Q5. Do you agree with the settlement hierarchy presented?

Object

Representation ID: 37572

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Wesley Menlove

Rayleigh is already an overdeveloped town with appalling traffic problems. There are no strategic roads, just the lanes designed for the town as it was decades ago. Rayleigh has a reputation within south Essex as a traffic black spot. The main roads connecting Rayleigh to the rest of essex and into London, e.g. A127 are log jammed and suffer from high levels of pollution, uneconomic and unreliable journey times. Rayleigh has poor facilities for a town of its size, no swimming pool, no cinema, limited shops. Expanding Rayleigh will create more estates totally dependent on cars and roads.

Support

Representation ID: 37580

Received: 02/08/2021

Respondent: Mr MARTIN MCKENNA

Agree

Comment

Representation ID: 37667

Received: 04/08/2021

Respondent: Miss Marie McCarthy

Yes, Rayleigh does not have much space left for building.

Object

Representation ID: 37687

Received: 05/08/2021

Respondent: carlton kitchens

Rayleigh at present has traffic with Traffic from Hockley and Hullbridge and beyond feeding Via the Hockley Road and Eastwood Road down to A127 and A13. The Developments .CFS027dto go roun,cFs029 CFS053and CFS098 just increase pressure on limited road structure. An Alternative road exit is need North of Rayleigh near Rochford to relieve Traffic Congestion. Any link between the Hockley Road at wellington road down to Albert Road just creates another rat run

Comment

Representation ID: 37770

Received: 09/08/2021

Respondent: Mrs Clare Robinson

There are two secondary schools within Hockley and Rochford

Comment

Representation ID: 37774

Received: 09/08/2021

Respondent: Richard Burstow

Whilst not disagreeing with the Hierarchy, I would point out the Hockley/ Rochford contains two secondary schools, namely Greensward (Academy) and King Edmund School (KES).

Support

Representation ID: 37837

Received: 11/08/2021

Respondent: Miss Natasha Hembling

Correct representation of settlements

Support

Representation ID: 37885

Received: 12/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Samuel Martin

Hierarchy based on population and facilities makes sense.

Object

Representation ID: 37921

Received: 14/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Bryan Sumner

No I don't agree with any of this. So many things overlooked. I don't see anything being prepared for the future of the area. Who is worried about the local population? I don't see it.

Comment

Representation ID: 37954

Received: 16/08/2021

Respondent: mr peter lawrence

The changing shopping habits have been impacted by COVID. what uptake in the need for local shops and the make up is a real issue

Support

Representation ID: 38062

Received: 22/08/2021

Respondent: Miss tracey gibson

current assessment is fine for current status

Support

Representation ID: 38097

Received: 23/08/2021

Respondent: Craig Cannell

Agree with the settlement hierarchy presented

Object

Representation ID: 38151

Received: 25/08/2021

Respondent: Miss Jessica Clarke

You cannot place great wakering with a population of over 6000 with other areas with a population of 1000. The difference is too high and they have different needs.

Object

Representation ID: 38153

Received: 25/08/2021

Respondent: Mrs Theresa Hewison

Total object, not wanted by the people who like there

Object

Representation ID: 38259

Received: 29/08/2021

Respondent: Mrs Keeley Pullen

Hierarchy needs to reflect on a lint of green belt and green spaces is lost. Also need to consider road infrastructures and how traffic congestion in the area will impact the quality of air. Additionally need to consider new flood assessment data that has been published in recent weeks which showed considerable areas of potential flood area caused by the sea.

Object

Representation ID: 38276

Received: 31/08/2021

Respondent: Miss Maria Punt

No infrastructure. No available space or desired building by residents

Support

Representation ID: 38300

Received: 31/08/2021

Respondent: Mr John Whatley

Yes

Support

Representation ID: 38426

Received: 02/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Shirley Page

I agree.

Support

Representation ID: 38559

Received: 07/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Lauren Haxell

Yes I agree

Comment

Representation ID: 38579

Received: 07/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Gillian Wells

No account has been given to the density of the population over a given area.This can have a profound affect on the population within that area when thousands are added to the current number
Just because the population has certain facilities which work for them now , although not as efficiently as they should because of the extra numbers that they have already absorbed, often means that they are stretched beyond their working capacity.

Object

Representation ID: 38684

Received: 09/09/2021

Respondent: Stuart Watson

Rayleigh, Hockley and Rochford cannot afford to grow any larger.

Object

Representation ID: 38800

Received: 14/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Jeff Higgs

No, I feel the hierarchy need to be inverted.
In common with the majority of residents I believe Rayleigh and surrounding areas already have enormous new build projects underway. We should stop further housing sprawl especially on the outskirts of towns such as Rayleigh where upgrading the road system is impractical. The uncertainty of the situation is causing anxiety amongst my friends and neighbours who maybe directly impacted.
If vast additional new housing development is truly unavoidable in our vicinity it should be in areas less constrained than Rayleigh (which is already suffering overdevelopment)

Comment

Representation ID: 38942

Received: 15/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs kathryn Gilbert

I agree

Object

Representation ID: 39025

Received: 19/09/2021

Respondent: Chris Teeder

The district is becoming over populated in general. There is not sufficient infrastructure to support the projected increase in population growth with our roads becoming gridlocked, utility services running at their limit and hospitals, doctors surgerys and schools unable to cope with demand.

Object

Representation ID: 39134

Received: 20/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Joanna Gibson

I disagree with it all but in particular tier 3. The residents of those villages chose to live in quiet and rural areas for a reason. We're going to end up with an area full of housing and nothing for anyone to do.

This densely populated living is not healthy for human beings and the way we were designed to live. All this huge development is because the Government want the majority of people located in key areas to for maximum control of the population and the cyber era we are heading towards.

Object

Representation ID: 39225

Received: 20/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Olivia Reeve

The local community and facilities (schools, doctors etc) cannot cope with the amount of housing we have now.

Object

Representation ID: 39253

Received: 21/09/2021

Respondent: Mr P Croucher

Tier 1 is over populated, and regularly grid locked already. The council must be absolutely stupid if they think these problems will go away if more housing is built and more jobs are created in this area.
If there must be more housing, it should be concentrated away from Tier 1. My proposal would be tier 3/4, but not before there are better road links north across the River Crouch, to South Woodham, and South into Southend, to avoid more traffic coming through Rayleigh.

Comment

Representation ID: 39314

Received: 21/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Lynda Edmunds

Barling and Little Wakering are quite different from Gt Wakering and should not be treated as the same place.

Support

Representation ID: 39477

Received: 22/09/2021

Respondent: Persimmon Homes Essex

Persimmon Homes would agree with the settlement hierarchy presented, which demonstrates that growth should be predominantly located at Rayleigh, Hockley and Rochford. As Rayleigh is the sole ‘Tier 1’ settlement, it is logical that as the Plan progresses, that Rayleigh takes a larger proportion of development than other settlements.

Support

Representation ID: 39506

Received: 22/09/2021

Respondent: Amherst Homes Ltd

Yes – Separating settlements by population and service provision is sensible.