2.7.9

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