Two planning applications in Rayleigh were refused last night by the District Council.
First of all, an application for 8 dwellings in Victoria Avenue was refused on the grounds of overdevelopment, and effect on a preserved tree.
Secondly, an application for 4 houses accessed via Picton Gardens and Picton Close was refused on a whole raft of reasons, the main one being unneighbourly and instrusive development.
The four ward councillors – Pat Aves, Tony Humphries, Jackie Dillnutt and Joan Mockford all did a competent job of representing their residents on the night.
However, a tiny bit of election pettiness crept into the meeting when one senior Conservative said she agreed with ‘the ward member Joan Mockford’ but pointedly didn’t mention Jackie!
You know, it is a real shame when one party cannot work in unity with another. Just think what could actually be achieved if there was a change in mindset. This town could really be regenerated and go places if we had a real District Council who thought more about putting rate payers first and pettiness second, however I suppose we should not hold our breath for too long?
Well, this sort of thing almost never happens at Development Control meetings – party politics is normally kept out of it- and it won’t have any impact on the election. But it did seem petty.
In a similar way, I’m expecting the response from Terry Cutmore on the sewage to be non-political and supportive as well.
By the way, I won’t say who the councillor was, but Lindsay could probably guess!
Maybe not at the Development Control meetings, Chris. But my comment still stands, we do not need or want Cabinet Councils. It does nothing for the good of the residents and makes Councils very insular. This is my opinion and I would say this whoever was in power but a local Council should be open to all ideas from the whole spectrum of politics.One party cannot have all the best ideas or all the answers.
I am relieved the Victoria Avenue application was refused! This may have happened for technical reasons, but as a member of “joe public” I feel very strongly about our quality of life. With more & more front gardens disappearing to make parking places, it is important to allow space around any sort of dwelling for a bit of green. Thank you to all our Ward Councillors for their efforts on our behalf!
Keep up the good work.
Janet, the ‘tree’ reason was a technical one, but the overdevelopment reason is a more long-term one……
Hi Janet. Agreed. I was there and our councillors did a fantastic job. These developers have no consideration what-so-ever for the people surrounding their developments and they need to have their greed nipped in the bud. Common sense and consideration to the surrounding community MUST be enforced.
I am also very pleased that the planning application at No. 58 has been rejected yet again. We’ve already had one similar development directly opposite, which caused road congestion and mess for months and months on end. I don’t know why someone can’t apply for planning for something like two or three modest houses with parking and nice spacious gardens. Do we need a “mini village” within the already built up area/road?
Richard, I think it just comes down to money, if a landowner can make say £100,000 profit per each extra house, then there’s an incentive to cram in as many as possible.
This is why we need the planning system!
Thanks admin. I really don’t understand why the developer can’t settle for what has been granted permission; a mirror of what has been modestly built directly opposite. The current run-down bungalow is a vandalised eyesore and I would love to see it go ASAP, but I don’t want to see a crammed collection of houses/bungalows on the site. The road is getting far too built up.
Do you have an update for us regarding the similar over large proposed development in The Approach Rayleigh – at the old Crystal House location?
Do you have any updates for the Victoria Avenue planning saga? The site was recently cleared of all trees and growth aside from the trees with PO’s (I hope).
Now I see yet another planning application has been posted for a bigger, more substantial development of house and bungalows. I thought planning was already approved for 2 houses and 2 bunaglows.
Any news for us? Thanks.
There is a new application that will probably get decided in July. It’s for two bungalows at the back , and one detached , and two semi-detached houses at the front.
So basically, a scheme for two bungalows and four houses was refused last time, and the applicant is now trying for two bungalows and three houses.
Thanks Admin. I thought some permission was granted on this site. Maybe I got my wires crossed. I have a feeling this is the same applicant that is applying for planning permission to demolish 1 and 3 Pearson Avenue in Rayleigh (off the London Rd – opposite the Post Office) and build four terraced houses. Why do they do it? A lovely row of bungalows from one end of the road to the other could potentially have four houses squeezed in. Can’t these developers leave Rayleigh alone already.
Richard, sorry to confuse you. It has indeed been a planning saga – about 8 applications altogether. Permission HAS been granted for :
“Two Detached Four Bedroomed Houses to Front with Two Detached Three Bedroomed Bungalows at Rear ” – that’s application 08/00018/REM.
You can find all the applications here on the council planning portal.
Thanks Chris. I don’t understand why, if the developer has permission in hand he doesn’t just build. I know Planning Applications are valid for around five years so he’s trying his luck but how much longer can this go on for? I think he’s hoping to save money on demolition; the bungalow on site seems to be smashed up a little more every day. At this rate the job’ll be done for him.