There’s a new application from Coral for 23 flats and 3 small commercial units in the space in front of Asda in Rawreth Lane, Rayleigh.
The application number is 10/00021/FUL and you can see the details here.
As always, we have to keep an open mind on this planning application until it comes to the council committee. However the key changes from their last application are:
Meanwhile their last application is scheduled to be dealt with by a government inspector on March 2nd.
Although I acknowledge that the new design seems to be a welcome improvement on the last design submitted for consideration – and which I note is still going forward to appeal, which given this new application is a gross waste of public money – I will be objecting to the application on the following grounds:-
1) A Hot Food Take-away shop should not be within 400 meters of a school. This is a precedent that has been set by other Essex District Councils to encourage children to have a healthy lifestyle but also to prevent public nuisance and safety issues caused by the congregation of children and littering.
2) Object to Social Housing of any kind on this site. This neighbourhood consists predominantly of Privately owned homes. This new development, in what is effectively ASDA’s car-park, is unlikely to be looked after by Social residents because of a lack of community identity and civic pride. This in turn is likely to contribute to the existing anti-social behaviour problems that are already suffered by this neighbourhood. This is turn will lead to a further devaluation of property and difficulty in selling property. Residents on Priory Chase already struggle to sell their homes.
3) The proposal for 23 flats and 3 shops being crammed into such a small area will lead to increased parking and access problems in the immediate vicinity. The double yellow lines outside existing homes on Priory Chase, painted by ASDA, should be removed and perhaps replaced by a FREE residents parking permit scheme. The remaining double yellow lines outside ASDA should be enforced and the No24 bus terminus removed and re-sited on Rawreth Lane. This will prevent the blocking of Priory Chase by the No 24 bus and ASDA’s delivery lorries. This is already a particular problem at peak times and leads to breaches of basic traffic laws and road safety. Deliveries to the proposed shops and the inevitable haphazard parking by customers of a take-a-way will obviously create additional problems.
4) Roof Gardens will overlook existing homes and will lead to further anti-social nuisance i.e. noise will travel further and disturb existing residents. Residents will dry washing on the roof which will be unsightly.
5) This site regularly floods and has obvious drainage problems. The addition of 23 flats and 3 shops will add to the problem as any natural drainage will be concreted over and put a strain on the drainage systems.
6) The proposal is exacerbating the over development of Priory Chase. The existing road layout is poor and inadequate and road safety issues have yet to be given proper consideration. Priory Chase and Temple Way have yet to be adopted by Essex County Council Highways. This should be a priority BEFORE any further developments are granted permission in this residential area.
It would be far better – but I’m sure highly unlikely – if this site was used for a small courtyard of affordable townhouses, for private sale, of a design that mirrors the existing homes on Priory Chase.
I had to drop into Asda yesterday (Sunday), and the car park was packed. I had to drive around looking for a space. I would imagine that extra retail units would cause parking requirements to exceed the capacity of the current Asda carpark, and lead to people parking in the road.
There are also, quite obviously, residents vehicles parked here from the flats opposite, and maybe even from houses the other side of Rawreth Lane. I know planning officers live in a parallel world, where restricting parking spaces causes everyone to walk, cycle and bus everywhere, but meanwhile, on planet Earth we know different. Perhaps they could visit us one day, although they may not find a space to park their UFO.
With regard to Item 1 in TWR’s post above – the school in question is a Primary School and, as such, children are not allowed off of the premises during the school day to purchase food and/or congregate.
ST1 – I think you will find that yesterday was an exceptional day for Asda – it was the end of the month, payday for many and also they had a high profile press campaign offering £5 and £10 discounts on shopping which appeared to have attract large volumes of customers way in excess of usual numbers for a Sunday.
Just a couple of observations!
