We understand that if the inspector approves the allocation document, that sometime next year the house builder Countryside Developments will carry out a public consultation on the housing “North of London Road”.
It will involve leaflets to every home in Downhall and Rawreth, Sweyne Park and Grange Wards, exhibitions in 2 or 3 local venues, and a website…
Graham Cherry….now what a surprise….a public consultation which will count for Jack Sh*t.
Excellent – the first of a series of opportunities for everyone to turn up and register the mass opposition. I’m talking serious numbers (1000 attended the RAG meet at Mill Hall and 5000 signed the Petition. Remember that RDC Planning rules require the Developer to include Public Consultation “findings” within the Planning Application – this is your chance to make it a negative impression.
Watch out for dates/times and places.
Jim,
I totally agree with your post but Countryside Properties have faced local opposition for years but it’s made no difference whatsoever. The best you can hope for is some tweaking around the edges as a sop to any protests.
While people may express disapproval the opportunity to insist on certain provision must not be missed. e.g a purpose built doctors surgery, improvements to the road network, Proper drainage of the area. So while opposition to any development will no doubt be a very common response lets all temper it with a clear statement of why.
e.g. health services are stretched to breaking point in Rayleigh what provision will be made in this area
The road system can barely cope at present without new housing being built so plans will need to show significant investment in improving infrastructure
Should put some developers off and also hopefully put down clear marker as to what the population wish to see if development does go ahead
I agree Jim but Countryside are experts at getting planning permissions through no matter how many negative comments they get in the consultation process. Look at the amount of building they have done all over the area and how big they are. They didn’t get that way by accident.
Countryside Developements could not be better named! Because we need so much infrastructure to make the proposal sustainable,be aware that we do not get too many Beaulie Park type houses .We must maintain RDC policies when it comes to social housing provision .We kid ourselves that this will be local houses for local people as mentioned before we are providing units for Those further west we may become the future capital of the new county of TOWIE .
Yes, I am a realist – always knew this was a scale it down/ slow it down and as Bruce says get a better local infrastructure out of it, but don’t underestimate newspaper and TV coverage of mass dissent. That is not the bad press the Council and Government want coincident with local and national elections, they are already running scared as
It is becoming increasingly obvious the public are disenchanted with the ” system”.
As Bruce says a well constructed opposition on Roads,Flooding,Schools,Doctor-Dentist places, Trains, Bus services and emergency response services etc; supported by thousands will impact positively, watch out for dates etc;……..JIM.
A for example item from RDC’s own ‘Allocations Submission Document’ –
Re: Land North of London Rd ( clause 3.33) :-
“An area of approx 3.1hectares is within an area at risk of flooding (flood zone 2&3)
Based on most recent data from the Environment Agency.This should be set aside for public open space such as natural/ semi- natural greenspace.”
So thanks very much for designing the public facilities for being out of action and ,
Given our recent experience of flooding in that area, will water know not to flow
Beyond the greenspace – I don’t think so.
Jim makes a good point about emergency services. But also read the Standard Recorder about problems at Southend Hospital. How many more residents can this hospital cater for? Should there be pressure for a health care centre rather than just a new doctor’s surgery?
Agreed Jim. Each person I speak with on development issues has an extremely negative view on the Consultation process. With many questioning what the point is of holding a consultation in the first place when under massive opposition the plans are agreed anyway. The good old tick in the box no matter what the result.
So Michael be positive. Make clear that the developer can help ease congestion by agreeing to road improvements, a new doctor’s surgery to improve health provision in the town, opportunity to tackle the drainage issue. Everyone should reply and highlight all the problems that will be created and the chance to make improvements. Either it will put any developer off or make them aware of all the issues.
OK , so lets start the debate with traffic issues –
London Rd and Rawreth Lane are already overloaded so
what are these “developers” going to do about that?.
If you look on Google Map it is clear that the roads could be widened from the A1245 through as far as the
current physical pinch points (up to Trenders Ave on Rawreth Lane and up Garages on London Rd).Presumably roundabouts are involved on both roads for ingress & egress to/from the new mass housing sites.
Are the “developers” going to pay for and install that prior to ‘site’ development?, just like they have to pre-install the new Rayleigh Town Club facilities prior to abandoning the old facilities?.
Come on people – there are a thousand unanswered questions within the vague Allocations Document,start
your thinking now, ready for Countryside et al…. .
Jim, yes you are right traffic problems are a very big issue.
Also in connection with highways, would people want to see a road through the new development linking Rawreth Lane and London Road, a bus-only link, or no link at all?
Other big issues for me include:
Whether we are going to get a large enough public open space to be usable and enjoyable (and who will maintain it).
Flooding and drainage
Maintaining the identity of Rawreth.
Why we need a new primary school when St Nicholas was designed with the capability to expand.
How do we get better health facilities?
Flooding issues –
Again on Google map the water run-off (East to West) shows clearly , having routed through the Bellway Eon site ( as a feature!!!!!) it currently dissapates via field ditches out onto the fields ( which they are going to build on) – what are they going to do about that?. No doubt flood ponds and culverts – that did’nt work recently ( Fairview/ Salem/ Canterbury etc;) and those people still are not back in their homes, OH and the ASDA
Estate, still insufficient pump- away capacity……..
Come on people these are some of the serious structured questions to be asked and solutions payed for by “developers”.
If all these objections are taken on board who though is responsible for getting the developers to do and pay for the infrastructure stuff. All we hear from RDC is that Highways is ECC, health is NHS, education is ECC, not their problem guv!. Can planning permission be granted conditionally? i.e. they can only go ahead if all this work is done.
Christine makes a good point, is this consultation not worth the Epaper it’s written on ?
