Which of the options for Site C do you prefer?

Site A - Support option for two storey retail designed as market hall - this option best compliments existing retail area and will improve appearance of area.

Site B - Oppose pedestrianisation of market square as this will have negative impact on business.

Support removal of taxi rank as these vehicle cause congestion.

Support removal of bus route as again causes congestion.

Move car park entrance further west to allow additional queuing space.

Site C - Support creation of heritage entrance. We need to 'advertise' our towns historic past.

Site D - Support redevelopment of shop/restaurant. Would like to see work/live units to provide start up units to small businesses.

Site E - No redevelopment. This is a very old established business and is part of our history.

Site F - Support redevelopment for retail/residential especially art/craft help Rochford become a destination.

Site G - Support retain car park - but improve signage provide map of retail/business.

Site H - Support extension of healthcare.

Site J - Support redevelopment of car park to multi-storey.

Site K - Support refurbishment of station with café, toilets, shop etc. This would bring our station up to date with needs of travellers.

TRANSPORT

Oppose more strict parking management. This will have a negative impact on business, people would travel to free parking shopping areas outside our district.

North and South Street - Support option to slow vehicles additional pedestrian crossing. One way system should be retained as part of charm of area.

Weir Pond Road - Support enhancement to footpath/crossings.

Support resident only parking scheme.

Bradley Way - Support redesign with on street parking bays. Encourage stopping off to explore our town.

West Street - Support widening of footways but would not support continued use by buses.

Bus routing - Support option to reroute to avoid market square. Would like to see small 'hoppa' buses linking Rochford with Great Stambridge, Canewdon, etc.

I support option one

I'm not sure that businesses need to be relocated. But I do think that the appearance of West Street from the station is appalling, so makeover is supported. If West Street becomes restricted for through traffic, changes to the juction may no longer be required. A proper roundabout would slow traffic at this junction.

Low priority. Could be considered at a later stage perhaps.

Option 1.

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.

Rochford Town Centre Area Action Plan: Issues and Options.

Thank you for consulting the Environment Agency regarding the Rochford Town Centre Area Action Plan - Issues and Options (September 2009) Consultation Document. The document represents an early stage in the production of the Area Action Plan (AAP) which aims to create a framework for development sites and planning policies in a specific area. We have reviewed the information contained within the consultation document and offer the comments as set out below.

The document begins by offering a broad land use plan for Rochford Town Centre (figure 1) detailing the distribution of retail, business, health care, public open space and car parking uses within the town centre vicinity. Chapter 3 of the document continues by putting forward potential opportunity sites and development options in line with the broad land use plans - nine site options (A-J) have been specified. We consider each of these options in due course below.

Of the nine site options put forward a few are situated in medium/high risk flood zones. A sequential risk-based approach to determining the suitability of land for development in flood risk areas is central to Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25: Development and Flood Risk, and should be applied at all stages of the planning process. Those identified sites situated within the medium/high risk zones should therefore be subject to the Sequential Test as part of the identification of sites to be included in the Area Action Plan.

We note that the AAP is expected to be submitted to the Secretary of State in 2011 in accordance with the timescale provided on page 62 of the consultation document. As already stated the identification of sites needs to demonstrate compliance with national flood risk policy as set out in PPS25 in the application of the Sequential Test. The Sequential Test needs to be backed up by a suitable evidence base (e.g. Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) and Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) as available). As the AAP is at the Issues and Options stage, and will not be formally submitted until 2011, we would anticipate an appropriate inclusion of evidence based documents. In the absence of a suitable Sequential Test evidence base, at preferred options through to the submission stage, we would likely find the document unsound on the grounds of not being effective and justified.


Site A Option - Eastern Side of the Market Square

Site A is situated within Flood Zone 1 of the Environment Agency's Flood Map, classed as low probability risk in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25. All development types are permitted in this flood zone as summarised in table D.3 of PPS25.

We consider there to be no further environmental constraints for Site A in terms of the Environment Agency's remit. We therefore have no preference to the options raised for this site.


Site B Option - The Market Square and West Street

Site B is situated within Flood Zone 1 of the Environment Agency's Flood Map, classed as low probability risk in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25. All development types are permitted in this flood zone as summarised in table D.3 of PPS25.

We consider there to be no further environmental constraints for Site B in terms of the Environment Agency's remit. We therefore have no preference to the options raised for this site.


Site C Option - Western End of West Street

The Southern side of West Street (of the identified site) falls within Flood Zone 2, classed as medium probability risk in PPS25.

