Please note: You only need to register / login if you wish to make representations.
If you haven't got an account you can register now.
If you have forgotten your password you can request a new password.
You can view the full details of a representation by clicking either on the Representation ID in the top right of the summary box or on the More Details... link at the bottom.
COMMENT Highways England (Mark Norman)
Development on the scale proposed here is unlikely to have a severe impact on the Strategic Road Network.
More details about Rep ID: 2792
COMMENT Historic England -East of England (Ms N Gates)
SS10: Great Tey
We welcome the identification of grade II Rectory Cottage but would note that the proposed site allocation abuts the conservation area boundary, which is not mentioned in the supporting text or policy. This should be amended. We welcome reference in the policy to archaeological considerations as well as design and landscaping.
More details about Rep ID: 2671
COMMENT Essex County Council (Matthew Jericho)
Developments totalling 17 dwellings during the Plan period would generate up to 5 primary aged pupils and up to 3 secondary aged pupils. At primary level Gt. Tey CE VC Primary School, which serves this area, could accommodate this level of growth. Cumulative impact of village expansion could result in need for secondary school capacity expansion. Early Years and Childcare Comments-
There is existing capacity in current facilities and growth can be accommodated.
More details about Rep ID: 2344
SUPPORT Edward Gittins & Associates (Edward Gittins)
We confirm the availability of this site.
More details about Rep ID: 1913
SUPPORT Great Tey Parish Council (Mr David Williams)
We support this proposed development subject to:-
We wish to see this development have consideration to investigate traffic calming measures for example priority traffic flow (as in Chappel);ensure that there is a continuous footpath/footway on the west side of Brook Road; a mix of housing to include low cost and "affordable" housing; and suitable access with off road parking, so that there is no additional parking on the east side of Brook Road. This is subject to our ongoing involvement.
We would be interested in further discussions regarding future development on a small scale that would bring sustainability to existing village amenities.
More details about Rep ID: 1599
SUPPORT ADP (Brian Morgan)
Like many other sustainable villages Great Tey can be seen as having an aging population with the next generation being excluded from the local housing market. Mersea Homes' proposal is for 40 new homes within the 15 year Local Plan period on the well-defined area of land between the Greenfield Drive area and Newbarn Road. This will be able to deliver affordable rent housing under a local letting policy. The proposal includes 1ha of Public Open Space to allow a wider range of activities contiguous with the existing sport pitches, along with any other required infrastructure improvements.
More details about Rep ID: 1511
SUPPORT Mr Simon Hall
Not sure why the new dwellings should include single storey units. Ground floor flats would be equally acceptable and reduce the density on a tight site
Pedestrian access to existing footways will require more radical changes as there are no footways on that side of the road
More details about Rep ID: 269
SUPPORT Cllr Peter Chillingworth
As ward councillor for the are, I fully support this proposal.
More details about Rep ID: 191
OBJECT Mr Glenn Matthews
Being in such a rural location will normally lend itself to vehicle ownership for business and social purposes; so I would expect a significant number of additional motor vehicles for the family members of the up to 17 proposed dwellings.It should be noted that some of current occupants of the existing dwellings on that stretch already park their vehicles on the road, which leads to restricted traffic, especially when a large agricultural vehicle and a lorry meet i is both a major route for commuters to and from Marks Tey station, and beyond, and is active throughout the day.
More details about Rep ID: 112
COMMENT Mr Glenn Matthews
In the past, Iseem to recall that this suggested site was outside of the Village Development Envelope and that allowance had been made for any future anticipated expansion of the newer small estate in Great Tey; as evidenced by the dead-ending, instead of formal cul-de sacs, of two of those roads up to the edge of a small field, to the west of the estate.This surely would be a more practical proposal as the roads on the estate are to a better standard, are wider and have benefit of established pavements and underground utilities.if carefully planned,leave potential for future development
More details about Rep ID: 111
SS10-My major concern about this proposal is the size of the development on a very narrow part of a small, but active winding country road, which connects the A 120 to the A 1 124.
I believe that such a large number of houses could lead to difficulties for both entering and exiting the properties for vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians; lead ing to further restriction of the roadway and possibly endangerment to cyclists and pedestrians.
More details about Rep ID: 109