Q6. Which of the identified strategy options do you consider should be taken forward in the Plan?

Object

Representation ID: 37566

Received: 01/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Wesley Menlove

None of the above. Rochford is a peninsula with very poor infrastructure and highly likely to be suffering from severe flooding by 2050 as a result of climate change. The government argues it is pro environment all of these plans involve the destruction of the environment and all the wildlife that lives within it. Rochford has very overloaded roads throughout and the main arterial roads into the district are running completely over capacity. All of this is a complete recipe for disaster. Rayleigh west is very overdeveloped already and suffers from appalling road congestion. With the ensuing pollution.

Comment

Representation ID: 37669

Received: 04/08/2021

Respondent: Miss Marie McCarthy

Option 4 another secondary school is needed in this area.

Can you elaborate on the affordable housing? What price range?

Comment

Representation ID: 37672

Received: 04/08/2021

Respondent: Dr John Boselli

Intensification of housing places strain on already buckling local infrastructure e.g. slow moving traffic resulting in worsened air quality, loss of green spaces for exercise and reduced access to essential services. Development of any area needs to be associated with much improved infrastructure and essential services. Option 3b would meet the brief set out in Council's strategy, attract investment, allow a South Essex approach to development and allow infrastructure to be built to support the proposed development - including green spaces.

Support

Representation ID: 37789

Received: 09/08/2021

Respondent: Ms Helen Wright

This option seems to accept that infrastructure has to come before development. It is more likely to attract proper government investment and will prevent existing areas becoming even more densely populated.

Object

Representation ID: 37818

Received: 09/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Ian Jordan

There has been too much development in West Rayleigh over the last 20 years, the area can't take any more

Comment

Representation ID: 37844

Received: 11/08/2021

Respondent: Mr David Flack

It seems that some elements of option 1 will be required but given the requirement to build more homes the least disruptive option would be to go for options 3a and 3b. Option £a has the advantage of being close to the existing road hubs and services, 3C would not be sustainable without the need for major road building that would open up the Green belt to considerable development in the Crouch Valley that would destroy the green environment of Rochford. Development in the village should be small scale and focussed on providing homes for young families.

Support

Representation ID: 37886

Received: 12/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Samuel Martin

Option 4 - if done right appears to capture the positives of options whilst mitigating the risks of others.

Option 1 is logical to use what we have existing but if done too much could put extra burden to infrastructure. This is why I think supplementing it with Option 2/3 to ensure we have the growth needed whilst increasing the infrastructure required makes Option 4 the best option.

It is the most complex but the most forward looking of the options.

Comment

Representation ID: 37905

Received: 14/08/2021

Respondent: Mrs Claire Sumner

I think the areas in dark purple should be considered, but only if the correct infrastructure is put in place to ease the traffic especially in the area which is paramount. Our whole area gridlocks already when just one road is closed. Adding a significant amount of houses will only make this worse. So I would prefer option 3.

Comment

Representation ID: 37906

Received: 14/08/2021

Respondent: Mrs Claire Sumner

Any of the option 3's. But only if adequate infrastructure is put in place.

Object

Representation ID: 37922

Received: 14/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Bryan Sumner

Nothing. There is no plan that actually helps the area. We don't have enough work in the area to support this many builds. The infrastucture doesn't support it either.

Comment

Representation ID: 37955

Received: 16/08/2021

Respondent: mr peter lawrence

option 4 provides the most realistic approach

Object

Representation ID: 38010

Received: 19/08/2021

Respondent: Mr david devine

none - the constant building has already ruined Rayleigh, your additional plans will just destroy the rest of the area

Support

Representation ID: 38063

Received: 22/08/2021

Respondent: Miss tracey gibson

Strategy 1 only - focus on areas west of district and in already built up areas

Comment

Representation ID: 38098

Received: 23/08/2021

Respondent: Craig Cannell

To reflect the 'at capacity' status much of the District's infrastructure network finds itself at, an 'Infrastructure First' approach must be core in our thinking.

Option 3b, introducing a new settlement to the south east of the district, provides an excellent opportunity for new, purpose built infrastructure to be put in place before the housing it will be serving. Furthermore, crucially, it does so in an area of the district that, will have the least reliance on the current internal road network.

If option 3b was at the centre of option 4 proposals, I would be minded to support.

Comment

Representation ID: 38154

Received: 25/08/2021

Respondent: Miss Jessica Clarke

Strategy option 1. We should be using what we have to re develop and re use for sustainability.

Any waste land which is not needed for environmental or safety factors such as flood planes should be utilised.

