Do you agree with the issues identified?

I agree that the High Street has great character that should be retained. I also agree that redevelopment of 60s buildings is desirable with the aim of increasing and modernising the environment.

I would support a decision to pedestrianise the High Street from Crown Hill to London Hill.

I would support Websters Way being redeveloped as a 4 lane (two in each direction) road to alleviate congestion following the closure of the High Street. I would support a lane be available to allow a left turn at the Northerly end of Websters Way down London Hill.

I recognise this will increase traffic ascending London Hill but at the top there should be less congestion.

Yes

i agree with all the relevent points as pointed out in the brief

My family has lived in Rayleigh since 1974. We were within easy walking distance of the town centre until 9 years ago. Since that time the town has become increasingly anti-motorist to the level that I very rarely visit the town centre at all. The whole system is pedestrian controlled which in my view is a recipe for disaster. Like it or not the car is here to stay and is now actually the lifeblood of a thriving economy. Parking charges are exhorbitant and the proliferation of pedestrian crossings should be severely truncated.

Agree with issues identified BUT (see issues to be considered) .

1) Unsightly buildings in High Street giving very negative ratings must be changed to preserve high quality of town Centre
2) Current Market should be centralized possibly to part of main car park in Websters Way just on market days or to High Street with additional parking then available in current market position off Hockley road
3) Agreed but difficult to improve access
4) Agreed but it should be borne in mind that Websters Way is used as a service road for the majority of the businesses on the east side of the High Street. As a result the High Street benefits from this with a reduction of deliveries in the High Street.The Quality and attractiveness does need attention as does furthe access to the High Street but providing further connections may be difficult.
5)Agreed - pedestrian movement should be unhindered and taxi rank reduced/moved to different area
6) Clutter must be reduced to protect setting of Church and surroundings.Difficulty envisaged eliminating pinch points with high volumes of traffic through town

Promoting town heritage and conservation buildings, traffic flow, parking, maintaining and encouraging niche retail outlets and improve safer pedestrian provision are all high priorities.

There are no other issues to be considered

I have just received your letter regarding Rayleigh Action Plan. My first issue is concerning low access buses. So far the only regular service to Southend are the No.s 9 and 1.

The most urgent services are for the no.s 20 and 25 which serve Southend Hospital. There are many disabled passengers including young mothers with buggies who need low access buses because otherwise they have to use taxis or cars. Southend Hospital car park is a nightmare you just cannot get parked. I have written to Mr Mark Francois my local MP and First Buses but so far there is no regular easy access buses for routes 20 and 25. The bus service No.3 which goes to Chelmsford also has steps.

My second issue is the traffic through Rayleigh. Many times the traffic is grid lock because of roads either down the Eastwood Road or the Weir area being mended.

My third issue is litter. On Saturday and Sunday mornings the litter from 'favorites' the chicken and chip shop is disgusting. We need more rubbish bins to take the cartons which are thrown down on the pavement.

I would draw your attention to the area outside Lloyds Bank and M&Co in Rayleigh High Street.

Since the Gas Company have installed new pipes in this area, which was incidentally left open for months it has now been re-surfaced with tar-mac which is an eye-sore plus the fact that when it rains there is a huge area of water all because the surface has not been done properly and is not level.

I would like to mention the pavement condition at the top of Crown Hill on the left hand side which is dangerous because of a raised kerb. I understand that the alteration has been put on hold until the Gas Company finish their work, but when will that be!

I hope these issues will be noted to make Rayleigh a good town to live in.

A. OVERVIEW

The preparation of an Area Action Plan for Rayleigh Town Centre is welcomed and supported. The Plan should enable a clear strategy to emerge that will maintain and enhance the role and status of the town centre in a sustainable manner that contributes positively to the needs of the local community. Generally the Issues and Options document presents a clear analysis of the issues that Rayleigh town centre faces. Detailed comments on aspects of the analysis are set out elsewhere in this response.

