Breaking News : “North of London Road” Passed Tonight 15-12

2 Lib Dems, 2 Greens, 3 UKIP and 5 Tories vote AGAINST the application.
14 Tories and 1 independent (Keith Gordon) vote FOR the application.

About the author, admin

  • I don’t understand how Cllr Ian Ward was allowed to vote – he had pre-decided
    ( via a newspaper article beforehand )without listening to the evidence , that
    and the unfortunate absence of Cllrs Mr & Mrs Mason would have made this vote interesting……

  • Well done Jim for all the effort. Chris and the others for trying your level best. I don’t think the few missing Councillors made any difference they had already done their figures. It was kept close so as not to embarrass the local consultant groups and MP. They have total disregard for process with the Chairman, the Director of Planning and finally Cllr. Keith Hudson popping up with his final spanner after the actual debate was virtually over all helping give the nod to the developer. The sheep followed.

  • I attended last nights meeting and like everyone was disappointed and angry with the overall result. However, trying to take a positive away from what I saw…..thank goodness we have Councillors like Chris Black, Jamie Burton, John Hayter, Michael Hoy – all from different political parties but coming together and actually speaking up for those that voted them in! Dare I say it, it was even refreshing to see some of the conservative councillors speaking up in objection – I cant remember who they were, Cheryl Roe I think was one of them. As for the others who voted in favour of the development, fine, that is their right to do so, but for goodness sake, speak up and tell the public and the rest of the council why it is you ARE in favour of it? They just sat there in silence and voted when prompted to do so. Surely if you are a councillor, you have to have a voice! That’s why we voted you in!! Chris you did very well last night. thankyou. I also think my councillor, Jamie Burton, did very well. I’m not so fussed about which political party my councillors represent to be honest, I just want them to be able to speak up for us,… Joe Public! So the positive for me is that we do have some good opposition councillors, just a shame we don’t have a few more like them.

    • James, thanks for your kind words, I’m feeling quite demoralised tonight so they have me helped a bit.

      There is some personal goodwill between the opposition councillors , whichever party they belong to. That is “nice” and means I can talk pleasantly to the guy next to me, John Hayter but also very important because if we ever managed to remove the Tory majority, it wouldn’t be much good if we and UKIP were fighting like rats in a sack all the time !

  • Hello again Chris…just thinking back to last night. Could you tell me who the female councillor was who was sitting in the front row? She was an elderly lady. I have to say, she didn’t seem like she had a clue what was going on? She didn’t know what she was or wasn’t voting for! I heard a rumour that she was in fact, the chairman of the council? I assume that’s not correct as she wasn’t chairing the meeting? it was rather worrying listening to her babbling on, clearly confused about the evenings events?

  • So what is the point of asking local people their opinion on developments? What is the point of voting for local councilors if they go against the opinions of the locals who have voted to represent them. There is a word for local democracy. Sham.
    Our local councillors are paid to represent us. If they are not representing us, why are they paid?
    Who’s interests are RDC representing here if not the locals?
    This is just the start of course. More largescale planning applications to come in this area, because RDC have deemed this the ONLY area of Rayleigh that will be developed for the foreseeable future.
    We (Rayleigh locals) will now begin paying the price for many years to come, for a poor local strategy and plan.
    Democracy in action. A sham.

  • The Core Plan could have specified much more stringent requirements to be met by Developers ( ie: pre-installed road/junction upgrading before homes are built ) – the profit levels involved ( 500+ homes ) would easily support that.
    But the truth is that the Allocations Document was a poor document and so
    would be undefendable at an Appeal hearing -so the RDC Planning Officers effectively painted themselves into a corner ( potentially £0.5+million in costs
    to lose the Appeal ) – remember the secret meeting in July!!!!.
    So last night was about that fact dictating the outcome not as it should be by being based on salient points ( Traffic / Flooding / School Places……et al ).
    And the absence of Mark Francois was no surprise to me , the previous January meeting was all about a pre-election stance , they won the election so no need to posture for another 4 years now – so no show.
    NOTE FOR BRUCE SMART – as per the other thread , muster help for analysis of the roundabout options now well in advance of it getting on the table – or else you will get stitched up…..

  • Just to clarify. I wanted readers to know which conservatives Councillors voted against and it came as no surprise to see who they were. Although I am told there was no indication as to how the Cons. group should vote the officers and leaders of the Council would I think have wanted a clear majority in favour. From what I know of these 5 I should have known that no one could tell several of these 5 how to vote anyway. I am also aware that these members have consistently put Rayleigh and its residents first, work very hard at Town Council level and put in a massive amount of time on our behalf. By my maths it would have taken only 2 more Rayleigh members to have voted differently and….. Well done the 5 for courageously not taking the easy way out and abstaining.

  • Friday ECHO , page 5 , covers the meeting on 30/09/15 and lists who voted for and against – which illustrates who the real NIMBY’S are :-
    The only Rayleigh Ward Councillor to vote for approval was Ian Ward , who should not have been allowed a vote as he had pre-stated support for the application ( several times ) in the Echo newspaper , that is against council protocol – they are supposed to consider the debate!!!! Yeh right.
    All the rest who voted for are non Rayleigh Councillor’s. – only too pleased to
    make sure the mass building stays out of their Wards , the real NIMBY’S.

    The best example is Cllr K Gordon who asserts ” Downstream flooding is not
    a problem……” – tell that to the residents of Rawreth Village , flooded 26 times
    since 2002 ( after the new A130 was built ) , on his head be it…….

      • Whoops missed Mockford ( Sweyne ) but Dray & Merrick that is Eastwood not Rayleigh -like Ian Ward they also don’t care what happens in West Rayleigh , “the other side of the railway” .
        What this has made me realise is that the public must now respond next May ,
        all the West Rayleigh / Hullbridge Ward seats need to be anything but Tory held. So often have I watched the opposition win the argument but lose the vote – we must change it now.

  • Probably not achievable in one go but we need a strategy to win back democracy :-
    38 Seat Chamber
    Currently only 10 ” non Tory opposition ” in place , that is 9 short , who are
    the target seats ? –
    Those directly in the way in West Rayleigh / Hullbridge ie:
    Mockford / Lumley / Pavelin / Hale – not enough !!!!!! but a start.
    Next most likely is Rochford Independents spreading their wings and
    winning the other Hawkwell seats , then it is starting to look like a fair fight.

    The public need to respond next May ( about the time the Construction Traffic mayhem will start – so the electorate will getting fed up with it.

  • Hiya, I have only just found this site. (it was mentioned it on streetlife) It was a close call – wont name names but there were a few missing who prob could have helped???!! (surely this was important enough not to miss?) it is now what it is, just have to now get the best deal dont we?

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