Option GT2

Showing comments and forms 1 to 30 of 98

Support

Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document

Representation ID: 17361

Received: 20/03/2010

Respondent: Mr Ron Sadler

Representation Summary:

This area is large enough and suitablly far enough away from existing residential dwellings.

Full text:

This area is large enough and suitablly far enough away from existing residential dwellings.

Support

Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document

Representation ID: 17477

Received: 22/03/2010

Respondent: Mr Russell Payne

Representation Summary:

Develope this site rather than finding new sites.

Full text:

Develope this site rather than finding new sites.

Support

Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document

Representation ID: 17559

Received: 28/03/2010

Respondent: Mrs Lynda Ivison

Representation Summary:

Given the existing site appears to be well managed, it makes sense to extend the facilities for the increased provision of pitches.

Full text:

Given the existing site appears to be well managed, it makes sense to extend the facilities for the increased provision of pitches.

Support

Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document

Representation ID: 17587

Received: 28/03/2010

Respondent: Mr Ian Richardson

Representation Summary:

Looks ideal

Full text:

Looks ideal

Support

Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document

Representation ID: 17606

Received: 29/03/2010

Respondent: Mrs Joan Mitchell

Representation Summary:

This site looks more than suitable for the needs that the Council is required to fill.

Full text:

This site looks more than suitable for the needs that the Council is required to fill.

Comment

Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document

Representation ID: 17746

Received: 05/04/2010

Respondent: Mrs Barbara Oliver-Mayho

Representation Summary:

This site is already large enough, I believe it is better to leave it as it is and make sites elsewhere.

Full text:

This site is already large enough, I believe it is better to leave it as it is and make sites elsewhere.

Support

Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document

Representation ID: 17786

Received: 06/04/2010

Respondent: Mr Scott Davies

Representation Summary:

This site looks to meet all the requirements that the Council has listed. It has good access to the road network and is close to other developments.

Full text:

This site looks to meet all the requirements that the Council has listed. It has good access to the road network and is close to other developments.

Support

Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document

Representation ID: 17893

Received: 12/04/2010

Respondent: Mr Mark Sibley

Representation Summary:

This should be the site where they are put, it makes sense to keep them together.

Full text:

This should be the site where they are put, it makes sense to keep them together.

Support

Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document

Representation ID: 17900

Received: 12/04/2010

Respondent: ms Kim Harris

Representation Summary:

If there is already a gypsy site here it makes financial sense to expand this rather than build a completely new one in another area.

Full text:

If there is already a gypsy site here it makes financial sense to expand this rather than build a completely new one in another area.

Object

Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document

Representation ID: 18305

Received: 22/04/2010

Respondent: mr stephen honour

Representation Summary:

strongly object to any expansion of this illegal site. smaller sites spread throughout the the district would be the only acceptable alternative.

Full text:

strongly object to any expansion of this illegal site. smaller sites spread throughout the the district would be the only acceptable alternative.

Object

Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document

Representation ID: 18331

Received: 24/04/2010

Respondent: mrs c cleverley

Representation Summary:

I strongly object to this site to be used as a larger travellers site. We have a lovely community and it is not appropriate to house travellers within the centre of a town. There are enough sites that travellers can use without making more of them in a residential area. Rayleigh is a historic market town and should be kept this way. There are other small sites across the district that could be used instead

Full text:

I strongly object to this site to be used as a larger travellers site. We have a lovely community and it is not appropriate to house travellers within the centre of a town. There are enough sites that travellers can use without making more of them in a residential area. Rayleigh is a historic market town and should be kept this way. There are other small sites across the district that could be used instead

Object

Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document

Representation ID: 18335

Received: 25/04/2010

Respondent: mr a cleverley

Representation Summary:

Being a local resident I strongly object to the expansion of this site. There must be more suitable areas in rural locations for these proposed pitches away from residential housing.

Full text:

Being a local resident I strongly object to the expansion of this site. There must be more suitable areas in rural locations for these proposed pitches away from residential housing.

Object

Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document

Representation ID: 18339

Received: 25/04/2010

Respondent: Mrs Georgina Russell

Representation Summary:

Object to gypsy sites in Rayleigh

Full text:

Object to gypsy sites in Rayleigh

Comment

Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document

Representation ID: 18344

Received: 25/04/2010

Respondent: Mr Martyn Wilkins

Representation Summary:

Of the proposed traveller sites to the west of Rayleigh, options GT1 and GT2 appear to be least worst. I am not aware of any problems from the current occupants of this site. Provided the expansion is well managed and further expansion is not allowed, then I would have no objections.

