2.3.7

General

This document does seem to be an improvement upon the JAAP/HAAP and Rochford District plan, although I draw little comfort from the assurances that this is a just an exercise in gathering views, given that the Council started discussions on the airport in the same manner and then drew it's own conclusion and now supports expansion without taking account of resident's views. I therefore ask what guarantee is there that the council has not already made it's decision regarding the future of Rayleigh and this exercise is paying lip-service to a process?

Once again the document has not been properly checked before issue. This was particularly noticeable with the HAAP which contained a number of factual errors (and incidentally I've yet to receive the Council's response regarding rectification of errors in such documents), this document contains a number of spelling mistakes (buses or busses!) and several of the maps are almost impossible to read. - it doesn't instil the reader with confidence that the information contained therein is correct.

History

It is my understanding that the Websters Way area of Rayleigh was donated by a landowner (Webster) on his death for the benefit of local people on the provision that a road was not placed on the site. By whatever means the council have got around this clause and it would I think be useful to know whether any other caveats regarding the land still exist and how the council will overturn these? I recall that for many years part of the car-park was tarmacadamed; fenced off and left derelict for a number of years, presumably due to planning issues.

Additionally no mention is made of the fact that the developments in Rayleigh that are now causing many of the issues are the result of past incompetence by local councillors e.g. Tesco store and the Rayleigh Lanes site the latter being the subject of much controversy when it was erected by the Co-op in the 1970's. The document therefore centres mainly on rectifying past blunders by RDC.

2.2.5

Why is Rayleigh Lanes omitted as an unattractive site

Agree that the rear (rather than the frontages) of many of the sites are ghastly

2.3.5

No suggestions as to what controls - these need to be reasonable, but and this goes for all areas of Rohcofrd neon signs in historic locations are not acceptable

2.3.7

The SPD note may be reasonable, but there is no reason why the new developments should not a least complement the old - this is why the 1970's building look so incongruous, but other developments don't necessarily look out of place e.g. Abbey National/Birthdays

2.4.8

Please define low density - Rayleigh has a huge number of residential developments that are constantly being added to

2.5.1

Why must national Government policy be given due weight, it is likely that the National Government will change (far more likely than any such change in our local government, the constitution of which has, perhaps excepting a period in the 1980's, remained Conservative dominated for over 40 years). What are the ramifications if RDC follows its own policy and why is RDC in general so keen to follow a Labour Government policy of concreting over every available space?

2.5.5

I've asked this before nut which parts of Rochford actually form part of the Thames Gateway? The jobs expectation is based upon what and whilst jobs are great - they shouldn't be at all costs - it is possible to commute and RDC is firmly part of the "commuter belt". How many jobs are envisaged in RDC and what strategies does RDC have beyond a "If we build it they will come"?

2.5.6

RDC is outside the Thames Gateway then - why does the JAAP say it is in?

2.6.1

Rayleigh Lanes - Can this be demolished and rebuilt differently (please)? Can RDC argue it isn't well enough maintained?

Adjacent site - what is the current status, planning permission expired in September 09, and this document was issued in November!

2.7.7

This junction is fully signalled - unless you are referring to London Hill portion too?

2.7.9

Not aware that you can't by a 4 hour plus ticket in any car-park in Rayleigh, although accept that there are a number of short-stay spaces dotted around the town centre

2.7.12

You intend building more houses all around the district and to rationalise parking in the largest town in RDC. The Rochford plan expresses concern that people leave the area to shop - and you're encouraging them!

2.7.13

Extensive bus network - expensive maybe, but not extensive. One bus an hour on a route that used to have 4 until deregulation (Hockley Road) and costs over £5 for a family of four to travel from the High St to Hockley Woods. Buses are far too irregular, costly and, slow to meet anything other than the most desperate travellers' needs (and this from someone who didn't drive for over 10 years)

2.7.18

What about London Hill?

2.8.1

1 Sites can be redeveloped and given the number of residential properties that are required this surely should be considered

2 The core strategy in fact mentions that there is a lack of restaurant facilities (it also omits to mention how many pubs there are!)

If the market were moved why isn't the Mill seen as a suitable site - would also enable use indoors and bring people to the arts/crafts etc

5 The safety function of some of the street furniture is overlooked, as is the need to provide seating for elderly residents - given that access to the High St and the area itself is steep in places

6 Overlooks the fact that people travelling from Hockley Road are channelled away from High St - reduces passing trade

3.1.2 obj 2

By all means remove useless items, but check that they are unused

Q2 - The area could be improved, but RDC consistently overlook the fact that High St's do not have the same focal point of even 10 years ago - the internet and out of town shopping have changed this. Conversion and consolidation are options, - it is more likely that a town centre could survive with encouragement to dine and shop

Pg 39 care with residential gien the number of pubs

Pg 41 item 4 - why a multi-storey? If police station moves then Castle Road car park can be expanded. Plus there is always the option to build on "stilts" leaving parking space underneath

Q5 - do both

4.2.8 - what happens in March - Market licensing decision must arise before the options are laid down? Agree Boots lagoon is too large, but there is already a large rank at the station. Environmentally this is a poor idea all taxi's have to wait at the station for a fare from the High St? Used to be small rank by Bellingham Lane - what about council offices? Consider other central locations

Pg 52 Option 2 - looks wonderful, but would be concerned that it could be area attracting anti-social behaviour, particularly given that very near to a fast food outlet

4.2.6 - presume that this refers to the empty adjacent site rather than shops?

Pg 61 Option 2 - premises on stilts

4.2.31 - Businesses are finding conditions tough enough without having restrictions on re-stocking

4.2.32 - By all means organise, but don't just remove

4.3.9 - really, I thought everyone was disadvantaged

4.3.14 - what about service lorries?

4.3.19/20 - The assertions here are incorrect. Two-way traffic will not double movements in the High St. Traffic from Hockley Road (busiest B road in the county remember) wishing to access either Websters way car park, doctors surgery, recycling centre or Eastwood will still favour Websters Way. Servicing lorries also would favour that route

A double bus bay at the Boots lagoon should not be necessary - only the 7/8 would come in via Hockley Road and they shouldn't arrive at the same time. Any buses coming from Bull Lane would continue to turn left along Websters Way any other buses coming into Rayleigh have no need to access that part of the High St (indeed in order to do so a No 1 would have to divert along Eastwood Road and Websters Way before accessing station and any of the Eastwood buses would have to turn up Websters Way to approach down High St). Buses travelling out of Rayleigh will be using existing bays.

4.3.21 - it would also improve opportunities for passing trade.

Q 15 a resounding no. In consideration of the whole opportunity. If properly designed Websters Way could actually be diverted to run between the car park and King George's Playing field, especially if surgery is to move. This then means that the Car Park becomes integral to the High St with limited service roads at either end. As with Wickford Somerfield Car park there is no road to cross in order to access the High St.

Obviously accept that redevelopment is necessary and some of the basic principles e.g. tidying of Websters Way are good, concern is that we have over-development

1.3.2

I agree that some gateways to the town are uninspiring: Crown Hill Gateway, Eastwood Road Gateway, The High Street and Hockley Road gateway. For further details see paper copy.

1.3.3

I agree. We are blessed with an attractive town centre, especially between Eastwood Road and Websters Way. The Large Plane trees play a major role in creating this pleasant ambience. Also the width of the section from roughly Crown Hill to Bellingham Lane. How many know that we have this width because Rayleigh was a market town? The wide section is where traders had their stalls?

1.3.4 I agree

1.3.5 I do not know what 'comparison' floor space is, so I cannot comment.

1.3.6 The 'arrangement of buildings' along Webster Way does not worry me. Facades on the same building line are boring. Those on Webster's way create a relief from monotony - like the Library building. We need half a dozen or more Plane Trees along the street boundary, and within the car park itself. What a delightful picture they make, how well they soften the impact of cars.

