• Thanks for getting that information for interested residents.

    If it is on the adhoc date of 30 September then Christine and I regret that we just cannot be there.

    I am personally, therefore, hoping for 22 October which is a scheduled date in the Council Diary of Meetings rather than an adhoc date with little or no notice to Members and the public !!

    But I will be continuing to get further information from the Council in response to questions and concerns put to me by residents which I shall, of course, share here to also be advised including other Members.

  • Sorry John , stating your potential absence is a mistake – they will almost certainly see your absence as in their favour and will now go for that date,
    can you not delete your post here ASAP?……Regards – JIM.

  • Sorry Admin, but your missing the point – John has done some in depth digging and would make a well informed speaker if he is there ( they know that and will exploit his absence ) – he has’nt given up trying to wring some benefits from all this.

  • Jim, I can see where you are coming from on this, but I think in this case, any successful wringing is probably going to be achieved between the officers report being published and the day of the meeting, not during the meeting itself.

  • Well it is September 11th and I don’t see an Officers report to study before a September meeting – so as usual the situation is being manipulated.

  • I promised to ask further questions and raise concerns put by residents on the Re-submitted Planning Application at North of The London Road, Rawreth.

    Here are the answers and information provided by Rochford District Council.

    Some are still not answered. If any resident wish these to be pursued please post on this web site so that Ward Members can do this with the Planning Department.

    The same goes for any new questions as we now know the Development Committee will now meet to make a Decision on 30 September.

    Q.”The Countryside traffic assessment didn’t include the impact of Construction traffic at all – years of it ( co incidents with other sites )”.Why was this not assessed? Has ECC been asked as a Statutory Consultee?

    A. ECC Highways have been consulted on the outline planning application as a statutory consultee. On the matter of construction traffic I have raised this with the County Council and await their comment which I will forward to you in turn.

    Q. “I expect residents to further challenge this via Councillors by lobbying ahead of the Development Committee. Does traffic dissipate by the time it reaches Hambro Hill / Down Hall Rd? This would not appear to be the case in rush hour (even without additional Construction traffic loading ). Fourteen road junctions off Downhall Road have double yellow lines and The Hungry Horse (public house) makes it’s car park available for school children to be delivered & collected ie., directly due to current volume of traffic issues. The Transport Assessment cited the London Rd junction with Downhall Road is a problem and various measures are proposed. Would it be possible for RDC to raise these issues with ECC Highways and advise me of their views?”

    A. RDC has raised this query with Essex County Council Highways Department as requested and await their response which will be forwarded once RDC have it.

    Q.”Is the new SUDS Approval Body ( SAB) in place and can the current inexperience held be relied upon?”

    A. Essex County Council is the Statutory Consultee on surface water but is not a SUDS Approval Body (SAB). Although there was an intention that County Council’s would become SAB’s this has not been taken forward by Government.

    Q. “Are there not conflicting design criteria from both Consultee’s, EA and ECC ? How will this be resolved before Development Committee?”

    A. In answer to your question ‘Are there not conflicting design criteria from both Consultee’s, EA and ECC ? How will this be resolved before Development Committee?’ I can advise that the Environment Agency have provided a consultation response in relation to tidal and fluvial flood risk but have not commented in respect of surface water as this is now the remit of Essex County Council as Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA). It is likely that several conditions will be recommended with regard to flood risk but I do no think that there will be any conflict of requirements from the EA and ECC.

    Q. “Flow data used for the “Brook” is 8 years out of date. Will this be updated before Development Committee? Is data of 8 years ago acceptable for decisions?”

    A. In answer to your question regarding flow data for the “Brook” I advise that the flood risk addendum explains that the applicant has undertaken new modelling of the Rawreth Brook. In the EA’s consultation response they state;

    ‘AECOM have undertaken detailed hydraulic modelling of Rawreth Brook. This builds upon the existing 1 dimensional (1D) 2007 model undertaken by JBA Consulting, for the Environment Agency, and incorporates a 2 dimensional (2D) floodplain. This allows the floodplain to be represented in more detail. The draft model was submitted to us for review under pre-application advice. We provided comments on this and requested some amendments, which have been included in the final model. The FRA Addendum refers to a ‘draft model’. Since the Addendum was produced the final model and model report have been issued. We requested the final model information, which was submitted to us on 6 July 2015. We have reviewed the final model and model report undertaken by URS, referenced 47065807 and dated July 2015, and are satisfied that our previous comments have been taken into account and that the model is appropriate. The new final modelling outputs are outlined in the Technical Summary of the model report referenced above on page 1. The modelling shows that the flood extents across the site have been reduced in comparison to the 2007 modelled flood extents. The new model demonstrates that flooding from the main river Rawreth Brook remains in channel for the lower return period flood events. In the 1 in 100 year event, extents are reduced on the application site, but flooding is expected on the land upstream of the A1245. Figure 5-3 Revision 1 contained within the model report illustrates that extent of the design (1 in 100 year inclusive of climate change) flood in relation to the proposed development areas. It can be seen that the development is sequentially located outside of this flood extent. This is confirmed in the Technical Summary of the model report which states that the proposed development is outside the flood extent of the 1 in 100 (Flood Zone 3) and 1 in 1000 (Flood Zone 2) year events. It is therefore wholly located within Flood Zone 1.’

    Q.”I understand that this is a 10 year phased delivery construction site. Will a SUDS system installed at various stages the site as inhabited provide complete protection to the site and those areas adjoining. In the case of Barratts in Hawkwell the EA required the whole system to be provided and connected to Hawkwell Brook before final phases were commenced. Why is this case different and what is the risk to those areas adjoining? If adjoining areas were adversely affected by this proposal who would be liable for damages?”

    A. The expectation is that the site would be developed in a phased manner if granted planning permission but a timetable has not been provided, this might be envisaged to be of the order of 10 years. The detailed wording of recommended conditions relating to the delivery of a SUDs system(s) on site and how this would be phased will be provided in the officer report following discussion with ECC as LLFA. It is envisaged that the SUDs system(s) would have to be delivered prior to the residential development that that part of the SUDs system would serve.

  • Thanks John – will respond in full here after study in detail , although the continued non answer on Construction traffic impact says it all on that subject.

  • For Chris Black / Ron Oatham ( and other Rayleigh Ward Councillors) to pursue:-

    Q1 above – The absence of any Construction traffic impact ( large/heavy vehicles plus large workforce movements ) assessment is fundamental,
    because it would far exceed the loading that has been assessed -namely
    domestic traffic created by the finished site.
    Actually the last question above has now prompted the admission that there is
    no site construction timeline commitment in place and Construction traffic volume and frequency is directly dictated by the pace of construction.
    The continued absence of an answer on this point is now clear – no consideration has been given to the obvious negative impact on the area,
    this negligence needs to be on the record for future reference.
    More itemised comments to follow in due course.

  • More for CB / RO :-
    Q2 above – The joint Countryside / ECC Transport Assessment found issues with the Down Hall Rd / London Rd junction and propose ( eventually!!! ) some measures to be implemented . Why then does the other end Downhall Rd / Hambro Hill junction not pose the same problem ( does the same traffic evaporate as it uses the same route )?. We all know that at rush hours the
    traffic at this junction merges with the hold up at Rawreth La / Hullbridge Rd,
    FACT it does not dissipate – the local road system is effectively one large inter-dependent ring road at rush hours. So no surprise we get a non answer on this.
    Q3 above – The original Officers report made a positive of ECC becoming the Suds Approval Body ( SAB ) , it is therefore now become a negative that that is not to be the case -ie: their is now no independent design approval party for the flood prevention design ( who is accredited at RDC to approve it ? ).
    Q4 above – Split responsibility equals plenty of wriggle room -remember the claim and counter claims between the Consultees during the Somerset Levels fiasco , and we do not have an independent arbitrator ( SAB role now scrapped)
    Q5 above – I think we all know that the extent / frequency of flooding in and around Rayleigh has actually increased in recent years ( contrary to the
    Developer initiated study claims above ). In fact this very same Brook flooded the adjacent newly built housing site just 18 months ago – which also straddles the Brook . Who is liable if this now happens ( RDC / Countryside / EA / ECC )?,
    remember all the pass the parcel on responsibility in the Somerset levels!!!.
    Q6 above – The SUDS system criteria is that it is homogeneous / complete /tested and proven before habitation , a long term phased build sequence would need the complete system in place to meet that criteria. The claim that a piece meal installed system will fulfil the criteria defies logic and there is absolutely no proof of this because :-
    the answer above admits that there is no committed timeline for Construction,
    is it 500 houses in 5 years or 10 years ( or any combination in between ) ? – so just how has a piece meal SUDS construction plan been considered / reviewed?,
    Remember the site next to this one flooded during Construction!!!.

  • Officers Report now out ( no doubt Admin will post the link soon ) , as predicted the Senior Officer is once again recommending approval to
    Councillor’s .
    That is it folks , our fate now rests with how many Councillor’s have the bottle
    to oppose it ( basically little difference from before as far as I can see ) , well
    he is the Architect of the Local Plan – not going to say no is he…..

  • ECHO item Friday 25th , page 23 ( 500 Home mini village ):-
    So , once again, RDC policy is dictated by one ( unelected / no vote ) Official !!!!!
    At the first hearing there were so many people trying to attend it was a lock out, and the video screening in a separate room did’nt work – so an elected Councillor has suggested a bigger venue this time ,only to be over-ruled by Sean Scrutton . Bear in mind this man is the architect of the Core Plan , has now twice recommended approval of the Countryside proposal.