Of the two options being considered for Site C, neither appears to be resulting in an increase in flood risk. The first of the options considers relocating/ removing a florist and Indian restaurant, both classed as 'Less Vulnerable' development in PPS25. This option appears to be taking 'Less Vulnerable' development out of the medium risk flood zone and utilising this space in altering the layout of the highway at the junction of Bradley Way and West Street. We would have no issue with this option proposed for this site based on the overall reduction in flood risk which would result.

The second option focuses on improving signage and creating heritage entrances. From the information provided we consider there to be no significant environmental considerations for this option.


Site D Option - Junction of North Street and Weir Pond Road

Site D is situated within Flood Zone 1 of the Environment Agency's Flood Map, classed as low probability risk in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25. All development types are permitted in this flood zone as summarised in table D.3 of PPS25.

We consider there to be no further environmental constraints for Site D in terms of the Environment Agency's remit. We therefore have no preference to the options raised for this site.


Site E Option - Gateway into the Town Centre

Site E is situated within Flood Zone 2 of the Environment Agency's Flood Map, classed as medium probability risk in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25.
If this site is to be put forward for residential use (as per the first option specified) in the town centre then your Authority should ensure that the Sequential Test has been suitably demonstrated, with no alternative sites being available in a lower flood risk area. The Sequential Test needs to be backed up by a suitable evidence base.

If other sites identified in the AAP that are located within Flood Zone 1 can be developed for residential purposes in preference to sites in Flood Zone 2 and 3 then the Sequential Test would not need to be applied. We recommend this option is explored further.


Site F Option - Bradley Way

The majority of Site F is situated within Flood Zone 3 (high probability risk) with the remainder falling within Flood Zone 2 (medium probability risk). Three options for this site have been proposed:

Firstly, an option to redevelop the site for retail/residential purposes has been proposed. If this site is to be put forward for retail/residential use in the town centre then your Authority should ensure that the sequential test has been suitably demonstrated in accordance with PPS25, with no alternative sites being available in a lower flood risk area. The Sequential Test needs to be backed up by a suitable evidence base.

Furthermore, the Exception Test will need to be passed for any residential development in Flood Zone 3a. If the site is located in Flood Zone 3b (functional floodplain) then this would be in direct conflict with PPS25. Residential development should not be permitted in Flood Zone 3b according to table D.3 of PPS25. We would find the document unsound if the proposed use conflicts directly with national flood risk policy.

Secondly, an option to redevelop the site for office use is considered. Again if this option is put forward your Authority should ensure that the sequential test has been suitably demonstrated, with no alternative sites being available in a lower flood risk area. Again, the Sequential Test needs to be backed up by a suitable evidence base.

If one of the redevelopment options proposed is to take place on Site F then surface water needs to be accounted for as this will result in a reduction in green space on site.

Thirdly, no development at the site is considered as the final possible option. The site would remain as green space and so we would have no issue.

Site G Option - Back Lane Car Park

The western part of Site G is situated within Flood Zone 2 of the Environment Agency's Flood Map, classed as medium probability risk in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25.

We would have no comment to make if the site were to remain as car parking.

The second option discussed is to redevelop the site to provide residential development in the form of apartments and houses. As the site partially falls within Flood Zone 2, the medium risk zone, if this option was put forward your Authority should ensure that the sequential test has been suitably demonstrated, with no alternative sites being available in a lower flood risk area. Again, the Sequential Test needs to be backed up by a suitable evidence base.

Site H Option - Rear of South Street

Site H is situated within Flood Zone 1 of the Environment Agency's Flood Map, classed as low probability risk in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25. All development types are permitted in this flood zone as summarised in table D.3 of PPS25.

We consider there to be no further environmental constraints for Site H in terms of the Environment Agency's remit. We therefore have no preference to the options raised for this site.

Site J Option - Hospital Parking

Site J is situated within Flood Zone 1 of the Environment Agency's Flood Map, classed as low probability risk in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25. All development types are permitted in this flood zone as summarised in table D.3 of PPS25.

We consider there to be no further environmental constraints for Site J in terms of the Environment Agency's remit. We therefore have no preference to the options raised for this site.

Site K Option - Railway Station Car Park

Site K is situated within Flood Zone 1 of the Environment Agency's Flood Map, classed as low probability risk in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25. All development types are permitted in this flood zone as summarised in table D.3 of PPS25.

We consider there to be no further environmental constraints for Site K in terms of the Environment Agency's remit. We therefore have no preference to the options raised for this site.


