onlineFOCUS – News and Stuff For Rochford District since 2003

There was a very unusual planning application at the District Council Development Committee last night.  Why was it unusual ? We’ll explain later.

The application was to convert an old house in Rochford from office use into 9 flats. Council officers were  in favour of the scheme. However many councillors were unhappy with it for planning reasons. The number of parking spaces was only 9, instead of the usual requirement of 13. There wasn’t much amenity space, just a bit of grass at the far end of the car park. The recycling bins would need to be moved 10 metres each week by residents – and these weren’t ordinary wheelie bins, they were big bins used for flats.

Taken individually, each of  these problems could maybe be ignored . It’s a town centre location with a railway station and a public car park, so maybe we could overlook the shortfall in parking spaces. There’s a park within walking distance , so we  maybe we could overlook the lack of amenity space. And maybe the recycling bin problem could be overcome somehow.  But putting all of these problems together, many councillors were frowning.  Cllr Simon Smith (past Chair of Development) was clearly uneasy, and Chris Black, John Mason, Jim Grey and Christine Mason spoke outright against  the scheme.  The new chair of the committee, Phil Capon, was also unhappy. Even though it was a suitable location for flats, councillors felt that passing the scheme as it was would set a bad precedent that would encourage other developers to try poorly-designed schemes. So councillors decided to defer a decision to allow time for the scheme to be redesigned.

So what was so very unusual about this? Well, the old house was Acacia House in Rochford, which used to be the offices of the planning department!  And the applicant was the district council itself.  You might have expected that when the council puts forward a scheme for the old headquarters of its own bloomin’ planning department, it would be a sort of flagship scheme showing other applicants to do things properly. Sadly, that wasn’t the case… But there’s still time to improve things…

May 31st, 2013 | Category: Council Drama, Planning Applications, Rochford | Leave a comment

The application for a site for travelling show people in Goldsmith Drive, Rayleigh, was refused at the Development Committee tonight. Reasons for refusal were inappropriate use of the Green Belt, and poor access.

Chris Black was the main speaker against the application, and asked for the wording of the refusal to include  the impact on nearby residential properties, he was supported in this by June Lumley. When it came to a vote they were backed by councillors from all parts of the council chamber.

May 30th, 2013 | Category: Green Belt, Planning Applications, Rawreth, Rayleigh | Leave a comment

The planning application at Goldsmith Drive, Rayleigh for a site from Travelling Show People comes to the Development Committee next Thursday 30th.Officers are recommending refusal for Green Belt reasons and also poor access.

You can find the full report here

Here is the full officers recommendation:

7 RECOMMENDATION
7.1 It is proposed that the Committee RESOLVES To REFUSE planning
permission for the following reasons:-
(1) The saved Rochford District Replacement Local Plan (2006) shows the
site to be within the Metropolitan Green Belt. Within the Green Belt
planning permission will not be given except in very special
circumstances for the construction of new buildings or for the change of
use or extension of existing buildings (other than reasonable extensions
to existing buildings, as defined in Policies R2 and R5 of the saved Local
Plan). The proposal is considered to be inappropriate development
contrary to Green Belt Policy. Any development that is permitted shall be
of a scale, design and siting such that the appearance of the countryside
is not impaired.
The proposal does not come into any of the excepted categories and, if
allowed, would develop an existing open and undeveloped site with an
existing tall grass covering with development in the form of touring
caravans, mobile homes, commercial vehicle storage and maintenance
and a hardstanding area to some 56% of the site coverage, which taking
all these features together, would detract visually from the relative
undeveloped plotland appearance and character of that part of the Green
Belt in which the site would be situated and would introduce noise and
commercial repairs to show men’s equipment, detracting from the
amenity enjoyed to this location.
(2) The proposal would be served by a 117m length of unmade plotland
road to a width of 5m without footway and a poor surface. As such, the
site would not enjoy a direct access onto a metalled highway surface and
the proposal would instead encourage further commercial traffic onto the
sub standard highway network to the detriment of the safety to
pedestrians and other highway users and the flow of traffic.

May 24th, 2013 | Category: Green Belt, Planning Applications, Rawreth, Rayleigh | Comments (2)

One of the strongest planning powers a council has is to issue a ‘temporary stop notice’. So for example, if someone is building a big structure completely without the required planning permission,a council can serve a stop notice that legally prevents them from continuing. But there are risks involved for the council – if they get things wrong, and serve a notice without good reason, they can end up paying compensation.