TWR makes some good points here especially in respect of social housing, parking and flooding. Re the later, the run-off water from the Priory Chase estate is currently captured in a large underground reservoir and released slowly into the ditch which fronts the Laburnum Way estate. Twice in the last 18 months, following downpours, fast flowing water in the ditch has risen to within two inches of overflowing and creating a flood risk. On one of these occasions, Rochford Council quickly delivered sand bags to adjacent residents because they envisaged dwellings being flooded. This has been well documented with the council and I have photographic evidence but RDC will not accept improvements are needed. I am sure you are correct in you belief that the new development will add to flood risk potential.
A second point, which I direct to Admin, is regarding the shops. It is clear that just three shops are now planned and only one can be a food outlet. As all shops will be designated as retail premises, is there any possibility that in the event of poor uptake, the dividing walls could be removed to form one single unit?
If this turned out to be the case I can envisage one large food outlet being created, possibly occupied by a large national chain.
I hope you can answer NO to this point but I would welcome clarification if you can offer it.
The flooding issue is a good point.
Regarding the shops, they really sre quite small and even put together would not make a large outlet. I don’t think there’s any intemtion of combining them, but I can’t think of any planning reasons taht would prevent the dividing walls being removed.
CCR – It’s always good to have a balanced view! However I didn’t mention lunch time in my objection. Many of the older children at St Nicholas Primary School are not accompanied to/from school by adults. So my point equally applies to the afternoon when school has finished for the day and when the take-a-way is going to be open to capture the “tea-time” trade. Some of the Primary School students are taller than I am so the Pupils are not all tiny tots.
Greenbelt – You make an excellent point which I hadn’t considered about the possibility of the retail units being knocked together. If the Council planners can restrict the number of hot food take-a-way outlets then surely they can also restrict the square meterage of any given take-a-way?
I hadn’t even considered the horror of an International Brand moving in here(McDonald’s etc!) and the thought is even more horrific than a small local Chippie! 🙁
Admin – Can you please ask the Council Planners questions about:-
1) Restriction on Square Meterage of each unit.
2) Restriction on opening times.
3) Restriction on the locality to a school – such as the 400 Meter rule adopted by other District Councils.
TWR – How tall are you? I buy clothes which are classified as “Petite” i.e under 5’2″ and I have yet to see a primary school student year 6 taller than I am. 99.9% of children from St.Nichs are met by a parent/carer and would not be allowed to congregate outside a take-away and most certainly not after school hours. The only children meeting at this point would be from Sweyne Park – so do not include a primary school in your calculations just to get your own objections across.
Rita, I agree that St Nicholas Pupils would be unlikely to congregate anywhere outside of the school premises during school hours but why do you say “most certainly not after school hours”? The children I see regularly congregating outside ASDA in the late afternoons wearing the St Nicholas school uniform and unaccompanied inside ASDA must then be hallucinations? Rita please don’t use statistics plucked out of thin air to justify your point. I’m sure that a majority of children are met by an adult (hence the inconsiderate parking etc on Priory Chase) and I also see a great deal of adults walking children to/from school but some of the older pupils are not accompanied. Why is it that some parents are so ready to blame another sub-section of society rather than think that their children or their parenting skills could possibly be at fault? Where do you think the kids using Sweyne Park or the Leisure Centre Skate Park come from? SOME of them are actually local school children not from another space and dimension… One of my ex-neighbours had two children both pupils at St Nicholas (age 5 & 6) and these children were far from innocents when it came to playing with knives, torturing pet dogs, petty theft and playing outside unsupervised near ASDA until 10:00 at night. Other children from Temple Way are also regulars at the Skate Park/Sweyne Park…These kids are not ALL from outside of the immediate area. Everybody is entitled to an opinion Rita and my objections, whatever your personal view, are valid. Other Essex Councils have already enforced this planning rule for the benefit of local school children.
NO TO A TEEN SHELTER. Reading the above comments should make every local resident attend the meeting in March ( as per the last LD newsletter ) to object to the imposition of a teen shelter in any part of this area. Make no mistake – if this goes ahead you will live with the consequences for ever – do not believe for one moment that it will be on a 6 month trial. If you cannot attend in person then please make you feelings known either to Chris or our MP.