MM18
Object
Allocations: Schedule of modifications
Representation ID: 33077
Received: 12/01/2014
Respondent: Cllr Chris Black
This 5% cap should be kept. The whole core strategy and consultation process has been based on these figures, and to allow a possible unlimited increase in these figures at such a late stage makes the whole process flawed. In addition the North of London Road site is so problematic, in terms of highways, drainage and coalescence of Rayleigh and Rawreth, that a 5% cap is particularly appropriate here.
This 5% cap should be kept. The whole core strategy and consultation process has been based on these figures, and to allow a possible unlimited increase in these figures at such a late stage makes the whole process flawed. In addition the North of London Road site is so problematic, in terms of highways, drainage and coalescence of Rayleigh and Rawreth, that a 5% cap is particularly appropriate here.
Object
Allocations: Schedule of modifications
Representation ID: 33079
Received: 12/01/2014
Respondent: Mrs Ann Wisken
This 5% cap should be kept. The whole core strategy and consultation process has been based on figures, and to allow a possible unlimited increase in these figures at such a late stag makes the whole process flawed. In addition the north of London road site is so problematic, in terms of high ways, drainage and obsolescence of Ragleigh and Rawreth, that a cap is particularly appropriate here.
This 5% cap should be kept. The whole core strategy and consultation process has been based on figures, and to allow a possible unlimited increase in these figures at such a late stag makes the whole process flawed. In addition the north of London road site is so problematic, in terms of high ways, drainage and obsolescence of Ragleigh and Rawreth, that a cap is particularly appropriate here.
Object
Allocations: Schedule of modifications
Representation ID: 33081
Received: 12/01/2014
Respondent: Mr and Mrs Alex Masheder
Removing the 5% cap for housing will not be supported by the local infrastructure.
Our home was flooded in August 2013 and we are still unable to move back home.
The drainage system clearly cannot cope with the existing level of housing without adding unlimited future development.
Not to mention, schools, traffic etc. It already feels like Rayleigh it full to capacity now.
Many thanks
Removing the 5% cap for housing will not be supported by the local infrastructure.
Our home was flooded in August 2013 and we are still unable to move back home.
The drainage system clearly cannot cope with the existing level of housing without adding unlimited future development.
Not to mention, schools, traffic etc. It already feels like Rayleigh it full to capacity now.
Many thanks
Object
Allocations: Schedule of modifications
Representation ID: 33086
Received: 12/01/2014
Respondent: mrs joanne williams
This 5% cap should be kept. The whole core strategy and consultation process has been based on these figures, and to allow a possible unlimited increase in these figures at such a late stage makes the whole process flawed. In addition the North of London Road site is so problematic, in terms of highways, drainage and coalescence of Rayleigh and Rawreth, that a cap is particularly appropriate here.
This 5% cap should be kept. The whole core strategy and consultation process has been based on these figures, and to allow a possible unlimited increase in these figures at such a late stage makes the whole process flawed. In addition the North of London Road site is so problematic, in terms of highways, drainage and coalescence of Rayleigh and Rawreth, that a cap is particularly appropriate here.
Object
Allocations: Schedule of modifications
Representation ID: 33088
Received: 12/01/2014
Respondent: ms brenda orsler
I don't want this as I am sick of being flooded and also held up in traffic
I don't want this as I am sick of being flooded and also held up in traffic
Object
Allocations: Schedule of modifications
Representation ID: 33090
Received: 12/01/2014
Respondent: Russell Barton
This 5% cap should be kept. The whole core strategy and consultation process has been based on these figures, and to allow a possible unlimited increase in these figures at such a late stage makes the whole process flawed. In addition the North of London Road site is so problematic, in terms of highways, drainage and coalescence of Rayleigh and Rawreth, that a cap is particularly appropriate here.
This 5% cap should be kept. The whole core strategy and consultation process has been based on these figures, and to allow a possible unlimited increase in these figures at such a late stage makes the whole process flawed. In addition the North of London Road site is so problematic, in terms of highways, drainage and coalescence of Rayleigh and Rawreth, that a cap is particularly appropriate here.