The County Council would welcome further discussion with the District Council at the earliest opportunity as the Plan moves forward to the Preferred Options stage. On the basis of the Issues and Options document there are two areas in particular where early discussion would be beneficial,

the operational requirements of County Council service departments within Rayleigh Town Centre, for example, the Issues and Options document (page 46) suggests the relocation of the library;
the technical feasibility of any highways and transport proposals, having regard to their impact on the functioning and safety of the highway network and the cost and deliverability of highway and transportation requirements (see also response on Options below).

Also, as the Area Action Plan evolves it should,

establish a clearer relationship between its intended outcomes and those of the Rayleigh Conservation Area and Management Plan and the Design Guidelines for Conservation Areas (SPD6).
include consideration of the accessibility needs of all sectors of the population to the town centre. Key words, such as 'inclusive' and 'accessibility', are absent from the Issues and Options document (see also response on Detailed Comments below). An Equality Impact Assessment of the town centre would help ensure that the town centre is capable of satisfactorily meeting the needs of all members of the community in respect of the services and facilities it will provide, and how the Plan should promote and influence accessible design.

B. VISION AND OBJECTIVES

The Vision and Objectives proposed for the Plan are generally supported but could be enhanced by,

In the Vision by,

amending the text in lines five and six to read, '....creating a vibrant, attractive, accessible, inclusive and welcoming centre for all....', to emphasise the intent that the town centre should serve the needs of all sectors of the community;
including 'residential' in the listed mix of uses, to reflect the highlighting of new town centre residential development in Objective 3 and the encouragement throughout the Issues and Options document for inclusion of residential accommodation in town centre schemes.

In the Objectives by,

making reference to 'sustainable development' within Objective 3, to clarify that any development proposals should accord with sustainable principles;
retitling Objective 4 to read 'Improve inclusive and sustainable access to the town centre', to clarify that any transport proposals should accord with sustainable principles;
adding a bullet to Objective 4 to read 'ensure accessible and inclusive provision of town centre services and facilities for all sectors of the community' in support of the inclusion of 'accessible' and 'inclusive' in the Vision.

C. OPTIONS

To a significant degree the Options choices for Rayleigh town centre are likely to hinge on financial considerations, in respect of both private and public sector investment. The County Council prefers not to comment on the individual options that are presented in the Issues and Options document. Rather, the County Council has reviewed the suggested options and sets out comments below on considerations that will need to be taken into account in moving towards the Preferred Option. The County Council would welcome early discussion during the preparation of the Preferred Option of any matters which would impact on its own operational requirements and service delivery within Rayleigh town centre.

A key matter informing preparation of the Preferred Option will be the circulation and management of traffic within the town centre. The County Council would agree with the proposition of Question 15 in the Issues and Options document that there is merit in maintaining the current direction of flow of traffic through the town centre. From the information available within the Issues and Options document it appears that the disbenefits of pedestrianisation of the high Street outweigh the benefits. It is unlikely that traffic currently using the High Street can be accommodated satisfactorily elsewhere on the local network. Alternative routes to relieve congestion on Websters Way are problematic and 'rat running' down residential streets would have to be avoided.

In addition, particular matters that require further study and examination during the remaining stages of the Area Action Plan should include consideration of,

