Core Strategy Preferred Options (Revised October 2008)
Search representations
Results for Rayleigh Town Council search
New search
New search
Core Strategy Preferred Options (Revised October 2008)
T2 Public Transport - Preferred Option
Respondent: Rayleigh Town Council
Representation Summary:
) Page 67 T2 Public transport
Encouraging alternatives to the use of the private car must not be used as an excuse to lower standards of parking and vehicle storage
This section needs to be more prescriptive.
Full text:
LDF Core Strategy Preferred Options
Response On Behalf Of Rayleigh Town Council
(1) Page 3.
There is a statement that the purpose of the Core Strategy is not to identify specific locations, but in stating preference for a particular area ("North of London Road" AKA Between London Road and Rawreth Lane), this document has contradicted the statement, automatically by its' wording ruling out other suitable sites identified in the "call for sites" exercise.
This statement needs to be reworded to allow other areas to be considered
In addition despite links with the A127 and A130 (or possibly because of ) this area suffers considerable road congestion for large parts of the day with London Road and Rawreth Lane at times being at a complete standstill, a situation which can only be exacerbated with the additional traffic generated by this proposal.
The Town Council question as to whether the fact that 3 schools already exit on to this road, with attended traffic problems of pick-ups and drop offs has been thought of. If more homes are built there, the army of buses taking pupils to secondary schools would increase. There is already an army of buses taking the students to Sweyne Park School, LONDON ROAD, causing an almost impossible situation for the residents of the adjacent roads, they cannot park, and the buses struggle to get in and out. Traffic hold ups are legion.
Also the A127 is already exceeding its' designed capacity with little prospect of future improvement and the A130 is very near to the limit. E-ON Call Centre exiting to LONDON ROAD means further traffic congestion at shift change times to and from Rayleigh.
Poor Transport along LONDON ROAD, for older residents visiting Southend and Basildon Hospitals. Shopping problems for all without cars, no direct bus service to
ASDA, Rawreth Lane.
These links cannot be relied upon ad infinitum.
In introducing the document to the West Area Committee recently, Cllr Hudson stated "we will only release Green Belt land after every scrap of brown field land has been used up".
This appears to be a contradiction of H2 General Locations and Phasing in that there is no reference to any brown field sites in Rayleigh and, as stated above, automatically rules out suitable alternatives.
The argument in H2 on P29 against North Rayleigh applies equally to the preferred option "North of London Road".
(2) Page 8 Priority 5
This statement is unrealistic in that it ignores the fact that public transport is poor with little prospect of improvement and walking or cycling are not viable alternatives for the not so young or fit.
(3) Page 37 H7 Gypsy and traveller accommodation
Where particular traveller sites have been identified as being undesirable, the temptation to ignore the results of legal process, to designate such sites as appropriate and not continue enforcement action simply for administrative convenience must be resisted.
This statement must be made more prescriptive.
(4) Page 49 Land south of London Road
Once again reliance on A127 and A130 links cannot be guaranteed ad infinitum.
This general area was apparently ruled out for housing development after objections from the Highway Authority and would therefore appear to be unsuitable for commercial or industrial use.
(5) Page 38 Infrastructure required and Page 93 CLT4 Healthcare
Rather than the fashionable (with the PCT) primary care centre (Polyclinic?) located in the preferred area, a better alternative is considered to be the provision of an outreach outpatient centre associated with Southend Hospital to perform routine blood tests, x-rays and a minor injuries clinic etc. reducing the need to travel and relieving the pressure on hospital services while leaving GP provision where it is at present.
(6) Page 41 Protection of the green belt
Strongly agree the five bullet points at the head of the page
(6) Page 50 ED5 Eco enterprise centre
There is little indication as to where such a centre would be located and the statement is far too vague.
(7) Page 57 ENV4 Sustainable drainage systems
SUDS relies on the Environment Agency to maintain watercourses and ditches in a suitable manner (Which at present is sadly lacking) without this there will undoubtedly be future problems
This section needs to be far more robust
(8) Page 66 T1 Highways
Strongly support this. What safeguards can be built in to ensure that S106 agreement finance is actually used for the infrastructure improvements for which it is intended in the light of recent revelations of the loss of such monies?
(9) Page 67 T2 Public transport
Encouraging alternatives to the use of the private car must not be used as an excuse to lower standards of parking and vehicle storage
This section needs to be more prescriptive.
(10) Page 88 CLT1
In his introduction Cllr Hudson stated that approximately £1 Billion is needed to make up the shortfall in infrastructure provision. It is unrealistic to expect this to be made up by "standard charges" (around £300,000 per dwelling across the district?)
It is therefore essential to state that these plans are unsustainable without considerable government funding.
