Rochford District Core Strategy Regulation 26 Draft
Search representations
Results for Roach Fairways and Conservation Committee search
New searchComment
Rochford District Core Strategy Regulation 26 Draft
4.4.19 Protection & Enhancement of Special Landscapes, Habitats & Species Preferred Option
Representation ID: 118
Received: 14/06/2007
Respondent: Roach Fairways and Conservation Committee
The Core Strategy does not cover the differse complicated area of protection needed for the Crouch and Roach Fairways, mashes and islands. The CHA must be given assistance in controlling any future development in this fragile area. The onset of the Thames Gateway as a develoment will bring undue pressures to the area. There is not a contained policy being suggested.
The document refers in many cases to the forthcoming Thames Gateway development and to providing recreational facilities for the future but gives insufficient attention to the development pressures and the major issues surrounding management of activity on shore and afloat which will result from the T/ G.
Specifically the Core Strategy Preferred Options draft is seriously deficient in failing to identify all on the issues of managing development and activity on and around the rivers Crouch and Roach, the Management, Protection and Enhancement of the Rivers Crouch, Roach and Islands, as a an issue. It does however identify the protection and enhancement of the upper Roach Valley as a an issue. We consider however much more important must be the much larger task of preserving the landscape and environment of the rivers, creeks, marshes and islands.
What is required from the outset is a common policy which will identify a framework for the introduction of such policies which seem to be missing at this time. In the past enforcement has been lacking in relation to the Fairways of both the Crouch and Roach areas.
• Access to and management of all types of moorings.
• Siting, use of, servicing of and access to residential vessels/houseboats.
• Controlof fast powered boating activity including PWC's
• Policies in favour of quiet/low impact/environmentally friendly boating activity.
• Increased vehicular launching access to the rivers/creeks.
• Siting, use of, servicing of and access to residential vessels/houseboats.
• Marine related developments (marinas, sailing clubs, boatyards, etc.)
• Management of 'Dry Stack'/park and launch boating facilities.
• Environmentally friendly/ sustainable management, maintenance, storage, servicing and repair of boats.
RAFCC is fully in assistance in generating, publicising, supporting and enforcing these policies. We do not have the powers of either the RDC or the CHA, in terms of resources but RDC has wider and effective powers and it is its responsibility to ensure that sustainable, robust and enforceable policies are in place to manage the entirely foreseeable increases in development pressure and the continually evolving management challenges that the rivers, creeks, islands and marshes
It is too easy to assume from the document that RDC considers its responsibilities to end at the mean high water mark. It is not the case and RDC must consider that the various conservation designations and protection. RDC must understand and address its responsibilities to the rivers, creeks, islands and marshes and it must do so with urgency and priority.
