It’s been announced today that the legal challenge by Linda Kendall against the Allocations Document has failed. The Echo reports on it here
This is very disappointing news for very many people, though even if the challenge had succceded it would have only affected the Allocations Document, and not the previously agreed Strategy Document that already specified housing “North of London Road” and SW Hullbridge .
Linda Kendall certainly deserves a lot of respect for making the attempt, reportedly at her own financial risk.
The council should not crow too much about winning this. The aim should have been to produce a strategy that had public acceptance , not one that has angered hundreds or more probably thousands of residents, and been simply pushed through by one political party with a huge majority.
The council also shouldn’t complain about the cost of the appeal. It’s a drop in the ocean compared with the millions of pounds already spent on the planning strategy.
Looking back …. We had our biggest success on this very early on , when we got the proposed 1800 new houses for Rayleigh reduced by about half – and in fact the figure for Rayleigh is now about zero because all the “North of London Road” housing is in Rawreth.
The key night and our big defeat was back in 2009 when the council voted by 23-4 to submit its core strategy to the inspector. The four who voted against were, in alphabetical order, Chris Black, Jackie Dillnutt (Lib Dem ) John Mason (independent) and Ron Oatham (Lib Dem).
This is what the the Conservatives said at the meeting in 2009, it doesn’t quite ring true now:
…it is well that we and our residents never forget which political
party, which outgoing socialist government, instigated this fiasco…..…..Following its adoption and when our electorate returns a Conservative
Government to Power next spring, we shall be able to carry out our own
housing needs study, it is then that we shall be able to adjust the housing
allocations, as I promised so many months ago, to satisfy the needs of our
community ? not a penny more nor a penny less.
Now we are towards the end of the process, but there is still plenty for campaigners and councillors alike to think about and do.
Disappointing yes, surprise no – the ‘establishment ‘ always gets what it wants via the loop = Government quotas > compliant Council Cabinet > Government Inspector >
and a Judge who dare not create a precedent ( as this is going on all over the country)
This decision makes it all the more important that the Outline Planning application is
challenged robustly – anyone who cares should attend the Planning Committee meeting ( 29/01/15 ) in order to fill the Public Gallery / Corridors and Car Park to underline the total absence of the so called Localism Act.
Thank you for the above report. Very fair.
Perhaps it should be clearly reported that RDC were found to have failed to consult on the Strategic Environmental Assessment under EU law but the judge did not feel able to Quash the LDF Document because he believed it to be too draconian a measure. He did accept 10,000 residents are opposing RDC’s current plans.
He simply stated that RDC’s own consultation process was adhered to (they received 195 responses to the local Core Strategy consultation 194 rejected their proposals and just 1 agreed from a possible 33,000 Rayleigh residents but they proceeded because they just needed to go through the motions. This is from their evidence to the High Court. The one meeting quoted for Rayleigh (not Rawreth or Hullbridge) was held in Rayleigh Town Council Offices which holds a total of 45 people, due to fire restrictions, 23 of these places are for Town Councillors, again this consultation was held to be valid for the 33,000 Rayleigh residents that had a right to be consulted.). There is much more to be found on the RAG website.
The Court has awarded a costs order against RDC for over £11,000 for time wasting and the failed Protected Cost Order application which they lost. I note in their press release they were not too anxious to promote that fact! My view is RDC have very little to crow about in this disgraceful saga. My legal team are considering an appeal but I truly can’t finance any further proceedings. Thanks to everyone who helped in any way.
It’s totally disgusting how this many residents views can be disregarded. I hope that come election time the people of Rayleigh & Hullbridge remember how little the local council think of them. We have been treated like we are all stupid and come election time it’s down to the people to make their voices heard even louder. We need to get rid of these jumped up Councillors who think our district is their own personal playground.
10,000 probably represents pretty much all of West Rayleigh & Hullbridge who are against it , the Parish Council and Town Council plus the MP are also against it – someone
please explain to me how 9 ( Cabinet ) Councillors can dictate ( via the Whip ) against
such overwhelming opposition ?.
Jim, it’s something I’ve witnessed , but can’t explain. Toby Mountain probably could, he became a Tory councillor mid-way through the process and later had the guts to quit their group.
I suppose they thought, and still think, they can ride the storm.
There is one thing that Is incorrect, I cannot see anywhere a plan for a HUGE travellers site. I do not support any type of site for people who pay no taxes and contribute nothing but let’s be honest about it.
Oz – I’m sure Linda will be on and give you the reference document that defines a
“Pitch” – each pitch containing a mix of permanent & temporary accommodation plus
Storage Facility plus Vehicle Parking spaces , in simple terms if you multiply the
’15 Pitch’ by 3 that gives you the magnitude.
