Housing On The Eon Site?

Hi Mike

You have an interesting point here that I would like to expand upon.

From my letter to Planning Inspector, Miss Laura Graham “What is of great concern to me is that in a letter of objection dated 16 June 2010 submitted to the Council in respect of the Hall Road Planning Application (10/00234/OUT), Colonnade Land LLP allege that in evidence to the Coombes Farm Appeal that the [RDC] Planning Policy Team Leader confirmed that the Council could not resist applications for residential development at the broad locations in the CS.”

If the EON site comes forward now by planning application for housing development as the Council seems to hope for then will this be in addition to all of the planning applications that are already committed in the 5 year supply and those that are covered by the above in the CS in the first five years?

As far as I can see there is no build in Rayleigh for the first 5 years in the Core Strategy so it would not be a substitution but an addition to those which might be already approved by pre-existing planning permissions.

Somehow I can’t see the Council turning down a development on a brown field site for refusal even if the Council has already exceeded the so called new 190 pa for 5 years especially if it definitely removes green belt from development.

And the New Government bounty of 100% of Council Tax per new property each year over 6 years could be attractive for another 200/300 dwellings………at £1000 per annum per property that might be £1,800,000 !!

So what is the priority we want? A Council trying to find a new business to occupy the site and provide jobs or a Council that is eager to build houses? I would really like to hear readers views on this.

By the way Mr. Editor this is the legal advice I received last year.

“there is a clear distinction between Council Members’ participation in the Core Strategy deliberations and the consideration of a subsequent planning application. The key issue for the purposes of the code of conduct is that you keep an open mind in respect of the planning application and do not made public statements on those proposals, in advance of the formal consideration, that gives the appearance that you have already made up your mind on that matter. In the circumstances I do not consider you would be precluded from participating in the determination of the planning application.”

John, we now have the time to really think about what is good for this district and its residents. There is no rush to get all this development through. I really dislike how this council is bullying the residents. The Cabinet should now be abolished and we should get back to sensible governance.

Dear Editor

Happy to oblige with a full explanation of what I call the bounty for building houses.

The Conservative Party Green Paper on Planning in February announced policy which actually has the clear objective of increasing the delivery of housing and other development.

Here are the direct quotations which support that view.

House building

In our previous green papers we have explained at length how and why we will be rejecting the current Government’s counterproductive housing targets, and instead offering local authorities a powerful council tax matching incentive to
encourage new house building. We believe this incentive will prove strong enough to produce the scale of house building the country needs. However, we will keep the level of this council tax incentive under review in order to ensure that
it does deliver.

A framework of incentives for development

We have already set out in a previous green paper our commitment that when your community builds more homes, central government will match pound-for-pound the extra money that your area gets through council tax for six years – and when
your community attracts more businesses, we’ll let your area keep the increased business rates for six years.

Specifically, to encourage the building of affordable housing, we have decided that every new affordable housing unit that is built will earn the local authority in question 125% of the council tax raised by that unit, annually for a period of six years, to be paid through our Matching Fund.10This will induce councils to promote the development of affordable housing (by means of their local plan).

Shortly after the General Election articles in the Press confirmed “It is Tory policy to encourage housebuilding by matching authorities’ council tax income from new developments.”

Then came the Con/Lib Coalition Government’s first on the 22 June 2010.

Budget 2010 – implications for planning

It was announced, inter alia, “Consider the most appropriate framework of incentives for local authorities to support growth, including exploring options for business rate and council tax incentives, which would allow local authorities to reinvest the benefits of growth into local communities.”

We now await formal announcements on the delivery of the Matching Fund from DCLG Ministers, either Grant Shapps or Greg Clarke.

But this is what we can expect in financial terms from the Times (12 June 2010).

Mr Shapps said: “An authority that ensured 10,000 new homes are put up could be in line for £100 million over six years.”

(http://property.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/property/article7148429.ece)

Doing the math (£100,000,000 divided by 10,000 homes = £10,000 which in turn = £1666.

This is the Council Tax per year which compares quite nicely to Rochford District Council Band D and validates the math.

“From RDC’s Web Site The Council Tax for 2010/11 was agreed by Council on 16 February 2010. The total average Band D Council Tax for Rochford residents will be £1,518.63.”

So there is no misunderstanding in my mind on the financial incentive to build more houses than you need especially at the time of further cuts because the article was quoting a Minister on just 12 June.

This is big money.

At the 190 dwellings per annum that the Council has passed this could mean for the first 5 years of the Core Strategy this is on Band D a bounty sum of £1,442,100.

To finish my post from the same article in the Times.

“Grant Shapps, the Housing Minister, has told The Times that he will reward local authorities that give planning approval to housing developments by matching the council tax revenue collected from these homes. The money will continue for six years, with extra provided for affordable homes for first-time buyers.

Mr Shapps is determined to overcome those who object to new developments, despite allowing local people more say under the “revolutionary” planning overhaul.”

I would not normally comment on rumours but if true this would be a repeat of placing ASDA in Rawreth Lane/Priory Chase.
Essex County Highways said that ASDA would be used mostly by occupants of existing passing traffic and that the extra traffic created would be minimal. The current levels of ‘all’ traffic entering Priory Chase is approximately 750 per hour during the daytime, ie. outside peak traffic times. (Note this is entering only not exiting as well).
ASDA has, without doubt, increased the traffic in Rawreth Lane but County Highways do not see this as a problem!
Cllr. Keith Hudson made comments regarding the development of the E-on site on BBC Essex Radio a couple of weeks ago, stating “that about 120 dwellings could be accommodated and this figure would be deducted from the Core Strategy figures if development goes ahead”. He did however, conclude the interview by saying “that his preference would be redevelopment that provides job creation to replace the employment lost by the closure of E-on”. (Quotes are not verbatim).
An average size Tesco on this site would definitely do that!!!

I’ve heard rumours (again) that Tesco are indeed looking at the E-on site for mixed housing and a store like the ASDA site. Can anyone confirm weather this is true or not?

To All House Builders …. Rayleigh is CLOSED! No more please!!

Aldi are looking for somewhere to build a store in Rayleigh…..
http://aldi.co.uk/uk/html/company/13951_15544.htm