The multitude of services equipment and signage which has been allowed to go up on walls is an eyesore. It is my understanding that this is within the Conservation Area. Another eyesore is the rear elevations of the buildings fronting Eastwood Road. At the Bull Lane end of Websters Way we have the two ugliest buildings in Rayleigh. Ideally they should be demolished and start again. Proposal formulated to redeem the situation; please see paper copy to view.

Congratulations to those who were responsible for the improvements to the car park. They have done an excellent job. I like the soft red brick, the simple railings and best of all the metal 'arches' at the ends of the pedestrian crossing. Little things like that, well designed, can make a big difference.

1.3.7 Stop tinkering with the traffic flow. There is no perfect answer to all problems. What we have is the best that I have known. Leave it alone.

I agree we should rationalise signs and street clutter, especially on Websters Way.

1.4.1 I am happy to give my views.

1.4.2 Noted

2.1.1 Noted

2.2.2 I was unaware of the letter drop and Placecheck.

2.2.3 I believe I was deliberately excluded from this event. I received no notification of it.

2.2.4 I share the first three concerns. Solving the traffic congestion problem is a pipe dream. It is simply not possible - without providing a new network of roads around the town to divert through traffic. I am not convinced we need more car parking. If we do, it must be sensitively designed. Simply masking a raised car parking deck with residential accommodation, as suggested elsewhere in the booklet, is not the answer. There are better and honest ways of dealing with the design problem.

2.2.5 I agree. I will put forward proposals for dealing with the buildings mentioned and several others also. There is a simple solution to the former Tesco building. Replace the blanked out part at 1st floor level with the same fenestration as elsewhere. Another building which needs attention is the new red brick High Street building opposite Grouts. It is excellent in broad concept, but a tragedy in detail. The red brick is in blatant violation of the Essex Design Guide. It should be rendered over as was successfully done to the Mill Hall. Brick Arches over horizontal lintols are the product of a confused mind. Someone couldn't make up his mind! A very heavy parapet coping. And cosmetic brackets attached to the building. Brackets are meant to hold things up. Non functional embellishment is an admission of failure. But there is no need to worry. Most problems have solutions.

2.2.6 Surely, we have more restaurants and cafes than the town needs. How those we have make a viable profit is a mystery to me. I do not think it is realistic to hold arts and cultural events in the high street. We do not need an expanded market. A market with unsightly stalls will mar the appearance of the town, and cause traffic mayhem.

2.2.7 I would like to see the pedestrian link to the Mount. An excellent idea. A pedestrianized High Street will only cause traffic mayhem. Our existing footpaths easily accommodate pedestrians.

2.2.8 I agree with free short term parking. We should reinstate free parking for disabled driver.

2.3.1 I agree

2.3.2 Noted. I will peruse these document if I can spare the time.

2.3.3 Interesting

2.3.4 Kingsleigh House is not a red brick building. I agree we are lucky to have attractive views up and down the High Street. Lloyds building deserves listing although most of the façade details are crude.

2.3.5 I agree with all the proposals, except the crazy idea of a multi storey car park. How do we justify the need for more car parking?

2.3.6 Noted

2.3.7 Para 1 Noted.
Para 2 Agreed. 'Modern' buildings can be designed to sit very comfortably in Conservation Areas. Like the Library Building and Barclays Bank. Both very modern buildings but they blend into the Conservation Area without a murmur.

2.3.8 Noted and agreed.

2.3.9 Noted

2.3.10 Agreed

2.3.11 Agreed

2.3.12 Agreed

2.3.13 Agreed

2.4.1 Agreed

2.4.2 Agreed

2.4.3 Noted

2.4.4 I have no problem with the buildings not being on 'an even line'. The uneven building line is interesting and preferable, like the Library building. We can vastly improve the first impression of Rayleigh by carrying out my simple proposal to transform the two ugliest buildings in Rayleigh, and my other simple recommendations. A tree or trees on the grassed bank outside the newish red brick building at the start of Websters Way, at the Bull Lane end, will also help. Trees soften any unpleasant view.