Full text:

Of the proposed traveller sites to the west of Rayleigh, options GT1 and GT2 appear to be least worst. I am not aware of any problems from the current occupants of this site. Provided the expansion is well managed and further expansion is not allowed, then I would have no objections.

Support

Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document

Representation ID: 18360

Received: 25/04/2010

Respondent: Judith Stevens

Representation Summary:

Given the relatively small number of additional pitches required, it surely makes financial sense to develop this existing site.

Full text:

Given the relatively small number of additional pitches required, it surely makes financial sense to develop this existing site.

Object

Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document

Representation ID: 18365

Received: 25/04/2010

Respondent: Mrs Ann Rawlinson

Representation Summary:

I support the legalisation of the current site with minimal additional pitches. However this site should not have to take the full allocation of pitches required for the whole district.

Full text:

I support the legalisation of the current site with minimal additional pitches. However this site should not have to take the full allocation of pitches required for the whole district.

Object

Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document

Representation ID: 18389

Received: 25/04/2010

Respondent: Mrs Jane Leadbeater

Representation Summary:

Rayleigh is an up and coming area. We are trying to raise levels in the area and bring down crime. There could be an increase in crime, the roads around Rayleigh are congested anyway and do not need more traffic added to the roads. Schools are at capacity, do not need more children in schools.

Full text:

Rayleigh is an up and coming area. We are trying to raise levels in the area and bring down crime. There could be an increase in crime, the roads around Rayleigh are congested anyway and do not need more traffic added to the roads. Schools are at capacity, do not need more children in schools.

Support

Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document

Representation ID: 18423

Received: 26/04/2010

Respondent: Mr Leslie Sampson

Representation Summary:

This site is a short distance away from GT1 and if GT1 can not be extended to fulfill the requirement in this area of 18 pitches then GT2 would be the next best option to provide the additional pitches to make up the total in the area for gypsies (i.e. persons of a nomadic habit of life) that is required. The good access to major highways are an important factor and the visibility of the sites would help to ensure that they continue to be maintained and used in a responsible manner.

Full text:

This site is a short distance away from GT1 and if GT1 can not be extended to fulfill the requirement in this area of 18 pitches then GT2 would be the next best option to provide the additional pitches to make up the total in the area for gypsies (i.e. persons of a nomadic habit of life) that is required. The good access to major highways are an important factor and the visibility of the sites would help to ensure that they continue to be maintained and used in a responsible manner.

Object

Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document

Representation ID: 18456

Received: 27/04/2010

Respondent: Mr Stuart Kingston

Representation Summary:

A very short distance from GT1 , this site could be included if needed to gain any extra pitches not available at GT1 . This site being with good access and service is currently unused scrub land not wood land .

Full text:

A very short distance from GT1 , this site could be included if needed to gain any extra pitches not available at GT1 . This site being with good access and service is currently unused scrub land not wood land .

Object

Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document

Representation ID: 18474

Received: 27/04/2010

Respondent: Mr Ken Stanton

Representation Summary:

Of the 3 options, assuming Rochford is forced by legislation and not by soft Political Correctness to have these sites, GT1 is the better.

However, if the current pitches can be legalised why does West Rayleigh have to be burdened with the remainder of the allocation required??

Can other parts of the Rochford District not take their share?

Full text:

Of the 3 options, assuming Rochford is forced by legislation and not by soft Political Correctness to have these sites, GT1 is the better.

However, if the current pitches can be legalised why does West Rayleigh have to be burdened with the remainder of the allocation required??

Can other parts of the Rochford District not take their share?

Support

Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document

Representation ID: 18576

Received: 27/04/2010

Respondent: Mr Stephen Rayner

Representation Summary:

The size and location of this site would ideally support the needs of the Traveller community, and support community cohesion.

Full text:

The size and location of this site would ideally support the needs of the Traveller community, and support community cohesion.

Object

Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document

Representation ID: 18581

Received: 27/04/2010

Respondent: Miss Nicola Rawlinson

Representation Summary:

I support the legalisation of the existing site with some additional pitches, but no site in Rayleigh should be expected to take the full allocation of pitches required by the District.

Full text:

I support the legalisation of the existing site with some additional pitches, but no site in Rayleigh should be expected to take the full allocation of pitches required by the District.

Object

Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document

Representation ID: 18583

Received: 27/04/2010

Respondent: Mr Neil Euesden

Representation Summary:

I do not believe that the local infrastructure will support this type of development, or that RDC has the necessary expertise to manage such a development. I oppose any buildings on green belt or agricultural land.

Full text:

I do not believe that the local infrastructure will support this type of development, or that RDC has the necessary expertise to manage such a development. I oppose any buildings on green belt or agricultural land.

