Last Thursday night the District Council had a meeting of the Development Committee. There were numerous residents from Eastwood Road Rayleigh in the public gallery, concerned about a planning application near their homes.
The application was for “Part Change of Use from Existing Car Show Room (Including Ancillary Retail Space) to A1 Use” , 239 – 241 Eastwood Road Rayleigh. It’s a follow-up to a previous application in January for the same change of use. The view of the council officers back then was that:
Because it wasn’t regarded as a really significant application, only about 8 residents were consulted. Also, it went on the ‘weekly list’ to councillors, with the recommendation for refusal. Unless a councillor called it in for further discussion, it would be automatically refused.
And that’s what happened. It went on the weekly list, no councillor called it in, and so it was refused for parking reasons.
End of story? No, because things have moved on a bit since then…. First of all, the applicants put in a revised application, with the parking amended so as to satisfy County Highways. Secondly, rumours have spread that the “A1 Use” will be a small Tesco open till 11pm,which has alarmed many residents.
So this time the planning application came to the full committee and we had a lengthy discussion. Councillor Simon Smith outlined the residents concerns. Chris Black pointed out supermarkets were tough opponents at appeal, after all an inspector didn’t think the Asda in Priory Chase would affect residential amenity, and that was a bigger site on a narrower, quieter road.
But the real let-down for the residents is that this debate didn’t take place on the first application in January. Because there were other reasons that councillors wanted to give for refusal, but were hampered because councils are meant to include all valid reasons for refusal on the first application.. Introducing new reasons for refusal (when they could have been included first time round) weakens the councill’s case.
From the residents viewpoint it’s a great pity that a councillor – probably one of the councillors for Central or Whitehouse Ward – didn’t call in the first application during January and added more reasons for refusal.
This shows how the weekly list system can set traps for councillors and the residents they represent . Perhaps it’s time to review how the system operates.
But anyway, the scheme was refused by councillors (the only one in favour being Heather Glynn) and maybe the council can still win the appeal.
Good luck with the fight against Tesco the omens are not good .Really think Councillors should have been aware of the trap on the first application .Seems odd to have two convenient stores next to each other .Rayleigh is in danger of being encircled by Tesco,s with possible Eon site . Tesco,s were only too pleased to get out of the high street all those years ago .This is the strategy that is employed by the behemith on towns throughout the UK .It is a company to be admired as well as feared in its ruthlessness.
I would have put this on earlier but as you say your site has been down.
What a great outcome, to be fair even Rayleigh Town Cllrs were fooled by the wording on this application, however we soon put that right by having a Central Ward Town Cllr speak on the night with the support of myself another Central Ward Town Cllr and a Whitehouse Town Cllr attending the meeting.Cllr Pat Aves has done a lot of work on this speaking to residents with the support of her Town Cllrs. You should all be aware as to why Cllr Humphries is not involved at present and for those that are not he is seriously ill.
As for the application not being “called in” in January unfortunately there were no complaints lodged to justify it being called in.
Well done Pat we don’t need praise, we just get on with what our residents vote us in for and that is to support them and to do the best for our Town/District.
Cheryl, I’m afraid your understanding of ‘call-ins’ is not correct.
The application could easily have been called-in back in January, for the express purpose of adding more reasons for refusal.There are a number of reasons that could have been added back in January. I don’t want to say more now as it might weaken the council’s case at appeal.
However I will say that I called-in an item to last week’s meeting precisely to add a reason for refusal. It was for flats in Down Hall Road – officers wanted to refuse it for one reason involving bulk and scale, Ron and I added a second reason involving the effect on the neighbours.
Many thanks Chris I was only mentioning what I had been told by the District Council. Also I thought Pat should have a mention somewhere as the press only quoted your good self and Cllr Humphries!!!!!!
I think the interesting thing here is what exactly does Tesco have against CO-OP? Firstly they open a Tesco next to the CO-OP further along Eastwood Road, then another in the ex-Woolworths shop in Leigh Broadway and now they look set to do it again. What next? A Tesco snuck in somewhere near the big CO-OP in Rayleigh? Any free outlet near a CO-OP looks like fair game.
I never will understand Rayleigh. Where ever we have one of something some bright spark has to put another, Dominos next to Pizza Go Go etc. But I saw a planning application today that sums up Rayleigh. Pro Car Wash on the Eastwood Road, corner of Queens Road, have submitted an application for a 1st F extension, MOT bay, testing, servicing, customer WC etc. And what is opposite this business? Yep, Rayleigh Motorist Centre offering the same. The mind boggles.