Paragraph 1.14 - Alongside the regional and local planning policy documents, there are a number of other documents (Rochford Futures Study; Annual Monitoring Report; Urban Capacity Study; Employment Land Study; Conservation Area Appraisal; Retail and Leisure Study, Rochford Historic Town Assessment) and Rochford Historic Environment Characterisation Project, that explore the issues that Rochford is facing. These documents have fed into this Area Action Plan and are also summarised in Appendix A.

Addition to Appendix A - Rochford Historic Town Assessment: Comprises an archaeological and historical assessment of Rochford, It forms part of the Essex Historic Towns Survey which is an extensive urban survey as defined by English Heritage. )

Table 2: Character - Rochford's Town Centre is defined by its historic character. The built form is of a fine grain and relatively small, intimate and human scale. It has a very high intrinsic quality. The Market Square is at the historic heart of the town and surrounded, in the main, by attractive buildings looking onto it. The town has developed about a medieval cruciform pattern of streets, which come together at Horners Corner to the east of the Market Square.

Paragraph 2.15 - For the purposes of this study a thorough understanding of the historic environment character is essential to understand the area's special qualities and the reasons why it has been designated as a Conservation Area....

Paragraph 2.16 - Generally the special character of Rochford Town Centre is comprised of the interrelationship of the following elements:
- A well preserved historic medieval market town centred on a cross roads and market place
- A collection of historic buildings of high architectural quality many of which are listed
- A characteristic medieval and post medieval street plan comprising axial roads, infilled market, Back Lane and irregular frontages all of which illustrate the settlements medieval origins and high potential for surviving archaeological deposits.

Figure 3 Heritage and Conservation - should include the extent of the historic core as identified in the Rochford HEC and Historic Environment Record

Table3 - Conservation and Heritage
- Rochford Town Centre is a Conservation Area with a picturesque historic core and a collection of buildings of high historic and architectural quality, some are listed
- Rochford has a fine grain of development with intimate spaces of human scale, good enclosure which should be respected in any new development
- Any developments in the town centre will need to respond to this context having regard to the detailed analysis carried out in the Conservation Area Appraisal
- Any developments within the town centre and its immediate hinterland will need to fully consider the cultural assets and the high potential for the survival of significant archaeological deposits and the requirements for appropriate preservation or mitigation.

4. Transportation matters

No specific comment on transportation matters is made at this stage. However, of relevance are the transportation considerations which have informed preparation of the Core Strategy and assessment of development options for the Rochford and Ashingdon areas. More detailed consideration will be required of the transport implications of proposals as they emerge through the further stages of the Area Action Plan. The County Council, as Local Highway Authority, can offer further advice and guidance on transportation matters as proposals for the town centre evolve.

5. Education matters

The further stages of the Area Action Plan should consider the improvement of walking and cycling routes to school because travel to school routes cross through the town centre.

The definition of Infrastructure in the Glossary includes schools but not Early Years and Childcare. In order to capture all types of education use of the term 'Education' is preferred in this context.

6. Uncertain phraseology or meaning

The document contains some phrases and indistinct meanings that should be clarified in further stages of the Plan,

Paragraph 2.6: 'The UPS is being adopted as a supplementary planning document by most district and borough councils in Essex' should be expanded to state whether Rochford itself has adopted the Supplement.

Table 2: 'The surrounding countryside encroaches into the town' should be amended by insertion of 'extends' and deletion of 'encroaches' which implies an unwanted intrusion.

Paragraph 2.13: 'Spar represents an unsympathetic response to West and North Streets' may be better expressed as 'The design of Spar is not sympathetic to the character of West and North Streets'.

Paragraph 2.14: 'Opportunities may exist to stitch the different elements of the town together' should be expanded to clarify the meaning.

Paragraph 2.27: 'Very little information is available on actual parking utilisation of these car parks as they are both pay and display parking facilities'. The lack of information should be rectified given the comments on pressure of parking in Market Square and the possibility of some of the Proposed Site Options resulting in loss or reconfiguration of existing car parking areas. The Area Action Plan should be based on a clear understanding of levels of car park usage

Paragraph 2.33: 'Cycling through Rochford is of a generally acceptable standard' should be expanded to clarify the meaning.

Paragraph 2.34: 'Cycle racks are for persons using retail facilities and station and are therefore not covered' should be expanded to clarify why this is the case and whether any action is required.

Paragraph 2.37: the omission of information for the Express 20 route should be rectified

Table of Main Issues (page 33):
- 'Street Network/ Management' - the statement in the fourth bullet that 'The parking area in Market Square is pressurised' uses odd phraseology.
- 'Bus Service' - the distinction made between 'signs' instead of 'stops' is not clear.

Paragraph 3.3: It is not clear what measures would assist achievement of the suggested support of small and local businesses.

Ordnance Survey acknowledgement is missing from the plans