Object
Allocations: Schedule of modifications
Representation ID: 33099
Received: 12/01/2014
Respondent: Mrs Gillian Hawes
The 5% cap is highly necessary. The impact to one area of Rayleigh will be immense as it is, the roads cannot cope, and surrounding areas will be at increased risking of flooding. I object to the high number of homes in one area, and for that reason the 5% cap should remain.
The 5% cap is highly necessary. The impact to one area of Rayleigh will be immense as it is, the roads cannot cope, and surrounding areas will be at increased risking of flooding. I object to the high number of homes in one area, and for that reason the 5% cap should remain.
Object
Allocations: Schedule of modifications
Representation ID: 33102
Received: 12/01/2014
Respondent: Mr Corey Vost
This 5% cap should be kept. The whole core strategy and consultation process has been based on these figures, and to allow a possible unlimited increase in these figures at such a late stage makes the whole process flawed. In addition the North of London Road site is so problematic, in terms of highways, drainage and coalescence of Rayleigh and Rawreth, that a 5% cap is particularly appropriate here.
This 5% cap should be kept. The whole core strategy and consultation process has been based on these figures, and to allow a possible unlimited increase in these figures at such a late stage makes the whole process flawed. In addition the North of London Road site is so problematic, in terms of highways, drainage and coalescence of Rayleigh and Rawreth, that a 5% cap is particularly appropriate here.
Object
Allocations: Schedule of modifications
Representation ID: 33105
Received: 12/01/2014
Respondent: Craig Driscoll
The 5% cap should be kept. The whole process has been based on these figures, and to allow a possible unlimited increase at this stage makes the whole process flawed. There doesn't appear to be any provision to improve highways, drainage, schools and healthcare in the area, and any further increase than what is planned will put even more strain on local services. Why are sites in Rochford not being considered?
The 5% cap should be kept. The whole process has been based on these figures, and to allow a possible unlimited increase at this stage makes the whole process flawed. There doesn't appear to be any provision to improve highways, drainage, schools and healthcare in the area, and any further increase than what is planned will put even more strain on local services. Why are sites in Rochford not being considered?
Object
Allocations: Schedule of modifications
Representation ID: 33107
Received: 13/01/2014
Respondent: Ms Shirley Climpson
The 5% cap needs to be kept, there is a huge issue with the North of London Road site particularly regarding poor drainage here and infrastructure issues regarding the integration of a large number of people and cars into the area leading to increased flooding risks beyond the area to be built on and grid locked roads into Rayleigh - which is already a huge problem. The potential for unlimited increase in housing here would be incredibly detrimental to the people of Rayleigh. This whole consultation process has been flawed from the start.
The 5% cap needs to be kept, there is a huge issue with the North of London Road site particularly regarding poor drainage here and infrastructure issues regarding the integration of a large number of people and cars into the area leading to increased flooding risks beyond the area to be built on and grid locked roads into Rayleigh - which is already a huge problem. The potential for unlimited increase in housing here would be incredibly detrimental to the people of Rayleigh. This whole consultation process has been flawed from the start.
Object
Allocations: Schedule of modifications
Representation ID: 33109
Received: 13/01/2014
Respondent: Mrs Joan Eaton
"This 5% cap should be kept. The whole core strategy and consultation process has been based on these figures, and to allow a possible unlimited increase in these figures at such a late stage makes the whole process flawed. In addition the North of London Road site is so problematic, in terms of highways, drainage and coalescence of Rayleigh and Rawreth, that a cap is particularly appropriate here."
"This 5% cap should be kept. The whole core strategy and consultation process has been based on these figures, and to allow a possible unlimited increase in these figures at such a late stage makes the whole process flawed. In addition the North of London Road site is so problematic, in terms of highways, drainage and coalescence of Rayleigh and Rawreth, that a cap is particularly appropriate here."
