Comment
Strategic Growth Options
Representation ID: 13078
Received: 17/02/2015
Respondent: Mrs Joan McCready
The previous answers deal with this.
No - This whole programme should have been rejected. We have an MP who is a member of the government, what is his part in this?
Q1: This entire exercise is pathetic when shipyards, coalmines and factories were closed down there was a need for an excercise such as this in those locations.
Q2: See my husbands answers.
2 yes by all means consider the issues, providing that the answer in Q1 is considered.
3 One who is opposed to the envisaged growth there seems to be little point in commenting on an y individual site.
5, No - the previous answers deal with this.
6 No, no, no.
7. No - Turn the disused office blocks into factories.
10
Scenic Beauty/Attractiveness: 5
Outdoor Recreation/Leisure Use: 4
Wildlife Interest: 5
Historic Interest: 4
Tranquility: 5
11
Nature Reserves/Wildlife: 2
Farmland: 4
Woodland: 4
Degraded/Derelict/Waste Land: 1
Infrastructure: 4
Leisure/Recreation Facilities: 2
8 Yes - But no more supermarkets.
9 Yes - Instead of farmland being sold to developers, use ot for leisure.
4 None. The A127 is developing into a built up corridor from London to Southend.
12 No - This whole programme should have been rejected. We have an MP who is a member of the government, what is his part in this?
13 The previous answers deal with this.
1.14 Consultations. For a consultation process this must be seen as a disgrace.While there has been talk of growth - only today (16/02/2015) have we seen consultation documents. It has to be asked just who has been consulted.