A Traveller Site On London Road? It’s Not Going To Happen!

July

26

6 comments

?

Following the recent meeting at Pope John Paul II Hall, a Rayleigh Action Group has been formed to try to resist what’s proposed in the core strategy for “West of Rayleigh”. At the very least, they are raising public awareness and they will be hoping to do much better than that.

We know that some of the group are very concerned about the traveller site. They worry that a government inspector is going to move the location of the proposed Traveller site from the Fairglen Interchange (the little bit of purple in the left-hand corner of the map) to directly on London Road (where we’ve marked the proposed employment land).

It’s not a ridiculous worry – the London Road was one of the options put forward three years ago. But councillors didn’t like that idea at all and kicked it out. The question is – could an inspector over-rule the council and put it back there against their wishes? The answer is no.

We’ve had the following confirmation on this from the District Council this week:

If the Inspector finds the Allocations document is sound and legally compliant, he is required to recommend that it can be adopted by the Council.

If however the Inspector does not recommend adoption, but recommends modifications to the Plan, the Council will have to decide whether to implement the Inspector?s recommendations in order to be allowed to adopt the Plan; or alternatively make its own modifications and re-submit the amended document to the Inspector for examination.? A change as significant as an alternative site for allocation would be a decision that could only be made by Full Council.

For example, in the event that the Inspector conducting the examination into the Allocations Document found that the GT1 allocation was unsound the Council would have to suggest its own modifications and re-submit to the Inspector.? It is also highly unlikely that the Inspector would recommend to the Council that it change and re-submit an allocation of land without further public consultation.

In short, the Inspector cannot require the Council to adopt a Plan on which it has not agreed. Any material changes would have to be agreed by Full Council.

 

At the moment we’ve no indication that the Inspector isn’t going to accept the council-owned and council-run site at Fairglen.

But even if he rejects that location, the council would have to vote on a new site. And it’s hard to imagine that councillors would vote to put one on London Road. And almost certainly there would have to be further public consultation as well. There are lots of development issues to worry about, but worrying about a Traveller Site on London Road is just a distraction.

About the author, admin

  • There is a traveller site just off the A127 about 20 caravans. Have heard no mention or concern raised about this. Perhaps a small site, legally set up with strictly enforced limits may not be the threat everyone thinks. especially at the proposed site junction A127 and A 1245. Quite a way from housing, easy access in and out. It will not be a very hospitable site being near two busy roads and possibly a new civic amenity site. A dump in otherwords.

  • Travellers do not like to use official sites. They prefer to find their own land and populate it illegally and have their own Landlords!
    I have stated before, up in Suffolk, where my in laws live, there is a lovely official Local Authority site with all services there for travellers to use.
    There are usually no more than one or two caravans at most, if any, in residence as they do not like the officialdom of it.

    I notice our A1245 travellers continue to erect buildings etc on this land. What happened to the enforcement notice on this land?

    CCR

  • I was at this meeting and it was clearly stated that an action group was to be set up, which indeed it has. However, I clearly remember the speakers, Linda Kendall and Patricia ??? saying the action group would include the residents of Rayleigh, Rawreth and Hullbridge. A resident from Hullbridge even sat on the stage and addressed the packed hall of residents in attendance. I left the meeting clear in my mind that the action group would be called THE RAYLEIGH, RAWRETH AND HULLBRIGE ACTION GROUP but it now seems that although the support of these two other parishes is being sought, are we not worthy of being included in the title?. A longer title may not fit the need for a stupid acronym (RAG) but is one really necessary anyway. I am purely a resident of Rawreth, not a councillor or someone with influence, but I having lived in Rawreth Lane for 30 years I know exactly how the RD Council manipulate planning and developement. I’ve seen it all before, hence I keep myself well informed and have been well aware of this development proposal since it was first raised seven years ago.
    There is no excuse for those in the London Road area not knowing what has been going on as nothing has been hidden as is being suggested.
    Not only have I been aware of all the proposals, I have formally opposed the greenbelt and infrastructure proposals in the RDC Local Development Framework on both occasions before and after the government inspectors official scrutiny of the full LDF document. I was also called by the inspector to the hearing to explain to her my reasons why the lack of improvements to road infrastructure in the District was unsound due to no full road traffic assessment being produced.
    I think the formation of an action group will certainly help the cause but I am not convinced that I can agree with each and every point that has been raised so far. I need to give this some careful thought before I sign the action groups petition.
    So Linda Kendall and Patricia, if you have read this, I would like to hear your comments.

  • I agree with you Greenbelt .Throughout the whole saga we have been involved and also kept fully informed by our district Councillors .It seems unfair and wrong that our and the neighbouring ward Councillors have been seen to be remiss in their duties .It seems that despite the years of warning and cajoling to be involved most residents have buried their heads in the proverbial sand.Only to re emerge too late ,but good luck in their campaign ,I fear too little and far too late .Beware of what you wish Rag ,you may be looking at the wrong target .As has been pointed out some areas have little allocation whereas those wards with minority representation are to take the brunt .there were three brown field sites in Rayleigh and Rawreth that could have taken all necessary developements ,without the necessity to take prime agricultural land .Hall lane was on grade 1/2 land and according to government guidelines should not have been considered for developement .There are many unanswered questions unfortunately the Inspector will not be considering as they seem to me to be political decisions .

  • I have signed the petition, although I agree with the majority of the issues HOWEVER I am FOR homes being built on the existing Rawreth Lane Industrial Estate (and hopefully in time also the MAKRO site). Why? Because the noise and air pollution from the industrial estate has increased over the last year or so. Our intruder alarm also keeps getting triggered due to interference from an unknown source but this coincides with the general trading hours on the Industrial Estate And has also only started in the last year or so (We have had this issue proffessionally looked at but there is no solution).
    I am also continually dismayed at the continued apathy and lack of action by any Councillors in relation to the existing illegal Travellers Site on the A1245 near the junction of Rawreth Lane. Failure to enforce the eviction of these so called “Travellers” has set a precedent for future illegal settlements to spring up in the district because no enforcement action is taken.

  • I would be interested to hear what Eric Pickles has to say on the illegal Travellers site on the A1245 (junction of Rawreth Lane) and the Councils continued apathy to taking enforcement action….

  • {"email":"Email address invalid","url":"Website address invalid","required":"Required field missing"}
    >