Are there any other issues that we should be considering?

I hope my council will realise that the person arriving by car is the lifeblood & future of prosperity for Rayleigh High Street.

Whilst agreeing that work to improve the town can only be a good step, consideration must be paid to residents living in the town centre when this work is caried out.

Should also be considering anti-social behaviour in the town. Whilst during the day Rayleigh town centre is a nice place, at night it becomes plagued by children and teenagers around Berry's arcade, Bellingham Lane, the area in front of the Mill Arts Centre and the Mill car park. Underage drinking is a big problem, as is noise, litter & general nuisance to local residents

none at presetn other than those listed

The most dire aspect of Rayleigh is the main entrance to the station. This is what is seen first by many vistors and twice daily by many commuters. The area is dominated by ugly hut like buildings and the unkempt stretch of waste land between the London bound platform and the main road. The area needs clearing and landscaping properly, perhaps with decently designed buildings for the bus station, taxi office and shops.

If High Street made pedestrian say 8.30am - 6.30pm new routings will need to be implemented.

Anti social behaviour must be attended to not only in the High Street but also in the Websters Way car park where damage to property occurs regularly. Free car parking should also be considered at main car park at weekends for limited number of hours to encourage visitors/ shoppers.

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.

I would like to raise Rayleigh Windmill as another issue to be considered. Sadly, the Mill is hardly mentioned in the text of the conservation document, so I have to bring it up under this catch all question.
Now that the Windmill has accredited museum status, it should be easier to obtain grant funding for improvements. Therefore, I would like the council to consider the provision of an education centre to operate in conjunction with the Windmill.
When school groups visit the mill, there is nowhere where the whole class can be assembled and addressed. The class has to be split into small groups and distributed onto the various floors of the Windmill.
If a demountable classroom (or similar building)could be sited close to the Windmill, this would make encouraging school visits (both the Mill and Mount) much more viable. A possible site may be 23/25 London Hill, which is a piece of land backing onto the sensory garden, and owned by the District Council, but not currently used.
Such a demountable classroom would have many advantages. Apart from being a better teaching space, the walls could be used to display work done by pupils (the Windmill, being a listed building, is very restricted in terms of display opportunities). It could also provide some storage space for equipment, etc. (again, the Windmill itself has almost negligible amounts of storage space).
In addition to educational uses, such a building could, for instance, house larger temporary exhibitions than can be accommodated in the Windmill, and would be a reasonable sized meeting space. It might be a suitable venue for small functions/events. In short, it would be a valuable adjunct to the Windmill, greatly increasing the flexibility of uses.
As the Windmill is generally opened by volunteers, an education centre would have to be covered by the same arrangement. However, it might occasionally also be staffed by the council- for children's events during the school holidays, perhaps?
In the longer term, we have to make the Windmill area a greater draw for visitors, and this should be something addressed by the area action plan.
As far as the Windmill itself is concerned, it has proved it can win awards- which must be an indication it has potential. There are quite a lot of volunteers associated with it, and their loyalty and determination is commendable.
The main drawback is that it is only open for limited periods. This is a problem that needs to be addressed. Effectively, it is the symbol of the town, but, if it is to play a greater role in attracting people to the town centre, more resources need to go into it.
Having to have a steward on each floor of the Windmill, makes opening by volunteers extraordinarily labour-intensive, which restricts how often it can open ( although on the plus side it means visitors can always find a steward to answer questions, explain exhibits, etc.).
However, perhaps a lot more thought should be given to getting just the ground floor open much more often. This, of course, would depend on there being sufficient to interest visitors on the ground floor (which is not the case at present). New interpretive boards on the walls on the ground floor, and a greater range of material that could be shown on the TV screen would be a good start.
The Windmill also needs to be advertised much more prominently in the High Street (and promoted more effectively as a visitor attraction).

Section 2.7 High Street

Loading, or more accurately unloading bays, should be made similar to the lay-by for buses outside the Library.

1. Outside the former 'Post Office' now Postal Sorting Office and
2. Outside 'The Roebuck' Public House (not exclusively for them).

I am sure these would be used extensively, reduce the problem of vehicles parking part way on the footpaths and still allow a lot of cars, smaller vans to pass in both directions at the same time, allowing better flow of traffic.

Eastwood Road

A guard-rail should be placed on the footpath on Eastwood Road outside shops:

Sweet Memories - 2A Eastwood Road
Bliss (Ladies hairdressers) - 2B Eastwood Road
Rita's Separates - 2C Eastwood Road
Quality Kleen Dry Cleaners - 2D Eastwood Road

Near to the pedestrian crossing.

The slope/camber of the pavement is steep towards the road.

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.