Countryside have now submitted an outline planning application for “North of London Road”. It is still being validated by the District Council planners, so we haven’t seen it yet , we’ll provide more info when we get it. But remember that all district councillors, including Chris and Ron, have to stay impartial until the meeting.
At a guess, it might come to the Development Committee in November for a decision.
The District Council have a webpage for “Major Residential Planning Applications”: http://www.rochford.gov.uk/planning/planning_applications/major_residential_planning_app
We would expect the application to appear on that page soon.
Last Thursday the Evening Echo carried a piece on this – claiming a New Primary School / Clinic / Shops ( none of which was on the Countryside road show plans ),
so maybe just maybe some of the points made by the public were listened to. BUT don’t hold your breath the Council have already decided against the new Primary School ( St Nicholas is to be expanded instead ) so that means transport to/ from .
No mention of the biggest impact issue ( TRAFFIC ) on Rawreth Lane / London Rd but it looks like they have moved the houses further away from the flood zone, so again maybe public pressure has had some effect.
One interesting fact , RTSSC lease expires in 2019 , so plenty of room for the higher density housing muted recently – remember they were going to move the Club!!!!!!!.
PLEASE let us know when/ where it is available for comment.
Isnt this now the time for the Lib Dems/Greens/Indepependants/ as well as the two Action Groups Hullbridge and Rayleigh to convene another public meeting
What we need now is list of proposals to make this application more palitable, seems from the reports and what Jim says above some of the issues are being addressed but I doubt as well if the traffic and road improvements are
This should be one opportunity for RDC and ECC to improve an already broken road infrastructure by getting funding from the developer, using the “New Homes Bonus”, and getting funding from County.
I fear without concerted pressre the development will be nodded through and we will be dumped with extra traffic and little improvement.
Out of any meeting we need a blueprint for improvement and a list of actions people accross Rochford can do, not just to object but actions to the right people to improve
I agree Richard. It seems unlikely that anything can be done to actually stop the development happening, but if everyone works together (and that includes RDC/Planning Officers/ECC) then perhaps this can turn into a development that everyone, developers, council and current residents, can point to as an example of how an area can actually benefit from this sort of thing rather than be strained to breaking point by it. It would be nice to see something come out of this that everyone can be proud of.
Happy to attend a public meeting subject to being able to comply with Council’s Planning Protocol for Members. Chris? Ron?
The application is now available for us to review under reference 14/00627/OUT,
John, perhaps we can talk about this tomorrow night? I’d be happy to attend a public meeting, provided , as you say it complies with the planning protocol for members.
John, Chris,
I understand that if you nail your colours to the mast on planning issues you would be precluded from speaking and voting at the planning meeting ?
Well that would be no loss, as the Tories will surely whipp it through
far better guys like you and Micheal Hoy take a leading role in the opposition advising the general population what to do and how to do it
I have always been told by the Conservative Party in Rochford District Council that there is NO WHIP on INDIVIDUAL Planning Decisions made in Development Committee. On that basis there is a FREE VOTE for all Members and I can certainly say that I have personally been able through good advocacy to persuade all Members of the Planning Authority to back me and residents or ENOUGH Members to secure a vote for or against that was in the interests of residents.
Having said that if the Conservatives have already approved an Allocation of Land in the CS then it could be possible to conclude otherwise of course.
If residents wish to influence all Members on the case for or against a particular large planning application then like in Hawkwell then there is nothing to stop a Parish Council calling a public meeting which removes the issue that Members have with the Planning Protocol at RDC which might prevent them from doing this.
Richard @7 – above :
That is an observation that needs to be taken seriously , I recently exchanged views with both Chris & John about how to fight fire with fire – by which I mean a tactical approach to combat the Cabinet dictated policy of RDC.
It will takes years of elections to erode away the massive majority and stand a chance of winning a vote in the Chamber – by which time it will be too late……..we will be concreted over / gridlocked / flooded and be on long waiting lists for any services.
The various Action Groups ( in Basildon / Castle Point / Rochford / Southend ) are all fighting the same battles and need all the help they can get – Councillors should be reflecting the residents views , loud and clear.
John could you please explain the process by which A Parish Council Meeting would remove the protocol for our ward members to express our feelings to the planning committee . Incidentally the Echo reported Castle Point Core Strategy Inspector ,commenting on use of Green Belt for housing saying that it was up to Local Councils whether to use it or protect it . If Cllr Ward can categorically say all new housing is a necessity for our local needs then so be it ,but I do not think so ! We will be attracting even more to our overcrowded and expensive corner of what was once a pleasant area to live . The Countryside proposals look very pretty but the devil will be in the detail ,the statement that it will not increase flooding elsewhere ,well tell that to our residents in Church Road who did not even get a mention in the flooding forum with existing issues .
