2.7 Transport and Movement

Rayleigh Town Centre Area Action Plan - Issues and Options Consultation

Thank you for consulting the Assembly on the above matter.

The Regional Planning Panel Standing Committee considered the attached report at its meeting on Friday 22nd January 2010 before endorsing the recommendation that this AAP does not give rise to any general conformity issue at this stage.

Our detailed comments are set out in Appendix A of the report which, together with this letter, constitutes our formal response at this consultation stage.

If you have any queries concerning the content of the report or any other issue relating to conformity with the East of England Plan.

Question - Does the area covered lie within the Eastern Region?
Answer - Yes

Question - Are all references to the East of England Plan correct?
Answer - No
Comments - The Council should note the suffix 'RSS14' should no longer be used when referring to the East of England Plan.

Question - Does the area covered include a Key Centre for Development and Change?
Answer - No

Question - Are there any key issues covered by the document that are of strategic or regional importance?
Answer - No

Question - Is there a clear drive for sustainable development?
EofE Plan Policy - SS1
AAP ref - All
Comments - The broad principles of sustainable development are evident throughout the AAP.

Question - Does policy seek to maximise the use of previously development land?
EofE Plan Policy - SS2
AAP Ref's - 4.2.5
Comments - The appropriate redevelopment of brownfield site opportunities would be consistent with regional policy.

Question - Is the role of the town centre clear?
EofE Plan - SS2
AAP Ref's - All

Question - Are regional employment targets met?
EofE Plan Policy - E1
AAP Ref's - Para 2.5.12 & 4.2.5
Comments - Regional employment targets are addressed in Rochford's Core Strategy. Plans to combine office space with other town centre uses would be supported.

Question - Does the AAP contribute positively towards regional housing targets?

Has affordable housing provision in the town centre considered?
EofE Plan Policy - H1, H2
AAP Ref's 2.5.13
Comments - The Core Strategy allocates new residential development to the north of London Road, Rayleigh (i.e. beyond the AAP boundary). The AAP should consider how new housing might impact on issues such as transport and public access to the town centre, and how it could also support the town's retail and leisure sectors.
Residential development above local shops has been considered. These could provide opportunities for affordable and market homes.

Question - Are culture/leisure issues addressed?
EofE Plan Policy - C1, C2
AAP Ref's - Options

Question - Does the AAP seek to change and influence travel behaviour?
EofE Plan Policy - T2, T9, T13
AAP Ref's - Chap 2.7, 2.8.1, Chap 4.2, Chap 4.3
Comments - The AAP identifies a number of issues relating to existing patterns of traffic movement, the taxi rank etc. Any changes that reduces traffic flow to ease congestion, improves pedestrian access/movement, or delivers enhanced public transport facilities would be supported.

Question - Are sustainable urban/rural/local transport issues addressed?
EofE Plan Policy - T4, T7, T8
AAP Ref's - Chap 2.7, 2.8.1, Chap 4.2, Chap 4.3
Comments - The AAP identifies a number of issues relating to existing patterns of traffic movement, the taxi rank etc. Any changes that reduces traffic flow to ease congestion, improves pedestrian access/movement, or delivers enhanced public transport facilities would be supported.

Question - Are there any policies on parking management?
EofE Plan Policy - T14
AAP Ref's - Various e.g. Chap 2.7 & para 4.2.28
Comments - While parking controls are an effective means of influencing travel behaviour. Any change to existing parking arrangements should be done as part of a package of measures which deliver improvements elsewhere in public transport services and improved access via footpaths etc.

Question - Is there a policy relating to green infrastructure?
EofE Plan Policy - ENV1
Comments - Opportunities to improve linkages between the town centre and nearby open spaces are encouraged.

Question - Is conservation/enhancement of the historic environment addressed?
EofE Plan Policy - ENV6
AAP Ref's - 2.3; 2.4 & 2.8.1, Vision & Obj

Question - Does this AAP seek to deliver high quality in the built environment?
EofE Plan Policy - ENV7
AAP Ref's - Vision & Obj Chap 4.2

Question - Has the need to reduce carbon emissions been addressed?
EofE Plan Policy - ENG1
Comments - Beyond those measures already set out in the Core Strategy, the Council should consider whether additional standards for resource efficiency, renewable energy and waste management need to be included in the Action Plan area.

Question - Have water efficiency, management and flood risk issues addressed?
EofE Plan Policy - WAT1-WAT4
Comments - Beyond those measures already set out in the Core Strategy, the Council should consider whether additional standards for resource efficiency, renewable energy and waste management need to be included in the Action Plan area.

Question - Are waste management issues addressed?
EofE Plan Policy - WM1-WM8
Comments - Beyond those measures already set out in the Core Strategy, the Council should consider whether additional standards for resource efficiency, renewable energy and waste management need to be included in the Action Plan area.

Question - Is there a policy on implementation and monitoring?
EofE Plan Policy - IMP1 and IMP2
AAP Ref's - Chap 4.5

Question - Is this Development Plan Document in general conformity with the East of England Plan? (if not, what is needed to rectify this?)
Answer - Yes
Comments - At this Issues and Options stage, the Rayleigh Town Centre AAP does not give rise to any general conformity issues. The Assembly also recognises that the Preferred Option for development is ultimately a matter for local determination. That said, an AAP that seeks to deliver the sustainable redevelopment of previously developed land, improved connectivity and greater access to public / non-motorised forms of transport, and promotes a thriving and active town centre that pays appropriate regard to its existing built heritage is supported.

Rayleigh Town Centre Area Action Plan - Issues and Options Consultation

Thank you for consulting the Assembly on the above matter.

The Regional Planning Panel Standing Committee considered the attached report at its meeting on Friday 22nd January 2010 before endorsing the recommendation that this AAP does not give rise to any general conformity issue at this stage.

Our detailed comments are set out in Appendix A of the report which, together with this letter, constitutes our formal response at this consultation stage.

If you have any queries concerning the content of the report or any other issue relating to conformity with the East of England Plan.

Question - Does the area covered lie within the Eastern Region?
Answer - Yes

Question - Are all references to the East of England Plan correct?
Answer - No
Comments - The Council should note the suffix 'RSS14' should no longer be used when referring to the East of England Plan.

Question - Does the area covered include a Key Centre for Development and Change?
Answer - No

Question - Are there any key issues covered by the document that are of strategic or regional importance?
Answer - No

Question - Is there a clear drive for sustainable development?
EofE Plan Policy - SS1
AAP ref - All
Comments - The broad principles of sustainable development are evident throughout the AAP.

Question - Does policy seek to maximise the use of previously development land?
EofE Plan Policy - SS2
AAP Ref's - 4.2.5
Comments - The appropriate redevelopment of brownfield site opportunities would be consistent with regional policy.

Question - Is the role of the town centre clear?
EofE Plan - SS2
AAP Ref's - All

Question - Are regional employment targets met?
EofE Plan Policy - E1
AAP Ref's - Para 2.5.12 & 4.2.5
Comments - Regional employment targets are addressed in Rochford's Core Strategy. Plans to combine office space with other town centre uses would be supported.

Question - Does the AAP contribute positively towards regional housing targets?

Has affordable housing provision in the town centre considered?
EofE Plan Policy - H1, H2
AAP Ref's 2.5.13
Comments - The Core Strategy allocates new residential development to the north of London Road, Rayleigh (i.e. beyond the AAP boundary). The AAP should consider how new housing might impact on issues such as transport and public access to the town centre, and how it could also support the town's retail and leisure sectors.
Residential development above local shops has been considered. These could provide opportunities for affordable and market homes.

Question - Are culture/leisure issues addressed?
EofE Plan Policy - C1, C2
AAP Ref's - Options

Question - Does the AAP seek to change and influence travel behaviour?
EofE Plan Policy - T2, T9, T13
AAP Ref's - Chap 2.7, 2.8.1, Chap 4.2, Chap 4.3
Comments - The AAP identifies a number of issues relating to existing patterns of traffic movement, the taxi rank etc. Any changes that reduces traffic flow to ease congestion, improves pedestrian access/movement, or delivers enhanced public transport facilities would be supported.

Question - Are sustainable urban/rural/local transport issues addressed?
EofE Plan Policy - T4, T7, T8
AAP Ref's - Chap 2.7, 2.8.1, Chap 4.2, Chap 4.3
Comments - The AAP identifies a number of issues relating to existing patterns of traffic movement, the taxi rank etc. Any changes that reduces traffic flow to ease congestion, improves pedestrian access/movement, or delivers enhanced public transport facilities would be supported.

Question - Are there any policies on parking management?
EofE Plan Policy - T14
AAP Ref's - Various e.g. Chap 2.7 & para 4.2.28
Comments - While parking controls are an effective means of influencing travel behaviour. Any change to existing parking arrangements should be done as part of a package of measures which deliver improvements elsewhere in public transport services and improved access via footpaths etc.

Question - Is there a policy relating to green infrastructure?
EofE Plan Policy - ENV1
Comments - Opportunities to improve linkages between the town centre and nearby open spaces are encouraged.

Question - Is conservation/enhancement of the historic environment addressed?
EofE Plan Policy - ENV6
AAP Ref's - 2.3; 2.4 & 2.8.1, Vision & Obj

Question - Does this AAP seek to deliver high quality in the built environment?
EofE Plan Policy - ENV7
AAP Ref's - Vision & Obj Chap 4.2

Question - Has the need to reduce carbon emissions been addressed?
EofE Plan Policy - ENG1
Comments - Beyond those measures already set out in the Core Strategy, the Council should consider whether additional standards for resource efficiency, renewable energy and waste management need to be included in the Action Plan area.

Question - Have water efficiency, management and flood risk issues addressed?
EofE Plan Policy - WAT1-WAT4
Comments - Beyond those measures already set out in the Core Strategy, the Council should consider whether additional standards for resource efficiency, renewable energy and waste management need to be included in the Action Plan area.

Question - Are waste management issues addressed?
EofE Plan Policy - WM1-WM8
Comments - Beyond those measures already set out in the Core Strategy, the Council should consider whether additional standards for resource efficiency, renewable energy and waste management need to be included in the Action Plan area.

Question - Is there a policy on implementation and monitoring?
EofE Plan Policy - IMP1 and IMP2
AAP Ref's - Chap 4.5

Question - Is this Development Plan Document in general conformity with the East of England Plan? (if not, what is needed to rectify this?)
Answer - Yes
Comments - At this Issues and Options stage, the Rayleigh Town Centre AAP does not give rise to any general conformity issues. The Assembly also recognises that the Preferred Option for development is ultimately a matter for local determination. That said, an AAP that seeks to deliver the sustainable redevelopment of previously developed land, improved connectivity and greater access to public / non-motorised forms of transport, and promotes a thriving and active town centre that pays appropriate regard to its existing built heritage is supported.

My views are:

Keep Websters Way and Rayleigh High Street as they are now - also retain all the public car parking areas.

I believe that many public cars and commercial vehicles are pouring through Rayleigh generally, as another route, due mainly to road works/pipes etc. This tends to create more road difficulties on these diversions for existing residents.

Please do not permit any building in Rayleigh Town; Shops of good quality are what the shoppers want. Your aim must be to achieve traders to be of high quality goods so that shoppers can purchase any item that Southend, Basildon and Chelmsford can serve. It seems that the cost of leasing is too expensive so I suggest to you - lower the price and extend the term of licence. Additionally, test the business history of each applicant first in order to achieve the quality of trading required.

It is essential to retain our parks and open land in Rayleigh. These act as 'green lungs' and are nice countryside for residents and house seekers.

I support the re-opening of Southend Airport and this action will bring more business, housing and shopping for Rayleigh.

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.

Section 02 The Issues 2.7 Transport and Movement

The delays in Rayleigh's traffic system positively discourage people from coming here to shop. Drivers avoid central Rayleigh and changing this is fundamental to improvement for businesses and residents alike.

Parking 2.7.10 mention is made of The Market Place car park, Hockley Road, also being used as a market. Originally this site had permanent wooden stalls built on it. These were replaced by the licensee with portable units so that surfacing of the area could be undertaken and its use as a car park on non market days, introduced.

Mention is also made to the market license expiring in March 2010. This is incorrect.

RDC extended the expiring license in 2003 for 1 year whilst they discussed moving the market to the High Street. Objections from ECC Highways and Police resulted in the market remaining at the Hockley Road site and the license being extended for seven years from 2004.

2.8 Summary of Issues

2.8.1(2) Incorrect reference to market license expiring in 2010.

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.