There were quite a few planning applications on last night’s agenda, so we’ll just cover the two that we have already mentioned.
The application for 24 social housing flats and 3 commercial units at Priory Chase, Rayleigh was refused by 15 votes to 12. Ron Oatham moved refusal bascially because of the bulk, scale and design of the building being usuitable for the location near the existing traditional styled housing . It would be on three storeys (and much bigger than the smaller 6-unit building that Coral already have permission for). Ron was very critical of the ‘industrial’ style that was proposed. Chris Black and John Mason (Hawkwell Residents Councillor) questions about the ‘amenity space’ that was being provided. This space consisted of some balconies and a strip 2-3m wide that stretched round part of the building. Councillors Lucy Cox (Conservative, Hawkwell) and Colin Seagers (Conservative, Great Wakering) were concerned about the parking arrangements. When questioned the officers admitted that the amount of amenity space provided was between 25 and 50 percent below standard. As a result this lack of amenity space was added as a second reason. When it came to a vote, it was refused 15-12.
The application to convert the Rochford Conservative Club, Back Lane, Rochford into an Indian Restaurant was also discussed. Those councillors who are members of the club had to leave the meeting. But actually it seems that surprisingly few of the Conservative Councillors actually belong to it , because only a few left. In fact none of the three councillors who represent the town of Rochford (Mrs Gill Lucas-Gill, James Cottis and Keith Gordon) belong to the club, and they all spoke strongly AGAINST giving permission because of the effect it would have on neighbours in terms of possible odour and traffc hazards. They were backed up on this by Lucy Cox, but other councillors, notably Simon Smith (Conservative Rayleigh) spoke in favour of allowing it and eventually it was passed.
Thank You Ron for moving to reject this eyesore!
I have only seen the proposed colour drawings this morning (so too late to submit yet another objection!) but I’m dismayed that CORAL could even consider such an ugly scheme let alone claim that it would enhance the area!
These flats were to be “social housing” and the design would not have encouraged the “social residents” to have pride in their environment and look after it, it would have simply added to the anti-social problems that already exist in Priory Chase.
I also maintain that a fast food take-a-way would have been a negative addition to the neighbourhood AND we do not need one here! There are far too many in Rayleigh and Hullbridge already!
No doubt yet another CORAL planning application will follow…
Once again well done and Thank You to the 15 that voted against!
Shame on the 12 that voted in favour – what possible motive could anyone have for voting for such a disgrace? I’d be really interested to know.
Re the Coral application, isn’t this the site that Asda can take back if Corals plans don’t get accepted or was that an Urban Myth?
Bryan, it’s not a myth, you are correct….
What needs to be remembered is that there is already planning consent on this site for a lot more than 3 shops…… We need to be very careful, else we will get something a lot worse than what has just been rejected.
Coral Retail Projects Ltd have made an appeal to the Secretary of State in respect of the application for 3 shops and 24 affordable residential units (i.e. social housing)Representations to be made by January 6th 2010.
The design of the flats are nothing short of ugly and industrial and do nothing to enhance the traditional residential nature of Priory Chase and Rawreth Lane.
Furthermore because the design is so poor the intended social residents of the flats are unlikely to have much in the way of civic pride in the local environment.
TWR – yes, they have gone to appeal. People who objected to the planning application should have received a letter by now advising them of this. Do you think it is worthwhile us getting a letter out to nearby residents about this over Christmas?
Coral are also submitting a NEW application – Chris and Ron are meeting with Coral and a Rochford District Council officer tonight to get further info (at the present time we haven’t any details about this one).
I think that RDC said that there was only one letter objecting to the last CORAL PROJECTS RETAIL LTD application for the social flats – that’d be me then? If that is true than no-one else will have received a letter from RDC informing them of the appeal to the Secretary of State.
Admin, you leafleted the area last time so that approach on it’s own clearly didn’t work BUT I think that this was largely because the hideous architectural design wasn’t made clear until the last minute. I’m sure plenty of people would complain about these ugly flats and/or the fact that they are intended for social housing use after it was a done deal…
If anyone would like to make representations then please write (in triplicate!)quoting the appeal reference number APP/B1550/A/09/2117031/NWF directly to:-
The Planning Inspectorate
Room 3/16
Temple Quay House
2 The Square
Temple Quay
Bristol
BS1 6PN
Representations must be received by 6th January 2010.
There is also an online appeals service http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/pcs however please be aware that your comments and personal details will be in the public domain and may be published on the Internet.
Not been at all cynical but given the effort it will take to appeal (that wouldn’t be deliberate would it?) and the season (Merry Christmas by the way!) I very much doubt that many will make the effort…
CORAL PROJECTS (RAYLEIGH) LTD already had a successful application for 7 shops…
It’ll be interesting to see whatever version of CORAL PROJECTS (???) LTD come up with this time… Ho! Ho! Ho!
TWR, the list of parties notified of the appeal includes 10 addresses in Rawreth Lane, 3 in Temple Way and 26 in Priory Chase…. plus Asda, Rayleigh Leisure Centre and Rawreth Court. Though not St Nicholas School.
Ron and I had a meeting last evening with a council officer and Coral. I anticipate a new application from Coral being submitted in about a week and when that happens we will try to ensure that people get the information they need to judge things…..
This seems a commonly used tactic by companies trying to get planning approved. Coral have decided to appeal at the busiest time of year. See the archives from December 2008 – it was a tactic asda tried when trying to get their 24hr license approved! Fortunately enough local people did bother to respond and the license wasn’t granted. Let’s hope enough local residents hear about this and take the time and trouble to express their views
Chris, can you clarify what exactly was proposed/agreed for the “community use/medical centre” that was supposed to be provided on this site?
As you know, I am not a big fan of these kind of deals where the councils barter planning permission to developers in return for facilities or infrastructure for the local residents. However, if a deal has been struck, we should get the facilities that were agreed, otherwise the planning consent should be withdrawn.
I wouldn’t want to see a repeat of the Downhall Park Way crossing improvement fiasco.
On the subject of the DPW crossing, are discussions still on-going to secure improvements? I think just improving the lighting would be a big help, the current street lights are too far from the junction and tend to back-light the pedestrians, rather than throwing light onto them.
We are still chasing the County Council on the junction… we’ll reply later about the community facilities issue.
ST1 – Re 10, the outline planning consent stipulated that there should be ‘a range of uses vaulable to the local community’ included on the site. Asda included their smaller building in their detailed planning application to cover that , but they never built it….
Admin, thanks for the response.
“a range of uses valuable for the local community” – isn’t that a bit flakey? If you wrote a specification like that in business, you’d get shot.
In previous posts on this site I got the impression that this building was supposed to be a medical centre or community hall, but the description above could be anything. Do more shops count as valuable community use?
So the valuable community building was part of the planning application for the Asda site, not the entire housing development? Does the requirement for it to be built transfer from Asda to Project Coral?
If it doesn’t get built, will there be any sanctions against Asda/Project Coral (fines etc.)?
Is the requirement for the valuable community building being considered as part of the planning consent to Project Coral?
Does the local community actually know what kind of facility it requires? Has anyone asked?
Your questions require some lengthy answers, ST1, be back to you soon!
ST1, the whole history of this site is a case study in how NOT to do things.
The process was something like this:
– District Council adopts a policy that the whole Park School site should be used for education and recreation.
– District Council drops this policy when the County Council want to negotiate.
– In the end a deal is agreed, with a mixture of housing/new school building, sports pitches, replacement leisure centre and ‘mixed use’ site . The County gives 500k towards the replacement leisure centre, and crucially, the land for Cherry Orchard Country Park. That final aspect basically makes nearly every councillor fall in love with the scheme.
– The council meets in private and confidential session to agree the deal. One aspect of the deal is that the district council will be involved in the marketing of the ‘mixed use’ site. What could possibly be go wrong? Well , firstly of all, the district council doesn’t really bother to get involved after all…
– the outline application comes for the whole site, including that phrase about a range of uses valuable for the local community , I agree , it does look too vague. Community shops would have been a small part of it, but nothing bigger – the council’s retail planning policies weren’t even listed as being relevant considerations at the outline syatge.
– The Primary Care Trust get involved (see onlinefocus entry for Feb 20th 2006). they could use most of the mixed use site for ‘District Nursing, Health Visiting and Social Services. GP services (ideally a partnership with the Audley Mills practice) A range of Out-Patients and Diagnostic Services currently provided from Southend Hospital, but which could be provided locally for Rochford District Council residents. A Pharmacy Possibly a Dental Practice’. But they are too late, Asda are ahead of them.
– Asda eventually get permission from the planning inspector. they build their store. But NOT the ‘valuable to the local community’ building. There is no sanction that can be taken against them.
– Coral have come in since with other applications, that are full applications not based on the outline consent, so they don’t have to ‘have a range of uses valuable to the local community’
So , unlike the Downhall Park Way development , where Sweyne Park was offered and actually achieved, a lot went wrong.
There’s a lot of lessons to be learned from this for nearly all councillors. As part of the local development framework. it’s likely that we are going to have lots of housing sites as part of the LDF – in Rawreth, Hullbridge, Hawkwell and elsewhere. Seems to me that the only way to actually achieve any promised new amenities is for the land and money to be actually handed over to the council upfront.