Though the system was working too slow tonight at Onlinefocus HQ to actually open any documents….
We wrote last month about a planning application for a white roller shutter for the front of the shop at no. 31 Rayleigh High Street. This would normally be refused as not being suitable for the Conservation Area. but officers are recommending approval if it is painted a less intrusive black rather than white. This is despite objections from Rayleigh Town Council . The reason ? The mess on Saturday mornings. It has been ‘called in’ by Cllr Chris Stanley and will come to the Development Committee tomorrow evening for a vote.
You can find the full report here – it’s the second item.
The planning application for 47 dwellings off London Road , next to the BP/ Marks and Spencers filling station was deferred last night.
The officers presentation outlined the scheme, making the point that this land is already allocated for housing in principle as part of the council’s core strategy.
Parish Chairman Alistir Matthews then spoke against it, stressing how important the drainage/ flooding situation was for the parish.
One of the ward Councillors, Chris Black, then kicked off the debate , expressing his concern that we didn’t have full information on the drainage scheme yet. While he welcomed the provision of a new pedestrian crossing on London Road, he askd where it would be (the answer was to the west of the junction with Little Wheatley Chase). He also suggested that £45000 for park maintenance might be better spent on a school crossing patrol. He said he wouldn’t support the scheme tonight and would vote against approval.
Toby Mountain spoke next, supporting what Chris had said and also querying the road layout. Christine Mason then followed, questioning the flat dormer roofs (which are against council policy) and asking that if the scheme went ahead, the maintenance logs for the drainage system should be sent to the council every year without having to be requested. Mike Steptoe also asked some questions and implied that the scheme wasn’t quite ready yet.
Simon Smith then moved approval – but didn’t get a seconder . So Chris Black jumped in and moved deferral , to allow time to get more information on the drainage schemes and to look at other matters, This was immediately seconded by Toby Mountain.
Chris Stanley then spoke, ramming home the point about drainage and that the County Council wasn’t working with up to date information. Simon Smith came back, asking why the proposed road into the scheme wasn’t up to adoptable standard.
Eventually the committee voted 10-0 to defer a decision, allowing time to get more information and some improvements before a second vote is taken at some stage.
The Development Committee meets this Thursday at 7:30 in the Civic Suite , Rayleigh. There are 4 items on the agenda:
- ) A proposal to change one of the conditions regarding the approved roundabout at the Rawreth Lane /Hullbridge Road junction. Instead of having a condition in the Section 106 that stipulates:
3.) More housing proposed along London Road, Rayleigh :
You can find the full report here – it’s the second item.
New planning application just in…. demolish a house in Ferry Road Hullbridge and build 14 flats.
For those who are interested:
Last Friday’s ‘yellow list’ contained recommendations on several planning applications, each recommendation comes into effect on Wednesday unless any councillor calls it in.
One is in Louis Drive, Rayleigh and is recommmended for refusal, basically on the grounds of overdevelopment and loss of trees. The proposal is to demolish one bungalow (77 Louis Drive) and build 4 new ones . If you are interested, the precise reasons for refusal are shown below:
Location : 77 Louis Drive Rayleigh
Proposal : Demolition Of Existing Chalet Bungalow And Build Four New 3-Bed Detached Bungalows
Recommended for refusal
The proposed development would amount to inappropriate infill development within a residential garden which would not achieve the
high standard of design and layout and would not contribute positively to the locality contrary to paragraphs 53, 56, 58 and 64 of the National
Planning Policy Framework.
The proposal would not therefore represent sustainable development. The proposed development would not relate well to the existing street pattern,density and character of the locality contrary to Policy H1 of the Core Strategy (2011) and parts (iii), (ix) and (x) of Policy DM1 and parts (i), (ii), (iv) and (viii) of Policy DM3 of the Development Management Plan (2014).
The proposal would result in development encircling the rear garden of No. 75a Louis Drive and giving rise to a sense of enclosure which would be out of character with the locality and would not achieve a positive relationship with this existing dwelling.
The proposal for elongated bungalows with windows sited very close to boundaries would not achieve a high standard of living accommodation. The lack of 100 square metre garden area to the dwelling to plot 3 and failure of a 1-metre separation to the northern boundary together with the narrow access road with lack of space to accommodate soft landscaping is symptomatic of overdevelopment of the site.
There are several established trees on the site within the rear garden of the existing bungalow, trees within very close proximity site boundaries and a young tree within the grass verge to the site frontage the latter of which is clearly intended to provide high amenity value to the street scene in the longer term. Policy DM25 advises that development proposals should seek to conserve and enhance existing trees and that where development would result in the loss of existing trees then appropriate mitigation measures should be implemented to offset the impact through replacement. No tree impact assessment has been submitted with the application and as a consequence the impact of the proposed development on existing trees cannot be fully understood. It would appear that the development would result in the loss of existing trees and would likely impact on existing trees in close proximity with no details of replacement trees to be provided contrary to Policy DM25 and part (iv) of Policy DM1 of the Development Management Plan (2014)
On this week’s ‘yellow list’ of planning applications, there are two proposals recommended for refusal – if no councillor calls them in, they will be officially refused at Wednesday lunchtime.
The first is to subdivide a garden in 16 Morrins Close ,Wakering and build a house there. But it is in flood zone 3 – the zone at most at risk from flooding. For this reason officers recommend refusal – plus there is no on-site parking, and would also cause overshadowing.
The second is more unusual. It is a retrospective application to allow a wooden outbuilding already built within the grounds of St Andrews Church in Rochford. Offices recommend refusal as follows:
The outbuilding is an unattractive addition which would be unduly obtrusive and cause harm to the setting of a designated heritage asset,the Grade II * Listed St Andrews Church particularly given the proposed siting to the north which would detract from the way in whichthe church is viewed and experienced. There is no public benefit that would outweigh the harm. The outbuilding would also not make apositive contribution to the character and appearance of the Rochford Conservation Area
A new planning application is just in for a 6.4 metre high Clock Tower in Cherry Orchard Way. Unfortunately there’s a problem on the RDC website tonight, so we can’t look at the details yet…
1. According to the document from the applicant’s traffic consultant, the 500 houses in Hullbridge would cause a big increase in congestion if no improvements are carried out. They predict that by 2019, without the 500 houses , there would be queues in Rawreth Lane in the evening rush hour of 45 cars, with delays of 210 seconds. (some people might argue the queues are that bad already) With the extra 500 homes, the queues would be more than twice as bad – 107 vehicles long and 475 seconds.
2. Their consultants reckon the bigger roundabout would solve the problem, even with “a proposed development on the adjacent land of up to 100 dwellings”. Who is proposing 100 houses on the adjacent land?!
44. The chair of the meeting, Cllr Seagers, cut off Chris Black from speaking after 5 minutes, even though he was still talking about the details of the roundabout and the surrounding features . Though council rules DO give the chair discretion to allow speakers to continue for longer: