BREAKING NEWS : THE INSPECTOR’S INTERIM REPORT

October

18

29 comments

develmap5

 

The planning inspector’s ‘Interim Report ‘ on the Site Allocations? can be downloaded by clicking? here.

We are still looking at it but the key points seem to be:

1) The inspector is satisfied with most of the housing site allocations, but he wants to reduce the housing proposed for Canewdon

2) For each of the housing sites, RDC had proposed that slightly more homes could be built there if there was a shortfall elsewhere, but only up to a possible maximum of 5% extra. The inspector doesn’t want to have any limit on this possible extra housing, which is worrying.

3) The inspector thinks the proposed employment land south of London Road (NEL1), isn’t needed, so that proposal is likely to be scrapped:

In my opinion Policy NEL1 is not deliverable and therefore ineffective and does not comply with national policy. Removing this site from the Plan would, in my view, be sound and the Plan would
be consistent with the Core Strategy in that eventuality.

4) The inspector seems satisfied with the proposal for the traveller and employment site at Michelin’s Farm / Fairglen – he barely mentions it in his report.

5) The inspector wants to make the site for 550 homes “North of London Road” slightly bigger, by extending it 30 metres further to the west. He thinks this would give a more suitable boundary and have the access road inside the site rather than in the Green Belt.

6) The inspector has also written about the Hockley Area Action Plan – click here to download.

Key paragraph:

Policy 6 is not sound and should be revised taking account of the following principles:
Setting a maximum overall additional retail capacity of 3,000 sq m (gross)
Removing reference to food (although this would not preclude an individual proposal from coming forward);
Giving priority to smaller shops or the expansion of existing stores; and
If a proposal for a large single store does come forward it would be expected to
demonstrate that ?clawback? of expenditure from other centres would be achieved and to assess the implications for them
. Any such scheme should also show that a development of this size would not harm th overall vitality of Hockley by, for example, marginalising
existing units.

7) He prefers to use a different site in Great Wakering for employment land.

About the author, admin

  • Deeply disappointing that there is no comment on travellers site, despite even Basildon Council objecting to it, and that he has not commented on housing for Rayleigh, infrastructure concerns etc. Seems as though all local comments, opposition etc. has been completely ignored and swept under the carpet. No doubt Mr Francois will be delighted that he has his “well regulated” travellers site to ruin our once lovely town. Ah well, elections are coming both local and national and the betrayal of the population of Rayleigh will not be forgotten.

  • Christine – can understand your disappointment but the (Tory) Government driven quotas implemented by a (Tory) Council then reviewed by a ‘Government’ Inspector = not surprising.
    Minor victories include both Swallow Aquatics area and Rawreth Ind estate not happening;
    but this conceptual design stage is only the beginning.
    The next detailed Planning stages require that the Public are consulted and the results of that be included within the Planning applications.This is the meaningful phase where the existing residents can make that
    process reflect the widespread opposition at
    each and every turn.
    This document is being actively analysed and a
    structured opposition plan (short/medium & long term) will emerge from the RAG shortly.

  • Mighty Oz, that is more people on the site than at Dale Farm. Ask anyone in Crays Hill and Wickford what that did for the local shop and town centre there.

  • Jim / Christine,

    The original Dale Farm plan was, I believe, for 34 pitches. The site then grew to accommodate over 200 people. That is not the same as this proposal is it.

    Opinion is one thing but facts speak for themselves.

  • Re: Oz above – the formal definition of a Pitch is one fixed/one mobile habitat plus
    an additional small Caravan to cater for teenage children, so it could legally be 3 times the “apparent” impact.More to the point
    is that “mixed” sites (Travellers/Gypsies/Show People) do not work as they do not “mix” and
    compete for the very limited itinerant type of
    work they seek.
    Please justify the millions it will cost to solve a problem that we don’t currently have?

  • Much has been said, both on these pages and nationally, about providing homes for future generations. Well, I have a question for RDC, and this is also one I am putting to Mr Francois, David Cameron, and Eric Pickles.

    Do you think that those future generations will readily forgive you for so carelessly squandering the land that could have provided them with food. The land that acted as green lungs all over the country, the land that kept them from being hemmed in surrounded by a sea of people and development with polluted air to breath and no room to run and play. Will they thank you for allowing this country to become so over populated that there is no alternative left other than to build and build and build and still not keep up with the birth/date rates. When they look at old films, read history books, they will weep for what you have thrown away so readily. This generation of Councillors and Politicians will go down in history in a wave of infamy for being the people who finally killed off middle England and turned it into a treeless wasteland. Do you want to be remembered that way? If not I suggest you start standing up for your constituents now – tomorrow will be too late.

  • Oz, this site is has the option to extend to 22 pitches. Say, 5 individuals per site results in 110 people.

    People should be under no illusion that this is a small site. It clearly isn’t. With respect, To indicate otherwise shows a significant lack of understanding of what’s happening.

  • Jim,

    I have looked everywhere but I cannot find the figures that add up to the millions of pounds that you talk about to fix a problem that has not yet occurred.

    Where do they come from ?