Until now, councils could NOT serve temporary stop notices in respect of caravans being used as main residences. However, councillors learned at a training session today that the rules have been changed. Councils are now allowed to do this.

If you think there is somewhere that suddenly needs a temporary stop notice involving new caravans, contact the District Council planning enforcement team on 01702 318022 and also let your ward councillors know. If it is outside normal working hours contact the council after hours number on 01268 527317.

For any lawyers reading this, the new regulation is the Town and Country Planning (Temporary Stop Notice) (England) (Revocation) Regulations 2013.SI 2013/830.

May 9th, 2013 | Category: Legal Stuff, Planning Applications | Leave a comment

Rayleigh Town Council have been very active in revitalising Rayleigh market. Up till now the comments we’ve heard about this have been generally very positive.

The Town Council are now applying to the District Council for planning permission, to cover the market on Wednesdays as it is now, but also for weekends and bank holidays and the Christmas Lights Event.

To quote from the officers report:

Planning permission is sought to operate an open air market within Rayleigh
High Street on Wednesdays (this is already occurring so is retrospective),
weekends, bank holidays and at the Christmas lights event.
+
The purpose of this application is to gain planning permission to avoid the
need to submit separate Street Trading Consent applications each year for
such markets which cost the Town Council £250 each. The Wednesday
market occurs on a weekly basis. The Town Council also wish to arrange
occasional weekend/Bank Holiday markets in the High Street. These may be
themed such as farmers markets, continental markets, or
second hand good markets.
+
The Wednesday market is held on 52 Wednesdays of the year and
one Christmas Event is currently held. The Town Council has advised that
they are willing to cooperate with RDC/ECC regarding the number of times a year
that markets may be held.
+
The Wednesday market is currently open for custom between the hours of
7:30 and 4, these hours are also sought for the possible weekend/bank
holiday markets.
+ Whilst the Wednesday market currently only operates on the
taxi rank side of the High Street, ECC is currently progressing an application
to allow more stalls on the other side of the High Street and this application
seeks consent for the market to occur on both sides of the High Street from
the top of Crown Hill to the clock at Bellingham Lane. The Christmas lights
event festive market is usually held on the last Thursday in November
however, this date has to be flexible. This market extends beyond the
Wednesday market positioning sought, extending up to Church Street. The
weekend/bank holiday markets would occur in the same positioning as the
Wednesday market but excluding the taxi rank.

Officers are recommending approval. However the application has attracted some negative comments:

LOCAL RESIDENTS
-
5 responses received (23 Bowbank Close Shoebury,
63 Bowers Road Benfleet, 3 Nevern Road Rayleigh, Martin McColl 71 High
Street, unknown address) which can be summarised as follows:
Taxi rank related concerns:
o
Wednesdays already a problem as public park in designated taxi areas
and market overruns by at least half an hour.
o
Elderly people get confused as to where they pick up their cab from
with some finding it a real struggle to get across the road and half way
up the hill to get a taxi.
o
Saturdays and bank holidays are busy times for taxi drivers and the
high street with all the taxis on the main road it will only add to the
congestion.
There are many other places to hold a weekend and bank holiday
market with parking facilities so confused as to why, as difficult as it is
already for us to earn a living, the Council is considering taking prime
times away from us.
o
This will affect a lot of drivers in the area to appease a handful of
traders who would do better to use the indoor market area provided or
one of the three half filled car parks or even the rear of the indoor
market.
o
If the market is just going to be up the high street this would not be a
problem.
o
Drivers were told that this market would only happen one day a week.
o
Please do not use the taxi rank area on any more days for the market.
Despite what you may think, the elderly and many disabled residents
rely on the local taxi service to move around this town and get to the
shops.
o
The designated taxi drop off and pick up areas are not an appropriate
replacement. We have the added danger of doors having to be opened
onto live traffic. That is if a taxi can get into these areas. Taxi drivers
are “fighting” a constant battle with members of the public who continue
to use these areas for private cars. When it is made known to them that
on Wednesdays the use of these areas is for taxis only and are asked
to move on more often than not we receive abusive replies.
Concerns from local shop:
o
Since the introduction of the market I have had terrible problems with
shoplifting on a Wednesday so much so that I have to patrol the front of
my store during these periods, I have on several occasions had to call
police for assistance.
o
We have a few stalls in the market selling ourproducts or linked
products. Whilst I feel it is healthy to have competition I feel a sweet
stall directly outside my store of detriment to us.
o
On numerous occasions rubbish has been left out by the stall holders
and general public bins being over filled which is obviously not a great
advert for our high street that we all wish to promote.
o
Increasing the days of the market I believe would be of detriment firstly
to my own store and the high street with traffic issues especially on a
Saturday making this area not viable for shopping. I feel very strongly
about this and would be happier for it to remain one day a week as I
cannot police my store all these days.
o
Maybe more time and effort could be put into filling our vacant shops to
help promote Rayleigh as the place to shop.
General:
o
I think Wednesdays work well as a novelty once a week. As the old
saying goes sometimes less is more.
o
It causes problems for taxies and local traders and from speaking to
people some older residents avoid going out Wednesday as it’s just too
crowded for them.