(11) Page 71 T7 Parking standards
Strongly support the application of minimum parking standards
At last the voice of reason and common sense!!
(12) Page 94 CLT5 Open spaces
This needs to be more specific and robust, in particular in forming a barrier between any new
development and the A1245, preventing further westward sprawl in future years
(13) Page 95 CLT6 Community facilities
Strongly support this statement
(14) Page 98 CLT9 Leisure facilities
It is considered that an opportunity exists to obtain developer contributions to expand
leisure facilities in the provision of a swimming pool at Rayleigh leisure Centre
Suggest that this is included in CLT9
(15) Page 103 CLT appendix 1 New healthcare centre Rayleigh
New proposed residential areas are too far away from eastern areas of Rayleigh .The location
should be as near to the town centre as possible (see also (5))
Core Strategy Preferred Options (Revised October 2008)
CLT1 Planning Obligations and Standard Charges - Preferred Option
Respondent: Rayleigh Town Council
Representation Summary:
Page 88 CLT1
In his introduction Cllr Hudson stated that approximately £1 Billion is needed to make up the shortfall in infrastructure provision. It is unrealistic to expect this to be made up by "standard charges" (around £300,000 per dwelling across the district?)
It is therefore essential to state that these plans are unsustainable without considerable government funding.
Full text:
LDF Core Strategy Preferred Options
Response On Behalf Of Rayleigh Town Council
(1) Page 3.
There is a statement that the purpose of the Core Strategy is not to identify specific locations, but in stating preference for a particular area ("North of London Road" AKA Between London Road and Rawreth Lane), this document has contradicted the statement, automatically by its' wording ruling out other suitable sites identified in the "call for sites" exercise.
This statement needs to be reworded to allow other areas to be considered
In addition despite links with the A127 and A130 (or possibly because of ) this area suffers considerable road congestion for large parts of the day with London Road and Rawreth Lane at times being at a complete standstill, a situation which can only be exacerbated with the additional traffic generated by this proposal.
The Town Council question as to whether the fact that 3 schools already exit on to this road, with attended traffic problems of pick-ups and drop offs has been thought of. If more homes are built there, the army of buses taking pupils to secondary schools would increase. There is already an army of buses taking the students to Sweyne Park School, LONDON ROAD, causing an almost impossible situation for the residents of the adjacent roads, they cannot park, and the buses struggle to get in and out. Traffic hold ups are legion.
Also the A127 is already exceeding its' designed capacity with little prospect of future improvement and the A130 is very near to the limit. E-ON Call Centre exiting to LONDON ROAD means further traffic congestion at shift change times to and from Rayleigh.
Poor Transport along LONDON ROAD, for older residents visiting Southend and Basildon Hospitals. Shopping problems for all without cars, no direct bus service to
ASDA, Rawreth Lane.
These links cannot be relied upon ad infinitum.
In introducing the document to the West Area Committee recently, Cllr Hudson stated "we will only release Green Belt land after every scrap of brown field land has been used up".
This appears to be a contradiction of H2 General Locations and Phasing in that there is no reference to any brown field sites in Rayleigh and, as stated above, automatically rules out suitable alternatives.
The argument in H2 on P29 against North Rayleigh applies equally to the preferred option "North of London Road".
(2) Page 8 Priority 5
This statement is unrealistic in that it ignores the fact that public transport is poor with little prospect of improvement and walking or cycling are not viable alternatives for the not so young or fit.
(3) Page 37 H7 Gypsy and traveller accommodation
Where particular traveller sites have been identified as being undesirable, the temptation to ignore the results of legal process, to designate such sites as appropriate and not continue enforcement action simply for administrative convenience must be resisted.
This statement must be made more prescriptive.
(4) Page 49 Land south of London Road
Once again reliance on A127 and A130 links cannot be guaranteed ad infinitum.
This general area was apparently ruled out for housing development after objections from the Highway Authority and would therefore appear to be unsuitable for commercial or industrial use.
(5) Page 38 Infrastructure required and Page 93 CLT4 Healthcare
Rather than the fashionable (with the PCT) primary care centre (Polyclinic?) located in the preferred area, a better alternative is considered to be the provision of an outreach outpatient centre associated with Southend Hospital to perform routine blood tests, x-rays and a minor injuries clinic etc. reducing the need to travel and relieving the pressure on hospital services while leaving GP provision where it is at present.
(6) Page 41 Protection of the green belt
Strongly agree the five bullet points at the head of the page
(6) Page 50 ED5 Eco enterprise centre
There is little indication as to where such a centre would be located and the statement is far too vague.