provision of good alternative means of travel to the centre of Rayleigh for local people before the provision of additional town centre parking in an already congested area. For instance, how would the provision of extra car parking on Websters Way affect the desire to relieve congestion along that route? Whilst car parking may promote economic growth in the town centre, it could well increase congestion and traffic in the town centre which will have a negative effect on access to the centre for car drivers. Additionally, conditions for pedestrians, cyclists and bus users as well as the quality of the public realm will be adversely affected by increased volumes of traffic. These in turn could reduce the attractiveness of the centre and discourage economic growth;
the necessary transport assessments and programming of delivery of impact mitigation for any proposed changes to junction operation and layouts. In particular, the removal of highway guard railing should only be undertaken after the necessary public risk and safety assessments have confirmed its practicality at appropriate locations;
how cyclists would use, and could be better accommodated by the local network, including improved provision for cycle access and parking within the High Street;
how the Area Action Plan may assist enhancement of walking and cycling routes and links through the town centre to other parts of the town. The Issues and Options document (page 50) considers the need to improve routes between the town centre and the railway station. However, the town centre also includes routes used by pupils on their way to and from school. Proposals for the town centre should analyse and incorporate cross town routes to the two secondary schools, which with improved pedestrian priority, especially at key junctions, could reduce school-run traffic and town centre congestion without the need for major infrastructure schemes;
the implications of any proposals to provide a more attractive series of spaces through provision of shared surfaces within the High Street for,
the location of bus stops in regard to accommodating high kerbs that assist access to low floor buses by the disabled and the elderly;
the requirements for accessible Blue Badge disabled people's parking spaces;
provision of clearly delineated routes to assist accessibility by, for example, the visually impaired and those using mobility aids, to minimise the risk of accident/collision in congested areas or adjacent to pavement cafes;
the role of the town centre taxi rank in providing accessibility to the centre. Taxi ranks are an important form of public transport and improve accessibility for disabled and elderly people and those without access to a car. They are also an important support to any desire to provide more evening leisure facilities in the town centre;
any relocation of the market would need careful consideration in relation to transportation issues in the town centre, in particular the operation of bus services;
the potential survival of extensive urban archaeological deposits, particularly in the area of Rayleigh Mount and Mill, and at potential development sites in the town centre (including the Police Station/Somerfield, Rayleigh Mount and Mill, Rayleigh Lanes and Websters Way sites) and the impacts that any future development will have upon this resource.
the measures necessary to ensure that high quality design is evident throughout and that accessible routes to and within the town centre, together with inclusive access points to premises, are addressed sufficiently.

D. DETAILED COMMENTS

1. Accessibility and Inclusion

The following detailed comments on the text of the Issues and Options document should inform further progress of the Area Action Plan,

Paragraph 2.2.7 - the second sentence should be amended to read, 'Direct, safe, accessible and well-signed routes should be considered.'
Paragraph 2.3.5 bullet 4 - should refer to provision of Blue Badge disabled people's parking;
Paragraph 2.3.11 - should refer to the area being as accessible and inclusive as possible while seeking to preserve the historic value of the town centre;
Paragraph 2.5.6 - should refer to 'accessibility' in line with the requirement within the same RSS Policy ENV7 (paragraph 2, bullet5) to 'have regard to the needs and well being of all sectors of the community'.
Paragraph 2.5.13 - should also refer to the need for Lifetime homes.
Paragraphs 2.7.8 to 2.7.12 (Parking) - do not address the requirements for Blue Badge disabled people's parking spaces.
Paragraph 2.8.1(5) - pavement parking causes obstruction and danger to certain sectors of the community, for example, the visually impaired, and, as a known and current issue, should be addressed through other available enforcement measures. Other examples of obstruction can arise through the use of shared space in town centres (see following two bullets) and the further preparation of the Area Action Plan should include measures to secure the safety of all visitors to the town centre.
Page 39, Issue 1 (High Option) - suggests a 'shared space scheme along High Street' which could be a concern, particularly to the visually impaired, in the current absence of national best practice guidance. If implemented it would be necessary for clear delineated routes to be provided.
Pages 42 and 49 - are illustrated with photographs of pavement cafés with no guard rails around seated customers and/or in congested areas. Both situations increase the risk of accident/collision for the visually impaired and those using mobility aids. This well illustrates the amount of detailed thought required within the Area Action Plan to ensure that the town centre becomes accessible for, and inclusive of, all sectors of the community.

2. Highways and Transportation

The following detailed comments on the text of the Issues and Options document should inform further progress of the Area Action Plan,

Paragraph 2.7.23 - the approach to cycling is very prescriptive in the Issues section of the document and, if carried forward, could limit future cycle improvements in the town, especially those funded by developers. Paragraph 2.7.23 should be deleted and replaced by, 'The approach to cycling in the town will be to manage traffic speeds and focus on the provision of improved facilities for cyclists including appropriate signage, routes and of cycle parking in the town and at the station.'