Much more important however is – who is going to speak on behalf of the public at the
Planning Meeting on the 29th January , apparently only one person can speak for the
Public. Seems to me it should be either the Leader of the Parish Council or Leader of
the Town Council or if seniority carries any weight then perhaps our MP – they have all
eventually joined the public opposition, so WHO? because they need to pre-apply now.
Jim. The rules are that one member of the public can speak in favour, one can speak against, plus a representative from an affected parish council. This is after officers have made their presentation and before councillors commence their debate.
So someone from Rawreth Parish Council can speak anyway. Also I think Rayleigh Town Council.
When a member of the public speaks against an application it is usually because they live next door to it and want to explain factors that councillors might not be aware of. In this situation the people living closest to it are possibly in Rowan Close. But having someone to relate the personal impact of flooding, or the personal impact of traffic in Rawreth Lane, might also be appropriate.
The whole issue of voters being ignored is also being played out at a national level. We have three “leaders” who are utterly out of touch with us, the people. This is why Nigel Farage is so popular, he says what everyone else is thinking, we have reached a stage in the UK, thanks to a load of lefty liberal mung bean munching Gardian reading do gooders, that anybody who dares to criticise immigrants are racists.
And Jim, see, not one mention of you know who, not until the Xmas truce is over ????
It is essential then the people who do speak on behalf of the Councils are very carefully chosen. Possibly Linda will be speaking for the general public or could it be better for another person to do so who has not had the high profile Linda has had? Town Council may be awkward decision as 18 cons. 2 Lib Dem. 2 Ind. and 1 UKIP. Who should be picked?
Oz, I’m almost in too much of a pre-Christmas good mood to reply….
But… really. Immigrants are being slagged off all the time. It’s a myth that people can’t criticise them.
It’s also a myth that Farage is so popular – he has an approval rating of minus 19 percent. Worse than Cameron. (though better than Clegg and Miliband):
https://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/546410527849975808/photo/1
Admin @8 – so how does this get to happen ?, my concern is that Christmas / New Year will come and go , nothing is done and Apathy rules again – which is what they count on.
I appeal to Rawreth Parish Council ( who have a hall ) to set up a meeting for early January and invite any who are interested to attend and select someone to speak for the public – in addition to the Parish speaker. because I doubt we will see the MP and Rayleigh Town Council includes Mr Ward ( the Councils Portfolio Holder on Planning )
who would anyway be biased against the residents he is meant to serve.
CHRIS @11 – the fact that all the main party leaders have a ‘net ‘ minus rating only goes to underline the public perception of politicians , they are just not trusted, and
why would we ( given our own local government example )…..?
Jim, we live in a world where people are more stressed out, we have more holidays and fancy gadgets but have more stressful, insecure jobs. I see friends on Facebook worrying about their primary school children’s homework – I never had homework at primary school, ! And I read today that 18-34 year olds are more likely to go to A&E than older people, possibly because their work demands make it more difficult to fit in an appointment with their GP, while they try to get the money to pay for rent or get on the housing ladder. We have longer lives, but we worry about how we will manage financially.
And people don’t see politicians living in the same world as they do. What they see is is the House of Lords worrying about their champagne.
It would help if politicians could be more relaxed and willing to admit making mistakes. But a politician admitting making a mistake isn’t going to help their careers.
Incidentally ,another opinion poll shows that voters in lib dem constituencies trust their MP much more than voters in labour or conservative constituencies
http://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2014/12/21/the-polling-that-could-be-key-to-how-the-lds-might-do-better-in-their-own-seats-than-the-national-numbers-suggest/
On a local level, we just need more residents to stand as candidates. I’d be happy to talk to anyone about it, it’s enjoyable and stimulating. But people don’t see themselves as being local politicians in their spare time, and that’s a pity.
I can only agree CHRIS , we have been ‘Americanized’ – sucked into a materialistic world which has as many downsides as it has apparent benefits.
I would also acknowledge that you are an example to us all in that you clearly put in a constant effort on behalf of your residents – whereas I could’nt handle all the frustrations that must come from the ‘win the arguement – lose the vote’ system we have in place.
Chris, good response to my ( slightly tongue in cheek ) post. You and Jim are spot on but the real issue is this, can we honestly change things ?
