Do you agree that the area shown in Figure 4.4 should be allocated as the Upper Roach Valley?

Showing comments and forms 1 to 9 of 9

Support

Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document

Representation ID: 17381

Received: 20/03/2010

Respondent: Mr Ron Sadler

Representation Summary:

I fully support any proposals that protect the local rural community.

Full text:

I fully support any proposals that protect the local rural community.

Support

Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document

Representation ID: 18243

Received: 21/04/2010

Respondent: Mr Kelvin White

Representation Summary:

needs to be bigger area though or more sites

Full text:

needs to be bigger area though or more sites

Support

Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document

Representation ID: 18398

Received: 25/04/2010

Respondent: Mr David Fryer-Kelsey

Representation Summary:

The scale of the map is too small to make clear the details of the area but I support the general principle of making this whole area of open countryside into one area for recreation, including woods, farmland, parks etc.

Full text:

The scale of the map is too small to make clear the details of the area but I support the general principle of making this whole area of open countryside into one area for recreation, including woods, farmland, parks etc.

Support

Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document

Representation ID: 18513

Received: 12/05/2010

Respondent: Hockley Parish Council

Representation Summary:

Support

Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document

Representation ID: 18978

Received: 28/04/2010

Respondent: Natural England

Representation Summary:

Natural England supports the allocation as the Upper Roach Valley of the area shown in Figure 4.4.

Full text:

Natural England supports the allocation as the Upper Roach Valley of the area shown in Figure 4.4.

Support

Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document

Representation ID: 22405

Received: 30/04/2010

Respondent: Hawkwell Parish Council

Representation Summary:

Also agree that figure 4.4 should be allocated as the upper Roach Valley.

Full text:

HAWKWELL PARISH COUNCIL: RESPONSE TO ALLOCATIONS DPD DISCUSSION AND CONSULTATION DOCUMENT

1 INTRODUCTION:

Hawkwell Parish Council is still of the opinion that a new village should be created in South West Rayleigh to enable the benefits of easy access to the highway network to be realised and where all the infrastructure could be provided in a phased way without compromising existing settlements.

We consider that a Local Development Framework should be a document that sets out the strategy for spatial planning in the district. Whilst we understand that the Planning Authority has a statutory obligation to undertake a call for sites we are firmly of the opinion that such an approach mitigates against a truly strategic approach with the result that around 200 sites have now being put forward. We note that the DPD asserts that, of the 3,790 dwellings that have to provided according to the East of England Plan, some 2745 of these dwellings will be on green belt. The maths is simple, that means over 72% of the dwellings will be on green belt which is contrary to the stated policy of using brown field sites for the majority of these new dwellings. With such a gross distortion of the guidelines established by government a truly strategic approach (ie a new settlement) is all the more essential.

However, bearing in mind the above view, the Parish will respond to the proposed site allocations on the basis of preference for those which will do the least damage and provide the best defence to the remaining greenbelt. In this respect sites in Rayleigh, Rawreth area NLR5 seem the most suitable option.

2 RESIDENTIAL:

West Rayleigh

NLR5 is probably the best option because it has a strong defensible boundary and a bus service could be provided between London Rd and Rawreth Lane.

West Rochford

600 dwellings and a school in this location would destroy the rural nature of Hall Road. It would reduce and indeed almost remove the differentiation between Rochford and Hawkwell and is a prime example of urban creep. It will contribute to congestion as traffic tries to access the A127 via the B1013 Cherry Orchard Way. The loss of high quality agricultural land is always regrettable, especially in view of recent comment in the popular press on the need to protect prime agricultural land for food production in the coming years. Option WR1 is possibly the least damaging if the hedge line is protected along Ironwell Lane and Hall Road and access to Ironwell Lane by motor vehicle is prohibited.

West Hockley WH2

This option is preferred because it has previous industrial use and can be accessed off Folly Lane.

South Hawkwell 175 dwellings

The Parish Council maintains that this location is unsuitable and does not meet the sustainability requirements. Of these options, SH2 is the least damaging because it retains the wooded area behind Thorpe Close.


SH3 or SH4

These options must not be entertained because they encompass land between Rectory Road and Hall Road as well as Hawkwell Nursery site. The Jewson's site as a brown field site should, with resolution of access problems, take some of the allocation for South Hawkwell.

East Ashingdon 100 dwellings and land for extension of King Edmond School

Kind Edmond School would be large enough if a secondary school was provided in Great Wakering. This would save long journeys for the children (some 600 bussed every day causing increased traffic and pollution to local roads). However, Option EA is the least damaging as it limits development to one side of Brays Lane.

South West Hullbridge 500 dwellings

Option SWH1 is probably the least damaging.

South Canewdon 60 dwellings

SC6 is the most suitable providing a defensible boundary can be maintained.

South East Ashingdon 500 dwellings

All of the sites are unsuitable because they have an impact on Oxford Road.

SEA1 could be accessed off Oxford Road, The Drive and Ashingdon Road which will cause further traffic problems in these locations. West Great Wakering Option WGW5 would be most suitable.

Rawreth Industrial Estate

It is possibly better relocated and replaced by housing.

Stambridge Mills

This site would benefit from being zoned for housing providing public access is maintained to the waterfront.

Star Lane Industrial Estate and Star Lane Brickworks could accommodate housing although it is well located as an industrial site.