(7) Page 57 ENV4 Sustainable drainage systems
SUDS relies on the Environment Agency to maintain watercourses and ditches in a suitable manner (Which at present is sadly lacking) without this there will undoubtedly be future problems
This section needs to be far more robust
(8) Page 66 T1 Highways
Strongly support this. What safeguards can be built in to ensure that S106 agreement finance is actually used for the infrastructure improvements for which it is intended in the light of recent revelations of the loss of such monies?
(9) Page 67 T2 Public transport
Encouraging alternatives to the use of the private car must not be used as an excuse to lower standards of parking and vehicle storage
This section needs to be more prescriptive.
(10) Page 88 CLT1
In his introduction Cllr Hudson stated that approximately £1 Billion is needed to make up the shortfall in infrastructure provision. It is unrealistic to expect this to be made up by "standard charges" (around £300,000 per dwelling across the district?)
It is therefore essential to state that these plans are unsustainable without considerable government funding.
(11) Page 71 T7 Parking standards
Strongly support the application of minimum parking standards
At last the voice of reason and common sense!!
(12) Page 94 CLT5 Open spaces
This needs to be more specific and robust, in particular in forming a barrier between any new
development and the A1245, preventing further westward sprawl in future years
(13) Page 95 CLT6 Community facilities
Strongly support this statement
(14) Page 98 CLT9 Leisure facilities
It is considered that an opportunity exists to obtain developer contributions to expand
leisure facilities in the provision of a swimming pool at Rayleigh leisure Centre
Suggest that this is included in CLT9
(15) Page 103 CLT appendix 1 New healthcare centre Rayleigh
New proposed residential areas are too far away from eastern areas of Rayleigh .The location
should be as near to the town centre as possible (see also (5))
Core Strategy Preferred Options (Revised October 2008)
T7 Parking Standards - Preferred Option
Respondent: Rayleigh Town Council
Representation Summary:
Page 71 T7 Parking standards
Strongly support the application of minimum parking standards
At last the voice of reason and common sense!!
Full text:
LDF Core Strategy Preferred Options
Response On Behalf Of Rayleigh Town Council
(1) Page 3.
There is a statement that the purpose of the Core Strategy is not to identify specific locations, but in stating preference for a particular area ("North of London Road" AKA Between London Road and Rawreth Lane), this document has contradicted the statement, automatically by its' wording ruling out other suitable sites identified in the "call for sites" exercise.
This statement needs to be reworded to allow other areas to be considered
In addition despite links with the A127 and A130 (or possibly because of ) this area suffers considerable road congestion for large parts of the day with London Road and Rawreth Lane at times being at a complete standstill, a situation which can only be exacerbated with the additional traffic generated by this proposal.
The Town Council question as to whether the fact that 3 schools already exit on to this road, with attended traffic problems of pick-ups and drop offs has been thought of. If more homes are built there, the army of buses taking pupils to secondary schools would increase. There is already an army of buses taking the students to Sweyne Park School, LONDON ROAD, causing an almost impossible situation for the residents of the adjacent roads, they cannot park, and the buses struggle to get in and out. Traffic hold ups are legion.
Also the A127 is already exceeding its' designed capacity with little prospect of future improvement and the A130 is very near to the limit. E-ON Call Centre exiting to LONDON ROAD means further traffic congestion at shift change times to and from Rayleigh.
Poor Transport along LONDON ROAD, for older residents visiting Southend and Basildon Hospitals. Shopping problems for all without cars, no direct bus service to
ASDA, Rawreth Lane.
These links cannot be relied upon ad infinitum.
In introducing the document to the West Area Committee recently, Cllr Hudson stated "we will only release Green Belt land after every scrap of brown field land has been used up".
This appears to be a contradiction of H2 General Locations and Phasing in that there is no reference to any brown field sites in Rayleigh and, as stated above, automatically rules out suitable alternatives.
The argument in H2 on P29 against North Rayleigh applies equally to the preferred option "North of London Road".
(2) Page 8 Priority 5
This statement is unrealistic in that it ignores the fact that public transport is poor with little prospect of improvement and walking or cycling are not viable alternatives for the not so young or fit.
(3) Page 37 H7 Gypsy and traveller accommodation
Where particular traveller sites have been identified as being undesirable, the temptation to ignore the results of legal process, to designate such sites as appropriate and not continue enforcement action simply for administrative convenience must be resisted.
This statement must be made more prescriptive.
(4) Page 49 Land south of London Road
Once again reliance on A127 and A130 links cannot be guaranteed ad infinitum.
This general area was apparently ruled out for housing development after objections from the Highway Authority and would therefore appear to be unsuitable for commercial or industrial use.