Good point Christine ( Cllr Seagers regularly tells us there is no joined up thinking as you say above ) – Bruce or Chris will no doubt respond on your point.
Today’s issue is Schools –
Both Sweyne & Fitz are currently over subscribed, the addition of 600 in Rayleigh
Plus 550 in Hullbridge ( their children are bussed into Sweyne & Fittz) will no doubt
Make the situation worse, what are they going to do about that ( before overflow)?.
They will tell us ( like Deanes) a falling birthdate – so why then do we need all these houses at all!!!!!!, no Senior School mentioned in RDC plan – Christine’s point above =
Not our problem Guv………pathetic.
OK so we’ve mentioned Roads and Schools, time for some everyday infrastructure support details, I ‘m no authority on it so (anyone) what is the impact on :-
Trains ?, plenty of spare rush hour capacity?.
Doctors , plenty of spare places / no problems with appointment availability?.
Dentists?, plenty of NHS places readily on offer?.
Interestingly, when Salisbury / Kelso ( just East of ASDA) housing was built a Surgery was shown on the ‘developers’ plans – never happened, and I can’t see any proposed
Surgery North of the London Rd. It does vaguely mention ‘local shop units’ subject to viability – so plenty of wriggle room there for ‘developers’.
How about emergency services, despite all the crisis / cuts / streamlining/ rationalization we have read about for 20 years how are they going to cover not only
Rayleigh – Rawreth but Hullbridge / Hall Rd / Blinking Owl etc; , literally thousands of additional residents across this district – can’t see any statistics for that in the “plan”.
There will need to be some form of ability to drive through any new development in case of emergency. If say a fire engine needs to reach a house there would need to be 2 ways to reach it. See 13
Flooding – walk along Hullbridge road to Lubards farm. The ditch is blocked in place and several drains are blocked. How confident can we be that some responsible authority will maintain thse items in an exc. condition? I doubt if Jim is any less confident than I am.
If we, who lets face it, are not town planning experts, can see all these problems and issues then why can’t RDC Planning Officers? I know there is a lack of joined up thinking at lot of the time, but surely someone, somewhere, must have thought about at least some of these issues.
Besides the “what”, you need to think about the “how” i.e the terms and conditions of work eg no sunday working; start/finish times; noise control; access routes.
When Countryside last built in Hockley, residents put a lot of work in to getting an S106 agreement between the developer and RDC. To be honest, Countryside frequently broke it and, as usual, RDC refused to do anything, but its better than nothing.
Christine / Oz – that is why I am trying to promote mass ( organized) objections at both the Consultation & Planning Application stages, unless we ask all these questions and cite previous/ existing examples it will not change. Developers only objective is profit,
As many units per square metre as they can get approved – the residual / downstream problems are not important to them ( nor to Non-Rayleigh Councillors who voted this lot through). Prime example was the recent flooding – Anglian water / Environment Agency ( and Bellway eon site) all denied any responsibility and of course Cllr Cutmore’s famous TV news clip was basically ‘residents have to sort their own flooding out’ . If I can find it on here I will be asking help from the resident who has catalogued the under capacity pumping design at Priory/ ASDA site, because we need to technically challenge the sort of schemes they will propose to answer flooding questions.
And we mus’nt forget the Michelin Farm proposal ( Heavy Ind Estate + Travellers Site + Recycling Plant) , I cannot see any traffic impact assessment and let’s not forget
That both the Fairglen and Richlee roundabouts both flood with heavy rain ( not exceptional rain just heavy rain).
The RDC Allocation document mentions two access points, one the A127 slip road
And the other onto the A1245, now if the entrance is via the slip road point then Rayleigh residents will need to drive up to Wickford/ Nevendon junction and drive all the way back to deliver their recycle items. If it is the exit then the slip road is going to become a dangerous place to be as high speed A127 traffic attempts to use it too.
Although RDC champion Michelin farm they will not be responsible for it! ECC are
Going to own & manage it – but ECC have recently confirmed that RDC will be paying for it ( that is you & me paying for it via Council Tax) .
Nearest comparable Travellers Site ( slightly smaller at 12 pitches) is Colchester at
£1.9 million plus ongoing maintenance and management costs, so at least £2.4 million plus ongoing expense for “our” larger/ later version.
So millions solving a problem we don’t currently have only to create a problem we don’t need – endorsed by you MP Mark Francois by the way.
Jim – In the 8 years that Priory Chase/Temple Way have been here, there have only been 3 instances where the sewerage system on this development has been compromised, twice with sewerage running openly down Priory Chase from the small geyser on the roundabout, and the last instance was the 10th March 2012 when sewer gas was escaping through our downstairs toilet, which resulted in the discovery of a non moving system that took many hours for Anglian Water to sort. However, not all of the problems are as a result of a poor sewerage system, the photographic evidence that was taken does shows food waste, such as french sticks in the drain.
OK thanks for the info, and I appreciate that any system has a design limit ( that does’nt include muppets putting French sticks down the loo), but the poster I am referring to did enough to prove the system design is too limited for purpose even
In legitimate use.
My point is that when the developer explains his solution to building on a flood plain we need ‘systems’ that are maximum in design not the minimum they can palm us. Off with.
Thanks again – JIm.
Jim at thread 23. I can help you on this and I am happy for Cllr. Black to pass my email address on to you if you contact him.
Greenbelt – thank you ,I will contact Chris, then yourself via e- mail.
This is a good example of how this ( moderated) forum can be a vehicle for
Coordinating Rochford District residents in influencing a one party dominated Council,
And I hasten to add I do not have any party political allegiance to anyone.
Chris and Co can I suggest this site is advertised more prominently via an item in
Your newsletters perhaps?……JIM.