MM23
Object
Allocations: Schedule of modifications
Representation ID: 33078
Received: 12/01/2014
Respondent: Cllr Chris Black
These 5% caps 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. Other sites may be becoming available, such as as Bullwood Hall.
These 5% caps 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. Other sites may be becoming available, such as as Bullwood Hall.
Object
Allocations: Schedule of modifications
Representation ID: 33080
Received: 12/01/2014
Respondent: Mrs Ann Wisken
T his 5% cap should be kept. The whole core process 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 obsolescence of Ragleigh and Rawreth, that a cap is particularly appropriate here
T his 5% cap should be kept. The whole core process 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 obsolescence of Ragleigh and Rawreth, that a cap is particularly appropriate here
Object
Allocations: Schedule of modifications
Representation ID: 33085
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: 33087
Received: 12/01/2014
Respondent: ms brenda orsler
I object to this.
I object to this.
Object
Allocations: Schedule of modifications
Representation ID: 33091
Received: 12/01/2014
Respondent: Russell Barton
This is far too many properties to be built here in the first place, the infrastructure cannot cope. If there are too be this many then there should definitely be a cap in place to protect the existing residents from further impacts.
This is far too many properties to be built here in the first place, the infrastructure cannot cope. If there are too be this many then there should definitely be a cap in place to protect the existing residents from further impacts.
Object
Allocations: Schedule of modifications
Representation ID: 33092
Received: 12/01/2014
Respondent: Mr Nick Matthews
MM23 removes the cap of total new houses on the proposed site not exceeding 550+5%. I object as this writes the possibility of additional new homes/planning on the area into the document, which would further increase pressure on local infrastructure/facilities and potentially further loss of agricultural/greenbelt land (to accommodate more houses/infrastructure). The original document - around which all communication was based - committed to a 5% cap. MM23 renders all initial communication misleading, allows for more new homes than originally deemed appropriate for the area and sets the precedent to increase over time the area of proposed land for development.
The deletion of this paragraph will remove the cap of the total number of dwellings not exceeding 550 by more than 5%. This change should not be permitted as it effectively writes the possibility of further new homes/planning on the area into the document via the backdoor, which would further increase the pressure on existing local infrastructure and facilities, and potentially further loss of agricultural/greenbelt land. This attempts at the last minute to keep the door open to more than 577 new homes (i.e. 550+5% cap), despite the original document - around which all communication was based - clearly committing to a 5% cap. MM23 would therefore render all initial communication as misleading and allows for the potential for more homes to be built than originally deemed appropriate for the area.
This change will set the precedent and add pressure to increase over time the area of the proposed land for development, especially since the need to allow more room for a road is the alleged justification behind the proposal in MM20, MM22, MM26 and MM29. If suddenly you need to build more than 550+5% cap homes then clearly more land will be required to allow for additional roads/infrastructure.
It is interesting that just the words "Delete paragraph" are used in the pdf rather than actually stating what the one-sentence paragraph was.
Comment
Allocations: Schedule of modifications
Representation ID: 33100
Received: 12/01/2014
Respondent: Mrs Gillian Hawes
The 5% cap should remain. The road networks will not cope if more than 550 houses can be built. Rawreth Lane is already at capacity during rush hour. I walk my children down Rawreth Lane to take them to school. The noise volume is so high that we cannot talk to each other and the current volume of pollution is already highly unpleasant. I already object to 550 houses in an area that cannot cope, but if it has to go ahead, a cap must remain for the protection of existing residents.
The 5% cap should remain. The road networks will not cope if more than 550 houses can be built. Rawreth Lane is already at capacity during rush hour. I walk my children down Rawreth Lane to take them to school. The noise volume is so high that we cannot talk to each other and the current volume of pollution is already highly unpleasant. I already object to 550 houses in an area that cannot cope, but if it has to go ahead, a cap must remain for the protection of existing residents.
Object
Allocations: Schedule of modifications
Representation ID: 33103
Received: 12/01/2014
Respondent: Mr Corey Vost
These 5% caps 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. Other sites may be becoming available, such as aT Bullwood Hall.
These 5% caps 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. Other sites may be becoming available, such as aT Bullwood Hall.
Object
Allocations: Schedule of modifications
Representation ID: 33106
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: 33108
Received: 13/01/2014
Respondent: Ms Shirley Climpson
The 5% cap must be kept to avoid issues regarding the potential for flooding (as has already been seen in Rayleigh linked to the building currently going on in the London Road), also the risk of increasingly grid locked roads which are a major problem already for the residents of Rayleigh.
The 5% cap must be kept to avoid issues regarding the potential for flooding (as has already been seen in Rayleigh linked to the building currently going on in the London Road), also the risk of increasingly grid locked roads which are a major problem already for the residents of Rayleigh.
Object
Allocations: Schedule of modifications
Representation ID: 33112
Received: 13/01/2014
Respondent: Mr Steve Turner
We cannot cope with anymore developement the streets are full the road network is at maximum capacity!
We cannot cope with anymore developement the streets are full the road network is at maximum capacity!
Object
Allocations: Schedule of modifications
Representation ID: 33149
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: 33205
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: 33404
Received: 17/01/2014
Respondent: Mrs Linda Kendall
This paragraph should be retained to prevent OVER DEVELOPMENT.
This paragraph should be retained to prevent OVER DEVELOPMENT.