1.3.1

A discussion and consultation report which I have read and analysed is of poor quality.

All main roads of larger maps of Rayleigh should have names, pages 2, 13, 19, 24, 26, 28, 30, 32, 45, 48, 51, 55, 58, 60, 71, 73, 75, 77. Other maps on pages 16, 46, 49, 52, 56, 59, 61 are of poor quality and magnifying glasses are required to read descriptions and explanantions.

1.3 Rayleigh Town Centre is already easily accessed what improvements are planned? Audley Mills Surgery already caters for over 19.000 patients, therefore, there is no need for healthcare centre.

2 The Issues To improve appearance of town centre old brickwork should be plastered where possible and a large amount of good quality paint used. There is no need to waste money demolishing and rebuilding sound properties.

There is more café's and restaurants in Rayleigh than in most comparable towns. High Street must be opened for traffic, cars, emergency ambulances, police vehicles, buses, taxis and other vehicles.

Pictures of developments in Cambridge, Greenwich, Norwich cannot apply to Rayleigh. There is no need for multi-storey car park in Rayleigh.

Conclusions - page 67

I agree with para 4.3.25. Para 4.3.26 High Street should not be converted into two-way traffic. Para 4.3.27 existing layout of streets and method of traffic control is appropriate and should not be changed. Page 49 pavements are for pedestrians and not for business usage. I live in England since 1948 and moved to Rayleigh in 1968.

General Observations

Point 1 Congestion in Websters Way

The idea of putting the two-way traffic flow through Websters Way was a good idea, but it was constructed with in mind large delivery vehicles moving slowly into the rear delivery bays to service the shops in High Street so that it is not adequate for the traffic flows it is expected to take today.

The consultation does give improved accessibility priority.

Page 6: Paragraph 1.3

First bullet point 'improved accessibility to and within the town centre;' and this problem is specifically recognised in Paragraph 2.7.4 'Websters Way now experiences congestion.'

But this is not followed through.

ADD to question 1 Issues

The issue of congestion in Websters Way should be given a separate paragraph and given much greater emphasis. It is a significant detraction from the proper functioning of Rayleigh Town Centre.

Page 33 Question 2 Objectives

An additional objective should be:

'the removal of congestion from Websters Way to create free-flow traffic conditions.'

Point 2 Restaurant and Café Uses

Page 29 Section 2.8 Summary of Issues

Paragraph 2.8.2 range and mix of uses

'The Core Strategy however seeks to restrict the introduction of restaurant and café type uses within the primary retail areas.'

Page 35 Question 3 Table 1 Urban Design Principles Application to Rayleigh (last box on right)

'A mix of retail uses, café and restaurants should be encouraged along the High Street......'

In my view restaurants and cafes produce dead frontages in the primary retail area. This is seen in the Eastwood Road frontage between Websters Way and King George's field. It will occur when the former Woolworth's is replaced by a restaurant joining the other restaurants in this frontage.

I consider there should be a reversion to the Core Strategy policy to enhance retail uses.

Page 39 Question 4a Options

Option 1 - Preferred Option - Higher (part pedestrianisation of High Street)
Option 2 - Preferred Option - Medium
Option 3 - Preferred Option - Low

Page 41 Question 4b Options

Option 4 - Preferred Option - None (but look again at treatment of Websters Way)
Option 5 - Preferred Option - Low
Option 6 - Preferred Option - None (but see page 68 Circulation Options)

Page 42 Question 5 Enhance Appearance

You should promote a shop front improvement scheme and encourage façade treatements.

Page 44 Question 6 - Yes
Question 7 - No
Question 8 - Yes

Page 45 Question 9 - Prefer Option 1

Page 48 Question 10

Prefer Option 1 but would wish to keep the taxi waiting spaces, because these are a real asset for older, infirm people who can be set down outside or close to the shop of their choice.

Page 51 Question 11

Prefer Option 1, but how are the shops in the 'retail and residential courtyard development' shown in Options 2 and 3 to be serviced by delivery vehicles?

Page 55 Question 12

Prefer Option 1, I consider that no development should be allowed fronting Websters Way because it should be improved to increase traffic flow.

Page 58 Question 13

Prefer none

Page 60 Question 14

I prefer Option 1

Page 68 Question 15 Circulation Options

I do not agree

I consider that circulation is the key to the proper functioning of Rayleigh Town Centre and that this cannot be resolved satisfactorily by deciding on a series of adhoc options without any evidence of careful consideration of adequate back-up data.

What is required is a full land use, pedestrian circulation and traffic flow survey to reveal just what is happening in and around Rayleigh town centre.

The Council admits that 'Websters Way experiences congestion' and also that pedestrians require to cross this busy road at several places interfering with vehicular traffic flow. All of these flows need to be considered together when all these data are to hand.

When all this is known; then and only then is it possible to ascertain how each traffic and pedestrian flow can be resolved satisfactorily so as to give free flow traffic conditions for vehicles and safe routes for the pedestrian flows.

These are my views for your consideration.

Thank you for sending the Issues and Options Consultation Document to the Government Office.

The Consultation document is clear and well written. Issues and options are identified. It contains helpful illustrations and photographs that explain issues and possible options. You have used the opportunity to draw on experience elsewhere. The document appears to be supported by thorough survey work.

Detailed comments on the AAP are appended to this letter. The majority of my comments deal with minor issues of an editorial or drafting nature.

Please contact me if you would like to discuss anything contained in this letter or on any aspect of your work with the Local Development Framework.

Reference - Para 1.3.1
Comments and observations - The Area Action Plan links to Core Strategy Policy RTC4

Reference - Para 2.2.1
Comments and observations - You have identified modes of consultation including meetings with Members, a letter-drop and Placecheck events with stakeholders.

Reference - Para 2.3.2
Comments and observations - The importance of Rayleigh's heritage and Conservation Area are apparent.

Reference - Para 2.5.5
Comments and observations - The AAP correctly identifies the East of England Plan requirements for new development. On a point of clarity, the East of England Plan requires 55,000 across the Thames Gateway sub-region.

Reference - Para 2.5.6
Comments and observations - To avoid confusion, we recommend that you refer to the East of England Plan rather than RSS14.

Reference - Chapter 3
Comments and observations - The description of the Vision and Objectives complement each other. Respondents' views to question two will help you work-up a thorough and detailed vision statement, that is pertinent to the characteristics of Rayleigh town centre.

Reference - Page 78
Comments and observations - Infrastructure Tariff. In subsequent versions of this document, you might consider making a clear link to Policy CLT1 and Appendix CLT1 of the Rochford Core Strategy.