(5) Page 38 Infrastructure required and Page 93 CLT4 Healthcare
Rather than the fashionable (with the PCT) primary care centre (Polyclinic?) located in the preferred area, a better alternative is considered to be the provision of an outreach outpatient centre associated with Southend Hospital to perform routine blood tests, x-rays and a minor injuries clinic etc. reducing the need to travel and relieving the pressure on hospital services while leaving GP provision where it is at present.
(6) Page 41 Protection of the green belt
Strongly agree the five bullet points at the head of the page
(6) Page 50 ED5 Eco enterprise centre
There is little indication as to where such a centre would be located and the statement is far too vague.
(7) Page 57 ENV4 Sustainable drainage systems
SUDS relies on the Environment Agency to maintain watercourses and ditches in a suitable manner (Which at present is sadly lacking) without this there will undoubtedly be future problems
This section needs to be far more robust
(8) Page 66 T1 Highways
Strongly support this. What safeguards can be built in to ensure that S106 agreement finance is actually used for the infrastructure improvements for which it is intended in the light of recent revelations of the loss of such monies?
(9) Page 67 T2 Public transport
Encouraging alternatives to the use of the private car must not be used as an excuse to lower standards of parking and vehicle storage
This section needs to be more prescriptive.
(10) Page 88 CLT1
In his introduction Cllr Hudson stated that approximately £1 Billion is needed to make up the shortfall in infrastructure provision. It is unrealistic to expect this to be made up by "standard charges" (around £300,000 per dwelling across the district?)
It is therefore essential to state that these plans are unsustainable without considerable government funding.
(11) Page 71 T7 Parking standards
Strongly support the application of minimum parking standards
At last the voice of reason and common sense!!
(12) Page 94 CLT5 Open spaces
This needs to be more specific and robust, in particular in forming a barrier between any new
development and the A1245, preventing further westward sprawl in future years
(13) Page 95 CLT6 Community facilities
Strongly support this statement
(14) Page 98 CLT9 Leisure facilities
It is considered that an opportunity exists to obtain developer contributions to expand
leisure facilities in the provision of a swimming pool at Rayleigh leisure Centre
Suggest that this is included in CLT9
(15) Page 103 CLT appendix 1 New healthcare centre Rayleigh
New proposed residential areas are too far away from eastern areas of Rayleigh .The location
should be as near to the town centre as possible (see also (5))
Core Strategy Preferred Options (Revised October 2008)
CLT5 Open Space - Preferred Option
Respondent: Rayleigh Town Council
Representation Summary:
Page 94 CLT5 Open spaces
This needs to be more specific and robust, in particular in forming a barrier between any new
development and the A1245, preventing further westward sprawl in future years
Full text:
LDF Core Strategy Preferred Options
Response On Behalf Of Rayleigh Town Council
(1) Page 3.
There is a statement that the purpose of the Core Strategy is not to identify specific locations, but in stating preference for a particular area ("North of London Road" AKA Between London Road and Rawreth Lane), this document has contradicted the statement, automatically by its' wording ruling out other suitable sites identified in the "call for sites" exercise.
This statement needs to be reworded to allow other areas to be considered
In addition despite links with the A127 and A130 (or possibly because of ) this area suffers considerable road congestion for large parts of the day with London Road and Rawreth Lane at times being at a complete standstill, a situation which can only be exacerbated with the additional traffic generated by this proposal.
The Town Council question as to whether the fact that 3 schools already exit on to this road, with attended traffic problems of pick-ups and drop offs has been thought of. If more homes are built there, the army of buses taking pupils to secondary schools would increase. There is already an army of buses taking the students to Sweyne Park School, LONDON ROAD, causing an almost impossible situation for the residents of the adjacent roads, they cannot park, and the buses struggle to get in and out. Traffic hold ups are legion.
Also the A127 is already exceeding its' designed capacity with little prospect of future improvement and the A130 is very near to the limit. E-ON Call Centre exiting to LONDON ROAD means further traffic congestion at shift change times to and from Rayleigh.
Poor Transport along LONDON ROAD, for older residents visiting Southend and Basildon Hospitals. Shopping problems for all without cars, no direct bus service to
ASDA, Rawreth Lane.
These links cannot be relied upon ad infinitum.
In introducing the document to the West Area Committee recently, Cllr Hudson stated "we will only release Green Belt land after every scrap of brown field land has been used up".
This appears to be a contradiction of H2 General Locations and Phasing in that there is no reference to any brown field sites in Rayleigh and, as stated above, automatically rules out suitable alternatives.
The argument in H2 on P29 against North Rayleigh applies equally to the preferred option "North of London Road".
(2) Page 8 Priority 5
This statement is unrealistic in that it ignores the fact that public transport is poor with little prospect of improvement and walking or cycling are not viable alternatives for the not so young or fit.