Question 1 - cycling and pubic transport are discussed as key issues in Section 2 of the document but they do not appear in the summaries at the end of the Issues section. This gives the perception that these two topics are less important than those highlighted in the Summary of Issues. It is suggested that reference could be made to cycling and public transport within the pedestrian and public realm part of the Summary of Issues, although mention in a new separate paragraph would be more appropriate.

Question 11 - in respect of 'Opportunities between the High Street and Mount' Option 2, bullet 2 should also refer to facilities for cyclists and so should be amended to read '... with formalised pedestrian and cycling routes....'

Para 4.2.22, bullet 1 - it should be noted that delivery of other improvements could be delayed by procedures to formalise routes involving third-party land, such as through pub gardens etc.

Para 4.3.4 - the word 'appropriate' should be inserted into the last sentence as follows, 'Similarly, the appropriate removal of guard railing...'. Increased permeability and legibility of the town centre is supported but it must be balanced with pedestrian safety. The removal of highway guard railing should only be undertaken after necessary public risk and safety assessments have confirmed its practicality at appropriate locations.

3. Urban Design

Where appropriate, the subsequent Area Action Plan should ensure inclusion of guidance on the form and character of future developments. Such guidance should include schematic layouts and perspectives, in separate Design Briefs where appropriate. It would be an important element in achieving acceptable forms of development and helping to ensure that the aims of the Area Action Plan are achieved.

In addition, the following detailed comments on the text of the Issues and Options should inform further progress of the Area Action Plan,

Table 1, Urban design principles, Legibility - within the option statements the application of the principle/objective of 'Legibility' application to Rayleigh seems to cover 'access' rather than 'legibility'. Legibility in urban design terms is more to do with finding one's way around, assisted by landmarks, clear views, clear routes and gateways.

Paragraph 3.2.3 - refers to the Urban Place Supplement 'being adopted by most district and borough councils in Essex' but it would be more appropriate to clearly state Rochford District Council's position on the Supplement.

Figure 35, Rayleigh Town Centre Concept Plan - it is not clear how the content of this Figure fits into the complete structure of the document or the preparation of the options for the town centre. For instance, it shows green links between The Mount and King Georges Field but these are not listed or mentioned in the objectives. Also, the 'gateways' identified in Figure 35 do not correlate with the Nodes/Gateways identified elsewhere in the document, for example, Figure 30.

Figure 22, Broad structuring plan - the purpose of this figure, and its relationship to the remainder of the document, is not clear; especially given that the same features are illustrated more elegantly elsewhere in the document.

General - The document's use of aspirational illustrations from other town centres is welcomed but it is questionable whether all are applicable to, or present appropriate images for Rayleigh.

4. Historic Environment

The inclusion of a section on 'Heritage and Conservation' in the Issues and Options document is welcomed. However, the section principally relates to issues regarding the conservation area and the built environment with little reference to the significant archaeological resource surviving as below ground deposits within the historic medieval core of Rayleigh. It is essential that the Area Action Plan includes reference to these important deposits as they form an essential part of the history of the town and its development. Consideration of the 'Heritage and Conservation' should be broadened to explicitly address the archaeological element of the Historic Environment. Suggested wording to cover this concern is,

'The Historic Environment lends significant character to settlements such as Rayleigh and can provide a positive template for new development. It can also play a key role in creating a 'sense of place' and identities as existing towns/settlements are enhanced. It is important the protection, promotion and enhancement of the historic character and extensive surviving archaeological deposits associated with the development of historic Rayleigh are fully considered so that the adverse impacts of future development can be minimised. Any developments within the town centre and its immediate hinterland will need to fully consider the cultural assets and the high potential for the survival of significant archaeological remains.'