Summary

We recognise the need for redevelopment of sites within Rochford Town Centre. It is necessary to clarify that if after applying the Sequential Test (having referred to a sufficient and robust evidence base) there is no alternative option than including sites for development within Flood Zone 2 and 3 we would have preference to locating industrial/commercial developments ('Less Vulnerable') on these sites before any residential developments ('More Vulnerable). The Sequential Approach detailed in paragraphs 14-16 of PPS25 needs to be adhered to. Further information on vulnerability classifications can be found in table D.2 of PPS25.

If other suitable sites located within Flood Zone 1 are identified, then these should be developed for residential purposes in preference to any sites in Flood Zone 2 and 3. The Sequential Test would then not need to be applied for sites within Flood Zone 1.


Other Discussion Points:

Site Substitution

In our recent response to your Regulation 27 Core Strategy we raised concerns over the lack of sufficient evidence to justify the underlying assumption that protecting greenbelt land should take preference to avoiding high density development in areas within Flood Zone 3 which would pose risks to life and property.

We would request similar justification is provided if sites situated within Flood Zone 1 are to be discounted for residential use in favour of sites in Flood Zone 2 and 3. Alternatively, any option to incorporate residential development into those sites falling wholly within Flood Zone 1, already identified in the AAP, should be explored further.


Density of Development

To date we have received no information on the proposed density of development being proposed for the identified sites under the AAP consultation document. We request this further detail on development density is provided in view of the findings of the Essex Thames Gateway Water Cycle Study Scoping Report carried out by Scott Wilson.

The Report identifies that in terms of water resources, Essex and Suffolk Water are currently operating at a demand-supply deficit during dry years and that, although the approval of the Abberton reservoir scheme will largely alleviate these problems in the future, the deficit will remain until this scheme comes online in 2014. The Scoping Report therefore recommends that, as well as seeking high levels of water efficiency in new and existing developments, new development is phased up to 2014. This needs to be considered in relation to when sites are to be brought forward for development.

In addition to the water resources issue, the Scoping Study also indicates that there are some potential capacity issues with both the Rochford Wastewater treatment works (WwTW) and the sewerage network associated with it which would need resolving around 2015. In view of the findings of the Scoping Report consideration should be given to the potential capacity issues connected to the identified site options together with considerations for water efficiency.


Form and Structure

Paragraph 2.12 refers to the existing uses along Bradley Way and considers improving this main access route into the town centre. Consideration has been given to redevelopment and landscaping along this route, including the possible reopening of the culvert stream situated at the front of the railway station car park.

The Environment Agency considers it beneficial for watercourses to remain open wherever possible for both flood defence and environmental purposes. This fits with the Government's 'Making Space for Water' strategy which seeks to combine new development with measures to restore heavily-modified watercourses and their floodplains to a more natural state (as per paragraph 2.63 of PPS25 Practice Guide); this includes removing culverts.

Conserving open watercourses is one of our major aims and, where possible, we will encourage and promote the removal of culverts in order to restore a more natural river environment. This is in line with our policy on culverts. We would therefore be in support of the approach suggested to reopen the culvert stream.

Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS)

Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS) are a sequence of management practices and control structures designed to drain surface water in a sustainable manner. The benefits to be gained from the implementation of SUDS should be considered and this approach is encouraged in PPS25. These techniques can be used to provide a method for attenuating runoff that could otherwise lead to flooding.

Surface water arising from a development site should, as far is practicable, be managed in a sustainable manner to mimic surface water flows arising from the site prior to development, while reducing flood risk to the site itself and elsewhere.


Contamination

Contamination should be considered at this stage in case some of the sites identified in the AAP are affected by contamination as a result of former uses. Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 23: Planning and Pollution Control takes a precautionary approach to contamination as part of the planning process. Table 2.1 of PPS23, Annex 2, includes certain former land uses where contamination should be assumed (on a precautionary basis) on all land subject to or adjacent to these previous uses.

As and when sites identified within the AAP are brought forward for development, if the sites former use is listed in table 2.1 of PPS23, Annex 2, then as a minimum, a desktop study should be completed and submitted as part of a planning application. This study must include the identification of previous site uses, potential contaminants that might reasonably be expected given those uses and other relevant information. Using this information, a Conceptual Model (diagrammatical representation) for the site must be produced to illustrate all potential contaminant sources, pathways and receptors in order to fully assess the risk posed to the site.

If the desktop study identifies that contamination may be a problem, a full site investigation should be completed and submitted along with a risk assessment and remediation Method Statements.


Sustainability

With further information becoming available on the impacts of climate change it is important that consideration is given to the sustainability of any proposed development proposed within the AAP. All developments should be carried out in as sustainable manner as possible. With this in mind, the highest possible standards of sustainable construction and design must be incorporated into developments. This would be in line with the objectives of Planning Policy Statement 1.

