Coral, Chequers and Ferry Road Applications Recommended For REFUSAL, Rayleigh Lanes Scheme down for APPROVAL

The Development Control Committee meets next Thursday August 28th, with four schemes up for discussion. You can download the agenda here.

Here is a summary of the officers recommendations:

1. Convert the “Chequers” Inn at Canewdon into Flats and Bungalows.
Recommended for refusal for the following reasons:

1 The proposal would result in an over development of the site failing to provide sufficient private amenity space for the flats and bungalows proposed. If allowed the development would provide insufficient private amenity space for sitting out, limited open storage, drying and limited recreation for future occupiers of those dwellings detrimental to the expectations those future occupiers ought reasonably expect to enjoy.

2 The proposed bungalows by reason of their design are considered to be inappropriate and unsympathetic to the Conservation Area, ignoring the established character of the area. Bungalows of hipped slated roofs and white rendered walls are considered to be more suitable. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to Policy BC1 of the Rochford District Replacement Local Plan (2006).

2. Demolish one house in Ferry Road Hullbridge and replace with 17 Flats:
The only reason for refusal put forward by officers is that according to council policy, the scheme should include 3 affordable homes and it doesn’t yet do so, although negotiations are continuing with a housing association.
The officers therefore put forward two alternative recommendations:

2.52 Should the agreement required to achieve the provision of affordable housing not be completed by midnight 8th September 2008 that the Head of Planning and Transportation be delegated to REFUSE planning permission for the following reason:-
1. The proposal and details accompanying the application fail to make provision for affordable housing contrary to the advice contained at paragraph 29 to Planning Policy statement 3 Housing (2006) and Policy HP8 to the Rochford District Replacement Local Plan (2006). If allowed the development of the site as proposed would see the loss of an opportunity to provide affordable housing and the effective use of land in accord with national and local Planning Policy.

2.53 On the basis that the agreement required to achieve the provision of affordable housing is completed on or before midnight 8th September 2008 the committee is recommended to resolve to APPROVE the application subject to the applicants and owners entering into an AGREEMENT under section 106 of the act to secure in perpetuity the provision of not less than three units for affordable purposes…

3. Application by Project Coral for a three storey mixed use building at the front of the Asda site.

The officers make the following comments :

em>Principle of the development
3.28 The principle of the proposed development accords with the local plan allocation seeking a mixed use development and although submitted for separate consideration to the outline permission does however follow the general scope of the expectations for the site including the provision of residential flats above the ground floor commercial units found acceptable by the permission granted under application 04/00975/FUL…….

The proposed building is of a comparable design and appearance to a similar building previously allowed on appeal. The changes to the siting and size of the building are minor and given the setting of the building would not prove harmful to the character and appearance of the area.

The proposal however introduces a considerable number of flats to the upper floors above commercial uses to ground floor that whilst giving life and vitality out of hours would have no amenity space or sufficient car parking necessary to meet the reasonable expectations of those future occupiers.

The applicant seeks to achieve consent for a wide range of commercial uses that serve the local community in the range of services that would be provided. However, no information is provided as to how the variety of uses might be secured in perpetuity. Control would be rested with the landlord and could lead to a domination of particular uses effectively by-passing controls by statute that is in place to address community acceptability.

The proposal includes sufficient numbers of flats such that provision should be made for affordable housing. Although the applicant makes a case for no provision in view of provision on the greater site elsewhere, nonetheless accepts that the provision of at least three units is required. No particulars or agreement have been submitted to achieve this as part of the consideration of the application

The scheme is recommended for refusal by officers for the following reasons:

3.52 It is proposed that this committee RESOLVES to REFUSE the application for the following reasons:-
1 The proposal by way of the lack of any garden or amenity space to serve the flats proposed would result in an unsatisfactory form of development lacking space to provide external storage, drying and limited outdoor recreation to serve the needs of future occupiers of the flats proposed. If allowed the proposal would result in a poor quality form of residential accommodation contrary to Policies HP6, HP11 and HP17 to the Rochford District Replacement Local Plan (2006) proving detrimental to the amenity that future occupiers of the flats ought to reasonably expect to enjoy.

2 The proposal does not provide sufficient parking within the site for the residential part of the proposal. The lack of parking within the site may well lead to vehicles being parked within the highway, causing obstruction to other road users to the detriment of general highway safety. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policy 1.1 (Safety) and Policy P7 (parking standards) Appendix G: Development Control Policies and Processes, Essex Local Transport Plan 2006 /2011.

3 The proposal by way of the wide range in uses sought in perpetuity would fail to secure a sufficient guarantee that a range of uses would be retained to serve day to day needs of local residents or would not give rise to noise, disturbance or increased traffic beyond which the Local Planning Authority should not give up statutory responsibility for the consideration of the future range of uses in the wider interests of serving the local community in this area. If allowed the proposal would effectively undermine Policy SAT6 to the Rochford District Replacement Local Plan (2006) to the detriment of the vitality and attractiveness of the local parade and neighbourhood centre and to the detriment of amenity adjoining residents ought reasonably expect to enjoy.

4 The proposal and details accompanying the application fail to make provision for affordable housing contrary to the advice contained at paragraph 29 to Planning Policy Statement 3 Housing (2006) and Policy HP8 to the Rochford District Replacement Local Plan (2006). If allowed the development of the site as proposed would see the loss of an opportunity to provide affordable housing and the effective use of land in accordance with national and local Planning Policy.

