Here We Go Again….




Keep your eyes peeled on this one. There could be more planning battles to fight…

From the District Council website:

Call for Sites (current stage)

The Council is looking to gather information from landowners and developers about land ? particularly brownfield/previously developed land ? that might be considered suitable for development (including residential, employment, retail and other uses) in the future through the Call for Sites. The Call for Sites is open from 22 June 2015 until 5pm on 28 September 2015.

The information attained through the Call for Sites will be assessed within the SHELAA and other evidence base documents and used to inform the preparation of the new Local Plan, should a need for additional land to be allocated be identified. It is not, however, guaranteed that any additional land will be required within the new Local Plan.

Even if a site has previously been put forward to the Council to be considered for allocation, the intention of the landowner or developer to continue to promote the site during the preparation of the new Local Plan should still be confirmed to the Council by responding to the Call for Sites.

If you would like to promote a site please complete and return the Site Information Form below along with an OS map of the site.

Additional supporting information / detailed site plans are not necessary at this stage. Only information submitted using the Site Information Form provided will be accepted.

Completed site information forms should be returned to the Council no later than 5pm on 28 September 2015:

by post: Planning Policy Team, Rochford District Council, South Street, Rochford, Essex. SS4 1BW
by email:
by fax: 01702 318181

About the author, admin

  • The Former HMP Bullwood hall would be an ideal place for a travellers site and 100’s of new homes, it’s unobtrusive, set back from the road and ideal brownfield site! Has the council not thought of this?

  • The last call for sites was a complete waste of time unless the location of your site was in one of RDC’s preferred areas. I submitted my site previously, and RDC got the site boundary wrong, made inappropriate comment about excessive pathways being required (!?) They didnt even look at the site until the day AFTER they released the draft core strategy. Proof surely that they did not consider all sites suggested before coming up with their preferred locations. Still I suppose many more pages to fatten up RDC’s evidence base to justify their preferred solution.

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