Last Thursday’s Planning Decisions

Last Updated on

It’s a wet bank holiday weekend – not much going on, except for some concern about the height of the river at Battlesbridge.

But it’s about time we reported on last Thursday’s Development Control meeting. There weren’t any Rayleigh items, but all 5 Rayleigh Lib Dems were there anyway. In fact things were a bit cramped for us – these days we are finding ourselves crammed into one end of a row, unlike the Conservatives, who seem to be able to stretch out more.

There were lots of refusals, and the busiest councillor of the night was Keith Gordon from Rochford. (Three of the applications were in Rochford. There are only three councillors for Rochford. One of them , James Cottis, was away, and the other was Gill Luca-Gill, who is brand new. So Cllr Gordon was kept busy).

6 Flats at 254 High Street , Great Wakering: REFUSED Colin Seagers moved refusal on the basis of inferior and dominant roofscape, and parking issues.

9 Flats with access off Locks Hill, Rochford: REFUSED. Reasons were the bulky mass of the building, and out of keeping with the surroundings

Revised Scheme for Training Centre for Disability Essex , Rocheway, Rochford : PASSED Disability Essex already have planning permission, but they had submitted a plans for a larger building. This was a controversial one. Keith Gordon proposed refusal and was seconded by Heather Glynn, for reasons based on the increased size. Michael Starke, John mason and Mavis Webster all supported the scheme, and it was eventually passed.

9 Flats at 299 Ferry Road , Hullbridge (quite near the river) : REFUSED Hullbridge councillor Peter Robinson moved refusal, and was strongly supported by Ron Oatham, Chris Lumley and Chris Black.

Front Extension , 2 Wedds Way , Great Wakering : PASSED This was an application for Cllr Colin Seager’s own home – it only came to the planning committee for approval because he is a councillor.

Revised Scheme for Sainsbury’s Shop , and 6 flats, 76-78 West Street Rochford: REFUSED Keith Gordon moved refusal , and won the vote. Refusal was based on the design of the building and highways issues.

  • But all that stilt in the river dose not help. But the last time the gates were used was more they 30+ years ago. So the know-how on how to use and work the lock gates in a way as not to flood the area has been lost in time. I know there are planes to use them to generate electricity.

    Is the Environment Agency aware of this and have they worked out how having the lock gate in use mit effect flooding in the Crouch Valley. As work on the north side wall of battlesbridge has only be finished just over a year a go