  • Michael.

    I fully understand the “problem” and I am as unhappy as everyone else about the whole situation. What I do object to is the way people seem to over react to every problem that comes our way. ( like the bus stop )

    I really do not see how this site will ruin ( someone else’s words, not mine ) Rayleigh. However the proposed site is the best option, better than the London Road and at least out of sight. The land is presently a complete eyesore so I can’t get worse, can it ? As for our esteemed Traveller friends we have the police to sort them out if they start to cause problems don’t we.

  • The point being overlooked is that Dale Farm is/was a privately owned site, the G&T site proposed by RDC is to be a MUNICIPALLY owned and controlled site run on RDC’s behalf by the established G&T unit of Essex CC, which has an exemplary record on its sites around the County, as those who attended the recent Police & Crime Commissioner meeting will have heard. The limit is 15 pitches full stop.

    Christine
    As has been pointed out many times previously, having no Core Strategy is NOT a viable option. Your suggested alternative of no RDC Core Strategy and plan for the future housing requirement etc. is now being explored, soon to the far greater cost of their residents and the green belt, by some Essex planning authorities without an approved Core Strategy in place, which are now being preyed upon by developers. Their councillors will almost certainly be responsible for far more green belt and farm land being lost when their initial refusals of numerous major green belt planning applications are successfully challenged on appeal for want of having a rolling five year supply of development land. Would you really prefer Rochford District residents to be facing that sad situation?

  • Jim Cripps re post#2

    When I last looked there were rather more than a few Lib-Dem Ministers in the COALITION Government and the relevant planning law which they and RDC are implementing is very largely that inherited from LABOUR. The Planning Inspectorate is comprised of apolitical civil servants.

    The RDC Development Committee is quasi-judicial in nature and all councillors are bound to determine planning applications in compliance with planning law and in accord with its Core Strategy and those site allocations now confirmed. It is non-political and un-whipped by all parties.

    Failure to act in accord with those planning law requirements when determining major development applications would quickly result in RDC being deemed a failed planning authority and the councillors duties being handed to unelected civil service ‘grey suits’ to undertake, after probably also losing eye-wateringly heavy costs likely to be awarded to the applicants on appeal.

  • Colin, I fully accept that there has to be a Core Strategy and the consequences of not having one. What I object to is the content of the Core Strategy viz a viz Rayleigh, use of greenbelt as opposed to available brownfield, number of houses etc. etc. Nationally I feel, as I have said before, the problem is not too few houses, it is too many people fuelled by an unfettered immigration programme and the fact that many immigrant families tend to have, on average, a higher number of children per couple than British families. Now RDC cannot be blamed for that and, to an extent, are dealing with the fall out, but we can’t just build and build. It’s an island, we run out of room at some stage.

  • Christine, net immigration is a factor in the national demand for housing, as is more people living alone and people living longer…..

    That does influence things locally, but there’s a particular factor for Rayleigh- it’s because we’ve had an above-average increase in housing ever since WW2. We wrote about it here:

    https://www.onlinefocus.org/?p=11602

    For example, Rayleigh’s population doubled between 1950 and 1960 and grew in every decade following. Because of this we have truly almost run out of room, there are no easy large sites left to develop, except on or over Rawreth’s borders. And we certainly haven’t increased our road capacity by anything like enough. No new roads out of Rayleigh since the Arterial was built in the 1930s.

  • Re: Oz No 10 –
    Nearest / latest example is Colchester opened about a year ago , 12 Pitch Site cost £2.4million plus unstated yearly management & upkeep costs – fact.

  • Re: Colin, No 13 above –
    Do not misunderstand me, I have no political
    bias,my point was, it starts with government goes full circle and is then reviewed and approved by government – the ‘done deal’your
    fellow councillor stated long before the so called “Inspector’s Hearing”.
    Would be the same under any of the 3 ‘main’
    parties because there is little difference between career politicians ie: Tony Blair was Mrs Thatcher’s biggest disciple.

  • Chris, Its good to see a politician raise the issue of roads, it would be good to get some clarification on our local politicians thinking.
    A recent paper on the Evidence Base, shows that ECC Highways want to focus on the “strategic A127 and A130” routes and do not want improvements that will draw traffic from those two roads. So just what road improvements can we expect?
    Cllr John Mason recently drew attention to the possibility (probability?) of thousands more houses being imposed on us, and the Inspector’s wish to avoid a limit seems to endorse this, so just where is the extra traffic going to go?
    Cllr Seagers – your party seems to avoid this question every time it is raised. can you please enlighten us?

  • I’ve been pretty downbeat over the last couple of days. I didn’t really expect the inspector to scrap the housing “North of London Road” , because the principle of that was decided by the previous inquiry, but I’m still left feeling disappointed.

    As far as West Rayleigh is concerned when the process started there was clearly an idea to develop the whole of the green fields up to the A1245. The first public consultation was on that basis. Well, after Jackie Dillnutt won in Sweyne Park ward and after all the campaigning we did, the amount of housing was more than halved. So that was an achievement.