4. Redevelop the top of the Rayleigh Lanes building into flats (which would mean the loss of the Snooker Club)

The officers recommend approval for the following reasons:

Whilst it is acknowledged that the scheme if approved would result in the loss of the snooker club that currently occupies the first floor, there are other facilities of a similar nature located close by at Nos.106-108High Street….

The application offers the opportunity to increase the number of people living within the town centre through the provision of a scheme that is both sustainable and that also affords a rare opportunity to enhance the character of the Conservation Area.
Whilst concerns regarding the lack of parking provision are noted it is felt that given the town centre location of the application site, the close proximity of the public car park opposite and the general level of car parking provision within the town centre that lack of on-site parking is not of sufficient to justify a refusal of planning permission.

About the author, admin

  • It will be interesting to hear Corals views on this news tomorrow. My concern, and am sure many others share the same concern, is that ASDA have already indicated that their “Plan B” is a petrol station. Which I feel would seriously affect the quality of living for those around the station, would cause increased traffic on a road that is already struggling to cope.

    I hope Corals have an alternative application to submit that will meet with RDCs approval?

  • Corey, surely the Council would not allow a petrol station to be built in a predominately residential area. There is enough traffic in Rawreth lane without a petrol station making things worse. We have had some pretty weird decisions coming from the Planning Committee but to allow something like that to be built there would be to ignore health issues. There would be tankers delivering petrol during the night and I would not bet against ASDA wanting a 24 hour licence to sell petrol and anything else they could get into the station. And of course youngsters in their souped up cars revving their cars.

    This sounds like another stitch up by ASDA. If we are not able to build the mixed use building, we will give you a petrol station, you choose!!

  • I wouldn’t put anything past ASDA – let’s face it, RDC said no to the store, so they went to central government to get what they wanted, and they got it. If ASDA want the petrol station, I wouldn’t put it past them to go behind RDCs back to get what they want. ASDA have no regard for the neighbourhood, just pennies in the tills and it won’t bother them one iota to do whatever they have to do to get them!

  • It is written in a Coral document entitled “Planning Application for Mixed Use Centre” Section 2.4……………….. “ASDA intended on leaving or, perhaps, progressing an alternative proposal for, say, a petrol filling station as it wasn’t considered that the mixed use building, it its present form was viable”

  • Well maybe its time to shame National Government for what they are doing, destroying the quality of life for residents (and voters). They are putting the interest of corporates (who probably boost their election deposit accounts) over the interest of people who put them where they are. RDC beware!

  • Is it possible to get a copy of:

    “Policy 1.1 (Safety) and Policy P7 (parking standards) Appendix G: Development Control Policies and Processes, Essex Local Transport Plan 2006 /2011.”

    It would be interesting to see how it stacks up against the parking provision given in Downhall Park Way and surrounding roads.

    I find it interesting that in the same meeting the Coral development can be recommended for refusal partly due to parking provision issues, but for the Rayleigh Lanes development this can be brushed over. Are the council assuming that the Rayleigh Lanes flats will be bought by commuters that work and socialise in the city, and will just use Rayleigh as a place to crash for the night? It seems they are so desperate for this development they can convince themselves that lack of parking is not a problem.

  • I wanted to find out more about the Ferry Road, Hullbridge case. I can’t find it in the planning applications list on the Rochford website. Am I looking in the wrong place?

  • Just wanted to say good luck with the meeting tonight. Unfortunately I can’t make it due to short notice, but I hope it goes well. Will there be a copy of the minutes posted on here?

  • who are these masked crusaders looking after our interests on temple way and priory chase – stand up and be applauded Corey – many thanks from many of us.

  • I have also found section 3.5 of the same document “ASDA had originally intended on potentially seeking consent for an alternative use such as a petrol filling station”.

    Section 3.6 has the following “Should this not be achieved then ASDA retain ownership and will decide how best to utiise the land to meet their commerical/operational requirements”.

    Should I really be reading between the lines there???

    I have printed the relevant pages for all three sections, and will bring those with me tonight.

  • I have to say that it was good to hear what Project Coral and associates had to say this evening. It is clearly obvious that they wish to work with local residents.

    I still have concerns, obviously, as to what or whom will occupy these premises, but this, I feel is more a fear of the unknown.

    If these shops could take business from ASDA, then I am all for it. I hope that there will be a bakers, I am fed up with popping into ASDA for the shelves to be empty.

    At the end of the day and considering what could go in there, I welcome this project and wish Project Coral every success in getting planning approved.

    It has got to be better than a petrol filling station?

  • Minutes will be emailed to Chris as soon as they are finished. I took 11 pages of notes and am in the process of transcribing them for you all.

  • Project Coral? Does anyone know what the name of the development company, behind the ‘project’ name is? There is a company called Coral Estates Limited on the Companies House website, who have their registered address in Barking. If it is part of the same company, they are hardly a local company. Have they any connection at all to ASDA? It may also be that ASDA felt, with all the bad feeling aroused when their store went up, that it would be easier to get planning permission for this land by using another developer or associated company.

    Chris, is there any public information regarding the company, who are the shareholders or directors? It may also be interesting to find out if ASDA have, in the past have had similar dealings elsewhere?

  • My understanding Mike is Project Coral is the company name – they are based Northampton way if memory serves.

    The company, from I picked up on Tuesdays meeting is a two man operation – their names escape me now, but am sure they will be in CCRs minutes.

  • Planning Potential was the name of the planning company headed by Ben Ellis.
    Names of the other two gents are in the Minutes which Admin have now posted on the site.


  • {"email":"Email address invalid","url":"Website address invalid","required":"Required field missing"}