Eldon Way/Foundry Estate

Eldon Way should stay as local employers convenient for the station and has leisure uses. The Foundry Site could well be relocated and developed for housing, it would be a natural extension to the flats either side of Railway approach.


Gypsy and Traveller site locations

Option GT3 is the most suitable as it is closer to shops and schools.

3 ADDITIONAL EMPLOYMENT LAND:

West Rayleigh E18

Seems the most suitable because of its Highway location.

South of Great Wakering

Option E22 offers the least disruption to residents and has less impact on Poynters Lane.

4 ENVIRONMENTAL ALLOCATIONS:

The Parish Council agrees that areas shown on figure 4.3 and listed in table 41 should be allocated wildlife sites. Also agree that figure 4.4 should be allocated as the upper Roach Valley.

We also agree that the Coastal protection Belt should be shown as figure 4.5.

5 COMMUNITY FACILITIES:

Education

The Parish agrees in principle with the approach that a new Primary School be provided within future residential locations.

If the proposed site west of Rochford is on the eastern side of the new development it would appear to be far too near Rochford Primary we would question the need in this location.

Of the options presented Option KES2 is the most suitable however we maintain the view that if a new Secondary School were built in Great Wakering there would be no need to extend Kind Edmonds School and a large number of children would have their journey to school substantially reduced .

Open Space

We agree with the open space being protected through OS1 and consider that sites must be allocated rather than to left to determination by the vagary of negotiations with developers. We are again offended by the continuance of the Planning Authority to regard Hawkwell as a sub set of Hockley (there is no mention of Hawkwell in figure 5.1) - Glencroft is in Hawkwell, it is leased and managed by Hawkwell ( as are Spencers and Magnolia) and to state on page 127 that it is in Hockley undermines our confidence in the knowledge of the author of the detail of the layout of the district and the importance of community identity in such an important document.

Community Facilities

We believe community facilities proposed in (Option CF1) and illustrated and listed in figure 5.2 must be safeguarded. However we note that no account has been taken of the other community facilities that exist in the district (eg we draw specific attention to Hawkwell Village & Ashingdon & East Hawkwell Village Halls - both charitable trusts) that make significant contributions to community in the district, these too must be safeguarded.

6. TOWN CENTRES:

Rayleigh Town Centre Option TC1

Existing town centre boundary to be maintained.

Rochford TC4 is less restrictive but also allows customers to move around a smaller area.

Hockley Option TC8 seems the best option providing a more contained area.

We support the view that Hockley should be re-allocated as a District Centre.

Option TC12 Rayleigh

There must be a distinction between primary and secondary shopping frontages to maintain a vibrant town centre.

Rochford TC13

The distinction between secondary and primary should be maintained. The mixed-use development must be included in the primary shopping area because it contains the Supermarket.

Hockley TC15

We support this option as it utilises the existing primary shopping frontage to form primary shopping area.


7 OTHER ISSUES AND NEXT STEPS:

Hawkwell Parish Council wishes to be represented at The Examination in Public.

Comment

Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document

Representation ID: 24006

Received: 23/04/2010

Respondent: Mr Gary Congram

Representation Summary:

The statement 'The are is a large 'green lung' bounded by Rayleigh, Hockley, Rochford and Southend, and is of importance in terms of informal recreational opportunities, and particularly in terms of its landscape characteristics reflects the communities concerns over polution resulting from the development of London Southend Airport, however, I feel it would be better halved and developed with Eco friendly business opportunities as it is right on the main road artery (A127). If the development was concentrated here it would have less impact on the rest of the district.

Full text:

Objection to development planned for Hullbridge.

No statement or cross reference to specific pages that show the impact of developments to the following:-

Local Telephone Exchange
Buses
Local Medical Centres
Local Junior/Infants School
Local Community Centre
Local pre-schools
Local Post Office
Local sorting office
Secondary Schools
Allotment space
Local Leisure Centre
Local shops
Pubs and clubs
Railway station
Electricity supply for (homes, street lighting)
Water supply (inparticular connectivity to existing varied systems)
Sewage treatment works
Drainage systems (in particular connectivity to existing varied systems)
River Crouch /Roach (surface and sewage overflows?)
Surrounding farmers fields
Existing properties
Local Fire Brigade
Local Police
Local Ambulance Service
Recycling centre
Refuse collections
Flooding issues

Detailed response provided, including various questions raised; please see paper copy for further details and appendices.

Support

Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document

Representation ID: 24382

Received: 30/04/2010

Respondent: Mr K W Randall

Representation Summary:

I agree that the area shown in figure 4.4 should be allocated as the Upper Roach Valley.

Full text:

Various questions and comments received.

For further details see paper copy.

Support

Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document

Representation ID: 25335

Received: 30/04/2010

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Weir

Number of people: 2

Representation Summary:

We agree that the area shown on figure 4.3 and listed in table 41 should be allocated wildlife sites also agree that 4.4 should be allocated as the Upper Roach Valley.

Full text:

Suggest a new development in West Rayleigh to accommodate Rochford's housing allocation should be provided in a new village to take advantage from the highway network of A127, A130 and A1245 where all the infrastructure can be provided in a phased manner without compromising existing settlements.

Various comments received, for further details see paper copy.