The Rayleigh Times Reports

Two cheers to the Rayleigh Times for reporting that the idea of a swimming pool for Rayleigh has been squelched again.

Their latest front page story is “POOL PLAN SUNK” and begins:

“Rayleigh’s last hope of having a new swimming pool has disappeared with councillors agreeing that it should not be included in the Rochford District Core Strategy.

It came up when councillors were discussing the likelihood of 50 new additional homes in the north of London Road….”

Pity though, that they didn’t say which party ‘s councillor spoke in favour of a pool, and which party opposed it.

About the author, admin

  • Does this mean the houses will be built on the land adjacent to the dual carriageway between the Carpenters Arms rounderbout and the Fairglen rounderbout, off the A127

  • So can we actually tell where they want to build the houses or is this confidential until the council decide whether to approve the application?

  • Admin, has there been any training sessions yet for Councillors, as was commented on earlier this year, to give Councillors more education on planning applications. If there has, are we ratepayers entitled to know who has missed the sessions? If there has not yet been any training sessions, it might be worth arranging some, as there seems to be numerous developers hovering around?

  • So it seems that RDC has again decided that something that would help the whole of the town stay fit and give pleasure is not worth striving for. How can something as beneficial as a swimming pool not be worth negotiating with developers for help with funding. We now know there are lots of developers hoping to get their claws on the land situated in Rayleigh, if they are allowed to build without giving something beneficial in return….

  • Mike, I agree with you 100% about the swimming pool issue. With all the issues in the media about the sedentary lifestyle of sections of the populas a swimming pool is the best way to exercise without putting too much pressure on muscles that have not been used for some time. As an ex competitive swimmer I would love to be able to take up this form of exercise again. After all if Pitsea and Wickford can have swimming pools what is it about Rayleigh that precludes us from having one?

  • Mike, yes there have been further training sessions.

    Regarding the housing, the general location is ‘land north of London Road’, the particular part of this land to be used hasn’t been decided yet (though I believe it is all belongs to one landowner anyaway)

  • Christine, this the kind of issue we should all be hounding our Councillors about. The Senior RDC Councillors can give themselves big raises but if it comes to a facility that would benefit the residents of Rayleigh, well enough said.

  • I notice that RDC have turned down an application to have a new nursing home built on London Road, Rayleigh, on the grounds of parking and traffic. I have not seen any comments from RDC regarding the parking, traffic and subsequent mess the new housing developments will give the people of Rayleigh, Hawkwell etc. I would sooner have a nursing home on my doorstep than 100’s of new homes!

  • That Mike, is very interesting and surely sets a precident for any future planning applications for the land “north of London Road”!!!

    Having said that the brown fields site of Rawreth Industrial estate must be worth considering as a potential site for a swimming pool? I still fail to understand why there wasn’t one built at the Rayleigh Lesiure Centre in the first place! Yet another example of little imagination and poor planning by RDC.

    Maybe a new pool could also be considered as part of a deal to build a new VIth Form College in Rayleigh?

    I remain opposed to any green fields site “North of London” Road being used no matter how desperate the land owner is to off load it to the highest bidder…

    Admin, I’d like to know please, if the land owner in question is related in any way to any of our local Politicians? And, if this is the case has this fact been properly declared and considered? Thanks

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