Advertisements

Showing comments and forms 1 to 2 of 2

Comment

Development Management Policies DPD

Representation ID: 25523

Received: 29/04/2010

Respondent: Ms G Yeadell

Representation Summary:

I agree with Advertisement paras. 2 and 3. Recently a highly "inappropriate signage", "excessively illuminated" has spoiled aspect of an otherwise pleasing 19C, successful, store. I'm sure it is confusing and a hazard. It distracts me, but it had planning consent. This should be discouraged.

Full text:

Housing - Design of New Developments - DM1

There is no substance in proposals for "..additions in keeping..with local characteristics". We know from experience that "..design, scale, form of new dwellings...impact on..the surrounding built environment". With such evidence to the contrary, why should we trust developers will be led by "guidance on local character of individual settlements..to ensure developments are sensitive to the local area and designed in a way..acceptable to the local population"?

Re Village Design Statements, gross plans on which Hockley public were 'consulted' and to which they substantially objected on grounds of:- "overlooking, privacy, visual amenity; relationship to existing and nearby buildings; scale, form.." were forced through regardless. Cases whre opposition was ignored: 66 mansions at Etheldore/Wood Avenue replaced plotlands, greenbelt; 3 storey town houses - Spa Road and 11 White Hart Lane near bungalows and 2 storey homes; gated complex of 5 mansions at Hawkley Meade replaced 2 Victorian houses, gardens; 11 flats at 1 Southend Road replaced period house, garden; Tyrells on green belt; giant yellow mansion at High Road near Valley Forge replaced a chalet; 1st stage HAAP forsaw multi-storeyed buildings in Hockley centre, with above opposed cases as precedent. Why must we credit RDC concern for our wishes now?

Density of New Developments - DM2

As regards density reflecting "character, scale, form of locality" there has been too much laisser faire in this respect already, so it would be shutting stable door after horse has gone. PPS3 wants land to provide enough buildings, but families need gardens.

Infilling, Intensification, Backlands - DM3

We all know from experience that this has "negative impact on amenity..character..increased traffic..town cramming" as in above cases. A cousin sought a home in High Road, but rejected it due to daylight loss from over-densification.

"Demolition of individual dwellings to be replaced by multiple dwellings..eg block of flats..not supported" has happened: period house 1 Southend Road replaced by 11 flats.

We are tired of caring for homes and paying rates to live on prospective bulldozer sites. Proposals in HAAP are to convert Eldon Way centre to 150 residential. Doubtless 2 for 1 infill elsewhere in Hockley is threatened alternative if that doesn't happen. 'Backlands' may occur to avoid such demolition.

As it appears no further development can be achieved without demolition, we require a moratorium on population inflow from elsewhere in UK.

Habitable floorspace for New Developments - DM4

There is no operational need for "6..7 bedspace" and no "two plus, etc, storey" in a village. Modern families do not have 5, 6, 7 children - average is 2 to 3.

Light Pollution - DM5

We agree "light trespass" causes "stress and anxiety for those adversely affected". As well as control "with full horizontal cut off" in future plans, you should rectify cases where planners knowingly took no action, though legally bound, during development, resulting in light from many 10' lampposts plus other lights (all from premises) spilling into neighbours' bedrooms all night.

Character of Place - Local List - DM7

Proposals in this item are disingenuous..
DMDPC Introduction says: "Core Strategy recognises importance of protecting locally significant buildings..of historic and architectural importance,.. through reintroduction of the Local List." "It is important to consider impact of development..on wider area beyond boundary of protected areas and locally important unlisted buildings which are cherished by the local community". Demolished in face of their opposition!

Your Vision in 5 years claims the "District's distinctive character and historical built environment has been retained" - maybe in Rochford, Rayleigh, etc., carefully much deleted in Hockley.
In Hockley no less than 1 dozen significant 17 to 19C buildings have been destroyed since 1970 in quarter mile from Marigold Corner to Spa corner from redevelopments, some proved a commercial mistake. Many more of similar vintage in Main Road, Plumberow etc have been demolished. Massive opposition in each case was ignored..

Local List? Don't' make me laugh. No 1 Southend Road, significant 17-19C period house in a garden on peak of Hockley Hill was acquired to replace with flats. Embarrassingly for RDC it was on Local List. Suddenly we learned from the then planning Policy manager; "Government now frowns on Local Lists". Accordingly Local List was abolished. Other councils claimed no knowledge of such dictum and had no plans to abolish their Local List.
The Council rejected request for national Listing, due to cost risk. (Developer took care to remove staircase and many other items, plus any TPO-able trees). English Heritage took care not to visit, thus in breach of their own procedures, relying on ECC Heritage officer (with vested interest in all building going in south Essex). He even mistook the house for another one, so claimed it was "square"! Meanwhile, nauseatingly, dilapidated buildings in Rochford were refurbished "sponsored by English Heritage", "sponsored by.." (various architectural societies). In Rayleigh, the Mill and other items were refurbished with large sums from public funds.

Proposal was to erect flats, demolish house. At determination, massively attended by opponents of demolition, redevelopment, Ward Member gave 4 reasons to refuse flats (3 were deleted on Director's instructions), but Member ignored the house, thus paving way for demolition. (Planning Officer admitted had he included that in refusal, there would have been no demolition, leaving time for other things, eg listing).

As soon as No1 was demolished, we learned Government now "approved" of Local Lists and steps were taken to re-establish it. How disingenuous can you get? (Please don't write giving some other version. I would not believe it, nor would anyone else locally). It is apparent that Hockley has been the cash cow to finance Rayleigh, Rochford.

A further risk: Recently, the Hockley Area Action Plan is to "regenerate" the village centre. At a shambolic public meeting November 2009, a developer asked the Planning Portfolio councillor: "What about old buildings?" (Draft plan includes potential youth centre opposite the Spa pub). Councillor replied: "The Spa pub looks well now it has been refurbished. It is on the Local List, which has no basis in law..." In other words, go ahead and demolish. So much for Local List.

Demolition continues. Last year 2 period items were demolished in High Road Hockley, replaced with 6 over-dense buildings, hard to sell. Another 19C period gem in Greensward Lane, close by Hampstead Gardens, awaits demolition, in face of vast opposition, for a housing estate, presumably only the recession has delayed.

The proposed Local List is equivocal. Policy UC8 of the Local List adopted April 1995, abolished 2005, says:- "LPA will review List on a regular basis and take every opportunity to promote buildings to full Listed status under provision of Planning Act 1990". DM7 is ambivalent by comparison.

I suggest RDC puts its money where its mouth is to save what is left: "buildings..of historic and architectural importance,..through reintroduction of the Local List.". "It is important to consider impact of development..on wider area beyond boundary of protected areas and locally important unlisted buildings which are cherished by the local community".

We require all 19C buildings in central Hockley saved. To keep the character fo the village, all others of similar period and slightly beyond into 29C, should be put on the Local List. May we also have access to this new Local List. We were told we would be consulted, but that has not happened. Could the list be redrafted to have some reliable significance.

Transport
Vision - It is optimistic to assure that "developer contributions have ensured that new developments are well integrated with public transport". If a Section 106 agreement provides for eg classroom, community centre etc, that stays once developer has made his pile and moved on, but a bus service must be funded year on year - no developer will do that.

Economic Development, Retail and Town Centres, Advertisements

We dispute plans to move "bad neighbour" industrial estate Eldon Way to "a new employment park..west of the District", in favour of [150] "residential". The estate has several settled "leisure centres" providing for the local population, such as C J Bowling, Monkey Bizness, Cully's gym. These would be ruined by removal to a remote site. Incidentally this item is to be decided under Stage 2 of HAAP, but is pre-empted by Core Strategy.

We don't want "vast majority of new retail development directed to Hockley". We want lower business rates to enable basic local retail to survive in central Hockley. The so called "affluent" can buy clothes, luxuries in Southend, Lakeside, etc. I agree development "must respect the character of the locality and local businesses currently operating there". Therefore, no "regeneration", please, particularly of listable buildings.

I agree with Advertisement paras. 2 and 3. Recently a highly "inappropriate signage", "excessively illuminated" has spoiled aspect of an otherwise pleasing 19C, successful, store. I'm sure it is confusing and a hazard. It distracts me, but it had planning consent. This should be discouraged.

Comment

Development Management Policies DPD

Representation ID: 25586

Received: 30/04/2010

Respondent: Essex County Council

Representation Summary:

* The first paragraph of the supporting text should be amended by insertion of the word 'access' to read '...is not detrimental to the access, appearance or value of a particular streetscape or buildings(s).'
* Additional supporting text should note that some forms of advertising, for instance, advertising boards can cause uncontrolled clutter which tends to restrict and obstruct access and provide tripping obstacles for people who are blind or partially sighted.

Full text:

Response of Essex County Council

Essex County Council supports the production of a Development Management DPD by Rochford District Council. By setting out detailed planning policies for the management of development the DPD will positively assist realisation of the District's Core Strategy. In this respect the linking of the DPD directly to the Vision and the four main corporate objectives for the District is welcomed.

The scope and coverage of the proposed Development Management policies is broadly supported but could benefit from some detailed textual changes to the Policies and their supporting text (as set out below) to reflect,

* the creation of safe direct walking and cycling routes to schools and other community facilities by inclusion of an additional section of supporting text together with an additional policy. Essex County Council would welcome early discussion with the District Council with the aim of producing jointly agreed text for such a section;
* the acknowledgment of the value and role of the Historic Environment by the Document should be more appropriately integrated within proposed Policy DM1 and Policy DM13 and the objectives for Environmental Issues;
* the proactive role that the District Council and partners are taking to the Green Belt, for example the positive approach that will result from improving access to the Upper Roach Valley and to Wallasea Island. Also, Renaissance Southend and Southend-on-Sea Borough Council, with partners including the County Council and the District Council, are actively promoting Stonebridge Park as a sub-regional greenspace project. The project would create major greenspaces and access improvements, including restoration of some existing and old landfills and utilizing the old haul roads for cycling and bridleways. This represents a major partnership opportunity for Rochford to create a substantial sub-regional park in the District. Further, the supporting text should refer to the recently announced initiative for a Coastal Path, to run the length of the English Coast, being led by Natural England, which presents a considerable opportunity for Rochford to create a major green attraction along the District's extensive coastline. Additional supporting text for Policy DM13 and to the vision and objectives for the Green Belt and Countryside is suggested;
* creation of an attractive and pleasant environment can support an improved retail offer and thereby assist enhancement of use of town centres by addition to the objectives for Retail and Town Centres;.
* the potential access issues raised by some forms of advertising, for instance advertising boards, (insofar as they can be subject to development management policies) by addition to Policy DM32 and Policy DM33 and their supporting text;
* the full scope of Essex County Council's 'Parking Standards: Design and Good Practice (2009)' by additions to the supporting text for Policy DM25;
* additional relevant sub-regional and county strategy documents.

In addition, Figure 1 is useful in setting out the types of documents which will comprise the Development Plan for Rochford. However, for completeness and for the benefit of users of the Development Plan it would be useful if all Development Plan Documents and Supplementary Planning Documents were listed by name. A brief description of their purpose and content would aid understanding of their relevance in consideration of particular planning proposals, topics and issues.

Suggested detailed textual changes to the Policies and their supporting text are,

A. Figure 1 - Additional description of Figure 1 to aid understanding of the relevance documents within the Local Development Framework in consideration of particular planning proposals, topics and issues;

B. Relationship to other strategies - additional relevant strategies to be referenced,
* Sub-regional strategies - 'Thames Gateway Parklands Vision 2008'
* County strategies -
o Developers' Guide to Infrastructure Contributions.
o Parking Standards Design and Good Practice
o Highways and Transport Development Management Policies

C. Policy DM1 Design of New Developments - amend criteria i), ii) and vi) to read,
i) accessibility by all forms of transport;
ii) boundary treatment and landscaping within the development;
vi) impact on the historic environment including designated sites, Conservation Areas, Listed Buildings, archaeological sites and the historic landscape;

The supporting text for Policy DM1 should be augmented to emphasise the role of the wider historic environment, including archaeological sites and historic landscapes.

D. Green Belt and Countryside
* The vision should be expanded by addition of the following,
o In five years - add three additional bullets to read,
- 'New Strategies for the Upper Roach countryside area and Stonebridge Park, around Great Wakering'
- 'New Visitor Facilities at RSPB Wallasea Island'
- 'A plan is developed of the line of the Coastal Path, showing how it runs through Rochford, connecting Burnham-on Crouch to Southend'
o By 2017 - add an additional bullet to read,
- 'Completion of the Coastal Path connecting Burnham-on Crouch to Southend'
o By 2025 - add two additional bullets to read,
- 'If appropriate, new Visitor facilities at Stonebridge Park and the Upper Crouch'
- 'Rochford is recognised as a tourist destination, with good access to the rivers and waterways and many visitors to the nationally recognised wetlands at Wallasea, the sub regional greenspaces located at the Upper Crouch and Stonebridge Park, and the Coastal Path'

* The Objectives should be expanded by addition of two additional objectives,
o 'Ensure the Green Belt includes positive appropriate activities such as countryside recreation, education, nature study etc'
o 'Aid the delivery of greenspaces identified in the Thames Gateway Green Grid Strategy and the Parklands Vision, alongside Essex County Council and neighbouring authorities'

* A further criterion should be added to the first paragraph of Policy DM13 (Green Tourism) to read 'the impact on the historic environment'.

* The supporting text to Policy DM13 (Green Tourism) should be expanded by addition of,
o A paragraph to read, 'Green Tourism should benefit the residents of Rochford and South Essex. Opening up the countryside of the Upper Roach Valley, Wallasea Island and the proposed Stonebridge Park will enable visitors increased access to the countryside, education facilities, improved health, new jobs and opportunities in new facilities and existing businesses. Furthermore it would elevate Rochford's reputation as a tourist destination.'
o text to note that the impact of tourism opportunities on the historic environment is as important as that on the natural environment.

E. Environmental Issues - the vision should be expanded by,
o in 5 years - add the words 'and historic environment' to the third bullet so that it reads 'Local, national and international sites of nature conservation and historic environment importance are protected.'
o By 2017 - add an additional bullet to read 'the local, national and international sites of historic environment importance are being increasingly protected, promoted and enhanced'.

F. Transport - the supporting text should be expanded to note,
* Essex County Council is the local highway authority and has a set of Development Management policies for the highways and transport aspects of development.
* the supporting text to Policy DM25 should note that Essex County Council's 'Parking Standards: Design and Good Practice (2009)' includes guidance related not only to private cars but also to 'Blue Badge' users, cyclists, motorcyclists and commercial vehicles.

G. Retail and Town Centres - include an additional objective to read, 'Improve the public realm of the Town Centres and village and neighbourhood centres by implementing landscape and access schemes which include street trees to provide urban greening'

H. Advertisements in the District
* In Policy DM32 - the first sentence should be amended by insertion of the words 'access and' to read, 'The design and siting of advertisements throughout the District must have regard to access and the visual impact of the building(s)...'
* In Policy DM33 - the second sentence should be amended by insertion of the words 'not cause an access problem,' to read '... and should be sensitive to the character of the area, visually unobtrusive, not cause an access problem, well designed and well located.'
* The first paragraph of the supporting text should be amended by insertion of the word 'access' to read '...is not detrimental to the access, appearance or value of a particular streetscape or buildings(s).'
* Additional supporting text should note that some forms of advertising, for instance, advertising boards can cause uncontrolled clutter which tends to restrict and obstruct access and provide tripping obstacles for people who are blind or partially sighted.

I. Safe Walking and Cycling Routes
The Document would benefit from an additional section of supporting text together with an additional policy that specifically addresses the creation of safe direct walking and cycling routes to schools and other community facilities. Essex County Council would welcome early discussion with the District Council with the aim of producing jointly agreed text for such a section.