Refuse, Pass Or Defer?

May

25

3 comments

Apart from the Rawreth sports pitches, there were two other planning applications last Thursday? evening.

One was for a solar farm at Southend Airport, to help power the airport – this was passed. The other item was more contentious – an application to demolish some commercial buildings at 90 Main Road Hawkwell? and replace them with 37 houses.

In principle, the scheme had a lot going for it. It was a brownfield site,, which is the flavour of the month with everyone. Also the density — 34 per hectare – wasn’t particularly high. But there were plenty of concerns. None of the house types met the minimum government standards for interior space. (and our standards are about the lowest in Europe). Some of the gardens didn’t meet our policy standards, and some of the houses didnt meet RDC”s minimum 1 metre separation policy. (the root of these problems may be the irregular shape of the site). Also the scheme wasn’t financially viable? enough to allow affordable housing (something to bear in mind if we ever have an application at Rawreth Industrial Estate). Also Cllr Jamie Burton expressed grave concern about the? safety of the proposed pond/ drainage pool..

After a lot of discussion, nobody had moved anything, so after conferring with the ward councillors, John and Christine Mason,? Chris Black moved refusal. This got quite a bit of support? but was still defeated. Heather Glynn then moved approval – but only got only two votes in favour, including her own. Keith Hudson then moved deferral, and this was agreed. It gives time for a bit of negotiation and discussion.

About the author, admin

  • Good to see a Brown Field example ( but can you explain the Pond/ Drainage feature – is this a SUDS design feature# ) , but not so good that they are eroding house / spacing criteria to max the profit = ” mission creep” again.
    # Understanding the flood design via the deferral period is important – bear in mind there is no accredited SUDS Approval Body ( SAB)
    for this area and that the EA and ECC ( Consultees) design criteria conflict with each other , so the RDC expert on this will have to take
    responsibility for technical approval.
    Good to see the local ( Hockley ) Councillor getting involved in his own patch !!!!.

  • Re. The affordable homes issue. I was informed by the representative from Harrow Estates (Bullwood Hall Development) that there is a new dictat from Government issued last year that states when ‘ brownfield’ is being developed there is no need to provide ‘affordable’ homes in the project. Is this correct? Can someone from the Council / Councillor get this clarified by the Planners at RDC because Harrow said until they told them RDC were not aware of this new provision? Will it apply to all ‘brownfield’ sites?

    • Linda, I think this refers to a policy change where if a site is not financially viable with affordable housing, then the developer may not have to provide any. OF course, that begs the question, did the developer pay too much?

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