Object

Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document

Representation ID: 18799

Received: 28/04/2010

Respondent: Mrs Lyn Hopkins

Representation Summary:

I object most strongly . To legalise this present site and then to increase it to accommodate all the required pitches is completely irresponsible and dangerous. .
As GT1 this site is adjacent to the very busy A1245 100metres from traffic lights at the junction with Rawreth Lane. Traffic accelerating from the lights has to brake suddenly to avoid vehicles accessing the present site and to increase the capacity of the site would increase the danger at this junction.
Sites should be spread throughout thedistrict to afford access to all facilities.

Full text:

I object most strongly . To legalise this present site and then to increase it to accommodate all the required pitches is completely irresponsible and dangerous. .
As GT1 this site is adjacent to the very busy A1245 100metres from traffic lights at the junction with Rawreth Lane. Traffic accelerating from the lights has to brake suddenly to avoid vehicles accessing the present site and to increase the capacity of the site would increase the danger at this junction.
Sites should be spread throughout thedistrict to afford access to all facilities.

Object

Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document

Representation ID: 19007

Received: 28/04/2010

Respondent: Mr Robert Mepham

Representation Summary:

There are other more appropriate sites for this activity in other parts of the District. Access and amenities are poor leading on to a very busy road

Full text:

There are other more appropriate sites for this activity in other parts of the District. Access and amenities are poor leading on to a very busy road

Support

Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document

Representation ID: 19037

Received: 28/04/2010

Respondent: Mr Phil Abbott

Representation Summary:

This is the common sense site. Spend a little money on extending an already established site with few objections, rather than alienating a whole area of London Road and spending vast amounts more in the process. This site shares similar plus points as site GT6, but without being too big. If was good enough for travellers up to now, how could it not be good enough in future with a small extension to space and facilities?

Full text:

This is the common sense site. Spend a little money on extending an already established site with few objections, rather than alienating a whole area of London Road and spending vast amounts more in the process. This site shares similar plus points as site GT6, but without being too big. If was good enough for travellers up to now, how could it not be good enough in future with a small extension to space and facilities?

Object

Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document

Representation ID: 19082

Received: 28/04/2010

Respondent: Mrs Hayley Bloomfield

Representation Summary:

The expansion of GT1 to accomodate more travllers thus forming GT2 is totally unacceptable, This site has been illegally used for a number of years, to legalise it now and add to it would just add to the opinion of many Travellers that they are above planning law and that eventually District Councils will give in. This site is adjacent to the A1245 with extremely dangerous access. There are better sites which have been proposed that would allow Traveller cohesion, This is Greenbelt land and should be returned to its former use, a field.

Full text:

The expansion of GT1 to accomodate more travllers thus forming GT2 is totally unacceptable, This site has been illegally used for a number of years, to legalise it now and add to it would just add to the opinion of many Travellers that they are above planning law and that eventually District Councils will give in. This site is adjacent to the A1245 with extremely dangerous access. There are better sites which have been proposed that would allow Traveller cohesion, This is Greenbelt land and should be returned to its former use, a field.

Object

Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document

Representation ID: 19097

Received: 28/04/2010

Respondent: Mr David Hopper

Representation Summary:

This illegal traveller site should in no way be extended into further green belt/agricultural land

Full text:

This illegal traveller site should in no way be extended into further green belt/agricultural land

Support

Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document

Representation ID: 19178

Received: 29/04/2010

Respondent: Mr Paul Orrock

Representation Summary:

This option is probably the best one since it provides the allocation in one lump, without losing much farmland. It would allow them to build a community feeling and provide good services and amenities for their children without adversely impacting more permanent residents. There is development nearby so they are not too far out on their own.

Full text:

This option is probably the best one since it provides the allocation in one lump, without losing much farmland. It would allow them to build a community feeling and provide good services and amenities for their children without adversely impacting more permanent residents. There is development nearby so they are not too far out on their own.

Object

Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document

Representation ID: 19319

Received: 19/04/2010

Respondent: Julie Hillis

Representation Summary:

I also srongly oppose traveller site options GT1, GT2, GT3 and GT7.

Full text:

Please note that I strongly object to the council's housing options NLR1, NLR2, NLR3, NLR4 & NLR5 (but especially LNR1) because they will;

cause an unnecessary loss of agricultural land,

will increase traffic,

will over load the local services such as schools and doctors surgeries,

will create a green belt boundary that can't be defended in future

and encourage a merging between Rawreth and Rayleigh.

I also srongly oppose traveller site options GT1, GT2, GT3 and GT7.

Please note my comments.