John @8 above –
I appreciate you have to show due respect to your fellow Councillors integrity by saying it will be a free vote , but as I said in #9 above the majority is too great and
I am quite sure majority will follow the party line ( don’t forget this is their ‘plan’ they are voting on ).
Chris how do we get this Rawreth Parish Public Meeting launched in time to shape an orchestrated opposition to the Countryside Plan? via numerous objections.
And yes I did spot Councillor Ward using the. “we were only following orders” excuse;
as pointed out it has now been formally stated that it is the Councils decision to build on Green Belt – so presumably it was Cabinet orders they were following. This Green Belt issue must now become a key planning objection!!!!!.
As in 7 & 9 above – we need our Councillors to take the lead on this , you will win massive support, it just needs the system used for us not against us this time.
Alistir @ 10- Hawkwell Parish Council called the Meeting so the public could raise their concerns with the Parish Council and as a Statutory Consultee, The Parish Council could then make representations For or Against to the District Council. I was pleased as a District Member to hear these issues first hand and bear them in mind when I came to consider the application in Development Committee and speak. I observed the Planning Protocol and I have no doubt that Hawkwell Parish Councillors had their own regard to such matters. The Meeting was Chaired by the Parish Council Chairman and the issued raised put up on a White Board for all to see. This is all that I had in mind when raising the possibility of a public meeting. I do not think that District Members could call a public meeting unless it was supervised by Planning Officers. Rawreth Parish Council must consider this as a new situation and take its own advice. No doubt all Parish Councillors could express their view in a Parish Meeting before The Parish Council considers writing as Statutory Consultee. I hope that I have covered all of your questions about what I see as process.
Jim @ 11 – I think that I have answered your question also.
On one Planning Application in my Ward I decided to forgo my vote at Development Committee and speak out in public in advance of the Committee Meeting. In the event the Application was withdrawn.
All District Members can do this but courting massive support is one thing but is it not on most occasions more important that we are able to exercise our gift to speak and vote at Development Committee? Let me know what you think, Jim.
It is’nt for me to push Chris / Ron in any direction – but ( having sat quietly observing in Chamber for the last 12 months ) I have no doubt that whatever a Councillor stands up and says at the Development Committee , this will go through – it may be a Countryside submission but it is the Cabinets policy being implemented.
I therefore see more chance of wringing some local infrastructure benefits out of this if it is a big show of public dissatisfaction with Councillor led credibility (rather than Action Groups , which as we have seen are ignored at will ).
But as I say it is up to Chris & Ron as they see fit , I would like to hear their views.
This is what I see as the issues :-
1. Local historical population data is pretty steady and both Brownffield / Infill developments would cater for “our” local needs – the 250 / year for 20 years is
artificial and imposed by Central Government to suit “their” London expansion.
2. Local Services are already inadequate ( GP’s / Dentists /A&E/ Hospitals etc;) and
their is no provision to expand those – don’t forget all other districts are expanding too. Let’s not forget Police / Fire Brigade / Social Services…….etc;etc;
3. Plain T junctions into both Rawreth Lane and London Rd will, without doubt add to
The existing chaos ( years of Construction traffic and subsequent domestic traffic –
Because right hand turns impact traffic flow in both directions. An estate this size should have it’s own access. ( East- West ) onto the A1245 not onto side roads.
4. There are numerous examples of recently built estates that were designed on modern criteria and are flooding – why would this be any different ? – the criteria is
already years out of date ( proven by numerous incidents in 4ayleigh ).
5. The new Primary School and updated RTSSC facilities have already been cancelled – so what chance those items now listed , none are secured by this OPA,
they will evaporate over the planning process timescale.
Jim, I understand what you are saying @13 but having thought about this I think it’s very important for the ward members to treat this application as we would any other. I’m happy to attend any meetings (time permitting) that are called about this, or have this on their agenda.
Sorry Chris I have to disagree you should step outside the planning protocol and lead the fight as these developments affect your ward
Also it is easy to say parish councils can lead the opposition
Where are Rayleigh Town Council on this issue
Town Council led by Mr Ward means no help from there – how do we get the Parish to call a public meeting ?.
Chris @ 15 –
OK Cris you have your view – how about Ron Oatham ? , and how do we get the Parish Council not to miss this opportunity ( public meeting ) , who do I write to?.
Jim
Alistir Matthews has already posted to “Watch this space” for the possibility of a Public Meeting being arranged by Rawreth PC and he has read what I posted about the prior Hawkwell example.