It may not hit all specific targets but this may also be because no more homes to this vast scale should be developed and other areas around the UK with a broader array of land to make clear new villages/towns with their own infrastructures in place from the beginning would be better for families and residents

Object

Representation ID: 38155

Received: 25/08/2021

Respondent: Mrs Theresa Hewison

We don’t want this in great Wakering

Object

Representation ID: 38260

Received: 29/08/2021

Respondent: Mrs Keeley Pullen

I object to any expansions but the most viable option is 1 due the potential detrimental impact to the environment caused by the others. Reducing green spaces will not help health and well-being. People need natural environments to support positive mental health. There are too many ‘no’ and ‘uncertain’ impacts on natural resources and environmental quality. Whatever green spaces are lost can’t be replaced once they have been built upon.

Comment

Representation ID: 38262

Received: 29/08/2021

Respondent: Mr Brian Cherry

Option 3a and 3b will give better infrastructure, transport which is the really desperate need for the area, better health and well being again another priority for the district and a boost to the economy that in turn benefits all in the community. Option 2a and 2b would just clog up the area and create an urban sprawl with no improvements to the transport links the biggest issue in the district.

Object

Representation ID: 38277

Received: 31/08/2021

Respondent: Miss Maria Punt

None

Support

Representation ID: 38281

Received: 31/08/2021

Respondent: Mr M Thorpe

Hullbridge is the ideal location for more affordable homes, the West side has now been extended and therefore to the East of Hullbridge is now ideal for expansion with excellent roads to Southend on mainline train stations within the local area.

Support

Representation ID: 38303

Received: 31/08/2021

Respondent: Mr M Thorpe

Strategy 2 more affordable homes to the East side of Hullbridge

Comment

Representation ID: 38304

Received: 31/08/2021

Respondent: Mr John Whatley

Option 1 or new towns with new infrastucture.

Comment

Representation ID: 38333

Received: 31/08/2021

Respondent: Mrs Anna Payton

A garden village on the outskirts of Southend is by far the best option. Build the amenities such as healthcare and schools along with the housing. Rayleigh simply cannot handle more houses and people. We don’t have the infrastructure to support it. Our roads are gridlock at all times of day. Our class sizes in schools are too big and it takes weeks to get a Dr appointment. Not to mention the levels of pollution outside my front door each day due to traffic

Comment

Representation ID: 38406

Received: 02/09/2021

Respondent: N/A

Firstly I do want to register my objection to your policy of expecting people to comment on the strategy options without any information on what new or improved infrastructure is envisaged. In my opinion this is is anti-democratic.

I am concerned that your policy of having a hierarchy of settlements with just Rayleigh at the top means that you are expecting the "lion's share" of new development to be here despite all the current developments. I think that the new development should be spread across the district but I'm concerned that your hierarchy will still put the majority in Rayleigh.

Comment

Representation ID: 38428

Received: 02/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Shirley Page

To relieve the pressures on the larger communities that are feeling the strain of the intense building imposed in recent years, Option 3b would be the preferred strategy to take forward. Creating a new garden village which can be planned for with all the necessary infrastructure seems to make more sense than overloading larger communities even further.

Comment

Representation ID: 38466

Received: 03/09/2021

Respondent: Dr Michael McDowall

The evidence and analysis provided is considerably short of what would be needed to select preferences between these options. The different impact of each on existing issues for Rodhford residents (eg traffic and primary health care) are very vague in the documents.

Comment

Representation ID: 38485

Received: 04/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Terence Bartholomew

Option1 - No.
Will happen anyway to certain extent, but just adds to existing issues regarding gridlock on roads, lack of Doctors etc.
Option 2 - No.
Lazy option and same infrastructure issues as Option 1. Fact - Rayleigh cannot currently cope with traffic and doctors are overwhelmed. Plus, road congestion adds to pollution.
Option 3 - Yes.
Best option. Be bold and put all infrastructure in place so everyone benefits. Garden Village type development would surely be supported by Government.
Option 4 - No.
Take opportunity to do it right for current and future residents - option 3

Comment

Representation ID: 38513

Received: 05/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Louise Lewis

The proposal to build houses of Wellington road in Rayleigh will only add pressure to the water/sewage facilities which has experienced flooding many times in the last few years and we have had overflow running down Bull lane. The infrastructure can not cope already so adding to the load has disaster written all over it.

The large development near the carpenters arms, seems another stress on the roads, that area is often jammed with traffic.

Comment

Representation ID: 38560

Received: 07/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Lauren Haxell

I think option 3 seems the best option- creating a new town that doesn’t impact on space and green areas of the existing towns and villages. As long as new schools, gp surgery’s and jobs etc are built for the new town so as not to take resources from neighbouring areas.
The area between the airport and great wakering seems a large area for this.

Comment

Representation ID: 38580

Received: 07/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Gillian Wells

Although it may more complicated initially I think that Option 3 is the solution if the vision is going to achieve what needs be done and have a successful outcome for the future for both residents and Rochford Council.