(3) Page 37 H7 Gypsy and traveller accommodation
Where particular traveller sites have been identified as being undesirable, the temptation to ignore the results of legal process, to designate such sites as appropriate and not continue enforcement action simply for administrative convenience must be resisted.
This statement must be made more prescriptive.
(4) Page 49 Land south of London Road
Once again reliance on A127 and A130 links cannot be guaranteed ad infinitum.
This general area was apparently ruled out for housing development after objections from the Highway Authority and would therefore appear to be unsuitable for commercial or industrial use.
(5) Page 38 Infrastructure required and Page 93 CLT4 Healthcare
Rather than the fashionable (with the PCT) primary care centre (Polyclinic?) located in the preferred area, a better alternative is considered to be the provision of an outreach outpatient centre associated with Southend Hospital to perform routine blood tests, x-rays and a minor injuries clinic etc. reducing the need to travel and relieving the pressure on hospital services while leaving GP provision where it is at present.
(6) Page 41 Protection of the green belt
Strongly agree the five bullet points at the head of the page
(6) Page 50 ED5 Eco enterprise centre
There is little indication as to where such a centre would be located and the statement is far too vague.
(7) Page 57 ENV4 Sustainable drainage systems
SUDS relies on the Environment Agency to maintain watercourses and ditches in a suitable manner (Which at present is sadly lacking) without this there will undoubtedly be future problems
This section needs to be far more robust
(8) Page 66 T1 Highways
Strongly support this. What safeguards can be built in to ensure that S106 agreement finance is actually used for the infrastructure improvements for which it is intended in the light of recent revelations of the loss of such monies?
(9) Page 67 T2 Public transport
Encouraging alternatives to the use of the private car must not be used as an excuse to lower standards of parking and vehicle storage
This section needs to be more prescriptive.
(10) Page 88 CLT1
In his introduction Cllr Hudson stated that approximately £1 Billion is needed to make up the shortfall in infrastructure provision. It is unrealistic to expect this to be made up by "standard charges" (around £300,000 per dwelling across the district?)
It is therefore essential to state that these plans are unsustainable without considerable government funding.
(11) Page 71 T7 Parking standards
Strongly support the application of minimum parking standards
At last the voice of reason and common sense!!
(12) Page 94 CLT5 Open spaces
This needs to be more specific and robust, in particular in forming a barrier between any new
development and the A1245, preventing further westward sprawl in future years
(13) Page 95 CLT6 Community facilities
Strongly support this statement
(14) Page 98 CLT9 Leisure facilities
It is considered that an opportunity exists to obtain developer contributions to expand
leisure facilities in the provision of a swimming pool at Rayleigh leisure Centre
Suggest that this is included in CLT9
(15) Page 103 CLT appendix 1 New healthcare centre Rayleigh
New proposed residential areas are too far away from eastern areas of Rayleigh .The location
should be as near to the town centre as possible (see also (5))
Core Strategy Preferred Options (Revised October 2008)
CLT6 Community Facilities - Preferred Option
Respondent: Rayleigh Town Council
Representation Summary:
Page 95 CLT6 Community facilities
Strongly support this statement
Full text:
LDF Core Strategy Preferred Options
Response On Behalf Of Rayleigh Town Council
(1) Page 3.
There is a statement that the purpose of the Core Strategy is not to identify specific locations, but in stating preference for a particular area ("North of London Road" AKA Between London Road and Rawreth Lane), this document has contradicted the statement, automatically by its' wording ruling out other suitable sites identified in the "call for sites" exercise.
This statement needs to be reworded to allow other areas to be considered
In addition despite links with the A127 and A130 (or possibly because of ) this area suffers considerable road congestion for large parts of the day with London Road and Rawreth Lane at times being at a complete standstill, a situation which can only be exacerbated with the additional traffic generated by this proposal.
The Town Council question as to whether the fact that 3 schools already exit on to this road, with attended traffic problems of pick-ups and drop offs has been thought of. If more homes are built there, the army of buses taking pupils to secondary schools would increase. There is already an army of buses taking the students to Sweyne Park School, LONDON ROAD, causing an almost impossible situation for the residents of the adjacent roads, they cannot park, and the buses struggle to get in and out. Traffic hold ups are legion.
Also the A127 is already exceeding its' designed capacity with little prospect of future improvement and the A130 is very near to the limit. E-ON Call Centre exiting to LONDON ROAD means further traffic congestion at shift change times to and from Rayleigh.
Poor Transport along LONDON ROAD, for older residents visiting Southend and Basildon Hospitals. Shopping problems for all without cars, no direct bus service to
ASDA, Rawreth Lane.
These links cannot be relied upon ad infinitum.
In introducing the document to the West Area Committee recently, Cllr Hudson stated "we will only release Green Belt land after every scrap of brown field land has been used up".
This appears to be a contradiction of H2 General Locations and Phasing in that there is no reference to any brown field sites in Rayleigh and, as stated above, automatically rules out suitable alternatives.
The argument in H2 on P29 against North Rayleigh applies equally to the preferred option "North of London Road".
(2) Page 8 Priority 5
This statement is unrealistic in that it ignores the fact that public transport is poor with little prospect of improvement and walking or cycling are not viable alternatives for the not so young or fit.
(3) Page 37 H7 Gypsy and traveller accommodation
Where particular traveller sites have been identified as being undesirable, the temptation to ignore the results of legal process, to designate such sites as appropriate and not continue enforcement action simply for administrative convenience must be resisted.
This statement must be made more prescriptive.
(4) Page 49 Land south of London Road
Once again reliance on A127 and A130 links cannot be guaranteed ad infinitum.
This general area was apparently ruled out for housing development after objections from the Highway Authority and would therefore appear to be unsuitable for commercial or industrial use.
(5) Page 38 Infrastructure required and Page 93 CLT4 Healthcare
Rather than the fashionable (with the PCT) primary care centre (Polyclinic?) located in the preferred area, a better alternative is considered to be the provision of an outreach outpatient centre associated with Southend Hospital to perform routine blood tests, x-rays and a minor injuries clinic etc. reducing the need to travel and relieving the pressure on hospital services while leaving GP provision where it is at present.
(6) Page 41 Protection of the green belt
Strongly agree the five bullet points at the head of the page
(6) Page 50 ED5 Eco enterprise centre
There is little indication as to where such a centre would be located and the statement is far too vague.
(7) Page 57 ENV4 Sustainable drainage systems
SUDS relies on the Environment Agency to maintain watercourses and ditches in a suitable manner (Which at present is sadly lacking) without this there will undoubtedly be future problems
This section needs to be far more robust
(8) Page 66 T1 Highways
Strongly support this. What safeguards can be built in to ensure that S106 agreement finance is actually used for the infrastructure improvements for which it is intended in the light of recent revelations of the loss of such monies?
(9) Page 67 T2 Public transport
Encouraging alternatives to the use of the private car must not be used as an excuse to lower standards of parking and vehicle storage
This section needs to be more prescriptive.
(10) Page 88 CLT1
In his introduction Cllr Hudson stated that approximately £1 Billion is needed to make up the shortfall in infrastructure provision. It is unrealistic to expect this to be made up by "standard charges" (around £300,000 per dwelling across the district?)
It is therefore essential to state that these plans are unsustainable without considerable government funding.
(11) Page 71 T7 Parking standards
Strongly support the application of minimum parking standards
At last the voice of reason and common sense!!
(12) Page 94 CLT5 Open spaces
This needs to be more specific and robust, in particular in forming a barrier between any new
development and the A1245, preventing further westward sprawl in future years
(13) Page 95 CLT6 Community facilities
Strongly support this statement
(14) Page 98 CLT9 Leisure facilities
It is considered that an opportunity exists to obtain developer contributions to expand
leisure facilities in the provision of a swimming pool at Rayleigh leisure Centre
Suggest that this is included in CLT9
(15) Page 103 CLT appendix 1 New healthcare centre Rayleigh
New proposed residential areas are too far away from eastern areas of Rayleigh .The location
should be as near to the town centre as possible (see also (5))
Core Strategy Preferred Options (Revised October 2008)
CLT9 Leisure Facilities - Preferred Option
Respondent: Rayleigh Town Council
Representation Summary:
Page 98 CLT9 Leisure facilities
It is considered that an opportunity exists to obtain developer contributions to expand
leisure facilities in the provision of a swimming pool at Rayleigh leisure Centre
Suggest that this is included in CLT9
Full text:
LDF Core Strategy Preferred Options
Response On Behalf Of Rayleigh Town Council
(1) Page 3.
There is a statement that the purpose of the Core Strategy is not to identify specific locations, but in stating preference for a particular area ("North of London Road" AKA Between London Road and Rawreth Lane), this document has contradicted the statement, automatically by its' wording ruling out other suitable sites identified in the "call for sites" exercise.
This statement needs to be reworded to allow other areas to be considered
In addition despite links with the A127 and A130 (or possibly because of ) this area suffers considerable road congestion for large parts of the day with London Road and Rawreth Lane at times being at a complete standstill, a situation which can only be exacerbated with the additional traffic generated by this proposal.
The Town Council question as to whether the fact that 3 schools already exit on to this road, with attended traffic problems of pick-ups and drop offs has been thought of. If more homes are built there, the army of buses taking pupils to secondary schools would increase. There is already an army of buses taking the students to Sweyne Park School, LONDON ROAD, causing an almost impossible situation for the residents of the adjacent roads, they cannot park, and the buses struggle to get in and out. Traffic hold ups are legion.
