Rochford District Core Strategy Regulation 26 Draft
Search representations
Results for Rayleigh Town Council search
New search
New search
Rochford District Core Strategy Regulation 26 Draft
4.9 Good Design & Design Statements
Respondent: Rayleigh Town Council
Representation Summary:
Clause 4.9.9 Generally agree though 25% appears to be a rather low figure
Full text:
Section 1 Spatial Portrait
Page 2 Clause 1.7 Does not mention the supermarket now under construction at the Park School site.
Section 2 Spatial Vision
Clause 2.5 This appears to be at variance with proposals later in the document for large amounts of new residential development, which will of necessity mean releasing large areas of green space.
Clause 2.10 There is no evidence to support this assertion. Judging on past performance and lack of drive from the local P.C.T this can only be described as a "wish list" and cannot be substantiated by firm proposals
Section 3 Relationship of Documents
Clause 3.9 The key diagram forming part of this document is very difficult to follow due to the lack of easily identifiable features and has been the subject of adverse comment by members of the public who have seen it. It would benefit from the addition of main roads, the railway line etc.
It appears that the objective of avoiding duplication (3.10) has resulted in the proliferation of a multitude of documents at considerable cost in time and effort to the Council, which could be rendered obsolete overnight at the whim of Central Government.
Section 4 Core Strategy Issues
Clause 4.2.2 Policies SS1 and SS7 of the East of England Plan confirm the need to maintain the Green Belt boundary. However, the proposals later in the document to site a further 1800 dwellings in Rayleigh will require a relaxation and the use of areas of Green Belt.
Development in the Rawreth Lane area is already up to the Green belt boundary and there appears to be no other substantial areas identified in the town capable of absorbing this number of new dwellings.
Clause 4.2.6 and 4.2.7 The strategic buffer between Rayleigh and Rawreth would obviously be in Rawreth Parish and any further development in the area would, in fact, have to take place in the parish of Rawreth unless the boundaries are redrawn.
Clause 4.3.8 It needs to be emphasised that the country park is at the eastern boundary of the district.
Clause 4.4.5.iii States that the area is remote and undeveloped. This is not true of the area around Battlesbridge at the western boundary of the district
Clause 4.4.9 This does not appear to be included on the key diagram
Clause 4.4.14 Would it be appropriate to indicate which of these sites are open for public access?
Clause 4.5.4 Windfall sites should be taken into account since they contribute to a reduction in pressure on the Green Belt
Clause 4.5.5 Central Government has stated that Thames Gateway development will be housing led and it follows from this that it is not possible to rely on infrastructure improvements
Clause 4.5.6 This is a very laudable aim. However, a similar statement was removed from the Replacement Local Plan prior to adoption. It is considered essential to retain this.
Clause 4.5.9. It is true that the Council has no control over the total number of dwellings. However, the East of England Plan does not specify their distribution. This is something that the Council has complete control over and this should be made clear.
Clause 4.5.11 The second bullet point is not specific enough, densities should be set out in this document.
Clause 4.5.12. Windfall development should not be ignored.
Clause 4.6.3. Though these areas have a good range of services they are under extreme pressure and are not able to accommodate further increases in population without considerable upgrading.
Clause 4.6.4. These areas should be brought up to a standard which would make them suitable to take a fairer share of increased development.
Clause 4.6.9. It is incorrect to state that all settlements have had more than their fair share of housing .There is one area that has had more than any other:- WESTERN RAYLEIGH
Clause 4.6.10 It is considered that the allocation must take into account the fact that Rayleigh has taken the lions' share of development in the district to date.
It is unacceptable that the majority of the proposed future development should fall in Rayleigh. The split must be reviewed.
Clause 4.6.18. This is at variance with the fact that the A127 is not anymore considered by the Government to be the main road distributor for S.E.Essex. This is proven by the fact that the A13 is now the main trunk road connecting to London and the A127 has been demoted to a mere County route.
Clause 4.6.20 This is no worse than the daily congestion in Rawreth Lane which is due to get worse on completion of the ASDA superstore.