2.4.5 Noted. I agree these are valuable assets.

2.4.6 Agree

2.4.7 Noted

2.4.8 Noted. But there are now 'rooms n the roof' blocks of flats being built after I first introduced it at Brooklands, in order to achieve 3 storeys with a 2 storey look.

2.5 Policy Content All noted

2.6.1 I am totally unaware of the proposal to replace the snooker hall over 'The Lanes' with residential units. Interesting. I hope the high level windows at the rear will become proper windows - and that the ugly ventilation plant etc will disappear. Little balconies with canopies will help.

2.6.2 I could not find 'either redevelopment or façade improvements to the Rayleigh Lanes site' in Section 4.

2.7 Transport and Movement

I do not understand our preoccupation with a transport situation which we cannot improve. If there was a better way we would have found it ages ago. It is time to accept reality.

2.7.12 I cannot see what there is to review in the walking connection between the Station and the High Street. Crown Hill is there. There is no alternative.

2.7.22 If diagonal crossings are what is suggested, that would be crazy. What's wrong with the present arrangement?

2.8 Summary of Issues

2.8.1 I agree that recent developments in and around the High Street undermine the quality of the High Street. I have in mind the monster flats near the top of Crown Hill, with its amputated stump in full view, and the red brick building opposite Grouts.

I agree there should be more disable parking spaces and less spaces for taxis in the lagoon.

I agree that the quality of part of Bellingham is depressing. All we can do is pretty up the facades. I will produce a drawing to show what might be done. Don't expect miracles.

While still on Bellingham Lane, there is the delightful W.I. Hall, but still with the ugly ramp and railing which spoils a pretty picture. Why the ramp? Because they set the floor 18 inches above footpath level. Why? A mistake!? Anway, I came up with a simple - but brilliant way of making the ramp disappear. But no one wanted to know. And then there are the windows on the boundary wall which our Building Regulations department wrongfully would not allow in the rebuild. That was totally unjustified. Those windows had a Right of Light. They can be reinstated whenever. Rights of Light exist forever even if blanked out.

Question 1 Apart from the obsession with traffic, I agree with the issues identified.

03 Vision and Objectives

Q2 I agree

Q3 No comment. There is too much to read.

04 The Options

Q4a I prefer options Low and Medium but not relocation of the market.
Q4b I prefer options Low and Medium but not removal of pedestrian guardrailing, and certainly not aligning the real walls facing Websters Way.

Q5 Promote shopfront improvement and façade treatments.

Q6 No. There is no demand for new retail surely.

Q7 No.

Q8 No no no.

Q9 It seems the police station has been vacated. I did not know. I would not like to see Somerfields or the Library relocated there. They are fine where they are. Use the ground floor for community purposes, the upper floors for offices or flats. I support Option 2, but not relocation of the Library or Somerfields.

Q10 I support Option 1. But the reduced Taxi Rank spaces to be converted to disabled parking spaces. We must keep some taxi spaces for shoppers. I am totally opposed to market stalls.

I am now beginning to think that we are day-dreaming. Pictures like figure 49 are a clear indicuation of that. What do we want street frontages like that for? We are not Chichester or London. Rayleigh is a small country town. We don't want flat facades like on the figure 49 picture. We need set backs like the library and the McCarthy & Stone flats next to St. Georges Playing Field. Interrupt facades like on Websters Way. That is more interesting.

Q11 I strongly support Option 2. But modified to include a much smaller trade unit area thereby allowing for sitting area and some trees. What about the existing private car parking and servicing access to the shops? I think Option 3 is a day dream. The pedestrian link to the mount is a brilliant idea.

