Which of the options illustrated on page 49 do you prefer?

I Support option 2

Option 1 if Market relocated to High Street. Taxi parking should not be removed entirely as it is particularly beneficial for elderly or infirm shoppers. Additional taxi parking could be incorporated in the service area immediately along side the existing access at the side of Barclays Bank thru to Websters Way which could become primary taxi rank on Market day. Suitable signage could indicate pedestrian distance to taxis. On-street taxi parking could be permitted during evenings to support bars and restaurant trade

option one in this case
total reduction especially to the railway station may mean longer waiting for shoppers as the service could be longer to attend the high street
due to clients fromn the station always being priority

Approve Option 2 as in Question 9.

Option 2 preferred. Current "Boots Lagoon" is ugly and unnecessarily in the High Street. Taxi rank to be relocated.

Option 1

Option 2

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.

Option 1-
I am not convinced there is any need or merit in reducing the number of taxi waiting spaces. However, if this is carried out, could it result in a few additional public parking spaces? These would be very popular for shoppers just wanting to buy a few items, or pick up a prescription from the chemist, for instance.

Option 2-
I totally oppose this option. The taxi rank serves as a useful purpose for shoppers. Its removal would be a retrograde step.
Many a time, I have seen elderly folk, with bags of shopping, picking up a taxi from the rank to take them home. To a large extent it is the elderly people who frequent the High Street shops on a daily basis. They may not buy huge amounts, but they are regular shoppers in the town centre. Their needs and interests should be taken into account.

A discussion and consultation report which I have read and analysed is of poor quality.

All main roads of larger maps of Rayleigh should have names, pages 2, 13, 19, 24, 26, 28, 30, 32, 45, 48, 51, 55, 58, 60, 71, 73, 75, 77. Other maps on pages 16, 46, 49, 52, 56, 59, 61 are of poor quality and magnifying glasses are required to read descriptions and explanantions.

1.3 Rayleigh Town Centre is already easily accessed what improvements are planned? Audley Mills Surgery already caters for over 19.000 patients, therefore, there is no need for healthcare centre.

2 The Issues To improve appearance of town centre old brickwork should be plastered where possible and a large amount of good quality paint used. There is no need to waste money demolishing and rebuilding sound properties.

There is more café's and restaurants in Rayleigh than in most comparable towns. High Street must be opened for traffic, cars, emergency ambulances, police vehicles, buses, taxis and other vehicles.

Pictures of developments in Cambridge, Greenwich, Norwich cannot apply to Rayleigh. There is no need for multi-storey car park in Rayleigh.

Conclusions - page 67

I agree with para 4.3.25. Para 4.3.26 High Street should not be converted into two-way traffic. Para 4.3.27 existing layout of streets and method of traffic control is appropriate and should not be changed. Page 49 pavements are for pedestrians and not for business usage. I live in England since 1948 and moved to Rayleigh in 1968.

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.

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.

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.

Option 1-
I am not convinced there is any need or merit in reducing the number of Taxi waiting spaces. However, if this is carried out, could it result in a few additional public parking spaces? These would be very popular for shoppers just wanting to buy a few items, or pick up a prescription from the chemist, for instance.

Option 2-
I totally oppose this option. The taxi rank serves as a useful purpose for shoppers. Its removal would be a retrograde step.
Many a time, I have seen elderly folk, with bags of shopping, picking up a taxi from the rank to take them home. To a large extent it is elderly people who frequent the High Street shops on a daily basis. They may not buy huge amounts, but they are regular shoppers in the town centre. Their needs and interests should be taken into account.