Clause 4.6.21 Mentions protection of Rochford's Conservation Area. There is no similar statement about Rayleigh's Conservation Area
Clause 4.6.23 Believe the figures are flawed and unbalanced
Clause 4.6.23 This statement needs to be far more robust with greater emphasis on transport infrastructure etc. improvements preceding housing development
Clause 4.7.10 Much affordable housing appears to be being purchased on a "buy to let" basis for profit. The policy needs to contain means for discouraging this practice.
Clause 4.8 Employment. For the forseeable future the main employment pattern is likely to be commuting to London. Until higher salary employment is the norm. in the district it will be difficult if not impossible to meet these targets.
Clause 4.9.9 Generally agree though 25% appears to be a rather low figure.
Clause 4.10.3. Corporate identities etc. have often in the past been used as excuses to ignore Conservation Area requirements, particularly with shop fronts and signage. This statement needs to be made more robust.
Clause 4.10.8. Should be reworded to contain specific reference to Conservation Areas
Clause 4.14.3. This is impractical:-Where hotels don't already exist in town centre locations there is not much possibility of hotel development due to lack of suitable sites
Section 5 Implementation & Monitoring
Clause 5.4 Rochford and Castle Point PCT no longer exists as a separate entity.
Also the steering group should include secular groups as well as faith groups eg: Essex Humanists (who are affiliated to The British Humanist Association)
Rochford District Core Strategy Regulation 26 Draft
4.10 Character of Place & the Historic Environment
Respondent: Rayleigh Town Council
Representation Summary:
Clause 4.10.3. Corporate identities etc. have often in the past been used as excuses to ignore Conservation Area requirements, particularly with shop fronts and signage.
This statement needs to be made more robust.
Clause 4.10.8. Should be reworded to contain specific reference to Conservation Areas
Full text:
Section 1 Spatial Portrait
Page 2 Clause 1.7 Does not mention the supermarket now under construction at the Park School site.
Section 2 Spatial Vision
Clause 2.5 This appears to be at variance with proposals later in the document for large amounts of new residential development, which will of necessity mean releasing large areas of green space.
Clause 2.10 There is no evidence to support this assertion. Judging on past performance and lack of drive from the local P.C.T this can only be described as a "wish list" and cannot be substantiated by firm proposals
Section 3 Relationship of Documents
Clause 3.9 The key diagram forming part of this document is very difficult to follow due to the lack of easily identifiable features and has been the subject of adverse comment by members of the public who have seen it. It would benefit from the addition of main roads, the railway line etc.
It appears that the objective of avoiding duplication (3.10) has resulted in the proliferation of a multitude of documents at considerable cost in time and effort to the Council, which could be rendered obsolete overnight at the whim of Central Government.
Section 4 Core Strategy Issues
Clause 4.2.2 Policies SS1 and SS7 of the East of England Plan confirm the need to maintain the Green Belt boundary. However, the proposals later in the document to site a further 1800 dwellings in Rayleigh will require a relaxation and the use of areas of Green Belt.
Development in the Rawreth Lane area is already up to the Green belt boundary and there appears to be no other substantial areas identified in the town capable of absorbing this number of new dwellings.
Clause 4.2.6 and 4.2.7 The strategic buffer between Rayleigh and Rawreth would obviously be in Rawreth Parish and any further development in the area would, in fact, have to take place in the parish of Rawreth unless the boundaries are redrawn.
Clause 4.3.8 It needs to be emphasised that the country park is at the eastern boundary of the district.
Clause 4.4.5.iii States that the area is remote and undeveloped. This is not true of the area around Battlesbridge at the western boundary of the district
Clause 4.4.9 This does not appear to be included on the key diagram
Clause 4.4.14 Would it be appropriate to indicate which of these sites are open for public access?
Clause 4.5.4 Windfall sites should be taken into account since they contribute to a reduction in pressure on the Green Belt
Clause 4.5.5 Central Government has stated that Thames Gateway development will be housing led and it follows from this that it is not possible to rely on infrastructure improvements
Clause 4.5.6 This is a very laudable aim. However, a similar statement was removed from the Replacement Local Plan prior to adoption. It is considered essential to retain this.
Clause 4.5.9. It is true that the Council has no control over the total number of dwellings. However, the East of England Plan does not specify their distribution. This is something that the Council has complete control over and this should be made clear.
Clause 4.5.11 The second bullet point is not specific enough, densities should be set out in this document.
Clause 4.5.12. Windfall development should not be ignored.
Clause 4.6.3. Though these areas have a good range of services they are under extreme pressure and are not able to accommodate further increases in population without considerable upgrading.
Clause 4.6.4. These areas should be brought up to a standard which would make them suitable to take a fairer share of increased development.
Clause 4.6.9. It is incorrect to state that all settlements have had more than their fair share of housing .There is one area that has had more than any other:- WESTERN RAYLEIGH
Clause 4.6.10 It is considered that the allocation must take into account the fact that Rayleigh has taken the lions' share of development in the district to date.
It is unacceptable that the majority of the proposed future development should fall in Rayleigh. The split must be reviewed.
Clause 4.6.18. This is at variance with the fact that the A127 is not anymore considered by the Government to be the main road distributor for S.E.Essex. This is proven by the fact that the A13 is now the main trunk road connecting to London and the A127 has been demoted to a mere County route.
Clause 4.6.20 This is no worse than the daily congestion in Rawreth Lane which is due to get worse on completion of the ASDA superstore.
Clause 4.6.21 Mentions protection of Rochford's Conservation Area. There is no similar statement about Rayleigh's Conservation Area
Clause 4.6.23 Believe the figures are flawed and unbalanced
Clause 4.6.23 This statement needs to be far more robust with greater emphasis on transport infrastructure etc. improvements preceding housing development
Clause 4.7.10 Much affordable housing appears to be being purchased on a "buy to let" basis for profit. The policy needs to contain means for discouraging this practice.
Clause 4.8 Employment. For the forseeable future the main employment pattern is likely to be commuting to London. Until higher salary employment is the norm. in the district it will be difficult if not impossible to meet these targets.
Clause 4.9.9 Generally agree though 25% appears to be a rather low figure.
Clause 4.10.3. Corporate identities etc. have often in the past been used as excuses to ignore Conservation Area requirements, particularly with shop fronts and signage. This statement needs to be made more robust.
Clause 4.10.8. Should be reworded to contain specific reference to Conservation Areas
Clause 4.14.3. This is impractical:-Where hotels don't already exist in town centre locations there is not much possibility of hotel development due to lack of suitable sites
Section 5 Implementation & Monitoring
Clause 5.4 Rochford and Castle Point PCT no longer exists as a separate entity.
Also the steering group should include secular groups as well as faith groups eg: Essex Humanists (who are affiliated to The British Humanist Association)
Rochford District Core Strategy Regulation 26 Draft
4.14 Community, Leisure & Tourism Facilities
Respondent: Rayleigh Town Council
Representation Summary:
Clause 4.14.3. This is impractical:-Where hotels don't already exist in town centre locations there is not much possibility of hotel development due to lack of suitable sites
Full text:
Section 1 Spatial Portrait
Page 2 Clause 1.7 Does not mention the supermarket now under construction at the Park School site.
Section 2 Spatial Vision
Clause 2.5 This appears to be at variance with proposals later in the document for large amounts of new residential development, which will of necessity mean releasing large areas of green space.
Clause 2.10 There is no evidence to support this assertion. Judging on past performance and lack of drive from the local P.C.T this can only be described as a "wish list" and cannot be substantiated by firm proposals
Section 3 Relationship of Documents
Clause 3.9 The key diagram forming part of this document is very difficult to follow due to the lack of easily identifiable features and has been the subject of adverse comment by members of the public who have seen it. It would benefit from the addition of main roads, the railway line etc.
It appears that the objective of avoiding duplication (3.10) has resulted in the proliferation of a multitude of documents at considerable cost in time and effort to the Council, which could be rendered obsolete overnight at the whim of Central Government.
Section 4 Core Strategy Issues
Clause 4.2.2 Policies SS1 and SS7 of the East of England Plan confirm the need to maintain the Green Belt boundary. However, the proposals later in the document to site a further 1800 dwellings in Rayleigh will require a relaxation and the use of areas of Green Belt.
Development in the Rawreth Lane area is already up to the Green belt boundary and there appears to be no other substantial areas identified in the town capable of absorbing this number of new dwellings.
Clause 4.2.6 and 4.2.7 The strategic buffer between Rayleigh and Rawreth would obviously be in Rawreth Parish and any further development in the area would, in fact, have to take place in the parish of Rawreth unless the boundaries are redrawn.
Clause 4.3.8 It needs to be emphasised that the country park is at the eastern boundary of the district.
Clause 4.4.5.iii States that the area is remote and undeveloped. This is not true of the area around Battlesbridge at the western boundary of the district
Clause 4.4.9 This does not appear to be included on the key diagram
Clause 4.4.14 Would it be appropriate to indicate which of these sites are open for public access?
Clause 4.5.4 Windfall sites should be taken into account since they contribute to a reduction in pressure on the Green Belt
Clause 4.5.5 Central Government has stated that Thames Gateway development will be housing led and it follows from this that it is not possible to rely on infrastructure improvements
Clause 4.5.6 This is a very laudable aim. However, a similar statement was removed from the Replacement Local Plan prior to adoption. It is considered essential to retain this.
Clause 4.5.9. It is true that the Council has no control over the total number of dwellings. However, the East of England Plan does not specify their distribution. This is something that the Council has complete control over and this should be made clear.
Clause 4.5.11 The second bullet point is not specific enough, densities should be set out in this document.
Clause 4.5.12. Windfall development should not be ignored.
Clause 4.6.3. Though these areas have a good range of services they are under extreme pressure and are not able to accommodate further increases in population without considerable upgrading.
Clause 4.6.4. These areas should be brought up to a standard which would make them suitable to take a fairer share of increased development.
Clause 4.6.9. It is incorrect to state that all settlements have had more than their fair share of housing .There is one area that has had more than any other:- WESTERN RAYLEIGH
Clause 4.6.10 It is considered that the allocation must take into account the fact that Rayleigh has taken the lions' share of development in the district to date.
It is unacceptable that the majority of the proposed future development should fall in Rayleigh. The split must be reviewed.
Clause 4.6.18. This is at variance with the fact that the A127 is not anymore considered by the Government to be the main road distributor for S.E.Essex. This is proven by the fact that the A13 is now the main trunk road connecting to London and the A127 has been demoted to a mere County route.
Clause 4.6.20 This is no worse than the daily congestion in Rawreth Lane which is due to get worse on completion of the ASDA superstore.
Clause 4.6.21 Mentions protection of Rochford's Conservation Area. There is no similar statement about Rayleigh's Conservation Area
Clause 4.6.23 Believe the figures are flawed and unbalanced
Clause 4.6.23 This statement needs to be far more robust with greater emphasis on transport infrastructure etc. improvements preceding housing development
Clause 4.7.10 Much affordable housing appears to be being purchased on a "buy to let" basis for profit. The policy needs to contain means for discouraging this practice.
Clause 4.8 Employment. For the forseeable future the main employment pattern is likely to be commuting to London. Until higher salary employment is the norm. in the district it will be difficult if not impossible to meet these targets.
Clause 4.9.9 Generally agree though 25% appears to be a rather low figure.
Clause 4.10.3. Corporate identities etc. have often in the past been used as excuses to ignore Conservation Area requirements, particularly with shop fronts and signage. This statement needs to be made more robust.
Clause 4.10.8. Should be reworded to contain specific reference to Conservation Areas
Clause 4.14.3. This is impractical:-Where hotels don't already exist in town centre locations there is not much possibility of hotel development due to lack of suitable sites
Section 5 Implementation & Monitoring
Clause 5.4 Rochford and Castle Point PCT no longer exists as a separate entity.
Also the steering group should include secular groups as well as faith groups eg: Essex Humanists (who are affiliated to The British Humanist Association)
Rochford District Core Strategy Regulation 26 Draft
Section 5 - Implementation & Monitoring
Respondent: Rayleigh Town Council
Representation Summary:
Clause 5.4 Rochford and Castle Point PCT no longer exists as a separate entity.