Development should seek to minimise the use of resources and the production of waste by incorporating, for example, passive systems using natural light, air movement and thermal mass. High levels of energy and water efficiency must also be ensured.

Further ideas can be obtained from the Communities and Local Government publication, 'Code for Sustainable Homes' issued in December 2006 which details building practice for sustainable developments and introduces minimum requirements for both water and energy efficiency for every different rating, as well as minimum requirements for materials, surface water run-off and waste. The Code is designed to assist in achieving Government's objectives for achieving zero carbon emission developments by 2016 as set out in "Building a Greener Future: Towards Zero Carbon Development". This will be achieved in a three step process: by 2010 the Government would like to see a 25% improvement in the carbon/energy performance set by building regulations, this will increase to 44% by 2013 and the final target is zero carbon in 2016.

Increased water efficiency within developments will directly reduce consumer water and energy bills and reduce carbon dioxide emissions. We therefore seek that all residential developments across the Thames Gateway area are designed to use less than 95 litres/head/day of water, which is in excess of Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4.

Rochford Town Centre Area Action Plan

Theme and Summary of the Main Issues

Firstly we looked page 33 to see if there was general agreement with these issues.
It appears that there is a recurring theme of, have we got too much parking?

Generally it was agreed that the issues listed are correct with exceptions as follows:
* The matter of looking at the back of buildings in Back Lane is thought to be something that cannot be changed. That's how it is.
* There would appear to be an incorrect assumption that most people travel to Rochford by train. Everyone agreed this is not the case.
* It was also felt that the BR car park cannot be taken into the equation as this is owned by NCP.
* It was felt that it is not an issue for this consultation that people drive over the centre of roundabouts
* Members firmly disagreed with the statement that Back Lane and the BR car parks have "spare capacity".


Site A - Eastern Side of Market Square

It was agreed to support Option 2 with caveats.

The Spa building is an eyesore. The Chamber view is, rather than remove the building which could be too expensive and too disruptive for the existing businesses, the row could be landscaped. i.e. refurbished and remodelled to look older and more in keeping with the architecture in the Square. As this is an important site, we could perhaps secure some funding.

Flat roofs have a finite life and it is feasible to add a further storey which would help to recoup some expenditure. This should have good architectural input. Under sailing would be an additional feature and would blend well with Horner's Corner.

Windows could be put in facing West Street and North Street thereby improving the streetscape, linking these three roads. There would be no loss of retail space in the square.

At the request of the Chief Executive (RDC), the Chairman contacted the owner of this site who were reluctant to become involved with any improvements. Therefore a major effort on the Council's part will be needed to take this forward. We suggest that any project on this site would need additional outside funding ECC or East of England.



Site B - Pedestrianisation of Market Square

It was agreed by Chamber members - No pedestrianisation of the Square. The view is that pedestrianisation would kill the traders in the Square. Market days are very poor trading days for most traders. Some do well. To remove buses from West Street/Square would also be very detrimental. A great deal of people travel by bus especially on Market days.

Relaxing the 75% rule could be very detrimental and should be considered with caution and more consultation. This would need more investigation and more discussion. We would have to be very careful that shops did not revert to dwellings etc.
The widening of the footpaths, carried out a few years ago, does not seem to apply to market traders. They encroach on the pavements making it very difficult for pedestrians, especially disabled vehicles and parents with prams.

It was agreed that taxi drivers should have less space allocated to them in the Square. Most are hailed by telephone, few are engaged from the square. It is just free parking for them. There are other sites for them to park. Perhaps provide a telephone. It was felt their presence whilst waiting for fares, leaning on each others cars, eating etc does not create a good impression to visitors. There could be space by Somerfield and by Andrew's site in North Street. They already have space at the train station.

It was agreed - Leave the trough and pump where they are. A good feature for the "Market Square". The Martyrs Plaque could join them.

The new arrangement for cars entering the Square does not work and we should revert to the old system of entry and exit for vehicles.


Site C - Junction with West Street and Bradley Way

It was agreed that we would not, at this stage, recommend the removal of Haynes Florist and the Indian Restaurant. Haynes has been there for many years and is and old established business. This site could be improved without too much expense. To demolish either of these buildings would be a waste of money, we want to maintain the businesses, not lose them.

Should the 1st Stop site be developed it is imperative that retail units are featured on the ground floor.

The BP site should have been considered as part of this Area Action Plan. Any junction improvements could be included with this site rather than demolish the Florist and Indian Restaurant.


