From their website:
Following the Development Management committee meeting on Thursday 29th January, Andrew Carrington, Managing Director at Countryside comments: ?We are very disappointed and surprised by Rochford Council?s decision to refuse the planning application for the site west of Rayleigh, which goes against the recommendation for approval made by the Council?s planning officers.?We will be reviewing our options over the coming days in order to ensure that we can bring forward this allocated housing site for development at the earliest opportunity.?
Surprised, Really !!! He should get a job with Euro Claggy, two complete idiots together….
And there’s more,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/countryside/11080751/Planning-rules-risking-the-countryside.html
Sir , it is very simple , the Officers Report and recommendation failed to convince the majority of Councillors because desk top study assessments ( aka opinions )are no substitute for years of local knowledge in respect of existing traffic & flooding issues.
I appreciate that the Officers Report is a synopsis , citing evidence to support his decision, but even that overview manages to highlight a number of shortcomings in
the evidence. A couple of examples for you –
Flood Risk :
The ECC input starts by admitting that they are not yet accredited in terms of SUDS design , that they have different criteria to the Environmental Agency who are themselves in the process of changing Flood Design criteria. I would therefore suggest that the design criteria is unclear and open to interpretation on a vital topic.
Highways/ Access :
Given that 3 simultaneous construction sites ( 500 + 50 + 500 ) will mean years of
large / heavy & regular ingress & egress of site traffic – it is’nt mentioned in the traffic assessment ( as it obviously could’nt be measured in the traffic census – which was anyway in a holiday period ). At peak the site workforce comings and goings will
alone create a significant impact on rush hour traffic ( probably 6 days a week ). I would therefore suggest that neither you nor the RDC Officers have even recognized
the worst case scenario as yet.
I am quite willing to furnish other items that have undermined confidence in the recommendation.
Take as long as you like Counryside. Perhaps this may become a Chilcot and be held back until after the elections in May. Who if anyone would benefit? Discuss.
Yes Bruce it did occur to me that the “for” vote of 10 seemed a little contrived – none of them actually pleaded the case they just voted at the end . In fact I sat next to two people from Countrside ( I could see their paperwork ) – they did’nt seem too surprised at the vote.
Countryside chappie next to me thought it would be September it would come back .He made copious notes was not too upset ,as I have said before Countryside always get their man !
A.Matthews @ 6 That’s what their representative told our Peter Scott at the 2013 Inspectors hearing. He said ‘It doesn’t matter how long it takes we always get our development in the end’. Made me who/what he knew to be so sure!
Admin, a question for you. If, after the 2015 elections, RDC were to go to no overall control and the cabinet system were scrapped would it then be possible for the full council to vote to take this land back into greenbelt and offer the developers an already identified brownfield site (or even sites to make up the total numbers) instead?
Good point Christine ( I assume you mean Council not General Elections ) , typically along with Basildon / Castle Point / Brentwood the numbers being brought forward are twice what recorded demographic ‘growth rate ‘ says we need .
So logically if we had to accommodate only 50% the viability of Brown Field / Infill building would be more achievable ( accross the district ) – but of course these quotas are driven by central government’s myopic master plan to concrete over the SE.????
Christine thats an interesting question. In the similar situation of the local plan back in the 1980s , when the Tories lost control and the Lib Dems became the largest party, we managed to delay the phasing of the Laburnum Way site and cancel the development of some council-owned land (allotments in Rayleigh).
If you look carefully the zoning of the land is now “SER1 / METROPOLITAN GREEN BELT”. Policy SER1 is the policy in the allocations document. I’m enquiring into what’s possible….. but bear in mind, even if the policy in the allocations document was overthrown, the previous document to that, the core strategy, still specifies development “North of London Road” .
I was looking at a government document about green belt .It does not appear to have much protection and it is up to local authorities to define or irridicate . Do councils have to formally destroy Greenbelt ? Or is it assumed with adoption of core strategies that the Greenbelt just disappears? .I do not think that is very satisfactory .There should be a way off bringing a proposal to change the lands designation separately from any developement proposals so Councillors will think more about implications .It is stated in the document that preused sites within the Greenbelt should be used in preference to greenfield sites .This was not followed. in our case .
Chris. If the old chestnut is produced by the ‘eastern bloc’ about ‘must build here to fulfil 5 year housing quotas’ they can be told to bring forward the site for 500 homes in Ashingdon, scheduled for the second phase of the Local Plan, that is already agreed. I think it is on Cllr Cutmores patch so he won’t mind. Anyway Cllr, Hudson was saying recently 7000 new jobs were going to Southend/Rochford airport development they will need people to fill them. Surely the Environmentally conscious amongst them wont want cars running back and forth to Rayleigh / Hullbridge causing all that ozone damaging pollution.
Cllr Hudson also made a written pledge to reward RTSSC ,for 40+ years of service to Rayleigh , with new and enhanced facilities – then renaged on it soon after the Inspector approved his allocation plan ( portfolio holder at the time ).
So frankly I would’nt put any faith in what he tells the ECHO about anything .
In the Echo today. But it is is Land North of the London Road NOT Hullbridge !!
“DEVELOPERS have appealed against a council’s decision to reject plans for 500 homes on green belt land.
Countryside submitted the appeal this week after Rochford District Council rejected plans to build on land off Malyons Lane, Hullbridge.
Hullbridge Residents’ Association carried out a vocal protest against the scheme.
Council planning officers recommended approval, but members rejected the plans.”
Explaining Countryside’s decision to appeal, the company’s managing director of strategic land, Andrew Carrington, said councillors’ reasons for refusing the homes were “unsubstantiated”.
He said: “The site at Rayleigh has already been allocated for housing and was recommended for approval by planning officers, and as such we felt we were left with little option but to appeal the unsubstantiated grounds for refusal, which were not supported by the evidence.”
Independent councillor and leader of the opposition, John Mason, said he was concerned about the potential cost to the council of the appeal.
He said: “In these cases, the appellant hires a legal team and so does the council to defend its decision, and it costs a lot of money.
“There’s also always a risk that costs may be found against the council, so it’s going to cost the council a lot of money.”
So who do they appeal to (Secretary of State ? ) who appoints an Government Inspector to rule on it – sounds familiar and an obvious outcome , does the Localism Act give us a say at this stage?.
If anyone is interested here is a little video from Mark Gino Francois’s Facebook page telling us about his achievements. As you can imagine it’s very short……
http://www.facebook.com/markfrancoisrayleighandwickford
Me @ 15 – can anyone explain how it works , do we ( those directly impacted ) have
any opportunity to state our case ( again ) , or is this now heading for the opinion of
one ( not effected ) person – Government Inspector?,
Jim I will start a new post this morning on the subject of the appeal, people can leave further comments there…