Also the steering group should include secular groups as well as faith groups eg: Essex Humanists (who are affiliated to The British Humanist Association)
Full text:
Section 1 Spatial Portrait
Page 2 Clause 1.7 Does not mention the supermarket now under construction at the Park School site.
Section 2 Spatial Vision
Clause 2.5 This appears to be at variance with proposals later in the document for large amounts of new residential development, which will of necessity mean releasing large areas of green space.
Clause 2.10 There is no evidence to support this assertion. Judging on past performance and lack of drive from the local P.C.T this can only be described as a "wish list" and cannot be substantiated by firm proposals
Section 3 Relationship of Documents
Clause 3.9 The key diagram forming part of this document is very difficult to follow due to the lack of easily identifiable features and has been the subject of adverse comment by members of the public who have seen it. It would benefit from the addition of main roads, the railway line etc.
It appears that the objective of avoiding duplication (3.10) has resulted in the proliferation of a multitude of documents at considerable cost in time and effort to the Council, which could be rendered obsolete overnight at the whim of Central Government.
Section 4 Core Strategy Issues
Clause 4.2.2 Policies SS1 and SS7 of the East of England Plan confirm the need to maintain the Green Belt boundary. However, the proposals later in the document to site a further 1800 dwellings in Rayleigh will require a relaxation and the use of areas of Green Belt.
Development in the Rawreth Lane area is already up to the Green belt boundary and there appears to be no other substantial areas identified in the town capable of absorbing this number of new dwellings.
Clause 4.2.6 and 4.2.7 The strategic buffer between Rayleigh and Rawreth would obviously be in Rawreth Parish and any further development in the area would, in fact, have to take place in the parish of Rawreth unless the boundaries are redrawn.
Clause 4.3.8 It needs to be emphasised that the country park is at the eastern boundary of the district.
Clause 4.4.5.iii States that the area is remote and undeveloped. This is not true of the area around Battlesbridge at the western boundary of the district
Clause 4.4.9 This does not appear to be included on the key diagram
Clause 4.4.14 Would it be appropriate to indicate which of these sites are open for public access?
Clause 4.5.4 Windfall sites should be taken into account since they contribute to a reduction in pressure on the Green Belt
Clause 4.5.5 Central Government has stated that Thames Gateway development will be housing led and it follows from this that it is not possible to rely on infrastructure improvements
Clause 4.5.6 This is a very laudable aim. However, a similar statement was removed from the Replacement Local Plan prior to adoption. It is considered essential to retain this.
Clause 4.5.9. It is true that the Council has no control over the total number of dwellings. However, the East of England Plan does not specify their distribution. This is something that the Council has complete control over and this should be made clear.
Clause 4.5.11 The second bullet point is not specific enough, densities should be set out in this document.
Clause 4.5.12. Windfall development should not be ignored.
Clause 4.6.3. Though these areas have a good range of services they are under extreme pressure and are not able to accommodate further increases in population without considerable upgrading.
Clause 4.6.4. These areas should be brought up to a standard which would make them suitable to take a fairer share of increased development.
Clause 4.6.9. It is incorrect to state that all settlements have had more than their fair share of housing .There is one area that has had more than any other:- WESTERN RAYLEIGH
Clause 4.6.10 It is considered that the allocation must take into account the fact that Rayleigh has taken the lions' share of development in the district to date.
It is unacceptable that the majority of the proposed future development should fall in Rayleigh. The split must be reviewed.
Clause 4.6.18. This is at variance with the fact that the A127 is not anymore considered by the Government to be the main road distributor for S.E.Essex. This is proven by the fact that the A13 is now the main trunk road connecting to London and the A127 has been demoted to a mere County route.
Clause 4.6.20 This is no worse than the daily congestion in Rawreth Lane which is due to get worse on completion of the ASDA superstore.
Clause 4.6.21 Mentions protection of Rochford's Conservation Area. There is no similar statement about Rayleigh's Conservation Area
Clause 4.6.23 Believe the figures are flawed and unbalanced
Clause 4.6.23 This statement needs to be far more robust with greater emphasis on transport infrastructure etc. improvements preceding housing development
Clause 4.7.10 Much affordable housing appears to be being purchased on a "buy to let" basis for profit. The policy needs to contain means for discouraging this practice.