BP Site - there is a wide footpath around this site and this could be used for roundabout improvements if this is what is required. Sainsbury's (believed to be the current owner of the site) appear to be encountering many problems with contamination and underground utilities. If this is the case, a further suggestion was that perhaps they could be persuaded to cut their losses and donate some land to the town. It would allow us to make a very appealing entrance to the town. (Good publicity for Sainsbury's)

Further, if Sainsbury's could now acquire the adjacent site, formerly bought by Tesco, the plan for an express store could be remodelled. Everybody wins!


Site D - Rose & Crown Car Park and 60's Style Shops

As with proposal "A", the shops could be landscaped and given a facelift. Keep the commercial element. There was discussion about building on the car park site. On the one hand this gives a good view into the new development and keeps some open aspect. Alternatively, this could provide town centre development which is good for traders and again, retail units could be incorporated underneath. Provided this was not overdeveloped and some planting was including, it could provide a pleasant view.


Site E - Whittingham's Garage

It was agreed no development here. This is one of the oldest, established businesses in the town. Whereas it is easy to see why an outside consultant might see this as a missed opportunity, it is now a part of the street scene and a landmark in the town. (It may be listed.)

The business provides a good service and brings visitors to the town, probably trade too.

However, the building next door - Parish Room is a small single storey building on a sizeable plot that could well be developed. With the interest and association that the Parish has with St. Marks Hall, is it possible they could relocate. This would be a great saving to the ratepayer. With some thought, we feel there are alternatives here.

It was observed that if this site and 1st Stop were to be lost we are taking away choices from residents for car repairs etc. Would it force people to have to go to main dealers who are generally more expensive and do not provide personal service? The chamber would be reluctant to see both sites lost.


Connaught House (West Side of Square)

This is an important building and a feature in the market square which needs mentioning. It is owned by county Council and therefore it should be easy to negotiate and make this an important, worthwhile building. We suggest either a restaurant with prestige offices above, perhaps a small hotel. It is a wasted asset in its current form.


New Development/Roche Close

It was noted that there are very poor facilities for traders in this area and will be a contributory factor to the slow take up of premises. Deliveries are very difficult for the small shop premises. Traders risk wheel clamping if they deliver goods to the premises. This perhaps needs re-thinking for the future viability of these outlets.

The chamber agree with the consultants that the inter-connection between the Market Square and the new development. It is not adequate as the Chamber warned at the outset of this development.


Site F - Land by Hotel Renouf

Your para 3.15 does not make sense. Why is the frontage described as weak and a barrier to the town centre? In our view it enhances the greensward and compliments the ambiance of the Reservoir Site on the other side of the road. To have any development here would, in our opinion be unwise. Access onto Bradley Way would cause further congestion. It could be developed as a pedestrian footway into the town. This would be visible from the train station and create a very pleasant entrance/gateway into the town centre. With vision, this could be very attractive. Seating, parking for bicycles and so forth. This should be designed as an urban garden.


Site G and H -- Back Lane & GP Surgery
Agreed. No development. We do not see a problem with the view of the backs of the buildings. It is "Back Lane"!

Most definitely, retain all car parking spaces.


Site J - Hospital Grounds

The Chamber feel that it is very unlikely that the hospital would agree to any development. They have strongly opposed suggestions in the past, even a footway. On this basis we would retain the doctors' surgery and car park in Back Lane.

It would be a good option to have a car park in the hospital grounds, however, at the planning stage of the hospital redevelopment, the NHS was adamant that they did not want the public anywhere near the hospital site despite the Chamber requesting pedestrian access from Union Lane to the new supermarket.


Site K - Freight House Car Park

The first priority would be to stop free, commuter parking in this car park!
There should be provision to allow businesses long term parking (for a fee).
What is the logic for the RDC employees to park for free?

Access to the BR car park could be improved. Access by pedestrians for the station coming from Bradley Way could also be improved, create links to the town and through the reservoir. (As per para 2.31 in the consultation document.) The Old Station building would make a good site for a restaurant. It could be themed, many possibilities.

Traffic Signals

These have been suggested at the existing crossing by the railway entrance and at entrance to Hall Road. We oppose both. The traffic flow works despite the amount of usage. We cannot see that traffic lights will improve the flow. Lights will cause delays and frustration when vehicles have to stop unnecessarily. Pedestrians are able to cross freely with minimal hold ups at the existing zebra crossing.


West Street
Nothing can be done about the narrow street. Ramps could be put in place to slow the traffic down.


North & South Streets and Bradley Way
We would not want to see two way traffic in North Street.

However, we would need more detailed information on these options to give a meaningful response. Perhaps this could be the subject of a further discussion/meeting rather than a paper based report.