But…………………
http://www.rawrethparishcouncil.co.uk/
Cllr Alistir Matthews (Chairman)
Telephone 01268 732069
Mrs Hayley Bloomfield
Parish Office: 103 Downhall Park Way Rayleigh Essex SS6 9QZ
Email clerk.rawrethparishcouncil@btinternet.com
Telephone 07773 952455
OK , thank you, I will keep watching. [edited]
Seems to me the concept of a concerted coming together of public opinion and meaningful challenge to the RDC/ Countryside plan for North of London Rd is’nt going to happen , it will just run out of time to act.
Jim @ 18
A good point you raise.
If I were to express an opinion at this outline application stage I would rule myself out of any future discussion (or voting)at the RDC development Committee and be left in the position of “a member of the public”. There is obviously going to be a LOT of discussion when details are revealed later and I need to be aware of what other members are saying and to look out for the interests of residents of the ward.Frustrating as it may be I will follow the protocol and remain impartialuntil the appropriate time. I will of course listen to anything residents may say in comments and bear all these in mind in the future
Have to agree again with Jim, I have posted myobjections but would have appreciated a list of subjects to raise from someone who has studied the subject I have only “commented”on the application on the RDC website what else should I do ?????
I know my comment is going to be frowned upon, but it seems to be forgotten that if 20, 50 or 100 years ago people made as much noise as is being made at the moment about building on green belt, we would all be living somewhere else. Rayleigh has not always been the size it is now, all our homes were once open fields or woodland! It’s called growth, homes ARE needed, else where are your children or grandchildren going to live? I know there will be comments about brownfield sites, but are there enough brownfield sites in the district that can accommodate the number of homes needed?
Exactly – Rayleigh has been / is and will be overdeveloped by extending into the green belt , for what , the expansion of London that’s what .Local population growth data is remarkably small & steady – easily catered for by smaller infill building projects on brownfield sites ,ie: Bullwood Hall Prison / old abandoned Nursery sites at Bedloes.
The government cap the Council Tax levels ( looks good for votes ) but bribes local Councils with a bounty payment on every new build ( and Gypsy sites ) in order to supplement the income – and so create the exodus from London ( it is called white flight) which is effectlvely becoming a foreign owned ‘country’.
And the public at large are apathetic , sleep walking into accepting it lying down – how
many 4 Bed / Double Garaged ” starter homes” will be bought by local youngsters?.
cjav , you’re right, but when towns such as Rayleigh underwent rapid expansion in the 1960s/70s the greenbelt was set up to prevent communities running into each other. At that time no one really thought that we would have mass immigration and a subsequent birth rate boom and population growth of anything like the level we have experienced in the last 10ish years. However, despite that the population of our district has remained relatively stable and although yes, I agree, we need houses for our children and grandchildren, those could easily be built on brownfield sites already identified by various Parish and Town councils. There is ample capacity there to take care of our local housing needs for some years to come. It is not RDCs job to build for London overflow, but to get the new homes bonus that is what they are doing. There are ample brownfield sites in London that if properly utilised would do much to ease their housing problems. However both in London and locally brownfield is not attractive to developers, it is more expensive to build there and they don’t get the economies of scale that come with building a whole estate on virgin land.
My twopenth in this debate is that it is the duty of RDC ECC and Central Govt to ensure that the infrastructure is in place to accommodate these new houses, not to build and then hope another agency has the money and will to catch up
Nice idea Richard but that is called “joined up thinking ” a rare commodity in today’s world of short term / get rich quick / I’m alright Jack culture .
You know that backward / Mañana country ( Spain ) – their rules require developers to pre- install the infrastructure elements ( underground services/ roads / pavements / street lights – before they get the OK to build houses ) – cos they know it will not happen otherwise.
Watched the Scotland debate on TV last night and I think it sums up ( on a bigger scale obviously ) our own situation too –
Remote ( Westminster ) Central government dogma that takes no account of local
variations – and the British Isles is so diverse ( Scouse/ Brummie/Geordie/ Jocks etc; –
but more importantly regional variations in terms of industry / employment options ).
And our little bit is tangled in the same web – Government after Government has expanded London rather than de- centralise ,based on the myth that London is the centre of the universe ( and who told you that – Bankers / the City / Foreign Investors-
all those who put us in crisis in 2008 ). So the Central Government plan ( Thames
Gateway ) is to concrete over SE Essex , which apart from dumping on us , does not solve the rest of the countries growing unemployed underclass burden.
So while I would’nt want to see Scotland break away I do admire their guts in making a stand and sticking up for themselves – if they win it might well inspire others to do
the same……..
So they are now ‘talking the talk” on English Devolution ,but will they “walk the walk” –
Nah – they need a distraction ( bombing ISIS probably ) then the (General Election)….