Allocations and Call for Sites

Showing comments and forms 1 to 12 of 12

Object

Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document

Representation ID: 17664

Received: 31/03/2010

Respondent: Mr Andrew Allen

Representation Summary:

The quality of RDC's "consideration" of sites submitted for consideration does not stand scrutiny. As a site owner I have requested that RDC justify and substantiate their comments with regards my site as it is inaccurate, biased.

Full text:

The quality of RDC's "consideration" of sites submitted for consideration does not stand scrutiny. As a site owner I have requested that RDC justify and substantiate their comments with regards my site as it is inaccurate, biased.

Object

Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document

Representation ID: 17818

Received: 08/04/2010

Respondent: Mr Andrew Allen

Representation Summary:

RDC have not considered national Green Belt Policy and the purposes of green belt as stated in .http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/155499.pdf

Full text:

RDC have not considered national Green Belt Policy and the purposes of green belt as stated in .http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/155499.pdf

The "analysis" of sites and also the selection of "preffered locations" should have considered what the impact of developing in each of the areas would be against the stated purposes of Green belt. This is counter to national central government guidlines issued, specifically:

- "check unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas." Many of the sites selected are large and will therefore result in significant increase in urban sprawl to existing settlements. The number of potential dwellings for each site has been given higher prefference over the sprawl impact. e.g North of London Road. Sites which would not result in significant additional urban sprawl have not been selected.

- "to prevent neighbouring towns and settlements from merging." Some of the sites selected, and the "preffered locations" identified as "best" by RDC will result in the merging of neighbouring settlements. e.g. Rayleigh and Rawreth and the proposed North London Road sites in Rayleigh. Sites which will not result in neighbouring towns and settlements from merging have been submitted but have not been selected.

- assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. RDC have selected greenbelt sites that have a large part to play with regards this objective, yet have not selected other sites play no, or contribute little to this objective.

Object

Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document

Representation ID: 17820

Received: 08/04/2010

Respondent: Mr Andrew Allen

Representation Summary:

There is not statement of how the "consideration" of these sites has been undertaken. The comments associated with individual sites have not been consistantly applied across all sites submitted where applicable and the "analysis" of sites is therefore biased.

Full text:

There is not statement of how the "consideration" of these sites has been undertaken. The comments associated with individual sites have not been consistantly applied across all sites submitted where applicable and the "analysis" of sites is therefore biased.

Object

Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document

Representation ID: 17821

Received: 08/04/2010

Respondent: Mr Andrew Allen

Representation Summary:

The "analysis" of sites and the data associated with each site is not accurate. e.g. bondaries are shown incorrectly

Full text:

The "analysis" of sites and the data associated with each site is not accurate. e.g. bondaries are shown incorrectly

Object

Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document

Representation ID: 17851

Received: 11/04/2010

Respondent: Mr Andrew Allen

Representation Summary:

The best solution

Full text:

Some greenbelt site serve the 5 stated objectives of the greenbelt better than others.
Small greenbelt sites on the current fringe of existing urbanised areas, that do little to:
- check unrestricted sprawl ,
- do little to prevent neighbouring settlements from merging
- do not safeguarding the countryside from encroachment
- do not preserve the setting and special characteristics of historical areas
- do little to encorage the regeneration and recycling of derelict and other urban land
have been ignored for sites large sites that do contribute more to the above.
In developing the large selected sites (most of which are currently productive farmland) in the few preffered locations there will be more urban sprawl, settlements will merge, the open countryside will be encroached upon, and because they are big there will be no real incentive to recycle derelict urban land. This is what is being proposed as the "best solution" in the "best locations".
The "consideration" of sites submitted has not taken into account how each site contributes to the greenbelt objectives. The selection of the few preffered locations did not consider the 5 greenbelt objectives. The remainder of this document is the result. Read all about the "best" solution RDC can muster in the next few pages.

Object

Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document

Representation ID: 17878

Received: 12/04/2010

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Cooper

Representation Summary:

I don't agree with any of the options put forward because of loss of valuable scarce green belt land to development and all are unsustainable. The additional housing needs of Hawkwell are far less than 175 and could be accommodated on smaller brown field sites. There is just one hourly bus service, no primary or secondary schools with spare capacity within walking distance. Station is a car drive away. With negligible local employment most residents will use cars to get to station or to place of work. If forced to take one option least unacceptable is SH3.

Full text:

I don't agree with any of the options put forward because of loss of valuable scarce green belt land to development and all are unsustainable. The additional housing needs of Hawkwell are far less than 175 and could be accommodated on smaller brown field sites. There is just one hourly bus service, no primary or secondary schools with spare capacity within walking distance. Station is a car drive away. With negligible local employment most residents will use cars to get to station or to place of work. If forced to take one option least unacceptable is SH3.

Object

Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document

Representation ID: 18405

Received: 26/04/2010

Respondent: Mrs Hilary Flisher

Representation Summary:

I strongly object to the council's proposal to create a travellers site close to London Road Rayleigh. It would be better if the existing small illegal site along the old A130 were made legal, and then this would come close to meeting the area target, and the remainder of the allocation could be in a more rural part of the Rochford council area. Placing it on the London Road close to a school and established residential areas would have a grave and adverse effect on residents, with major concerns about crime.

Full text:

I strongly object to the council's proposal to create a travellers site close to London Road Rayleigh. It would be better if the existing small illegal site along the old A130 were made legal, and then this would come close to meeting the area target, and the remainder of the allocation could be in a more rural part of the Rochford council area. Placing it on the London Road close to a school and established residential areas would have a grave and adverse effect on residents, with major concerns about crime.

Object

Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document

Representation ID: 18407

Received: 30/04/2010

Respondent: Mrs Fiona Jury

Representation Summary:

We do not support a number of the options identified for strategic housing development in the Allocations DPD for reasons relating to deliverability/developability, and consequently consider that the District's strategic housing requirement will not be met by the Submission version of the Core Strategy. The redevelopment of a number of the sites, specifically the existing employment locations, would be highly unsustainable, and is unjustified. The preferred sites and alternative options that have been suggested have not been assessed consistently against the Council's SHLAA criteria; neither is there any comparative assessment.

Full text:

We do not support a number of the options identified for strategic housing development in the Allocations DPD for reasons relating to deliverability/developability, and consequently consider that the District's strategic housing requirement will not be met by the Submission version of the Core Strategy. The redevelopment of a number of the sites, specifically the existing employment locations, would be highly unsustainable, and is unjustified. The preferred sites and alternative options that have been suggested have not been assessed consistently against the Council's SHLAA criteria; neither is there any comparative assessment.

Object

Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document

Representation ID: 18640

Received: 27/04/2010

Respondent: Mrs Pauline Young

Representation Summary:

What is the definition of 'within walking distance'? To meet the Core strategy priority 5 to reduce car use; road traffic etc. then public transport systems need to be regular, reliable and consistent which generally focuses on the rail network (keeps the roads free) and hence surely all new developments must be strategically located to access a network rail station with ease; this is not the case for the majority of allocated sites.

Full text:

What is the definition of 'within walking distance'? To meet the Core strategy priority 5 to reduce car use; road traffic etc. then public transport systems need to be regular, reliable and consistent which generally focuses on the rail network (keeps the roads free) and hence surely all new developments must be strategically located to access a network rail station with ease; this is not the case for the majority of allocated sites.

Object

Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document

Representation ID: 18641

Received: 27/04/2010

Respondent: Mrs Pauline Young

Representation Summary:

An interesting phrase 'Robust and defensible greenbelt boundary' what does this mean? I thought we already had greenbelt boundaries but it would appear that these can be changed depending on the Core strategy at the time - why bother considering a 'robust and defensible greenbelt boundary' when developing an already defined greenbelt site as future DC's will only alter it depending on the Core strategy defined!



Full text:

An interesting phrase 'Robust and defensible greenbelt boundary' what does this mean? I thought we already had greenbelt boundaries but it would appear that these can be changed depending on the Core strategy at the time - why bother considering a 'robust and defensible greenbelt boundary' when developing an already defined greenbelt site as future DC's will only alter it depending on the Core strategy defined!



Object

Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document

Representation ID: 18642

Received: 27/04/2010

Respondent: Mrs Pauline Young

Representation Summary:

Schools are a necessary consideration particularly secondary education I am fully aware of the limited spaces in current establishments and the expansion of these is fundamental in any housing allocation - why put developments in areas which are a) not easily and safely accessible and b) unable to accommodate any further intake. Only the East (100) and South East Ashingdon (500) locations have made reference to secondary education, what about the other 2145 houses and their secondary education needs? How is this going to be addressed given overcapacity of current establishments including lack of teachers and impending education spending cuts?

Full text:

Schools are a necessary consideration particularly secondary education I am fully aware of the limited spaces in current establishments and the expansion of these is fundamental in any housing allocation - why put developments in areas which are a) not easily and safely accessible and b) unable to accommodate any further intake. Only the East (100) and South East Ashingdon (500) locations have made reference to secondary education, what about the other 2145 houses and their secondary education needs? How is this going to be addressed given overcapacity of current establishments including lack of teachers and impending education spending cuts?

Support

Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document

Representation ID: 19330

Received: 29/04/2010

Respondent: SWAN HILL LTD (RAVEN)

Agent: MR Tony Charles

Representation Summary:

Chapter 1: Introduction: Allocations and Call for Sites: second paragraph - it is noted that the Allocations DPD is putting forward details of the locations that have been assessed and are considered as 'options' for development to meet the district's housing requirement; this approach is supported.

Full text:

Chapter 1: Introduction: Allocations and Call for Sites: second paragraph - it is noted that the Allocations DPD is putting forward details of the locations that have been assessed and are considered as 'options' for development to meet the district's housing requirement; this approach is supported.