Any thoughts?

You can download the officers report here.

Legal note: Ron and Bruce are members of the Town Council. Chris will, as legally required, not make his mind up in advance of any committee meeting.

May 6th, 2013 | Category: Planning Applications, Rayleigh, Retail | Comments (5)

There’s a new planning application in:

Planning Application number: 13/00192/COU
Parish: Hockley Parish Council
Ward:Hockley Central
Responsibility:Committee /Weekly List

Proposal:
Change of Use From A1 (Shops) to A4/Micro Pub (Drinking Establishments)
Location: 21 Main Road Hockley Essex

You can find more details on the council website here. This is at the former Marie Curie premises.

If you look at the application, the applicant explains that their ethos is to

“Provide real ale for customers in an environment that promotes conversation and social interaction. There will be no lagers , spirits, gaming or vending machines”

As usual, District Councillors should not make their minds up in advance of any planning meeting.

April 20th, 2013 | Category: Food and Drink, Hockley, Planning Applications | Comments (3)

There’s a planning application for the nightclub above Superdrug. It’s actually a ‘retrospective’ application – the club is of course already there. You can find the application here.

It’s recommended for approval, and will be passed unless any councillor calls it in. Here’s the full report:

Application No : 13/00088/COU Zoning : Primary Shopping Frontage
Parish : Rayleigh Town Council
Ward : Wheatley
Location : First Floor 106 108 High Street Rayleigh
Proposal : Retrospective Application for Change of Use from Pool Hall (Class D2) to Night Club (Sui Generis)
NOTES
Planning permission is sought for the change in use of the first floor of a building in Rayleigh town centre. The site is within the Rayleigh Conservation
Area. The premises are above the Superdrug store located next to the junction of the High Street and Eastwood Road. There is a two storey maisonette in the attached building above the Cooperative funeral care unit. There are no other residential properties in the immediate vicinity. The application is retrospective and the change in use has already occurred.
There is a planning enforcement case, reference 12/00064/COU_C, relating to this unauthorised change in use. The premises have previously been a pool
hall with ancillary bar facilities and had been operating, as such, for a period of thirty years. A pool hall is included in Use Class D2 Assembly and Leisure,
whereas the use as a nightclub is Sui Generis (without classification).
The premises have a gross internal floorspace of 409m², and the nightclub is open to the general public from 9pm to 2am on Fridays and Saturdays, as wellas being available for private functions. There are no alterations proposed to the exterior of the building and consequently no visual impact on the Rayleigh
Conservation Area.
The adopted vehicle standards for a nightclub are based on a maximum of one space per 50m² for vehicle parking and minimum standards for cycle,
PTW and disabled spaces. The development does not provide for any parking provision however there are ample spaces in the nearby public car parks as
well as public cycle, PTW and disabled spaces in a nearby location on the High Street. In considering the hours of use and the nature of the
development it is not considered that there is any deficiency in parking provision.
The premises are also subject to licensing controls which are subject to expiry and renewal and are actively monitored by the Council’s licensing team as
well as other agencies such as the Police. The licence controls include the hours that the business is allowed to operate as well as permitted noise
levels.
The Head of Environmental Services has recommended a condition to ensure there is adequate noise insulation for the party
wall shared with the neighbouring maisonette as well as conditions preventing amplified sounds and light shows in the open areas of the premises.
Such conditions are considered to be appropriate to protect the amenity of the occupants of neighbouring premises as well as visitors to the town centre.
Rayleigh Town Council and the Conservation Area Adviser have raised no objection to the change in use. No further responses have been received from
the statutory consultation and neighbourhood notification process.
A use of the premises as a nightclub in this central location is considered to be in accordance with the aims of Policy RTC4 which seeks to provide a
range of evening leisure uses in Rayleigh town centre. The proposal is not considered to be in
conflict with the development plan or any other material planning consideration.