In addition, to ensure that the historic environment is appropriately considered the following amendments to the existing text are suggested,

Paragraph 1.3.3 - amend the final sentence to read 'Holy Trinity Church, Rayleigh Mount and the windmill are distinctive local landmarks.'

Paragraph 2.3.2 - add to the end of the paragraph 'and the Rochford District Historic Environment Characterisation Project'

Paragraph 2.3.3
Amend the first sentence to read, 'Rayleigh is an attractive medieval market town with a strong cultural heritage and a number of attractive and important listed buildings.'
Delete the final sentence of the paragraph and replace with, 'The Rayleigh Historic Town Assessment and the Rochford District Historic Environment Characterisation Project both highlight the extent and character of the heritage/cultural assets within historic Rayleigh. The medieval street pattern including the remains of the market place close to the church, the wide High Street and the castle survive well. Archaeological investigations within the castle and historic town have uncovered a high potential for wide ranging deposits dating from the early medieval period onwards. Both the surviving medieval town morphology and the buried archaeological deposits are particularly sensitive to change.'

Paragraph 2.3.4 - amend the paragraph (noting that the term 'scheduled ancient monuments' has been officially replaced by the term 'scheduled monuments') to read,

'The Rayleigh Conservation Area (designated in 1969 and extended in 2009 - see Figure 9) covers the historic centre of the town and also takes in Rayleigh Mount (the site of the Motte and Bailey Castle), a scheduled monument, on a spur to the north west of the High Street. The conservation area was designated partly in response to rapid development taking place in the High Street. The Rayleigh Conservation Area identifies some of the key features in Rayleigh, including:
24 listed buildings in the historic town area of Rayleigh, all of which are Grade II listed except Holy Trinity Church which is Grade II*.
The most notable of the listed buildings are the Holy Trinity Church, the Windmill (19th century), Kingsleigh House (18th century red brick building on the High Street which has been converted into offices) and Francis House (now Lloyds Bank on the High Street)
The core elements of the original medieval street pattern/morphology of the town and its association to the castle still remains legible today
Rayleigh has an exceptionally wide High Street (a feature of its development as a market town in the medieval period), presided over at one end by Holy Trinity Church and the remains of the market place.
Rayleigh Mount, the site of a Norman castle, given to the National Trust in 1923 and designated a scheduled monument. Rayleigh Mount is a site of national importance because it survives as one of the earliest Motte and Bailey Castles in England. Built between 1066 and 1086 it is one of the very few castles mentioned in Domesday. The castle lost its importance in the 13th century, was used as a stone quarry for the construction of Hadleigh Castle, a Royal Stud and latterly a farmyard. It is now a key area of open space and is a popular venue for recreational purposes.
A High Street which consists largely of 20th century buildings but also includes significant buildings from the late medieval and post medieval periods ( 16th-18th centuries) which represent an important historic, archaeological and architectural resource, which continue to contribute to the town's historic character and sense of place.
Attractive views looking up and down the High Street (in contrast to the unattractive ones looking up and down Websters Way).
Attractive views over the surrounding countryside from the top of London Hill.

Paragraph 2.4.1 - amend the second sentence to read, 'The Y shaped High Street, incorporating a fossilised market place at its northern end, remains intact...'

Thank you for your e-mail.

Please include the following comments in your survey. The numbers refer to the question numbers in the document.

1. Yes, but see my earlier comments about Rayleigh Station and links between the Holy Trinity church complex and the High Street area.

2. Yes.

3. Yes.

4a and b. The situation is so poor at present that the 'Higher' options should be given serious consideration.

5. Where possible promote redevelopment, otherwise consider upgrading facades.

6. Yes.

7. Yes.

8. Yes.

9. 3.

10. 2.

11. 3.

12. 3.

13. 2.

14. 2.

15. Two way working in the High Street for PSVs etc. Reduce or remove other traffic except emergency vehicles. Consider allowing all traffic through at peak times, say 6 to 9am and 4.30 to 6.30 pm.


I hope this makes sense to you, if not please do not hesitate to contact me.