Object
Allocations: Schedule of modifications
Representation ID: 33110
Received: 13/01/2014
Respondent: mr Richard Lambourne
"This 5% cap should be kept. The whole core strategy and consultation process has been based on these figures, and to allow a possible unlimited increase in these figures at such a late stage makes the whole process flawed. In addition the North of London Road site is so problematic, in terms of highways, drainage and coalescence of Rayleigh and Rawreth, that a cap is particularly appropriate here."
"This 5% cap should be kept. The whole core strategy and consultation process has been based on these figures, and to allow a possible unlimited increase in these figures at such a late stage makes the whole process flawed. In addition the North of London Road site is so problematic, in terms of highways, drainage and coalescence of Rayleigh and Rawreth, that a cap is particularly appropriate here."
Object
Allocations: Schedule of modifications
Representation ID: 33111
Received: 13/01/2014
Respondent: Mr Steve Turner
The roads and infrastructure cannot cope with this.
The roads and infrastructure cannot cope with this.
Object
Allocations: Schedule of modifications
Representation ID: 33148
Received: 13/01/2014
Respondent: Mr Andy Wright
This 5% cap should be kept. The whole core strategy and consultation process has been based on these figures, and to allow a possible unlimited increase in these figures at such a late stage makes the whole process flawed. In addition the North of London Road site is so problematic, in terms of highways, drainage and coalescence of Rayleigh and Rawreth, that a cap is particularly appropriate here.
This 5% cap should be kept. The whole core strategy and consultation process has been based on these figures, and to allow a possible unlimited increase in these figures at such a late stage makes the whole process flawed. In addition the North of London Road site is so problematic, in terms of highways, drainage and coalescence of Rayleigh and Rawreth, that a cap is particularly appropriate here.
Object
Allocations: Schedule of modifications
Representation ID: 33204
Received: 15/01/2014
Respondent: Cllr Toby Mountain
The 5% cap should remain in place. The 5% cap is essential to protect from the possibility of an uncontrollable increase in housing development far beyond the agreed quotas within each of the allocation areas.
The 5% cap should remain in place. The 5% cap is essential to protect from the possibility of an uncontrollable increase in housing development far beyond the agreed quotas within each of the allocation areas.
Object
Allocations: Schedule of modifications
Representation ID: 33401
Received: 17/01/2014
Respondent: Mrs Linda Kendall
See full objection.
The removal of the 5% cap would be a further insult to the 5000 residents who demanded this whole policy was refused due to over development of this area relative to other parts of the District over the past twenty years. It will serve to enrich a very few and cause misery to the many whilst ruining the rural entrance to our town by smothering it in more concrete. It is quite simply shameful.
Over 5000 residents have been disregarded if this policy SER1 proceeds. That is a disgrace and totally undemocratic. To further suggest the removal of the 5% cap on allowable development that could lead to a much higher density development being sought by the landowner/developer on this greenfield/greenbelt site, is unacceptable in the extreme. It was adopted under the Core Strategy despite there being grave concerns over conflict of interest issues with a serving Councillor on the original Planning and Transportation Committee when sites were first suggested for development. It also further fails to address the failure of RDC to seek out and utilise greenfield/brownfield sites, in line with the NPPF, before destroying our precious agricultural farmland / greenbelt.
The opportunity for RDC to claim that other sites have failed to materialise, thus requiring this site to have an increase in housing density, is one the local neighbourhood would be very fearful of given the political imbalance currently present on the local RDC. The ability to make political advantage by manipulating the approval process might prove very tempting to some political operators who are not represented in this area of Rayleigh but make decisions that seriously affect the residents that do live here.
Comment
Allocations: Schedule of modifications
Representation ID: 33402
Received: 17/01/2014
Respondent: Mrs Linda Kendall
The decisions being taken have clearly indicated that leading local politician was correct when they made their public statement to the press months before the Government Inspectors hearing that this whole process was 'a done deal'. What a total waste of taxpayers money!
The decisions being taken have clearly indicated that leading local politician was correct when they made their public statement to the press months before the Government Inspectors hearing that this whole process was 'a done deal'. What a total waste of taxpayers money!