The LDF Sub-Committee To Have A Morning Meeting.




The Local Development Framework Subcommitee is the panel of councillors which meets to make recommendations on local planning policies and things like taking land out of the greenbelt. It doesn’t meet very often and usually meets in the evening. and in previous years met in the evening However there is a meeting scheduled for 10 am on Thursday 11th February. The last One time it met in the morning was a couple of times in about 2008, when the panel went for a quick tour of some possible green belt locations.
However no agenda has been published yet…

About the author, admin

  • As a Member of that Sub Committee I expect the long awaited updated project plan to be put forward for the Revision of The Core Strategy (Committee asked for this to be updated in July !!) and a paper on Community Involvement. Hope that helps you and residents have an early view.

    • Oops. I should have checked more carefully, thanks for the info. However these are some of the most important meetings we have, they should take place in the evening, so that more of the public can attend.

  • Just a thought. I am sure that you will publish the links to the reports to be discussed and invite/receive questions/comments from residents. I will be happy to make sure that questions are put and concerns/comments put forward.

  • Admin – perhaps that is why they have switched to daytime………….!!!!!!.
    However just in case it is the right forum , some points :-
    Chelmsford Council have dumped some of their quota ( Runwell 600 / Rettendon 1250 ) on the border with RDC, as have Basildon ( Wickford 600 plus
    multiple Traveller Sites ). If you plot those sites along with Hullbridge 500 and London Rd 500 and then join up the dots – it creates a perfect circle.
    Within that circle are roads that already have a regular problem at rush hours;
    and ,if you overlay it on the EA Flood Risk maps, they surround the ‘dark blue’ area sump that already cannot cope with the increasingly regular ” unusual” rainfall events.
    Minor 106 contributions are too little too late and will not solve the coming problems – 15 years of construction traffic / and the resulting extra domestic load on the infrastructure , that is what needs talking about.

  • What is the point of publically announcing this meeting. It is surely to give the illusion that the public have some way of influencing what happens. What a farse. RDC allow building wherever they want, for whatever undisclosed reasons.
    Our duly elected representatives just demonstrate how desparate they are to keep their jobs by promising one thing then failing to deliver those promises once elected. Many have a career on the perpetuation of this illusion.
    There are rules with regards the development of green belt which apply sometimes. There is the Local Development Framework which applies sometimes. These rules apply more to some than to others. Big developers seem to be immune, whilst there always seems to be good reasons to reject applications from small scale developers.
    This meeting is the enactment of doublespeak and pure hypocracy. An illusion of public accountability woven by those on the gravy chain. We are all equal, but some, still in 2016, are more equal than others.

  • Zaphod. If only I and all the thousands of residents that supported Rayleigh Action Group had understood the reality of what you have just written in 2013 we could have saved ourselves a lot of time, expense and hard work. Those who sit on RDC are an affront to democracy. Those who continue to pretend they are relevant when they know the full truth are no better than the majority that totally ignore anything the public say. If they had any integrity they would resign due to the gerrymandering they have witnessed in relation to the planning process.

    • Linda, your work did good.
      It kept many RDC planning employees, councilors, planning consultants, planning inspectors off the streets and filled their bellies.
      Also its going to fill the bellies of the favored multi-national, nay, international developers for a little while to come.

  • John – re: your offer above to raise points , there are many but I have limited myself to just one :-
    Adjacent Councils across SE Essex ( from Grays through to Southend ) are , in ignorance of each other, currently proposing a total of circa 70,000 new homes over the next 15 years. The various Consultee’s ( EA / ECC Highways )are waving it through -mainly because the have neither the resources to investigate nor the budgets to do anything but.

    Seems to me that ECC should be addressing the bigger picture accross the County ( Roads / Rail / Schools / Hospital / Employment / Social & Emergency Services ) – given that each area Council is represented on the ECC!!!!!.

    But I see absolutely no sign of any significant pre-installed Infrastructure plans, in fact what I see is in unrealistic reliance on Section 106 contributions
    from Developers ( after the event ). We all know these are rarely attained in full
    as the Developers are adept at exploiting the time limited agreements for 106.

    So my one question for the LDF team is – what measures and enforcements are
    going to be applied to Developers in order to mitigate the ‘millions’ of extra site
    traffic movements ( materials & workforces ) on existing roads for 15 years?.

    Thank you – Jim.

  • John, the most obvious time that any residents view has been listened to was in the early stages – when we got the original ‘1800 in Rayleigh’ figure drastically reduced. This was after Jackie Dillnutt won Sweyne Park ward for the Lib Dems (not a coincidence). Development figures have crept upwards since then, but they probably would have crept up anyway without a change in control of council
    NOW is the time to be active and take an interest in the council, more so than in the past few years. Because when things are only at the LDF stage there’s a much better chance to influence them before they solidify into new Plan policies approved by an inspector.
    NOW is not the time to lapse into apathy – the ‘powers that be’ would absolutely love that. There’s no point in getting active again in 4 or 5 years time trying to reverse decisions made in the next year or two.
    NOW is the time for people to get off their sofas and help opposition candidates win seats.

  • In the day time because no one can find their way in the darkness that surrounds and is in Rayleigh. Time to have a very large repair of our street lights. List of people to email available on request. Have worked up to Mark Francois now, or rather my wife has. Nearly all January and still lights not repaired. FP2 in DPW at nearly a year seems to be winning. The holes in Dawlish Crescent are winning street repair time. Unless you know better.

  • I have an idea for the agenda for this meeting

    1. Identify the most lucrative green belt areas for large scale multi national developers.
    2. Organize them (with reps from the large multi national developers) into a schedule.
    3. Take advise from expensive experts on how to build an evidence base to justify the developments.
    4. Agree the plans (amongst the developer and RDC)
    5. Execute a public consultation process
    6. Convert green belt to development land and develop.

  • I implore the members of this committee to consider changing the policy of developing a limited number of huge urban expansion areas to developing smaller more numerous sites. Since 1998 there has been a huge reduction in the number of small to medium building businesses (estimated to be 80% – from 12200 to 2400). This is largely due to local authorities allocating huge urban developers, which only large national/international developers can service.
    Much is said about encouraging the SME builder. You have a chance to do something with the latest call for sites exercise being run to address this.
    There approach would have many benefits.
    – Local developers use local work forces who are residents. This approach retains much more of the financial benefit of development in the local community.
    – Smaller development sites integrate better with the existing developed environment and do not overwhelm the existing character of a place.
    – There is a greater variance to the type and style of developments.
    – The failure/delay of a large urban site results in a big failure/delay of a local authorities plan. Smaller more numerous sites provides a more responsive solution.
    – The current local plan fails to achieve its objectives with regards the defence of the green belt from largescale development. RDC has to concede planning permission to largescale development in the green belt, and only has the power to resist small scale developments.

  • Please read the two papers to be discussed on 11 February giving me your views and questions here. Thanks.

    (these are shortened URL’s from Google)

    1.1 This reports sets out a new (Draft) Local Development Scheme 2016 (LDS) for Rochford District. The LDS sets out a timetable for the preparation of the Council’s main planning documents over a three year period. The documents
    concerned are:-
    1. Timetable for the Local Plan Review;
    2. Community Infrastructure Levy Charging Schedule (CILCS);
    3. Statement of Community Involvement; and
    4. other Local Development documents


    1.1 The purpose of this report is to seek approval to consult on a revised draft Statement of Community Involvement (SCI). The current adopted SCI needs to be updated to take into account changes in national planning guidance and to help shape consultation on a new Rochford District Local Plan. The
    consultation is proposed for March/April 2016.

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