Another frustrating council meeting…
The government inspector has asked for a number of changes to the council’s allocations document. The most notable change concerns what happens if development sites are not developed as quickly as expected…
The council has to allocate land so that there is always a 5 year supply of building land available. In case there is a shortfall somewhere , the council’s document allows extra housing at the other sites. However this only happens if
A) there is a shortfall elsewhere
B) if there is still space available for any proposed amenities or infrastructure
C) any extra housing would be capped at 5% of the original proposal. So for example, at the “North of London Road” site, where the proposed figure would be 550, there could only be an extra 5% of 550, which would be 28 extra homes.
However the inspector wants to do away with the 5% cap, which means that some sites could end up with a lot more housing.
The Conservatives pushed this through last night, despite an amendment to keep the 5 percent cap, proposed by Chris Black, seconded by John Mason, and supported by Ron Oatham, Christine Mason plus Michael and Diane Hoy.
At least one Conservative councillor abstained.
This now goes to another round of public consultation…
And what good will that do? I think we already know how much notice RDC actually take of what the public wants. They could have 5,000, 10,0000, 20,000 responses against removing the cap and will still go ahead and do exactly what they want to do anyway. No such thing as democracy, listening to your constituents etc. any more.
Having read the above, I truly believe that the Conservatives are beholden to explain exactly why they have voted in favour of lifting the 5% cap, even though this now goes to another round of public consultation. They must by now know that most Rayleigh people are opposed – sometimes vehemently – to this amount of development on the west side of their small town. What do they think they are doing by acting contrary to the general consensus? It beggars belief!
It might be worth explaining the point of “public consultation” now that our elected
Representatives ( RDC) voted the way they did – because they saw consulting with the Inspector as a risk to finding their plan ‘unsound’. This demonstrates a lack of confidence in their own Plan and obviously does’nt reflect the views of the relevant
Public ,which SOME of the local Ward Councillors tried to represent.
Christine & Mary – the only chance of them taking any notice is via the
election box (Council elections 2014 and General election 2015).
I sincerely hope that the residents of Rayleigh/Rawreth &Hullbridge seize
that opportunity.
What if Rayleigh has a shortfall will this be picked up elsewhere. I suggested building 50 mansions and leaving other areas to pick up the 450 shortfall.
I take your point Jim, but it will be too late then won’t it (perhaps Chris can confirm). My understanding is that once this Core Strategy thing is adopted that is it, it can’t be undone at a later date, so no matter how we vote next time round this lot will have had their way.
Thanks for your comments.
Christine @1 – the results of the consultation will go directly the inspector, not back to RDC. But , although I will object to teh removal of the cap, and will encourage others to do so, it is unlikley to change the inspector’s view.
Mary@2 – the arguments put forward by the Tory speakers were 1) We don’t really need a cap because there isn’t going to be a shortfall anywhere and 2) if we don’t make all the changes that the inspector wants he will decide the allocations document is unsound.
That begs the questions what happens if the inspector did decide the allocations document is unsound. Well, the core strategy would still in place with the overall figures – eg still 550 “North of London Road”, still 50 in “West Hockley” etc etc. But without the allocations document in place a developer would then be able to apply to build in a different location “North of London Road” , “West Hockley ” etc etc to where the council wanted.
So by acquiescing to the inspectors wishes, the council keeps control on the precise locations, but loses some of its control over numbers.
Recent past example , Priory Close (ASDA) estate, 94 units scheduled but 142 built,
Serious flooding issues to boot – Government Quotas >Tory controlled Council>
Government Inspector> rubber stamped by Government Secretary of State .
Be it Castle Point/ Basildon/ Southend or Rochford it’s the same done deal report
In the Echo every week – not rocket science is it?.
Christine Paine @6 – Elections can change thinking – an example of that was when Jackie Dillnutt won for us in Sweyne Park Ward for us, and the original 1800 houses figure was cut.
But yes, by the next round of elections I expect the Allocations Documment will already be adopted. And even if it isn’t , the Core Strategy has been adopted since December 2011. So elections won’t change the core strategy.
Though having said that , I’m sure all this will still be a big issue during the elections.
Next time voting comes round, we must vote independant and ensure there is no majority of main parties in rdc.
its the only way to stop corruption.
Dont vote for one of the three main parties,its the only way to fight back.
@Fight Corruption
The “main” and “national” Political Parties in the UK are much greater than Conservative, Labour and Lib Dem. I am sure that you know that.
An “Independent Councillor” is one who is NOT representing a “national political party” in any form.
So do Vote for an “Independent Councillor” candidate as defined above but please do not confuse an “Independent Councillor” candidate with one standing for any other “national political party”.
@Fight Corruption
If you are going to attack the ‘three main parties’ don’t forget that UKIP has already a pretty poor record. For example, the former UKIP MEP for our own area was sentenced to prison for committing fraud: “He channelled £39,000 of taxpayers’ money into a secret bank account and spent it on cars and wine.
His trick was to pay his assistant £500 a month, say he was paying her £3,000 a month and pocket the difference.”
https://www.onlinefocus.org/?p=3073
But you are really talking about the council elections. And I don’t know why I am less trustworthy as a Lib Dem councillor than Michael Hoy who is a Green Party councillor, or John Mason who is basically an independent.
I vote differently to Michael Hoy sometimes, that doesn’t mean that one of us is corrupt – it means we differ in our views. And even though the Conservative Group often vote for things I’m against – and often frustrates and depresses me – I don’t think they are doing it out of corruption.
Also remember that when independent councillors get elected they normally form a political group of their own – such as in Southend. But in my opinion it’s not having organised political groups that’s the problem – the real problem is having a firm party whip that pressurises councillors to follow a party line. I’m happy to say that we don’t operate a whip in the Lib Dem group – we talk about some issues beforehand but then vote how we feel.
fact is the current set up is not democratic – the Council is 39 strong, and even if all
Rayleigh / Rawreth Councillors voted the same they would still be beaten by the Tory majority. That is predominantly Councillors who are not accountable to us , actually dictate our fate with no comeback at our Ward election boxes.
However if Rawreth/Rayleigh/Hulbridge/Hawkwell could get it together ( none Tory)
We might stand a chance of Councillors actually representing us.
Does’nt have to be all Independents, because some existing Councillors ( Chris & Ron) do consistently try and represent residents views, so collectively the only way to mount a serious challenge, now that would be democracy.
You beat me too it Chris, I was going to say that Lib Dems and others don’t follow a party whip in the way Conservatives do. If the whip was removed and the Conservatives could vote however they felt then there would be no objection to one party having the sort of majority that they do. While they operate the whip system though none of their Councillors can ever vote in an objective way, and this has to be wrong. But, on the other side, if every Councillor voted however they wanted, in accordance with what their particular constituents want, or don’t want, and just go by the interests of their ward and not the area as a whole would this actually make things any better? I have a feeling it wouldn’t. Although, to my mind, an elected Councillor owes his constituents a duty to do his best for them, there have to be times when the overall good must come before the good of a few people. If every Councillor started putting results at the ballot box before the good of the district we could end up in a right old mess. I don’t agree with the Conservative majority on RDC ramming things through on the whip system the way they do, but I can see their point of view and I can see how things could go badly awry in a free for all.
Christine – you are of course right that people ( human nature) would concern themselves more with their own local issues, but please do not imagine that the
Same human ‘nature’ would’nt take advantage of a monopoly situation too – ie:
What we have now.
In fact that is why we are governed remotely from the EU, remotely from Westminster village and remotely from other towns in RDC , why we give away billions in Aid only
For our own to go short in the UK ( in particular young & old people).
Put you own local house in order first.
JIM.