Weir Pond Road

No mention of this area in the site plans. The space beyond Ernest Doe's could be better utilised. The existing buildings are not attractive and do not use the space well. Additionally, if BT could be relocated, there is a sizeable plot that could be tastefully developed and make an improvement to one of the gateways into the town.

We see no merit in restricting the car parking any further.

Plans have been drawn up with RDC in conjunction with Highways and a local group. A considerable amount of grant money has been spent already with excellent plans for improvements to the island at the junction of Weir Pond Road and Stambridge Road. This should be examined before any further plans and /or expense is incurred. This is an ideal project for further funding.


These plans would not only be safer for traffic and pedestrians, but would create a more pleasant gateway into the town.

Similar principles may apply to the island at the other end of Weir Pond Road.


Buses

Agree, no re-routing of buses. Buses must be allowed to come in to the centre of the town.


Speed Restriction
It has been suggested by many people in many consultations that a 20mph speed limit be imposed in the central streets in Rochford. We endorse this concept most strongly.


Car Parking - General Observation

A car park in the hospital grounds would be desirable, but as previously commented unlikely to happen. We therefore reiterate that we cannot afford to lose any further car parking spaces. It is believed that there is already not adequate car parking for residents in Roche Close.

It is proven with the success of out of town trading that the general public will go where there is free parking. We do understand that the council needs the revenue it derives from parking fees. We stress the need to keep the free parking in the Market Square.

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

In response to your document Rochford Town Centre Area Action Plan, we have considered the options, and respond as follows, adding our own views and modifications.

We enclose copies of the options document marked for clarity (a, b, c, etc.)

Site A
Clear preference for option - a-to enhance the character of the square, and to dispose of the 'Disaster' 1960's buildings.

Site B
Option a-b-h are preferred to improve the character of the Square.

Site C
Option b is preferred. The character and style, and particularly the elevations of residential development here is important, as the visual gateway to the town from the East.

Site D
Option a/c is preferred.
Again, residential units of the appropriate character (based on the model of the 'New' Square), incorporating the removal of the existing shop/restaurant building!

Site E
No re-development.
This is an important Green Area.

Site G
Option a is preferred.

Site H
Option a is preferred.
Loss of this area of parking in this location is inconceivable.

Site J
Option b is preferred. It is impossible to envisage a multi-story car park of any design being suitable for this area.

Site K
Option a is preferred

North and South Streets 3.28

Option B - must be the most misguided and badly informed statement in the whole of the document - it has no relationship with realities of the safety considerations inherent in the traffic flow problems in Rochford. I would advise the employment of a competent Road Traffic Engineer. Solution to these problems are not for the amateur!

In answer to the question: - I would suggest that any short term low-cost solution will fail, the rate of traffic flows through these highways can only increase, and I believe the present condition to be desperate. Tampering will not answer a problem of this magnitude. You will be aware that we live in South Street! And believe that some traffic calming or speed control is essential.

No other comment on any of the options.

Weir Pond Road 3.29
Option b is preferred.

Bradley Way 3.30
Option b has merit - again some of the statements made in 'a' have no relevance to the real traffic situation in Bradley way every day. We do need Radical change. Passive surveillance, and retail, on this highway - I think not!

West Street 3.32
Both a/b are preferred.

In assembling our thoughts about this action plan it has become obvious that the principle factors are the maintenance of the historical character of the town centre, and the ever problematic road system. Possibly the only future solution for historic towns like Rochford is by-passing, which sadly may not be a positive contribution.

Thank you for a well produced and thought provoking document.

Site A Page 36/37

Agree best option would be replacement of site A by 2 storey copy of once existing Market Hall to fit in existing building incorporating shops with flat over.

The proposed removal of the Spar building without its replacement would destroy the whole concept of the Square. Horner's Corner is the centre of a unique street system which must be retained.

Pedestrians move between the Square and North Street easily via the alley.

Site B Page 38/39

Parking in Square is vital to the shops economy. The entrance and exit should be reversed. Reduce taxis in Square to 3 places. Do not agree Rochford needs more restaurants or bars, 2 pubs have closed down, there are 3 restaurants in West Street and 3 restaurants in East Street.

Pedestrianisation of the Square will encourage antisocial behaviour as experienced in Southend - rowdy youths on staketboards and skates. Café culture is not appropriate in such a small town, people living over the shops will experience noise.

Relocation of the pump and trough from the centre of the Square will remove 2 features that were returned to the Square only a few years ago. The bus must be retained through West Street as it is convenient for shoppers with heavy loads particularly with many elderly residents.

Area C Page 42

The restaurants and florist should be retained, these are old buildings part of fabric of the town.