Also the A127 is already exceeding its' designed capacity with little prospect of future improvement and the A130 is very near to the limit. E-ON Call Centre exiting to LONDON ROAD means further traffic congestion at shift change times to and from Rayleigh.
Poor Transport along LONDON ROAD, for older residents visiting Southend and Basildon Hospitals. Shopping problems for all without cars, no direct bus service to
ASDA, Rawreth Lane.
These links cannot be relied upon ad infinitum.
In introducing the document to the West Area Committee recently, Cllr Hudson stated "we will only release Green Belt land after every scrap of brown field land has been used up".
This appears to be a contradiction of H2 General Locations and Phasing in that there is no reference to any brown field sites in Rayleigh and, as stated above, automatically rules out suitable alternatives.
The argument in H2 on P29 against North Rayleigh applies equally to the preferred option "North of London Road".
(2) Page 8 Priority 5
This statement is unrealistic in that it ignores the fact that public transport is poor with little prospect of improvement and walking or cycling are not viable alternatives for the not so young or fit.
(3) Page 37 H7 Gypsy and traveller accommodation
Where particular traveller sites have been identified as being undesirable, the temptation to ignore the results of legal process, to designate such sites as appropriate and not continue enforcement action simply for administrative convenience must be resisted.
This statement must be made more prescriptive.
(4) Page 49 Land south of London Road
Once again reliance on A127 and A130 links cannot be guaranteed ad infinitum.
This general area was apparently ruled out for housing development after objections from the Highway Authority and would therefore appear to be unsuitable for commercial or industrial use.
(5) Page 38 Infrastructure required and Page 93 CLT4 Healthcare
Rather than the fashionable (with the PCT) primary care centre (Polyclinic?) located in the preferred area, a better alternative is considered to be the provision of an outreach outpatient centre associated with Southend Hospital to perform routine blood tests, x-rays and a minor injuries clinic etc. reducing the need to travel and relieving the pressure on hospital services while leaving GP provision where it is at present.
(6) Page 41 Protection of the green belt
Strongly agree the five bullet points at the head of the page
(6) Page 50 ED5 Eco enterprise centre
There is little indication as to where such a centre would be located and the statement is far too vague.
(7) Page 57 ENV4 Sustainable drainage systems
SUDS relies on the Environment Agency to maintain watercourses and ditches in a suitable manner (Which at present is sadly lacking) without this there will undoubtedly be future problems
This section needs to be far more robust
(8) Page 66 T1 Highways
Strongly support this. What safeguards can be built in to ensure that S106 agreement finance is actually used for the infrastructure improvements for which it is intended in the light of recent revelations of the loss of such monies?
(9) Page 67 T2 Public transport
Encouraging alternatives to the use of the private car must not be used as an excuse to lower standards of parking and vehicle storage
This section needs to be more prescriptive.
(10) Page 88 CLT1
In his introduction Cllr Hudson stated that approximately £1 Billion is needed to make up the shortfall in infrastructure provision. It is unrealistic to expect this to be made up by "standard charges" (around £300,000 per dwelling across the district?)
It is therefore essential to state that these plans are unsustainable without considerable government funding.
(11) Page 71 T7 Parking standards
Strongly support the application of minimum parking standards
At last the voice of reason and common sense!!
(12) Page 94 CLT5 Open spaces
This needs to be more specific and robust, in particular in forming a barrier between any new
development and the A1245, preventing further westward sprawl in future years
(13) Page 95 CLT6 Community facilities
Strongly support this statement
(14) Page 98 CLT9 Leisure facilities
It is considered that an opportunity exists to obtain developer contributions to expand
leisure facilities in the provision of a swimming pool at Rayleigh leisure Centre
Suggest that this is included in CLT9
(15) Page 103 CLT appendix 1 New healthcare centre Rayleigh
New proposed residential areas are too far away from eastern areas of Rayleigh .The location
should be as near to the town centre as possible (see also (5))
Core Strategy Preferred Options (Revised October 2008)
Respondent: Rayleigh Town Council
Representation Summary:
Page 103 CLT appendix 1 New healthcare centre Rayleigh
New proposed residential areas are too far away from eastern areas of Rayleigh .The location
should be as near to the town centre as possible (see also (5))
Full text:
LDF Core Strategy Preferred Options
Response On Behalf Of Rayleigh Town Council
(1) Page 3.
There is a statement that the purpose of the Core Strategy is not to identify specific locations, but in stating preference for a particular area ("North of London Road" AKA Between London Road and Rawreth Lane), this document has contradicted the statement, automatically by its' wording ruling out other suitable sites identified in the "call for sites" exercise.
