Which of the circulation options do you prefer?

Pedestrianisation of High Street

Maintain current system with proposed improvements to Boots Lagoon to allow relocation of Market to this area of the High Street.

Our view is to support option one provided that measures are taken to improve the junctions at either end of Websters Way plus the two roundabouts at the southern end of the High Street to improve traffic flows.

It would be a totally counter-productive to install even more traffic signals in an already over-signalised town. An organisation such as Mouchel Ltd probably uses recently-qualified graduates to produce these studies. Have they ever driven a motor vehicle in traffic?
I would advocate actually removing traffic lights at Church Street/Bull Lane replacing them with a mini-roundabout. To facilitate exit from Church Street implement the system used on roads in Jersey. They erect a sign on each road approaching a junction stating that it is obligatory to allow 1 vehicle through from the other road. Simple cheap and it works.

Prefer option outlined in 4.3.28

Working with existing network.

Working within existing network

Option 1 - working within existing network bearing in mind 4.3.28

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.

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.

2 - way traffic in the High Street-
This is the option I would prefer. It would certainly require improvements at junctions, but it would give the greatest flexibility in terms of journey routes. I would like to see a taxi rank continue in the High Street.
The Existing Network-
If 2-way traffic cannot be achieved I would favour the existing 1- way system continuing. However, I would certainly not be in favour of 'shared space' in the High Street.
Partial Pedestrianisation-
Forcing traffic to use Bellingham Lane would certainly increase the number of people seeing the Windmill, if only from their cars, but it would make it more difficult for pedestrians to cross the road to and from Berry's Arcade, and at the High Street and London Hill junctions. Some of the large lorries that come through the High Street from time to time might find the route very difficult. I think the pedestrianised section may largely become deserted when the shops close and could suffer increased vandalism. Youngsters already congregate at the end of the town centre in the evenings, particularly around the Parish Church and King George's playing field, so it would not take much for them to regard the pedestrianised section as their playground after dark (especially outside Berry's Arcade I would imagine).
Full Pedestrianisation of the High Street-
I regard this as a totally unacceptable option. The High Street is so wide, with very generous pavements, that it is utterly unnecessary to pedestrianise it. The increased congestion in Websters Way would probably increase rat running problems (Love Lane/Crown Hill, then along Station Crescent/Upway for instance). Bellingham Lane would, effectively, be cut off from the High Street - isolating the Windmill even more than at present. I feel sure there would be more problems with anti-social behaviour/ vandalism when the shops were closed.
Pedestrian Crossings-
As someone who doesn't drive, and who walks everywhere, I am, perhaps more aware than most of problems confronting pedestrians. I would like to point out that the crossing at the junction of Bull Lane/ High Street has a far longer walking time for pedestrians than any other light-controlled crossing in the town centre. It seems to be biased utterly against pedestrians. Could consideration be given to improving it?