• Hardly worth having a “country” park when it will be hemmed in by 600 houses, the airport, Toomeytown AND an industrial estate. It’ll take some pretty urbanised wildlife to be at home in 24-hour floodlights and non-stop traffic noise.
    Might as well rebadge the town as “North Southend” or “East Rayleigh” and have done with it.

  • Karen a couple of points, its Sir Sillyboy and forgot to add, people in Rayleigh do not have Backyards, they have front and rear gardens, all immaculatley maintained.

    • Right up until their Council lets someone plant several hundred houses on ’em.
      You lot are no more safe than we are down this end so why waste time playing silly Bs?

  • Surely a Country park is just green belt land that has not yet been selected by our planning department for lucrative business or housing developments?
    Who can say no to big builders or business? Certainly not RDC I fear. There is some green belt land that it s worth developing, and this isnt that sort.

  • Zaphod, if it is any reassurance, land that is actually a country park is probably better protected from development than ordinary fields – a planning inspector would need some persuading that this was OK.
    Though it isnt 100% safe. Its better if the ownership is transferred to a charitable trust or something similar.

  • ADMIN – I am hearing rumours that the ” Bakers Dozen” Development Committee will soon be rubber stamping the Millionaires Row development
    of the Bullwood Hall site ( Hockley ). That should solve the first time buyer crisis!!!!!! – any formal notification of this on a Council agenda as yet ? – the
    peasants need to know what they are up to…..

  • YEP – in today’s Echo ( page 5 ) , a site that could accommodate 1400 is going to be set aside for just 60 luxury homes – lots of spin about not encroaching on Green Belt ( did they forget that in the Core Plan when they chose Rayleigh &
    Hullbridge green field sites for circa 1250 houses?).
    And remind me again who was Planning Portfolio holder at the Core Plan time – yes of course Hockley Cllr K Hudson…….

  • It is so interesting to see Jim Cripps wishing (Nov. 17th post) for 1400 houses! That is some U-turn, apparently brought about by his needing to fund his child(ren) to get them on the housing ladder, according to one of his innumerable letters published in the Echo. So now he finally gets why houses must be built locally to try and address the chronic housing shortage which is driving house prices and rents ever higher.
    Given its uses into 2013, I should advise him that that the Bullwood Hall site in Hockley was not available to be put forward in time by HM Government for consideration in the call for sites that were to be included in RDC’s Adopted Core Strategy. It is only now that the previously developed brownfield area of the application (4.2 hectares) has become redundant and open to development, but that ‘up to 60 houses’ application is sufficient for not even one twentieth of his claimed 1400 after allowing for preserved trees etc!
    Affordable housing (35%) is intended for rent at substantial discounts to commercial rents or sale at discounted prices, as some in social need with large families may require large houses, not just for a ‘posh’ 65% which effectively subsidises that provision. However, it should be noted that full (detailed) planning has yet to be considered and only indicative plans have been put forward at this outline application stage, so a broader mix of housing sizes may eventually result.
    I’m astonished Admin has not already explained such issues to address Jim’s utter confusion and prevent his, the West Rayleigh Action Group, Linda Kendall’s and the Echo’s repeated misleading statements on so many matters related to development in the District. Let us hope they too have a similar epiphany to Jim’s.

  • No need for astonishment Colin, sometimes I am wary of justifying an application in terms of planning policy context in case it is judged that I have “fettered my discretion…”

    We really need to bring back the area committees so that all councillors can engage with the public at those meetings.

  • Colin – I applaud your speaking out , no doubt you will now be censured for not
    following orders ‘to ignore the public at all costs ‘, nice to know that you know
    we are monitoring RDC closely.
    I must however correct your U turn comment , I was illustrating the lack of consistency in respect of the selective use of the green field site policy in one
    area verses another.
    I have never argued that we do not need houses , my entire opposition is based
    on the lack of any vision in respect of the provision of Infrastructure in proportion to the Development ( the outdated section 106 approach is too little too late ).
    You might like to read the latest independent research published by the ‘Campaign for the Protection of Rural England’ – Council set targets are
    consistently too high ” aspirational ideas rather than actual need…….