The Garage and ex-garage site on both corners of Union Lane would benefit with a symmetric development no more than 2.5 stories high, preferably residential.

Site D

Car park must be retained for the pub but the vacant plot and 'sixties' style shops should be redeveloped with more sympathetic residential development.

Site E

Whittingham's Garage is an iconic building and should be listed. It is one of the oldest businesses in the town and must be retained as part of the older fabric of the town, it neighbours a listed building.

Site F

Cannot believe that a lovely landscaped area along Bradley Way could be called a weak frontage. The Hotel has permission for an extension on part of this site, also attractive area for Wedding photos and contributes and softens the commercial building in Bradley Way. The suggestion for retail or residential units facing onto Bradley Way will detract from the appearance and proposed lay-bys will cause congestion with cars entering and leaving the lay-bys.

Site G

Back Lane car park should be retained, several businesses and houses have access across car park. Rear of the properties in South Street is not unattractive - shows the historic core, the same goes for South Street.

Dr's Surgery should be retained on site, most convenient location for elderly people, several sheltered housing schemes, Day Centre, Citizens Advice Bureau, Housing Office and Council Office are in close proximity.

New Health Centre would take too much car parking space as would residential or retail on the site.

Site H

Shows picture of CAB and Day Centre, not Surgery. The proposal to relocate Dr's Surgery to near hospital site, bear in mind it is a mental health hospital - there is no benefit.

Site J

Provision of a multi-storey car park in conjunction with the hospital car park is not practical. The hospital, because of security, closed all footpaths through the site to the detriment of residents on the east of Rochford and town centre trade.

Site K

The Railway Station car park and Freight House car park shouldb e left alone, both are needed to service these facilities.

There is a well-used footpath link from West Street/Back Lane via alley the side of the Hotel, steps set in bank would aid access to Freight House and Station.

North and South Street

The proposal 2-way traffic in North Street is not practical, traffic speed can be controlled by road humps.

Weir Pond Road

Most of the parking on Weir Pond Road is by residents as many houses have no off street parking.

The traffic island at the junction with East Street could be removed.

Bradley Way

Do not agree to signalise junction with West Street.

West Street

Do not agree signalise junction with Hall Road.

The system of mini roundabouts work perfectly well most of the time. Traffic signals are out of place a conservation area.

Site A Redevelopment:

2 storey market hall or improved street scaping - para 1 or 3 depending on how it is done.

Paragraph 2 - This area is not suitable for residential use as there will be no parking facilities. Parking is a big issue in the area. The Spar building and adjoining shops are totally out of keeping with other buildings in the square. However, the Spar shop as a business is very useful. Perhaps it could be moved to old library premises. We also need the bakers shop. A restaurant is a good idea. Too much emphasis on retail outlets in Rochford when present ones are not even occupied! We don't need more.

Site B: I favour paragraph 3 of options. Shops need access for loading etc. Disabled should be catered for - free parking at Old Ship Lane quite a good idea. Restaurant quite good idea but there are several in the vicinity already. Would it work? The buses are not the problem in the square it is cars waiting to park that cause congestion. You cannot have full pedestrianisation of market square, it won't work.

Paragraph 1: Options

Short term parking in Back Lane good idea.

Paragraph 6: Options (Taxis)

Station house taxi rank headquarters good idea.

Site C: Paragraph 1 Options

The Old petrol station site definitely needs redevelopment as residential. However, the One Stop site would be unpopular as a lot of people use it, especially probably commuters. Maybe One Stop would be better where Whittinghams is. Although, I suspect this would not be an option.

Site D: Paragraph 1 Options

Redevelop for residential use a good idea. At moment totally out of keeping with town.

Paragraph 2 Options

This seems a waste of space. Needs redevelopment.

(or)

Alternative Suggestion

Switch use of shops and car park so that car park is nearer to public house as it seems too far away at moment. This would also help parking for town centre perhaps.

Site E: Whittinghams, therefore would be better used for residential. Maybe One Stop could be relocated to the top end of railway car park - by the Old Station House.

Paragraph 1 Options

Good idea for residential development.

Site F: Paragraph 3 Options

Maybe lower half of ground used by Maison Renouf Hotel could be utilised by Council for further parking, as this seems to be in short supply. But not in favour with yet more retail outlets to stand empty.

I see no necessity to alter Bradley Way. After all it was created to alleviate congestion which it does. Parking space on reservoir side only may be good. If your worry is that people do not use the reservoir and green area enough could we not have some form of heritage information centre at entrance in Bradley Way. Also freight house car park could possibly be used for people visiting the green area.