Oz @ 6 Jim @ 7. Re Traveller Pitches. The planned ‘municipal’ traveller site is stated to be for 15 – 22 pitches. Under the Government guidelines each ‘Pitch’ is designed to hold two caravans or one static and one touring caravan plus storage sheds and space for work and social vehicles. The site must have communal wash areas and toilet provisions, play areas for children, be near the settled community, near to transport, schools, doctors etc. and be integrated into the local community. It should provide for the traditional habit of keeping animals. It must be well screened for privacy but not for exclusion. I could continue but I will simply comment that this site will have room for a possible 44 families from mixed Traveller communities. Our Travellers claim this will not work because Traveller communities are tribal and trouble is inevitable on such a site. It will be only the second such site controlled by Essex County Council. The first is a smaller one in Colchester that was developed with £1.9 million pounds for Travellers from an original site nearby that had been displaced whilst development took place. The RDC site is not wanted by our present ‘trouble free’ traveller community and will cost £2.5 million of public money. The Council (and Mark Francois MP) support this claiming ‘grants’ will be provided for this. IT IS STILL OUR MONEY AS TAX PAYERS NOT RDC’s OR the MP’s. It will be the largest official site in Essex after Dale Farm so in my humble opinion it will be huge unless you can find another term for a complex of 44 caravans.
Linda please do not believe that the existing illegal site is “trouble free”. There have now been several instances that are putting two fingers up at RDC ,the local community ,utilities and Highways .There are extra living units on site .I am afraid that they like to give the impression of good neighbours . I cannot go into details on here but if you would like to contact either myself or the Parish Clerk in confidence .I am in favour off a properly run municipal site I understand the tribal problems but that cannot be a stumbling block as we all have to live together with no favour to one or other minority groups.After all they describe themselves as Travellers ,if they wish to settle down then they should face the same problems to navigate the planning system as the rest of us .It builds up so much resentment in the settled community that planning does not appear to apply to illegal sites .
Oz @16 – “can we change things” …….
I never thought we could stop the ongoing development but hoped we might get some concessions in terms of the scale of it and real Infrastructure input where needed.
Despite a well researched / presented 3000 word RAG objection the Government Inspector he ignored it – in fact steered RDC to an even bigger site and got them off
the hook regarding RTSSC. So my faith in democracy took a big hit.
I have also quietly attended a lot of the District Council meetings over the last year
and witnessed the continual lose the arguement but win the vote orchestrated by the
9 man Cabinet . A second big dent in my faith in the system.
The final straw for me will be on the 29/01/15 at the Planning Meeting – if the MP against it, the Parish Council and Town Council against and the public against it
does not have a real meaningful impact on the outcome then all is lost .
That means the answer to your question is NO we cannot change things….unless
we turn to anarchy.
Jim@19, Anarchy sounds good to me, let’s start on the 5th Jan but I need to be home for my tea at 6.00pm. ????
How about a big turnout in May to relieve the sitting MP of his comfy seat – surely that will send a signal to somewhere !!!!!!
Chris I remember the evening when RDC decided to re-think their plan for 1800 dwellings to be built in Rayleigh and Rawreth. There were more residents attending that meeting than any previous meetings, in fact it was standing room only. I am sure that when the ‘top table’ went off to discuss the views of the residents they could only come back with one decision.
I am sure that it was the fact that the residents felt so strongly about over development (and that they wanted to get home that night)that they came to this decision. It was one of the best nights of my life seeing the Council back down. Its a shame that it was to no avail.
I have been told that travellers pitches will be situated at the back of Wheatleys nursery & garden centre.
Mike@23. Travellers Pitches are forbidden on Greenbelt or where there is a likelihood of flooding. RDC wanted to change the status of the land you mention to ‘Industrial land’ that would have allowed the Gypsy and Traveller site(15-22 Pitches holding 2 caravans + on each) to be located there when it is found the site up by the A127/A1245 does not meet Government criteria. It will be between 3 trunk roads (carrying 70,000 vehicles a day) and a main railway line. Next to a Heavy Industrial site and a waste disposal complex. (Check it out. Anyone can read the Gypsy and Traveller site rules produced by HMG). The Government Inspector refused to sanction the suggested re-classification of the Wheatley Nursery area demanded it remain a ‘green buffer’. Although we must be aware this PLAN is in the ‘unassailable’ Core Strategy just like the shoving of Rayleigh Town Sports and Social Club off their site. Unfortunately RDC have ruled out any other location across Rochford for this Gypsy site, choosing to dump all municipal sited Travellers on one huge site located only in west Rayleigh. They might be in some difficulty when they attempt the planning stage. There is talk of taking this to the ECHR due to displacing some of the group off greenbelt whilst sanctioning 829 houses for the settled community on the opposite side of the same field!!! Frankly suggesting corralling every member of this minority group in one such horrible compound is shocking. They are human beings and have children. I don’t see anyone suggesting this treatment for any other community, even those traipsing into our country illegally. Sorry Admin why aren’t the usual, woolly-hat , hug a bunny types jumping up and down about this? Or are some groups more ‘deserving’ than others?
Mike @ 22 – I have been banging on about the difference a big public turnout would make on 29/01/15 – the fact is the RDC proposals still amount to twice as many new
houses than are needed by ‘ natural demographic growth’ and those should be spread accross the district ( not 50% of twice as much dumped on Rawreth & Hullbridge ).