Representations:
RAYLEIGH TOWN COUNCIL – No objection
ECC HISTORIC BUILDINGS/CONSERVATION AREAS – No observations
HEAD OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES – The Head of Environmental Services reports that if Members are minded to approve the application, the following conditions should be attached to any consent granted:
1) The internal wall(s) adjoining residential property shall be insulated against the egress of internally generated noise, in accordance with a scheme to be
submitted to and agreed in writing with the L.P.A. Such agreed works shall be fully implemented prior to the commencement of any use hereby permitted
and shall be maintained in the approved form while the premises are in use for the permitted purpose.
2) No amplified speech or music shall be broadcast on the open areas of the
premises.
3) No light or laser shows shall take place on the open areas of the premise

Any thoughts on this?

April 12th, 2013 | Category: Planning Applications, Rayleigh | Comments (5)

Over in Hawkwell Councillor John Mason is writing about what’s going on in his patch:

As District Councillors we expected that the detailed work with large scale planning applications would be carried out prior to Approval of the Planning Application.
Certainly our formal Pre-Application discussions with Officers and the developers indicated that.
Legal Agreements, formal traffic management agreements, hours of work, delivery routes, building materials etc., were all discussed before the Application was put to the Development Committee for a vote.
If an application is passed, as this one eventually was, then the Officers flesh out the Agreements and Conditions many of which should be in place before commencement of work.
We were concerned and perturbed to find that work commenced before these Agreements and Conditions were finalised and we are having to constantly re-negotiate these on behalf of residents with our Officers. In our view this should not have happened

April 8th, 2013 | Category: Hawkwell, Planning Applications | Leave a comment

About a year ago we reported here that a planning application for a site for travelling show people in Goldsmith Drive , Rawreth, was refused for Green Belt ard road access reasons.

A new application has now been submitted – application number 13/00118/COU – and you can find the details (and submit comments) here.

March 16th, 2013 | Category: Planning Applications, Rawreth, Rawreth Green Belt | Comments (5)

Southend Airport already have planning permission for an extension to their terminal building. That extension is being built now.

The airport is now applying for another extension of their terminal. They say this would improve passenger facilities and allow the UK Border Agency to separate arriving international passengers from arriving domestic passengers.

Planning officers are in favour of the proposal, saying that although the site is in Green Belt, it is an airport and an exceptional circumstance.

It will be discussed by councillors at a committee meeting on March 21st

As always, we will keep an open mind in advance of the meeting.

March 12th, 2013 | Category: Airport, Green Belt, Planning Applications, Rochford | Comments (3)

The Daily Telegraph has exposed some cases of councillors setting up as paid planning consultants to help developers:

Councillors across the country are offering themselves for hire to property developers who are hoping to take advantage of relaxed planning laws which come into effect within weeks, a Daily Telegraph investigation reveals on Monday.
Local government politicians are trading on their inside knowledge of the planning system to receive fees of up to £20,000 for advice on how to get developments approved, it can be disclosed.
Despite apparently creating the potential for a conflict of interest, it is not illegal for councillors to work as paid consultants. Councils are expected to face an increase in applications for building when new planning laws take effect at the end of this month.

This is pretty startling and worrying stuff ; councillors usually have a strong sense of idealism about wanting to help our communities, not about promoting our business interests.

It’s mentioning that Rochford District is almost unique in the UK – all 39 councillors are on the planning committee. That means that it’s harder to work in the shadows like this, because we are all involved, and would have to declare an interest.

Also if you have a committee of 39 , it’s lot harder for one rogue councillor to cajole them than , say , a committee of 6 or 7.

March 11th, 2013 | Category: Planning Applications, YouTube and Video | Leave a comment