Q12 The Options presented display a lack of imagination, vision, inspiration and inventiveness in responding to the situation we have at Websters Way. We do not need massive intervention to create as pleasing picture. We do not need to screen the 'blank' facades. Phony facades as on Fig 42 are silly. An admission of failure. We might consider some well proportioned windows on the blank walls, but that is not necessarily essential. What we do need is to have all the external services which have been allowed to happen, removed. I agree with screening as we have to the car park, and most importantly we need trees, as along the car park. That is all we need to create a pretty picture. Wait till you see my proposals. There is an unkempt piece of land at the end nearest to Bull Lane. It should be tidied up and another tree planted there.

Q13. Option 2. See also my comments under 1.3.6.

Q14. Any two tier - and no more than two tier - car park does not need to be screened off with any sort of building. It can be pleasingly 'screened' behind the existing Plane trees, and softened with planning boxes along the perimeter. That is all we need. The attempt at Colchester to screen a multi-storey car park with false building facades is a dismal failure. There is no substitute for honesty, coupled with inventiveness. How do we justify more building floor space which would encroach on the new car parking deck? It is all counterproductive. I will produce a design for an elevated car park at Websters Way in due course.

Q15 Leave well alone, including guard railing. The guardrailing is there for safety reasons. We cannot seem to stop tinkering with the traffic flow arrangement and spend vast sums of money periodically. There is no need for pedestrianization. The only pinch point is the Eastwood Road/High Street corner where the tiny single storey estate agent office is located. That little building should have a deeper chamfer at the corner, and the loss of floor space made up by making it two story. It needs to be two story anyway.

4.4 Spatial Options

Comments are not asked for, but I make the following brief observations anyway.

Change Level 1 - Screening needs to be minimal like the car park 'screen'. More Plane trees will make the big difference visually.

Change Level 2 - Keep rear elevations of buildings along Webster's Way where they are. Just remove the ugly services. Minor improvements to the elevations is all that is necessary.

Change Level 3 - I am amazed there is no mention so far of the (listed?) painted brick building behind the Town Clock. It was admittedly in a sorry state before it was painted purple of all colours. We should have hired a firm of brick restorers and improvers who I am told can work miracles. So let's investigate that as a priority. And incidentally, as we are near the clock, I like it. But can someone make is stop playing its out of tune melody?

Change Level 4 - This is all unreaslistic and cannot be justified. There is no call for it. Rayleigh is a small Country Town. Its attraction is its very pretty High Street. We don't need expansion. Why move things around? Just pretty things up. Use what we have, like the redundant Police Station....and the empty Woolworths. Maybe a small Tesco store there, although that will see off the newish small greengrocer and food store nearby.

The redundant Police Station building might be best used, on the upper floors, for residential use (flats) but it has a deep foot print, front to back. An open area might be needed centrally to provide natural light and ventilation to the flats. Also the dreadful massive looking elevational treatment needs to be 'dealt with.

In conclusion I am bound to say that proposals/objectives which require massive upheaval in the town are not only unnecessary, they are unrealistic. We cannot rebuild the town or even parts of it. Minor projects like the pedestrian link from the High Street to the Mount are excellent, if achievable. Lets keep our objectives down to what we need. We need an attractive and viable town centre. Do we need more? Why?

Footnote

I take this opportunity to comment on the tragic pavilion building in St. George's Playing Field. It is a dismal failure. Why it received a commendation is a mystery to me. There are four major elements on the main elevation. They do not fit into any discipline. They have been allowed to happen. Cantilevered beams sit on lintols that clearly cannot carry the load thrust down on them. One lintol had a crack and the other had clear signs of been repaired, when I last had a close look. Heavy barge boards and eaves facias dominate the elevations in an admission that the rest is a failure. And of course the green roof tiles are silly, sorry. I realise the building is in a playing field, but building materials must look natural, not phony. But even this building can be rescued. When I can find the time I will show how. Pity we did not have the new building proposed by the Lib Dems during their last days in power. The political decision to abandon it is Rayleigh's loss.