Travellers Site – plans show that at Michelin Farm corner , by Fairglen Interchange, but who knows what they really intend?.
Mike @22 – Good to hear from you, Happy New Year!
Jim @ 25 – RDC certainly intend to put the Traveller site in that location by Fairglen, whether it will actually happen, I now doubt.
Linda@ 24 – I will be careful in what I say, because I don’t want to ‘fetter my discretion’ in advance of any planning application. But I was in the council chamber during the inquiry when the chap from Basildon was talking about what they had coming on their side of the boundary line. Together with the other intended uses, I think it’s going to need some ingenious work to come up with an environmentally acceptable design. Having said that, I really doubt whether businesses will ever be re-located from the Rawreth Industrial Estate to this location. So maybe all this is never going to happen.
Leaving the environmental issues aside, the municipally managed Traveller site in Colchester, reportedly work OK. (Though the Colchester one is slightly smaller and RDC would do well to learn from that). But recently RDC and ECC haven’t been able to prevent or indeed understand what appear to be unauthorised excavations on the public highway on the A1245 and that doesn’t fill me with any confidence.
Chris – there are at least 2.5 million (£’s) reasons why we should’nt follow the Colchester ( £1.9million ) example , but that is for another day , the 29/01/15
Outline Planning Permission for the first 500 houses is the immediate threat –
will the public respond ?,
Folks,
Fear not, only 5 months until the election, when Lord Farage is in number 10 all our troubles will be over….if you don’t vote for UKIP then you get all you deserve…..????
On a serious note, just watched the news, already our prospective leaders are acting like little kids, he did it first, my one is better than your one, I’m better than you blah blah blah. It is no wonder the electorate are sick and fed up with the whole lot of them. What can be done to improve things ?????????????????????.
ps, the answer is absolutely not Euro Claggy, Call me Dave, Millibonkers or King Nigel…
We have Four Months of this ! I suppose that’s the problem with fixed term parliaments . If none of the above Oz ,who?
A Matthews @ 30, that is the million dollar question !. At a local level we have a group of elected councillors acting like tin pot dictators ignoring the views of the people that voted for them. An MP who is, to all intents, invisible, surfacing only to take part in photo shoots at election time, God knows what he does for his constituants, about as much use as a chocolate tea pot.
Perhaps the only answer is to join Jim Cripps in the revolution and anachy party….
Oddly enough Oz I am the one worried about an extreme solution , because the continued erosion of Democracy will eventually lead to an extreme reaction.
And by that I mean – if the political landscape was a football pitch then all of the parties would be playing within the centre circle , little difference between them.
Along comes a ball juggler ( ie: Nigel ) running all over the pitch and he grabs the
crowds attention and it is not only in the UK – I see tens of thousands of Germans now
attending rallies ” to free Europe from Islamification “, the last
time the scapegoat was Judism, very worrying.
1930’s fiscal disaster followed by the rise of the far right, 2008 fiscal disaster followed
by……………………watch this space!!!!! because the Labour Party no longer represent the working class either.
Spot on Jim. We were always taught at school (a long time ago!) we should learn from history ,there are worrying signs .
Oz @ 31.
Party politics aside, Mark Francois is positively luminous compared to a couple of other very senior elected representatives for Rayleigh.
God help us….,.
MF has, apparently, registered a formal objection to the Hullbridge 500 plan as well.
Tonight’s Echo – Shoeburyness proposal , ” local residents concerned over plans for. new houses due to flood plain status and lack of existing Infrastructure…….” Does that all sound familiar folks – these Local Councils are b—-y dangerous.
Jim @ 32 Alistair @ 33 . For more than twenty years I have written and cautioned what you have both said.
Across Europe groups despairing of the political ‘elite’ are finding their voices. Here in the UK UKIP are doing that and will reap the benefit of the failure of democracy in the past 30/40 years. Possibly throwing the country in to an ‘Italian’ style coalition with all the horse trading that will entail. What reaction will there be if Alex Salmond is eventually ‘King maker’ with a handful of Scottish Nationalists? Their only object to eventually break up the United Kingdom. The Labour Government of Brown and Blair, with their buying of votes by devolution, will have done more than just the fiscal harm already so clearly evident.
I studied the rise of Nazi Germany and seriously fear the emergence of a charismatic / media savvy political player that might prove very dangerous (Not Nigel Farage by the way). Don’t forget Hitler never achieved a majority it was the squabbling of the other parties that allowed his taking of power in 1933. He then changed the constitutional rules to disable any opposition. He told his country what they wanted to hear and the result was the tragedy of a world war like never before.
Our politicians would do well to study history rather than their normal PPE route to Parliament.
I think a few of them have not much more than a CSE in woodwork given their lack of insight.