Site G: Paragraph 1 Options

Back Lane car park is essential to be kept as it is with short stay facility and possible extension into part of site F (not all).

Paragraph 2 Options

Definitely no no no to residential development on sight G.

Site H: Definitely no to moving doctor's surgery.

Agree primary health care service extension may be necessary, at some stage but what type is not clear. No info. (Ridiculous that most of Rochford Hospital was closed and given over to residential development in the first place. This is what took trade away from Rochford because visitors used our shops.)

(The loss of Rochford Hospital was a tragedy, as most people could foresee.)

Site J: Not many people are even aware that this car park exists.

Paragraph 1 Options

If this is a viable proposition then it seems a good idea if it is not a problem for people living in the area.

Site K: Paragraph 1 Options

All sounds very good.

Paragraph 2 Options

Sounds good.

Paragraph 3 Options

No idea how this is going to be of benefit. Not in agreement at present.

There are no play areas in the town. I wonder if it would be possible for some swings, roundabouts, etc to be installed on the reservoir site near to the Freight House? I know you used to periodically have a small railway ride for children there but I have not seen that for some time.

A play area and perhaps cafe would encourage people to use the area.

I attach my Council's response to the Rochford Town Centre Area Action Plan.

Site A Page 36/37

Agree best option would be replacement of site A by 2 storey copy of once existing Market Hall to fit in existing building incorporating shops with flat over.

The proposed removal of the Spar building without its replacement would destroy the whole concept of the Square Horner's Corner is the centre of a unique street system which must be retained.

Pedestrians move between the Square and North Street easily via the alley.

Site B Page 38/39

Parking in Square is vital to the shops economy. The entrance and exit should be reversed. Reduce taxis in Square to 3 places. Do not agree Rochford needs more restaurants or bars, 2 Pubs have closed down, there are 3 restaurants in West Street and 3 restaurants in East Street.

Pedestrianisation of the Square will encourage antisocial behaviour as experienced in Southend - rowdy youths on skateboards and skates. Café culture is not appropriate in such a small town, people living over the shops will experience noise.

Relocation of the pump and trough from the centre of the Square will remove 2 features that were returned to the Square only a few years ago. The bus must be retained through West Street as it is convenient for shoppers with heavy loads particularly with many elderly residents.

Area C Page 42

The restaurants and florist should be retained, these are old buildings part of fabric of the town.

The Garage and ex-garage site on both corners of Union Lane would benefit with a symmetric development no more than 2.5 stories high, preferably residential.

Site D

Car park must be retained for the pub but the vacant plot and 'sixties' style shops should be redeveloped with more sympathetic residential development.

Site E

Whittingham's Garage is an iconic building and should be listed. It is one of the oldest businesses in the town and must be retained as part of the older fabric of the town, it neighbours a listed building.

Site F

Cannot believe that a lovely landscaped area along Bradley Way could be called a weak frontage. The Hotel has permission for an extension on part of this site, also attractive area for Wedding photos and contributes and softens the commercial building in Bradley Way. The suggestion for retail or residential units facing onto Bradley Way will detract from the appearance and proposed lay-bys will cause congestion with cars entering and leaving the lay-bys.

Site G

Back Lane car park should be retained, several businesses and houses have access across car park. Rear of the properties in South Street is not unattractive - shows the historic core, the same goes for South Street.

Dr's surgery should be retained on site, most convenient location for elderly people, several sheltered housing schemes, Day Centre, Citizens Advice Bureau, Housing Office and Council Office are in close proximity.

New Health Centre would take too much car parking space as would residential or retail no the site.

Site H

Shows picture of CAB and Day Centre, not Surgery. The proposal to relocate Dr's Surgery to near hospital site, bear in mind it is a mental health hospital - there is no benefit.

Site J

Provision of a multi-storey car park in conjunction with the hospital car park is not practical. The hospital, because of security, closed all footpaths through the site to the detriment of residents on the east of Rochford and town centre trade.

Site K

The Railway Station car park and Freight House car park should be left alone, both are needed to service these facilities.

There is a well-used footpath link from West Street/Back Lane via alley the side of the Hotel, steps set in bank would aid access to Freight House and Station.

North and South Street

The proposal 2-way traffic in North Street is not practical, traffic speed can be controlled by road humps.

Weir Pond Road

Most of the parking on Weir Pond Road is by residents as many houses have no off street parking.

The traffic island at the junction with East Street could be removed.

Bradley Way

Do not agree to signalise junction with West Street.

West Street

Do not agree signalise junction with Hall Road.

The system of mini roundabouts work perfectly well most of the time. Traffic signals are out of place in a conservation area.