One minor issue is the lack of adequate notice boards for displaying posters about community events, etc. The triangular boards near the town clock are always full (mostly with town council/ district council information). The larger boards outside the civic suite are right on the edge of the town centre and seen by fewer people, except, perhaps, on market day. A few public spirited shops will display posters, but have little space to do so.
I wonder if an alternative would be for a shop to have a TV in its window showing posters, notices, etc. from a DVD or similar media format. Even if the council does not have the technology to produce such a thing, there must be a local business that could do so? If a few adverts were included, it might even pay for itself. In this way, a large number of community posters could be shown in a very limited space.
It would be useful, for instance, to inform people about things like this present town centre consultation which, I am sure, is taking place without the majority of Rayleigh residents even being aware of its existence.
(Additional DVD copies would allow showing on the TV screen in the Windmill, maybe a screen at the railway station? Or in the library? Or maybe in Somerfields/Co-op supermarket?)
A rather more major issue not addressed is that of car parking charges and the charging structure. How a consultation document as thick and as detailed as this can mention parking charges only once (to indicate that it was an issue raised at the 'place check' event) almost beggars belief. Given that it is widely accepted that a real competitor for customers consists of out-of-town shopping centres, where ample free parking is provided (In Rayleigh High Street's case particularly the stores at the weir), parking charges are a crucial issue.
There is free parking on Saturday afternoons at Websters Way, etc. - but you have to read the small print on the parking signs to realise this. Time and again, I have seen visitors to the town putting money into the machines when they don't need to. If the council is serious about encouraging the High Street to thrive, big signs in the car parks advertising free parking concession would be one of the easiest ways of doing so. It would actually be very worthwhile having bold signage in the High Street itself pointing this out, and along Websters Way, so that through traffic was encouraged to make a stop off.
In terms of charging structure, a low charge for a very short stay (say half an hour) would be most helpful for people only wanting to nip in for a small amount of shopping. It would also encourage rapid turnover in the car parks, freeing up spaces more quickly.
The council could experiment with an additional free parking concession (say one weekday afternoon), coupled with a co-ordinated and concerted advertising campaign by the High Street shops. (I am surprised the shops do not do more to advertise free Saturday parking themselves- even a poster in a every shop window would have some effect).
Incidentally, paragraph 2.7.12 (pages 25), suggests the possibilities of some areas of existing parking being lost. I am sure this would be counterproductive, and have the out-of-town shopping stores laughing all the way to the bank. The proposed large new area of housing for Rayleigh, off of the London Road, would be too far away for most of the prospective residents to consider walking to the High Street. If they are to be encouraged to use it for shopping, the council will need to have particular regard to public transport links, and also the provision of adequate town centre parking spaces. Would a free council mini bus service to the High Street (and railway station) be too adventurous to consider? (The housing developers might be prepared to contribute towards the cost of this, at least for the first year or two , as a way of helping to sell the houses).
[Free Saturday parking up to Christmas this year, by the way, is an excellent initiative- but not publicised enough.]

Q1. Where is money going to come from to provide these alternatives?

Q2. No. It is too late to restore the heritage of Rayleigh. Most has already been destroyed by existing and passed Councils.

Q3. A permanent footpath along the western side of Websters Way from Eastwood Road to top of High Street.

Q4a. No pedestrianisation of High Street. In most areas these beocme a problem areas after shops have closed. Market to stay in its position. No more unsightly fats etc into its old area.

Q4b. Certainly introduce measures to reduce through traffic in town centre, again existing surrounding areas are affected what would local residents have to put up with ie noise etc.

Q5. No to front improvement scheme - but where redevelopments are planned consult public to what is planned not like so called sports pavillion which is a glorified council office.

Q6. Yes

Q8. No

Q9. None of them - spend money on more important things ie street cleaning, verges etc.

Q10. Option 1

Q11. Option 1

Q12. Option 1

Q13. Option 1

Q14. Part of Option 2. Signal control crossings all pedestrian crossing with guard railings either side.

Q15. Maintain the existing movement.

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.