This statement needs to be reworded to allow other areas to be considered
In addition despite links with the A127 and A130 (or possibly because of ) this area suffers considerable road congestion for large parts of the day with London Road and Rawreth Lane at times being at a complete standstill, a situation which can only be exacerbated with the additional traffic generated by this proposal.
The Town Council question as to whether the fact that 3 schools already exit on to this road, with attended traffic problems of pick-ups and drop offs has been thought of. If more homes are built there, the army of buses taking pupils to secondary schools would increase. There is already an army of buses taking the students to Sweyne Park School, LONDON ROAD, causing an almost impossible situation for the residents of the adjacent roads, they cannot park, and the buses struggle to get in and out. Traffic hold ups are legion.
Also the A127 is already exceeding its' designed capacity with little prospect of future improvement and the A130 is very near to the limit. E-ON Call Centre exiting to LONDON ROAD means further traffic congestion at shift change times to and from Rayleigh.
Poor Transport along LONDON ROAD, for older residents visiting Southend and Basildon Hospitals. Shopping problems for all without cars, no direct bus service to
ASDA, Rawreth Lane.
These links cannot be relied upon ad infinitum.
In introducing the document to the West Area Committee recently, Cllr Hudson stated "we will only release Green Belt land after every scrap of brown field land has been used up".
This appears to be a contradiction of H2 General Locations and Phasing in that there is no reference to any brown field sites in Rayleigh and, as stated above, automatically rules out suitable alternatives.
The argument in H2 on P29 against North Rayleigh applies equally to the preferred option "North of London Road".
(2) Page 8 Priority 5
This statement is unrealistic in that it ignores the fact that public transport is poor with little prospect of improvement and walking or cycling are not viable alternatives for the not so young or fit.
(3) Page 37 H7 Gypsy and traveller accommodation
Where particular traveller sites have been identified as being undesirable, the temptation to ignore the results of legal process, to designate such sites as appropriate and not continue enforcement action simply for administrative convenience must be resisted.
This statement must be made more prescriptive.
(4) Page 49 Land south of London Road
Once again reliance on A127 and A130 links cannot be guaranteed ad infinitum.
This general area was apparently ruled out for housing development after objections from the Highway Authority and would therefore appear to be unsuitable for commercial or industrial use.
(5) Page 38 Infrastructure required and Page 93 CLT4 Healthcare
Rather than the fashionable (with the PCT) primary care centre (Polyclinic?) located in the preferred area, a better alternative is considered to be the provision of an outreach outpatient centre associated with Southend Hospital to perform routine blood tests, x-rays and a minor injuries clinic etc. reducing the need to travel and relieving the pressure on hospital services while leaving GP provision where it is at present.
(6) Page 41 Protection of the green belt
Strongly agree the five bullet points at the head of the page
(6) Page 50 ED5 Eco enterprise centre
There is little indication as to where such a centre would be located and the statement is far too vague.
(7) Page 57 ENV4 Sustainable drainage systems
SUDS relies on the Environment Agency to maintain watercourses and ditches in a suitable manner (Which at present is sadly lacking) without this there will undoubtedly be future problems
This section needs to be far more robust
(8) Page 66 T1 Highways
Strongly support this. What safeguards can be built in to ensure that S106 agreement finance is actually used for the infrastructure improvements for which it is intended in the light of recent revelations of the loss of such monies?
(9) Page 67 T2 Public transport
Encouraging alternatives to the use of the private car must not be used as an excuse to lower standards of parking and vehicle storage
This section needs to be more prescriptive.
(10) Page 88 CLT1
In his introduction Cllr Hudson stated that approximately £1 Billion is needed to make up the shortfall in infrastructure provision. It is unrealistic to expect this to be made up by "standard charges" (around £300,000 per dwelling across the district?)
It is therefore essential to state that these plans are unsustainable without considerable government funding.
(11) Page 71 T7 Parking standards
Strongly support the application of minimum parking standards
At last the voice of reason and common sense!!
(12) Page 94 CLT5 Open spaces
This needs to be more specific and robust, in particular in forming a barrier between any new
development and the A1245, preventing further westward sprawl in future years
(13) Page 95 CLT6 Community facilities
Strongly support this statement
(14) Page 98 CLT9 Leisure facilities
It is considered that an opportunity exists to obtain developer contributions to expand
leisure facilities in the provision of a swimming pool at Rayleigh leisure Centre
Suggest that this is included in CLT9
(15) Page 103 CLT appendix 1 New healthcare centre Rayleigh
New proposed residential areas are too far away from eastern areas of Rayleigh .The location
should be as near to the town centre as possible (see also (5))
For instructions on how to use the system and make comments, please see our
help guide.
