MM23

Showing comments and forms 1 to 14 of 14

Object

Allocations: Schedule of modifications

Representation ID: 33078

Received: 12/01/2014

Respondent: Cllr Chris Black

Representation Summary:

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.

Full text:

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

Representation Summary:

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

Full text:

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

Representation Summary:

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.

Full text:

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

Representation Summary:

I object to this.

Full text:

I object to this.

Object

Allocations: Schedule of modifications

Representation ID: 33091

Received: 12/01/2014

Respondent: Russell Barton

Representation Summary:

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.

Full text:

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

Representation Summary:

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.

Full text:

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

Representation Summary:

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.

Full text:

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

Representation Summary:

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.

Full text:

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

Representation Summary:

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?

Full text:

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

Representation Summary:

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.

Full text:

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

Representation Summary:

We cannot cope with anymore developement the streets are full the road network is at maximum capacity!

Full text:

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

Representation Summary:

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.

Full text:

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

Representation Summary:

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.

Full text:

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

Representation Summary:

This paragraph should be retained to prevent OVER DEVELOPMENT.

Full text:

This paragraph should be retained to prevent OVER DEVELOPMENT.