Rochford District Matters Is Coming Out This Week….

November

27

29 comments

Rochford District Matters (the council newspaper) is being delivered this week.

The council’s senior communications officer would like to know of any residents who don’t receive a copy. So if you don’t receive one by the end of tomorrow (Friday 28th) , please feel free to leave a comment below, with your postcode

Thanks.

About the author, admin

  • As at 6.45pm – No Rochford Matters here – SS11 8UA. We didn’t get the last one either, I had to search on line for the re-cycling collection calendar to download and print off. I think we’ve had maybe 2 in the two years 2013/2014.

  • We got this one but far better was the copy of the Rayleigh Review ( the free local mag ) that appeared today. For once positive stuff about the town, lots of feel good stories and articles. Such a refreshing change from the negativity and constant moaning that now populates this site ( not from me of course )

    Come on Admin, lighten up a little and let’s have some positivity over Christmas ! Normal whinging to be resumed on Jan 1st…..????

  • Rayleigh Action Group have had their banner that was in place at the junction of Rawreth Lane and Hullbridge Road stolen. The banner was legitimately placed on private property. The theft happened at 10.10 pm on Wednesday night. The thief was dark haired, wearing a hat and a high vis jacket. We are asking for cctv footage from the shops and properties. If anyone is able to identify this character so he can be prosecuted please get in touch. There is a reward for his conviction. Thanks.

  • LK @ 7.
    If you are suggesting that a banner on private property is legitimate can I take it that the banner at the junction of Rawreth Lane and Laburnum Way is not legitimate as it is attached to a fence owned by County Highways?

  • Greenbelt @ 10. An adjacent resident assured us it was on land not controlled by the County Highways. Sorry if you are offended. Why do you call yourself ‘greenbelt’ if you are unhappy with our attempts to protect the limited amount left in our area?

  • Linda Kendall @ 11.
    I have been posting on Online Focus for many years now and started when a number of contributors used titles such as Rayleigh Resident etc. I live on a plot which extends into ‘greenbelt’ so followed the trend. Many residents including councillors know me as Greenbelt and as far as I know are not offended by it.
    I do not disagree with any person or group in attempting to protect the limited amount of greenbelt left in our area but I do get annoyed when adjacent residents, living on an estate which 19 years ago was built on farmland, have completely disregarded that fact and are now complaining about a repeat of very similar circumstance. Short memories and hypocritical opinions as I see it.
    Since living in this area I have experienced the effects that each and every development to the south of Rawreth Lane have brought upon us and I have submitted planning objections regarding a large percentage of them to RDC, including the one your group’ like me’ are currently attempting to protect.
    Some people choose to make their objections in different ways to others and this should be recognised and accepted.Not everyone agrees with the RAG approach.
    Regarding the banner, it is located in Laburnum Way and attached to a railing adjacent the pavement. The pavements serving Rawreth Lane and Laburnum Way are the responsibility of the County Council, as is the railing. Therefore it forms part of the highway infrastructure.
    I would also like to bring to your attention the following points regarding your banner;-
    1. The title on the banner, as you know, is “Rayleigh and Hullbridge”. This being the case, what place does it have in the parish of Rawreth? Were the views of the Rawreth Parish Council sought? as I think it would have been polite to do so.
    2. It is also clear that RAG action is predominately from Rayleigh residents hence the choice of your website address. Rawreth does not come into this.
    3. The wording of the banner is such that property values in the area will plummet as prospective buyers considering existing properties will take one look at it and turn away. I am planning to put my property on the market in the near future and the last thing I want is a banner depicting:- “MORE TRAFFIC — MORE FLOODING — MORE HOUSING & NEW TRAVELLER SITE” opposite my house. Let them find out the facts through their solicitors during searches.
    I am sure you feel there is a need to get a concern over loud and clear in placards and banners but please take other residents concerns into account and let us move forward amicably.
    My request now to RAG is to remove the banner and place it somewhere else. Preferably in the areas of Rayleigh or Hullbridge whom you represent in the title.

  • Seems to me that, apart from the old town itself, most of Rayleigh/Rawreth is built on what was farmland at one time – be it 50 or 19 years ago, the primary issue for me is that development has already outstripped the supporting infrastructure .
    Opposing even more development without proportional infrastructure upgrade is an
    entirely legitimate objective for all of us – without having to qualify by timescale.
    Just a thought…….

  • Greenbelt @ 12. I am sorry if the protest of Rayleigh Action Group has come about at an inconvenient time for you but our objective is to try to protect what little rural areas remain in what RDC call ‘West Rayleigh’ in the Local Plan. This location title is also used in the current planning application. The site is beyond the site of the poster so perhaps your complaint should be directed at the Council for this mis-information. Our concerns are with the people who will, unlike yourself evidently if you are moving away, have their lives blighted and made more impossible with increased traffic etc. I am assured the people living on the estate you say you find hypocritical are working and likely to be paying huge mortgages on their homes. They are perhaps aggrieved because they didn’t arrive here years ago when it was a relatively cheap neighbourhood but bought into what was a semi-rural area in costly new properties that will be devalued by the present plans. One family, presently overlooking green fields, will be having a three storey commercial building a few feet from their bedroom windows and totally over-shadowing their small garden if the ‘care home’ plan materialises for the corner of the Rawreth Industrial Estate road entrance. Is that justice? I don’t think so, even if they are ‘new-comers’.

  • Linda Kendal @ 14. You are missing the point. I have protested about further development. The point I first made @ 10 was to establish if the placement of the banner is legitimate. A question you have failed to answer.

  • Here’s a thought – We all have the perfect opportunity to express our feelings next May at the ballot box – relieve the incumbent of the Rayleigh and Wickford seat – a big ask I know as he has a very large majority – and replace him with a politician who will address ALL the local issues – A leaflet arrived at my house recently from a candidate who promised to do such a thing – no guesses as to which party he represents !!!!

  • Beware of politicians bearing promises! You may not get what you expect! Still no Rochford Matters . Good to see Whitevan Man joining the measured debate ,I also received same leaflet ,sounds too good to be true probably is .

  • Oz @ 22 & 23 above –
    It is you being so cheerful that keeps us all going mate ????.
    @22 – I see Mr ( Done Deal ) Hudson is crowing on the RDC website , has been
    keeping his head down for some time since resigning the post ????.

  • Have you read the Spring issue of Rochford District Matters ( Election Issue ???? ) –
    Reads like a rear guard action in defence of the Allocations Plan, synopsis :-

    35% Affordable – by who’s yardstick of cost ?

    Negative impact on infrastructure & roads – yes even MP & Councillors think so too !!

    No Brownfield sites available for the No – er !! Bullwood Hall ( Windfall Site ) !!

    Flood Plain no problem – er !! Eon Site next door , modern design that flooded !!

    Residents object – er!! ‘We were only following orders’ , Localism Act a mirage !!

    And for Oz ( does’nt like negative posts ) – silence is their friend and your enemy…..????

  • Strangely I didn’t see anything on RDC plans to possibly move out of Rochford (as reported in the Full Council minutes for December). May be to Hockley (which may explain why they pushed so hard for the HAAP).
    Oh its good to have an open, communicative council.

  • Jim @ 28 What did Mandy Rice-Davis say to the Judge in the John Profumo scandal of the 60’s? Well he would wouldn’t he’ when challenged that a ‘lordship’ had denied being with call girls!
    In this case it might be said ‘well they wouldn’t would they’!

  • {"email":"Email address invalid","url":"Website address invalid","required":"Required field missing"}
    >
    %d bloggers like this: