Bus routing and facilities - Do you agree with this approach?

Yes

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.

Members prefer Option 1 and would like to see a bus service from both directions serving the railway station. All bus stops should have bus information.

I support the first option. All routes passing through a central 'bus station' would be good but I can't see that it is feasible. Unless, that is. it is located at the railway station. Most buses pass there anyway and the exception, the number 60 to/from Canewdon, could easily be re-routed to do so. I am not sure that there is much to be gained however.

Yes to both options.

Whilst we support and would be pleased to work with the Council to improve signage of the current bus stops in the town centre, we would not support diversion of services away from the Market Square. This is a very convenient stop for bus users accessing the town centre, many of whom have accessibility issues, and we would have deep concerns for the viability of the services if we could not continue to access the heart of the town centre.

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

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.