The officers report for the meeting on September 30th can be downloaded here. (1001kb)
It is 122 pages long, so Ron Oatham and Chris Black have a lot of reading to do….
Officers are recommending approval, with 40 conditions..
This is the second application – the first was refused in January, and Countryside have appealed. The District Council has already decided at a confidential meeting last month not to defend that appeal (a decision which we opposed).
So the reality is this.
If the council passes this second application next week, then it is of course passed.
If the council refuses this application, then the appeal on the first application will go ahead. And as the council has already decided not to defend the appeal , the first application will almost certainly be passed.
So one way or another, one of these applications is going to go ahead.
You are all between a rock and a hard place then. Wishing all RDC councillors all the best in reaching as good an outcome as possible under the circumstances.
What we are witnessing here is a low point in our so called democracy –
A 39 seat Council, which is actually run by a 9 man Junta ( inner cabinet )
aided and abetted by an unelected Official [EDITED]
The MP / Parish Council / Town Council / and District Councillor’s who voted 23 – 10 against it plus 100’s of residents in Rayleigh/ Rawreth – all objected to the plan , only to be ignored – Democracy , I’ll leave you to decide.
This development was destined to go ahead from day one, anybody who thinks otherwise is at best deluded and at worse a fool. The challenge now for RDC is to ensure that the conditions as laid out are adhered to. Perhaps our next to useless MP will take the lead…..
As has been said many times the objection too and challenges against this “DONE DEAL” stitch up have always been to mitigate the impacts – there is no delusion involved . And I think most people will come to their own conclusion about who is a fool…..
The stated aim of the Rayleigh Action Group was to stop this development, perhaps you haven’t looked at their web site.
I am well aware of the RAG website and it’s original aims , but once RDC were aided and abetted by the Government Inspector (with Allocations Document Approval ) it was clear this is a stitch up. The objective then changed and became a battle to minimise the impact ( the first application would never have been refused if RAG had’nt exposed the facts ).
The general apathy of the public is fuel to these decisions by the resident Tory Junta (who you presumably support ) – see you in a traffic jam near here soon.
MMMMMMM – that is a ‘simplistic’ interpretation, obviously the initial objective was to stop this (2+ years ago ) but once it became clear that
this is a ” DONE DEAL” – you have to change strategy and limit the impact.
The 23-10 vote / and delay against the 1st submission would not have been achieved without the NOISE created by objectors.
See you in a traffic jam coming to your area soon……..
Actually I thought Mark Francois did a decent job at the meeting in January.
Still no explanation or justification for not assessing Construction Site traffic impact – the first and longest impact on the local community .
And do not be fooled by the sop ” developer to submit a Construction Plan to the Planning Authority for approval…. ” – this is not a traffic impact assessment, it is a wordy document that majors in what is going on in site ,not
the mayhem it is causing immediately outside ( let’s see who is first to spot clay & gravel all over Rawreth Lane !!!!!!! – for years.)
Gradually lowing through the document – interesting point :-
Clause 4.108 Lead Local Flood Authority ( ECC ) – quote…..
“Having reviewed the Flood Risk Assessment and drainage strategy and the associated documents that accompanied the planning application, WE OBJECT
TO GRANTING THIS PLANNING PERMISSION .”
Two pages later based on a further submission addressing the concerns , Lo and behold they change to recommending approval ? – so from a procedural point of view who has seen these revised documents not submitted until 16/09/15?,
has the public and any other interested party seen them / given a reasonable time to appraise them ? – and why are developers being given countless opportunities of consultation that no other party gets ( including Councillor’s who make the planning decisions ) . THIS HAS TO BE CHALLENGED AS IRREGULAR CONDUCT……..Admin this is vital FLOOD Related.
Another one –
Clause 4.123 ( Anglian Water ) :- quote……
“The surface water strategy/ flood risk assessment submitted with the planning application relevant to Anglian Water is UNACCEPTABLE as the flood risk assessment states that the infiltration tests have not yet been carried out and
a discharge consent to the water course is yet to be granted……”
Slowly they are all realising what we already know – this is a poor / unsustainable site chosen in haste ( 7 years and £2.6million !!!!!! ) –
And reflects badly on the Developer given this is a re-submission .
Got an e mail yesterday ( my notification as an objector ) exactly 7 days before the meeting – an invitation to speak at the meeting – IF apply before noon 7 days before the meeting !!!!! , is there no limit to their manipulation of rules?.
I am really pleased to see that the case being made by the Rayleigh Action Group (RAG) is being articulated here by Jim Cripps (RAG Committee) direct to Ward Members, Chris Black and Ron Oatham and the public to prove that it is being put. This site is also read by other Members of the Council. On that basis both sides of the case, for and against, can be put to the Development Committee on 30 September and a balanced and weighted decision can be assessed. If there are open questions which are not closed in the Officer’s Report I am sure that Chris and Ron will get to the detail and raise issues. With regard to the SUDS issues in Hawkwell we were lucky enough, at that time, to have a professional resident on hand to re-assess the “Yes-No” interludes that Jim refers to (who else remembers Michael Miles and Take Your Pick?)
RDC Executives and Planners, together with Countryside Developers have spent 9 months formulating this re-hatched SCHEME (I use the word as written) but our elected representatives get FIVE WORKING DAYS and any public statement (we expect our MP to jump in again as he did when shoring up his vote for the General Election!) is limited to just 5 MINUTES. That is the level of democracy we have here in Rochford. I suspect the celebratory drinks party is already booked and PAID for. Waitresses drawn from Tory ranks possible on ‘double’ time so cheers all round!
The most awful choice of site for this development . Hasn’t this area had it’s share of new housing ? It certainly has in the last 20 years, it’s unrecognisable from when I came to the area in 92. The roads can’t cope very well now , so it’ll be hellish with more new homes and cars . This needs to be turned down , listen to the the people for once . It all seems so corrupt and those voted in wonder why the public don’t trust or respect them anymore . Here’s the answer , you never listen to the people
Admin – CB & RO were researching this ahead of a meeting with SS , have you had that consultation yet ? – only the outstanding question as to why 10 years of Construction Site Traffic has not been assessed is still outstanding…….
There’s an appointment with officers tomorrow morning.
ok thanks – don’t be fobbed off with the “we are now insisting on a construction method statement ” , that is not a construction traffic impact assessment on local roads and junctions ( which will last at least 10 years , so not exactly a
Temporary situation , which might well be another excuse for not assessing it…