1. Introduction
Support
Rayleigh Area Action Plan Submission Document
Representation ID: 33467
Received: 03/02/2014
Respondent: Chelmsford City Council
Officer's have no specific comments to make on this document
Officer's have no specific comments to make on this document
Support
Rayleigh Area Action Plan Submission Document
Representation ID: 33524
Received: 07/02/2014
Respondent: Canewdon Parish Council
The plan is impressive however members were concerned whether modern finances both public and private could support such a development.
The plan is impressive however members were concerned whether modern finances both public and private could support such a development.
Support
Rayleigh Area Action Plan Submission Document
Representation ID: 34282
Received: 03/03/2014
Respondent: Castle Point Borough Council
As currently drafted the Rayleigh Area Action Plan does not give rise to concern, from the perspective of Castle Point Borough Council, in terms of any of the policy or legal tests of soundness.
Castle Point Borough Council does however reserve the right to further engagement, and if necessary cooperation, on the Rayleigh Area Action Plan if any significant changes are made to the proposals within it.
As currently drafted the Rayleigh Area Action Plan does not give rise to concern, from the perspective of Castle Point Borough Council, in terms of any of the policy or legal tests of soundness.
Castle Point Borough Council does however reserve the right to further engagement, and if necessary cooperation, on the Rayleigh Area Action Plan if any significant changes are made to the proposals within it.
Support
Rayleigh Area Action Plan Submission Document
Representation ID: 34284
Received: 05/03/2014
Respondent: Historic England
We have no objections to the document and consider the AAP to be sound.
We welcome the various references to the historic environment throughout the AAP and the use of character areas to inform development proposals within the town centre. We note the amendments from the previous consultation document which remove references to pedestrian links across Rayleigh Mount (scheduled monument). Given the management and heritage issues in formalising a route across the Mount, these amendments seem sensible. As you may be aware, a management plan exists for the Mount, which perhaps could be referenced in the AAP.
Thank you for your letter dated 22 January 2014 consulting English Heritage on the Submission version of the Rayleigh Area Action Plan (AAP). We have no objections to the document and consider the AAP to be sound. As you know, we provided general comments on the previous consultation document in our letter dated 15 August 2013, which we hope were of use.
We welcome the various references to the historic environment throughout the AAP and the use of character areas to inform development proposals within the town centre. We note the amendments from the previous consultation document which remove references to pedestrian links between the train station and town centre across Rayleigh Mount, a scheduled monument and motte and bailey castle. Given the management and heritage issues in formalising a route across the Mount, these amendments seem sensible. As you may be aware, a management plan exists for the Mount, which perhaps could be referenced in the AAP.