Option SH2
Object
Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document
Representation ID: 17437
Received: 22/03/2010
Respondent: Mr David Dare
No, I am of the view Hockley/Hawkwell is currently reaching maximum development, and untill the roads, in particular, are developed to handle the current volume of traffic that not only services Hockley/Hawkwell, but is taking traffic that is avoiding the A127 congestions between Rayleigh and Southend, to get to Rochford, Ashingdon and Southend/Southend Airport. Cherry Orchard Lane has been upgraded, but it has increased traffic through Hockley. New Roads must be developed, that are feeder roads to RDC towns, and are free from houses, industrial estates, etc., hence allowing traffic to clear the area smoothly and efficiently
No, I am of the view Hockley/Hawkwell is currently reaching maximum development, and untill the roads, in particular, are developed to handle the current volume of traffic that not only services Hockley/Hawkwell, but is taking traffic that is avoiding the A127 congestions between Rayleigh and Southend, to get to Rochford, Ashingdon and Southend/Southend Airport. Cherry Orchard Lane has been upgraded, but it has increased traffic through Hockley. New Roads must be developed, that are feeder roads to RDC towns, and are free from houses, industrial estates, etc., hence allowing traffic to clear the area smoothly and efficiently
Comment
Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document
Representation ID: 17445
Received: 22/03/2010
Respondent: Mr David Dare
The location of the 500 dwelling location is totally ridiculious, without considering the infrastructure of the area. Access to this site, currently, can only be accessed by public transport, or car. Hence access can only be from Lower Road from Southend or from the A127 & A130 via A1245 using either Rawreth Lane or Watery Lane. Rawreth Lane, RDC in this document are proposing large dwelling development how will this and Hullbridge large development get sensible access to/from there homes??
How will Rayleigh Station and Parking cope, Rayleigh Town Parking. We cannot continue to consider development in this fragmented way.
The location of the 500 dwelling location is totally ridiculious, without considering the infrastructure of the area. Access to this site, currently, can only be accessed by public transport, or car. Hence access can only be from Lower Road from Southend or from the A127 & A130 via A1245 using either Rawreth Lane or Watery Lane. Rawreth Lane, RDC in this document are proposing large dwelling development how will this and Hullbridge large development get sensible access to/from there homes??
How will Rayleigh Station and Parking cope, Rayleigh Town Parking. We cannot continue to consider development in this fragmented way.
Object
Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document
Representation ID: 17979
Received: 14/04/2010
Respondent: Barratt Eastern Counties
Agent: Kember Loudon Williams Ltd
This option leaves out large areas of woodland and ecology that would otherwise be positively managed should an application be submitted. The lines within option SH2 appear arbitrary. Consideration needs to be given to the relocation of the gas pipeline which extends outside of SH2 to the north and the full extent of the woodland Tree Preservation Order. Unless the full extent of land is included as per SH1 plus the land adjoining Thorpe Road/Close, then any proposals submitted would not be able to properly consider ecology, landscape, pipeline relocation, sustainable drainage or appropriate means of movement.
SH2, page 27: This is not a practical option since it leaves out large areas of woodland and ecology that would otherwise be positively managed should an application be submitted as per the area noted under option SH1. The lines within option SH2 appear arbitrary and do not enable sufficient flexibility to establish an appropriate design taking into account opportunities and constraints. Consideration needs to be given to the relocation of the gas pipeline which extends outside of SH2 to the north or the full extent of the woodland Tree Preservation Order. There are areas within the SH1 option not included under SH2 but which ought to be because they are suitable for development after taking into account ecological and landscape matters. Unless the full extent of land is included as per SH1 plus the land adjoining Thorpe Road/Close, then any proposals submitted would not be able to properly consider ecology, landscape, necessary pipeline relocation, sustainable drainage or appropriate means of movement within the site.
Object
Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document
Representation ID: 18007
Received: 14/04/2010
Respondent: Mr R Hackett
In principle I do not agree with any of the options put forward because I disagree with the loss of any further green belt land for development. The additional housing needs of Hawkwell are far less than 175 and such needs can easily be accommodated on smaller brown field sites rather than green belt. However, if you are going to force a 175 housing estate on us in Hawkwell West which in my opinion is unsustainable, then I would prefer Option SH3.
In principle I do not agree with any of the options put forward because I disagree with the loss of any further green belt land for development. The additional housing needs of Hawkwell are far less than 175 and such needs can easily be accommodated on smaller brown field sites rather than green belt. However, if you are going to force a 175 housing estate on us in Hawkwell West which in my opinion is unsustainable, then I would prefer Option SH3.
Object
Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document
Representation ID: 18036
Received: 14/04/2010
Respondent: Ms C Dutton
This location puts a housing estate in the heart of a rural area with no infastructure and no transport links. Sites only a VERY short distance away such as Potash and Hall Road have been rejected for reasons such as 'not located within the preferred development location' and 'transport links to the town centre and the impact this would have on the highway network' that should also apply the this site. THIS IS NOT A SUITABLE LOCATION FOR A HOUSING ESTATE.
This location puts a housing estate in the heart of a rural area with no infastructure and no transport links. Sites only a VERY short distance away such as Potash and Hall Road have been rejected for reasons such as 'not located within the preferred development location' and 'transport links to the town centre and the impact this would have on the highway network' that should also apply the this site. THIS IS NOT A SUITABLE LOCATION FOR A HOUSING ESTATE.
Object
Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document
Representation ID: 19065
Received: 28/04/2010
Respondent: Mr David Hopper
Insufficient infrastructure
Insufficient infrastructure
Object
Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document
Representation ID: 19342
Received: 29/04/2010
Respondent: CPREssex
This site may be good for the Green Belt but damaging to the area as a whole. Traffic movement would be a huge problem.
This site may be good for the Green Belt but damaging to the area as a whole. Traffic movement would be a huge problem.
Object
Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document
Representation ID: 19759
Received: 30/04/2010
Respondent: Stolkin and Clements (Southend) LLP
Agent: Firstplan
Option SH2, by virtue of its location, would significantly contribute to the coalescence of Hockley and Hawkwell.
Option SH2, by virtue of its location, would significantly contribute to the coalescence of Hockley and Hawkwell.
Comment
Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document
Representation ID: 19928
Received: 30/04/2010
Respondent: Environment Agency
Still some flood zone associated with this option, but it represents a better option with regards to flood risk than Option SH1.
Please see our general comments.
Still some flood zone associated with this option, but it represents a better option with regards to flood risk than Option SH1.
Please see our general comments.
Comment
Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document
Representation ID: 22578
Received: 30/04/2010
Respondent: Anglian Water Services Ltd
Overall RAG rating - Infrastructure and/or treatment upgrades required to serve proposed growth
RE: ALLOCATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT PLAN DOCUMENTS
Thank you for giving Anglian Water the opportunity to comment on the above document.
Please find our comments summarized on the attached document.