    But even so Rawreth is going to receive vastly more development than any other similar village in the District. And although I’ve received a couple of messages from someone implying that development can be a good thing, providing homes and facilities for people, if all this development was going to be good for the parish, other villages would be queueing up and begging for it – and they’re not!

    Traffic problems are going to get worse, and the best outcome now is to try to get a development as well designed as Downhall Park Way, It will be very interesting to see what the Inspector says in his main report about the infrastructure required.

  • Oz, while I appreciate your response and agree re your comments relating to bus stops, i disagree strongly with you thoughts that the traveller site is the best option. This isn’t the best option at all. Quite far from it in fact. RDC has not even managed to consult the traveller and gypsy council regarding their needs. If they had, they would have learned that large traveller sites do not work. Firstly, travellers, by their own admission do not want to be governed by the settled community. They have thier own hierarchy and respect culture and are self regulating. This is a great approach as long as local councils don’t try to mix English, Irish, and other traveller groups in a single site as different traveller groups are tribal by nature and don’t mix whatsoever. It’s at this point where challenges appear. This is something that RDC seem completely oblivious to. This has been highlighted by our own existing traveller community that doesn’t want to be forced on a site with different groups as they know it will result in trouble. Very poor due diligence by RDC. They should be ashamed.

  • re: No 20 above:-
    The fact is that whilst RDC promote the mixed Traveller site they will be free of any responsibility because the site will be owned and run by Essex County Council.
    If (when) it goes wrong RDC will very quickly point out they have no influence over it….
    so no wonder due diligence wasn’t a priority
    for the RDC Core Plan.

  • re:Chris No 19 –
    Cheer up Chris this is only the initial skirmish and now people are aware you
    can rest assured that objections to each and every planning application will be massive.
    Seems to me that the Inspector’s final report will be a mix of the Good, Bad & Ugly :-
    GOOD – that South of London Rd is unsound and
    that the Rawreth Ind Estate idea (200+ Units)is kicked into the long grass.
    BAD – that the Green Belt incursion is larger (on flood plain) and that the cap on units is removed.
    UGLY – That the flawed policy of “mixed” Traveller sites is to be pursued with no comeback on RDC decision makers (see above post)…………..JIM.

  • Couldn’t agree more, Jim. Not really suprised certain councillors haven’t responded to to the comments re lack of due diligence. This will play out, unfortunately, at the expense of the traveller site residents and the local residents who will foot the bill of rectifying this mess. This could be avoided so easily at a significantly lower implementation cost, but the strategy of corralling our traveller community into a single large site on the border of the district to stop incursion deeper into the district seems the optimum strategy for some of our elected public servants. These individuals are representing themselves and their chums, not the people they are supposed to represent. Time for change.

  • One thing to bear in mind Michael is that once the inspector is finished, if RDC decides to go ahead with this there will be need to be a planning application submitted by the district council to itself.

    Now you may think that would just be a formality, but this will require detailed reports to be submitted, consultations etc. The last significant application from RDC to itself was for the old planning offices in Acacia House , Rochford. Odd as it may sound , at the first attempt the Development Committtee wouldn’t pass the scheme and asked for an improved layout.

  • Re:No 24 from Chris –
    Interesting point ,who are the ‘Committee’ you mention and what degree of public consultation is involved in this please?.
    Because right now there is no conceptual design detail available for the proposals at Michelin Farm (that I can find). It seems to be just an idea – would have thought (as a minimum) a Traffic Impact assessment would be needed for the Inspector to pass this as a
    sound prospect.
    By that I mean ingress & egress points for vehicular traffic and it’s interplay with the
    busy (and usually flooded) Fairglen junction of the A127 and A1245.
    The Inspector simply refers to the Highway Authority change of mind (they opposed it originally ,as not viable)- suspicious!!!!.
    Can you imagine the usual Castle Rd recycling centre Q of traffic superimposed on the A127
    sliproad = chaos.
    We need to get this ‘self’ planning review out into the public domain ASAP………JIM.

  • Jim, it’s the Development Committee – all 39 district councillors. There is no party ‘whip’.

    There will need to be a proper planning application submitted, a separate planning officer will prepare a detailed report (which could easily be 10 or 20 pages) and there will be a chance for the public to make representations.

  • #26 – Thanks Chris, please flag up when this comes up on the agenda, I feel sure the public will participate in some numbers !!!!!.
    And to everyone else reading this, this group are those who voted the Core Plan through by overwhelming the local Councillors who voted against it.Next year sees Council elections so
    make sure you elect more local Councillors who reflect your wishes (or stand as an Independent
    yourselves.

  • Many thanks for the information Chris. Most useful. I’m quite sure a planning consultation will attract more than a few comments from local residents.

  • LAST chance folks – the 17th Jan is the deadline for formal objections to the
    Inspectors ‘ interim comments’ on the Allocations Document , so if you have
    a view on
    Impact on the London Rd & Rawreth Lane traffic ( during construction & beyond).
    Building on a Flood Plain.
    Overwhelming the local Infrastructure.
    Then get your objections in on time as he will be waving it through next month!!!!!.

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