Clause 4.8 Employment. For the forseeable future the main employment pattern is likely to be commuting to London. Until higher salary employment is the norm. in the district it will be difficult if not impossible to meet these targets.
Clause 4.9.9 Generally agree though 25% appears to be a rather low figure.
Clause 4.10.3. Corporate identities etc. have often in the past been used as excuses to ignore Conservation Area requirements, particularly with shop fronts and signage. This statement needs to be made more robust.
Clause 4.10.8. Should be reworded to contain specific reference to Conservation Areas
Clause 4.14.3. This is impractical:-Where hotels don't already exist in town centre locations there is not much possibility of hotel development due to lack of suitable sites
Section 5 Implementation & Monitoring
Clause 5.4 Rochford and Castle Point PCT no longer exists as a separate entity.
Also the steering group should include secular groups as well as faith groups eg: Essex Humanists (who are affiliated to The British Humanist Association)
Rochford District Core Strategy Regulation 26 Draft
4.6.10 General Development Locations Preferred Option
Respondent: Rayleigh Town Council
Representation Summary:
Following the Full Council meeting which took place last night, 30th July 2007, the Town Council would like to make the following statement:-
'Whilst appreciating that it is a Government driven policy on the number of houses to be built in our area, Rayleigh Town councillors are very concerned, along with a large number of residents, about the projected number of units to be built in the town's area.
The infrastructure, as it is currently, would need to be looked at and improved, as a matter of urgency, before any new homes are built. At present:-
* The roads in and out of Rayleigh are grid-locked for most of the day, regardless of the route taken to the town centre and, at school times, they can only be viewed as dangerous.
* Car parking is far from adequate. Midweek we lose one of our few town centre car parks for 24 hours in order to accommodate the market. There is very little out-of-town car parking, thus resulting in residential roads becoming increasingly clogged, and the associated dangers near schools.
* There is no parking at the clinic in Eastwood Road. This clinic is used by many elderly and disabled residents, who are advised to leave their cars at Websters Way car park, and walk!
* There is virtually no bus route through Rawreth Lane.
* Rayleigh is already very short of play spaces/football pitches for the number of residents, and have very few 'green' spaces that can be expanded into.
* Doctors and Dentists surgeries are full
* Schools are full
The current infrastructure, as it stands, will be unable to support the projected number of 1,800 new homes.'
Full text:
CORE STRATEGY - PREFERRED OPTIONS (REGULATION 26) CONSULTATION
I am writing further to our e mail dated 26th June 2007 when it was agreed that the Town Council would be granted an extension to the deadline until 1st August 2007.
Following the Full Council meeting which took place last night, 30th July 2007, the Town Council would like to make the following statement:-
'Whilst appreciating that it is a Government driven policy on the number of houses to be built in our area, Rayleigh Town councillors are very concerned, along with a large number of residents, about the projected number of units to be built in the town's area.
The infrastructure, as it is currently, would need to be looked at and improved, as a matter of urgency, before any new homes are built. At present:-
* The roads in and out of Rayleigh are grid-locked for most of the day, regardless of the route taken to the town centre and, at school times, they can only be viewed as dangerous.
* Car parking is far from adequate. Midweek we lose one of our few town centre car parks for 24 hours in order to accommodate the market. There is very little out-of-town car parking, thus resulting in residential roads becoming increasingly clogged, and the associated dangers near schools.
* There is no parking at the clinic in Eastwood Road. This clinic is used by many elderly and disabled residents, who are advised to leave their cars at Websters Way car park, and walk!
* There is virtually no bus route through Rawreth Lane.
* Rayleigh is already very short of play spaces/football pitches for the number of residents, and have very few 'green' spaces that can be expanded into.
* Doctors and Dentists surgeries are full
* Schools are full
The current infrastructure, as it stands, will be unable to support the projected number of 1,800 new homes.'
For instructions on how to use the system and make comments, please see our
help guide.
